What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stoked said:
And they won’t happen either. Well, a narrow loss might happen but that’s iffy. The Rs don’t care about this allegation. I bet many of them think it’s a lie.

Smh
Click to expand...

I mean...they’re interviewing him again about this, and interviewing both of them next week in a public hearing. I don’t think it’s fair to say they don’t care.

Now maybe if they had this letter for a couple months and never brought it up, then you could say they didn’t care.
 
JustTheTip said:
So he should be disqualified because of an accusation for which we have no proof of yet?

That seems like a very bad idea for the future. Kinda like approving the nuclear option and only needing 51 votes.
Click to expand...
It's actually a completely fine idea. I don't get the notion that this guy or anyone is owed a Supreme Court seat simply because he was nominated. There are plenty of other qualified people that could be nominated.

I don't think you really grasp how much women risk who come forward in situations like this. The women that I know with a history of sexual violence against them find it very difficult to talk about in private. It takes a lot of bravery and strength to do so publicly. That's proof enough for me.

And like I said, I didn't find him deserving of the seat for other factors as well. I didn't think he was honest during the congressional hearings, and I don't like his position on presidential authority, essentially placing the president above the law.
 
Last edited:
JustTheTip said:
I mean...they’re interviewing him again about this, and interviewing both of them next week in a public hearing. I don’t think it’s fair to say they don’t care.

Now maybe if they had this letter for a couple months and never brought it up, then you could say they didn’t care.
Click to expand...
Since people keep bringing it up, Feinstein has been in communication with Ford's lawyer since she received the letter at the end of July. Her 'not bringing it up' was in line with the Fords desire to remain anonymous.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...nstein-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html
 
Well hell man, I don’t like a lot of the justifies views on a lot of things. A difference of opinion does not disqualify somebody being on the court. That’s uhh...incredibly partisan. Which our courts should not be. Even Ruth Bader agrees with that!


Were he guilty of perjury, I assure you, with all this **** going on, somebody would have brought it up. And I’ll be honest, assuming somebody is guilty with nothing but an accusation is vile and wrong. I’m not saying he’s guilty, I’m not saying he’s innocent, I’m saying we don’t know enough. But we can’t just disqualify people because they’re accused of something! That goes against every human right we have in judicial system.
 
Zombie said:
Since people keep bringing it up, Feinstein has been in communication with Ford's lawyer since she received the letter at the end of July. Her 'not bringing it up' was in line with the Fords desire to remain anonymous.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...nstein-brett-kavanaugh-allegations/index.html
Click to expand...

Which makes absolutely no sense.

She doesn’t want it brought up, so she writes a letter to Feinstein? For what purpose? And Feinstein still ended up releasing it, which I completely agree with. This is a very important position, and if Feinstein knew about this and still neglected to do anything about it, then that is a serious negative against her.
 
JustTheTip said:
Well hell man, I don’t like a lot of the justifies views on a lot of things. A difference of opinion does not disqualify somebody being on the court. That’s uhh...incredibly partisan. Which our courts should not be. Even Ruth Bader agrees with that!


Were he guilty of perjury, I assure you, with all this **** going on, somebody would have brought it up. And I’ll be honest, assuming somebody is guilty with nothing but an accusation is vile and wrong. I’m not saying he’s guilty, I’m not saying he’s innocent, I’m saying we don’t know enough. But we can’t just disqualify people because they’re accused of something! That goes against every human right we have in judicial system.
Click to expand...
There's a lot to unpack here. Of course difference in opinion is enough for disqualification. How else do you think justices get voted in? My opinion has absolutely no bearing on whether he will actually be confirmed of course, but if I was a senator who disagreed with a judge's opinion on Roe v Wade for example, I would find that disqualifying and would vote no. That's literally how the system is supposed to work. There's nothing partisan about that.

As for the justice system, that's pretty irrelevant here. He doesn't have any more right to a Supreme Court seat than I do.
 
Zombie said:
There's a lot to unpack here. Of course difference in opinion is enough for disqualification. How else do you think justices get voted in? My opinion has absolutely no bearing on whether he will actually be confirmed of course, but if I was a senator who disagreed with a judge's opinion on Roe v Wade for example, I would find that disqualifying and would vote no. That's literally how the system is supposed to work. There's nothing partisan about that.

As for the justice system, that's pretty irrelevant here. He doesn't have any more right to a Supreme Court seat than I do.
Click to expand...

Right. Which is why the majority of Democrats voted No on Clarence Thomas, and the majority of Republicans votes no on Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
 
Douchebag K said:
why are your supreme court judges appointed for life ?
Click to expand...

Believe the idea is so that they don’t have to be biased by elections, political parties, etc.

They can do what they want without worrying about the people back at home voting for them. Which isn’t a bad idea
For that position, tbh.
 
JustTheTip said:
Right. Which is why the majority of Democrats voted No on Clarence Thomas, and the majority of Republicans votes no on Ruth Bader-Ginsburg.
Click to expand...
What? Thomas was voted in on a narrow vote, but it wasn't strictly on party lines. RBG was voted in like 97-3. I'm not sure what your point is.
 
JustTheTip said:
Which makes absolutely no sense.

She doesn’t want it brought up, so she writes a letter to Feinstein? For what purpose? And Feinstein still ended up releasing it, which I completely agree with. This is a very important position, and if Feinstein knew about this and still neglected to do anything about it, then that is a serious negative against her.
Click to expand...
It's hard to say, and it's something that will probably be explored next week when she is asked to testify. Off the top of my head maybe she wrote the letter in the hope that Feinstein would share the accusation with the fence sitting democrats to urge them to vote no, and that that would be enough to keep him from being confirmed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top