SCOTUS
- Thread starter Perspective
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
We don't want another Merrick Garland situation:
1. GOP tries to stall Merrick Garland confirmation until after presidential election.
2. Dems don't push very hard to confirm Garland before the election because they are sure Hillary will win election.
3. Hillary loses.
4. Merrick Garland fucked.
The problem with the SCOTUS now is that we are too focused on "qualifications". Because of that, we now have a SC that consists almost entirely of former Yale Law/Harvard Law/Federal appeals court judges. That is bad because we need justices of diverse backgrounds and life experiences. The court wasn't always like this.
Justice Earl Warren was a Berkeley grad who was the governor of Calfornia. He would not be "quaified" for the court by current standards because he was not Ivy League and had no prior judicial experience. If Earl Warren came up for confirmation today, the Liberals would never allow him on the bench because as governor of California, he was the one that signed the January 1942 order rounding up all Californians of Japanese descent for interment. And yet Warren's court made many landmark civil rights rulings including Brown vs. Board of Education.
morekaos
Well-known member
?I have no recollection of that.? ? Sept. 14 in the New Yorker (Judge was not named in the piece)
?It?s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.? ? Later on Sept. 14 to the Weekly Standard (which revealed his name)
?I never saw anything like what was described .?.?. Something like that would stick out, which is why I don?t think it would happen.? ? also Sept. 14 to the New York Times
?Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today?s Post article or attributed to her letter. Since I have nothing more to say I will not comment further on this matter. I hope you will respect my position and my privacy.? ? Sept. 16 after The Post released an interview with Ford
Nitpicking BS. He is saying the same thing over and over. No new information nor will any be obtained..waste of time.
?It?s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.? ? Later on Sept. 14 to the Weekly Standard (which revealed his name)
?I never saw anything like what was described .?.?. Something like that would stick out, which is why I don?t think it would happen.? ? also Sept. 14 to the New York Times
?Now that the anonymous person has been identified and has spoken to the press, I repeat my earlier statement that I have no recollection of any of the events described in today?s Post article or attributed to her letter. Since I have nothing more to say I will not comment further on this matter. I hope you will respect my position and my privacy.? ? Sept. 16 after The Post released an interview with Ford
Nitpicking BS. He is saying the same thing over and over. No new information nor will any be obtained..waste of time.
;D >
?Kavanaugh says it was legal for seniors to drink when he was in high school, but Maryland's drinking age was raised to 21 when he was 17.? According to business insider servile below.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...tt-kavanaugh-legally-drink-high-school-2018-9
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...tt-kavanaugh-legally-drink-high-school-2018-9
morekaos
Well-known member
Good lord, who cares? I was drinking when I was 15. If i was prosecuted for every fumbling teenage boob grab from my teen years I would be sitting with Papillon. The way most of us lost our virginity would today be prosecuted as child molestation.(but i didn't think so). My generation turned out OK anyway. Let it go, I understand "different time" but this is ridiculous. WE ALL have these skeletons, if you don't there something wrong. If this is the new standard then NO ONE will become a judge, cop, politician, doctor everyone is disqualified, this will backfire
zubs said:
We don't want another Merrick Garland situation:
1. GOP tries to stall Merrick Garland confirmation until after presidential election.
2. Dems don't push very hard to confirm Garland before the election because they are sure Hillary will win election.
3. Hillary loses.
4. Merrick Garland fucked.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
Welcome to Steubenville.
As long as we 'win', who cares.
As long as we 'win', who cares.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
Personally, I question the eminent qualifications of a Supreme Court Justice Nominee who is apparently the one and only person working in the Federal Circuit Court system who had no knowledge of the extreme egregious behavior of his boss.
zubs
Well-known member
This man use to get drunk back @ yale and run a train on drunk girls with his drinking buddies.
The girls were so ashamed of being gang raped while drunk they stayed silent through the years.
Sounds plausible.
I wonder how he explains that to his 2 daughters.
"before I met your mother, daddy was a bad boy..."
The girls were so ashamed of being gang raped while drunk they stayed silent through the years.
Sounds plausible.
I wonder how he explains that to his 2 daughters.
"before I met your mother, daddy was a bad boy..."
nosuchreality said:
The problem with the SCOTUS now is that we are too focused on "qualifications". Because of that, we now have a SC that consists almost entirely of former Yale Law/Harvard Law/Federal appeals court judges. That is bad because we need justices of diverse backgrounds and life experiences. The court wasn't always like this.
Justice Earl Warren was a Berkeley grad who was the governor of Calfornia. He would not be "quaified" for the court by current standards because he was not Ivy League and had no prior judicial experience. If Earl Warren came up for confirmation today, the Liberals would never allow him on the bench because as governor of California, he was the one that signed the January 1942 order rounding up all Californians of Japanese descent for interment. And yet Warren's court made many landmark civil rights rulings including Brown vs. Board of Education.
morekaos
Well-known member
No,it doesn't sound plausible. Like the Russia Russia investigation. No hard proof but tons of speculation, innuendo and rumor. I went to UCLA when one of these "gang rape" accusations occurred, it as no secret and the three fraternities involved were sanctioned and shamed until further investigation exonerated them. The damage was done though, one was closed for 2 years and the accused dropped out. Was a lot like Duke LaCrosse. Incidents like that do not go unnoticed, even in the '80's. Yale would be no different.
zubs
Well-known member
Obviously the democrats are doing all they can to stop this man from becoming a supreme court justice. Personally I am more concerned about why I can't put this youtube video:
https://youtu.be/xat1GVnl8-k
straight into this TI forum. It use to work so easily, and show up in front of you.
https://youtu.be/xat1GVnl8-k
straight into this TI forum. It use to work so easily, and show up in front of you.