I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SwissMarked


I think were doing a pretty good job of chaining ourselves, all they need to do is provide the candy and we lap it up. At least we can agree kavanaugh is not a step in the right direction for increasing our freedoms.

I think he is both literally and figuratively a step in the Right direction. Away from leftists...

Also, I have a feeling his being a target of extremism by the radical Left is going to come back and bite them hard. And hopefully mark a return to innocent until proven guilty in this country.

a reply to: Strate8


That's your prerogative, however nothing will change until all the people unite against this tyranny, whether you realise it or not the left and right only really exist in the peoples minds, the government use this illusion to further their size at the people expense and erode freedoms little by little to the cheers of their side as winning.

a reply to: randomtangentsrme

Not everyone, just the people who are constantly making threads about the mainstream narrative and arguing over who is right and who is wrong. Not everyone lacks critical thinking skills, just the ones who aren't able to take a step back and see how they're being manipulated psychologically by the media and the narrative they are serving to us on a silver platter.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SwissMarked


I think were doing a pretty good job of chaining ourselves, all they need to do is provide the candy and we lap it up. At least we can agree kavanaugh is not a step in the right direction for increasing our freedoms.

I don’t know where you got the idea I’m against Kavanaugh because I most certainly am not... so there’s something else we don’t agree on...

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Bone75

Like me? I don't assume anything about you or anyone else, never once have I called anyone racist or homophobic, you're free to look through my post history if you'd like.

I'm trying to figure out where you get the idea that I assume those things about anyone? Care to point me in the the general direction of where you got that from?

Accusations are proof these days...didn’t you get the memo?

originally posted by: SwissMarked

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SwissMarked


I think were doing a pretty good job of chaining ourselves, all they need to do is provide the candy and we lap it up. At least we can agree kavanaugh is not a step in the right direction for increasing our freedoms.

I don’t know where you got the idea I’m against Kavanaugh because I most certainly am not... so there’s something else we don’t agree on...

So you are fine with increased security that infringes on and erodes freedom.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: SwissMarked

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: SwissMarked


I think were doing a pretty good job of chaining ourselves, all they need to do is provide the candy and we lap it up. At least we can agree kavanaugh is not a step in the right direction for increasing our freedoms.

I don’t know where you got the idea I’m against Kavanaugh because I most certainly am not... so there’s something else we don’t agree on...

So you are fine with increased security that infringes on and erodes freedom.

Geez straw man much... just because I’m for “A” doesn’t mean I’m against “B”... Kavanaugh has shown himself on the bench to be a strict constitutionalist... that is what I want from a Supreme Court Justice not some fly by night progressive that thinks it’s their duty to overrule congress from the bench...

a reply to: loam

I can only agree to a point. Our S.Court judges need to have an unemotional and even-keel tempermant to sit on important cases no matter what.

That he did not? That bothers me. It would have been better to sit, and let truth prevail.

No, not defend himself. Innocent? Then "sticks and stones" can't hurt him.

He did not show restraint no matter what was thrown at him...and he should have...no matter the accusations.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

how would the truth come out if you don't respond?

when you do respond, if you sit there calmly after days of accusations you actually look more guilty.

there are no reports of him having any type of temper problem when doing his job as a judge.

I would say by not reaching across the floor and slapping spartacus for the interrogation on the high school yearbook he showed an unbelievable amount of restraint.

A person that lacks emotion or empathy would be a very poor choice since it would be difficult to understand an issue in in its entirety, otherwise we could just make robots do the judging.

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Condemning a man because of the inability to remain impartial while you yourself lack that same ability is called hypocrisy.

BS!

I'm not asking Congress to elevate me to a life time position on the US Supreme Court, where my decisions will effect millions of people's lives.

Secondly, I've never done any of things Kavanaugh is accused of doing. Except, I have been black out drunk once to twice in my life, but Kavanaugh denies that he ever has.

a reply to: Carcharadon


Was that assessment by the ABA made before or after Kavanaugh ripped off his unbiased and nonpartisan mask and exposed himself?

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday that he does not support the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh “had the qualifications” to be a Supreme Court justice but his behavior at a hearing last week ― where he defended himself against allegations of sexual assault by blaming Democrats seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” ― was inappropriate and disqualifying, Stevens said.

“His performance in the hearings changed my mind,” Stevens said, the Palm Beach Post first reported. “The senators should pay attention to this.”

www.yahoo.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And all along I thought the American Bar Association was a Lobby group for lounge owners ?

Learn something new every day.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Carcharadon


Was that assessment by the ABA made before or after Kavanaugh ripped off his unbiased and nonpartisan mask and exposed himself?

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said Thursday that he does not support the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh “had the qualifications” to be a Supreme Court justice but his behavior at a hearing last week ― where he defended himself against allegations of sexual assault by blaming Democrats seeking “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” ― was inappropriate and disqualifying, Stevens said.

“His performance in the hearings changed my mind,” Stevens said, the Palm Beach Post first reported. “The senators should pay attention to this.”

www.yahoo.com...

It was based on decades of work you moron.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Agree2Disagree

Condemning a man because of the inability to remain impartial while you yourself lack that same ability is called hypocrisy.

BS!

I'm not asking Congress to elevate me to a life time position on the US Supreme Court, where my decisions will effect millions of people's lives.

Secondly, I've never done any of things Kavanaugh is accused of doing. Except, I have been black out drunk once to twice in my life, but Kavanaugh denies that he ever has.

Prove you've never blacked out and gang raped someone... go ahead I'll wait... because until you definitively prove you didn't I for one don't believe you and think you should be forced to change your avatar to list that you're a possible/probably violent sexual predator since you've been accused... go ahead and change it... I'll wait... comrade predator...

a reply to: Grambler

I mean, him being upset at this obvious political smear job that lead to his reputation being ruined and his family getting death threats is unacceptable

One of the stranger aspects of this whole thing to me are the contortions it's taken to frame Ford's allegation as a "political smear job" without calling Ford a liar. Why is this? Some of it surely comes down simply to the optics of not wanting to be seen calling her a liar but it's more than that.

Ford is a successful woman — a college professor at a decent school who is also a published researcher at Stanford, whose psychology department is ranked #1 by US News, Gourman report, etc. She has a reputation of her own to worry about. Nobody sought her out. When she decided to come forward, Kavanaugh hadn't been nominated yet. She didn't seek attention, quite the contrary.

In short, she doesn't come off as somebody who would be trying to smear anyone. If you think I'm way off base here, please let me know.

What is that you think the Republicans would have done differently if the shoe was on the other foot? Told her to piss off? No. Let's not kid ourselves. They would have considered what she said and asked her to come forward. So where does this become a "smear job?" It's never been really all that well articulated but apparently the theory, as insinuated by Kavanaugh, is that Feinstein sat on the allegation until it looked like was going to be confirmed and then leaked it to The Intercept to force Ford to come forward publicly.

How does that turn Ford's allegation into a "smear job?" Either Ford was lying from the start, in which case she's falsely accused a man of attempting to sexually assault her in high school and she's no victim, she's telling the truth (which by definition makes it not a smear) or she's mentally unwell. Have you seen any evidence of her being insane?

So she's either a liar, and if that's the case, how is this a sinister plot by Feinstein let alone "the Democrats" or "the Left" or "you" as Kavanaugh put it — how wouldn't that be on Ford for lying — or she's not, in which case it's not a smear because it actually happened.

If Feinstein leaked to The Intercept, then she employed a reprehensible strategy to force Ford to go public after assuring her of confidentiality which I think would be grounds for her to step down. What it doesn't do is somehow change the nature of the allegation.

So either buck up and call the woman a liar or stop calling it a "smear job" because it's only a smear if Ford is lying. Trying to have it both ways is how we end up with preposterous "mistaken identity" theories pushed by an ex-law clerk of Scalia's (Whelan), Republican PR firms, right-wing media and Republican senators and ensnaring some bystander. How upset aren't Kavanaugh supporters about that?

I mean, Jesus, if you think a woman accusing a man of sexual misconduct with no corroborating evidence is bad, what do you think about the Republicans implying the guilt of a man who hasn't been accused of assault by an alleged victim so that they can avoid calling Ford a liar?

Where's all the right-wing outrage about that?

As for the death threats. That's a terrible, terrible thing. Nobody should be receiving death threats much less their family. Unfortunately, there are no shortage of nuts who think this is a thing to do. Ford her family reported received them too. I'm sure a number of senators involved are no stranger to it either. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that more than one sitting SCOTUS justice has received death threats and it's a risk that Kavanaugh will continue to endure if he's confirmed.

I remember when you were calling for Ginsburg to not be allowed to be in the bench when she went off on trump

Oh that’s right you said nothing of the sort

ginsburg saying trump would ruin the country was fine

I remember plenty of right-wingers losing their # about it and Ginsburg is already on the court. So if you're really against that sort of thing, shouldn't you still be against it when it's Kavanaugh? Or are you saying it doesn't matter? And if that's the case, what was all the outrage over Ginsburg's comments about? Or maybe I should ask you how strongly you came out against Alito shaking his head and saying "that's not true" during Obama's SOTU address? At best, you're basically asserting that everyone's a hypocrite.

a reply to: SwissMarked

The proof is in the therapeutic hypnotic regression session records.

😎

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

I mean, him being upset at this obvious political smear job that lead to his reputation being ruined and his family getting death threats is unacceptable

One of the stranger aspects of this whole thing to me are the contortions it's taken to frame Ford's allegation as a "political smear job" without calling Ford a liar. Why is this? Some of it surely comes down simply to the optics of not wanting to be seen calling her a liar but it's more than that.

Or maybe I should ask you how strongly you came out against Alito shaking his head and saying "that's not true" during Obama's SOTU address? At best, you're basically asserting that everyone's a hypocrite.

She's a liar... I'm not running for office so I have no issue with being "politically incorrect" and "calling out a (alleged) victim"... it will be shown that she's a liar... and everyone that stuck up for her will be shown to be an idiot for not seeing all of her tells... this isn't going to just die down and go away... the democrats opened a can of worm... and try as they might to "get the toothpaste back in the tube" it's too late...

So again... "Dr" Ford is a flat out liar... she lied... she lies... and she knows damn well she is and has been about everything from her "fear of flying" to the reason she has a "second front door"... she was in counseling for cheating on her husband (wait for it) and came up with a pathetic excuse for why she's a "sex addict"... she never brought up Kavanaugh's name until he was going to be nominated... her "best friend" said she's full of it and Ford was extremely passive aggressive about wishing her well with her "health issues"...

That aside... if you don't want a response don't say crap that you know damn well is going to elicit one... the Supreme's shouldn't be at the SOTU and were at that time fairly compelled to be there... if they're not supposed to be partisan then don't force them to be front and center at a yearly side show...

a reply to: loam

All partisan arguments aside, I have no doubt Kavanaugh can and will do the job fairly and objectively. He isn't going to rule based on political parties or irrational arguments, and instead will apply the letter of the Constitution (exactly as written) which is truly why I think the left has many issues with this jurist. Despite my own moronic statements made in anger/frustration, I would never want to see any person (especially not a SCOTUS justice) rule based on politics vs. the letter of the Constitution

AFAIK, he's never ruled based on political disposition and I have no doubt his clear distrust of the democrat establishment would not impact his impartiality on the panel. Besides, the left had no problem with professed anti-Trumpers investigating him/working for Mueller/etc - so they will not have any problem with Kavanaugh's stated personal opinions either. According to them, public employees can have/express their political views all day long and it means nothing

Lets just make sure they know they'll always be held to the standards they set. Maybe then they'll stop being so unhinged and attacking a judge merely because they're conservative or a moderate

As usual though loam, you nailed it with your post It is hard to take positions like this, especially in the face of extreme hypocrisy but what you are saying is objectively true/correct, and is a position we'd all do well to carefully consider

God in heaven, our country needs more people thinking like you right now loam. Sincerely, thank you

originally posted by: Carcharadon

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: loam


Oh! Independent, impartial and humble! Sorry, too little too late.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe.

He told us who he was last Thursday alright. When someone tells you who they are, believe them the first time.

So the assessment by the ABA is meaningless to you people? Pretty much destroys the current narrative the left is peddling.

Besides he was there as a private citizen. He wasn't on trial, he wasn't sitting on the bench.

Do you advocate removing RBG for her lack of temperance when she over stepped her bounds and inserted herself into the political process by attacking Trump?

Shows a clear bias does it not?
Your fake outrage is played out.

If you are going to use the ABA as your evidence, are you not aware that the ABA had downgraded his qualification in 2006?

Are you not aware that his actions in the committee last Thursday has caused the ABA to start the reevaluation process?

www.americanbar.org...

I think you're right, we probably should listen to the ABA.

Throw up a few unfounded presumptions and label it logic or truth.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

One of the stranger aspects of this whole thing to me are the contortions it's taken to frame Ford's allegation as a "political smear job" without calling Ford a liar. Why is this? Some of it surely comes down simply to the optics of not wanting to be seen calling her a liar

Or maybe many on the right, despite what you or others on the left would otherwise have the world believe to be true, actually believe that an accuser of alleged sexual abuse deserves the initial presumption that they are telling what they believe to be true. In other words, an honest allegation.

What most people then expect is a fair vetting of the accusation. You know, that due process thing you think is just a convenient political slogan for the right, but which many on the left clearly don't support now.

...but it's more than that.

Ford is a successful woman — a college professor at a decent school who is also a published researcher at Stanford, whose psychology department is ranked #1 by US News, Gourman report, etc. She has a reputation of her own to worry about. Nobody sought her out. When she decided to come forward, Kavanaugh hadn't been nominated yet.

JUNE 28: Here are potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Kennedy

So he was certainly identified. First on the list, in fact, with most reporting. Ford confirms this by saying:

This changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the shortlist of a list of very well-qualified Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his nomination would know about this assault.
On July 6th, I had a sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president as soon as possible, before a nominee was selected. I did not know how, specifically, to do this.

I called my congressional representative and let her receptionist know that someone on the president’s shortlist had attacked me. I also sent a message to the encrypted Washington Post confidential tip line. I did not use my name, but I provided the names of Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge. I stated that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted me in the 1980s in Maryland.

This was an extremely hard thing for me to do, but I felt that I couldn’t not do it.
Over the next two days, I told a couple of close friends on the beach in Aptos, California, that Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted me. I was very conflicted as to whether to speak out.

Later she continues in her testimony:

Over the next two days, I told a couple of close friends on the beach in Aptos, California, that Mr. Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted me. I was very conflicted as to whether to speak out.

On July 9th, I received a return phone call from the office of Congresswoman Anna Eshoo after Mr. Kavanaugh had become the nominee. I met with her staff on July 18th and with her on July 20th, describing the assault and discussing my fears about coming forward.

Later, we discussed the possibility of sending a letter to Ranking Member Feinstein, who is one of my state senators, describing what occurred. My understanding is that Representative Eshoo’s office delivered a copy of my letter to Senator Feinstein’s office on July 30th.

The letter included my name, but also a request that it be kept confidential. My hope was that providing the information confidentially would be sufficient to allow the Senate to consider Mr. Kavanaugh’s serious misconduct without having to make myself, my family or anyone’s family vulnerable to the personal attacks and invasions of privacy that we have faced since my name became public.

So by your logic, Ford could only have been motivated by the truth. She was a successful woman... She had a reputation to protect... She accused Kavanaugh before the actual nomination...

But you give no consideration to other possible motives. Maybe she had a personal grudge that had nothing to do with her public allegations and simply saw an opportunity to scuttle Kavanaugh, regardless of where he was in the process. If he wasn't the actual nominee and she could do it anonymously, where was the risk to her?

Or maybe she did have a political grudge, and decided to lob a false accusation across the fence, hoping that with nothing more, it might stick.

Who knows? You certainly don't.

None of that could be explored in the circus we all witnessed.

But for you, her 'success' and 'risk of loss' are despositive. The fact that lots of smart and successful people do dumb (illegal) things all of the time, appears not to be a consideration at all for you.

She didn't seek attention, quite the contrary.

Quite right, which makes how it played out even more suspicious.

Let's be honest here. If her story HAD been corroborated by others, like Leland Keyser or by even someone who remembered driving her home, we'd be having an entirely different discussion and Kavanaug's nomination would likely be toast.

What is that you think the Republicans would have done differently if the shoe was on the other foot? Told her to piss off? No. Let's not kid ourselves. They would have considered what she said and asked her to come forward. So where does this become a "smear job?" It's never been really all that well articulated but apparently the theory, as insinuated by Kavanaugh, is that Feinstein sat on the allegation until it looked like was going to be confirmed and then leaked it to The Intercept to force Ford to come forward publicly.

How does that turn Ford's allegation into a "smear job?"

More likely, Feinstaiein didn't bring it forward because there was no corroborating evidence and the accuser didn't want to come forward. But someone on the left certainly forced their hand.

Moreover, it's not like we didn't have a process that when the accusation first came to the attention of any member of the committee, it could have been confidentially shared with the entire committee, a further investigation held on the merits of the accusation, and then a final judgement voted upon by the committee.

Instead, we got a public spectacle, with no meaningful investigation, designed to inflict the maximum possible political damage. THAT had nothing to do with finding out the truth. The means simply justified the end...denying Trump's appointment to the court. If a man's life and reputation were unjustifiably ruined, so be it.

So either buck up and call the woman a liar or stop calling it a "smear job" because it's only a smear if Ford is lying.

It's a smear job because the democrats on the committee, and whoever leaked it, didn't care if Ford's allegations where true or not.

That's not having it both ways.

continued...