We've already formed a cabal to bork you....just in case Trump taps you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reasons For or Against Kavanaugh's Confirmation
- Thread starter Nous
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I never implied anything about being criminally convicted.
Impeachment and convitction, two different steps of the process, are largely a political event. When the Democrats take back the House they could conceivably impeach Kavanaugh. As the Republicans did with Clinton. I would not see them having any more success in the Senate when it came to a conviction.
I thought you had. That's why I'm stuck here having to scoop my cats' litter boxes myself.
Well that's what I was talking about. I don't think there have many cases recently of impeachment and removal of judges without a criminal conviction first.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not sure of that either way. Judges have been convicted and removed by the Senate. I will have to look and see I they had a separate criminal trial first.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Well that did not take long. The first federal judge removed by impeachment did not appear to be charged criminally outside of his office:
John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
John Pickering (judge) - Wikipedia
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Since Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed as an associate justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, he won't be impeached from the D.C. Circuit. Since evidence is lacking of Sen. Patrick's claim that Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury, he will not be removed from the Supreme Court; let's make a friendly wager, I bet Judge Kavanaugh gets confirmed as an Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court and Judge Kavanaugh will not be removed from his position there.
As best as I can determine,
consistent with what I noted, impeachment proceedings have not been initiated against a federal judge in the absence of a criminal conviction first since the 1980s. In contrast, I haven't been able to find a case of impeachment of a federal judge prior to the 1970s where he had already been criminally convicted.
I hope you're not so confused as to think that I suggested that a judge confirmed to the Supreme Court would then be impeached from his previous position.
How did you determine that evidence is lacking that he committed perjury?
I shall not speculate on how Collins and Flake will ultimately vote.
Anyway I have an upcoming project soon and will not have much time to fiddle here.
I take it you still have no argument that Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court, do you?
As a related interest, I would note that retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens commented that after initially supporting Kavanaugh's confirmation he has changed his mind, citing Kavanaugh's performance at the Judiciary Committee hearing.
Don't Confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Says Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens | HuffPost
And the National Council of Churches, an organization that represents 100,000 Christian congregations with a whopping 45 million members, issued a statement Wednesday calling for the withdrawal of Kavanaugh's nomination, noting several reasons:
During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation.
In addition, his testimony before the Judiciary Committee included several misstatements and some outright falsehoods, some in relation to accusations of sexual misconduct. All citizens must be expected to speak truthfully when under oath, however, this is especially true for anyone who seeks a seat on the Supreme Court.
Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial and political record is troubling with regard to issues of voting rights, racial and gender justice, health care, the rights of people with disabilities, and environmental protections. This leads us to believe that he cannot be an impartial justice in cases that are sure to come before him at the Court.
NCC Calls for Withdrawal of Kavanaugh Nomination
Don't Confirm Brett Kavanaugh, Says Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens | HuffPost
And the National Council of Churches, an organization that represents 100,000 Christian congregations with a whopping 45 million members, issued a statement Wednesday calling for the withdrawal of Kavanaugh's nomination, noting several reasons:
During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation.
In addition, his testimony before the Judiciary Committee included several misstatements and some outright falsehoods, some in relation to accusations of sexual misconduct. All citizens must be expected to speak truthfully when under oath, however, this is especially true for anyone who seeks a seat on the Supreme Court.
Moreover, Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive judicial and political record is troubling with regard to issues of voting rights, racial and gender justice, health care, the rights of people with disabilities, and environmental protections. This leads us to believe that he cannot be an impartial justice in cases that are sure to come before him at the Court.
NCC Calls for Withdrawal of Kavanaugh Nomination
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Just like anybody else, Judge Kavanaugh, is legally presumed innocent until proven guilty
Because Judge Kavanaugh is "well-qualified" based on his extensive judicial record consisting of more than 300 written opinions on a wide range of issues this Judge addressed in the D.C. Circuit, and also based on this Judge's proven record of upholding the U.S. Constitution, he should be appointed for the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Hurray....It now appears Judge Brett Kavanaugh will now get confirmed as Associate Justice to the U.S Supreme Court, with the decisive votes of Democrat Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia and Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine now having announced their intention to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Presumption of innocence is the standard for judging conviction or acquittal in a criminal trial. That isn't what's going on in consideration of a nominee for the Court. In confirming Kavanaugh to the Court, he was not acquitted of any criminal charges.
Please tell me whether you disagree with any of the following 3 propositions:
(1) You cannot logically conclude that anyone is innocent of any allegations when the only investigation of those allegations is a limited supplemental background check whose findings are contained in a confidential report that you have not read and have no firsthand knowledge of.
(2) You cannot logically conclude anyone's guilt of any crime when the only investigation into the allegations did not include all possible sources of evidence indicating guilt.
(3) Judge Garland, who had not been proven guilty of any crimes, should have been confirmed according to your criterion of presumption of innocence.
If you disagree with any of those propositions , then state the deduction(s) by which you draw the contrary conclusion.
BTW, do you say that John Wilkes Booth was innocent of assassinating Lincoln? If so, how do you explain Lincoln's death? If not, is that not inconsistent with your claim that you presume the innocence of those who have not been proven guilty?
Do you believe that Bill Cosby was wrongly convicted of aggravated sexual assault of Andrea Constand? If so, what evidence would lead you to conclude his guilt? And how do you account for her testimony?
Do you agree that, given Susan Collins' claimed reason for voting to confirm Kavanaugh, it was hypocritical for her to call for Al Franken to resign from the Senate?
Given that Bill Clinton has never been proven guilty of sexual assault, do you say that he is innocent of such allegations?
Given that Hillary Clinton has never been proven guilty of mishandling classified documents or any wrongdoing in the Benghazi tragedy, do you say that she is innocent of all allegations in these matters, and that it is wrong of Republicans (et al.) to claim or suggest that she is guilty of wrongdoing in these matters? Do you agree that it is wrong to refer to her as "crooked'?
Do you need more proof that Kavanaugh lied under oath about the meaning of the terms "devil's triangle," "boofed," and "Renate Alumnus"? If so, what further proof do you need?
Which of Kavanaugh's 300+ decisions have you read?
And what evidence proves that Kavanaugh has a "record of upholding the U.S. Constitution"? Is there any factual basis to your claim that he has a "proven record of upholding the U.S. Constitution"?
In the many cases in which Kavanaugh's opinions are contrary to what the Circuit panel or en banc majority held or what the Supreme Court majority held on appeal, are you saying that the majority opinion did not uphold the Constitution but Kavanaugh did?
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Neither Mark Judge nor Leland Ingham Keyser, whom Christine Blasey Ford alleges were at the party house with her where and when she was allegedly attacked by Brett Kavanaugh, doesn't recall this event ever took place.
I suspect there's either a case of mistaken identity or false memory on behalf of Christine Blasey Ford in regards to Brett Kavanaugh. As I've stated in another thread about the unproven accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, It's very odd Christine Blasey went to a party consisting of 3 guys whom she hardly knew along with her friend, who didn't even bother to check up on her to make sure she could go to the bathroom unimpeded by these guys.. There were only 5 people at this alleged party, which Christine Blasey Ford doesn't know how she got there, where and when it happened, and nobody noticed these 2 guys were out of place there? Really, a drunk guy was strong enough to push her without a peep all the way from the bathroom to the bedroom? Christine Blasey's story has too many holes in it to be credible, imo. Yeah, something seemingly bad happened to her that really messed up her mind, but there's zero evidence Brett Kavanaugh actually had anything to do with that. Fortunately, some lady's evidently fake memories didn't prevent Judge Kavanaugh from getting confirmed as Justice to the US Supreme court.
The possible sources of evidence that could've supported Christine Blasey Ford allegations, the persons who she alleged were with her at the party house where she claimed having been sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, don't ever recall any such gathering where Christine Blasey was with Brett Kavanaugh.
I agreed with Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell when he said, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."
There was physical evidence John Wilkes Booth planned to kidnap Abraham Lincoln. Also, there were multiple witnesses that placed John Wilkes Booth at the crime scene were Lincoln was assassinated. Whereas, there is neither physical evidence nor eyewitness testimony to support Christine Blasey's claim a sexual assault actually happened between her and Brett Kavanaugh.
Bill Cosby incriminated himself when he admitted to drugging women.
Yes, there's photographic evidence Al Franken groped a female soldier while she was sleeping.
There's no evidence that Bill Clinton's sexual endeavors were none other than consensual sex between him and his sexual partners.
"On March 3, 2015, the House Benghazi Committee delivered a lawful subpoena, along with a preservation order, to Hillary Clinton, notifying her that she was under Congressional investigation and that she had a legal obligation to preserve any evidence in her possession.
Three weeks later, the Clinton team went back and permanently wiped her email server clean.
In law, there is something called “spoliation of evidence.” Essentially, it is the idea that people under investigation have a duty to preserve documents in their possession. If the subject of an investigation destroys evidence, or the documents ‘go missing,’ then the subject is presumed to have destroyed evidence to cover-up their guilt. Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping someone from destroying the evidence of their crimes."
Reference: Lock Her Up: FBI Confirms Hillary Illegally Destroyed Evidence - Conservative Daily
Georgetown prep school mates of Kavanaugh attest Devil's triangle is indeed a drinking game as claimed by Judge Kavanaugh.
Renate Schroeder Dolphin was among 65 women who, saying they knew Kavanaugh during high school, signed a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that vouched for his character
Judge Kavanaugh noted the controversy over gun control, and cited articles by Judges Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, which criticized the Heller decision. (Here's a critique of Judge Wilkinson's critique.) "As a lower court, however, it is not our role to re-litigate Heller or to bend it in any particular direction. Our sole job is to faithfully apply Heller and the approach it set forth for analyzing gun bans and regulations."
The new D.C. law banned many semi-automatic rifles. The prohibition was acknowledged to be the broadest in the United States. Judge Kavanaugh explained that Heller prevents a ban on semi-automatic handguns, and the same reasoning applies to similar rifles:
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)
Judge Kavanaugh is on record as upholding the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Last edited:
I repeat my request that you tell us whether you disagree with the 3 propositions I stated. I requested that because you attempted to begin your argument with your presumption of innocence until proven guilty of a crime. So trying a justify auxiliary positions won't resolve that central issue of where you are going to acquire such proof.Neither Mark Judge nor Leland Ingham Keyser, whom Christine Blasey Ford alleges were at the party house with her where and when she was allegedly attacked by Brett Kavanaugh, doesn't recall this event ever took place.
I suspect there's either a case of mistaken identity or false memory on behalf of Christine Blasey Ford in regards to Brett Kavanaugh. As I've stated in another thread about the unproven accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, It's very odd Christine Blasey went to a party consisting of 3 guys whom she hardly knew along with her friend, who didn't even bother to check up on her to make sure she could go to the bathroom unimpeded by these guys.. There were only 5 people at this alleged party, which Christine Blasey Ford doesn't know how she got there, where and when it happened, and nobody noticed these 2 guys were out of place there? Really, a drunk guy was strong enough to push her without a peep all the way from the bathroom to the bedroom? Christine Blasey's story has too many holes in it to be credible, imo. Yeah, something seemingly bad happened to her that really messed up her mind, but there's zero evidence Brett Kavanaugh actually had anything to do with that. Fortunately, some lady's evidently fake memories didn't prevent Judge Kavanaugh from getting confirmed as Justice to the US Supreme court.
The possible sources of evidence that could've supported Christine Blasey Ford allegations, the persons who she alleged were with her at the party house where she claimed having been sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, don't ever recall any such gathering where Christine Blasey was with Brett Kavanaugh.
I agreed with Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell when he said, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."
There was physical evidence John Wilkes Booth planned to kidnap Abraham Lincoln. Also, there were multiple witnesses that placed John Wilkes Booth at the crime scene were Lincoln was assassinated. Whereas, there is neither physical evidence nor eyewitness testimony to support Christine Blasey's claim a sexual assault actually happened between her and Brett Kavanaugh.
Bill Cosby incriminated himself when he admitted to drugging women.
Yes, there's photographic evidence Al Franken groped a female soldier while she was sleeping.
There's no evidence that Bill Clinton's sexual endeavors were none other than consensual sex between him and his sexual partners.
"On March 3, 2015, the House Benghazi Committee delivered a lawful subpoena, along with a preservation order, to Hillary Clinton, notifying her that she was under Congressional investigation and that she had a legal obligation to preserve any evidence in her possession.
Three weeks later, the Clinton team went back and permanently wiped her email server clean.
In law, there is something called “spoliation of evidence.” Essentially, it is the idea that people under investigation have a duty to preserve documents in their possession. If the subject of an investigation destroys evidence, or the documents ‘go missing,’ then the subject is presumed to have destroyed evidence to cover-up their guilt. Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping someone from destroying the evidence of their crimes."
Reference: Lock Her Up: FBI Confirms Hillary Illegally Destroyed Evidence - Conservative Daily
Georgetown prep school mates of Kavanaugh attest Devil's triangle is indeed a drinking game as claimed by Judge Kavanaugh.
Renate Schroeder Dolphin was among 65 women who, saying they knew Kavanaugh during high school, signed a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee that vouched for his character
Judge Kavanaugh noted the controversy over gun control, and cited articles by Judges Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, which criticized the Heller decision. (Here's a critique of Judge Wilkinson's critique.) "As a lower court, however, it is not our role to re-litigate Heller or to bend it in any particular direction. Our sole job is to faithfully apply Heller and the approach it set forth for analyzing gun bans and regulations."
The new D.C. law banned many semi-automatic rifles. The prohibition was acknowledged to be the broadest in the United States. Judge Kavanaugh explained that Heller prevents a ban on semi-automatic handguns, and the same reasoning applies to similar rifles:
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns—the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic—are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)
Judge Kavanaugh is on record as upholding the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In response to another of my questions, you made claims and quoted an online article suggesting that Hillary Clinton violated federal law by destroying subpoenaed emails. The FBI conducted a thorough investigation of this matter and found that she did not violate in her handling of emails or compliance with the subpoena you noted. See:
FBI Releases Documents in Hillary Clinton E-Mail Investigation
In apparent attempt to substantiate your claim that Kavanaugh has a "proven record of upholding the Constitution," you quoted from his dissent in Heller II. I don't have a clue as to how that is supposed to help you substantiate your claim. Kavanaugh was the lone dissenter in that case. Both the en banc Circuit and the Supreme Court declined review. To date, ten Circuit courts have upheld similar laws that ban semi-automatic weapons, no Circuit has ruled otherwise, and the big Court has not granted certiorari in any appeal.
I predict that eventually you will discover your claim of Kavanaugh's "proven record of upholding the Constitution" is vacuous, unable to be substantiated.
There is no reason to merely restate what you believe. Everyone here already knows what you believe. I asked you for facts, arguments, deductions, by which we can logically conclude that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed to the Court.
An argument begins with factual propositions, which you can demonstrate to be true. An argument by which to conclude that Kavanaugh should have been confirmed to the Court would go something akin to this:
P1: Kavanaugh is a person who has X characteristic.
P2: All persons who have X characteristic should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
C: Therefore, Kavanaugh is a person who should be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Huh?? I didn't state anything about being prosecuted for a crime. I don't see how that's relevant.
Just saying that if you think the allegation should disqualify him from one high-level judge position, wouldn't that also disqualify him from his pre-existing high-level judge position??
Neither the qualifications for his current job as a Justice nor his former job as a high ranking judge are prosecution for a crime, so why is one job okay for an attempted rapist to hold but not the other??
No. For example, using the ABA's criteria for "well qualified" as the standard for determining whether a nominee for the Supreme Court is worthy of be confirmed--i.e., exhibits integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament--a sitting judge (such as Kavanaugh) could easily fail to measure up for the promotion due to an angry, accusatory outburst and refusal to answer about his behavior outside of the courtroom during a Senate hearing, but it wouldn't be considered an impeachable offense so as to lead to his removal from his current position.
Kavanaugh sides with liberals in what appears to be support for abortion rights.
Kavanaugh Joins Liberals To Protect Pro-Planned Parenthood Ruling
Kavanaugh Joins Liberals To Protect Pro-Planned Parenthood Ruling
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I predicted as much a long time ago. At any rate Trump probably did not pick Kavanaugh based upon his abortion views but more likely on how he thinks he would rule on cases that he was personally involved in.
You know what they say, can't judge a judge by his testimony before Congress! (Also makes a great bumper sticker.)