Kavanaugh Confirmation

So, are we past the alcoholic stage and into the "he's an ill tempered cuss" stage?

giphy.gif


Opinion | Feinstein’s ‘Temperament’ Gambit

The intervention by American Bar Association President and Hillary Clinton supporter Robert Carlson against Brett Kavanaugh turns out to be even worse than we reported on Saturday. Now, exploiting the latest delay in a Senate confirmation vote, Democrats and liberals like Mr. Carlson are pressuring the ABA’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to reopen its evaluation of Brett Kavanaugh.

The ABA committee submitted its evaluation to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Aug. 31. Paul Moxley, the Utah lawyer who chairs the ABA committee, wrote that “after an exhaustive evaluation process, the Standing Committee has determined by a unanimous vote that Judge Kavanaugh is ‘Well Qualified.’” That is the ABA’s highest rating.

The excuse now being pushed on the ABA behind the scenes isn’t merely the uncorroborated claims of sexual misconduct, which are being investigated by the FBI. The new claim is that Mr. Kavanaugh’s passionate defense of his reputation before the Senate last week showed that he is too political and lacks the proper judicial temperament.

“Judge Kavanaugh did not reflect an impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge,” Senate Democrat Dianne Feinstein tweeted on Friday. “He was aggressive and belligerent.”

Mr. Kavanaugh is fighting for his professional life, has been accused of being a violent drunk and gang rapist, and he is supposed to respond like he’s at a Supreme Court oral argument on the separation of powers? Under this Feinstein-Biskupic standard, Democrats are allowed to say anything to ruin a nominee and then disqualify that nominee because he fights back rather than withdraws.
 
It's pretty simple - the Justices have various judicial philosophies that guide their rulings. Parties are pretty fluid in what they support so it is entirely conceivable and history is replete with examples of Justices ruling in ways that the politicians of the day consider a "betrayal". Roberts is only the latest example (probably some more recent).

Partisanship is about winning power and we all know that both parties switch positions on issues to suit their power needs. Justices however tend to be more consistent over time on how they interpret law. Some times it is in line with what partisans want; sometimes it is completely frustrating to the partisans who thought this was their "guy" or "gal". Ask Republicans if they thought Souter ruled they way they thought he would (just one of many examples).
I take it you missed the questions he was wanting to ask Clinton and later wrote about how a President shouldn't be questioned. He is no pillar of consistency in his beliefs and seems to follow the party which makes it partisan in nature.
 
I take it you missed the questions he was wanting to ask Clinton and later wrote about how a President shouldn't be questioned. He is no pillar of consistency in his beliefs and seems to follow the party which makes it partisan in nature.

I take it you didn't read or comprehend the legal arguments. Not surprised.

Not sure what any of this has to do with your contention that all the Justices are partisans
 
From the "draft" report from the Minnesota D's

An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred, particularly where the accusing party declines to produce supporting evidence that she herself asserts exists,” Ellingstad wrote. “She has thus repeatedly placed the existence of the video front and center to her allegations, but then has refused to disclose it.”

13wbp5.jpg
 
I'm sure it's been posted but isn't it interesting that the Minnesota Democratic Party found no substantiation of claims against Ellison -- and that no Dems are freaking out about it?

Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party investigation can't 'substantiate' abuse claims against Ellison
What does this have to do with Kavanaugh? And who is the one member of the Senate to be forced into resignation in the last year since this so-called "me too" movement began? A Minnesota Democrat named Al Franken. Sorry, but if you're trying to spin this into "what-a-bout-ism", it just doesn't pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick
Ahem, you can get into bar fights in high school and still get a top secret clearance. Just saying.

I have a scar on the left side of my head from what my dad called “ having a mocking bird mouth with a hummingbird ass” in a bar and still passed one from the FBI, Homeland security and the Coast Guard . Has no nothing to do with anything except life lessons .
 

VN Store



Back
Top