Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
T-Rump keeps him because he believes presidents cannot do wrong. And Kava-NO will protect him if he has to come before the SCOTUS.
There is NO DOUBT a short list of conservative candidates waiting in the wings - but none of them will bend over for T-Rump.
And - the time it would take to re-nominate another justice? Too late. The Congress will be BLUE.
Yes, there is a method to their madness.
Repubs are in a hell of a pickle now. Assuming they get no dirt at all on Kavanaugh from this FBI investigation and confirm him anyway, there will be a shadow of suspicion over him for a long time. Plus they will alienate a large percentage of voters: most women and many men, who will believe they are appointing a possible sex offender to the highest court in the land. Then they risk not getting reelected. especially if they come from blue states. And if they decide not to nominate him, they don't have time to nominate someone else and they may not get their pick after the midterms.
wowwy - Law "professors". My neighbor is a "law professor", he couldn't cut it as a lawyer and so he teaches at a small college. It really doesn't matter what a bunch of Proffessors say - it matters more what the ABA said and what Judge Kavanaugh's record is. Not a single one of these "He doesn't have Judicial Temperament whiners has cited a SINGLE Court case showing that .... and that is really all that counts when you have a 12 Year Record and 307 Opinions.
NOMINATIONS TO THE SUPREME COURT
A. Evaluation Criteria
As with nominations to the lower courts, the Committee’s evaluation of nominees to the Supreme Court is directed solely to their professional qualifications: integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.5 The Committee does not take into account the nominee’s philosophy, political affiliation or ideology. The Committee’s evaluation of a Supreme Court nominee is based on the premise that a Justice must possess exceptional professional qualifications.
A Supreme Court nominee should possess an especially high degree of legal scholarship, academic talent, analytical and writing abilities, and overall excellence. The ability to write clearly and persuasively, to harmonize a body of law, and to give meaningful guidance to trial courts, circuit courts and the bar for future cases are particularly important skills for a Supreme Court nominee. The significance, range and complexity of the issues considered, as well as the finality and nation-wide impact of the Supreme Court’s decisions, are among the factors that require exceptional ability.
To merit the Committee’s rating of “Well Qualified,” a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The rating of “Well Qualified” is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement.
Judicial temperament describes a judge's general attitude toward the law, litigants and other judges. According to the American Bar Association, judicial temperament means that a judge exhibits "compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, sensitivity, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice." Trends in State Courts, a project of the National Center for State Courts, described judicial temperament as "neutral, decisive, respectful, and composed."
Bar associations may perform judicial or judicial candidate evaluations, rating whether the individual is fit and qualified to serve as a judge. Oftentimes, judicial temperament is a category within these evaluations.
I tend to get really wordy - so here is the Cliff's Notes version of the ABA criteria and what "Judicial Temperament" mean to THEM in their evaluations and ratings.
It's not about throwing ice at a drunk. It's not about drinking beer in high school & college. It's not about defending yourself when under attack for something your didn't do - and you are not allowed to have a Lawyer to do it for you. A Judge is a human being, "Judicial Temperament" doesn't mean you can't be human when you are sitting in a Witness Chair and not the Judge's Chair in Court.
It is about Performance on the Bench as a Judge (provided you have a record as a Judge). It is about demeanor in Court to Lawyers & those before the Court, it is about EQUAL JUSTICE and fairness.
Judge Kavanaugh got the Highest rating the ABA allows because he has a 12 year Record of Good Judicial Temperament ...... Nothing has changed that.
Hmmm, let's check if "couldn't cut it" applies. Here are some of the institutions: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Berkeley, UCLA, Cornell, stanford, NYU, Texas. Are those good enough for you? Lol.
Repubs are in a hell of a pickle now. Assuming they get no dirt at all on Kavanaugh from this FBI investigation and confirm him anyway, there will be a shadow of suspicion over him for a long time. Plus they will alienate a large percentage of voters: most women and many men, who will believe they are appointing a possible sex offender to the highest court in the land. Then they risk not getting reelected. especially if they come from blue states. And if they decide not to nominate him, they don't have time to nominate someone else and they may not get their pick after the midterms.
No, not most women. Smart people can see this for exactly what it is...a dem delay tactic.
Mark Judge was told to write a story as therapy. Ford lifted the bit about him working at Safeway and used it herself.
Speaking of therapy, where are her therapist's notes?
This is what I mean about the changing details actually being convincing. I don't know the timelines that well ... but it was her most recent testimony, Wapo story that finally zeroed in on 1982 and her being 15 1/2?
If she planned this from the first perhaps with Demo assistance (???) would not they have managed to track down Judge's memoir and take it from there. Muddle the details some, sure - for that's more realistic given the time period but not *too* much.
And that's part of the problem with this Senate-hearing format and a brief Mitchell summary. In a court of law, real testimony could go on for days with a lot of this clarified.
Mitchell left the dates as totally confused ... when it actually strikes me that there was a "timeline" of progress as she moved from initial contact to decision to testify. But then again I don't know and for the life of me I cannot spend any more time here, at least today.
Not true. Carlson certainly speaks for the ABA. It may be correct that he does not speak for the committee that qualifies jurists but that does not effect his speaking for the ABA. So the committee considers Kavanaugh qualified and the ABA believes we should wait for the report.
Carlson does not speak for the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the ABA, he does not get to insert his biased political opinions and override their letter.
Mark Judge was told to write a story as therapy. Ford lifted the bit about him working at Safeway and used it herself.
Speaking of therapy, where are her therapist's notes?
That's pretty obvious.
When hearing her testify, I assumed he worked there for the summer or even all year. It never made sense to me how that could pinpoint any date just because she thought she ran into him 6-8 weeks after the alleged event as she testified.
Its clear now that she knew from Judge's book that he only worked there a few weeks.
Sorry, coincidences like that just don't happen. Especially in true crime stories...…..unless of course they are fake.
Of course, the book also told her what part of the store he was working in and his duties. Sorry, not buying it.
Andy Borowitz is the New York Times best-selling author of “The 50 Funniest American Writers,” and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes the Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news, for newyorker.com.
Then what's your problem with BK? Don't say his attitude about being accused of being a serial rapist....
Go back and reread it. No problem with BK. It was regarding the poster who would roll over with their tail between their legs and give up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
