Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 4th Oct 2018, 14:07
  #16081 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
From a pretty impartial observer across the Atlantic, I was bemused 2 years ago wondering that with over 300 million to choose from, these were the best 2 for the office of POTUS.

I'm even more bemused that from all the judges you have, the blustering incoherent guy in the Congressional hearings is your best choice to defend your Constitution.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 15:21
  #16082 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Fitter2 View Post
From a pretty impartial observer across the Atlantic, I was bemused 2 years ago wondering that with over 300 million to choose from, these were the best 2 for the office of POTUS.

I'm even more bemused that from all the judges you have, the blustering incoherent guy in the Congressional hearings is your best choice to defend your Constitution.

You of course have reviewed his decades of experience as a lawyer, his 12 years on the lower court along with his measured performance at the actual judiciary hearings combined with the praise from the ABA on his judicial temperament before you rendered judgement?

Yah, you saw a man who had his family threatened, his career questioned and accused (unsubstantiated) of a horrible crime defend himself in a highly partisan atmosphere. If you believe you’re capable of breaking the man down to his basic elements and then pass judgement based on a roughly 15 minute speech, then write a book so the rest of us can learn from you.


Impartial, sure.
West Coast is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 15:30
  #16083 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by Fitter2 View Post
From a pretty impartial observer across the Atlantic, I was bemused 2 years ago wondering that with over 300 million to choose from, these were the best 2 for the office of POTUS.

I'm even more bemused that from all the judges you have, the blustering incoherent guy in the Congressional hearings is your best choice to defend your Constitution.
Obviuoly you have read and reviewd his 300+ opinions, to include those accepted by the current Supreme Court and found him wanting.
I would be interested to hear your opinion on his body of legal work
fltlt is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 15:52
  #16084 (permalink)  
Drain Bamaged
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by fltlt View Post


Obviuoly you have read and reviewd his 300+ opinions, to include those accepted by the current Supreme Court and found him wanting.
I would be interested to hear your opinion on his body of legal work

What about the opinion of 1700 law professors?
The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh. Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.
ehwatezedoing is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 16:02
  #16085 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 137
I was referring to his written legal opinions, not others, do keep up ewhat.
fltlt is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 16:12
  #16086 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 51.50N 1W (ish)
Posts: 1,012
You of course have reviewed his decades of experience as a lawyer, his 12 years on the lower court along with his measured performance at the actual judiciary hearings combined with the praise from the ABA on his judicial temperament before you rendered judgement?
No I haven't. I was merely confused by his statement before the committee that it was a blatantly political act, and 'what goes around comes around', indicating to me that he would not approach his judgements impartially.
Fitter2 is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 16:14
  #16087 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
The overwhelming community of law professors in the US are staunchly liberal. This is no surprise and is a measure of their politics. They are using the pretext of the false allegations raised by the minority side of the Senate in a partisan way to attempt to thwart the way we select our jurists. The president of the Amer Bar Association has also submitted a letter declining to support Kavanaugh. If one listens to him, they would get the impression that the entire bar association is against the confirmation, which is certainly not true. It's all due to their political bias, and nothing to do with his body of law decisions.

One would be well served to go through the judge's decisions and see which are later overturned by a higher court, or otherwise found in error with the law than listen to a lot of screed from the bastions of extreme liberalism in academia(spoken as one who associates with them from time to time and is conservative). If the mere accusation of teen malfeasance is enough to sway the professors opinions, it could also be that many of them are someone jealous of the nominee, seeing as how they are surely more qualified for elevation to the bench than this conservative. (harumph, harumph)
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 16:23
  #16088 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 6,351
Those who can't................ TEACH
racedo is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 16:26
  #16089 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 6,351
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post



You of course have reviewed his decades of experience as a lawyer, his 12 years on the lower court along with his measured performance at the actual judiciary hearings combined with the praise from the ABA on his judicial temperament before you rendered judgement?

Yah, you saw a man who had his family threatened, his career questioned and accused (unsubstantiated) of a horrible crime defend himself in a highly partisan atmosphere. If you believe you’re capable of breaking the man down to his basic elements and then pass judgement based on a roughly 15 minute speech, then write a book so the rest of us can learn from you.

Impartial, sure.
If you cannot get emotional and angry when someone whom you don't know, abuses and threatens you and your family, with unsubstantiated allegations, that they refuse to report to the police then WHEN will you get emotional and angry.

What is the bets there is a book deal in the offing.
racedo is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 16:30
  #16090 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Fitter2 View Post
No I haven't. I was merely confused by his statement before the committee that it was a blatantly political act, and 'what goes around comes around', indicating to me that he would not approach his judgements impartially.
What's the problem with telling the truth? It was a blatantly political(actually partisan) act by the Dems to delay, and extend the time set for confirmation. The whole thing could have been handled within the committee, while they were in session and deliberation of the candidate, in private if needed(not my desire), with the accuser having been offered a private non-public hearing. The ranking member of the minority position decided to delay the hearings and the vote until after the 2018 election in Nov in case there was a slight chance they could win the senate, and vote to not confirm the candidate.

His statement on 'what goes around comes around' refers to the recent changes under the Obama admin on the process for advise and consent that the Dems put in place. These new processes were used to good effect with the confirmation of Gorsuch, so the Dems had to find a new way to tossing sand in the gears - ergo, a tainted accusation of sexual assault which can't be verified, and has been denied by EVERYBODY except the accuser, who has changed her recollection of the event at least 14 times.

Last edited by ethicalconundrum; 4th Oct 2018 at 17:07.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 17:06
  #16091 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 604
Yesterday I came across the transcripts of Kavanaugh’s senate confirmation hearings when he was nominated for the DC circuit court. 2007, I believe.

The same senators —. Feinstein, Schumer, etc, harangued him at length over the very same issues as this time. And they all voted against him. Their claim was that since he had been an influential advisor to Bush, sometimes on political matters, he would be incapable of making impartial decisions as a judge.

However, several years later, now under the Obama administration, his judicial record was reviewed, along with the ABA. They could find not a single case where Kavanaugh acted in a political manner.

The Dems were going to vote against him from the start. They still will.

Last edited by obgraham; 4th Oct 2018 at 17:57. Reason: iPad typos are a real PITA!
obgraham is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 17:14
  #16092 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Impartiality left the SCOTUS before the last century. Separate but equal was a idiotic appeasement to the southern states. Partisan? Of course! Before that Dred Scott(civil war era?) said that the feds had no business prohibiting people in states from owning slaves. W-T-F? Oh, and while I'm on a rant about partisanship, both of these positions on minority civil rights were fought by the DEMS (Dixiecrats) vowing to maintain some kind of oppression of the blacks in the US. Take a look at some of Ginsburg's recent statements. Listen to what Sotomayer considers to be grounds for recusal. She even voted ona case where she was one of the authors of the lower court finding. Oye vey, don't give me 'impartial court', it's a fiction that has long since been well trampled by both sides.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2018, 18:49
  #16093 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Fitter2 View Post
No I haven't. I was merely confused by his statement before the committee that it was a blatantly political act, and 'what goes around comes around', indicating to me that he would not approach his judgements impartially.

His candor while fighting for his career and his good name while receiving threats to his family’s safety isn’t some revealing backdoor glimpse to how the man will act in his judicial capacity. Review by the ABA is, review of his time on the DC court is, review of his legal opinions are. All of which have been done.

You sure have picked an odd method of measuring the man’s worth and quite counter to existing protocols. It however is quite in line with the political theatre surrounding this. You might want to review your impartiality beliefs and/or how you’ve arrived at how you believe the judge would act in his capacity.
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 00:25
  #16094 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: London/Fort Worth
Posts: 0
Assuming Kavanaugh now gets voted in, that would put a conservative majority in the Court of 5 - 4. What struck me when watching a Ruth Bader Ginsburg interview the other day is that she doesnt look at all healthy (she is 85) so I wouldnt be surprised if Trump has another opportunity to name a Justice before he leaves office. The question is would he try to be less partisan or would it be another solidly conservative judge - I think I can guess, but can you imagine the reaction then..

The mods wont let me post links but if you search on Youtube for 'Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizes treatment of Kavanaugh' you should get the interview with the asian bar association.
BAengineer is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 00:59
  #16095 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Waterfall
Posts: 2
Trump Prophecy movie

It was, everyone agreed, a miracle. The unexpected election of Donald Trump in 2016 was an act of God, who chose the philandering billionaire and reality TV star to restore America’s moral values.

This is the theme of The Trump Prophecy, a movie telling the story of Mark Taylor, a former fireman from Orlando forced to retire after suffering from PTSD, which premiered on Tuesday.

Between graphic nightmares featuring demonic monsters and hellish flames, Taylor received a message from God in April 2011, while he was surfing television channels. As he clicked to an interview with Trump, Taylor heard God say: “You are hearing the voice of the next president.”

And so it came to pass, although it took another five years and a national prayer campaign. Taylor duly wrote a book, The Trump Prophecies: The Astonishing True Story of the Man Who Saw Tomorrow … and What He Says Is Coming Next, on which the movie is based.

Taylor has made other claims, which he calls “prophetic words”, including that Trump will serve two terms, the landmark supreme court ruling on abortion in the Roe v Wade case will be overturned, and that next month’s midterm elections will result in a “red tsunami”, strengthening Republican control of both houses of Congress.

Barack Obama will be charged with treason and Trump will authorise the arrest of “thousands of corrupt officials, many of whom are part of a massive satanic paedophile ring”. Trump will also force the release of cures for cancer and Alzheimer’s that are currently being withheld by the pharmaceutical industry.
If all this happens, it should be very interesting to observe. Time to stock up on popcorn!
Crownstay01 is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 02:07
  #16096 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: cowtown
Posts: 78
Unproven , allegations of behaviour that were denied by those named in the allegations created a " She said , THEY said " argument .

If you are going to take a run at a sitting Judge ,you better get your facts and witness's lined up and all your ducks in a row before you start .
The absolute failure of facts in the argument against a sitting Judge proves just how stupid some of the politicians involved in the unsubstantiated allegations are and why the need for Judges who are smarter than your average political hack .

The thing that I find most disturbing is the lack of respect for the six amendment and truth, in this hunt by witches and warlocks " . The Sixth Amendment mentions the right to be informed of the accusations and be allowed to challenge the accusation and accusers" based on English common Law . The Law is clear innocent until proven guilty .Only those who have been reading too much Mao and Castro would think guilty before a trial "execute first, trial later".
If they can ignore their own Slander, Libel Laws and Constitution with absolute impunity when dealing with Judges, What can the rest of the world expect from those Politicians whose judgement has been corrupted ?
fitliker is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 03:56
  #16097 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: 5Y
Posts: 428
I see the Trump crowd have dreamed-up a new wheeze to show how the world fears a strong USA, rather than laughing at the pitiful spectacle that is Trump. They are clearly humiliated that Russia wanted a Trump win as they know he is easily manipulated. So they have invented an opposing Chinese plot! Telling the world that the Chinese fear a strong and decisive Trump who challenges their trade practices! Very amusing and straight out of the dictator's play book.
double_barrel is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 05:03
  #16098 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 943
Can we take it the much promoted "Land of the free " will now be amended to include "not so and certainly not women " then ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45754771
Krystal n chips is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 07:28
  #16099 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,276
The Times:

”Success in the midterms relies on whether apathetic voters can be motivated, and the Supreme Court fight seems to be galvanising Republicans with the kind of passion felt by the Democratic base.

Democrats are trying to hold several seats in states that voted for Mr Trump in 2016. In West Virginia, where Mr Trump won 68.7 per cent of votes, the Democratic senator Joe Manchin has a 29-point lead if he votes to confirm Mr Kavanaugh, according to the Trafalgar Group polling company. The lead is projected to fall to just two points if he votes against the judge.

In Missouri, the Democratic senator Claire McCaskill is put in a dead heat with her Republican challenger Josh Hawley but is projected to trail by six points if she votes against Mr Kavanaugh. Heidi Heitkamp, the most vulnerable Democratic senator, was found yesterday to be trailing in North Dakota by 53 to 41 per cent, a seemingly unassailable 12-point gap that has grown over the past two weeks of intense focus on Mr Kavanaugh........

Far from the outrage in Washington, it is becoming clearer that America is fed up with mudslinging over the nomination and Republican voters are more motivated by it.”

ORAC is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 14:38
  #16100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: cowtown
Posts: 78
The question that needs answering by those who say they support womens issues and say they are against violence against women :
Why are there so many rapes kits waiting to be analyzed by forensic science police departments in left wing major cities ? The number of kits warehoused is frightening.
Where is there support for the victims to find the perpetrators of violence against women ?
Will they support the death penalty for violent sex crimes against women and children ?
fitliker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.