-
[QUOTE=JimBob;450238]There are plenty of trial judges who don't know jack about the law, and spend their whole careers never learning, because in fact the lawyers educate the judge on the specific law pertaining to individual cases, because one lawyer cant know everything, and laws change with time. Graduation from law school is not even a requirement to be a judge in many jurisdictions. They are political appointees chosen by voters or chosen by representatives who were chosen by voters because it is we the people (not the law schools) who govern the country through our elected officials. Your argument is based solely in opinion not fact. You be a good judge by doing the things which cause the people who put you in your job to keep you there. The judge's legal clerk and the parties' lawyers must scurry around figuring out the law.
.[/QUOTE]It's good to see a lively conversation about she said he said.
What IF the Judge kid tells the FBI that it was him instead of Kavanaugh that juped the Ford girl.......goes like this.
Kavanaugh and judge go up the stairs, Kavanaugh says he has to take a shit down the hallway, judge waits upstairs (drunk like a 17 year old) she comes up the stairs and one thing leads to another and he goes for it and pushes her into the bedroom on the bed, he jumps on and they eventually roll off the bed and she screams. Kavanaugh comes out of the bathroom and hears a scream and enters the bedroom and see judge on top of her. Kavanaugh grabs him from behind and they leave the bedroom and they go downstairs. Assuming boys will be boys (after all, nobody got brutally raped) they forgot about. Kavanaugh would have never known to this day who the girl was.
-
Maybe Kavanaugh should say he is gay and it was him and Judge that were making out. It would destroy Blasey's story, and the left would be pleased as punch to have a gay judge.
[QUOTE=Retired66;450239]...drunk like a 17 year old...[/QUOTE]
lol@ drunk like a 17 year old. Maybe I should run for supreme court judge. Because I never saw excitement like this in my high school. To be honest I simply can't believe these guys were running a gang rape chain.
-
[QUOTE=JimBob;450240]Maybe Kavanaugh should say he is gay and it was him and Judge that were making out. It would destroy Blasey's story, and the left would be pleased as punch to have a gay judge.
lol@ drunk like a 17 year old. Maybe I should run for supreme court judge. Because I never saw excitement like this in my high school. To be honest I simply can't believe these guys were running a gang rape chain.[/QUOTE]Gay boys, the dems would say it's racist if it was 2 white guys.
Yeah, the swetnick chick is a fucking complete nut job.
Metoo.... I went to a Catholic high school, we had a handful of drunk/stoners guys. Not sure if there were any guys molested, most of the whispers were related to priests banging the nuns. I remember a couple nuns taking a sabbatical to South America and looking thinner when they returned. Back then Christian orphanages came in handy.
-
[QUOTE=Tres3;450233]I do not oppose Judge Kavenaugh because of something that might have occurred when he was a teenager. I oppose the nomination to a judgeship of any lawyer who does not have trial experience. Lawyers specialize in many aspects of the law. A good litigator specializes in trying cases in a courtroom. How is someone going to be a good judge, if that person has never been in a courtroom facing a judge? It does not matter whether or not that judge is a justice of the peace, or a Supreme Court Justice. An attorney must start somewhere. Kavenaugh, and others, are political appointments who should have never donned a judge's robes because they had no trial experience. No one should be surprised that the nomination has become a partisan political circus. Experience is a prerequisite for virtually every profession extant.[/QUOTE]I could not disagree more. However, I respect your right to your opinion and will fight to the death for your right to express it...provided that you are an American citizen.
-
[QUOTE=Retired66;450239]It's good to see a lively conversation about she said he said.
What IF the Judge kid tells the FBI that it was him instead of Kavanaugh that juped the Ford girl.......goes like this.
Kavanaugh and judge go up the stairs, Kavanaugh says he has to take a shit down the hallway, judge waits upstairs (drunk like a 17 year old) she comes up the stairs and one thing leads to another and he goes for it and pushes her into the bedroom on the bed, he jumps on and they eventually roll off the bed and she screams. Kavanaugh comes out of the bathroom and hears a scream and enters the bedroom and see judge on top of her. Kavanaugh grabs him from behind and they leave the bedroom and they go downstairs. Assuming boys will be boys (after all, nobody got brutally raped) they forgot about. Kavanaugh would have never known to this day who the girl was.[/QUOTE]There was a report that two men had made statements to the committee, stating that they were the two men who had been involved with the Ford incident. It popped up on buzzfed, drudge and a couple other sites on Thrus/fri and then disappeared. I suspect that she had an encounter like the one she described in the late '80s (her first story) and morphed it to fit the narrative that it was Kavanaugh.
As for lively political debate on this site...well, I have been on sabbatical...
-
Apart from the several alleged sexual assaults, I'd say the main reason he's unsuitable for this office is his blatant political partisanship displayed to full effect during the hearing. Plus his near hysterical behaviour and references to the Democrats funding her legal expenses (her lawyers had already said that they were working pro bono). He'd be an embarrassment to the court and to the country.
-
Just because he's going to be on the supreme court doesn't mean he has to lay down while people walk over him. He has a right to be upset about false claims levelled at him. You know if he had not been passionate about his own defense someone would have said he seems guilty because he just sat there without reacting. His outburst was hardly hysterical though, it was merely passionate, and probably planned in advance. Those lawyers most certainly are not pro-bono, they are hired guns of the Dimocrats. Pretty sure they will be the targets of ethics complaints for lying about that.
[QUOTE=SteveC;450251]Apart from the several alleged sexual assaults, I'd say the main reason he's unsuitable for this office is his blatant political partisanship displayed to full effect during the hearing. Plus his near hysterical behaviour and references to the Democrats funding her legal expenses (her lawyers had already said that they were working pro bono). He'd be an embarrassment to the court and to the country.[/QUOTE]
-
[QUOTE=JimBob;450252]Just because he's going to be on the supreme court doesn't mean he has to lay down while people walk over him. He has a right to be upset about false claims levelled at him. You know if he had not been passionate about his own defense someone would have said he seems guilty because he just sat there without reacting. His outburst was hardly hysterical though, it was merely passionate, and probably planned in advance. Those lawyers most certainly are not pro-bono, they are hired guns of the Dimocrats. Pretty sure they will be the targets of ethics complaints for lying about that.[/QUOTE]Whether passionate or hysterical is a subjective opinion, but I'd bet you an expensive dinner next time we're both in BsAs that those lawyers told the truth and won't be found guilty about lying about being pro-bono. The Republicans will say or do anything to get this nomination through.
-
Bromvich and Katz each have long histories as Democrat partisans, they were recommended by Feinstein, they are being funded through GoFundMe sites, which is just redirecting the payments from Democrat money bags. It may be hard to trace the finances of Blasey's lawyers, however certainly not pro bono lawyers helping the poor out of civic duty: Blasey didn't file any papers in court to get free counsel due to being indigent. Blasey didn't even know who paid for her lawyers or polygraph which seems absurd she very well knew it was funded by unnamed Democrat supporters and was not pro bono. As for lying, her lawyers were dishonest about her "fear of flying" and about telling her that the committee had agreed to fly out to California. Of course the bar is against Kavanaugh, so an ethics complaint that would go through the bar might not accomplish much.
Dinner in BsAs right now costs under $5 so that is not really worth much
[QUOTE=SteveC;450257]Whether passionate or hysterical is a subjective opinion, but I'd bet you an expensive dinner next time we're both in BsAs that those lawyers told the truth and won't be found guilty about lying about being pro-bono. The Republicans will say or do anything to get this nomination through.[/QUOTE]
-
[QUOTE=JimBob;450258]Bromvich and Katz each have long histories as Democrat partisans, they were recommended by Feinstein, they are being funded through GoFundMe sites, which is just redirecting the payments from Democrat money bags. It may be hard to trace the finances of Blasey's lawyers, however certainly not pro bono lawyers helping the poor out of civic duty: Blasey didn't file any papers in court to get free counsel due to being indigent. Blasey didn't even know who paid for her lawyers or polygraph which seems absurd she very well knew it was funded by unnamed Democrat supporters and was not pro bono. As for lying, her lawyers were dishonest about her "fear of flying" and about telling her that the committee had agreed to fly out to California. Of course the bar is against Kavanaugh, so an ethics complaint that would go through the bar might not accomplish much.
Dinner in BsAs right now costs under $5 so that is not really worth much[/QUOTE]Actually at least one of the supporters was named. Phil Lesh gave $10k. Jim Bob, you have revealed yourself as not being a Deadhead or you would have found the information in your Google feed. LOL. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqhemmeAZAA[/URL].
-
Maybe sums over $10,000 are subject to mandatory reporting. I am sure there are numerous donations in the $9600 range seems to be a safe amount chosen to avoid mandatory reporting at $10,000 and heightened scrutiny for amounts of 9,999 etc. It's one of those grey areas where these lawyers are being dishonest in saying it is pro bono, I am pretty sure they can guess where the money comes from, but they have plausible deniability they can claim they don't know who individual donors are. Basically the Democrat representatives could deny confirmation of Kavanaugh for any reason they like, if they had sufficient votes, but because they don't have enough votes, they are doing this completely unacceptable smear campaign, relying on crocodile tears of ridiculous lying women who can smear him with false allegations without a shred of evidence, or trying to goad Kavanaugh in to some type of reaction (such as the emotional theatrics SteveC mentioned) to give them some other excuse to derail the nomination. I would think the members of this forum would be very worried about metoo, even if you don't like Kavanaugh, any woman you meet alone could accuse you. Imagine if some chica figures out you're an important person, then threatens to report you for "abuse" if you don't pay her off, the investigation would reveal you paid for sex, which would subject you to possible legal action in the USA, you would be stuck between a rock and a hard spot. This metoo movement is dangerous to every man. Seems like another man who has himself been damaged by metoo is a good man to have on the highest court to reign in this craziness.
[QUOTE=BigBossMan;450260]Actually at least one of the supporters was named. Phil Lesh gave $10k. Jim Bob, you have revealed yourself as not being a Deadhead or you would have found the information in your Google feed. LOL. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqhemmeAZAA[/URL].[/QUOTE].
-
Interesting article from Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.
[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/opinion/justice-kavanaugh-recuse-himself.html[/URL]
As for "This metoo movement is dangerous to every man", that is just ridiculous. I personally know of three women that were sexually assaulted by men in authority over them and were intimidated in various ways to keep silent. I think to deny the power that powerful men have had over women is closing your eyes to reality.
As for proving that her lawyers didn't work pro bono, as you say yourself, "It may be hard to trace the finances of Blasey's lawyers", but if you do I'm sure that I can do better than $5 dollars for a dinner.
-
And some more strong reasons for opposing the nomination. The first time WaPo has opposed a SCOTUS nomination since Bork.
[URL]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.7a908e39da2b[/URL]
-
You know three women who claim to have been assaulted. I know three women who claim to have been assaulted also, and I am quite convinced all three are liars: Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnik. We all watched the interview where Ford lied her pants off making contradictory statements. I won't get in to the lies of Ramirez and Swetnik because they are not even worth addressing. It seems that there is no intimidation of women even when they are obviously lying to keep quiet, because prosecutors simply won't go after a crying woman for perjury. There is simply no country where women are more free to speak their minds, including lying with impunity under oath, than the United States. But who really cares if an alleged assaulter gets off scott free. Real criminals go free, and the innocent are jailed every day due to prosecutorial misconduct. How does that harm you in the least? However, if you are the subject of a false accusation, you are assumed to be guilty, and suffer tremendously even if you are proven innocent. That is the reality that matters. What we see is many gold-diggers taking advantage of their ability to enrich themselves by attacking rich and powerful men with crocodile tears, that is the reality. If you're paying women to have sex with you, then these people would say you're assaulting women because the women are forced from economic necessity to have sex against their will. Of course we all know this is untrue, we have all heard the screams of bliss of happy h00kers and observed them skipping home joyously with our money in their pockets. But anyone of them could falsely accuse you of assault, and your reputation would be destroyed, because it would be reported you were "trafficking" women, even if you somehow beat the assault charge. I would like to hear how you explain to these three women who you claim to know that you were just helping a poor women feed her fatherless children or something and weren't "trafficking"
[QUOTE=SteveC;450262]Interesting article from Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School.
[URL]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/opinion/justice-kavanaugh-recuse-himself.html[/URL]
As for "This metoo movement is dangerous to every man", that is just ridiculous. I personally know of three women that were sexually assaulted by men in authority over them and were intimidated in various ways to keep silent. I think to deny the power that powerful men have had over women is closing your eyes to reality.
As for proving that her lawyers didn't work pro bono, as you say yourself, "It may be hard to trace the finances of Blasey's lawyers", but if you do I'm sure that I can do better than $5 dollars for a dinner.[/QUOTE].
-
[QUOTE=JimBob;450261]Maybe sums over $10,000 are subject to mandatory reporting. I am sure there are numerous donations in the $9600 range seems to be a safe amount chosen to avoid mandatory reporting at $10,000 and heightened scrutiny for amounts of 9,999 etc. It's one of those grey areas where these lawyers are being dishonest in saying it is pro bono, I am pretty sure they can guess where the money comes from, but they have plausible deniability they can claim they don't know who individual donors are. Basically the Democrat representatives could deny confirmation of Kavanaugh for any reason they like, if they had sufficient votes, but because they don't have enough votes, they are doing this completely unacceptable smear campaign, relying on crocodile tears of ridiculous lying women who can smear him with false allegations without a shred of evidence, or trying to goad Kavanaugh in to some type of reaction (such as the emotional theatrics SteveC mentioned) to give them some other excuse to derail the nomination. I would think the members of this forum would be very worried about metoo, even if you don't like Kavanaugh, any woman you meet alone could accuse you. Imagine if some chica figures out you're an important person, then threatens to report you for "abuse" if you don't pay her off, the investigation would reveal you paid for sex, which would subject you to possible legal action in the USA, you would be stuck between a rock and a hard spot. This metoo movement is dangerous to every man. Seems like another man who has himself been damaged by metoo is a good man to have on the highest court to reign in this craziness.
.[/QUOTE]The limiting number on the GoFundMe is probably the Gift Tax. GoFundMe is self-reporting. Usually you can see the list of names of people that have donated. Of course, it does not stop people from using fake names.
You bring up an interesting question. Do banks have to report to the Feds all domestic transactions over $10k. My understanding is that they have to report all foreign transactions over $10k. Does anyone here know?
I think the only real difference I have with Kavanaugh is his stance on abortion. I would assume most members of this Board are pro abortion rights. Otherwise he votes 95% of the time with Garland on the Appeals court. I was not against Garland.
Since most abortions are done with pills these days, I doubt getting Roe vs Wade overturned will have much affect on the number of abortions in the USA. Women will just not have a right to privacy about her abortion if Roe vs Wade is overturned. Before Roe vs Wade there all kinds of mechanisms to get an abortion. With the pills, it will be even easier to subvert law. I doubt the USA puts anyone to death for performing abortions like the Germans did in the 1940s. A movie I watched that told the story is "The Story of Women." Actually this one was in France not Germany. I can't find it for free. Here is the intro from a TV show. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdTlV8TmcTI&list=PLQiuBWj5dGHQGlEcMbitCWOD3TOVmLLzf[/URL].