• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kavanaugh?

<alt>doxygen

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think I could vote to confirm this guy. He's qualified at an academic level, but he's too evasive in questioning and his past statements show what I think is too much deference to presidential power. Our country is in crisis. We need at least one branch of government that can stand up for itself.

Thoughts?

Excerpt:
THE BIG IDEA: Justice Neil Gorsuch called President Trump’s personal attacks on federal judges “demoralizing” during his confirmation hearing last year. “When someone criticizes the honesty, the integrity or the motives of a federal judge, I find that disheartening,” Gorsuch said, adding: “I’ve gone as far as I can go ethically.”

This muted critique didn’t satisfy Democrats, but it enraged Trump so much that he talked privately about rescinding Gorsuch’s nomination. The president vented angrily to White House advisers and Republican congressional leaders that the judge was insufficiently grateful to him and expressed fear that he wouldn’t be “loyal,” 11 people familiar with the episode told The Washington Post last December. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was so concerned that he felt the need to repeatedly urge Trump to stick with Gorsuch.

So perhaps it shouldn’t have been surprising that, 18 months later, Brett Kavanaugh would not go nearly as far as Gorsuch during his three days of testimony, which wrapped up Thursday night at 10:13 p.m. But it was nevertheless striking.

The president’s second nominee for the Supreme Court demurred, for example, when asked whether it was appropriate for Trump to say that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “mind is shot” when he called for her to resign.

“I’m not going to get within three Zip codes” of answering that question, he replied.

Kavanaugh wouldn’t say if it’s okay for Trump to say that the Justice Department not prosecute Republicans because it will hurt their chances of holding the House in the midterms.

He also refused to say that it was inappropriate for Trump to insist that Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly adjudicate a fraud lawsuit against Trump University because he is the son of Mexican immigrants. Speaker Paul Ryan once called this “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”
Click to expand...

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=YmVhc2xleS5iZW4uY0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&s=5b927d71fe1ff65504ef40fb
 
As far as I can tell, Kavanaugh hasn’t answered a single non-softball question this entire process.
 
I am not convinced one way or the other, but this whole process has been disastrous. Where we are with who gets picked and how they are confirmed has destroyed the Judicial Branch.

This one has been a complete **** show.

Odds are this will be a strict party line vote to confirm with the Independents probably voting with Dems.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I don't think I could vote to confirm this guy. He's qualified at an academic level, but he's too evasive in questioning and his past statements show what I think is too much deference to presidential power. Our country is in crisis. We need at least one branch of government that can stand up for itself.

Thoughts?

Excerpt:


https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=YmVhc2xleS5iZW4uY0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&s=5b927d71fe1ff65504ef40fb
Click to expand...

I don't think he's been any more evasive than any other nominee over the past few rodeos.

I favor his confirmation. Because he is qualified and he seems smart enough to let the law be his guide. We're not likely to get a better nominee from Trump, and mostly I'm pleased that he didn't nominate Michael Cohen or Steve Bannon.
 
Kobie said:
As far as I can tell, Kavanaugh hasn’t answered a single non-softball question this entire process.
Click to expand...

The judge answers like I did on US History tests in HS; write a novel; no such thing as a yes or no question......
 
rocket88 said:
I don't think he's been any more evasive than any other nominee over the past few rodeos.

I favor his confirmation. Because he is qualified and he seems smart enough to let the law be his guide. We're not likely to get a better nominee from Trump, and mostly I'm pleased that he didn't nominate Michael Cohen or Steve Bannon.
Click to expand...

LOL! or Alex Jones.

Kavanaugh has mastered the art of responding to a question without actually answering it. That's an important skill for anyone in politics.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I am not convinced one way or the other, but this whole process has been disastrous. Where we are with who gets picked and how they are confirmed has destroyed the Judicial Branch.

This one has been a complete **** show.

Odds are this will be a strict party line vote to confirm with the Independents probably voting with Dems.
Click to expand...

Here's the process Trump/Pence use : The Federalist Society vets people using some ideological punch list. Trump/Pence pick from that list. This one seems to be a deal struck between Kennedy and Trump/Pence. Kavanaugh is Kennedy's hand-groomed pick.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I don't think I could vote to confirm this guy. He's qualified at an academic level, but he's too evasive in questioning and his past statements show what I think is too much deference to presidential power. Our country is in crisis. We need at least one branch of government that can stand up for itself.

Thoughts?

Excerpt:


https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=YmVhc2xleS5iZW4uY0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&s=5b927d71fe1ff65504ef40fb
Click to expand...

Given the Dem's tendency toward "gotcha" questioning, evasive answers are justified.

Take that Harris sideshow, for example...

 
Rexedgar said:
The judge answers like I did on US History tests in HS; write a novel; no such thing as a yes or no question......
Click to expand...

I BSed my way through SO many exams and quizzes that way.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I don't think I could vote to confirm this guy. He's qualified at an academic level, but he's too evasive in questioning and his past statements show what I think is too much deference to presidential power. Our country is in crisis. We need at least one branch of government that can stand up for itself.

Thoughts?

Excerpt:


https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=YmVhc2xleS5iZW4uY0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&s=5b927d71fe1ff65504ef40fb
Click to expand...

The hearing show how that we live in a parliamentary form of government. One side threw soft balls the other hand grenades.

If this were truly about his fitness to be a supreme court justice most of the questions would be about his writings about the cases he heard over 12 years.
 
washunut said:
The hearing show how that we live in a parliamentary form of government. One side threw soft balls the other hand grenades.

If this were truly about his fitness to be a supreme court justice most of the questions would be about his writings about the cases he heard over 12 years.
Click to expand...

I think the parliamentary aspects grew out of C-SPAN and others giving them a stage to grandstand. I'm kind of torn about that. I think the transparency is good, but they tend to play to their lowest common denominators, and that isn't in anyone's best interest except those who profit from division.

I do think Kavanaugh should answer questions about executive privilege. As I said in my OP, since he refuses that, I don't know if he would act as a check on that branch of the government, and to me that's a job requirement. Based on that and a couple of lesser factors, I'd probably vote no, even knowing that the next one Trump puts up would likely be worse. That last factor not yet being in evidence means I wouldn't likely consider it at this time.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I think the parliamentary aspects grew out of C-SPAN and others giving them a stage to grandstand. I'm kind of torn about that. I think the transparency is good, but they tend to play to their lowest common denominators, and that isn't in anyone's best interest except those who profit from division.

I do think Kavanaugh should answer questions about executive privilege. As I said in my OP, since he refuses that, I don't know if he would act as a check on that branch of the government, and to me that's a job requirement. Based on that and a couple of lesser factors, I'd probably vote no, even knowing that the next one Trump puts up would likely be worse. That last factor not yet being in evidence means I wouldn't likely consider it at this time.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion but the questions about executive privilege were gotya. The people asking about it knew he could not answer with the Mueller investigation going on. The greatest probability is he will have to deal with that when on the court shortly. To give an answer before he reads and hears arguments without question would be inappropriate.

I am actually of the opinion that he would make the proper decision here. I also think that if this does go to the supreme court they will not allow a 5-4 decision based on party lines.

I am more concerned about guns and privacy. I think that we could have stricter gun laws and still be within the 2nd amendment. Also would not want the court to infringe to much on a woman's right to choose. But then again my party lost the election.
 
He got caught in a lie under oath, shouldn't that disqualify him?

He testified he didn't receive any documents during memogate. Sen. Leahy shows that he did. And when asked, Kavanaugh says. I don't recall.

He lied, under oath. And there are still people thinking he should be considered for SCOTUS?
 
washunut said:
Just my opinion but the questions about executive privilege were gotya. The people asking about it knew he could not answer with the Mueller investigation going on. The greatest probability is he will have to deal with that when on the court shortly. To give an answer before he reads and hears arguments without question would be inappropriate.

I am actually of the opinion that he would make the proper decision here. I also think that if this does go to the supreme court they will not allow a 5-4 decision based on party lines.

I am more concerned about guns and privacy. I think that we could have stricter gun laws and still be within the 2nd amendment. Also would not want the court to infringe to much on a woman's right to choose. But then again my party lost the election.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I'm totally with you on privacy (the entire 4th amendment) and abortion, but I think the court basically did the right thing with Heller (guns). I don't share your optimism re Kavanaugh. I think Trump picked him as a "get out of trouble free" card. The POTUS needs to be accountable to the other branches.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I don't think I could vote to confirm this guy. He's qualified at an academic level, but he's too evasive in questioning and his past statements show what I think is too much deference to presidential power. Our country is in crisis. We need at least one branch of government that can stand up for itself.

Thoughts?

Excerpt:


https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=YmVhc2xleS5iZW4uY0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&s=5b927d71fe1ff65504ef40fb
Click to expand...

Yes, I have watched quite a bit of the hearings and I have noticed the form of questions asked of Kavanaugh that deliberately get slanted to prevent him from directly answering said questions.

Judge Kavanaugh would be crazy to reply to questions that analysis shows are designed in the format of when will you stop raping your daughters.

If he says, now. He loses. When he denies, he is brought back to the same question.

I have long known of Kamala Harris who is a local to me. She is known to me well ahead of her show on the Senate desk she sits at. She is sly.

Her questions were not appropriate to be asked of a Judge.

She wanted him to declare he did or did not speak to a person of a very large law firm. He asked her who she is talking about. She was evasive. She then accused him of knowing and not wanting to reply to her question. "When do you intend to stop breaking your mothers nose is how she came back in intent. " She did not say those words, but her phrasing was to dump him into her box so he could not get out. When he again asked her for clarification. She evaded and told him he refused to answer.

She sucked. She sucked when she worked for the City of San Francisco and later as a state attorney general. She was not distinguished as our attorney general. She is way over her head with Judge Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh no doubt talks to a lot of attorneys. But if he met say Attorney Davis, why would he know what firm Davis worked for?
 
Robertinfremont said:
Yes, I have watched quite a bit of the hearings and I have noticed the form of questions asked of Kavanaugh that deliberately get slanted to prevent him from directly answering said questions.

Judge Kavanaugh would be crazy to reply to questions that analysis shows are designed in the format of when will you stop raping your daughters.

If he says, now. He loses. When he denies, he is brought back to the same question.

I have long known of Kamala Harris who is a local to me. She is known to me well ahead of her show on the Senate desk she sits at. She is sly.

Her questions were not appropriate to be asked of a Judge.

She wanted him to declare he did or did not speak to a person of a very large law firm. He asked her who she is talking about. She was evasive. She then accused him of knowing and not wanting to reply to her question. "When do you intend to stop breaking your mothers nose is how she came back in intent. " She did not say those words, but her phrasing was to dump him into her box so he could not get out. When he again asked her for clarification. She evaded and told him he refused to answer.

She sucked. She sucked when she worked for the City of San Francisco and later as a state attorney general. She was not distinguished as our attorney general. She is way over her head with Judge Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh no doubt talks to a lot of attorneys. But if he met say Attorney Davis, why would he know what firm Davis worked for?
Click to expand...

I don't have time to watch the hearings (working) but I did watch the clip you referred to. It was kind of a gotcha question, and I don't know why Harris kept at it since it was easy and believable for Kavanaugh to issue an "I can't remember" response.

OT - Spent a lot of time in Redwood City, Fremont and the San Jose area. Almost took a job and moved to Redwood City. Crowded and expensive, but I loved it anyway. Have friends in SF, Fremont and Burlingame west of the SF airport.
 
Some other info on Kavanaugh. I've not had time to DD this, so FYI:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/newly...may-have-perjured-himself-at-least-four-times
You can forgive Democratic senators for saying “I told you so.”

For over a month, Democrats (and this writer) have complained that the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is fatally flawed because the records of Kavanaugh’s White House tenure were being redacted by his former deputy, then redacted again by the Trump White House, then redacted a third time by Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

As a result, only 7 percent of Kavanaugh’s White House records have been released to the public—compared to 99 percent of Justice Elena Kagan’s, a nominee of President Obama.

Well, so what, Republicans said. You’ve got over 400,000 pages to look at—a few more isn’t going to make a difference.

On Thursday, with the release of a half dozen emails by Grassley and several more by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), the Democrats have been proven right. Brett Kavanaugh has misled the Senate at least four times, and the censored emails have been withheld not because of national security or executive privilege, but, at least in part, because they make Kavanaugh look bad.
Click to expand...

Much more at the link.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
I don't think I could vote to confirm this guy. He's qualified at an academic level, but he's too evasive in questioning and his past statements show what I think is too much deference to presidential power. Our country is in crisis. We need at least one branch of government that can stand up for itself.

Thoughts?

Excerpt:


https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-rw/?e=YmVhc2xleS5iZW4uY0BnbWFpbC5jb20=&s=5b927d71fe1ff65504ef40fb
Click to expand...


Why are they asking stupid questions that have nothing to do with their position? Is he going to rule on whether something someone says is appropriate? I wouldn't answer stupid questions either.
 
holbritter said:
Why are they asking stupid questions that have nothing to do with their position? Is he going to rule on whether something someone says is appropriate? I wouldn't answer stupid questions either.
Click to expand...

Questions having to do with executive branch authority are completely relevant. Frankly, I'm not too concerned with the rest. ...frankly, I don't understand you post, especially your second sentence and why you posted it to me(?).:shrug:
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Questions having to do with executive branch authority are completely relevant. Frankly, I'm not too concerned with the rest. ...frankly, I don't understand you post, especially your second sentence and why you posted it to me(?).:shrug:
Click to expand...

Sorry, it was in relation to the excerpt in your post. Specifically : The president’s second nominee for the Supreme Court demurred, for example, when asked whether it was appropriate for Trump to say that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “mind is shot” when he called for her to resign.

“I’m not going to get within three Zip codes” of answering that question, he replied.

Kavanaugh wouldn’t say if it’s okay for Trump to say that the Justice Department not prosecute Republicans because it will hurt their chances of holding the House in the midterms.

He also refused to say that it was inappropriate for Trump to insist that Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly adjudicate a fraud lawsuit against Trump University because he is the son of Mexican immigrants.


IMO, the qualifications of a SC Justice is not whether he/she thinks what someone says is appropriate or not. It is what their position and experience is with the law and upholding the constitution.

He should have answered "It's a persons right to say what they want. What does whether a statement made is inappropriate or not, have to do with being on the highest court? I will not be making a ruling on appropriateness of someone's comments."

They are stupid questions.
 
Last edited:
holbritter said:
Sorry, it was in relation to the excerpt in your post. Specifically : The president’s second nominee for the Supreme Court demurred, for example, when asked whether it was appropriate for Trump to say that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “mind is shot” when he called for her to resign.

“I’m not going to get within three Zip codes” of answering that question, he replied.

Kavanaugh wouldn’t say if it’s okay for Trump to say that the Justice Department not prosecute Republicans because it will hurt their chances of holding the House in the midterms.

He also refused to say that it was inappropriate for Trump to insist that Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly adjudicate a fraud lawsuit against Trump University because he is the son of Mexican immigrants.


IMO, the qualifications of a SC Justice is not whether he/she thinks what someone says is appropriate or not. It is what their position and experience is with the law and upholding the constitution.

He should have answered "It's a persons right to say what they want. What does whether a statement made is inappropriate or not, have to do with being on the highest court? I will not be making a ruling on appropriateness of someone's comments."

They are stupid questions.
Click to expand...

I actually think we might agree, at least partially. The clip I posted was a snip that started at the beginning (for completeness) but the only thing in there that was actually relevant to my point was this part:

Kavanaugh wouldn’t say if it’s okay for Trump to say that the Justice Department not prosecute Republicans because it will hurt their chances of holding the House in the midterms.

He also refused to say that it was inappropriate for Trump to insist that Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly adjudicate a fraud lawsuit against Trump University because he is the son of Mexican immigrants. Speaker Paul Ryan once called this “the textbook definition of a racist comment.”
Click to expand...

So my questions for Kavanaugh would really center around 1 thing that goes back to Trump's arrogance and the fact that in his life he's rarely, if ever, been held truly accountable for his skirting and outright breaking the law. Look at his business career.

That main question - "Do you think the POTUS is above the law"? That is a constitutional question.

...I would love to get a reaction from a panel of the founders of this country to Trump's presidency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom