How to Remove Brett Kavanaugh

[HumblePi]

strange how Dems deflect from accusations that aren't proved (sexual assault) to insinuating disqualifying behavior by how a person reacts to the non proven accusations....

tried same **** with Trump and obstruction of justice claim....didn't collaborate with Russians but obstructed the investigation.

not buying it this time either.

try harder

It's no deflection. A Supreme Court Justice being handed a gift that few people ever get, a job with great benefits for life, and a man that's supposed to be BIPARTISAN and NON-POLITICAL should never be appointed to the SC after openly attacking the Clinton's and Democrats and swearing vengeance is NOT the kind of man that should NEVER be even near the Supreme Court much less be a SC Justice!!

 

[Craig234]

Okay so I admit I was thinking you were gonna go down the “he lost the popular vote path.”

No, no, I think the electoral system that warps the value of votes does violate democracy and rob power from some and give it others, but I wouldn't use the phrase 'stolen election' for that because it is the law and doesn't quite fit.

But what you have there is nothing but speculation.

Yawn. I'm so tired of this garbage. The law of gravity is just speculation. The moon landing is just speculation. I'm out of patience for ignorant arguments.

 

[Trump]

It's no deflection. A Supreme Court Justice being handed a gift that few people ever get, a job with great benefits for life, and a man that's supposed to be BIPARTISAN and NON-POLITICAL should never be appointed to the SC after openly attacking the Clinton's and Democrats and swearing vengeance is NOT the kind of man that should NEVER be even near the Supreme Court much less be a SC Justice!!

all SC members are "suppose" to be BIPARTISAN and NON-POLITICAL ...you believe RBG is?

RBG openly attacked a sitting republican President. please save the drama

 

[HumblePi]

all SC members are "suppose" to be BIPARTISAN and NON-POLITICAL ...you believe RBG is?

RBG openly attacked a sitting republican President. please save the drama

Yes, I do believe RBG is completely fair and uses her legal skills and knowledge rather than her feelings on her rulings.

 

[Gaius46]

No, no, I think the electoral system that warps the value of votes does violate democracy and rob power from some and give it others, but I wouldn't use the phrase 'stolen election' for that because it is the law and doesn't quite fit.



Yawn. I'm so tired of this garbage. The law of gravity is just speculation. The moon landing is just speculation. I'm out of patience for ignorant arguments.

The law of gravity is not speculation. It’s proven to the best of our current ability to prove it. And it will not be disproven - rather it’ll be subsumed by some grander theory as our ability to understand the universe gets better much the same way the Newtonian laws of motion were subsumed by relativity.


All of which is beside the point. I’ve yet to see any evidence from any one anywhere that Russian interference changed the election result. Could they have? Sure. But has anyone put forth a compelling case that but for them Clinton would have won? Not that I’ve seen.

Clinton should have won and probably would have had she not taken the competition for granted and run a singularly poor campaign.

 

[calamity]

I don't understand this whole Kavanaugh madness. We have a conservative president he's going to appoint conservative judges. Even if you could remove Kavanaugh, they would just appoint someone else. Maybe someone worse. Kavanaugh is not the worst conservative judge out there from a liberal perspective.

Correction: we have a corrupt mad man president.

 

[Gaius46]

The ABA definition is quite narrow.

That may be but since they are the yardstick used to measure previous administrations picks and Trump’s number match up well with their’s he’s not doing any better or worse than his predecessors.

Unless you want to argue that the ABA criteria for qualified are so broad that they’d consider my dog a qualified candidate. And I’m perfectly willing to accept that argument but in that case the ABA ratings is meaningless and shouldn’t be used at all.

 

[Craig234]

The law of gravity is not speculation. It’s proven to the best of our current ability to prove it.

As is the Russian interference in the election changing enough votes to change the result to people who are informed. And neither the law of gravity nor the Russian activities are to people who aren't.

I’ve yet to see any evidence from any one anywhere that Russian interference changed the election result.

Yes, that is the problem. But it's cause by the information not being available. I've yet to see any evidence there have been any murders in the US today. That's not because it doesn't exist.

 

[Trump]

Correction: we have a corrupt mad man president.

^example A^

TDS is a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics....

 

[AProudLefty]

^example A^

TDS is a neurological disorder characterized by repetitive, stereotyped, involuntary movements and vocalizations called tics....

So you have it? Sorry for you.

 

[Gaius46]

all SC members are "suppose" to be BIPARTISAN and NON-POLITICAL ...you believe RBG is?

RBG openly attacked a sitting republican President. please save the drama

Largely yes. Simply voting along with your stated political beliefs does not make them political.

 

[Craig234]

That may be but since they are the yardstick used to measure previous administrations picks and Trump’s number match up well with their’s he’s not doing any better or worse than his predecessors.

Unless you want to argue that the ABA criteria for qualified are so broad that they’d consider my dog a qualified candidate. And I’m perfectly willing to accept that argument but in that case the ABA ratings is meaningless and shouldn’t be used at all.

Your logic is just terrible. For example, let's say the ABA rule only excluded nominees who are murderers. If that were the case, should even that rule 'not be used at all' and murders happily accepted? The fact that the ABA has narrow rules doesn't mean they are "meaningless", it means that they don't reflect some serious problems.

Next up: 'trump has the most unqualified nominees' translated in your world to 'he's neither better nor worse'.

You don't appear interested in the topic, just bickering - you barely acknowledged the link. There's a lot more info out there both about the agenda flaws of the Federalist Society candidates, and other problems with the nominees. But here's a chart just on the ABA numbers, which are low for everyone.

 

[Mycroft]

This is interesting.



That should give us all something to chew on.

The notion advanced in this article runs into the same roadblock the notion of impeaching Kavanaugh runs into...that is, the "good behavior" being talked about refers to good behavior while in office. It has nothing to do with behavior PRIOR to him taking office.

So...while this is all good intellectual discussion material, it is useless if one's objective is to remove Kavanaugh from office. Face it...he's there to stay.

 

[Gaius46]

Your logic is just terrible. For example, let's say the ABA rule only excluded nominees who are murderers. If that were the case, should even that rule 'not be used at all' and murders happily accepted? The fact that the ABA has narrow rules doesn't mean they are "meaningless", it means that they don't reflect some serious problems.

Next up: 'trump has the most unqualified nominees' translated in your world to 'he's neither better nor worse'.

You don't appear interested in the topic, just bickering - you barely acknowledged the link. There's a lot more info out there both about the agenda flaws of the Federalist Society candidates, and other problems with the nominees. But here's a chart just on the ABA numbers, which are low for everyone.

I read the entire thing and commented on it. Trump has had 7 of nearly 200 judge selections rated as unqualified- that’s 3% more or less. The article also states that his percentage is the worst of the last 4 administrations. My response is that with an unqualified percentage that low the difference between his administrations and the others is effectively meaningless.

I’d also point out that the ABA initially listed Richard Posner one of the most highly respected Federal appellate judges as either unqualified or gave him a low rating.

And this article - from the Washington Post which are hardly Trump fanboys point out why this isn’t such a big deal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/new...ps-not-qualified-judicial-nominations/ [|URL]

 

[akyron]

They know what they want to do.

Suspect in congressional shooting was Bernie Sanders supporter, strongly anti-Trump

It helps if they take away everyone elses guns first.

 

[smallvoice]

Insisting they're trash and claiming they're politically motivated without any evidence is quite childish. At the end of the day it doesn't matter and your apparent dogpiling with the awful conservatives here has made me laugh at the majority of the stuff you post.

At the end of the day this is irrelevant. It's not worth injecting our effort into. But make no mistake, I will not brook folks like you spewing unsupported agitprop.

You know about as much as anyone else about the veracity of those claims, so spare us your inane nonsense.

You say "I will not brook folks like you spewing unsupported agitprop", yet not one word out of you on the NYT yellow journalism? Methinks you pick and choose what to get your panties in a wad over- and the reader is forced to downgrade what you said.

 

[smallvoice]

Feel better about the prospect of a pathological liar being re-elected?

Over a socialist? ABSOLUTELY!

 

[smallvoice]

The largest way is that the Russian attack on the election changed more than enough votes to change the result. There are other ways, as well, such as Comey's inappropriate public statement about Hillary days before the election, that is widely believed to also change enough votes to change the result.

Well, that's just unsubstantiated BS. Got ANYTHING real to support your specious claim?

 

[Integrityrespec]

There was a massive pile of judicial ethics complaints that Kavanaugh was under investigation for when he was approved. They were thrown out by chief justice Roberts on the assumption that somehow being on the Supreme Court meant that those ethics investigations were no longer relevant.

What this article appears to be arguing is that those investigations should not have been thrown out. That Supreme Court Justices are not above the law and there may therefore be due cause to remove them without necessarily charging them with a crime or impeaching them. This may apply similarly to the way in which members of congress may be subject to ethics violations.

There was no proof of any of those accusations and in fact the supposed witnessed denied knowledge of the events. The only exception is Blasie Ford, who's witnesses did not corroborate her story. Lies, sex and videotape.

 

[Obscurity]

To anyone insisting Trump is picking qualified judges.

Trump Picks More ‘Not Qualified’ Judges (1)

No. He isnt.

 

[Trump]

This is interesting.



That should give us all something to chew on.

chew on? couldn't even imagine putting in my mouth....Vox is just poison :doh

 

[Craig234]

My response is that with an unqualified percentage that low the difference between his administrations and the others is effectively meaningless.

Yes, IF you use only the ABA definition of the word, and ignore my post NOT to do that, and other info including the link I posted. Since you're ignoring my comments, I'll return the favor.

 

[Gaius46]

Yes, IF you use only the ABA definition of the word, and ignore my post NOT to do that, and other info including the link I posted. Since you're ignoring my comments, I'll return the favor.

You’ve given me nothing but the ABA ratings - they were the only thing referenced in the wiki article and none of your other posts to me have offered any other evidence aside from a comment along the lines of “the evidence is there but not public.”

You may have offered other evidence in other posts to other posters but you have offered nothing else to me and since I don’t have time to read every post in the thread to find counter arguments to respond to I’m not going to respond to anything that wasn’t directed at me.

 

[Bullseye]

We have a conservative president because they stole the election, filling a Supreme Court seat vacant because they stole the seat. While he will appoint right-wing (not conservative) plutocrat judges, we can still not only fight each on on the merits of that, but on additional grounds when they're even worse than that, such as Kavanaugh's lying to Congress. And he does seem as bad as the typical bad right-wing people.

Waah, waah, Mommy those mean old Republicans stole my election

Sorry, Craig, nothing was stolen - the constitution was followed to the letter and the Wicked Witch of the East came up short.

 

[Condor060]

This is interesting.



That should give us all something to chew on.

So it appears the only way a Liberal can try and get their way is through impeachments when they can't win an office. Given the fact that (AGAIN) it has been proven that the newest NYT story was fake, best of luck on those impeachment hearings.

But the world is now used to Liberal fake stories, Liberal fake news, and Liberal fake accusations.