Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
Which of the two has the clearest evidence? You have to understand though the left is highly interested In this, the longer time goes on, this is going to become less and less popular without a smoking gun and most think Mueller isn't going to outright indict Trump. Putting all of most of the narrative in this is settling a very risky 2020 set up. The justice Obama wanted already was lost and there's good reason to rally the base up about that, especially when justice #2 is getting appoInted now.
1pjc3u.jpg
 
I like it. Thy are trying their very best to find something disqualifying. And if there was something disqualifying to be found, it would be in the public interest for it to be exposed. When they are forced to run with small beer like this, one can be confident the guy is fairly clean.
But what about the children?!

<Ellaria01>
 
I'm not saying they shouldn't emphasize the Supreme Court nominations by any means. It seemed you were being overly flippant about what is looking more and more like treason, imo.

What happened with Garland is unconscionable to me. I can't believe people still back the Republicans in this country. They've made it very clear that they don;t care about our nation in the slightest.
87Sl6.gif
 
how un-american of him to pay his bills and enjoy america's past time sport. foreshame trump!!! FORESHAME!!!
Strawman, and boy are people running with this one like it's hot.

The question is about how he ran up that kind of debt on relatively modest means and chunked it all off so quickly. It's a red flag. It's not "OMG he likez baseballz libs BTFO." These things should be looked into.
 
I like it. Thy are trying their very best to find something disqualifying. And if there was something disqualifying to be found, it would be in the public interest for it to be exposed. When they are forced to run with small beer like this, one can be confident the guy is fairly clean.

The extremely-poor judgement of being a damn Nats fan should be a filibuster-able offense, had that option still in play.
 
I mean, there it is: the guy hates America.

Not to mention he's anti-capitalist as well. How would our financial institutions be able to make some money to pay their employees and feed their children if people like Kavanaugh and his friends keeps paying their credit card bills in full like that? :(
 
Last edited:
Our taxpayer dollars are funding this race-baiting garbage:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...naughs-nomination-and-the-senate-battle-ahead

Another white man


On occasion, Supreme Court appointments double as important cultural milestones. In 1967, Lyndon Johnson appointed the first African-American justice, Thurgood Marshall. Fourteen years later, Ronald Reagan picked the first female justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. In 2009, Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, who became the first female Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.

Fast forward to the latest Supreme Court pick. Trump chose a white man. On one hand, Trump was all but certain to faced backlash as long as the nominee had a conservative record on abortion and other hot-button issues. Still, the president had an opportunity to make a statement about diversity.

By elevating another white man to a position of power, Trump reinforced the view — among his critics on the left, at least — that he is only interested in promoting people who look like himself. The pick was also a stark reminder of a diversity problem on the nation’s highest court, one that long predates Trump. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will be the 115th person to serve on the Supreme Court. Of those, only two have been black, and just four have been women.
 
Our taxpayer dollars are funding this race-baiting garbage:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...naughs-nomination-and-the-senate-battle-ahead

Another white man


On occasion, Supreme Court appointments double as important cultural milestones. In 1967, Lyndon Johnson appointed the first African-American justice, Thurgood Marshall. Fourteen years later, Ronald Reagan picked the first female justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. In 2009, Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor, who became the first female Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.

Fast forward to the latest Supreme Court pick. Trump chose a white man. On one hand, Trump was all but certain to faced backlash as long as the nominee had a conservative record on abortion and other hot-button issues. Still, the president had an opportunity to make a statement about diversity.

By elevating another white man to a position of power, Trump reinforced the view — among his critics on the left, at least — that he is only interested in promoting people who look like himself. The pick was also a stark reminder of a diversity problem on the nation’s highest court, one that long predates Trump. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he will be the 115th person to serve on the Supreme Court. Of those, only two have been black, and just four have been women.

Erm, did you read it?

It's not really specifically about race as it is lack of diversity in general on the court since its inception.
 
Erm, did you read it?

It's not really specifically about race as it is lack of diversity in general on the court since its inception.

Erm, yes I did read it.

"Diversity" is not a worthy goal in Supreme Court appointments. State-funded media should not be advocating for it.
 
Erm, yes I did read it.

"Diversity" is not a worthy goal in Supreme Court appointments. State-funded media should not be advocating for it.

Why shouldn't the Supreme Court be a fair representation of the entire population instead of just one demographic?
 
Why shouldn't the Supreme Court be a fair representation of the entire population instead of just one demographic?

The Supreme Court should consist of the best legal minds with the most relevant experience. Including other requirements (racial/ethnic/whatever) can only water down that standard. It's too important of a job to permit affirmative action.
 
The Supreme Court should consist of the best legal minds with the most relevant experience. Including other requirements (racial/ethnic/whatever) can only water down that standard. It's too important of a job to permit affirmative action.

So you think in 250 years only white males have been the best legal minds?

Honestly, this is a bit of a silly stance. These people aren't getting picked for their competence or experience so much as they are picked for their policy positions.

They aren't picking the best and brightest. They're picking the best and brightest that agree with the people appointing them.
 
Anybody see the story that Kennedy's retirement was pay for Trump waving the fines against Deutsche Bank, Kennedy's son worked at Deutsche bank and was Trump's go to guy.

Yes, and we added it to the list of shit we don’t give a fuck about.

You'd be surprise how many dumb-asses ran with that conspiracy theory.

I guess when there's nothing to chew on, the only thing you can do is throw everything at the wall to see if anything stick, and if that doesn't work, you put glue on everything and throw them again.

It IS amusing to see the WaPo calling the desperate "progressives" out for their blatant bullshit though.


The thinly sourced theories about Trump’s loans and Justice Kennedy’s son
by Salvador Rizzo | July 12, 2018

imrs.php

“Just to state this: Justice Kennedy’s son gave a billion dollar loan to Trump when no one would give him a dime, and Justice Kennedy has been ruling in favor of the Trump Administration position for 2 years as the Court decides 5-4 case after 5-4 case.”
— Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, in a tweet, June 29, 2018



“The circumstances of Justice Kennedy’s resignation must be investigated by the Senate Judiciary Committee before any replacement is considered. The Constitution does not give Trump the power to use underhanded means to induce Supreme Court resignations.”
— Richard W. Painter (Minn.), Democratic primary candidate for U.S. Senate, in a tweet, June 30, 2018



“Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Justice Kennedy’s son, Justin. The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.

“During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.”
Reporting by the New York Times, June 28, 2018

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s decision to retire from the Supreme Court set off a wave of speculation, much of it focused on a past business relationship between Donald Trump and one of Kennedy’s sons.

Tanden’s tweet implies that Kennedy’s independence was compromised because his son Justin had business with Trump while he worked at Deutsche Bank from 1998 to 2009.

Painter’s tweet, which links to a brief article in the New Republic discussing the same Trump connection with Justin Kennedy, implies the president may have used “underhanded means” to get the justice to retire.

Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank and Justin Kennedy has been documented over the years in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and other media. After the justice on June 27 announced his decision to retire, the New York Times renewed that focus.

“During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history,” the Times reported June 28, adding that the justice’s son “worked closely with Trump.”

This reporting informed the New Republic article that Painter linked to and seems to have inspired Tanden’s tweet, although she layered on grave inferences that don’t appear in the Times article.

But there are several reasons this supposed fishiness doesn’t make sense.

Justice Kennedy will be 82 later this month, well past retirement age. He’s a Republican appointee creating a vacancy for a Republican president. He could have been voting in favor of Trump’s positions because he agreed with them. Although he voted with the liberal justices on numerous cases, and ruled to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015, Kennedy has a rightward bent. He wrote the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC and voted to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act in 2012. Considering his age, party affiliation and conservative views on many issues, it’s not clear why Kennedy would have needed some secret inducement to create a vacancy for Trump.

Moreover, from 1998 to 2009, it would have been impossible for Justin Kennedy — then at Deutsche Bank — to know that Trump would be the president appointing a replacement for his father on the Court in 2018.

Is there any meat on the bone to justify the innuendo that Painter and Tanden seemed to be aiming at Kennedy and his son?

The Pinocchio Test

Justice Kennedy is an octogenarian who said he was retiring from the Supreme Court to spend more time with his family. He’s a Republican appointee leaving a vacancy for a Republican president to fill. He’s a conservative jurist with liberal tendencies, not the other way around, so it’s not inherently suspicious that he would rule for Trump or want to see a conservative judge fill his seat.

It would be explosive if Kennedy’s decision to vote a certain way or to retire was based on Deutsche Bank’s dealings with Trump more than a decade ago. Scratching below the surface, there’s no evidence to justify these theories. The New York Times article doesn’t supply it. It says Deutsche Bank loaned Trump more than $1 billion “during” Justin Kennedy’s tenure, not that he was signing the checks or that any rules were broken. What we could piece together about Justin Kennedy’s history doesn’t support these theories, either.

Standing alone, the tweets from Painter and Tanden are incendiary and worthy of Four Pinocchios. Painter says he wasn’t questioning the Kennedys’ actions. Uncorrected, his tweet leaves a different impression, since it relies on a New Republic article raising questions about the justice, his son and Trump.

Four Pinocchios

ACNY37G44I4OLLGULXY7UEVO24.jpg


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-justice-kennedys-son/?utm_term=.a5ccb86c405d
 
Last edited:
So you think in 250 years only white males have been the best legal minds?

The Supreme Court has existed for 229 years, starting in 1789.

For most of that time, women were homemakers. Very few women practiced law. So I think we can knock off the "male" qualifier that you added.

As for the "white" qualifier: in the census of 1960, the country was estimated to be 85% white (non-hispanic) and about 11% black. Significant groups of people other than whites and blacks simply had not arrived yet even 171 years after the Supreme Court's beginning.

One can't hope to become a Supreme Court justice without first becoming a lawyer. Ethnic minorities tended to attend college and law school at lower rates than their percentages in the population. Even now, ABA data show that 88% of US lawyers are white, far higher than whites' overall representation in the general population.

As for the elites: many of the elite lawyers and judges come from a family of lawyers---both of Judge Kavanaugh's parents were lawyers and his mother was a judge. Any race that has had a long history of practicing law and which is overrepresented in the legal profession would be expected to have higher representation on the Court.
 
The Supreme Court has existed for 229 years, starting in 1789.

For most of that time, women were homemakers. Very few women practiced law. So I think we can knock off the "male" qualifier that you added.

As for the "white" qualifier: in the census of 1960, the country was estimated to be 85% white (non-hispanic) and about 11% black. Significant groups of people other than whites and blacks simply had not arrived yet even 171 years after the Supreme Court's beginning.

One can't hope to become a Supreme Court justice without first becoming a lawyer. Ethnic minorities tended to attend college and law school at lower rates than their percentages in the population. Even now, ABA data show that 88% of US lawyers are white, far higher than whites' overall representation in the general population.

As for the elites: many of the elite lawyers and judges come from a family of lawyers---both of Judge Kavanaugh's parents were lawyers and his mother was a judge. Any race that has had a long history of practicing law and which is overrepresented in the legal profession would be expected to have higher representation on the Court.

Maybe, just maybe, could that be because whites control most of the wealth and becoming a lawyer is one of the most pay walled professions on Earth?

Basically what you're saying is the discrimination starts further up stream.
 
Maybe, just maybe, could that be because whites control most of the wealth and becoming a lawyer is one of the most pay walled professions on Earth?

That's one of many reasons. I don't think it's among the top three most important reasons.

Basically what you're saying is the discrimination starts further up stream.
I didn't say anything about discrimination.
 
That's one of many reasons. I don't think it's among the top three most important reasons.


I didn't say anything about discrimination.

You didn't say is expressly but that's what your statistics imply even if you don't want to personally admit it.
 
Basically what you're saying is the discrimination starts further up stream.

I didn't say anything about discrimination.

You didn't say is expressly but that's what your statistics imply

That's not necessarily true. There are many reasons for inequality of outcome that have nothing to do with discrimination.

Your view seems to be that there are white males on the Supreme Court who were less qualified at the time of their appointments than certain non-white, non-males. Please provide a couple of examples.
 
Back
Top