Christine Blasey Ford

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Not quite. It's about removal by means other than Impeachment. Conservatives already wrote a piece 10-15 years ago that said a Federal judge can be removed by means other than Impeachment. They argue that Federal judges can be removed for bad behavior. They take the Constitutional language and compare it against English law and laws written by the state to confirm the Original Intent of good behavior allows Federal judges to be removed by a trial conducted by judges. This is part of that ground work.
Looks like you consulted that great law journal...Vox. Wow. Impressive.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...-supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-no-impeachment

How to remove Brett Kavanaugh without impeaching him

In 2006, years before Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of attempting to rape her when they were both in high school, the Yale Law Journal published a provocative paper.

The paper, “How To Remove a Federal Judge” by law professors Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, lays out a road map for, well, how to remove a federal judge without resorting to the impeachment power. It argues that a provision of the Constitution stating that federal judges and justices “shall hold their offices during good behaviour” is widely misunderstood.

Contrary to the “virtually unquestioned assumption among constitutional law cognoscenti that impeachment is the only means of removing a federal judge,” Prakash and Smith argue that the term “good behavior” is a legal term of art that would have been understood by the founding generation to allow judges to be removed by “judicial process.”
...
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
21,039
Reaction score
707
Points
113
So it doesn't mean anything like I thought. Thanks.
In a democracy an institution is only as good as the confidence that people have in it. One of the corrosive effects of the trump presidency is his accelerated undermining of confidence in governmental institutions. The DOJ is now perceived by the majority of the country as the personal arm of the president. The secretaries of education, interior, energy and the head of EPA have been appointed to destroy or diminish their agencies or departments. Most of all, of course, the presidency.

For the most part, SCOTUS has maintained the confidence of the country, until Kav. Now there are two justices, Kav and Thomas, who are a stain on the court and Kav is on the court specifically to protect trump (see his writings on prosecuting a sitting prez) just as Barr is at justice to do the same. There's a difference between the country not liking a SCOTUS decision and the legitimacy of the court being undermined or questioned.

It's not black and white, so you won't understand.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Cite a source that says Ramirez has no recollection of it ever happening.
If you have to ask others if something happened b/c someone else told you it did, you have no recall of it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...she-wasnt-sure-kavanaugh-exposed-himself/amp/

In the course of calling former classmates to corroborate her claim that Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her at a dorm party, Deborah Ramirez told a number of them that she wasn’t entirely sure that Kavanaugh was responsible, the New York Times reported Sunday.

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge,” the Times reported. “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”
...
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
21,039
Reaction score
707
Points
113
If you have to ask others if something happened b/c someone else told you it did, you have no recall of it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.na...she-wasnt-sure-kavanaugh-exposed-himself/amp/

In the course of calling former classmates to corroborate her claim that Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her at a dorm party, Deborah Ramirez told a number of them that she wasn’t entirely sure that Kavanaugh was responsible, the New York Times reported Sunday.

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge,” the Times reported. “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”
...
It's good that you were able to find a year old source for craig. You must have been unable to locate the information that there were several people available to corroborate the Ramirez allegation who were not questioned.
 

monk10

Golden Gopher
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,599
Reaction score
29
Points
48
I never thought Obama was a foreign born Muslim. In fact, I fervently defended Obama regarding that nonsense on this forum. More than you ever did. I pointed out that his parents went to the lengths of sending him to Catholic school in Indonesia, the largest Muslim population country in the world. Why would they do that, if they were Muslim? Doesn't make any sense, does it? There were other things I criticized Obama for, but not for being Muslim, or foreign born. Now tell me about the things you've fervently defending Donald Trump on?
No you didn't. You were easily trollable on this stuff. It was how people started knowing you were an Alex Jones fanboi. It is how I knew I could get you to write three paragraphs a response when I got you going. Still sorry about that. I obviously don't find a lot of value in triggering people anymore, but I was good at it back in my day.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
I've never seen him this passionate about anything. You could trash Calvin Coolidge and Private Roads on the same thread and he wouldn't get as worked up as he is defending old Brett.
Because you're not saying Brett Kavanaugh is a bad judge. You're not saying his political or legal opinions are dumb or bad or whatever. You're saying he's a rapist, a liar, a sexual abuser. All because you don't want the state of Mississippi to ban abortion. Yeah, that makes my blood boil. You find the notion based on evidence that he's a good guy LAUGHABLE. You are so totally deluded it's pathetic.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
Perhaps Kav is unfit and never should have been confirmed, deuce. Once you are done hyperventilating and shaking your arms like an angry, frustrated preteen what you will find is further substantiation of the Ramirez allegation and a new allegation with one witness that should have been investigated. Ford always was credible. (Oh sh&t, you're hyperventilating again).

I still want to know how his credit cards were paid off.
It's over. It's been over. He's not getting impeached. He's a legitimate justice. His rulings will matter.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
Sure. It rings of ethics when the same fellas who spent 8 years talking about Obama being a scary foreign born Muslim get righteously indignant when people want to vet a SCOTUS justice with multiple women accusing him of assault.
I did? Huh, don't recall that at all. I shouldn't have voted for him in that case.

I also love the straw man. Why oh why am I so opposed to VETTING. I'm freaking out because I don't want Kav VETTED, says Howie.

Well, I suppose when you have debased yourself to this extent, that old subconscious kicks in and changes what you've done so you can live with yourself. Sick sick human. But Trump's hands!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
You don’t believe in laws anyway, deuce.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Ah, I see. So you do believe in the rule of law?

In a democracy an institution is only as good as the confidence that people have in it. One of the corrosive effects of the trump presidency is his accelerated undermining of confidence in governmental institutions. The DOJ is now perceived by the majority of the country as the personal arm of the president. The secretaries of education, interior, energy and the head of EPA have been appointed to destroy or diminish their agencies or departments. Most of all, of course, the presidency.

For the most part, SCOTUS has maintained the confidence of the country, until Kav. Now there are two justices, Kav and Thomas, who are a stain on the court and Kav is on the court specifically to protect trump (see his writings on prosecuting a sitting prez) just as Barr is at justice to do the same. There's a difference between the country not liking a SCOTUS decision and the legitimacy of the court being undermined or questioned.

It's not black and white, so you won't understand.
Ah, now that you don't control the court, you don't care about laws anymore.

I got news for you, the DOJ under Holder was the president's wingman. No complaint from you.

You want it your way, all the time, and you are throwing a temper tantrum that things are slightly moving in the other direction. Deal with it. Lovers of freedom and liberty have had to deal with progressives like you trashing the constitution and liberty for 100 years. A tiny setback on your way to communism must sting, but grow up.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
It's good that you were able to find a year old source for craig. You must have been unable to locate the information that there were several people available to corroborate the Ramirez allegation who were not questioned.
What a pathetic joke. EVERY single time you venture outside of one liner insults, you fall flat on your face. Year old source? A year old is somehow problematic? Yet a 40 year old allegation recently unearthed with no corroborating witness, and actually the identified witness for the accuser says it never happened? That's cool. But a year old source quoting the person directly contradicting your claim doesn't matter?

WOW. A new low for you.

And by the way, the only PERSON available to claim this attack happened is a Democrat operative. No conflict of interest at all.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
21,039
Reaction score
707
Points
113
What a pathetic joke. EVERY single time you venture outside of one liner insults, you fall flat on your face. Year old source? A year old is somehow problematic? Yet a 40 year old allegation recently unearthed with no corroborating witness, and actually the identified witness for the accuser says it never happened? That's cool. But a year old source quoting the person directly contradicting your claim doesn't matter?

WOW. A new low for you.

And by the way, the only PERSON available to claim this attack happened is a Democrat operative. No conflict of interest at all.
Caps. Good.

Did barn approve that post?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
It's good that you were able to find a year old source for craig. You must have been unable to locate the information that there were several people available to corroborate the Ramirez allegation who were not questioned.
Since the accusation is a year old, “a year old source” is logical for rational people with intelligence. That disqualifies you.

Please cite the details about these corroborating witnesses. Lay it out there for us.

Two NYT reporters just spent a year researching and writing this book about Kavanaugh’s college exploits, and the best they could come up with is an event that the purported victim says she doesn’t accuse Kavanaugh doing and doesn’t remember occurring.

The unquestioned witnesses that you say support the Ramirez assault aren’t even the story. You know why? B/c people don’t like to be named when their fabricated story can be questioned in public.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,904
Reaction score
2,462
Points
113
No you didn't. You were easily trollable on this stuff. It was how people started knowing you were an Alex Jones fanboi. It is how I knew I could get you to write three paragraphs a response when I got you going. Still sorry about that. I obviously don't find a lot of value in triggering people anymore, but I was good at it back in my day.
Here is an awesome thread covering both Obama and Pochahontas back in 2012! :) http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/bo...9-This-could-be-interesting&highlight=birther
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
What a pathetic joke. EVERY single time you venture outside of one liner insults, you fall flat on your face. Year old source? A year old is somehow problematic? Yet a 40 year old allegation recently unearthed with no corroborating witness, and actually the identified witness for the accuser says it never happened? That's cool. But a year old source quoting the person directly contradicting your claim doesn't matter?

WOW. A new low for you.

And by the way, the only PERSON available to claim this attack happened is a Democrat operative. No conflict of interest at all.
It’s so sad and pathetic to see jam jam try to make an argument. Just watching him try to connect the dots of a story is painful.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
Sure. Because being denied a seat on the Supreme Court is the same as being nailed a cross and left for dead. Awesome take. Way to keep things in perspective.
This is a very important point, that needs to be stressed.

Kav has not and will not be charged with a crime. He has not and will not be named in a civil lawsuit. He won't lose his freedom, he won't pay a fine, he won't have a judgement/verdict ruled against him, and he won't have to pay a settlement.

We're talking about a process of nominating and vetting someone for an official position. Therefore, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", does not apply. And the higher the position is, the stronger that concept must discarded.

Anything about a person's past can be dis-qualifying, regardless how relevant it is to their ability to perform the position or their likely biases in doing it.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
Really good piece from LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...ates-rush-to-judgment-on-impeaching-kavanaugh

Whatever you think of Kavanaugh’s veracity — or his judicial philosophy, which is abhorrent to a lot of Democrats — this is an unseemly rush to judgment.

It was clear even before the article was published that the FBI didn’t take enough time to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh that bubbled up after Christine Blasey Ford accused the Supreme Court nominee of assaulting her when they were teenagers. The process seems even more slipshod in light of a second accusation about Kavanaugh’s time at Yale.

But for now it’s just an accusation, and there are complications that counsel caution in jumping to conclusions about it. For example, friends of the woman say she does not recall the incident, a detail in the book by Pogrebin and Kelly that the New York Times belatedly acknowledged in an “editor’s note” appended to their article.

Conceivably a new investigation by the FBI of allegations against Kavanaugh might turn up information that would justify the opening of an impeachment inquiry. It likely would focus on whether the nominee was truthful when he told the Senate Judiciary Committee that “I have never sexually assaulted anyone — not in high school, not in college, not ever,” and that he never was so intoxicated that he would pass out or forget what he’d done.

But the calls for impeachment are premature and open to the charge that they’re politically motivated. Presidernt Trump certainly seems to see the attacks on Kavanaugh as political (and politically advantageous for him). On Sunday he tweeted a defense of Kavanaugh with the hashtag #ProtectKavanaugh.

Not every would-be Democratic nominee joined the call for Kavanaugh’s impeachment. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who also used the word “sham” to describe the screening process for Kavanaugh, nevertheless stopped short calling for his impeachment. She noted that before Congress could begin impeachment hearings about Kavanaugh it would need to obtain documents related to the FBI’s background check. Former Vice President Joe Biden also held back, calling for an investigation into “whether the Trump administration and Senate Republicans pressured the FBI to ignore evidence.” Those reactions seem more prudent, and presidential, than the cries for impeachment.

If anything serious ever comes from this, regardless what you think about if Kav did it or not, the bolded is the key thing. He said, under oath, that he didn't do it.
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
Doesn't matter. Lawfare, the MSM & the rest knew it would be easily debunked, but what matters is the imprint they made on the minds of the believers. In the minds of these people, he's still guilty. Guilty until proven innocent. The new standard. Earlier in the thread I noted someone talking about there being a "pattern" with Kavanaugh. That's an important point. Four allegations against Kavanaugh now, with three of them being debunked & the main one by CBF, quite obviously a lie. The dropped or debunked claims don't matter. Imprinted in their minds is that accusations = a "pattern". Doesn't matter if the accusations are all fake. That part they dismiss. What they're left with is the "pattern". It's a psy-op & it works.
Who is this Lawfare? I asked you for some information about them, back in post #2657.

And I address the misconception about "innocent until proven guilty" in post #2746.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
This is a very important point, that needs to be stressed.

Kav has not and will not be charged with a crime. He has not and will not be named in a civil lawsuit. He won't lose his freedom, he won't pay a fine, he won't have a judgement/verdict ruled against him, and he won't have to pay a settlement.

We're talking about a process of nominating and vetting someone for an official position. Therefore, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", does not apply. And the higher the position is, the stronger that concept must discarded.

Anything about a person's past can be dis-qualifying, regardless how relevant it is to their ability to perform the position or their likely biases in doing it.
Frankly, him losing his $%^ and ranting during his confirmation hearing alone was enough that it would have derailed his nomination in previous eras. If that was his job interview, he failed.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,598
Reaction score
513
Points
113
Frankly, him losing his $%^ and ranting during his confirmation hearing alone was enough that it would have derailed his nomination in previous eras. If that was his job interview, he failed.
Haha- total Loony Lefty nutjob stuff. If some mentally ill dingbat falsely accused you of something over 30 years ago, you'd "lose your schitt" as well. I respect him more for that.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,859
Reaction score
440
Points
83
Haha- total Loony Lefty nutjob stuff. If some mentally ill dingbat falsely accused you of something over 30 years ago, you'd "lose your schitt" as well. I respect him more for that.
Dumb post. Supreme Court justices shouldn't lose their $hit. I'm not even saying he did. But since you are conceding that he did, I would suggest he should have a more calm demeanor as a Supreme Court judge and not one so easily swayed by emotion because someone says something he doesn't like.
 

LesBolstad

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,598
Reaction score
513
Points
113
Dumb post. Supreme Court justices shouldn't lose their $hit. I'm not even saying he did. But since you are conceding that he did, I would suggest he should have a more calm demeanor as a Supreme Court judge and not one so easily swayed by emotion because someone says something he doesn't like.
Even dumber post. Typical lefty response garbage. No facts, only opinion.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
16,859
Reaction score
440
Points
83
Even dumber post. Typical lefty response garbage. No facts, only opinion.
Yeah, it's an opinion. :confused: Just like yours. Very insightful and massive logic fail. I wouldn't expect anything Less from Leftsy. (The big difference is that your opinion is wrong.)
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
21,039
Reaction score
707
Points
113
Really good piece from LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...ates-rush-to-judgment-on-impeaching-kavanaugh




If anything serious ever comes from this, regardless what you think about if Kav did it or not, the bolded is the key thing. He said, under oath, that he didn't do it.
The goal of the investigation was to make sure that they didn’t find anything and the FBI, the WH, the DOJ and Grassley accomplished the goal. Nonetheless, even under a dem president and a dem senate, the country won’t have the appetite to impeach Kav even with concrete findings that he lied to Congress about his predatory behaviors and/or his finances.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,844
Points
113
The goal of the investigation was to make sure that they didn’t find anything and the FBI, the WH, the DOJ and Grassley accomplished the goal. Nonetheless, even under a dem president and a dem senate, the country won’t have the appetite to impeach Kav even with concrete findings that he lied to Congress about his predatory behaviors and/or his finances.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I agree. I think it would take something along the lines of the getting caught with a dead girl or live boy standard to impeach him. Besides there will be no such thing as "concrete" evidence for the GOP in this case. The Dems need to let this go. The Trump administration has plenty of other scandals for them to focus on.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
The goal of the investigation was to make sure that they didn’t find anything and the FBI, the WH, the DOJ and Grassley accomplished the goal. Nonetheless, even under a dem president and a dem senate, the country won’t have the appetite to impeach Kav even with concrete findings that he lied to Congress about his predatory behaviors and/or his finances.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I would wager that if it were possible to ask every voter in the country, a (slim) majority of them would not choose a response like "I believe that concerns about Kavanaugh's past disqualify him from the SCOTUS".

There are time where it is appropriate for the minority to get its way, over the majority. Otherwise, we are just a pure democracy. And as others have pointed out, that isn't the case and shouldn't be the case.


Regardless, I'm fine with what howeda says directly above.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,297
Reaction score
2,023
Points
113
Then again, did the country have the appetite, under a dem president and a dem senate, to enact the ACA??

You could argue that the tea party, McConnell, alt-right, Trump, etc. all stems from pushing that through.


Oh well. Back and forth we swing, more and more extreme ...
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
I think it would take something along the lines of the getting caught with a dead girl or live boy standard to impeach him.
You mean like a drowned girl in a drunken driving incident?

I got an idea, how about you find ANYTHING on Kavanaugh before we start talking about how unreasonable Rs are for not impeaching him.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,694
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
This is a very important point, that needs to be stressed.

Kav has not and will not be charged with a crime. He has not and will not be named in a civil lawsuit. He won't lose his freedom, he won't pay a fine, he won't have a judgement/verdict ruled against him, and he won't have to pay a settlement.

We're talking about a process of nominating and vetting someone for an official position. Therefore, the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", does not apply. And the higher the position is, the stronger that concept must discarded.

Anything about a person's past can be dis-qualifying, regardless how relevant it is to their ability to perform the position or their likely biases in doing it.
We are just destroying his reputation, so chill out and shut up so we can get rid of him and keep abortion.
 
Top Bottom