The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Now that Kavanaugh has "won," do American women have anything to fear? Options
Chazlee
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2018 6:46:21 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 443
Neurons: 4,214
Is the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh really a set-back for American women, or the American people? Although it may seem like it, I am not asking a rhetorical question. We all know about some of the things he has been accused of doing in the past, and, if true, they are horrible, but how will his being on the Supreme Court affect the United States? Women, in particular, must be wondering if a sexual harassment or rape/sexual assualt case makes its way to the Court, will Kavanaugh automatically show a favorable bias toward the accused? At the moment, we simply do not know, and, unfortunately, we will never actually know what he is thinking when he puts forth an opinion about any particular case. While he will write opinions about cases which come before him, and he will give his reasons for any decisions he will make, only he will know what is the true motivation for his decisions. Of course, as a conservative, we all know the positions he will take on certain issues. Yet, when the issues he will be deciding deal with women, we just do not know, and we will never know how he really arrived at his decisions. Ultimately, for American women, that has to be the most frightening aspect of Kavanaugh's confirmation.
Peace.

“I regret that the press treats me so badly.” Donald Trump.
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2018 7:17:19 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,773
Neurons: 50,270
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Kavanaugh has signalled his views on a president being indicted, so if there are any lawsuits against Trump who got him appointed, will he recuse himself if that were to come up? (Don't know how recusal works on the Supreme Court.)

Anybody without a vagina should recuse themselves on Roe v Wade, although that is basically a privacy issue ruling that stopped men from controlling women - somewhat.

He outed himself as being definitely Republican biased and that he believes in conspiracy theories, same as Trump and a large percentage of the American public. And since he was so angry, it will be interesting to see if he takes his anger out on women first chance he gets. Reports that FBI refused to take are being published that his school buddies say he also committed perjury.


"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Wilmar (USA)
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2018 9:03:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/4/2015
Posts: 2,836
Neurons: 781,206
Location: Vinton, Iowa, United States
Absolute Ignorance!
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2018 9:31:42 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
Wilmar (USA) wrote:
Absolute Ignorance!


Applause Applause Applause Absolutely...LOL.

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2018 9:42:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,773
Neurons: 50,270
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst185741_Is-Brett-a-boofer---.aspx

It's done. 50-48 Can't find list of who voted what yet. I thought it had to be a 60 vote? Or is that what they wish to change?

They were always going to confirm him no matter what (even if the FBI report said guilty - it's why they limited the FBI) to appease Trump who wants him in case he needs him for his own immunity. GOP could have chosen another more stable candidate who would stilll be vs Roe v Wade and conservative, but they went along to give Trump a win.

Agree completely with Epi about his suitability. I wouldn't hire him for any job after that job interview.

The FBI report was only a distraction. Also, 90% of the info about him was not released in comparison to much much higher percentages by previous candidates.

Trump now controls ALL parts of the US government and has set up Fox News as State Media. And his supporters aren't afraid, in fact cheer him on as the best president ever.

The only thing he doesn't have complete control of is "We the People" - not yet anyhow. So US democracy all depends upon which group is more energized to get the vote out in the next elections.

I wonder what it's like to be a democracy living beside a dictatorship. Probably not much different. Edited - provided they don't decide to usurp by any means. Some Canadians (I used to be one) are under the impression that the US is Canada's friend just because of proximity. But after doing some reading, I realize it is not just Trump's bullying of smaller nations. The US has never really been Canada's friend. Even Obama pursued policies that hurt Canada.

Can any American answer this? If the DOJ and the Executive Branch are supposed to be separate (Comey said etc) how can the WH limit an FBI investigation for political purposes? There were all kinds of witnesses with lawyers who approached the FBI and were ignored. It doesn't compute.


"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Hope123
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2018 9:50:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,773
Neurons: 50,270
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Wilmar (USA) wrote:
Absolute Ignorance!


In my post on this thread I was just repeating some views of several Americans - I'm sure the "vagina" one was meant as a symbol of what is wrong when men make decisions to control women and their bodies. Plus people often consciously or subconsciously take out their anger on those they perceive harmed them. Happens every day. And if he wasn't angry he is surely a good actor.

What happens in America if later there are civil or criminal cases of any judge on the SCOTUS? Is there a mechanism to remove them?

How are you so sure Kavanaugh wasn't picked for the views he signalled on whether or not a president can be indicted when Mueller has already indicted or jailed several of those Trump chose to have around him. Or if the tax report just released doesn't have a Statute of Limitations for some of it?

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
mactoria
Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2018 12:39:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/13/2014
Posts: 605
Neurons: 1,475,362
Location: Stockton, California, United States
[quote=Hope123]http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst185741_Is-Brett-a-boofer---.aspx

It's done. 50-48 Can't find list of who voted what yet. I thought it had to be a 60 vote? Or is that what they wish to change?

They were always going to confirm him no matter what (even if the FBI report said guilty - it's why they limited the FBI) to appease Trump who wants him in case he needs him for his own immunity. GOP could have chosen another more stable candidate who would stilll be vs Roe v Wade and conservative, but they went along to give Trump a win.

Agree completely with Epi about his suitability. I wouldn't hire him for any job after that job interview.



Hope: The 60 vote requirement for SCOTUS nominees went away several years ago, in what is referred to as "the nuclear option" when McConnell got the Senate to change the rule (the Senate is governed by rules which it decides itself...typically "rules" once decided become hardened tradition, but hey, tradition and rules aren't big deals anymore) to 50, or 50 plus the VP in case of ties.


When you wrote "they limited the FBI" I hope you meant that as Trump's limitation as it was he and his AG Sessions who referred the investigation of Kavanaugh back to the FBI and drew limits around who could be talked to, how far the investigation could go, what it could cover, etc. And ultimately, though McConnell announced that a final vote would take place in a week (it was actual one day more than the week McConnell guaranteed), it was Trump's limitations on the FBI that resulted in the FBI report being done in time for the vote McConnell promised.


As an individual who follows the Supreme Cour and lower court decisions, I do agree with you that Kavanaugh's behavior during the final hearing (as well as what appear to be lies about a number of things e.g. his time at Yale, not having opinions on matters that he seems to have expressed opinions on, etc in the first hearings before the assault matter came up) should have disqualified him from SCOTUS, as well as any Federal judgeship. He was erratic, out of control verbally, breached judicial temperment standards regarding partisan/political matters, was beyond belligerent to several senators, and the list goes on. He did not show proper judicial temperment or judicial neutrality and independence. The Senate just lowered the bar to the limbo level for future Federal and Supreme Court nominees regarding how they should be expected to comport themselves. Reminds me that Kavanaugh is filling Justice Kennedy's seat, which Kennedy got only because Judge Douglas Ginsburg was found to have smoked a few doobies in college days which resulted in his nomination being pulled...standards of behavior do seem to change rather radically these days....



FounDit
Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2018 10:30:56 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
mactoria wrote:

Hope: The 60 vote requirement for SCOTUS nominees went away several years ago, in what is referred to as "the nuclear option" when McConnell got the Senate to change the rule (the Senate is governed by rules which it decides itself...typically "rules" once decided become hardened tradition, but hey, tradition and rules aren't big deals anymore) to 50, or 50 plus the VP in case of ties.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you should get your facts straight at the very least. It was the Democrats who changed the rule creating the nuclear option under leader Harry Reid, not McConnell.

Quote:
In November 2013, Senate Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. [End quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option




We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope123
Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2018 10:34:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,773
Neurons: 50,270
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thanks for the discussion and info, Mactoria.

Yeah, I used WH - White House - to stand for Trump and Sessions. How does Trump give AG Sessions orders? That is the mystery to me when the DOJ is supposed to operate separately from the Executive branch. No?

I know they wanted it done before midterms, but McConnell's time period was definitely set to hinder any investigation.

We always knew McConnell and Grassley would push it through no matter what. They'd have found some way to get around anything, and they did, even now accusing Democrats of lying and being violent (Trump's tweet) just to hinder, when that is not how it went down at all. The picture of Grassley sitting there rudely non responsive when Dems were asking about all Kavanaugh's papers is indelibly fixed in my mind. How arrogant! No attempt at procedure or civility at all. Not even caring it was televised. (Senators may serve until they reach the age of 75 in Canada, but I wish we had term limits here.)

The very method how the US approves the court candidates and sherriffs makes it political and helped it to become the sideshow it was this time. It left non Americans watching in awe and shaking our heads. I remember years ago (when living in FL) wondering why there were so many sherriffs being called out in the news for corruption until I found out they were elected.

Kavanaugh went "full Trump" and it worked. Trump also loved it. "Ethics experts said that Kavanaugh’s partisan rhetoric in his Senate hearing last week — including railing against “left-wing” groups — could be an ethical issue that follows him whether or not he is confirmed to the Supreme Court."

On a side note, Merrick Garland was in rotation to judge the ethics complaints against Kavanaugh but he has recused himself because of his unique position. He showed his own ethics and morals by so doing.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/merrick-garland-has-recused-himself-from-the-ethics
:::

FD is correct - Schumer fought the change when Reid was leader but lost.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/312540-schumer-regrets-dems-triggering-nuclear-option

::

FD, how did Executive branch legally give orders to the DOJ?

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Chazlee
Posted: Sunday, October 7, 2018 12:13:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/24/2016
Posts: 443
Neurons: 4,214
Since I believe that many of us are very curious about what Kavanaugh's tenure on the Supreme Court will possibly be like, here are some interesting comments from Robert Post, the former dean of Yale Law School.Post describes himself as "a casual acquaintance" of Kavanaugh, having known him for a decade. Although Post now holds a different opinion of Kavanaugh, he previously thought of him as "gentle, quiet, reserved man, always solicitous of the dignity of his position as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals...." However, after watching and listening to Kavanaugh recently, Post had this to say:

"With calculation and skill, Kavanaugh stoked the fires of partisan rage and male entitlement. He had apparently concluded that the only way he could rally Republican support was by painting himself as the victim of a political hit job. He therefore offered a witches’ brew of vicious unfounded charges, alleging that Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee were pursuing a vendetta on behalf of the Clintons. If we expect judges to reach conclusions based solely on reliable evidence, Kavanaugh’s savage and bitter attack demonstrated exactly the opposite sensibility...His performance is indelibly etched in the public mind. For as long as Kavanaugh sits on the court, he will remain a symbol of partisan anger, a haunting reminder that behind the smiling face of judicial benevolence lies the force of an urgent will to power. No one who felt the force of that anger could possibly believe that Kavanaugh might actually be a detached and impartial judge. Each and every Republican who votes for Kavanaugh, therefore, effectively announces that they care more about controlling the Supreme Court than they do about the legitimacy of the court itself. There will be hell to pay."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/06/kavanaugh-confirmation-temperament-yale-dean-221086



“I regret that the press treats me so badly.” Donald Trump.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.