Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

Well that is because the mainstream left have now become extremists. When you have a party of extremists, you get that kind of thing.

I posted this a few pages back, but it shows how the average Republican is pretty similar to how they were 23 years ago but the average Democrat is now left of what was seen as extreme 23 years ago.

 

No, he loudly admitted that he was being attacked by partisan extremists, which is the case. The fact that the extremists on the left decided to attack Kavanaugh as if he was their enemy is not his fault.

 

This to me is the most important issue to oppose Kavanaugh. This is something that on principle anyone who believes that the President isn't above the law and that liberty is important should oppose. Unfortunately this is more short sighted thinking that puts momentary power over longterm principle. It is something that Kavanaugh himself as exemplified in his shifting position on this depending on whether his party occupies the Presidency or not.

 

I'm not saying he doesn't have reason to be angry as a Judge though there is anger towards the process. He wasn't just angry at the process he was angry at a specific set of people.

Again to the sports analogy. If the ref I described was angry at Fertitta because Fertitta had harmed in someway unrelated to his job as a referee that ref would have good cause to be angry. That still would mean that was biased and couldn't be impartial calling Rockets' games.

You're simply justifying his bias while he is up for a position that upholds impartiality.

 

Sounds like they figured out pretty quickly that the Ford allegation was baseless and have already moved on to the next one. Perhaps this is going to get done more quickly than I thought.

 

He was angry at the specific set of people who were attacking him and calling him a rapist based on nothing but a baseless allegation. He SHOULD be angry about that.

As to your sports analogy, if Fertitta was unfairly attacking a ref and their family, I don't think the NBA would punish the ref for it. As to judicial partisan bias, if that mattered, they'd have forced Ruth Bader Ginsburg out a LONG time ago.

Most importantly, I don't think that a person being attacked by extremists means that they won't be able to fairly interpret the law. Is he likely to accept the extremists' interpretation of the law? No, but that's a good thing.

 

My takeaway so far

1. All info I have heard/seen so far point to him being a heavy drinker that often got drunk in his high school and college days. Thus it is more likely the allegation happened but he was too drunk to remember it.

2. He has repeatedly misrepresented his character and particularly his drinking habits - he was no choir boy. Add his deliberate evasiveness and partisan lashing out, he is more of a politician than an unbiased jurist. Someone like him shouldnt be on the SCOTUS.

 

LOL, love the "logic" here

Person drinks alcohol in high school, thus they are an attempted rapist despite no evidence supporting that conclusion whatsoever.

That's absolutely the kind of "logic" you get from extremists.

 

Once again you're justifying bias. If a ref was attacked by Fertitta it wouldn't make Fertitta look good and depending on the situation the ref would be able to sue for damages including loss of job. That Ref though can NEVER BE CONSIDERED IMPARTIAL TO THE ROCKETS.

Regarding Ruth Bader Ginsurg she's certainly expressed political opinions as did the late Scalia and current justice Thomas. I don't recall any of them specifically and publicly calling out political enemies.

if your argument is that it isn't fair that Kavanaugh can be accused on what I've stated I don't find to be damning evidence. I would agree with you. This is the US Supreme Court though. It's not any other job. It's one where impartiality is supposed to be the highest standard. If you're willing to accept a nominee that has publicly and specifically called out political enemies in his nomination hearings should be on the USSC then I hope you're prepared to accept it when the nominee is someone appointed by Democrat and they call out a vast Right Wing Conspiracy agaisnt them.

 

You can tell his bias was irrational when he brought up the Clintons. The dude is GOP to the core from the days of working under Ken Starr to this week unnecessarily bringing up the Clintons in a wacky conspiracy theory.

Supreme Court Justices don't shout out conspiracy theories.

 

Everyone has some kind of bias. Justice Thomas called out the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee for attempting to lynch him....he actually used the word "lynch"....and, let's face it, that's what they were trying to do. I don't think it's wrong for a judge to call out those unfairly attacking them. If those unfairly attacking them are of one party, so be it. That doesn't mean that they are incapable of interpreting the law in an impartial manner....it just means that those conducting the confirmation process were incapable of doing so in an impartial manner.

If Republicans were using the same despicable tactics that the Democrats are currently using, I'd call them out for it. The issue here is that you have an extremist party that want their way by any means necessary. That's a problem no matter which party it is. Hopefully the Democratic party returns to sanity before they push the Republican party into a similar extremist position.

 

He honestly sounded kinda like Limbaugh.

I guess some people would love a Supreme Court w Kav, Rush, and Hannity too.

 

"Credible story"

-Current year Democrats

 

We once said that about POTUS.

 

Incorrect. Its pretty petty of you to think conservatives are fighting the #metoo movement, as if conservatives think its ok to go around sexually assaulting people. Insane.

Again, this is about stopping the precedent of unsubstantiated claims in attempts to derail a candidate. We can't allowed unethical politicians like Feinstein to bring forth allegations at the 11th hour that are nearly impossible to prove or collaborate. This is what you're not understanding. All you see is the short term victory instead of the long haul repercussions. There are too many Republican politicians out there who are just as unethical as Feinstein and they will shitty tactics like this in the future to disrupt what could be meaningful legislation or decisions. I dont want that and you shouldn't want that. If it was my choice, I wouldn't have selected Kavanaugh but I respect the political process. Just like I respect the Republicans putting the right wing extremist Thomas on the SCOTUS and how the Democrats put the extremist Sotomeyor and Kagan on the SCOTUS. If Kavanaugh turns out to be an extremist, its fine with me as it balances out the absurdity of turning the most powerful element of our government into a political partisan madhouse.

What does this have to do with anything? There are plenty of politicians who rant and rave. Your partisan eyes are looking for any reason to disqualify him, not just on the accusations alone.

 

The Republicans felt that they've nailing Harvey W. Al Franken, and the others were enough. They want to put a stop to it, now.

Politicians rant and rave but not usually at job interviews.

 

This is a flat out brainless take. You are better than this.