Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

The one thing that still bugs me about this Kavanaugh "job interview"

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
17 hours ago, d'ranger said:

You are the first to call any woman you don't like a cunt. Fuck you and whatever you rode in on.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with not liking her.  I despise her politics and always have.  I bet she would be fun to talk to over a beer and I would gladly sit down with her to do so.  But she's a cunt for her tactics on this and for her many long standing deliberately disingenuous stances she has taken over her career.  She's no different than me calling a male senator a complete cunt or a cock for his actions.  I don't use the cunt word lightly, I reserve it for those I truly hold in contempt.  

Hate speech!

On 9/26/2018 at 7:22 AM, dogballs Tom said:

Twitter doesn't want any more hate speech, which apparently includes calling people genitalia.

So I tweeted this:

cuntytweet.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2018 at 12:46 AM, Olsonist said:

BTW, I've never voted for Feinstein and I lived in her precinct when I lived in SF. I didn't vote for her for Governor against Pete Wilson. And haven't voted for her for Senator.

Out of curiosity, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2018 at 1:37 AM, Steam Flyer said:

The analogy of a "job interview" was not a good one IMHO.

Thank you.  That was my whole point all along.

Quote

If he's guilty, should he not go to jail? If he's lied under oath (which seems to approach 100% likelihood) then should he also pay an appropriate penalty?

Guilty of what?  The alleged assault?  Change the statute of limitations and I will say yes.  If he lied under oath, yes.  What did he lie about?  Boofing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

Guilty of what?  The alleged assault?  Change the statute of limitations and I will say yes.  If he lied under oath, yes.  What did he lie about?  Boofing?

From what I've read, there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland.  Either Ford or Swetnick can open a case whenever they feel so inclined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cmilliken said:
18 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Guilty of what?  The alleged assault?  Change the statute of limitations and I will say yes.  If he lied under oath, yes.  What did he lie about?  Boofing?

From what I've read, there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland.  Either Ford or Swetnick can open a case whenever they feel so inclined.

I did not know that.  MOst FBI people the newsers interviewed seemed to imply there was a SoL that would be involved that would prevent it from being a criminal case.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I did not know that.  MOst FBI people the newsers interviewed seemed to imply there was a SoL that would be involved that would prevent it from being a criminal case.  

I honestly don't know.  The devil is always in the details and I really don't care to dig in that deep on this particular nuance.  :)  There's probably a range of statutes depending on WHICH crime he's accused of committing which then begs which evidence is required - blah blah.. Damn lawyers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cmilliken said:
23 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I did not know that.  Most FBI people the newsers interviewed seemed to imply there was a SoL that would be involved that would prevent it from being a criminal case.  

I honestly don't know.  The devil is always in the details and I really don't care to dig in that deep on this particular nuance.  :)  There's probably a range of statutes depending on WHICH crime he's accused of committing which then begs which evidence is required - blah blah.. Damn lawyers.

Yeah, that damned "innocent until proven guilty" thingy again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, that damned "innocent until proven guilty" thingy again.

It's still a good standard for denying freedom but too high a standard for denying a job. It's fine to deny someone a job if you merely have a reasonable suspicion of guilt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

From what I've read, there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland.  Either Ford or Swetnick can open a case whenever they feel so inclined.

Wouldn't they have to seal his juvenile record and demand that everyone forget her name?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:
Quote

If he's guilty, should he not go to jail? If he's lied under oath (which seems to approach 100% likelihood) then should he also pay an appropriate penalty?

Guilty of what?  The alleged assault?  Change the statute of limitations and I will say yes.  If he lied under oath, yes.  What did he lie about?  Boofing?

That "boofing" is a drinking game?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, that damned "innocent until proven guilty" thingy again.

It's still a good standard for denying freedom but too high a standard for denying a job. It's fine to deny someone a job if you merely have a reasonable suspicion of guilt.

Or if somebody gives a demonstration that they are unsuited for the job by temperament

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That "boofing" is a drinking game?

-DSK

Get it straight.... boofing he said was farting. The devil's triangle a drinking game. It's come to this, adolescant yearbook slang in a confirmation hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

From what I've read, there is no statute of limitations for sexual assault in Maryland.  Either Ford or Swetnick can open a case whenever they feel so inclined.

From the OP in CBF thread:

...Her attorneys have said she is not going to press sexual abuse or rape charges in Maryland (possible as there is no statue of limitations depending on the classification of her claim), or participate in any attempt to impeach Kavanaugh. Why not push ahead and get justice in the courts for an act that she claims changed her life so devastatingly almost 40 years ago?  .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dog said:

Get it straight.... boofing he said was farting. The devil's triangle a drinking game. It's come to this, adolescant yearbook slang in a confirmation hearing.

LOCK HER UP!! BUILD THA WALL!!!

Any lie at all, under oath, by a Democrat, is sufficient to make them guilty. Any lie by a Republican is just an adolescent prank.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

It's still a good standard for denying freedom but too high a standard for denying a job. It's fine to deny someone a job if you merely have a reasonable suspicion of guilt.

Perhaps, but in this case there was ZERO EVIDENCE of guilt, so the Ds changed their story from "credible allegations of these charges (sex abuse and gang rape)" to lying about words in a high school yearbook and then to "he's got a bad temper" after they and the media accused him of being a gang rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:
4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:
4 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, that damned "innocent until proven guilty" thingy again.

It's still a good standard for denying freedom but too high a standard for denying a job. It's fine to deny someone a job if you merely have a reasonable suspicion of guilt.

Or if somebody gives a demonstration that they are unsuited for the job by temperament

-DSK

Yes, it applies to lots of life situations.

As far as courtroom situations, "guilty until proven innocent" is mostly just for property and just one of those drug war stupidities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line, he is a entitled, petulant, whiny,  ill-tempered partisan that shouldn't be adjudicating traffic tickets, let alone sit on the highest court. 

 

DoIMf6qUcAAv-ws.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Out of curiosity, why not?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Dianne_Feinstein.htm

I would classify Feinstein as a corporate Dem, liberal on social issues and basically a neocon on foreign policy. She's Margaret Thatcher who passed gun control legislation in the heavily gun controlled Britain. Anyways, I disagreed with her toadying to W and, while I loves me a good Delaware C the way you love your dog, I prefer separation of corporation and state.

As I've said, you'd have voted for Feinstein in other circumstances, the letter behind her name being one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dog said:

Get it straight.... boofing he said was farting. The devil's triangle a drinking game. It's come to this, adolescant yearbook slang in a confirmation hearing.

And "Renate Alumnius" was a term of endearment. Bart was honoring her, not destroying a girl's reputation.

Now Trump is calling Bart's accusers "evil people."

What's bothering the right isn't that this was a job interview, of course it was and Bart had every freedom to walk away from it. What's bothering them is that they've compromised their values to the core once again and now they're looking for a divine salvation and a re-babtism for Bart.

Bad news for you. Bart is a partisan ideologue by trade and a partisan while under pressure as a judge, not at all independent and now he owes the party one. And, sadly, Bart has a history of sex abuse.

He pushed Dr. Ford into a room when they were in highschool, locked the door, turned up the music, pushed her onto a bed, and grouped her against her will and her screams. She was a "Horton Hosebag" after all, in Mark Judge's words.

He was selected as pay back for his work as the most effective Republican operative during Bush v. Gore.

The Senate should have re-opened the background check immediately instead of stalling for two weeks. The R's played games and barely, just barely, plowed him through.

As the OP states, they could have just picked another, perhaps even more conservative judge. Yes they could have. And, they should have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a fact free life you live!

And BTW - there’s another even more conservative judge coming down the pike.  Based on what I saw of RBG at the swearing in ceremony last evening, it may not be long before she assumes room temperature.  She looked like she was dressed to go out in a blizzard, complete with heavy gloves.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

It's still a good standard for denying freedom but too high a standard for denying a job. It's fine to deny someone a job if you merely have a reasonable suspicion of guilt.

That's an excellent point, Tom. His professional conduct as a judge, by everything that I've read, was exemplary.  Until....VVVVV

 

6 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Or if somebody gives a demonstration that they are unsuited for the job by temperament

-DSK

His behavior during Prof Ford's testimony seriously damaged my perception of his credibility.  If he can't separate his personal feelings from the process?  Then I don't believe that he's got the temperament or objective consideration necessary to be an effective member of the SCOTUS.   Due to his behavior that afternoon, we all have reasons for concern.  This might be something for all of us to remember when it comes time for us to decide who to support in primaries - someone divisive and distasteful, even if they are staunch advocates, might not be the best choice as a nominee if we want to try to start healing the rift. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I did not know that.  MOst FBI people the newsers interviewed seemed to imply there was a SoL that would be involved that would prevent it from being a criminal case.  

It was mentioned at the hearing I believe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I have noticed an interested (if predictable) trend. Even those loyal Republicans "conservatives" that say Kavanaugh proved by his behaviour in that final sitting unsuited to SCOTUS refuse to go so far as saying it was wrong to appoint him. The GOP got who they wanted, so those principles are discardable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J28 said:

What a fact free life you live!

And BTW - there’s another even more conservative judge coming down the pike.  Based on what I saw of RBG at the swearing in ceremony last evening, it may not be long before she assumes room temperature.  She looked like she was dressed to go out in a blizzard, complete with heavy gloves.

 

I just watched RBG, the film. She's worn gloves for some time. She is a brilliant patriot who works harder than any other judge. Pining for her death is super fucked. Another pathetic hateful righty. You must be enjoying your three day sail on your not a J28. Having tons of fun it appears. Be safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Absolutely not pining for her death - just commenting on her appearance last evening.  RBG has survived 2 different types of cancer, so she’s a tough old bird, and I say that with mucho respect. I’ve called my MiL the same.  She is almost 92, has survived a stoke and lymphoma and is now suffering from mid stage dementia, but still lives in her own home by herself (with a lot of support from us).

Thanks - have had 2 great sailing days and are planning for one more tomorrow before the weather goes to hell after that.

Take care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

So, I have noticed an interested (if predictable) trend. Even those loyal Republicans "conservatives" that say Kavanaugh proved by his behaviour in that final sitting unsuited to SCOTUS refuse to go so far as saying it was wrong to appoint him. The GOP got who they wanted, so those principles are discardable. 

They're not really "principles" you gotta understand. They're just feel-good talking points. It's the sizzle, not the steak

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

Bottom line, he is a entitled, petulant, whiny,  ill-tempered partisan that shouldn't be adjudicating traffic tickets, let alone sit on the highest court. 

 

DoIMf6qUcAAv-ws.jpg

I'd like to see how any of you would take it if YOU were being accused of being a serial drugged gang rapist in front of your wife, children and the entire world. 

This was a political hit job, plain and simple. The story wasn't credible due to her moving target on her facts. Worst part was Dr Ford's performance while testifying. She was definitely using techniques, little baby girl voice to gain sympathy and fake crying. Why fake? Actual crying causes tears; red puffy eyes and a runny nose. If one doesn't want snot all over everything they have to tilt their head back. I challenge you to find her sniffling anywhere during testimony. She had her chin down the whole time reading her script. 

Anybody arguing that the Swetnick chick was credible is an obvious partisan hack.

Useful idiots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dog said:

Get it straight.... boofing he said was farting. The devil's triangle a drinking game. It's come to this, adolescant yearbook slang in a confirmation hearing.

Get it right, dog.  Its PERJURY about adolescent yearbook slang.  Its more damning than saying something like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".

I would say that YCMTSU, but apparently you can.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Olsonist said:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Dianne_Feinstein.htm

I would classify Feinstein as a corporate Dem, liberal on social issues and basically a neocon on foreign policy. She's Margaret Thatcher who passed gun control legislation in the heavily gun controlled Britain. Anyways, I disagreed with her toadying to W and, while I loves me a good Delaware C the way you love your dog, I prefer separation of corporation and state.

As I've said, you'd have voted for Feinstein in other circumstances, the letter behind her name being one of them.

Fair enough.  Thanks for the explano.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, lasal said:

The Senate should have re-opened the background check immediately instead of stalling for two weeks. The R's played games and barely, just barely, plowed him through.

As the OP states, they could have just picked another, perhaps even more conservative judge. Yes they could have. And, they should have.

Yeah, and difi could have brought this to the Judiciary committee's attention before the literal last minute before he went to a vote and there would have been plenty of time back in July to start investigating him.  In fact, had she brought the issue up, I 100 Brazilian % gar-un-teeee you he would never have even been nominated. 

But that was not the game the D's wanted to play.  Live by the Ford, die by the Ford.  The D's made their choice and I have zero sympathy for their whining about losing yet again.  They played their relatively decent hand very badly.  They should have raised Pre-Flop to get the GOP to fold.  They thought they had the Nuts, but they waited for the river card and instead got a bad beat.

Suck it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, J28 said:

And BTW - there’s another even more conservative judge coming down the pike.  Based on what I saw of RBG at the swearing in ceremony last evening, it may not be long before she assumes room temperature.  She looked like she was dressed to go out in a blizzard, complete with heavy gloves.

 

While that may be true, that's still a pretty shitty thing to say about a woman who has served her country well and with Panache.  Don't be such a douche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's an excellent point, Tom. His professional conduct as a judge, by everything that I've read, was exemplary.  Until....VVVVV

 

His behavior during Prof Ford's testimony seriously damaged my perception of his credibility.  If he can't separate his personal feelings from the process?  Then I don't believe that he's got the temperament or objective consideration necessary to be an effective member of the SCOTUS.   Due to his behavior that afternoon, we all have reasons for concern.  This might be something for all of us to remember when it comes time for us to decide who to support in primaries - someone divisive and distasteful, even if they are staunch advocates, might not be the best choice as a nominee if we want to try to start healing the rift. 

I agree with all that.  However, I would pose another follow-up question..... Was it an unrecoverable mistake?  Are SC justices allowed to be human and completely without flaw?  Furthermore, do we actually want them to be unemotional automatons?  Is a one off aberration against decades of exemplary service and history truly a DSQ'er?  

I am also torn, but I suspect its was a one off given the shit-sandwich he was made to eat - especially how it obviously affected his family and mainly his children.  I would be fucking spitting nails if someone accused me of something I didn't do and now my daughters were looking at me like I was suddenly a monster.  Given my first instinct would be to cut that accuser into small pieces and feed the parts to a school of sharks as chum, I think his outburst was semi-excusable.  Or at least understandable.  

And I suspect Chief Justice Johnny is going to take him aside and have a private "Come to Jesus Meeting" with Bart and tell him that it had better fucking be a one off, or he's going to get some hard pipe hittin' negros to come pay him a visit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, ak_shrinkage said:

Anybody arguing that the Swetnick chick was credible is an obvious partisan hack.

I said this early on that had sweatnick and Avenatti (and to a degree Ramirez) not appeared on the scene when they did, BK likely doesn't get confirmed.  Once slutnick made her allegations that she attended parties >10x where gang raping was going on - the story jumped the shark and any one still on the fence said fuck it, this is absolutely nothing more than a political hit job.  Ford on her own was credible.  She was undermined in a huge way by the next two who came out with their "stories".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I am also torn, but I suspect its was a one off given the shit-sandwich he was made to eat - especially how it obviously affected his family and mainly his children.  I would be fucking spitting nails if someone accused me of something I didn't do and now my daughters were looking at me like I was suddenly a monster.  Given my first instinct would be to cut that accuser into small pieces and feed the parts to a school of sharks as chum, I think his outburst was semi-excusable.  Or at least understandable. 

He rewrote his remarks that morning to be more-partisan and more strident because he was told that was the way to save his campaign. You got suckered by a political pro, own up to it Jeff. You got played into the partisanship by people who know how to pull your strings. And shove the forthcoming "so did you" up your ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

He rewrote his remarks that morning to be more-partisan and more strident because he was told that was the way to save his campaign. You got suckered by a political pro, own up to it Jeff. You got played into the partisanship by people who know how to pull your strings. And shove the forthcoming "so did you" up your ass.

Yeah, it was really strange watching him read that rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

So, I have noticed an interested (if predictable) trend. Even those loyal Republicans "conservatives" that say Kavanaugh proved by his behaviour in that final sitting unsuited to SCOTUS refuse to go so far as saying it was wrong to appoint him. The GOP got who they wanted, so those principles are discardable. 

I may be missing something, but, what is the "trend" you noticed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, lasal said:

I just watched RBG, the film. She's worn gloves for some time. She is a brilliant patriot who works harder than any other judge. Pining for her death is super fucked. Another pathetic hateful righty. You must be enjoying your three day sail on your not a J28. Having tons of fun it appears. Be safe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

J28 is a righty who pines for the death of someone. 

Seems pretty pathetic and hateful. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

J28 is a righty who pines for the death of someone. 

Seems pretty pathetic and hateful. No?

If that was the intent of his post, I'd agree with you.  I don't think that it was.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ak_shrinkage said:

Answer me this: what is the beef with his R vW position? Anyone remember what his opinion was when questioned?

The beef is that many people are ignoring that Kavanaugh said that Roe v Wade was settled law, while conflating a tangential question about precedent into a stance that Kavanaugh intends to overturn Roe V Wade.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The beef is that many people are ignoring that Kavanaugh said that Roe v Wade was settled law, while conflating a tangential question about precedent into a stance that Kavanaugh intends to overturn Roe V Wade.  

Actually Kavanaugh said the opposite when he worked in the Bush WH. He advised against calling Roe v Wade settled law. In testimony, he called it a precedent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/kavanaugh-advised-against-calling-roe-v-wade-settled-law-while-a-white-house-lawyer/2018/09/06/f30216dc-b1df-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html

But don't let facts get in your way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, lasal said:
  20 hours ago, J28 said:

What a fact free life you live!

And BTW - there’s another even more conservative judge coming down the pike.  Based on what I saw of RBG at the swearing in ceremony last evening, it may not be long before she assumes room temperature.  She looked like she was dressed to go out in a blizzard, complete with heavy gloves.

 

 

7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
26 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

J28 is a righty who pines for the death of someone. 

Seems pretty pathetic and hateful. No?

If that was the intent of his post, I'd agree with you.  I don't think that it was.  

A_guy can't hold himself accountable for his personal unnecessary and negative emotions (example his daughter's antisocial behavior must be caused by her veganism, therefore all /most vegans think meat eaters should be murdered (he really said that)) so why would he hold J28 accountable for claiming there is a more conservative justice coming because, in his observation, RBG is "about to assume room temperature"? To A_guy, that's not hate, it's science.

Hey, A_guy, perhaps your daughter was sick of your support for white supremacist monuments and it just came out with her ability to have some control over her diet, something that she knew would fuck with your insecurities? It's possible, no?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Actually Kavanaugh said the opposite when he worked in the Bush WH. He advised against calling Roe v Wade settled law. In testimony, he called it a precedent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/kavanaugh-advised-against-calling-roe-v-wade-settled-law-while-a-white-house-lawyer/2018/09/06/f30216dc-b1df-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html

But don't let facts get in your way.

Bullshit, he actually said the opposite. He emphasized that president is extremely important when considering a ruling. He said in the case of R v W that there was actually precedent upon precedent so that it could indeed be considered settled law and unlikely to be overturned. 

http://presidentialpolitics.com/kavanaughs-opinion-on-roe-v-wade/

Note list of captive journalists. Extrapolate as those were only the ones that got caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Actually Kavanaugh said the opposite when he worked in the Bush WH. He advised against calling Roe v Wade settled law. In testimony, he called it a precedent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/kavanaugh-advised-against-calling-roe-v-wade-settled-law-while-a-white-house-lawyer/2018/09/06/f30216dc-b1df-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html

But don't let facts get in your way.

What did he say during the confirmation hearings, O? Or - do those facts not matter to you?

I don't care if you disagree with something he said - but, at least be intellectually honest about it. 

(edited to add last sentence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lasal said:

 

A_guy can't hold himself accountable for his personal unnecessary and negative emotions (example his daughter's antisocial behavior must be caused by her veganism, therefore all /most vegans think meat eaters should be murdered (he really said that)) so why would he hold J28 accountable for claiming there is a more conservative justice coming because, in his observation, RBG is "about to assume room temperature"? To A_guy, that's not hate, it's science.

Hey, A_guy, perhaps your daughter was sick of your support for white supremacist monuments and it just came out with her ability to have some control over her diet, something that she knew would fuck with your insecurities? It's possible, no?

 

I don't say this to many folks, but, you're a fuggin' idiot.  You have fun w/your fallacious projections.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ak_shrinkage said:

 He emphasized that president is extremely important when considering a ruling. 

Freudian slip? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

What did he say during the confirmation hearings, O? Or - does that not matter to you? 

Which confirmation hearing, or does that not matter to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

Which confirmation hearing, or does that not matter to you?

The most recent - it's in the transcript.   So - are you still suggesting that "facts don't matter" to me, or are you admitting another sit and spin? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts. I'm the one who provided a cite. You're the one who hasn't but rather a go look this up somewhere fool's errand. Kavanaugh has said many things about Roe v Wade. I'll let you meditate on what he has said while employed by the Bush WH:

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,” 

You may return to your regular malarkey spreading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The most recent - it's in the transcript.   So - are you still suggesting that "facts don't matter" to me, or are you admitting another sit and spin? 

You always take what someone says most recently to be the truth? And blindly trust it? Should Melania have trusted The Donald based on his vows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
27 minutes ago, lasal said:

 

A_guy can't hold himself accountable for his personal unnecessary and negative emotions (example his daughter's antisocial behavior must be caused by her veganism, therefore all /most vegans think meat eaters should be murdered (he really said that)) so why would he hold J28 accountable for claiming there is a more conservative justice coming because, in his observation, RBG is "about to assume room temperature"? To A_guy, that's not hate, it's science.

Hey, A_guy, perhaps your daughter was sick of your support for white supremacist monuments and it just came out with her ability to have some control over her diet, something that she knew would fuck with your insecurities? It's possible, no?

 

I don't say this to many folks, but, you're a fuggin' idiot.  You have fun w/your fallacious projections.  

More science from A_guy. Point out his faulty assumptions and he goes crybaby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to what he said about some mumbo jumbo about 'settled law' during the confirmation circus, my main takeaway was that he liked beer and that he still likes beer. That's about the only thing that's 'settled law' with this rat.

Before anyone accuses me of letting facts get in the way...once again, I heard it with my own two ears. He likes beer. Still likes beer.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C81A5EDEADAE82F2852581C30068AF6E/$file/17-5236-1701167.pdf

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fufkin said:

As to what he said about some mumbo jumbo about 'settled law' during the confirmation circus, my main takeaway was that he loved beer and that he still loves beer. That's about the only thing that's 'settled law' with this rat.

Before anyone accuses me of letting facts get in the way...once again, I heard it with my own two ears. He likes beer. Still likes beer.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C81A5EDEADAE82F2852581C30068AF6E/$file/17-5236-1701167.pdf

  

 

I don't know that that cite is the one you intended to grab... 
"ROCHELLE GARZA, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO UNACCOMPANIED MINOR J.D., ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEE v. ERIC D. HARGAN, ACTING SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLANTS On Petition for Rehearing En Banc"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
7 minutes ago, fufkin said:

As to what he said about some mumbo jumbo about 'settled law' during the confirmation circus, my main takeaway was that he loved beer and that he still loves beer. That's about the only thing that's 'settled law' with this rat.

Before anyone accuses me of letting facts get in the way...once again, I heard it with my own two ears. He likes beer. Still likes beer.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/C81A5EDEADAE82F2852581C30068AF6E/$file/17-5236-1701167.pdf

  

 

I don't know that that cite is the one you intended to grab... 
"ROCHELLE GARZA, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO UNACCOMPANIED MINOR J.D., ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEE v. ERIC D. HARGAN, ACTING SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLANTS On Petition for Rehearing En Banc" 

God you're "fuggin idiot", A_guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Facts. I'm the one who provided a cite. You're the one who hasn't but rather a go look this up somewhere fool's errand. Kavanaugh has said many things about Roe v Wade. I'll let you meditate on what he has said while employed by the Bush WH:

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,” 

You may return to your regular malarkey spreading.

So - do you want me to give you a link to an excerpt from the confirmation hearings in which Kavanaugh called Roe V Wade a precedent upon a precedent, citing previously settled cases, or are you happier trying to deflect by using a tangential question from 16 years ago in which he used Roe V Wade as an example to answer a question about precedent?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Facts. I'm the one who provided a cite. You're the one who hasn't but rather a go look this up somewhere fool's errand. Kavanaugh has said many things about Roe v Wade. I'll let you meditate on what he has said while employed by the Bush WH:

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,” 

You may return to your regular malarkey spreading.

Idiot... He's not referring to himself 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are ok with K-no because he's a rightwing partisan animal that'll rule the right way - hey, that's power politics.

If you actually believe the shit he & the Republicans spewed - hey, that's partisan politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O - let me help ya out a little, so we don't have to address the question of your intellectual honesty: 

Also note that this is an actual transcript, not an op-ed piece describing what was said. 

Excerpted from:  https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kavanaugh Responses to Questions for the Record1.pdf

" QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN
1. You have referred to Roe v. Wade as “settled law.”
a. Can the Supreme Court overrule a longstanding decision even if it
is considered settled law?
b. Was Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) settled law before 2016?
c. Was Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911) settled
law before 2006?
d. Was Michigan v. Jackson (1986) settled law before 2008?
e. Was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) settled law
before 2009?
RESPONSE: As discussed at the hearing, “the judicial power clause of Article III” and
“Federalist 78” make clear that respect for precedent is “part of the proper mode of
constitutional interpretation.” If confirmed, I would respect the law of precedent given its
centrality to stability, predictability, impartiality, and public confidence in the rule of law.
2. When we met in my office, I raised concerns about your potentially being the fifth vote
to overturn Roe. You said that it is important to be aware of the real-world implications
of Court decisions. However, you have never lived in a world where women did not have
safe, legal reproductive care.
a. Please explain your understanding of what it means for a woman to be
able to control her reproductive life.
b. What is your understanding of how women are being affected in states
in which access to reproductive care has been curtailed?
RESPONSE: As I discussed during the hearing, I understand the importance that people
attach to Roe v. Wade, the depth of feelings about the decision, and the real-world importance
of the issue. Both Roe and Casey are precedents of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under
the law of precedent. Importantly, Roe has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years,
including in Casey, which specifically analyzed the stare decisis factors at great length and is
itself a precedent on precedent. " 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I don't know that that cite is the one you intended to grab... 
"ROCHELLE GARZA, AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM TO UNACCOMPANIED MINOR J.D., ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APPELLEE v. ERIC D. HARGAN, ACTING SECRETARY, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., APPELLANTS On Petition for Rehearing En Banc"

Yes, this is the cite that I intended. Circuit Judge Millet's concurring statement (to the appeal decision), gives a nice summary

of @I Like Beer I Still Like Beer's attempt to circumvent precedent and establish a new category of government oversight on an undocumented minor as opposed to say, an incarcerated but documented minor...somewhat in contrast to what he bandied about as 'settled law' during the circus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, fufkin said:

Yes, this is the cite that I intended. Circuit Judge Millet's concurring statement (to the appeal decision), gives a nice summary

of @I Like Beer I Still Like Beer's attempt to circumvent precedent and establish a new category of government oversight on an undocumented minor as opposed to say, an incarcerated but documented minor...somewhat in contrast to what he bandied about as 'settled law' during the circus. 

This comment makes sense - your prior post insinuated that the cite was quoting Kavanaugh's like of beer, hence the question. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

This comment makes sense - your prior post insinuated that the cite was quoting Kavanaugh's like of beer, hence the question. 

Pretty sure ya don't need to dig to far to find a precedent for that one...besides, @I like Beer I Still Like Beer got in front of any speculation on where he stands on the issue in a hurry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

O - let me help ya out a little, so we don't have to address the question of your intellectual honesty: 

Also note that this is an actual transcript, not an op-ed piece describing what was said. 

Excerpted from:  https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Kavanaugh Responses to Questions for the Record1.pdf

" QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN
1. You have referred to Roe v. Wade as “settled law.”
a. Can the Supreme Court overrule a longstanding decision even if it
is considered settled law?
b. Was Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) settled law before 2016?
c. Was Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911) settled
law before 2006?
d. Was Michigan v. Jackson (1986) settled law before 2008?
e. Was Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) settled law
before 2009?
RESPONSE: As discussed at the hearing, “the judicial power clause of Article III” and
“Federalist 78” make clear that respect for precedent is “part of the proper mode of
constitutional interpretation.” If confirmed, I would respect the law of precedent given its
centrality to stability, predictability, impartiality, and public confidence in the rule of law.
2. When we met in my office, I raised concerns about your potentially being the fifth vote
to overturn Roe. You said that it is important to be aware of the real-world implications
of Court decisions. However, you have never lived in a world where women did not have
safe, legal reproductive care.
a. Please explain your understanding of what it means for a woman to be
able to control her reproductive life.
b. What is your understanding of how women are being affected in states
in which access to reproductive care has been curtailed?
RESPONSE: As I discussed during the hearing, I understand the importance that people
attach to Roe v. Wade, the depth of feelings about the decision, and the real-world importance
of the issue. Both Roe and Casey are precedents of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under
the law of precedent. Importantly, Roe has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years,
including in Casey, which specifically analyzed the stare decisis factors at great length and is
itself a precedent on precedent. " 

Thank you for helping me out a little. Now can you point to where in Kavanaugh's testimony, which you have cited and which I have included, that Kavanaugh called Roe v Wade settled law? Please note that he was asked directly by Senator Feinstein about settled law and that precedent is not settled law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Thank you for helping me out a little. Now can you point to where in Kavanaugh's testimony, which you have cited and which I have included, that Kavanaugh called Roe v Wade settled law? Please note that he was asked directly by Senator Feinstein about settled law and that precedent is not settled law.

From the article I cited:

Collins stated, “We talked at great length about precedent and the application of stare decisis to the abortion cases. … We talked about whether he considered Roe to be settled law. He said that he agreed with what Justice Roberts said at his nomination hearing, in which he said that it was settled law.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very nice that Senator Collins said something. She seems as honest as the day is long. Now can you show us where Kavanaugh said on the record that Roe v Wade is settled law? He was given the opportunity in testimony by Senator Feinstein. He could have just said, Roe v Wade is settled law. He also said when he worked for the Bush White House:

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,”  

He was actually 'correcting' someone who had said that Roe v Wade is settled law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Thank you for helping me out a little. Now can you point to where in Kavanaugh's testimony, which you have cited and which I have included, that Kavanaugh called Roe v Wade settled law? Please note that he was asked directly by Senator Feinstein about settled law and that precedent is not settled law.

Let me ask you a clarifying question, O - are you trying to establish a legal difference between respect for precedent and settled law?   I'm not a lawyer, and would defer to a better informed legal interpretation, but, Kavanaugh's answer's w/r/t several other questions of "settled law" were answered the same way, as a "respect for precedent".  

Here's an answer from a bit later in the session: 
"Is Lawrence settled law? Is it correct law?

RESPONSE: Lawrence v. Texas is a decision of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under the law of precedent. As I discussed at the hearing, the law of precedent is not a judicial policy but rather is rooted in Article III of the Constitution. Adherence to precedent ensures stability and predictability in the law, and reinforces the impartiality and independence of the judiciary."  

This is my layman's interpretation, but I think that his answer is indicative of the idea that the SCOTUS should always respect precedent, but as he mentioned in the case of Lawrence overturning the "Bowers v. Hardwick" decision,  that precedent shouldn't preclude the court from making an appropriate ruling in light of new information.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ak_shrinkage said:

I'd like to see how any of you would take it if YOU were being accused of being a serial drugged gang rapist in front of your wife, children and the entire world. 

As a teacher I've been accessed of racism, sexism and child abuse.  Now, you can ask yourself which is worse, being accused of rape or child abuse. Every accusation was absurd so I calmly addressed each incident, calling in administration and shaking my head at the whole thing.  Kavanaugh is just some entitled, spoiled brat with a bad temper.  A petulant piece of shit and a whiner--- perfect old white guy for Republicans, really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

That's very nice that Senator Collins said something. She seems as honest as the day is long. Now can you show us where Kavanaugh said on the record that Roe v Wade is settled law? He was given the opportunity in testimony by Senator Feinstein. He could have just said, Roe v Wade is settled law. He also said when he worked for the Bush White House:

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so,”  

He was actually 'correcting' someone who had said that Roe v Wade is settled law.

Both Kavanough and Collins are on record as such. Are you saying that either of them is lying? He clerked for Roberts and was very familiar with each justice. He was stating his opinion as to how 3 of them would rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IANAL although I have slept with one, a randy bitch if there ever was. There is huge legal difference between respect for precedent and settled law. Precedent is that which came before and settled law is that which ain't a gonna get questioned again. Settled law >> precedent.

First, you said Kavanaugh said that Roe v Wade was settled law. He's been offered the chance to say that on multiple occasions including during the testimony you cited above and he even 'corrected' someone who said that when he worked at the Bush WH.

NB Shrinkage: if Kavanaugh is on the record then cite that record because I've cited his record in the Bush WH where he said the opposite and Fufkin cited his dissent. This should be easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

As a teacher I've been accessed of racism, sexism and child abuse.  Now, you can ask yourself which is worse, being accused of rape or child abuse. Every accusation was absurd so I calmly addressed each incident, calling in administration and shaking my head at the whole thing.  Kavanaugh is just some entitled, spoiled brat with a bad temper.  A petulant piece of shit and a whiner--- perfect old white guy for Republicans, really. 

You're right CH - Accusation != guilt.  I assume the accuser on your case was a disgruntled student/vindictive parent, dealt with real time? 

I suppose you'd have behaved as calmly if the school board trotted out a last-minute allegation from a time before you went to college, complete w/a media circus intent on doing anything they could to tarnish you, to keep you out of the board supervisor's gig?  

We agree on a couple points:  1) allegation != guilt  2) Kavanaugh's demeanor and behavior during Prof Ford's testimony was unacceptable as a Supreme Court Judge.   I 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

IANAL although I have slept with one, a randy bitch if there ever was. There is huge legal difference between respect for precedent and settled law. Precedent is that which came before and settled law is that which ain't a gonna get questioned again. Settled law >> precedent.

First, you said Kavanaugh said that Roe v Wade was settled law. He's been offered the chance to say that on multiple occasions including during the testimony you cited above and he even 'corrected' someone who said that when he worked at the Bush WH.

NB Shrinkage: if Kavanaugh is on the record then cite that record because I've cited his record in the Bush WH where he said the opposite and Fufkin cited his dissent. This should be easy.

I'm not challenging you on this, but, being a geospatial geek and not a lawyer, can you help me understand the background behind this assertion?  Thinking about it - how can any interpretation ever be "settled law"? In the proper conditions, isn't any legal interpretation subject to change?  Let's look at the 1st amendment - that's as close to 'settled law' as I can conceive, yet, it too is subject to interpretation and change, isn't it?    

It's from this perspective that I took Kavanaugh's answers in committee to intend an appropriate, constitutionally focused respect for precedent - and not an intent to look for ways around it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I'm not challenging you on this, but, being a geospatial geek and not a lawyer, can you help me understand the background behind this assertion?  Thinking about it - how can any interpretation ever be "settled law"? In the proper conditions, isn't any legal interpretation subject to change?  Let's look at the 1st amendment - that's as close to 'settled law' as I can conceive, yet, it too is subject to interpretation and change, isn't it?    

It's from this perspective that I took Kavanaugh's answers in committee to intend an appropriate, constitutionally focused respect for precedent - and not an intent to look for ways around it.  

Some is more settled than others.  And, that determination is whatever 5 of them say it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kavanaugh definitely knows what settled law is and Kavanaugh was asked directly both by Senator Schumer in his Appellate confirmation hearing and by Senator Feinstein in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing whether Roe v Wade was settled law. In both cases he didn’t say that and when he worked for Bush he basically said the opposite. In his dissent he basically said the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

It's from this perspective that I took Kavanaugh's answers in committee to intend an appropriate, constitutionally focused respect for precedent - and not an intent to look for ways around it.  

That idea runs into an ugly reality - the framers of the constitution weren't unanimous in their views or their interpretations of what things meant. Some things - like citizenship - were vague enough to need almost immediate definition by partys other than the framers of the constitution.

In the hands of people like Kavanaugh it's just a plastic excuse to do what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're right CH - Accusation != guilt.  I assume the accuser on your case was a disgruntled student/vindictive parent, dealt with real time? 

I suppose you'd have behaved as calmly if the school board trotted out a last-minute allegation from a time before you went to college, complete w/a media circus intent on doing anything they could to tarnish you, to keep you out of the board supervisor's gig?  

We agree on a couple points:  1) allegation != guilt  2) Kavanaugh's demeanor and behavior during Prof Ford's testimony was unacceptable as a Supreme Court Judge.   I 

In no way shape or form did I say an allegation= guilt. I was accused of abuse for taking away a kid's phone.  I handled the accusation calmly and professionally because it was clearly absurd.    I never raised my voice at any kid or parent even when they tried to bait me.   

Kavanaugh should sue his accusers for slander if he is that bent out of shape about it.  That's what I would do in your school board scenario.  Of course, it's not slander if it's true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

In the hands of people like Kavanaugh it's just a plastic excuse to do what they want.

All in the name of Original Intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Kavanaugh definitely knows what settled law is and Kavanaugh was asked directly both by Senator Schumer in his Appellate confirmation hearing and by Senator Feinstein in his Supreme Court confirmation hearing whether Roe v Wade was settled law. In both cases he didn’t say that and when he worked for Bush he basically said the opposite. In his dissent he basically said the opposite.

I took his dissent ( assuming you meant the discussion from 16 years ago, in which he used Roe V Wade  as an example) to articulate his understanding of the idea that precedent doesn't preclude a future change, as has happened in many SCOTUS decisions that overturned "established law", ie Lawrence /vs/ Texas.  That explanation consistently proclaimed a respect for precedent, and that while a decision can be made against precedent, that the standard for doing so is quite high. From what little digging I've done this afternoon to clarify my understanding, "settled law" is a ruling that has been settled as a precedent of the Court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis.  Kavanaugh even said that Roe V Wade was "established as precedent upon precedent".   

I honestly don't understand the distinction that you're trying to make, or how that supports what I think is the perception that Kavanaugh's explanation of precedent is an indication of his active intent to overturn every legal decision that they hold dear.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites