• 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!

The ABA on Judge Kavanaugh

Deuce said:
The idea that a president can pardon himself is absurd, it partisan. Conservatives and liberals alike think the idea is utter nonsense.

Only an ultra authoritarian would even consider the idea. Somebody ok with a president being above the law.
Click to expand...

The idea that pardons exist at all is absurd, being able to pardon himself is just a part of it. But that isn't the question, the question is whether the mechanism exists where it can happen or not. Just being all pissy or outraged about it matters zero.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Skip to the 1:06:02 mark of the video. Listen to the ABA's evaluation of Mr. Kavanaugh. You need only watch until 1:20:47. This is a non-partisan group who evaluated Mr. Kavanaugh and has done so for other Supreme Court Picks for quite a long time now. They unanimously approved of him after extensive research. The ONLY reason to object to Mr. Kavanaugh at this point in time is due to peoples political beliefs...not on Mr. Kavanaugh's actual ability or integrity.

Click to expand...


Political belief's is the only reason the left ever had to not approve of this pick. And that political belief is Trump Bad.

There is no person anywhere that the left would approve of as long as President Trump nominated him.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Let's set aside political beliefs aside for a moment, does it say anything about the fact that out of the entire menu of potential SCOTUS picks that President Trump had available to him, he picked the only one that literally pushed for a law that would exempt a sitting President from criminal prosecution or investigations? That's where we are now. Because this pick is not at all about Brett Kavanaugh's ability to do the job.

It's that in addition to almost all of Kavanaugh's political beliefs being ****ty, the President is using this pick in a move to potentially protect himself despite his obvious corruption and criminality, and the fact that Senate Republicans, gutless enablers as they are, understand that the more we find out about this extremely unpopular pick the less likely he is to be confirmed, and so are trying to jam him through the process while revealing as little about his past and beliefs as possible. Oh, and this is before I've even gotten to the part where it's quite obvious he's already perjured himself multiple times in front of the Senate.
Click to expand...

Most likely President Trump will get a chance to nominate another SC justice. Maybe from your list of those you think he had available to him. And when he does the left will oppose this pick.
 
Mach said:
Brett Kavanaugh:
" I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since the Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the court would do so. "

After Gorsuch, that's 4 judges.
With Brett, it's 5 v 4, checkmate.
(check my numbers...the report I recall clearly said 5, but I don't pay attention to what changed between 2003 and now, no time, sorry)

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthe...6dbbda94dd204fe02af/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
Click to expand...

So what? Kavanaugh is expressing doubt as it pertains what “all” legal scholars believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
So what? Kavanaugh is expressing doubt as it pertains what “all” legal scholars believe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Someone asked for evidence that Brett could try and overturn Roe V Wade.
I provided the quotation from the email, and the analysis of it.

The important point was what I bolded, that he believed at that time 3 of the judges would overturn it (not could...would!), and based on who is now on the court, we can assume that's 4, and with Kavanaugh, that's 5.

Whether that matters to you or not, is not really the point.
 
KevinKohler said:
Citations? I mean, surely....you can prove that Trump nominated this guy for the purpose of over turning for vs wade, and to make himself above the law for the next 2 years...right?
Click to expand...

He is not on trial, we don't need the kind of forensic proof you would need for a conviction--we just need to observe his actions words and deeds whereby a reasonable conclusion can be drawn. Based on these things I think it's fair to assert this nominee if the situation presented itself would reverse Roe versus Wade, and he would also vote to expand presidential powers whereby the president and effect would be above the law.
 
Mach said:
Someone asked for evidence that Brett could try and overturn Roe V Wade.
I provided the quotation from the email, and the analysis of it.

The important point was what I bolded, that he believed at that time 3 of the judges would overturn it (not could...would!), and based on who is now on the court, we can assume that's 4, and with Kavanaugh, that's 5.

Whether that matters to you or not, is not really the point.
Click to expand...

Nope. His "belief" was in regards to "legal scholars." He was not expressing "his" own personal belief that Roe v. Wade was not settled law.

What matters is details and the fact you are oblivious to them is "really the point."
 
NotreDame said:
Nope. His "belief" was in regards to "legal scholars." He was not expressing "his" own personal belief that Roe v. Wade was not settled law.
What matters is details and the fact you are oblivious to them is "really the point."
Click to expand...
You determine what matters? Oh boy.

Again, for anyone that can read:

Brett Kavanaugh:
" I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since the Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the court would do so. "

Brett declared 3 current judges would overrule Roe. That's astounding IMO. And given who the 4th and potentially 5th (brett) appointments to SCOTUS are, that would mean 5 to 4.

Of course we know Brett would side with them, he's as or more partisan conservative than the 3 he mentions *would* overturn Roe v Wade given the chance.
 
OscarLevant said:
He is not on trial, we don't need the kind of forensic proof you would need for a conviction--we just need to observe his actions words and deeds whereby a reasonable conclusion can be drawn. Based on these things I think it's fair to assert this nominee if the situation presented itself would reverse Roe versus Wade, and he would also vote to expand presidential powers whereby the president and effect would be above the law.
Click to expand...

Is that what I asked?
 
Mach said:
You determine what matters? Oh boy.

Again, for anyone that can read:

Brett Kavanaugh:
" I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since the Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the court would do so. "

Brett declared 3 current judges would overrule Roe. That's astounding IMO. And given who the 4th and potentially 5th (brett) appointments to SCOTUS are, that would mean 5 to 4.

Of course we know Brett would side with them, he's as or more partisan conservative than the 3 he mentions *would* overturn Roe v Wade given the chance.
Click to expand...

You determine what matters? Oh boy.
Click to expand...

I said details matter. Unless you have a rational objection to the notion details matter, your comment above is comic relief.

Brett declared 3 current judges would overrule Roe. That's astounding IMO.
Click to expand...

Not really...he provided this as a reason to explain why not "all legal scholars" believe Roe is "settled law."

Second, such an observation is rather unremarkable as it is an observation anyone astute observer of the Court could make.
 
Mach said:
You determine what matters? Oh boy.

Again, for anyone that can read:

Brett Kavanaugh:
" I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since the Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the court would do so. "

Brett declared 3 current judges would overrule Roe. That's astounding IMO. And given who the 4th and potentially 5th (brett) appointments to SCOTUS are, that would mean 5 to 4.

Of course we know Brett would side with them, he's as or more partisan conservative than the 3 he mentions *would* overturn Roe v Wade given the chance.
Click to expand...


He was referring to OTHER JUDGE's OPINIONS, and NOT IN THE CURRENT COURT, either.

That is a LIE.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Skip to the 1:06:02 mark of the video. Listen to the ABA's evaluation of Mr. Kavanaugh. You need only watch until 1:20:47. This is a non-partisan group who evaluated Mr. Kavanaugh and has done so for other Supreme Court Picks for quite a long time now. They unanimously approved of him after extensive research. The ONLY reason to object to Mr. Kavanaugh at this point in time is due to peoples political beliefs...not on Mr. Kavanaugh's actual ability or integrity.

Click to expand...


No, not in the least. He hasn't even been remotely properly vetted and the republicans are clearly trying to rush this through.

And integrity? Please. He's been a GOP partisan for yeeears and was quite deceptive and disingenuous in his answers under oath.
 
Grokmaster said:
He was referring to OTHER JUDGE's OPINIONS, and NOT IN THE CURRENT COURT, either.
That is a LIE.
Click to expand...

Not a lie, it's a quote:

Brett Kavanaugh:
" I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since the Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the court would do so. "
Click to expand...

People with brains can do the math on the 2003 court, compared to the current court, claiming they can't seems like more absurdity from you.
 
KevinKohler said:
Is that what I asked?
Click to expand...

You asked for proof.

Given that there is plenty of media proof, I assumed you wanted something more forensic, the kind that would stand up in court.

I drew that inference, but, if you didn't ask for that kind of proof, then why would you ask for proof when proof sufficient for reasonable determination is already in the media?

Just curious.
 
OscarLevant said:
You asked for proof.

Given that there is plenty of media proof, I assumed you wanted something more forensic, the kind that would stand up in court.

I drew that inference, but, if you didn't ask for that kind of proof, then why would you ask for proof when proof sufficient for reasonable determination is already in the media?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

I asked for proof of that being Trumps motif. Kinda smart if it was...and I'm told he's an idiot with mental health issues who is so unfit for office people are compelled (for the good of the nation) to actively work against him, going so far as to swipe stuff off his desk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom