politics

popular · new · word cloud
1
KavanaUGH (self.politics)
submitted by boyfromnyc 36 days ago

When KavanaUGH was nominated, I realized he and I had different political stripes,
but I believed him to be a qualified jurist.
Maybe that is still the case.
However as the hearings proceeded and the allegations and denials unfolded on a daily basis,
confusion took centerstage.

Amidst all the he /said she said a thorough investigation seemed warranted.
We are not privy to the FBI report, but it appears the FBI could take a few lessons from the team at
SVU in the name of thoroughness.

I listened to Susan Collins' justification for her vote.
It seems she limited her thinking/ analysis solely to the FBI report.
If that is the case, she had no choice to vote the way she did.

However, shouldn't she have sought more information?

Also, shouldn't she have considered KavanaUGH's emotional fitness for the Supreme Court.

Would anyone who has interviewed and hired people have given him a job.

The decision to be made called for more than limited thinking.
It called for judgement about fitness, not about politics or even judicial fitness.

log in to comment
3 total comments
1
djfrodo 36 days ago

When KavanaUGH was nominated, I realized he and I had different political stripes,
but I believed him to be a qualified jurist.
Maybe that is still the case.

Sorry but after watching the "hearing", the perjury, the stolen emails in the Clinton case, etc. I can't really see how anyone could think K is an acceptable choice to a lifetime appointment to the SC.

If you look at his record he's basically going to take down R vs W, continue to let dark money into elections, allow gerrymandering, and cover Trump's ass but doing away with double jeopardy laws (basically states can't prosecute crimes if it's tried at the federal level - a reversal of a law which has been around since basically forever).

K is a partisan hack.

/rant

0
boyfromnyc 35 days ago

I am confident that neither of us believe KavanaUGH should be a Supreme Court Judge.
However, we get to that conclusion via different routes.
If I interpret your comments correctly, you are opposed to him because of his judicial philosophies and
his politics; a legitimate position
However carried to an extreme such thinking would result in a Court of likeminded individuals
(I must admit we do seem to be headed in that direction)

I do not believe unanimity of thought was what the Founding Fathers intended
At least that is how I read The Federalists.

My opposition to K,( I kind of like your Kafkaesque reference), is based on the man's temperament
and his ability to control his emotions, particularly at times of stress.

I'll admit to naivete, but I am more willing to accept someone with whom I disagree than
someone who has demonstrated the ability to lose it.

0
djfrodo 35 days ago

If I interpret your comments correctly, you are opposed to him because of his judicial philosophies and his politics

You do know the man has perjured himself and used stolen emails to go after Clinton right?

Add to that his temperament and his politics, which are obviously partisan, and then choose one, some or all of those reasons - that's why I don't think he should be on the SC.