Reasons For or Against Kavanaugh's Confirmation

[Anthem]

The FBI's investigation into Kavanaugh is far more constrained than previously known, and experts say 'it would be comical if it wasn't so important'

"...The White House counsel Don McGahn, who is in charge of Guiding Kavanaugh's confirmation process, is ALSO Directing the FBI on the scope of its background check.

 

[pearl]

There are worse sources than the Federalist Society,
which even has some libertarians in it. Scary, eh.

The thing is we are a young country and democracy remains an experiment,

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe he lied about knowingly accepting documents stolen from Democratic Senators.

I will google that and give sources if you want, but it will have to be later.

Claims should be supported.

I'm lazy....when someone makes controversial claims but without links,
I've often found that the claims are less than factual. This is not to say
that yours are, but it's generally a waste of my time to chase down
what turns out to be booOOooOOooOOooOOoogus.

 

[Revoltingest]

The FBI's investigation into Kavanaugh is far more constrained than previously known, and experts say 'it would be comical if it wasn't so important'

"...The White House counsel Don McGahn, who is in charge of Guiding Kavanaugh's confirmation process, is ALSO Directing the FBI on the scope of its background check.

View attachment 24462

Hey, I know him.
He's that "if you like your doctor you can keep'm" guy!

 

[Revoltingest]

The thing is we are a young country and democracy remains an experiment,

I wouldn't worry.
Those libertarians will never gain a majority.

 

[Nous]

My main objection to Kavanaugh has always been his extreme view of executive power.

I don't even understand how his position on presidential power can be considered "conservative". What's conservative about giving a president the authority to fire directors of bureaus established by Congress, which are not executive departments?

The opinions I found most disturbing are his desire to strike down assault weapons bans, and the immigration abortion case. In the former, he premised his argument on baseless claims of the popularity of these weapons, despite the fact that all the Circuit courts have cited figures showing their rarity, particularly their use in self-defense in the home. Otherwise, when it suits him, he appeals to the circular reasoning found in Heller.

 

[Altfish]

He is a liar.
He loses it under pressure
He has shown a lack of impartiality in attacking the Clintons (!!??) and the Democrats - judges should be above that.

 

[Nous]

I suspect he's a Powell.

I largely agree with Powell's opinions. Not his 1970s death penalty opinions, and not Bowers v. Herdwick. But Powell often swung over with the more liberal justices.

 

[Nous]

Just step by step as I have time to review your reasons,

1. Judge made a signed statement, it's a felony to provide false statements in an investigation from what I've read. Having Judge testify does nothing legally to hold him any further accountable. Also I don't blame him for not wanting to become part of the circus.

2. The law about drinking just recently changed at the time. Maybe he wasn't aware of it. Or maybe he was and his memory is confused about exactly when.

3. The activist who confronted him in the elevator was part of the Center for Popular Democracy. This is a group the is funded by the likes of Soros. Soros is well know for his attempts to manipulate the politics of countries. So IMO, it's not unreasonable to see this as part of a conspiracy to undermine the Republican party.

4. I'm not sure about 4 yet I mean as far as Kavanaugh's reasoning except that their is no real reason to think at this point an FBI investigation will turn up anything new. However it does provide additional time for Democrats to find other ways of stalling the vote. The purpose of this event for the Democrats seems to be to try and stall until the midterms in the hopes the Democrats will take control of the Senate.

5. I don't know what they are hiding. Could be irrelevant to the case or not. While people are free to speculate as to the reason, I don't see a lack of information as a reason to decide one way or the other at this point.

1. Judge's letter was signed by his attorney.

2. Maryland's drinking age was raised to 21 on 3/11/1982, when Kavanaugh was 17. He did not posses liquor legally until he was 21. All his claims under oath about legally drinking as a teen are false.

3. The hearing was held so that Ford and he could testify about her allegations. She is not part of any conspiracy.

 

[Nakosis]

1. Judge's letter was signed by his attorney.

This will be handle by the FBI investigation.

2. Maryland's drinking age was raised to 21 on 3/11/1982, when Kavanaugh was 17. He did not posses liquor legally until he was 21. All his claims under oath about legally drinking as a teen are false.

Arrest Kananaugh for poor memory.

3. The hearing was held so that Ford and he could testify about her allegations. She is not part of any conspiracy.

I don't recall anyone claiming she was.

 

[Nous]

Anyway, who here, being presented of information of Kavanaugh's innocence, would support him?

I don't know what you're asking. Obviously there is no information of Kavanaugh's "innocence" of having made those baseless and frankly delusional claims about the hearing being the product of a well-funded conspiracy involving revenge for the Clintons. There is no information that will make his misrepresentation of Maryland's alcohol laws true. There is no information that will make his belligerence toward senators polite or acceptable.

So do you not have an argument by which to conclude that Kavanaugh should be confirmed? That's what the OP asks for. If you have one, state it.

 

[Nous]

I agree 100%. It is his temperament along with his transparent bias that makes me believe he is not Supreme Court material.

"Perhaps we didn't do too good a job teaching the importance of preserving democracy by an enlightened civic discourse," he said. "In the first part of this century we're seeing the death and decline of democracy."

Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy on Discourse Over Kavanaugh: We're Seeing the Death and Decline of Democracy

I'm glad to see that Kennedy is doing well. Wish he hadn't retired right now.

 

[Nous]

I want to know more about July 1, 1982.

Yes!!! Ford obviously knew that group. Republicans stifled their prosecutor when she began asking him about this.

 

[Nous]

All very interesting. But to answer the question, I have wavered back and forth several times. He may have done it, he may have not. It's been a long time, and eyewitness accounts are demonstrably some of the worst evidence, contrary to popular belief. I don't doubt she had such an experience happen to her, though. she is sincere, I just worry about lack of good corroboration as to who it was.
Now, if he can be shown to be lying, that is a different story, even if he is merely lying about his drinking habits, etc. in school. Lying to the Senate Committee is a separate offence.
I'll wait and see what the FBI digs up, if anything, even though the Whitehouse limited the time and scope of the investigation. In the end, it does not matter what any of us think, only whether the Republicans think they can get enough votes on the confirmation.

You don't have an argument that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Court, do you?

 

[Nous]

On the drinking while 18 issue. He could legally buy alcohol at 18, at least not far from Georgetown where he studied after he graduate high school. The drinking age was 21 in Maryland at that time, but just across the border, and Bethesda is Maryland is right on the border, he could buy alcohol legally in D.C..

Oh, that's news to me. Thanks. I'll look it up. But he didn't legally drink in 1982 or when he got to Yale.

 

[Nous]

Have you not thought that statement through, or are you being disingenuous??

If there is enough evidence to show Kavanaugh is guilty of this crime that would disqualify him from a position of power, why wouldn't that also disqualify him for his current, slightly lesser position of power??

If he is found innocent, he'll get the new position. If he is found guilty enough to not qualify for the Supreme Court, then every single person who honestly believes he is guilty would and should logically not stand for him being in the Circuit Court either.

Kavanaugh is not being prosecuted for a crime, nor being impeached, and that isn't what Graham was referring to.

If there turns out to be a prosecutable or impeachable case against him, that's his fault. No one else should be lambasted for his wrongdoing.

 

[Mindmaster]

So do you not have an argument by which to conclude that Kavanaugh should be confirmed? That's what the OP asks for. If you have one, state it.

I think most of what you're upset about are just minutiae, if anything it just reflects the attitudes of the time of the recount that he had. Most states had different legal drinking ages in the past, none of them do now -- it's 21 nationally. Given that he as a teenager at the time, I'm sure he cared about it with all the veracity that I did in those years of my life.

As far as Soros (and Clinton), well their fingerprints are all over this thing.

What Role Is George Soros Playing in Anti-Kavanaugh Protests? 'The Ingraham Angle' Investigates

"Hero" Survivors Who Confronted Jeff Flake Work For Soros-Funded Nonprofit

My argument is simple: He should be confirmed if he is adequate to the tasks of the job. If these allegations are able to be acted upon in court then he should lose that privilege like any other judge associated with a crime. It doesn't matter to me if someone alleges anything -- I demand proof, or I presume innocence/political games/or whatever. So far, it looks like political games via the Democrats and I'm not seeing any of that as relevant. Especially, because all these tactics are straight out of the playbook they used on Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas.

Herman Cain, two years later: ‘I refuse to leave my reputation under a dark cloud’

Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination - Wikipedia

 

[Nous]

My argument is simple: He should be confirmed if he is adequate to the tasks of the job.

Define "adequate". Is there anyone who has passed the bar who isn't adequate?

 

[Mindmaster]

Define "adequate". Is there anyone who has passed the bar who isn't adequate?

Yes, because being a judge or lawyer are two different jobs. I can probably name about twenty different specialties for both, but I'll spare you. Even though they are all technically, "lawyers", lol

But, anyway, most judges have to not only be approved by their state bars to be seated, but also sponsored by elected officials depending on the position they seek. Through that process there is some pretty intensive background checking going on that normal lawyers don't have to deal with. So, not only do they have to be great lawyers (generally prosecutors, for judges) but they have to get vetted by several outside agencies.

So, qualified means -- you went through this process, you have a **** ton of experience, and a history of fairly ruling in those cases. Kavanaugh is a judge from the highest court in D.C., equivalent to the supreme court in most states. Anyone on these levels of the legal system are likely adequate to the task.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But, are any of these 'lies' important? You act as if there is no qualitative component. If the lie was simply mis-recollection or whatever it's not terribly relevant. If the lie is just his personal opinion being mistaken also not relevant nor perjury. Perjury is basically intentional, if it's someone mistaken comments it's not perjury.

I find it amusing because everyone seemed to be OK that Obama had been smoking pot and doing cocaine and no one cared. Well, I don't care either way -- whether it's Obama or Kavanaugh. Don't let your head explode. It has nothing to do with what's going on in the job, or as a judge he'd have already run afoul. I could care less if he was pissed every day after work -- I'd probably feel sorry for him, but as long as he's not drinking at the job what does it matter.

Anyway, Kavanaugh has no duty to prove his innocence that's presumed. They have to prove the offense. It didn't happen as far as I am concerned, and I've already listed my reasons. It would take like some _actual_ evidence for me to be convinced. Her testimony has more holes than a wheel of swiss cheese.

Um yeah. Because that's not even remotely similar to attempting to rape someone. Hello!

Now that you mention it though, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg withdrew his nomination back in 1987 because it was found out he smoked marijuana several times. My, oh my, haven't the times changed!