ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

Then don't complain about Democrats making it tough for any Republican president to get a justice confirmed.
Any luck finding those cases or are you just going to admit you don't want him confirmed based on your belief of the accusations? To be clear, there is nothing wrong with that. If you believe that he is morally deficient that's fine. I haven't been following that part of the story closely enough to form an opinion as to what happened.
 
True. And I’ll admit that I’m the biggest culprit of this. The main reason I wanted to see Trump elected was to watch those who always got their way to see what it’s like from the other side for once. I watched with glee on election night as the crowd under the glass ceiling slowly realized their white knight was about to get crushed. Those pictures of her supporters bawling their eyes out uncontrollably were in the spankbank for weeks.

Schadenfreude at its finest. And I love it.
You paid an awful price for that, I hope it was worth it.
 
Any luck finding those cases or are you just going to admit you don't want him confirmed based on your belief of the accusations? To be clear, there is nothing wrong with that. If you believe that he is morally deficient that's fine. I haven't been following that part of the story closely enough to form an opinion as to what happened.
I'm not a magician. There's no way to present what you're asking me to present. You knew that when you asked me.

As uncboy showed, he's a typical right wing judge. He will always dissent based on his conservative beliefs. His comments and behavior yesterday makes me certain that he lacks the ability to be politically impartial even more. If I look at this from his perspective, I don't blame him at all.
 
I'm not a magician. There's no way to present what you're asking me to present.
Of course there is. His rulings are in writing. For you to say that his rulings are based in politics you must have had proof already. If not, then go through his written rulings and find some.

He will always dissent based on his conservative beliefs.
Always? Really? He's been on the bench for over a decade and he hasn't even decided one case based on the merits? If someone dissents based on their liberal beliefs does that make them any better?

His comments and behavior yesterday makes me certain that he lacks the ability to be politically impartial even more.
Thank you for admitting that your problem is with his comments outside of the courtroom and not his past rulings. And I don't think that's an invalid reason to not want him confirmed, I'm just saying be honest about it.
 
Of course there is. His rulings are in writing. For you to say that his rulings are based in politics you must have had proof already. If not, then go through his written rulings and find some.


Always? Really? He's been on the bench for over a decade and he hasn't even decided one case based on the merits? If someone dissents based on their liberal beliefs does that make them any better?


Thank you for admitting that your problem is with his comments outside of the courtroom and not his past rulings. And I don't think that's an invalid reason to not want him confirmed, I'm just saying be honest about it.
I said from the start that my problem was from his comments outside the courtroom and at the hearings. You're the one who claimed to not be following this and needing proof from his ruling history. Do you believe that these people don't rule based on their political beliefs? I don't. The more extreme they are, the less likely they are to be impartial.
 
You paid an awful price for that, I hope it was worth it.

And what was that awful price? The only two ways my life is materially different than it was 2 years ago is that now my tax bill is lower, and I get to watch people lose their shit over things that have no effect on them.

I'll "pay that awful price" anytime.
 
I said from the start that my problem was from his comments outside the courtroom and at the hearings.
Let's go to the tape.

I care about his lack of objective perspective and his inability to leave his politics outside of the courtroom.
Sounds like you have a problem with "his inability to leave his politics outside of the courtroom."

I should clarify about the not caring who he tried to diddle. I totally understand being 18 and wanting to have sex. But, that aspect of his consideration takes a back seat to his obvious lack of ability to be impartial.
Here you clearly state that what he was accused of "takes a back seat to his obvious lack of ability to be impartial."

You're the one who claimed to not be following this and needing proof from his ruling history.
Right, and I'm still waiting for that proof. Right now all I can go by is the little I've read, which is that both sides think he is qualified from a resume perspective. That's the opposite of what you've said. I'm just asking you to show your work.

Do you believe that these people don't rule based on their political beliefs?
To some extent. Their political or philosophical beliefs do come in to play for certain cases. They are human after all. That being said just because their beliefs are in play, that doesn't mean the ruling is inherently political.
 
Let's go to the tape.


Sounds like you have a problem with "his inability to leave his politics outside of the courtroom."


Here you clearly state that what he was accused of "takes a back seat to his obvious lack of ability to be impartial."


Right, and I'm still waiting for that proof. Right now all I can go by is the little I've read, which is that both sides think he is qualified from a resume perspective. That's the opposite of what you've said. I'm just asking you to show your work.


To some extent. Their political or philosophical beliefs do come in to play for certain cases. They are human after all. That being said just because their beliefs are in play, that doesn't mean the ruling is inherently political.
And, where, in any of that, do I make any reference to any of his court rulings?
 
And, where, in any of that, do I make any reference to any of his court rulings?
When you talk about his inability to leave his politics out of the courtroom. What else would you be referring to? Maybe I misunderstood you and you meant he was basing his bathroom breaks on his political beliefs.
 
When you talk about his inability to leave his politics out of the courtroom. What else would you be referring to? Maybe I misunderstood you and you meant he was basing his bathroom breaks on his political beliefs.
From what I heard him say yesterday at the hearings, I would not trust him to leave his politics out of the courtroom. That's all I said, or meant to say.

That's why I offered this tweet:



I then added:

Saved me from typing it out.

But, since you quoted me:

Frankly, I don't care who the man tried to diddle when he was 18 or 21. It sounds like he lacked respect and discretion, but that's not uncommon. It doesn't affect most people... unless you plan on being a Supreme Court Judge!

However, this circus has provided a very necessary insight to how he cannot be trusted to be impartial, he's incapable of being objective. That was proven TODAY, not 35 years ago. And, if he did what he's being accused of, just own-up to it. You can be humble and apologetic and HONEST. He chose to deny it, and that denial is lying. And, the denial happened this week, not 35 years ago. Now, he's a liar in the present moment. I'd prefer that Supreme Court Judges not be public liars. We have (and have had) enough of those in the legislative and executive branch.


I didn't make any mention of his court rulings. I never considered them, nor did I care about them. In my view, he's applying for the job and hasn't even made a single ruling. And, I don't trust him to be impartial... because of his statements yesterday.

You asked me what rulings he had made that displayed evidence of his inability to be impartial. Well, that's basically impossible to prove. UNCBoy offered a long list of his dissents and opinions that fall, as you would expect, to the far right. I highly doubt that a judge will make a public statement that confirms that he is partial to his religious and political beliefs and that he decides cases based on how he's been taught to view the world and society through those filters. That kind of honesty would scare the shit out of people. Not to mention, honesty from lawyers who became judges would be a rarity from where I'm sitting. It sure as hell doesn't exist in the ones who become politicians.
 
From what I heard him say yesterday at the hearings, I would not trust him to leave his politics out of the courtroom.
Even if someone shows you hundreds of examples where he did leave his politics out of the courtroom?

I didn't make any mention of his court rulings. I never considered them, nor did I care about them.
You said he brought his politics into the courtroom. What are you talking about if not his past rulings?

In my view, he's applying for the job and hasn't even made a single ruling.
This makes absolutely no sense. He's applying to be a judge, but you don't consider his experience and past rulings?

You asked me what rulings he had made that displayed evidence of his inability to be impartial. Well, that's basically impossible to prove.
It's extremely easy to prove. Might be one of the easiest things anyone has ever asked on this board. Just show me one case where he used politics to drive his decision instead of the law and arguments in front of the court.

UNCBoy offered a long list of his dissents and opinions that fall, as you would expect, to the far right.
He offered a list of rulings he disagreed with. That's not what I asked for and I'm not sure how you can say they are far right without even knowing anything about the case. I would like someone to actually cite a case though. I enjoy reading court opinions.
 
You said he brought his politics into the courtroom.
No, I did not say that. I never said that.

I said I do not trust him to leave his politics out of the courtroom. I've said that over and over.

I am talking about going forward. After this ordeal? No, I don't.
 
No, I did not say that. I never said that.

I said I do not trust him to leave his politics out of the courtroom. I've said that over and over.

I am talking about going forward. After this ordeal? No, I don't.
I'll give you credit. You're doing a good job of continuing to move the goal posts. You think he is political in the courtroom and that's a problem, then you don't care about it, then you care again but not what he did in the past just what you think he will do in the future. Wonder what's next?


someone
pronoun
some·one | \ ˈsəm-(ˌ)wən \
Definition of someone


: some person : somebody

Examples of someone in a Sentence
Someone left you a message. Is that someone you know? We need someone who can work nights and weekends.

Thanks. I'll give it a read.
 
Of course there is. His rulings are in writing. For you to say that his rulings are based in politics you must have had proof already. If not, then go through his written rulings and find some.


Always? Really? He's been on the bench for over a decade and he hasn't even decided one case based on the merits? If someone dissents based on their liberal beliefs does that make them any better?


Thank you for admitting that your problem is with his comments outside of the courtroom and not his past rulings. And I don't think that's an invalid reason to not want him confirmed, I'm just saying be honest about it.

Dude... this is clearly your schtick. You say something along the lines of "I haven't been following this very closely, so why don't you go do the work for me and find evidence." Then when somebody does it you just endlessly move the goal posts and claim nobody has provided any evidence. You've done this quite a lot of times on this board. Its my own fault for taking the bait.

I showed you a clear trend of rulings and dissenting opinions that would indicate he goes out of his way to push right wing originalist interpretations of the law. I cited a long list of cases, with everything short of the actual case names. You easily could have looked those cases up based on the information I gave you, but all you're going to do is endlessly claim "yeah but that doesn't show what I asked you to show me" regardless of the source material.

Maybe if you haven't been "following it very closely" you should go catch yourself up and get back to us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strummingram
I'll give you credit. You're doing a good job of continuing to move the goal posts. You think he is political in the courtroom and that's a problem, then you don't care about it, then you care again but not what he did in the past just what you think he will do in the future. Wonder what's next?
I've not moved anything. I said from the start that from what I heard him say yesterday, I would not trust him to leave his politics out of the courtroom. You're the one that keeps referring to his previous court rulings, and what they reveal...The whole time insisting you don't know anything about what's going on.

If you've got hundreds of examples that proves he's been impartial, please share it. And, then apologize for lying that you haven't been keeping up with what's going on. Unless, of course, you have found these hundreds of examples since last night. If that's the case, you get a tip of the hat and my respects and apology.
 
Even the ABA is now calling for an FBI investigation before the proceedings move forward. Its kinda funny how only one side wants an investigation, despite the fact that Kavanaugh claims he is innocent.

If I was accused of sexually assaulting someone, and I didn't do it... I'd be more than happy to have an FBI investigation clear my name. Especially if I was crying about it on television for the whole world to see.

Me thinks those "baseball ticket debts" are what would tell the real story. This guy has probably sexually assaulted multiple women and then paid them off to stay silent.

Nobody can claim he has the emotional temperament to make impartial rulings after that pathetic display of screaming and crying like a petulant child. Maybe that's the real reason trump nominated him... He recognized one of his own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEELS1984
Ok @strummingram I've read the first couple of cases. Here are my non law degree thoughts and without the benefit of hearing the oral arguments.

For the case on birth control. He's basically arguing that the plaintiff should be allowed to submit a different form than the government is requiring them to do. He still says that birth control can be provided by the insurer. He backs it up with a lot of precedent and his argument is well laid out from a legal perspective. That being said, I don't agree with part of his conclusion.

For the abortion case. This was an interesting case, because it was essentially the first of it's kind. He mentioned multiple times that the minor in question can have an abortion, however a sponsor should be found first. If a sponsor can't be found by a deadline that was set previously by the government, then the minor could still have the abortion. There wasn't a lot of precedent for either side of this case. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the government to try to find a sponsor since they said they could do it though, so I would agree on that one.

His reasoning in both of those cases was well laid out and his thought process was supported by previous supreme court rulings. There was nothing in there that was overtly political.
 
Last edited:
so why don't you go do the work for me and find evidence."
He made the statement so he should do the work. If you don't have evidence to back it up, then find it or state it as opinion.

Then when somebody does it you just endlessly move the goal posts and claim nobody has provided any evidence.
I haven't been moving them. I've asked the same question repeatedly.

You've done this quite a lot of times on this board.
Really? Prove it to me. Show your work.

I showed you a clear trend of rulings and dissenting opinions that would indicate he goes out of his way to push right wing originalist interpretations of the law.
No you showed me a bunch of positions you disagreed with. You didn't provide me with anything showing he was pushing a right wing anything.

I cited a long list of cases, with everything short of the actual case names.
It's not citing if you didn't provide the case name and/or number.

You easily could have looked those cases up based on the information I gave you,
Yes I could have, but I'm not the one who was trying to make the argument. It's your job to back up your argument. It's not my job to research it for you.

Maybe if you haven't been "following it very closely" you should go catch yourself up and get back to us.
I haven't been following the allegations closely. That's a separate argument from his rulings.
 
I didn't make any mention of his court rulings. I never considered them, nor did I care about them.

This is the current state of the country. The guy is applying to be a justice, yet people don't care about his credentials for that job, or his past experience doing a similar job. They care about whether or not he hooked up with some woman when they were both in high school 30+ years ago when neither of them can remember the details.

Would be comical if it wasn't so damn scary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terror Beard
If I was accused of sexually assaulting someone, and I didn't do it... I'd be more than happy to have an FBI investigation clear my name.

Ok sporty spice. I say you sexually assaulted my friend, ol' what's her name, a few months ago (or maybe it was a few years ago?).

Please get a full FBI investigation before you continue poasting on this board. Wouldn't want to run this risk that we had a predator around here.
 
This is the current state of the country. The guy is applying to be a justice, yet people don't care about his credentials for that job, or his past experience doing a similar job. They care about whether or not he hooked up with some woman when they were both in high school 30+ years ago when neither of them can remember the details.

Would be comical if it wasn't so damn scary.
I think they care if he's lying about it NOW, more than if he did it. Although, sexual assault isn't a good thing. I'm paying more attention to his lying about it now.


ETA: I'm also concerned about his comments and rant. He doesn't appear to be very cool-headed or objective. Of course, I don't really blame him under the circumstances. However, being a Supreme Court justice should require being cool under those circumstances. I didn't think Clarence Thomas should have been confirmed either.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BillyL
I think they care if he's lying about it NOW, more than if he did it. Although, sexual assault isn't a good thing. I'm paying more attention to his lying about it now.


ETA: I'm also concerned about his comments and rant. He doesn't appear to be very cool-headed or objective. Of course, I don't really blame him under the circumstances. However, being a Supreme Court justice should require being cool under those circumstances. I didn't think Clarence Thomas should have been confirmed either.
Racist
 
Ok sporty spice. I say you sexually assaulted my friend, ol' what's her name, a few months ago (or maybe it was a few years ago?).

Please get a full FBI investigation before you continue poasting on this board. Wouldn't want to run this risk that we had a predator around here.

Let’s see the video of her testifying in congress, then I’ll be happy to request the FBI investigation. Surely you’ll be able to point out some basic details like a specific location where the crime occurred, as well as corroborating witnesses that back up a pattern of behavior.
 
He made the statement so he should do the work. If you don't have evidence to back it up, then find it or state it as opinion.


I haven't been moving them. I've asked the same question repeatedly.


Really? Prove it to me. Show your work.


No you showed me a bunch of positions you disagreed with. You didn't provide me with anything showing he was pushing a right wing anything.


It's not citing if you didn't provide the case name and/or number.


Yes I could have, but I'm not the one who was trying to make the argument. It's your job to back up your argument. It's not my job to research it for you.


I haven't been following the allegations closely. That's a separate argument from his rulings.

I gave you evidence. A long history of clearly political rulings and dissents. There’s a clear pattern of behavior. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that’s not the case, then I’m not going to waste my time scouring the internet for more evidence that you’ll just dismiss offhand.
 
I gave you evidence. A long history of clearly political rulings and dissents. There’s a clear pattern of behavior. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that’s not the case, then I’m not going to waste my time scouring the internet for more evidence that you’ll just dismiss offhand.
You didn't give me any evidence. You gave me an opinion. @strummingram did give me something to look over and I thank him for that. I've looked over some of it and gave my opinion. You're more than welcome to rebut my opinion on that evidence if you chose to take the time to review the cases for yourself. Or you can just copy and paste from an opinion piece like you normally do.
 
You didn't give me any evidence. You gave me an opinion. @strummingram did give me something to look over and I thank him for that. I've looked over some of it and gave my opinion. You're more than welcome to rebut my opinion on that evidence if you chose to take the time to review the cases for yourself. Or you can just copy and paste from an opinion piece like you normally do.

Please enlighten me on which part of my analysis was inaccurate. Every one of those dissents and rulings happened whether you want to admit it or not. It’s historical fact, not opinion. And the facts point to a clear pattern that you will go to almost any length to ignore.
 
Please enlighten me on which part of my analysis was inaccurate. Every one of those dissents and rulings happened whether you want to admit it or not. It’s historical fact, not opinion. And the facts point to a clear pattern that you will go to almost any length to ignore.
You didn't give an analysis. All you did was say what his ruling was on an uncited case. You made no effort to prove that his rulings were based off of some right wing belief. Do what I did and read the case. Put in some effort to form an opinion for yourself instead of just being a parrot. Then let me know why you think it was based on his political beliefs.
 
Let’s see the video of her testifying in congress, then I’ll be happy to request the FBI investigation. Surely you’ll be able to point out some basic details like a specific location where the crime occurred, as well as corroborating witnesses that back up a pattern of behavior.
You never said anyone had to testify in congress. You said if you were accused, you'd request an investigation. I have accused you.

Any witnesses corroborating the story seem to be hard to come by in the Kavenaugh case - so you'll have to excuse me if I find them unnecessary in your case as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terror Beard
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT