• 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: Is his "that's hypothetical" avoidance tactic bull****?

Is Kavanaugh's "that's hypothetical" avoidance tactic bull****?

  • Total voters
    25
Mycroft said:
The difference:

"What are your views on abortion?"

"If an abortion case comes before the Supreme Court, how would you rule?"

The reason we have confirmation hearings is to find out the nominee's views.
Click to expand...
So you're saying the questioning senators weren't vague enough?
 
The Mark said:
Regarding the Kavanaugh SCOTUS confirmation hearings.

Multiple times I saw Kavanaugh avoid answering a question by claiming he couldn't or wouldn't answer hypothetical questions.


Isn't answering hypothetical questions like 50+% of the reason we even HAVE confirmation hearings?
Since the point of said hearings is to probe and examine the thinking of the proposed SCOTUS judge.
How can you do that without asking hypothetical questions?
Click to expand...

What difference does it make? If he leans left the democrats might like him. If he leans right they will fight tooth and nail to stop him. I thought everybody knew that. They might just as well eliminate the charade and vote for the reasons everybody knows is driving the debate.
 
Calling pertinent questions "hypothetical's" allows him to say something without answering something.

He is on record then as not officially answering such questions. Personally, I think it is a transparently dishonest approach.

At any rate, his overarching views are no secret. Kavanaugh was recommended by the Federalist Society, the most conservative of all judicial organizations.
 
None of the nominees ever answer hypothetical questions. As others have pointed out, his previous rulings are public knowledge.
 
Mycroft said:
What is vague about asking a nominee's views?
Click to expand...
I mean that asking "what would you do in this situation" is more specific than "what is your opinion on a situation of this type".

OR something like that, it's been a day and I forget exactly.
 
The Mark said:
I mean that asking "what would you do in this situation" is more specific than "what is your opinion on a situation of this type".

OR something like that, it's been a day and I forget exactly.
Click to expand...

Asking views on a topic is quite different than asking about a hypothetical situation.
 
The Mark said:
Regarding the Kavanaugh SCOTUS confirmation hearings.

Multiple times I saw Kavanaugh avoid answering a question by claiming he couldn't or wouldn't answer hypothetical questions.


Isn't answering hypothetical questions like 50+% of the reason we even HAVE confirmation hearings?
Since the point of said hearings is to probe and examine the thinking of the proposed SCOTUS judge.
How can you do that without asking hypothetical questions?
Click to expand...

He's avoiding being placed in a situation where he's forced to pre-decide a non-existant case.

One would think that would be a good thing.
 
Mycroft said:
Asking views on a topic is quite different than asking about a hypothetical situation.
Click to expand...
If he opines about his views, we'll get a Peter Strzok situation where one side insists those views mean he cannot put those views aside and make rulings/judgements based on his research, the open hearing and closed door discussion, etc.
Any view he is asked about, he will interpret as a hypothetical. There is nothing anyone can do to make them answer it differently

Funny the Kennedy attack on Bork would play about the same then as it did this week. Did Democrats sway the 2 necessary Republican votes? LIkely not, but they tried harder than they tried to get Garland a hearing it seems.

Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice
Click to expand...

If you just word swap using today's president and scandals and Brett, it 100% fits.
 
Mycroft said:
The difference:

"What are your views on abortion?"

"If an abortion case comes before the Supreme Court, how would you rule?"

The reason we have confirmation hearings is to find out the nominee's views.
Click to expand...

That is not the reason for confirmation hearings. The reason is to determine if the person is minimally qualified and there are not unknown criminal or corrupt acts by the nominee.

If he answered that question he could then never hear an abortion related case as he had pre-announced an opinion prior to hearing evidence and argument by all sides.
 
joko104 said:
That is not the reason for confirmation hearings. The reason is to determine if the person is minimally qualified and there are not unknown criminal or corrupt acts by the nominee.

If he answered that question he could then never hear an abortion related case as he had pre-announced an opinion prior to hearing evidence and argument by all sides.
Click to expand...

My comment was specifically directed toward the issue about hypothetical questions as opposed to other questions.

The thing is, if he was asked about his views on, say, abortion, he would give a noncommittal answer. Something along the lines of not prejudging an issue. But he would be giving an answer instead of just dismissing the question because of it being a hypothetical question.

Dismissing a question is what the OP was upset about.

In any case, you are correct as to the original purpose of the hearings. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works anymore. Now it's just political.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
He is unqualified if there is something in those documents Republicans chose to cover up purposely in the effort to quickly nominate him due to King Swampys insistence. Considering the things that have leaked out already that is highly likely and potentially violates laws. Now, do I think there is anything damning to be found in those documents that will be found in time, no. But don't you think the American people have the right to see them?
Click to expand...

What was leaked that indicate laws being violated?
 
Rogue Valley said:
Calling pertinent questions "hypothetical's" allows him to say something without answering something.

He is on record then as not officially answering such questions. Personally, I think it is a transparently dishonest approach.

At any rate, his overarching views are no secret. Kavanaugh was recommended by the Federalist Society, the most conservative of all judicial organizations.
Click to expand...


If you have a problem with this approach of refusing to answer hypotheticals because a case like that may someday come before them in the Supreme Court then take it up with Ginsburg. She started it and every sitting justice on the SC has since followed her lead.

Ginsburg worked with the ACLU the most liberal legal organization in the country yet she was confirmed overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans not because of her liberal bias but because she was well qualified for the position.

As far as the Federalist society goes, they are engaged in providing opportunities for debates to law students in this country that present the views of both sides on an array of topics. A good law student upon graduation has the ability to articulate both sides of any argument. The importance of such an exercise is regardless of where you fall personally in your interpretations, you can not effectively argue your points unless you thoroughly understand and are open minded to the other point of view.

Not too long ago Dershowitz said Ted Cruz was one of his students. He made it perfectly clear that he had little politically in common with Cruz but said he was one of the best students he ever taught because no matter what side of an argument Cruz was picked to defend he could do it.

Not too long ago Justice Kagan made some comments that she feared the politicalization of the confirmation process would result in the country not trusting their judiciary. She's right and the left sure was in full force in the hearing to confirm Kavanaugh giving credence to Kagan's concerns.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I simply ask for links to his decisions, and wonder what's in his documents and you say that I do not deserve to know this because I:

1. Don't like Swampy (true)
2. Don't like Kavanaugh (false)
3. Don't know how to research (False)
4. Mindlessly attack Kavanaugh because I don't like him (false never attacked him personally)
5. Wouldn't understand Kavanaugh's decisions even if I did know how to look them up (false)
6. Haven't looked into him or his background (false)

I don't know what I did to you that made you hate me so much, but I'm sorry. Your paranoid partisan rantings literally make no sense and it's a wonder why you continue to choose to talk to me if you hold me in such little regard.
Click to expand...

what GOP positions do you actually support?
 
vesper said:
If you have a problem with this approach of refusing to answer hypotheticals because a case like that may someday come before them in the Supreme Court then take it up with Ginsburg. She started it and every sitting justice on the SC has since followed her lead.

Ginsburg worked with the ACLU the most liberal legal organization in the country yet she was confirmed overwhelmingly by Democrats and Republicans not because of her liberal bias but because she was well qualified for the position.

As far as the Federalist society goes, they are engaged in providing opportunities for debates to law students in this country that present the views of both sides on an array of topics. A good law student upon graduation has the ability to articulate both sides of any argument. The importance of such an exercise is regardless of where you fall personally in your interpretations, you can not effectively argue your points unless you thoroughly understand and are open minded to the other point of view.

Not too long ago Dershowitz said Ted Cruz was one of his students. He made it perfectly clear that he had little politically in common with Cruz but said he was one of the best students he ever taught because no matter what side of an argument Cruz was picked to defend he could do it.

Not too long ago Justice Kagan made some comments that she feared the politicalization of the confirmation process would result in the country not trusting their judiciary. She's right and the left sure was in full force in the hearing to confirm Kavanaugh giving credence to Kagan's concerns.
Click to expand...
Ginsburg? Did she pass the autopsy?
Regards,
CP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom