Reply to "Justice" a new documentary on Kavanaugh

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to ""Justice" a new documentary on Kavanaugh "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The story Ford told about Kavanaugh did not match what she told her therapist.  She told her therapist four boys, all in high society.  Mark Judge would not be considered high society as a writer I think.  Also she had the year wrong.  Probably something like this happened when she was older and could drive home, but that wouldn't work as Kavanaugh would not have been in high school then.
I think if Trump had switched the order of his nominations, we would have heard the same accusation by Ford against Gorsuch, who went to the same school and is younger by two years.[/quote]
This is really deranged. Why didn’t she accuse Gorsuch when he was actually nominated if she was just going to accuse anyone, in this weirdo view?[/quote]

Democrats were not going all out to stop Gorsuch, because he was replacing a Republican appointee though they weren't happy about swapping Kennedy for someone who they thought was conservative.  They went all out for Thomas who was replacing Marshall.  Gorsuch was only going to get lesser opposition, like Alito, Roberts, and before that Souter who ended up being a liberal on the court.  If Kavanaugh had been the first appointee he would have had no issues, and gotten the same vote as Gorsuch(still a lot of no votes).[/quote]

I don't even get the strategy though other than to just throw mud. The democrats knew they were going to get someone they didn't like. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Ford had little actual data to support her claim so no real reason to bring her testimony forward as an actual crime and it wasn't at all related to any work he did as a judge or anything related to work. So it was just to throw mud around and paint an anti-feminine picture of the GOP for future elections.[/quote]

Crime?  Be serious.  A jack-ass drunk high school fake alter-boy bro that assaults another teen is not going down for a crime.   The point is to keep such poor character off SCOTUS.  SCOTUS should have better.[/quote]

Statute of limitations was up on this long ago.
It's more about moral terpitude.  I served on a professional licensing board and that was one of the necessary traits for licensure, I'd doubly expect the same for SCOTUS appointees.[/quote]

Do you actually have people come forth and make accusations that haven't gone through court? Would you listen to them? Or would you refer them to the court that makes sense for the criminal offense first. I think as a licensing board you can review past offenses. Not new ones that come up out of nowhere. And wouldn't they have to be related to the license being sought? If you were reviewing an engineer you might listen to some new testimony of an engineering offense not on record, but I can't see someone reviewing a domestic violence accusation that had no proof.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics