WWTBAM Bored

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:31 Lies and Counting

https://medium.com/@demandjustice/kavan ... ab6dee833d

The author of the linked article wrote:Kavanaugh: 31 Lies and Counting

Jeff Flake told 60 Minutes that Kavanaugh would not be confirmed if the FBI probe showed that he lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

LIE 1
In 2004, Kavanaugh claimed

LIE 2
In 2006, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 3
In 2006, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 4
In 2004, Kavanaugh denied

LIE 5
In a 2004 written questionnaire, Kavanaugh wrote

LIE 6
In 2006, Kavanaugh again denied knowing

LIE 7
In 2018, Kavanaugh denied knowing

LIE 8
During his confirmation hearing in 2006, Kavanaugh said

LIE 9
During Kavanaugh’s 2006 confirmation hearing

LIE 10
Kavanaugh claimed that his previous testimony

LIE 11
During his 2006 confirmation hearing for his D.C. Circuit Court nomination

LIE 12
Regarding the current allegation of sexual assault

FINALLY! The alleged lies to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The first 11 "lies" listed by the writer don't even fall under his/her premise.

Oh sorry, I guess it's only 20 lies.

Unless this idiot is making shit up, like you.

Estonut wrote: If 4 people getting together to have a few drinks constitutes a party, then I've been to thousands.

I'm sure all those drinks have helped your memory.

But then again, the question isn't what your memory is or mine. It's Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh's memory. And contrary to your and Flock's assertions, expert testimony is admissible in cases like this to help fact finders assess the plausibility of various witness's testimony. Here's what one expert witness says:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... t-victims/

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Hey lawyersorts, could you represent someone with whom you disagree politically?

Yes, but probably not in connection with a matter with political implications. --Bob

?

If a potential client who wants me to represent him or her in a business dispute happens to be a Republican, no problem. I just need to have confidence that the client will be honest with me and in court. In, say, a voting rights case, I'd probably have an issue representing someone who wanted to cut back voting rights, and that person's probably a Republican. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote: If 4 people getting together to have a few drinks constitutes a party, then I've been to thousands.

I'm sure all those drinks have helped your memory.

You seem to not remember that I already said, "I remember plenty of high school parties 40+ years later. Especially those where there were incidents or which later were rumored about."

silverscreenselect wrote:But then again, the question isn't what your memory is or mine. It's Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh's memory. And contrary to your and Flock's assertions, expert testimony is admissible in cases like this to help fact finders assess the plausibility of various witness's testimony. Here's what one expert witness says:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... t-victims/

Again, you seem to forget that I've already said, whatever these expert witnesses might testify CAN happen, it means nothing unless they've examined these 2 people. I'd hope that no psychological expert would testify about the mental state of either of these people without examining them first, especially since both are alive and available.

I'd also like the FBI or the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine her therapist's notes in their entirety. She should not be able to offer parts of them to support her story and then refuse to hand them over. I wonder what she's hiding.

Estonut wrote:I'd also like the FBI or the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine her therapist's notes in their entirety. She should not be able to offer parts of them to support her story and then refuse to hand them over. I wonder what she's hiding.

Her lawyers offered to turn them over to the FBI (not the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee). They apparently didn't examine her, the notes, or the witnesses she suggested contacting.

Beebs52 wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-in ... 1538695822

Justice Stevens dissents. https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/re ... CimtNxpjJ/

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-in ... 1538695822

Justice Stevens dissents. https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/re ... CimtNxpjJ/

Whatevs.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-in ... 1538695822

Justice Stevens dissents. https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/re ... CimtNxpjJ/

Whatevs.

https://www.theladders.com/career-advic ... mmon-thing

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Justice Stevens dissents. https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/re ... CimtNxpjJ/

Whatevs.

https://www.theladders.com/career-advic ... mmon-thing

Now tbat is priceless. I needed a giggle. Thx.

100,000 U.S. Christian Churches Demand Withdrawal of Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Nomination

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/100-000- ... 19723.html

Undecided Dem Sen Manchin tells reporters he has been ‘thrown out’ of the room where he’d been reading the only copy of the FBI report because it was the ‘Republicans’ turn’ to read it,” tweeted McClatchy reporter Emma Dumain. “He says he has to come back tomorrow to finish, then will make a decision on Kavanaugh.

The Denver Post is reporting that Cory Gardner is saying he hasn't made up his mind to vote for Kavanaugh. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:The Denver Post is reporting that Cory Gardner is saying he hasn't made up his mind to vote for Kavanaugh. --Bob

A bunch of us have been working very hard on this, including telephoning and demonstrating outside his local office last night and tonight. We'll probably demonstrate Friday night also.

However, it will astonish me if he votes no. He has been a most excellent little minion for Trump.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The Denver Post is reporting that Cory Gardner is saying he hasn't made up his mind to vote for Kavanaugh. --Bob

A bunch of us have been working very hard on this, including telephoning and demonstrating outside his local office last night and tonight. We'll probably demonstrate Friday night also.

However, it will astonish me if he votes no. He has been a most excellent little minion for Trump.

I don't think you would do it. But are any of your bunch going to do your civic duty and get in his face and yell at him and his family when he's at a restaurant? Maybe follow him home and throw tomatoes at his house?

Bob Juch wrote:100,000 U.S. Christian Churches Demand Withdrawal of Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Nomination

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/100-000- ... 19723.html

Impressive. Did they get signatures from all 45 million churchgoers?

Remember when your side said it would have been impossible for Kavanaugh's representatives to collect, what, 65 signatures in a day? Two people collecting less than 3 supporters per hour? No way!

Estonut wrote:Impressive. Did they get signatures from all 45 million churchgoers?

No, the article said that the National Council of Churches, which represents 100,000 churches came out against Kavanaugh. And it's quite possible that the governing board of the Council would come out with such a proclamation. The more people go beyond sticking their heads in the sand like you and Flock and examining what has really transpired in the last two weeks, the more they realize there are big problems with Judge Kavanaugh's overall temperament.

I have yet to hear of one person who said "I was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh when this whole affair started, but I'm for him now."

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:Impressive. Did they get signatures from all 45 million churchgoers?

No, the article said that the National Council of Churches, which represents 100,000 churches came out against Kavanaugh. And it's quite possible that the governing board of the Council would come out with such a proclamation.

That's my point, I just used the bigger number. NCC represents 100,000 churches in a partnership of 38 Christian faith groups. To make the council effective, I'd guess they have 38 members running the show. Regardless, there was some portion of their leadership that (may have) chosen to make this statement, if they even did (I don't know anything about "Religious News Service," except that I've never heard of them before). Whatever the number, it is probably less than .1% of the people in those churches. BJ's (misleading, as usual) headline was, "100,000 U.S. Christian Churches Demand Withdrawal of Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Nomination." That just is not true.

silverscreenselect wrote:The more people go beyond sticking their heads in the sand like you and Flock and examining what has really transpired in the last two weeks, the more they realize there are big problems with Judge Kavanaugh's overall temperament.

I'm not burying my head in the sand about anything. I am just more open-minded about what I believe.

silverscreenselect wrote:I have yet to hear of one person who said "I was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh when this whole affair started, but I'm for him now."

No one wants to get screamed at/attacked/protested by your side. You will hear them loud and clear at the elections. Prepare to be shocked again.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:Impressive. Did they get signatures from all 45 million churchgoers?

No, the article said that the National Council of Churches, which represents 100,000 churches came out against Kavanaugh. And it's quite possible that the governing board of the Council would come out with such a proclamation. The more people go beyond sticking their heads in the sand like you and Flock and examining what has really transpired in the last two weeks, the more they realize there are big problems with Judge Kavanaugh's overall temperament.

I have yet to hear of one person who said "I was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh when this whole affair started, but I'm for him now."

I have big problems with Kagan's, Sotomayor's and especially Vadar-Ginsberg's 'judicial' temperament when it concerns the Constitution.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

Estonut wrote:Impressive. Did they get signatures from all 45 million churchgoers?

No, the article said that the National Council of Churches, which represents 100,000 churches came out against Kavanaugh. And it's quite possible that the governing board of the Council would come out with such a proclamation. The more people go beyond sticking their heads in the sand like you and Flock and examining what has really transpired in the last two weeks, the more they realize there are big problems with Judge Kavanaugh's overall temperament.

I have yet to hear of one person who said "I was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh when this whole affair started, but I'm for him now."

I have big problems with Kagan's, Sotomayor's and especially Vadar-Ginsberg's 'judicial' temperament when it concerns the Constitution.

Making decisions you disagree with has nothing to do with judicial temperament. I haven't heard anyone complain about how Gorsuch has acted.

And you avoided my statement. No one has come out and said they opposed Kavanaugh before the latest hearing and investigation and support him now, but plenty of distinguished legal minds have made the opposite statement (including some who publicly endorsed him earlier).

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
No, the article said that the National Council of Churches, which represents 100,000 churches came out against Kavanaugh. And it's quite possible that the governing board of the Council would come out with such a proclamation. The more people go beyond sticking their heads in the sand like you and Flock and examining what has really transpired in the last two weeks, the more they realize there are big problems with Judge Kavanaugh's overall temperament.

I have yet to hear of one person who said "I was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh when this whole affair started, but I'm for him now."

I have big problems with Kagan's, Sotomayor's and especially Vadar-Ginsberg's 'judicial' temperament when it concerns the Constitution.

Making decisions you disagree with has nothing to do with judicial temperament. I haven't heard anyone complain about how Gorsuch has acted.

And you avoided my statement. No one has come out and said they opposed Kavanaugh before the latest hearing and investigation and support him now, but plenty of distinguished legal minds have made the opposite statement (including some who publicly endorsed him earlier).

I believe Esto answered that question sufficiently. I try and read what people write and advance from that point. As usual, you ignore answers that you don't like. It's like the difference between TV series that have continuity between episodes and those that are just a formula. You (and bob-tel) are a formula of leftist narrative.

One thing I have seen that make a lot of sense, that you conveniently ignore, is that what Feinstein, and presumably the dem leadership, have done in their strategy to delay the vote is create 5 new victims, and they don't care. Kavanaugh's family has been put through as much hell as Dr. Ford, only because of what Feinstein did. If she had followed the established process, all could have been resolved, for better or worse, behind the scenes, sparing both Ford and Kavanaugh this disgusting trial through the media. But the priority for the dems trumped everything. And that is in itself disgusting.

I think the most concerning thing about this fiasco is the sizable group of people who believe 'This is a job interview. The presumption of innocence does not apply.' This is a totally ignorant and dangerous notion. The presumption of innocence is the very foundation of our legal system. If you do away with it in any situation it threatens the freedom of us all.

In the future, if you oppose someone's nomination, all you have to do is put together a 'committee' to scour for someone who could make a semi-credible charge against that person's integrity that can't be immediately disproven. Leak it to the media and you have accomplished your goal. Even the disgusting Avenatti charge would do.

I look forward to being amused by the ethical lawyer's response to this observation. He's probably sitting by his batphone.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: This is a totally ignorant and dangerous notion. The presumption of innocence is the very foundation of our legal system.

This is not about the presumption of innocence. This is about demonstrating fitness for the highest judicial position in our country. The canons of judicial ethics don't merely say that judges should avoid impropriety; they require judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety... in other words something that might be construed as showing partiality or unfitness. That's a burden no one else in our society faces.

And even by your own standards, as long as you choose to disbelieve anything a complaining witness says unless there is documentary proof of it, then a lot of people who were rightly committed of sex crimes will get off the hook. Testimony given in court is evidence, the same as DNA samples.

And you're right; that does disqualify a lot of people from being judges, especially Supreme Court justices, as it should.

Kavanaugh has failed that test as demonstrated by the overwhelming number of people in the legal community, who know a lot more than Flock and his buddies at Breitbart about what's the foundation of the system, who have come out against the nomination, even in many cases when they supported it in the first place. I don't know what will happen in the future. I do know that based on the treatment Dr. Ford has received, a lot of women are going to be a lot more reluctant about revealing past assaults.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
I have big problems with Kagan's, Sotomayor's and especially Vadar-Ginsberg's 'judicial' temperament when it concerns the Constitution.

silverscreenselect wrote:
Making decisions you disagree with has nothing to do with judicial temperament.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/politics ... index.html

It's ok to be political if you're a democrat justice. right?

who know a lot more than Flock and his buddies at Breitbart

I got you, babe!