Kavanaugh Confirmation

#15,976
#15,976
evillawyer said:
Does it come with an informational brocure explaining the difference between criminal trials and job interviews?
Click to expand...
Would you not hire a person if that person was qualified and passed his background check but a random person called trying to get a person fired by making an unprovable accusation from 36 years ago?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeTrain and 37L1
#15,977
#15,977
volinbham said:
got him now
Click to expand...

Most likely outcome of that is that the 10th circuit dumps the complaints as moot. I predict it will happen after the midterms.

This seems like an unprecedented situation, but from what I understand Supreme Court Justices are not subject to these types of complaints. Certainly it would be strange for a circuit court to issue a judgment against a Supreme Court Justice.

Basically, I suspect that they’ll say that these things happened in the senate and the senate confirmed him and we no longer have jurisdiction so even if we were inclined to say it’s a big deal, which were not saying it is or it isn’t, we can’t do anything about it.

Edit: I really need to start reading further before responding.
 
#15,978
#15,978
RockyTop85 said:
Most likely outcome of that is that the 10th circuit dumps the complaints as moot. I predict it will happen after the midterms.

This seems like an unprecedented situation, but from what I understand Supreme Court Justices are not subject to these types of complaints. Certainly it would be strange for a circuit court to issue a judgment against a Supreme Court Justice.

Basically, I suspect that they’ll say that these things happened in the senate and the senate confirmed him and we no longer have jurisdiction so even if we were inclined to say it’s a big deal, which were not saying it is or it isn’t, we can’t do anything about it.

Edit: I really need to start reading further before responding.
Click to expand...

I question the seriousness and sincerity of the complaints. They are not from his time on the DC Circuit. They are from his testimony. My bet is they come from people wishing to stop his nomination regardless of what he said in testimony. The DC court should have handled them but Garland punted them.

One of the articles indicated some were about "temperament" but they seem to originate from his testimony prior to the Ford response. Sounds pretty fishy to me.
 
#15,980
#15,980
volinbham said:
I question the seriousness and sincerity of the complaints. They are not from his time on the DC Circuit. They are from his testimony. My bet is they come from people wishing to stop his nomination regardless of what he said in testimony. The DC court should have handled them but Garland punted them.

One of the articles indicated some were about "temperament" but they seem to originate from his testimony prior to the Ford response. Sounds pretty fishy to me.
Click to expand...

I’ve followed this a little bit. It definitely looked like a way to circumvent the confirmation process in the articles that have more detail about the substance of the complaints.

The thing about that is that the judicial branch usually isn’t about second guessing decisions left to the discretion of other branches of government. This was never going anywhere but it’ll be interesting to see when the inevitable axe falls on the complaints and whether it has any impact on anything.
 
#15,983
#15,983
Zues1 said:
Can someone link a video/audio of one of Dr Fords lectures to her students? I would love to compare her speaking voice then and now. I've searched the interwebs to no avail.
Surely there's something available, I mean it's not like her history was scrubbed, right? ;)
Click to expand...
I've been searching for this for last 2 days. Can't find a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zues1 and 82_VOL_83
#15,985
#15,985
  • Like
Reactions: Hayezb, InVOLuntary, Orangeslice13 and 4 others
#15,987
#15,987
evillawyer said:
Interesting. Gorsuch may side with the liberal wing here.

At Immigration Argument, Justice Kavanaugh Takes Hard Line
Click to expand...

I read this and I wanted to hammer Kavanaugh for being a dope. However, after further research, I’m not sure I can.

Some important context:
1: the law challenged allows the government to hold legal aliens without bond if they have been convicted of one of a number of crimes. The operative language is “when released” for the underlying crime.
2: the individuals in this case were convicted “years ago.”
3: several of the circuit courts have ruled in favor of the government but for different reasons. The 1st and 9th ruled against them both stating that “when released” implies it must happen immediately upon release, otherwise they should be given a bond hearing.
4: one of the named representatives in this case was born in Cambodia. He legally immigrated to the United States in 1981. He has two 2006 misdemeanor convictions for possession of marijuana. He was detained after serving time on a charge that was not an enumerated charge. Ultimately he was. It deported.
5: there are two other named individuals but I don’t want to type that much. You can read about them in the link below.
6: it’s unclear whether any of the other members of the class have committed additional crimes in the years since their deportable offenses.
7: The 9th circuit has a procedure whereby the individuals get a bond hearing after 6 months.
8: the statutory intent is being challenged. The operative question is, “what did congress intend by ‘when released.’”

I side with Gorsuch and Beyer. Someone who has migrated legally, has gone “years” without a deportable offense, and has established a permanent domicile would tend to reduce the need to hold them without bond in two ways: A. They’re less of a flight risk because they have an established life.
B. They’re less likely to be deported so holding them pre-trial is a waste of resources and unnecessarily interrupts their life.
It seems reasonable to conclude that Congress did not intend that the statute be enforced this way and that the line becomes blurred to the extent that an immigration judge should at least have a say in what happens.

That said, the case is about statutory interpretation. So Kavanaugh’s line of questioning is reasonable, EXCEPT that if Congress intended this pre-hearing detention as a punishment, as I believe he suggests, then it becomes a due process issue, in my opinion.

In either case, the same decision should be reached, but the government may be successful under a different theory.

Here’s the 9th circuit opinion:
Preap v. Johnson, 831 F. 3d 1193 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2016 - Google Scholar
 
  • Like
Reactions: AirVol, Obsessed and volinbham
#15,991
#15,991
I wonder what the conversation among the justices is like when they are alone. Do they pat him on the back and say "welcome, and dayum that must have been a b!tch". They are an extremely exclusive group, and since they are mostly eggheads, I highly doubt that there is much competition once they enter the club. Gives me an idea for a screenplay.
 
#15,993
#15,993
Prep dudes and Holton Arms girls don’t even hang out. Two completely separate social circles. HA girls hang out with Landon dudes. Landon & Prep are main rivals. Blowseys brothers went to Landon. Kavanaugh never even met Blowsey. This is old HS sports rivalry drama mixed with TDS and Blowsey sketchy past that she is just now dealing with in her 50s
 
#15,995
#15,995
VolsNSkinsFan said:
Prep dudes and Holton Arms girls don’t even hang out. Two completely separate social circles. HA girls hang out with Landon dudes. Landon & Prep are main rivals. Blowseys brothers went to Landon. Kavanaugh never even met Blowsey. This is old HS sports rivalry drama mixed with TDS and Blowsey sketchy past that she is just now dealing with in her 50s
Click to expand...
Pictoral evidence, the Landon dudes:

1312413437_740215_0000000000_noticia_normal.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top