Supreme Court Nominee

Should a person be judged on something done over 40 years ago?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.1%
  • No

    Votes: 17 11.3%
  • Depends

    Votes: 75 49.7%

  • Total voters
    151
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bolded by me - I couldn't agree more and here is why: If the accusations would have been brought when it was first made the investigation (that the Democrats are calling for) would have been done by the FBI at that time. Her name would have been more likely to be kept confidential and nothing would have been done out in the public. IF enough evidence was presented at that time, then the confirmation would have been held up in a timely manner. In my opinion, it was held as a last minute stall tactic when all else failed. The holding onto it created this circus that is hurting our country. This will have fallout well beyond the confirmation hearing.

It is sad to see what this country is becoming. I'm so tired of the games the two parties play with each other (and it is both sides!)... at the countries expense.

When the Garland nomination got delayed I said the same thing, and now it is both parties. I fear that there will never be another moderate nominated to the Court, and I fear there will never be another nominee confirmed unless the President and Senate are the same party. Even SCOTUS is a game now.
 
Yes, they are desperate. It’s obvious to me they do NOT want another conservative judge on the Supreme Court. IMO, any conservative up for this nomination, would be faced with this same political witch-hunt. Unfortunate for Kavanaugh. JMO
Not a Clinton conspiracy. Gorsuch was approved because there weren't multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and perjury. Are you listening to any of the evidence? Maybe Fox news promoting the Clinton conspiracy?
 
I did not state anything negative about any victims named in the hearing. I merely suggested my concerns going forward about the possibility of continued delays due to some new allegations casting falsehoods against BK. All claims will need to be investigated to determine credibility - equates to more delays.

I dont think it will more of a delay than next fri

all of em both sides know all kinds of sh$t

ha\\

i remain quite pleased with 100,000 documents being hidden

imo there is much to come

cant remember his name now the author of the book about what derilects they were for years is gonna have to have a chit and chat and then a chit

he is locked in - or go to prison

if I wrote a memoir years ago and said oranges were everywhere and then asked under oath if oranges were around and I say no then the fbi has to ask on pages 147 241 360 your described a lot about oranges can you help us understand why you described in detail about a bunch of oranges can you help us understand this issue!

judge is gonna be very key imo

he will probably have to do the fifth but his memoir is out in public domain

but for his memoir has basically been minimized however it is print
 
Generally, not in response to any single post:

1. No one should be deprived of their job, liberty, reputation, or future because of ALLEGATIONS.

2. It is a dangerous for ALL, genuinely witch-hunty time if allegations alone can deprive anyone of any of the above.

3. In a country founded on the rule of law, due process is everything. Our Constitution is supposed to guarantee that every one of us has the right to due process.

4. If we can't agree on all of the above, our democracy is doomed.

5. A seat on the Supreme Court is a supreme privilege, not an entitlement, and has ALWAYS been reserved for a tiny select few, the best of the best of the best in terms of character & background of every kind, no matter their ideology.

6. A president is entitled to nominate candidates of his/her own choosing. Elections matter, both at the executive level, and in the Senate, where SC nominees are confirmed or rejected.

7. Kavanaugh was not on anyone's short list until after Mueller was appointed special counsel. That matters.

8. Dr. Blasey first raised her concern BEFORE K was nominated, and after she learned he was added to the short list.

9. Blasey did not want to go public. Feinstein held onto Blasey's letter to honor that request.

10. Feinstein did not leak Blasey's letter, nor did her staff. That letter was not held onto- it was released without the consent of either Blasey or Feinstein.

11. There was abundant time AFTER the letter leaked for the judiciary committee to ask the WH to have K's FBI background check reopened. That is a fact. It is also a fact that reopening background checks is what the FBI does, and routinely. It is also a fact that democrats and then Blasey requested exactly that. Repeatedly. It is also a fact that republicans refused to do that, repeatedly, and were not honest about why they refused to do so.

12. Because of the republicans' refusal to request additional FBI investigation, and because K refused to agree to /request such himself, no INDEPENDENT investigation of Blasey's allegations
ever occurred.

13. Judge did NOT provide a sworn statement. That is simply untrue. He submitted a statement signed by his attorney that he didn't know about the gathering (no date of gathering has ever been established). That statement is NOT subject to felony charges if untrue.

14. The republicans' choice to not allow investigation and to not allow other witnessess was a deliberate attempt to frame the hearing as a he said, she said affair, with no possibility of reconciling the gap between what they said, or even attempting to assess credibility beyond optics.

15. This was NOT A TRIAL. This was not a witch hunt. If team trump & Kavanaugh & republicans believed they could clear K's name and disprove Blasey's accusations THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO BY DEMANDING AN FBI INVESTIGATION.

It is that simple. And awful.

Even to be admitted to law school they do a character and fitness analysis, even down to your complete driving record since you were 16. I have seen people denied for small things. Then once again when you apply to sit to take the bar exam, for every state, there is a character and fitness requirement. The biggest reason for denial is dishonestly. Something like smoking marijuana, is better to admit than lie about because the lie will definitely cost your seat. I've had friends denied to the bar of certain states for taking medication for a mental illness, even though therapists and medical professionals testified that it was managed and in no way affected their ability to practice law.

I saw allegations cost the careers (legal careers at least) of several colleagues. One woman was expelled from law school for sharing a citation to a case with another student on an assignment. It was a citation provided in class...but she was told not to share it outside of class and when she did and was turned in she had to have an entire hearing with the character and fitness committee. An allegation of cheating or lying in any way would have resulted in the same type of hearing an the committee vote.

Allegations cost people their jobs all the time when it is a character and fitness evaluation in the legal field, fortunately or unfortunately. I honestly believe it's more about the appearance of ethics than true ethics. The more the legal system and courts look corrupt they less they work to keep civilized order.
 
Hill/Thomas FBI was mandated as they were both employed by the Federal government. Do people not know that or do you think it it consciously being ignored? I don't mean this as an attack on you or anyone, I am genuinely curious and mystified over that one.
FBI investigation NOT done because Hill/Thomas were federal employees but because Bush nominated Thomas and reopened with Hill allegations. You are confused. Maybe you are thinking they had previous employment background checks.
 
I don’t care about more investigations either providing they are done for the right reasons and not done for the sole purpose of intentionally delaying a nomination until after the Nov. election. IMO

How did you feel about Merrick Garland not even being considered, due to the upcoming election?
 
I think it's great that the FBI..is going to become involved to do a further background check.

I do think even Flake..since he voted to move the nominee out for confirmation and other republicans will only agree to a one week delay which is very reasonable since there are only 4 people per Dr. Ford. I am sure the investigators from both parties will turnover their evidence to the FBI as well.

I think this may turnout to be the best move yet.
.
 
What happens if the FBI doesn’t conclude their investigation in a week? I fear this decision will open the door to further delays and the possibility of crazies coming out of the woodwork to perpetrate more investigative delays. IMO

Only if they open Pandora's box and it's really bad, right?

Honestly, with substantial information available, and the ability to interview known persons in a private independent setting, follow up on the thin letters submitted in lieu of an investigation, we might be surprised at what events they can help recreate and hopefully get to the bottom of what happened.

The senate judiciary hearing was not the place to vet out an accusation like this.

I can't imagine if suddenly the senate judiciary came to my high school crowd and wanted a bunch of us to testify of national TV about a summer in the 70's?????

Anyway, FBI is thorough, and if they confirm no more than we know now, then Kavanaugh can go on to the SC without a permanent storm cloud over his head.

No matter what the senate thinks of him as a viable candidate, they can vote with a clear conscience.

This should have happened in the first place. Maybe it will help put some procedures in place for when difficult issues like this happen.
 
What happens if the FBI doesn’t conclude their investigation in a week? I fear this decision will open the door to further delays and the possibility of crazies coming out of the woodwork to perpetrate more investigative delays. IMO
The FBI would be able to tell quickly if claim wasn't credible.
 
I did not find it odd. I found her words compelling and believable
Yes she was believable.
Even to be admitted to law school they do a character and fitness analysis, even down to your complete driving record since you were 16. I have seen people denied for small things. Then once again when you apply to sit to take the bar exam, for every state, there is a character and fitness requirement. The biggest reason for denial is dishonestly. Something like smoking marijuana, is better to admit than lie about because the lie will definitely cost your seat. I've had friends denied to the bar of certain states for taking medication for a mental illness, even though therapists and medical professionals testified that it was managed and in no way affected their ability to practice law.

I saw allegations cost the careers (legal careers at least) of several colleagues. One woman was expelled from law school for sharing a citation to a case with another student on an assignment. It was a citation provided in class...but she was told not to share it outside of class and when she did and was turned in she had to have an entire hearing with the character and fitness committee. An allegation of cheating or lying in any way would have resulted in the same type of hearing an the committee vote.

Allegations cost people their jobs all the time when it is a character and fitness evaluation in the legal field, fortunately or unfortunately. I honestly believe it's more about the appearance of ethics than true ethics. The more the legal system and courts look corrupt they less they work to keep civilized order.

Just a minor correction. Wisconsin does not have a bar exam. So it’s not every state. Insignificant for this case, but very significant in WI.
 
Yes she was believable.


Just a minor correction. Wisconsin does not have a bar exam. So it’s not every state. Insignificant for this case, but very significant in WI.
It's a requirement to be admitted to the bar in every state though AFAIK. Saying bar exam specifically was an error if I did so, sorry! Because even if you apply to a state without taking the exam you have to submit all your background info and a character and fitness evaluation.
 
I did not state anything negative about any victims named in the hearing. I merely suggested my concerns going forward about the possibility of continued delays due to some new allegations casting falsehoods against BK. All claims will need to be investigated to determine credibility - equates to more delays.

Why do you assume that any new allegations would be casting falsehoods? New allegations, if any, could be true. One word: Cosby.

What’s the mad rush for a lifetime appointment?
 
'Look at me': Republican Jeff Flake silent as protesters confront him over Kavanaugh vote

Shortly after Jeff Flake released a statement saying he intended to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court, two women confronted the Arizona Republican senator in an elevator, identifying themselves as sexual assault survivors. Flake’s vote had remained in doubt until this morning.

One of the women said she had recognized from her own experience being assaulted that Dr Christine Blasey Ford, who accuses the judge of sexual assault when they were both teenagers, was telling the truth.

“What you are doing is allowing someone that actually violated a woman to sit on the supreme court,” she said, in the tense and emotional exchange broadcast live on CNN.

“I cannot imagine for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the supreme court who has been accused of violating a young girl. What are you doing, sir?”​
 
Would It Make A Difference If The FBI Were To Investigate Kavanaugh Allegations?

One of the biggest disputes in the Brett Kavanaugh saga has not been over what questions should be asked about the alleged sexual misconduct of which he has been accused and which he strongly denies — but over who asks them.

Specifically, Democrats and outside groups want the FBI to conduct an investigation into the accusations made by Christine Blasey Ford and others about the Supreme Court nominee's conduct from decades ago.

It looked as though there was no chance that might happen until a dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday, one result of which was the possibility that the FBI may now get involved after all.

Following some offstage horse-trading, senators voted along party lines to move Kavanaugh's confirmation forward to the full Senate — while also concluding an informal agreement to delay any Senate floor vote by a week while the FBI investigates.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. pitched the one-week compromise to senators ahead of the scheduled vote. Republicans need every vote than can get to confirm Kavanaugh and it appeared that Flake might not have been willing to support him on the Senate floor without the extra time for investigation.​
 
beep beep beep beep beep

beep beep beep beep beep

Judge attorney has just publicly released that judge will meet with FBI

floodgates , as promised , are now fully open


I do feel for his kids

have been unable to see media

however this was verbilzed on live global tv in the past four hours

IMO opinion the guys calender thing is gonna get a lot of play

it stunned me

and i looked at his calendar

i was interested in his calendar he marked seeing two doctors biweekly this is just speculation

of course


don't know it might have been a knee injury but two different doctor every other week.........................

only mo but the frequency of visits is something interesting

but who know at this point any longer huh
 
'Look at me': Republican Jeff Flake silent as protesters confront him over Kavanaugh vote

Shortly after Jeff Flake released a statement saying he intended to vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court, two women confronted the Arizona Republican senator in an elevator, identifying themselves as sexual assault survivors. Flake’s vote had remained in doubt until this morning.

One of the women said she had recognized from her own experience being assaulted that Dr Christine Blasey Ford, who accuses the judge of sexual assault when they were both teenagers, was telling the truth.

“What you are doing is allowing someone that actually violated a woman to sit on the supreme court,” she said, in the tense and emotional exchange broadcast live on CNN.

“I cannot imagine for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the supreme court who has been accused of violating a young girl. What are you doing, sir?”​
That first woman really got me in the feels :(
“Look at me when I’m talking to you,” Gallagher continued. “You’re telling me that my assault doesn’t matter and that you’re going to let people who do these things into power … that you’ll let people like that go to the highest court in the land and tell everyone what they can do to their bodies.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
237
Guests online
2,457
Total visitors
2,694

Forum statistics

Threads
592,234
Messages
17,965,681
Members
228,729
Latest member
PoignantEcho
Back
Top