• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Report: Kavanaugh won’t commit to recusal from Trump/Mueller related matters

Junebug said:
This is true and I don’t disagree. I’m just suggesting that each senator should ask himself or herself whether Ford, etc., have proven their accusations by a preponderance. I’m not on board with Birdman’s probability analysis.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what the term "perponderance" means, but I (probably) agree with this if the consequences of a no vote were Kavanaugh going to jail and not him returning to his life time appointment on the DC court. The consequences of a yes vote are putting a guy that might have attempted to rape a girl 30 years ago on the supreme court for the rest of his life. I probably would have been ok with it if there weren't a second and possibly third accusation and now a number of character witness out there saying this guy was a drunken douche in the 80's and was quite capable of this behavior. We don't really need anyone else in the judiciary that heavily sympathizes with the Brock Turner's of the world. I mostly think that there will be no further substantial revelations of evidence at the hearing on Thursday and the senators will have to vote based on what they know now, and I hope they ask themselves "Is it worth risking putting a possible rapist on the court?"
 
sailordeac said:
he is qualified and has a lifetime of achievement to prove it, he's undergone a number of investigations and submitted to extensive questioning under oath, then someone started a nasty rumor about him without appearing publicly or providing supporting evidence, and therefore some say he's all of a sudden not qualified, seems fair and reasonable

the women who know Kavanaugh most extensively support him and yet the party that claims to support women and listens to women opposes him and chooses to ignore the voices of these women

looks like for the dims the only credible woman is one who agrees with them
Click to expand...

Disagree with everything before the bold, but will leave it for now. Is the bold what you actually think is going on here?

If that’s all it was then the committee would be correct to look past it, though certainly not required.
 
Last edited:
As a non-lawyer, I have to admit I laugh heartily any time anybody uses the term "originalism". What a dumb name for an essential analytical philosophy. It makes y'all sound like a child (or 1L) who has just discovered hermeneutics for the first time.
 
Junebug said:
Yep. But I’ve never been a senator asked to give advice and consent on a presidential appointment. There is a little bit more going on in the latter.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure there is.
 
wakephan09 said:
As a non-lawyer, I have to admit I laugh heartily any time anybody uses the term "originalism". What a dumb name for an essential analytical philosophy. It makes y'all sound like a child (or 1L) who has just discovered hermeneutics for the first time.
Click to expand...

You sound almost as fun as a lawyer though.
 
Lol, junebug so self-conscious. And jhmd (and lectro too, though not a lawyer) are perfect examples of what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like.

Biff, I can assure you I am far less fun than most lawyers.
 
wakephan09 said:
As a non-lawyer, I have to admit I laugh heartily
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
I laugh heartily
Click to expand...

Junebug said:
I’m laughing heartily.
Click to expand...

kawhi-leonard-laugh.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top