Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bookman

Bookman 4759

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Right, who here wouldn’t get pissed that an indicted charlatan like Michael Avenatti drug up some lying skank to falsely accuse a man who had an impeccable reputation before his nomination of being the leader of gang rapes. That the MSM media hasn’t had any remorse or issued any apologies to Justice Kavanaugh in light of that scum Avenatti’s nefarious behavior being brought to light is appalling. 

For what should they be remorseful and apologize? Was there any inaccurate information reported? And her story wasn't believable, unlike Ford's.

Putting a credibly-accused attempted-rapist on the Supreme Court to own the libs. The Republican party should feel remorseful and apologize to America.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9957

Posted
Posted (edited)

If Ford is the standard for “credible “ we are all fucked. No need for a year, month, location or witness etc.

30 years before ever mentioning?

No problemo  

It actually lines up with current reality.  If they are willing to try to convince the nation that Trump is a genius super sleeper agent for the Kremlin, a “some time, somewhere unwanted second base attempt by a drunk teenager at a party = rape  Is a no brainer  

the victim always has two high priced democratic attorneys  to help read a prepared statement and prevent any cross examination, while the accused must answer questions about middle school with no representation  

nothing about that charade was credible  

 

Edited by ChickenSandwich
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9957

Posted
Posted (edited)

What is plausible?  

Kavanaugh has been a high profile judge for many years at the highest levels and working with many females during that time with zero complaints. They went so far as to sign a letter stating he has never mistreated them.  He simply slipped through the cracks, and she finally saw his face on TV?

Or

Kavanaugh was a secret gang rapist back in his school days and his one accuser vaguely recalls he once assaulted her thirty years ago and is forced to come forward for the greater good after all of this time  Details or facts are unimportant  let’s start a conversation  

Or is it because Donald Fucking Trump made him HIS nominee for SCJ and every leftist vowed to do everything to prevent their Confirmation before the nominee was even announced ?

Edited by ChickenSandwich
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19530

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, ChickenSandwich said:

What is plausible?  

Kavanaugh has been a high profile judge for many years at the highest levels and working with many females during that time with zero complaints. They went so far as to sign a letter stating he has never mistreated them.  He simply slipped through the cracks, and she finally saw his face on TV?

Or

Kavanaugh was a secret gang rapist back in his school days and his one accuser vaguely recalls he once assaulted her thirty years ago and is forced to come forward for the greater good after all of this time  Details or facts are unimportant  let’s start a conversation  

Or is it because Donald Fucking Trump made him HIS nominee for SCJ and every leftist vowed to do everything to prevent their Confirmation before the nominee was even announced ?

The second set of facts is very plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey 12996

Posted
Posted

Kavanaugh will have his first big opportunity to leave Trump’s mark on SCOTUS.

Quote

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a set of high-profile cases involving gay rights and the rights of transgender people in the workplace.

The justices announced Monday that they will consider whether existing federal law banning employment-related sex discrimination also prohibits discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation or because they are transgender.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/22/supreme-court-to-take-up-cases-on-gay-and-transgender-rights-in-the-workplace-1284791

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-in-app-store-antitrust-case.html

Kavanaugh writes a pro consumer opinion 5-4 vote with pj, donkey dong Doug and squi casting the deciding vote along with the 4 liberal wing justices. 

This is the second time he has voted in favor of consumers on a 5-4 vote on cases I can guarantee you his predecessor Kennedy would have gone the other way (Kennedy was the most reliable pro corporation vote on the court, exceeding even Scalia).

While I’m still not sold on the guy and may never be, this is very welcome news. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106888

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Well he does like beer. So that’s a plus. 

As do I.  And, the other day, as I was relating a story about an attorney who I deal with from time to time -- who happened to be fraternity president when I was president -- I referred to him by his nickname, "Spee."  I paused, and confessed "holy shit, I'm Brett fucking Kavanaugh."  The moment at least made me chuckle.

Jesuit educated.  I like beer.  Had lots of friends with stupid nicknames.  More in common with him than I'd like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As do I.  And, the other day, as I was relating a story about an attorney who I deal with from time to time -- who happened to be fraternity president when I was president -- I referred to him by his nickname, "Spee."  I paused, and confessed "holy shit, I'm Brett fucking Kavanaugh."  The moment at least made me chuckle.

Jesuit educated.  I like beer.  Had lots of friends with stupid nicknames.  More in common with him than I'd like.

Yeah same with me. Hell I didn’t really even oppose his nomination until he acted like a jackass at that hearing because I knew that whoever trump nominated if he didn’t make it through would likely be far worse.

I’m really starting to despise gorsuch though. Scalia was way better than that fucking turd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Let's not start sucking his dick just yet, ok?

Not to worry. I still think overall he’s gonna suck as a justice, but the results to date indicate that 1. gorsuch is gonna be the worst Supreme Court Justice in history, 2. kavanaugh is gonna be better than Kennedy in consumer v. corporation issues, and 3. the rest is pretty much unknown. 

I’ll take number 2 as at least something positive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Some justices also included in their dissent that they are concerned with the apparent eagerness to overturn precedent by some of the conservative justices. Burt McKavanaugh is gonna overturn roe v wade

I don’t see both Roberts and kavanaugh doing that. The other three would though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Clarence Thomas is going to be hard to beat when it comes to worst. 

All he did in the past was agree with whatever Scalia said. He’s lost now. Scalia wasn’t always wrong.

Kennedy authored citizens united and lately was always the deciding vote that expanded corporate power at the expense of individual Americans. He will go down in history as the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4097

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

All he did in the past was agree with whatever Scalia said. 

That’s what makes him so horrendous. It’s not even the agreeing with Scalia part. It’s the fact that, as you said, thats all he did. Any idiot can wear a robe and concur with some guy that sits in behind the same bench as you. Even if Scalia were right all the time, merely piggybacking his ass is a terrible message to prospective justices.

”Hey kids, wanna sit on the SCOTUS? Just kiss the president’s ass when you get nominated and when you’re chosen, just don’t speak and agree with the older guy all the time!”

That being said, I’ve yet to be convinced as to why I should believe Alito is any better.

Edited by hpslugga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Some justices also included in their dissent that they are concerned with the apparent eagerness to overturn precedent by some of the conservative justices. Burt McKavanaugh is gonna overturn roe v wade

Yup.  The Hyatt case overturning Nevada v. Hall is the Bat signal to start bringing abortion and other politically charged cases (I'm looking at you UNC admissions case).  The reasoning for overturning Hall is so light, particularly the treatment of stare decisis, the court is basically saying "bring what you want, we'll overturn it if we don't like it, jurisprudence be damned."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey 12996

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Yeah same with me. Hell I didn’t really even oppose his nomination until he acted like a jackass at that hearing because I knew that whoever trump nominated if he didn’t make it through would likely be far worse.

I’m really starting to despise gorsuch though. Scalia was way better than that fucking turd.

NY Times has an article in today's paper discussing some of the early differences between Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Quote

Both justices lean right, but they are revealing themselves to be different kinds of conservatives. Justice Gorsuch has a folksy demeanor and a flashy writing style, and he tends to vote with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., the court’s most conservative members.

Justice Kavanaugh is, for now at least, more cautious and workmanlike. He has been in the majority more often than any other justice so far this term, often allied with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is at the ideological center of the current court.

***

As justices, though, the two men can be a study in contrasts. “Gorsuch is clearly more willing to sweep with a broader brush, appears less concerned about precedent and does not seem to have the same pragmatic streak that we see a little bit in Kavanaugh,” Professor Adler said.

Justice Gorsuch is a formalist who is committed to the interpretive tools of originalism, which looks to the meaning of the Constitution when it was adopted, and textualism, which focuses on statutory wording. He is suspicious of arguments grounded in pragmatism and impatient with lawyers who will not address him on his terms.

“We hear a lot about what makes sense in this room,” Justice Gorsuch said at an argument last month over whether a criminal statute was unconstitutionally vague. “I’m curious about what the law is.”

When he failed to get a satisfactory answer, he dismissed the lawyer. “Off you go,” he said.

That same day, in a statute of limitations case, Justice Kavanaugh indicated that he was inclined to take account of what makes sense. “If the law is murky and we can choose one path or another reasonably as a matter of law, wouldn’t we choose the more orderly, practical approach?” he asked.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-neil-gorsuch.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hpslugga said:

That’s what makes him so horrendous. It’s not even the agreeing with Scalia part. It’s the fact that, as you said, thats all he did. Any idiot can wear a robe and concur with some guy that sits in behind the same bench as you. Even if Scalia were right all the time, merely piggybacking his ass is a terrible message to prospective justices.

”Hey kids, wanna sit on the SCOTUS? Just kiss the president’s ass when you get nominated and when you’re chosen, just don’t speak and agree with the older guy all the time!”

That being said, I’ve yet to be convinced as to why I should believe Alito is any better.

Can’t disagree with this. Thomas has basically been a complete empty robe the entire time he’s been on the bench. Never says a word and just signed  his name to whatever Scalia said. Not sure what he does now. Probably just does whatever Alito does. 

Edited by JimmyJames
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87178

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Can’t disagree with this. Thomas has basically been a complete empty robe the entire time he’s been on the bench. Never says a word and just signed  his name to whatever Scalia said. Not sure what he does now. Probably just does whatever Alito does. 

I'd bet on Crazy Ole Ginny holding seances to speak to Scalia from hell. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29579

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

it's not a conservative pr line.  it's the definition of one of the constitutional interpretive modes.

No, it's a lie intended to allow conservative jurists to pretend that their preferred interpretations are correct by default and not merely because they have the power to make them the law. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

No, it's a lie intended to allow conservative jurists to pretend that their preferred interpretations are correct by default and not merely because they have the power to make them the law. 

I've often said on these message boards that when an argument begins with "here's what they really think..." you are about to read something really dumb.  Famous super conservative originalist jurist including Hugo Black, I suppose.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29579

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I've often said on these message boards that when an argument begins with "here's what they really think..." you are about to read something really dumb.  Famous super conservative originalist jurist including Hugo Black, I suppose.

Presented as if the act of frequently repeating something makes it objectively true. Pretty good sleight of hand there, not unlike originalism.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm sure I'll get the libertarian lawyers in here to scold and talk condescending to me how words can never change in meaning and that originalism is a noble and just means of interpreting law, but here's my opinion.

 

Scalia beat his meat about originalism except when he would later contradict himself in subsequent cases. This is what originalism is now to conservatives, it's become completely intertwined with basically just buttressing their platform.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism

Edited by GSU&UT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32076

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

it's not a conservative pr line.  it's the definition of one of the constitutional interpretive modes.

Yeah, none of them are comprehensive in some uniform field theory way.  They all fall apart at the margins, whether liberal or conservative.

Traditional, principled conservatism tends to require some interpretive mode tethered to something in order to moderate change (being the raison d'etre of principled conservatism, which no longer seems to exist).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

I'm sure I'll get the libertarian lawyers in here to scold and talk condescending to me how words can never change in meaning and that originalism is a noble and just means of interpreting law, but here's my opinion.

 

Scalia beat his meat about originalism except when he would later contradict himself in subsequent cases. This is what originalism is now to conservatives, it's become completely intertwined with basically just buttressing their platform.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism

It’s no accident that the more influential he became the harder it became for him to justify his decisions. His greatest writing was in dissent. Once he became the solid majority, he floundered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted

I do tend to sympathize with the argument that almost all judges try to fit their decisions within the confines of what the constitution says.  But when they can't they do their best.

The idea that a few of the conservatives have a unique theory or methodology that makes their process better is some way is just marketing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

All he did in the past was agree with whatever Scalia said. He’s lost now. Scalia wasn’t always wrong.

Kennedy authored citizens united and lately was always the deciding vote that expanded corporate power at the expense of individual Americans. He will go down in history as the worst.

Roger Brooke Taney says hold my beer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...