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.
It's not a viscous cycle at all. You do what makes you feel good and you disregard what you know is your better nature.
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.
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?
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.
Even if someone shows you hundreds of examples where he did leave his politics out of the courtroom?
You said he brought his politics into the courtroom. What are you talking about if not his past rulings?
This makes absolutely no sense. He's applying to be a judge, but you don't consider his experience and past rulings?
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.
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.
No, I did not say that. I never said that.
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
Thanks. I'll give it a read.
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.
Objectively, without the filter of his politics and religion. The part of my comment you left out of what you quoted.
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 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.
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 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.
You never said anyone had to testify in congress. You said if you were accused, you'd request an investigation. I have accused you.
