ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Brett Kavanaugh , Christine Blasey Ford , Congressional hearings , Supreme Court nominees , Trump controversies

Closed Thread
Old 9th September 2018, 01:06 AM   #361
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,146
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1037514830490607617



Video embedded in tweet. Video of the full exchange embedded in the following tweet.

Oh and, for those curious, the law firm in question has 7 people in DC
Kamala Harris is a total bitch. She's asking Kavanaugh if he has EVER discussed the Mueller investigation with ANYONE at a particular law firm (that employs more than 250 attorneys). This question presumes he will not only recall the identity of every single person with whom he has had a passing mention of the investigation over the past eighteen months, but also that he will recall their past and current employment status. She can't figure out why he might not want to give a definitive answer on that? How utterly imbecilic must she be?

Last edited by Grizzly Adams; 9th September 2018 at 01:09 AM.
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 01:26 AM   #362
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,974
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
"We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society" is what he said. Kavanaugh was one of the judges from the second list by the Federalist Society.

This is a lie started by Chuck Schumer, picked up and repeated by many news outlets and is now considered gospel by those who want to believe Kavanaugh was nominated to keep Trump from potentially being prosecuted for crimes in the future.

He was referring to civil and criminal investigations, not congressional investigations. Meaning that if you want to prosecute a president civilly or criminally, first impeach him, remove him from office then investigate. ...
I don'y know about Schumer's part in the matter, but I watched the hearings and it was very real.

First, Kavanaugh was not on the FedSoc list so he worked to get himself on it. He tried to block that immigrant teen in custody from getting an abortion. That made the news, he made the list.

Then he met with Trump's lawyers and voilá, he became Trump's pick.

He denied the meeting then said he didn't discuss anything about absolute POTUS power. But the Senators interviewing Kavanaugh had plenty of his past statements to the contrary.

He came across as lying to cover up meetings with Trump's lawyers and very much dangling that **** in front of Trump to get the nomination.

And there's evidence he lied in previous confirmation hearings before Congress.

As for this:
Quote:
"In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The president’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the president’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution." – Brett Kavanaugh
That's not in the Constitution and I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh had a different POV during Clinton's civil suit by Paula Whatshername.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th September 2018 at 01:31 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 01:40 AM   #363
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,146
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
That's not in the Constitution and I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh had a different POV during Clinton's civil suit by Paula Whatshername.
I don't know about his opinion on the Clinton suit contemporaneous with its occurrence, but as long ago as 2009 he said Clinton should not have been subjected to it while in office:
Quote:
Judge Kavanaugh, who after working for Mr. Starr served as an aide to President George W. Bush, has since expressed misgivings about the toll investigations take on presidents. In 2009, he wrote that Mr. Clinton should have been spared the investigation, at least while he was in office. Indicting a sitting president, he said, “would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national-security crisis.”
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 01:45 AM   #364
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,974
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
I'm not sure that a president is exempt from congressional investigation for crimes he may have committed before being elected. Who has said that, Kavanaugh?


According to Kavanaugh, and at least two different DOJs, one from each party, the job of the president is too demanding and important to spend time on mounting a defense if he is indicted or charged criminally or civilly. See the quote in my prior post.


He doesn't believe that it does, hence his suggestion that Congress should pass a law that mandates a deferral of prosecution and investigation.

I would recommend reading the opinion that he wrote in the Minnesota Law Review for a better understanding of what he meant without the spin of the media and politicians, both for and against his nomination.

It's only eight paragraphs long and shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. It starts on page 6 of this PDF.
This whole 'defer prosecution until the term ends' because POTUS is too busy and too important to be tried while in office is an absurd premise. It ignores the potential for the crimes to be too serious to defer.

Trump's had dealings with the Russian mob since the 80s. He's hiding his tax returns because they are full of tax cheating and he fears that will be uncovered. And what is supposed to happen if Mueller has clear evidence Trump conspired with the Russians using stolen emails to win the election? How are crimes like that supposed to be handled if they are to be postponed until Trump is out of office? And what if despite the crimes he cheats again to get elected? Then he has four more years of deferred prosecution?

The point is not that Mueller will uncover these crimes though I'm pretty sure that is some of what Mueller has on Trump.

The point is, how can you possibly give Trump a pass before you know the extent of the charges?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th September 2018 at 01:46 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 01:54 AM   #365
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,974
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
I don't know about his opinion on the Clinton suit contemporaneous with its occurrence, but as long ago as 2009 he said Clinton should not have been subjected to it while in office:
Your link says site can't be reached but I have this one:

CNBC:
Quote:
Kavanaugh mentioned that case, along with his tenure as staff secretary to President George W. Bush, in a Minnesota Law Review article in 2009, as he wrote about how difficult the job of being president can be. In that article, he said he had come to realize it "was a mistake" to have believed, as he once did in the 1990s, that a president should be "one of us" who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share.
Like all of them, convenient partisan opinions.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 02:03 AM   #366
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,974
Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams View Post
Kamala Harris is a total bitch. She's asking Kavanaugh if he has EVER discussed the Mueller investigation with ANYONE at a particular law firm (that employs more than 250 attorneys). This question presumes he will not only recall the identity of every single person with whom he has had a passing mention of the investigation over the past eighteen months, but also that he will recall their past and current employment status. She can't figure out why he might not want to give a definitive answer on that? How utterly imbecilic must she be?
You weren't paying close attention. You would do yourself a favor to read this account:

Politico
Quote:
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) asked Kavanaugh earlier Thursday if he could “rule out the possibility” that he discussed the investigation with anyone at a law firm that has more than 250 lawyers on staff.

“I don’t know who works at that firm, other than a few people I'm aware of just from the public,” Kavanaugh replied, again declining to name McNally at that point. He reiterated a denial of any untoward conversations regarding Mueller’s probe.
Why not say he hadn't discussed Trump's case with any lawyer as he said earlier?

The dude was struggling to keep his story straight.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 02:34 AM   #367
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No.
He was involved with the nomination of Judge William Pryor. He testified under oath that he was not involved with the nomination of Judge William Pryor.

How is that not perjury?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 02:51 AM   #368
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,887
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That's exactly what it means. So he thinks a president should be exempt from all civil and criminal investigations, let alone prosecutions, no matter what he may have done in office or before he took office.

Why? Why should that be the case? Where does the Constitution exempt this one person -- alone among all Americans -- from the ordinary processes of law? Impeachment is the mechanism by which he can be removed from office for misconduct in office. It doesn't have anything to do with investigation and prosecution for crimes, including crimes that may have put him in office in the first place.
This is especially invidious where there is time limitation on bringing charges or suit. The eight years in office may mean that a case can no longer be brought.
Planigale is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 06:51 AM   #369
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,079
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
The point is, how can you possibly give Trump a pass before you know the extent of the charges?
You didn't read the law review article, did you?

I'll quote the part you are overlooking, "In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance". Meaning impeachment. Kavanaugh suggested that any investigations be left to the Congress and if any malfeasance is found, the president can be impeached, removed from office immediately, and then investigated and or prosecuted if any crimes are uncovered.

You really should take off your partisan glasses for five minutes and read the essay. One example Kavanaugh gave to support his position of deferred prosecution was the investigation into Bill Clinton.

"Looking back at the 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots."

Do you agree with Kavanaugh about Bill Clinton or do you believe it would have been absurd to wait until he was out of office to investigate his sexual exploits?
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 07:15 AM   #370
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
https://twitter.com/kristinminkdc/st...830193153?s=21

Quote:
BREAKING: A criminal complaint and judicial ethics complaint are being filed against Kavanaugh for perjury in Congressional testimony — and LOOK WHO’S REVIEWING IT!

Happy Saturday, everyone!

#MerrickGarland #CancelKavanaugh #StopKavanaugh #BlockBrett
Document embedded in tweet.

Here is the full criminal complaint.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 07:38 AM   #371
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
https://twitter.com/kristinminkdc/st...830193153?s=21

Document embedded in tweet.

Here is the full criminal complaint.
Christ what a load of crap. Criminal my ass, it is a couple of asshats who filed their own complaint.

Were you making an assertion or just repeating the claims of a couple of knuckleheads.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 07:58 AM   #372
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
There's a lot of instances of the word "ass" in that last post.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 08:04 AM   #373
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
There's a lot of instances of the word "ass" in that last post.
Just inflicting more disinformation on uninformed posters then?

Sad
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 08:06 AM   #374
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,420
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
https://twitter.com/kristinminkdc/st...830193153?s=21



Document embedded in tweet.

Here is the full criminal complaint.
Hail Mary pass.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 08:33 AM   #375
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Just inflicting more disinformation on uninformed posters then?

Sad
Or not arsed to give you another chance to be disingenuous, particularly after the conversation in another thread you've just bailed out of.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the readers which is correct.

Given your recently-highlighted track record when it comes to knowledge of the law, I'm not sure I'd be itching for a fight, if I were you. Probably better to retreat again. As it is, I'm not interested.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 08:36 AM   #376
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Hail Mary pass.
Oh yeah, nothing will come of it. But it's worth doing nonetheless.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 11:27 AM   #377
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,848
For a preview of how he will change the court:

Quote:
The judge made this statement during an exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) regarding “the foundations of the unenumerated rights doctrine.” The term “unenumerated rights” refers to rights, such as the right to an abortion, which are not explicitly named in the Constitution’s text, but which the Supreme Court has held to be implicit in that text.

According to Kavanaugh, “all roads lead to the Glucksberg test as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test” to determine the scope of these unenumerated rights.

“Glucksberg” means Washington v. Glucksberg, a 1997 Supreme Court decision holding that the Constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist’s opinion for the Court in Glucksberg, the question of which unenumerated rights are protected by the Constitution should be answered by asking which rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

We don’t have to guess, however, whether Judge Kavanaugh thinks that a constitutional right to abortion is grounded in this Glucksberg test, because he’s already answered that question. As law professor Jim Oleske points out on Twitter, Kavanaugh said in his 2017 speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute that “even a first-year law student could tell you that the Glucksberg’s approach to unenumerated rights was not consistent with the approach of the abortion cases such as Roe vs. Wade in 1973, as well as the 1992 decision reaffirming Roe, known as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.”

...

For what it’s worth, Kavanaugh’s statement that “all roads lead to the Glucksberg test as the test that the Supreme Court has settled on as the proper test” is incorrect. As law professor Jamal Greene first pointed out on Twitter, Glucksberg was “explicitly disavowed in Obergefell,” the Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality decision.

According to Obergefell, Glucksberg “is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy.”

Kavanaugh’s apparent endorsement of Glucksberg as the sole test for determining unenumerated rights, in other words, threatens a whole lot more than the right to an abortion. It also suggests that he believes that a wide range of Supreme Court decisions governing sex, romantic relationships, and intimacy were wrongly decided.

Judge Kavanaugh appears to be telegraphing his belief that Roe, Obergefell, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which provides that the government cannot prosecute consenting adults for having sex, were not correctly decided.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 11:55 AM   #378
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,974
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
You didn't read the law review article, did you?

I'll quote the part you are overlooking, "In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance". Meaning impeachment. Kavanaugh suggested that any investigations be left to the Congress and if any malfeasance is found, the president can be impeached, removed from office immediately, and then investigated and or prosecuted if any crimes are uncovered.

You really should take off your partisan glasses for five minutes and read the essay. One example Kavanaugh gave to support his position of deferred prosecution was the investigation into Bill Clinton.

"Looking back at the 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal investigation offshoots."

Do you agree with Kavanaugh about Bill Clinton or do you believe it would have been absurd to wait until he was out of office to investigate his sexual exploits?
I did indeed know your highlighted part. Just because people don't agree doesn't mean they didn't read or know something.

The whole point of an independent law enforcement is because the POTUS does not own his personal DoJ. And in this case we have over half of the House and many in the Senate overlooking Trump's kleptocracy. Last night on CSPAN Book TV, Rick Wilson a Republican who recently wrote, "Everything Trump Touches Dies", said Nunes should be prosecuted. Yet Paul Ryan is happy to leave him in charge of one investigation of Trump.

Sometimes Congress does not do its job, and obviously as we currently see there can still be crimes that cannot go untried. I repeat, you can't make a blanket statement that no POTUS can be indicted in office because all the future circumstances cannot be predicted.


As for the incessant GOP attacks on Bill Clinton, I agree but it wasn't a prosecution that was the problem. it was a GOP controlled prosecution. The GOP paid Jones, Ken Starr was a partisan hack, and the publicity against Clinton was ridiculous. Not only was Clinton thwarted from getting bin Laden, when Bush took over he simply wiped the slate of all warnings and nothing was done to stop the 9/11 attack.

But I digress.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 9th September 2018 at 12:01 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 12:51 PM   #379
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,079
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As for the incessant GOP attacks on Bill Clinton, I agree but it wasn't a prosecution that was the problem. it was a GOP controlled prosecution.
And by leaving the system the way it is, any future president is open to prosecutors with a political ax to grind. Kavanaugh, along with the DOJ, believes that any criminality from a sitting president should be dealt with by the Congress.

Earlier you mentioned "convenient partisan opinions", Kavanaugh held his opinion while working for Ken Starr.
Quote:
On Christmas Eve 1998, five days after the House impeached President Bill Clinton, Brett Kavanaugh urged his boss — Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel — not to pursue a criminal indictment of Mr. Clinton until after he left office. Link
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 06:36 PM   #380
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,848
In the category of "too unbelievable for a movie script":

Quote:
Donald Trump’s most recent Supreme Court Nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is facing perjury complaints for his testimony before Congress during the Senate hearing for his confirmation.

The Democratic Coalition, in their initial complaint, alleges that Kavanaugh’s testimony, not only in this hearing but in other testimony before Congress, includes false statements about certain documents said to be stolen from Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The complaint will now be heard by none other than Merrick Garland — President Obama’s pick for SCOTUS, who was denied a hearing.
Linky. (Emphasis mine.)
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th September 2018, 08:06 PM   #381
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,974
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
In the category of "too unbelievable for a movie script":



Linky. (Emphasis mine.)
I wonder if Garland will recuse himself.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 12:04 PM   #382
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,658
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
"We’re going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society" is what he said. Kavanaugh was one of the judges from the second list by the Federalist Society.

This is a lie started by Chuck Schumer, picked up and repeated by many news outlets and is now considered gospel by those who want to believe Kavanaugh was nominated to keep Trump from potentially being prosecuted for crimes in the future.

He was referring to civil and criminal investigations, not congressional investigations. Meaning that if you want to prosecute a president civilly or criminally, first impeach him, remove him from office then investigate.


"In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The president’s job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the president’s focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution." – Brett Kavanaugh
Thanks for the link, and the phrases to Google to track down other citations. It looks like Kavanaugh did rejoin the Federalists Society. I thought he had cancelled his membership as shown in one of his emails, but apparently he did rejoin. Then he was put on the list, but not the second one it seems? He was added after the second release?

It does appear that I was correct that he doesn't base this belief in law, but thinks it should be so.

That's still rather foolish, as Congressional investigations often only come about when other investigations bring evidence of wrongdoing worth looking further into to light. Some issues can only really be solved by holding those in political power to a higher standard.

His mention of the Constitution is a red herring; it does not support what he is advocating for and isn't even related if he isn't invoking it for support.


And seeing as you're another conservative in the thread, I might as well ask you too; Would you still support Kavanaugh if perjury (on salient judicial issues as has been alleged) is proven? Do you at least entertain the possibility that he is unsuitable regardless of the motivations of those arguing he is unsuitable?
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:10 PM   #383
Bogative
Graduate Poster
 
Bogative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,079
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Thanks for the link, and the phrases to Google to track down other citations. It looks like Kavanaugh did rejoin the Federalists Society. I thought he had cancelled his membership as shown in one of his emails, but apparently he did rejoin. Then he was put on the list, but not the second one it seems? He was added after the second release?
I'm not clear on the timeline, I just remember Trump saying that way he would only nominate potential justices recommended by the Federalist Society/the Heritage Foundation.

Quote:
It does appear that I was correct that he doesn't base this belief in law, but thinks it should be so.
That is correct from what I understand. He recognizes the Supreme Court's opinion that a sitting president can currently be indicted. It's his opinion that Congress should pass a law to prevent it from happening.

Quote:
That's still rather foolish, as Congressional investigations often only come about when other investigations bring evidence of wrongdoing worth looking further into to light. Some issues can only really be solved by holding those in political power to a higher standard.
I think his point is to have all investigations go through Congress. For example, if a district attorney or local prosecutor has evidence of wrongdoing, they should turn it over to Congress for further investigation rather than issuing an indictment and bogging down a president trying to perform the duties of his office.

I agree with that point of view because it would protect the most powerful office in the country from potential political shenanigans of someone who was elected locally by a small number of people rather than a body of politicians who were elected nationwide.

Quote:
His mention of the Constitution is a red herring; it does not support what he is advocating for and isn't even related if he isn't invoking it for support.
I believe you are misunderstanding what said. The constitutional mechanism he mentioned is impeachment. The point he is making in the Minnesota Law Review essay is that there is nothing in the Constitution protecting the president from indictment, it would have to be done by Congress.


Quote:
And seeing as you're another conservative in the thread, I might as well ask you too; Would you still support Kavanaugh if perjury (on salient judicial issues as has been alleged) is proven? Do you at least entertain the possibility that he is unsuitable regardless of the motivations of those arguing he is unsuitable?
It depends. If we find out that he did in fact have a conversation with someone from Trump's law firm that he forgot about, I would still support him. He would have to be something much more consequential for me to stop supporting him.
Bogative is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:20 PM   #384
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Christ what a load of crap. Criminal my ass, it is a couple of asshats who filed their own complaint.

Were you making an assertion or just repeating the claims of a couple of knuckleheads.
Popehat had equally kind words for this nonsense:

Quote:
/3 Take this "we have filed a criminal complaint against Brett Kavanaugh" nonsense, hyped recently. This is grifter bunk, deceitfully calculated to imply there's been some official finding of merit.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:24 PM   #385
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,743
"Everybody on the Republican side of the dais knows Kavanaugh’s nomination is purely to further the Republican agenda. Everybody's in on it. It is maddening."
-- Al Franken (Sept 7, 2018)


"My honey my baby, don't put my love upon no shelf
She said don't hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself"
-- The Georgia Satellites 1986
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:33 PM   #386
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Popehat had equally kind words for this nonsense:
I wonder what else he has to say in that thread?

Quote:
But I care about legal norms and the rule of law, and so should you. And . . . about opposing Trumpism.
Quote:
****muppetting around the place playing pretend lawyer does not help.
I'm glad you agree with him - Trump should be opposed, and people shouldn't pretend to be lawyers when they are not. Can we assume from now on that you'll start doing the former and stop doing the latter?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by Squeegee Beckenheim; 10th September 2018 at 01:34 PM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 01:37 PM   #387
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I wonder what else he has to say in that thread?
This:

Quote:

/14 The more grifter and/or looney ******** we promote and encourage, the more static there is drowning out real, worthwhile attempts to preserve the rule of law and legal norms.

Cut that **** out.

/end
Good to see that you agree that tweet you inflicted on this thread was "grifter," "looney" "bull ****" and "static."
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 03:41 PM   #388
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,658
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
It depends. If we find out that he did in fact have a conversation with someone from Trump's law firm that he forgot about, I would still support him. He would have to be something much more consequential for me to stop supporting him.
Thanks again. I did have the 'on a salient judicial issue' qualifier in there. Even with that, for some reason you're the first conservative to actually even try to give an answer to what should be the most basic of standards to hold any judge to, let alone one nominated for the SCOTUS.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th September 2018, 04:25 PM   #389
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,974
Originally Posted by Bogative View Post
.... It depends. If we find out that he did in fact have a conversation with someone from Trump's law firm that he forgot about, I would still support him. He would have to be something much more consequential for me to stop supporting him.
That's not what tyr_13 asked. The question was if perjury is found?

There is also an issue about the reason for the meeting. If this was some unrelated meeting with a lawyer in the firm, surely there should be notes about what this meeting was for.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 02:37 AM   #390
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Good to see that you agree that tweet you inflicted on this thread was "grifter," "looney" "bull ****" and "static."
I'm always open to anything I post being assessed.

I understand, though, why you only quoted that one tweet, and didn't link to it or the thread that it was part of. Because that makes people less likely to check your sources, and if people can't check your sources they're less likely to see where your source is critical of you.

Like, for example, how that tweet you've just posted directly followed the one about "****muppetting around the place playing pretend lawyer". So I agree with Popehat, you need to cut that **** out Glad you agree, too.

And you really should link to your sources.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 07:45 AM   #391
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I'm always open to anything I post being assessed.

I understand, though, why you only quoted that one tweet, and didn't link to it or the thread that it was part of. Because that makes people less likely to check your sources, and if people can't check your sources they're less likely to see where your source is critical of you.

Like, for example, how that tweet you've just posted directly followed the one about "****muppetting around the place playing pretend lawyer". So I agree with Popehat, you need to cut that **** out Glad you agree, too.

And you really should link to your sources.
I do, but then skeptics say that they want me to cut and paste from them because they can't do second grade math.
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 09:19 AM   #392
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I do[...]
Do you, though?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 10:16 AM   #393
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,393
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Say, it looks like some of my post got cut off:

"but then skeptics say that they want me to cut and paste from them because they can't do second grade math."

Fixed it up for y'all
__________________
"Don't tell me what cases you've won, tell me who you've beaten."

-M. Avenatti
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 10:26 AM   #394
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,989
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Say, it looks like some of my post got cut off:
That's a "no", then. Okay.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th September 2018, 06:24 PM   #395
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,848
The weird money stories are being asked about in writing:

Quote:
“Have you ever sought treatment for a gambling addiction?” Whitehouse asks pointedly as part of a series of questions submitted this week about Kavanaugh’s unexplained personal debts.

In 2016, Kavanaugh reported credit card and personal loan debts of between $60,000 and $200,000. The Trump White House said these debts were the result of Kavanaugh buying baseball tickets for friends who later paid him back, as well as some spending on home improvements. The 2016 debts did not appear on Kavanaugh’s 2017 disclosure form because they were either entirely paid off or fell below the reporting threshold. Kavanaugh also reported between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt in 2006.

...

Whitehouse also asked about a series of irregularities in Kavanaugh’s personal financial disclosures. How did Kavanaugh’s Bank of America account increase in value from between $15,000 and $50,000 in 2009 to between $100,000 and $250,000 in 2010, if he reported no increase in non-investment income or gifts?

And Whitehouse wants more information about how Kavanaugh and his wife afforded their $1.2 million home in 2006, and how he managed to pay for membership in the Chevy Chase Club, whose initiation fee is reportedly $92,000 with annual dues of more than $9,000.

“All judicial nominees must address all questions posed to them to be voted out of committee,” Davidson said.

Questions about how a justice is reimbursed and by whom, or about the true source of their debt, are not immaterial to the job. Cases can come before the court that involve individuals, or individuals employed by companies, that the justice will have to rule on. If a justice has undisclosed debts or receives undisclosed payments, their impartiality could come into question.

This is precisely what happened with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. When President Lyndon Johnson chose Fortas to replace Earl Warren as chief justice in 1968, questions about payments Fortas received from $15,000 in speaking fees from American University’s law school scuttled his nomination. The payments did not come from the university, but from private sources, some of whom could have had cases come before the court.
Linky.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 08:43 AM   #396
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,722
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
The weird money stories are being asked about in writing:

(Article about strange financial dealings involving Kavanaugh... large debts that may have been due to gambling, increases in assets/revenue, and large purchases.)

Linky.
That was... unexpected. After all the concerns raised about Kavanaugh (that he'd "protect" trump, that he'd repeal abortion rights, etc.), it would be amazing if his nomination was stopped because of questionable financial dealings and a gambling addiction. (I'm saying "unexpected" rather than "surprising" because anyone that Trump deals with probably has been involved in financial crimes at some point.)

Does anyone remember these sorts of issues being raised earlier in the nomination process?
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 02:44 PM   #397
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NeverLand
Posts: 14,848
There's been a fundraising effort to pledge money to whoever Collins's opponent will be if she votes for Kavanaugh. It's up to one million dollars, but she is complaining it is an attempt at "bribery". Additionally someone made a crazy threatening phone call.

They have the votes that she could vote against him and then have Pence tie break anyway.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 03:11 PM   #398
Slings and Arrows
Graduate Poster
 
Slings and Arrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,743
"Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control."
-- Kamala Harris (Sept 7, 2018)

"Kavanaugh called birth control 'abortion-inducing drugs.' He used that term because it's a dog whistle to the extreme right."
-- Hillary Clinton (Sept 12, 2018)


And I thought Kavanaugh was nominated to run interference during the Mueller witch hunt. Well, guess not. The dog whistle says otherwise.
Slings and Arrows is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 07:27 PM   #399
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,658
Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows View Post
"Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control."
-- Kamala Harris (Sept 7, 2018)

"Kavanaugh called birth control 'abortion-inducing drugs.' He used that term because it's a dog whistle to the extreme right."
-- Hillary Clinton (Sept 12, 2018)


And I thought Kavanaugh was nominated to run interference during the Mueller witch hunt. Well, guess not. The dog whistle says otherwise.

Yeah, everyone knows you can't have multiple objectionable views. That would be like accusing a rapist of murder. No way someone could do both!
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th September 2018, 09:13 PM   #400
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,974
The Salon article on Kavanaugh's perjury and other problematic emails and POVs is worth a gander.

It ends thusly:
Quote:
This is the backdrop for what’s unfolding today, with Kavanaugh, only now it’s been taken past the point of absurdity: instead of Nixon, Reagan or Bush’s lying and abuses of executive authority, we have Donald Trump’s, putting all of his predecessors to shame. And we have Kavanaugh’s blatant history of provable perjury being ruthless steamrolled over in pursuit of a solid 5-4 conservative majority, based on the big über-lie that only conservatives are moral enough to be judges.

Half a century of lies are enough. It’s time to let truth back into the Supreme Court, starting with the nomination process.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.