Kavanaugh

Halifax2TheMax · October 2018

tempo_n_groove said:

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

If I am wrong later I will admit it but which way do these judges vote?

For the big money repub interest, every damn time. 73-0.
Duh.

josevolution · October 2018

Collins , Flake & Murkowski will def vote to confirm , the country has gone to shit !

Spiritual_Chaos · October 2018

If he gets through, then @mcgruff10 and @unsung and whoever had to sell their Bruce albums can never again try to argue that the US belong even in the discussion about the greatest countries in the world.

And that is even with Unsung even having no problems mocking Sexual Assault victims. The US is done. It's over. No trophy for you.

Lindsey Graham and the Swinging Swampers orchestra.

EdsonNascimento · October 2018

Kat said:

There must be something really bad in the reports. The only thing I can think of is that it's more cover-up.

Mitch McConnell Says FBI’s Kavanaugh Report Won’t Be Made Public
Democrats say the American people should see the results before the full Senate votes on the Supreme Court nominee.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-fbi-kavanaugh-report-public_us_5bb3c909e4b0876eda992325

Or the fact that this is standard procedure for FBI background checks.

Merkin Baller · October 2018

“A president who is under investigation for conspiring in the subversion of his own election and obstruction of justice apparently rigged the investigation of his Supreme Court nominee, who thinks presidents shouldn’t be investigated.”

EdsonNascimento · October 2018

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

One word: Professors.

Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.

mcgruff10 · October 2018

Spiritual_Chaos said:

If he gets through, then @mcgruff10 and @unsung and whoever had to sell their Bruce albums can never again try to argue that the US belong even in the discussion about the greatest countries in the world.

And that is even with Unsung even having no problems mocking Sexual Assault victims. The US is done. It's over. No trophy for you.

Lindsey Graham and the Swinging Swampers orchestra.

I don't own any Bruce albums but I'd be happy to use Kiss albums as target practice.

EdsonNascimento · October 2018

And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances. And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.

But, that's irrelevant. That's the point. Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.

It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions. It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh). But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist. That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media. They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news. Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.

Smellyman · October 2018

EdsonNascimento said:

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

One word: Professors.

Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.

yes, because that is why they are professors. smh

dignin · October 2018

EdsonNascimento said:

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

One word: Professors.

Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.

Hey look! We got a real genuine Trump voter right here!

Say it with me now, dumb is good.....smart bad!

tempo_n_groove · October 2018

Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.

No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.

Kat · October 2018

National Council Of Churches Calls For Brett Kavanaugh’s Withdrawal

The Supreme Court nominee “has disqualified himself,” said the council, which represents 38 Christian denominations.

The National Council of Churches called for the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination on Wednesday, citing his behavior during last week’s Senate hearing and his “political record.”

“We believe he has disqualified himself from this lifetime appointment and must step aside immediately,” the Washington-based council said in a statement.

According to its website, the organization represents over 40 million people and 38 Christian denominations.

more at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-council-of-churches-kavanaugh-withdrawal_us_5bb5400de4b028e1fe3a4a19

my2hands · October 2018

EdsonNascimento said:

Asterisk on the Street said:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)

OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

Signed, with institutional affiliation listed for identification purposes only, by the following:
See link for the list of over 1000 Law Professors.

One word: Professors.

Lol. Too funny. Like anyone should care what academics that couldn't cut it in the real world say.

Welcome back! lol

tbergs · October 2018

tempo_n_groove said:

Listened to an NPR interview this morning with Missy Carr defending Kavanaugh. The interview shows that if you are left thinking Kavanaugh is a liar and if you are on the right Ford is a liar.

No matter which way this goes, the conspiracy theorists will be out in force.

I don't subscribe to some of the crazy on the right, but how is Kavanaugh not a liar?

PJPOWER · October 2018

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

If he gets through, then @mcgruff10 and @unsung and whoever had to sell their Bruce albums can never again try to argue that the US belong even in the discussion about the greatest countries in the world.

And that is even with Unsung even having no problems mocking Sexual Assault victims. The US is done. It's over. No trophy for you.

Lindsey Graham and the Swinging Swampers orchestra.

I don't own any Bruce albums but I'd be happy to use Kiss albums as target practice.

Lol, why waste the bullet on a Kiss album? Just throw it in the trash

cincybearcat · October 2018

EdsonNascimento said:

And for the record, I actually don't agree with some of Kavanaugh's stances. And I have no idea if Ford is telling the truth.

But, that's irrelevant. That's the point. Everyone is just presuming the reality they want.

It's ok to voice displeasure over his judicial decisions. It's ok to support Ford (or Kavanaugh). But, both sides are creating realities that just don't exist. That's the problem with our politics, and why while the way it's delivered could be better, Trump has a point about the media. They are not helping the situation (on either side) by being op-ed pieces masquerading as factual news. Just give us the facts, not slanted headlines. Let us decide.

The real problem is neither side is interested in facts and reality. But the republicans in this case are the ones who control whether we get to the facts and reality, so this is on them. There is NO reason a vote needs to happen so soon. There is no reason not to investigate longer and take their time. Other than political reasons if course.

I suppose Feinstein deserves some of the blame here keeping it so long. But that doesn’t matter. We still have a chance for the right thing to be done.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · October 2018

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

If he gets through, then @mcgruff10 and @unsung and whoever had to sell their Bruce albums can never again try to argue that the US belong even in the discussion about the greatest countries in the world.

And that is even with Unsung even having no problems mocking Sexual Assault victims. The US is done. It's over. No trophy for you.

Lindsey Graham and the Swinging Swampers orchestra.

I don't own any Bruce albums but I'd be happy to use Kiss albums as target practice.

Lol, why waste the bullet on a Kiss album? Just throw it in the trash

Bullets are cheaper than the caloric expenditure necessary to throw a Kiss album in the trash (gotta keep those guns firing I reckon!).

PJPOWER · October 2018

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

If he gets through, then @mcgruff10 and @unsung and whoever had to sell their Bruce albums can never again try to argue that the US belong even in the discussion about the greatest countries in the world.

And that is even with Unsung even having no problems mocking Sexual Assault victims. The US is done. It's over. No trophy for you.

Lindsey Graham and the Swinging Swampers orchestra.

I don't own any Bruce albums but I'd be happy to use Kiss albums as target practice.

Lol, why waste the bullet on a Kiss album? Just throw it in the trash

Bullets are cheaper than the caloric expenditure necessary to throw a Kiss album in the trash (gotta keep those guns firing I reckon!).

The caloric expenditure would obviously be more to shoot it and then throw the pieces away individually...unless you just leave them laying on the ground...which would be fine as well
since it is a KISS album.
And, related to this thread, if KISS was playing while Kav was groping, then it is probably KISS’s fault.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · October 2018

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

If he gets through, then @mcgruff10 and @unsung and whoever had to sell their Bruce albums can never again try to argue that the US belong even in the discussion about the greatest countries in the world.

And that is even with Unsung even having no problems mocking Sexual Assault victims. The US is done. It's over. No trophy for you.

Lindsey Graham and the Swinging Swampers orchestra.

I don't own any Bruce albums but I'd be happy to use Kiss albums as target practice.

Lol, why waste the bullet on a Kiss album? Just throw it in the trash

Bullets are cheaper than the caloric expenditure necessary to throw a Kiss album in the trash (gotta keep those guns firing I reckon!).

The caloric expenditure would obviously be more to shoot it and then throw the pieces away individually...unless you just leave them laying on the ground...which would be fine as well
since it is a KISS album.

Anything after Love Gun can be thrown on the ground and I wouldn't lose any sleep. I really like earlier Kiss.

PJPOWER · October 2018

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJPOWER said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

If he gets through, then @mcgruff10 and @unsung and whoever had to sell their Bruce albums can never again try to argue that the US belong even in the discussion about the greatest countries in the world.

And that is even with Unsung even having no problems mocking Sexual Assault victims. The US is done. It's over. No trophy for you.

Lindsey Graham and the Swinging Swampers orchestra.

I don't own any Bruce albums but I'd be happy to use Kiss albums as target practice.

Lol, why waste the bullet on a Kiss album? Just throw it in the trash

Bullets are cheaper than the caloric expenditure necessary to throw a Kiss album in the trash (gotta keep those guns firing I reckon!).

The caloric expenditure would obviously be more to shoot it and then throw the pieces away individually...unless you just leave them laying on the ground...which would be fine as well
since it is a KISS album.

Anything after Love Gun can be thrown on the ground and I wouldn't lose any sleep. I really like earlier Kiss.

I bet Kav is a KISS fan...just saying, lol. I really have no qualms with KISS and like some of their songs as well, but I do find their theatricals a bit over the top for my liking.

Kavanaugh

Comments

Categories