American Bar Association: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations

[GDViking]

Nobody besmirched Garland. And The Senate exercised its lawful authority.

Meanwhile, the timing of the release of the letter does matter because its quite clear it was a political move.

Nobody besmirched Garland because he had nothing in his past to attack him with, he was a very qualified candidate and should have been brought up for a vote.

I think Republicans are going to regret wasting time backing kavanaugh when they could very easily find a cleaner candidate.

They won't though because he is the only one who believes a president is above the law. Trump will not give up on him...

 

[jmotivator]

Fake news...

 

[Athanasius68]

Nobody besmirched Garland because he had nothing in his past to attack him with, he was a very qualified candidate and should have been brought up for a vote.

I think Republicans are going to regret wasting time backing kavanaugh when they could very easily find a cleaner candidate.

They won't though because he is the only one who believes a president is above the law. Trump will not give up on him...

Maybe Garland should have been brought up for a vote. It was too bad the the Dems couldnt win enough Senate elections...

And the Dems still didnt win enough elections to choose somebody else, or to prevent Kavanaugh's nomination. So they smear him...

 

[GDViking]

Maybe Garland should have been brought up for a vote. It was too bad the the Dems couldnt win enough Senate elections...

And the Dems still didnt win enough elections to choose somebody else, or to prevent Kavanaugh's nomination. So they smear him...

If that were true why didn't the Democrats use the same tactict on gorusch???

 

[Athanasius68]

If that were true why didn't the Democrats use the same tactict on gorusch???

Gorsuch replaced Scalia. No change in court dynamics. Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy? Changes court dynamics.

 

[Barnacle]

Fake news...

View attachment 67241329

Another "smear tactic" by the liberals - this time by the president of the American Bar Association.

Absolutely repulsive ... (spit).

 

[Anthony60]

There has been absolutely nothing despicable about the DNC bringing this to light.

They have been a disgusting disgrace to the country. Nothing new.

Their only bust was that it was sat on.

It's not a "bust", it's a reveal of their true motives. Anyone that can't see that, just doesn't want to see it. You sound like it was some kind of accident.

But when it was brought to light, what did you all do?

Saw it for what it was, of course.

Conservatives tried to use a false student to discredit Ford...

Oh, you mean with her lies and swiss cheese memory? They couldn't even get a search warrant with her testimony!

The woman passed a polygraph. She is telling the truth.

Oh, did she take some new, special, polygraph that can be relied on? I must hear about this.

You don't get to declare what is a disgrace to this country when all you care about is your team. Nothing about your attitude is "America" first.

I care about getting a judge on the court that will follow the Constitution. Something the Democrats want to prevent at all costs.

 

[Logician Man]

No reason to. If he passes, it wont make a difference. This whole saga is about destroying Kavanaugh.

Of course there is a difference.When the testifier is in the room,he'she can be observed.One can watch facial expressions,body language,see how they react when asked hard questions.We learned a lot about Kavanaugh just watching his opening statement..He was angry,bullish,petulant,offensive,out of line,showed that infamous hot temper many have mentioned......

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The letter is submitted to the committee under penalty of law. Its no different than if he was sworn under oath.

This is a theoretical exercise to help you sharpen your knowledge of legal process.

If "A" tells "B" "X" and then "B" writes a letter to "C" stating that "A" said "X", and if "X" is "contrary to fact" do you know what

1. the legal consequences to "A" would be; and
2. the legal consequences to "B" would be;

[assuming, just for the sake of discussion, that the legal penalty for making a "false statement" to "C" is a MANDATORY fine of $10,000).

Please select from one of the following options:

• _____ "A" would be fined $10,000 but "B" would not;
• _____ "B" would be fined $10,000 but "A" would not;
• _____ both "A" and "B" would be fined $10,000;
• _____ there would be no penalty applied to either "A" or "B";
• _____ OTHER - attach detailed explanation with references

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Fake news...

View attachment 67241329

Considering that the committee hasn't actually met to consider the matter, the statement "The ABA rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson/s letter." is 100% factually correct.

In fact, even if the committee had actually met to consider the matter, that statement would still be 100% factually correct.

On the other hand, possibly you didn't note that no actual reference was made to the allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh, whether those allegations would potentially have chanced the committee's position, or whether those allegations ought to be investigated.

You do know that the statement "The Brooklyn Dodgers have not lost a single regular season or playoff MLB game since 1958." is 100% 'factually correct', don't you?

 

[prometeus]

I care about getting a judge on the court that will follow the Constitution.

Considering that you have demonstrated a very limited if not nil understanding of the Constitution, all that means is that you want someone that wold rule the way you see things.

 

[prometeus]

The ABA had downgraded him in the past.

 

[prometeus]

Fake news...

View attachment 67241329

Yet they did downgrade him in the past.

 

[Bucky]

Yet they did downgrade him in the past.

Many people are not talking about this but:

Kavanaugh clerked under Alex Kozinski, who is a sexual predator.

The previous clerk for Alex Kozinksi was Alex Azar, who graduated with higher honors in college than Kavanaugh. Azar was "fired" after six weeks before being replaced by Kozinski. Azar is now Trump's secretary of Health and Human Services.

Kavanaugh worked under Kenneth Starr another controversial figure who mishandled sexual assault investigations when he was the president of Baylor.

Follow the bread cums.

 

[Fenton]

Considering that the committee hasn't actually met to consider the matter, the statement "The ABA rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson/s letter." is 100% factually correct.

In fact, even if the committee had actually met to consider the matter, that statement would still be 100% factually correct.

On the other hand, possibly you didn't note that no actual reference was made to the allegations against Mr. Kavanaugh, whether those allegations would potentially have chanced the committee's position, or whether those allegations ought to be investigated.

You do know that the statement "The Brooklyn Dodgers have not lost a single regular season or playoff MLB game since 1958." is 100% 'factually correct', don't you?

I noticed your embellishments and you left some relevant information out, so here's the letter



So in the actual letter, the ABAs Federal Judiciary Commitee states that the commitee is NON-PARTISAN ( after Carlson's letter they felt that distinction needed to be made ) INDEPENDENT and no where does it say they would have changed their rating had they met with ABA leadership first

 

[Fenton]

Many people are not talking about this but:

Kavanaugh clerked under Alex Kozinski, who is a sexual predator.

The previous clerk for Alex Kozinksi was Alex Azar, who graduated with higher honors in college than Kavanaugh. Azar was "fired" after six weeks before being replaced by Kozinski. Azar is now Trump's secretary of Health and Human Services.

Kavanaugh worked under Kenneth Starr another controversial figure who mishandled sexual assault investigations when he was the president of Baylor.

Follow the bread cums.

:roll:

This is partisan conspiracy driven nonsense

 

[Anthony60]

Considering that you have demonstrated a very limited if not nil understanding of the Constitution, all that means is that you want someone that wold rule the way you see things.

Go ahead and back that statement up, I know you can't.
Quite funny coming from someone who's leftists beliefs necessitate ignoring the Constitution, and only embracing it when it is politically advantageous.

Oh, and it didn't go unnoticed that you did not agree with my statement that I wanted someone on the court that would follow the Constitution.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I noticed your embellishments and you left some relevant information out, so here's the letter

View attachment 67241371

So in the actual letter, the ABAs Federal Judiciary Commitee states that the commitee is NON-PARTISAN ( after Carlson's letter they felt that distinction needed to be made ) INDEPENDENT and no where does it say they would have changed their rating had they met with ABA leadership first

In American political discourse today "non-partisan" essentially means "says what the people we want to support us want to hear".

Not only does it NOT say that they WOULD have changed their rating had they met, it does NOT say that they WOULD NOT have changed their rating had they met.

Additionally, the reproduced letter also DOES NOT say anything along the lines of "Having heard the allegations, the committee is going to meet shortly to consider whether it should either change its rating or issue any caveat along the lines of "Should the current investigation produce evidence indicative of confirmation of the allegations, the committee will reconsider its rating and - until that happens - the current rating should be considered to be in abeyance.".

PS - Your "Return to Power By Any Means Necessary" is the same slogan that the Republicans adopt when they are "out of power", whilst "in power" their slogan is "Cling To Power By Any Means Necessary" (which, not surprisingly, is the same slogan as adopted by the Democrats when THEY are "in power").

 

[Fenton]

In American political discourse today "non-partisan" essentially means "says what the people we want to support us want to hear".

Not only does it NOT say that they WOULD have changed their rating had they met, it does NOT say that they WOULD NOT have changed their rating had they met.

Additionally, the reproduced letter also DOES NOT say anything along the lines of "Having heard the allegations, the committee is going to meet shortly to consider whether it should either change its rating or issue any caveat along the lines of "Should the current investigation produce evidence indicative of confirmation of the allegations, the committee will reconsider its rating and - until that happens - the current rating should be considered to be in abeyance.".

PS - Your "Return to Power By Any Means Necessary" is the same slogan that the Republicans adopt when they are "out of power", whilst "in power" their slogan is "Cling To Power By Any Means Necessary" (which, not surprisingly, is the same slogan as adopted by the Democrats when THEY are "in power").

It clearly states it's a non-Partisan independent committee, and its obvious the ABAs Federal Judiciary Commitee gives no consideration whatsover to the opinions of the ABAs leadership.
If they did Kavanugh wouldn't currently hold the ABAs highest judicial rating.
Get it ? Carlson would have resubmitted the letter to the committee by.

 

[prometeus]

Go ahead and back that statement up, I know you can't.

All one has to do is read your posts, replete with ignorance, primitive thinking, uneducated drivel and partisan talking points.

Quite funny coming from someone who's leftists beliefs

You do not know anything about my beliefs and find it necessary to label people because in your world anyone who does no share the idiocy to which you subscribe must be a leftist, even when you have no clue what that means.

ignoring the Constitution

I have never ignored the Constitution.

Oh, and it didn't go unnoticed that you did not agree with my statement that I wanted someone on the court that would follow the Constitution.

By that moronic reasoning anyone that does nto think the way you do must want someone who specifically does not want to follow the Constitution. Did you try hard or this stupidity came naturally?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It clearly states it's a non-Partisan independent committee, and its obvious the ABAs Federal Judiciary Commitee gives no consideration whatsover to the opinions of the ABAs leadership.
If they did Kavanugh wouldn't currently hold the ABAs highest judicial rating.
Get it ? Carlson would have resubmitted the letter to the committee by.

The government of the DPRK "clearly states" that it is a "Democratic Republic" too.

You do notice that there was only one signature on the letter from "the committee". That letter was 100% factually correct.

You might also not have noticed that the letter from the President of the ABA did NOT even come close to hinting that the review committee had met, considered, and revised its prior rating. You might also not have noticed that the ABA rating was made BEFORE the possibility of these particular (alleged) improprieties had been breached. An assessment of judicial suitability made in the absence of any knowledge of a possible disqualifying factor isn't anywhere near as compelling as one made AFTER the potential disqualifying factor has been investigated and the potential accuracy of the allegations determined.

 

[apdst]

The government of the DPRK "clearly states" that it is a "Democratic Republic" too.

You do notice that there was only one signature on the letter from "the committee". That letter was 100% factually correct.

You might also not have noticed that the letter from the President of the ABA did NOT even come close to hinting that the review committee had met, considered, and revised its prior rating. You might also not have noticed that the ABA rating was made BEFORE the possibility of these particular (alleged) improprieties had been breached. An assessment of judicial suitability made in the absence of any knowledge of a possible disqualifying factor isn't anywhere near as compelling as one made AFTER the potential disqualifying factor has been investigated and the potential accuracy of the allegations determined.

The ABA's approval doesn't validate any political nomination.

 

[Anthony60]

All one has to do is read your posts, replete with ignorance, primitive thinking, uneducated drivel and partisan talking points.

You do not know anything about my beliefs and find it necessary to label people because in your world anyone who does no share the idiocy to which you subscribe must be a leftist, even when you have no clue what that means.

I have never ignored the Constitution.

By that moronic reasoning anyone that does nto think the way you do must want someone who specifically does not want to follow the Constitution. Did you try hard or this stupidity came naturally?

Oh, God. What a sad, pathetic post. That's where you libs go when confronted by facts and logic. You either make up your own facts, or lash out with anger and personal attacks. I just take it as you admitting you are wrong, which is what it really is, deep down.

 

[prometeus]

Oh, God. What a sad, pathetic post.

Truth hurts eh?

I just take it as you admitting you are wrong

You can delude yourself all you want but, the truth is that all one has to do is read your posts, replete with ignorance, primitive thinking, uneducated drivel and partisan talking points.
You do not know anything about my beliefs and find it necessary to label people because in your world anyone who does no share the idiocy to which you subscribe must be a leftist, even when you have no clue what that means.

 

[Anthony60]

You can delude yourself all you want but...

blah, blah, blah... (snipping endless leftist ranting)

I don't think you are even qualified to respond to me anymore. I really don't care about your delusional beliefs, I just go by your leftist/Marxist/anti-Constitution posts. And then I stomp on them. So, you've been stomped on, and it's over. You need to regroup and decide what kind of person you are. But, good luck!