Federal Panel Of Judges Dismisses All 83 Ethics Complaints Against Brett Kavanaugh

[TurtleDude]

"there is no existing authority that allows lower court judges to investigate or discipline Supreme Court justices.

In other words, these may well all be true but he got away with it.

in other words, you are making things up-the "charges are serious" is like saying someone who is accused of murder is serious-no matter whether there is any evidence of guilt or not.

 

[Mr Person]

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/6780...vbR-VFM7lyw8YdNb-2447bkYQzp9p5K9vSab3I1ZSGH7Q

[FONT=Georgia, serif]A specially appointed federal panel of judges has dismissed all 83 ethics complaints brought against Justice Brett Kavanaugh regarding his conduct at his confirmation hearings.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]I think the Kavanaugh haters were told that this would happen no matter what due to jurisdictional issues. Guess what, Kavanaugh is a Justice and I expect he will be for years to come[/FONT]

Doesn't this come down to some basic thing about the relevant rules only applying to sitting circuit court judges, not circuit court judges after they've been confirmed to the supreme court?

You mention "jurisdiction", so I have to assume we're talking about the same thing.




It's not so much of a told-you-so since merits of the ethics complaints naturally didn't get touched. It's sort of like a told-you-so uttered in seeming defense of someone who cannot be prosecuted for X,Y,Z, crimes because they're a bit past the SOL (others: statute of limitations, governing the period of time in which charges may be brought).

 

[TurtleDude]

I think he's a scumbag so, we aren't going to agree.

I suspect you thought that the second Trump nominated him.

 

[TurtleDude]

Doesn't this come down to some basic thing about the relevant rules only applying to sitting circuit court judges, not circuit court judges after they've been confirmed to the supreme court?

might well be-IIRC we noted when this started that it was an exercise in futility

 

[Mr Person]

that the last hope of the TDS crowd to stick it to Trump on this issue, just went down the toilet

Honestly, dude. Drop this "TDS" crap for a second.

The people who you are accusing of having "TDS" over Kavanaugh, did not have it in regard to Gorsuch. And in fact if there ever was a time to be pissed, it was around Gorsuch's nomination...because that's the nomination that happened only because the GOP refused to move on Garland for a year, citing the lack of precedent for moving on a nomination in that proximity to an election, which is basically the silliest argument ever.

"[We haven't had to address it before in these exact circumstances, so we're going to act like there's a rule that says we shouldn't act in said circumstances]"? That's what the GOP said, but...... nope. Not flying.

It was a power-play. But we didn't see him accused of teenage sex assault, and we didn't have the people you accuse of TDS in an uproar. They were crestfallen, bitter, but not in an uproar.



Consider the possibility that this is because this is not as much about partisanship as you want. The disparate reactions as between the two nominees just about overwhelmingly suggests it.

Consider also the possibility that now, the Dems have no reason not to steamroll the GOP whenever they have the chance. And you know, I would be utterly shocked if when that happens, the people acting like opposition to Kavanaugh is just derangement - insanity - are going to act like anything alleged against a Dem nominee is the most awful and important thing on Earth. The accusation(s) will suddenly be credible. There will be "differences."

I guarantee it. That or I haven't learned a damned thing in the two or more decades I bothered to pay attention to the ****storm that is modern politics.

 

[DarkWizard12]

.....and why the dems if they keep the house, take the WH and senate, should add two judges to the SCOTUS.

What's to stop the gop from adding 15 judges now?

 

[Hawkeye10]

What's to stop the gop from adding 15 judges now?

The caring about the legitimacy of the court.

 

[TurtleDude]

Honestly, dude. Drop this "TDS" crap for a second.

The people who you are accusing of having "TDS" over Kavanaugh, did not have it in regard to Gorsuch. And in fact if there ever was a time to be pissed, it was around Gorsuch's nomination...because that's the nomination that happened only because the GOP refused to move on Garland for a year, citing the lack of precedent for moving on a nomination in that proximity to an election, which is basically the silliest argument ever.

"[We haven't had to address it before in these exact circumstances, so we're going to act like there's a rule that says we shouldn't act in said circumstances]"? That's what the GOP said, but...... nope. Not flying.

It was a power-play. But we didn't see him accused of teenage sex assault, and we didn't have the people you accuse of TDS in an uproar. They were crestfallen, bitter, but not in an uproar.



Consider the possibility that this is because this is not as much about partisanship as you want. The disparate reactions as between the two nominees just about overwhelmingly suggests it.

Consider also the possibility that now, the Dems have no reason not to steamroll the GOP whenever they have the chance. And you know, I would be utterly shocked if when that happens, the people acting like opposition to Kavanaugh is just derangement - insanity - are going to act like anything alleged against a Dem nominee is the most awful and important thing on Earth.

some of what you say is true but you miss a couple things

Gorsuch would not change the court on two key issues. But Kennedy was a big supporter of Gay and Abortion rights. Kavanaugh, not so much. I think that is what caused much of the hysterics

 

[trixare4kids]

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/18/6780...vbR-VFM7lyw8YdNb-2447bkYQzp9p5K9vSab3I1ZSGH7Q

[FONT=Georgia, serif]A specially appointed federal panel of judges has dismissed all 83 ethics complaints brought against Justice Brett Kavanaugh regarding his conduct at his confirmation hearings.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]I think the Kavanaugh haters were told that this would happen no matter what due to jurisdictional issues. Guess what, Kavanaugh is a Justice and I expect he will be for years to come[/FONT]

Nah, the Dems. are gonna' impeach him when they takeover congress 'cause you know, they can.
I almost hope they are that stupid.

 

[Cardinal]

that the last hope of the TDS crowd to stick it to Trump on this issue, just went down the toilet

Oh, right, like your hope that Kavanaugh use his power on the bench just to stick it to Liberals. You'll have to forgive me; sometimes I forget that what's right and prudent are no longer guiding factors for you anymore.

 

[TurtleDude]

Nah, the Dems. are gonna' impeach him when they takeover congress 'cause you know, they can.
I almost hope they are that stupid.

the house can try, the senate will frog stomp that stupidity. I really hope the haters do try it though

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh, right, like your hope that Kavanaugh use his power on the bench just to stick it to Liberals. You'll have to forgive me; sometimes I forget that what's right and prudent are no longer guiding factors for you anymore.

you miss the point I made. once the Dems started down the road of dishonest, vile smearing of the man, they figured they had to WIN or they would lose big time. The old saying about if you try to shoot the king, you better not miss. They missed. But Kavanaugh did NOT stick it to the left the first time he could-did he?

 

[Cardinal]

you miss the point I made. once the Dems started down the road of dishonest, vile smearing of the man, they figured they had to WIN or they would lose big time. The old saying about if you try to shoot the king, you better not miss. They missed. But Kavanaugh did NOT stick it to the left the first time he could-did he?

Look, dude, when it's your wish that a SC Justice use his power to "get even" with liberals, you're in no position to criticize anyone else. When you've sunk to that level it's time for serious introspection and asking yourself, "How did I get here?"

 

[Harshaw]

You clearly only read the headline. From the second damn paragraph:

"The judges concluded that while the complaints "are serious," there is no existing authority that allows lower court judges to investigate or discipline Supreme Court justices."

So they didn't clear him because of his sparkly clean character, but because now that he's a Supreme Court Justice the judges no longer have the authority to investigate or discipline him.

What did he say that's contradicted by this?

 

[Mr Person]

some of what you say is true but you miss a couple things

Gorsuch would not change the court on two key issues. But Kennedy was a big supporter of Gay and Abortion rights. Kavanaugh, not so much. I think that is what caused much of the hysterics

Consider: you may have just undercut your own argument that this was about "TDS". If people were actually objecting because of concern about what Kav would do to abortion and gay rights, it wasn't anything to do with Trump. And, you know, stripping away the right of gays to marry (which really shouldn't have taken much longer than Loving v. VA) or abortion rights is kind of something to be worried about.

But again, the fuss over Kavanaugh as articulated wasn't mainly about that, or at least, there was no indication allegations of anything were manufactured over it. All you really have is the typical gap of physical evidence in an old he-said/she-said case, or indeed any he-said/she-said case without physical evidence. But again, the focus was:

- Degree of belief in Ford's testimony, which again in criminal court could be deemed sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury accepted it.

- Opposition based on the uncharacteristically partisan tone of his statements at the hearing. For example, that this was all some scheme perpetrated by people trying to "take revenge for the Clintons" or a statement nearly like that. "What goes around comes around". The blatant anger and lack of decorum: how dare I have to appear here?!

- The simple fact that he acted like he only liked to have a beer or two, meanwhile the people who knew him at the time(s) said he was constantly getting ripped and "boofing". (which does not mean "farting", as he claimed). Why lie? That raised a question: if he lies about that, or even downplays it (if one wants to call downplaying inaccurately not-a-lie), what else might he downplay or lie about?



Maybe you don't think that should all be enough, but I do not see any reasonable conclusion that opposition was down to "TDS", which was my point - that's where this exchange started. If it was "TDS", it would have happened with Gorsuch. It didn't. There were other factors in play.

 

[Xelor]

From the article:

Chief Judge Tim Tymkovich, of the 10th Circuit, acknowledged that while the complaints "are serious," the judicial council panel is obligated to dismiss them, because it has no authority over Kavanaugh.

The judicial council is empowered to act against lower court judges, he said, but it lacks any statutory authority to investigate or act on complaints against Supreme Court justices.​

So basically, all 83 complaints, which are not charges, have to wait for Congress to assess the matter....

 

[RAMOSS]

It would have been better if you had just messed up and honestly thought that the panel had absolved him of any charges due to them having no merit.

"Haha, he can't be investigated due to jurisdictional issues!"

So what did you win here, exactly?

He cna't be investigated by the Justices, but congress is a different matter. I am sure he will be, by the house.

 

[TurtleDude]

Look, dude, when it's your wish that a SC Justice use his power to "get even" with liberals, you're in no position to criticize anyone else. When you've sunk to that level it's time for serious introspection and asking yourself, "How did I get here?"

you're a pretty smart guy Cardinal but I guess your sarcasm detector was missing a fresh battery. The point I was making is the same I make about the NRA and honest gun owners. If we were as violent and hateful as the NRA bashers claim, they would be too afraid to constantly slander and and defame NRA members.

 

[TurtleDude]

He cna't be investigated by the Justices, but congress is a different matter. I am sure he will be, by the house.

I want the democrats to spend the next two years engaging in slaking their butt hurt rather than doing stuff MOST of those who voted for them want.

 

[TurtleDude]

Consider: you may have just undercut your own argument that this was about "TDS". If people were actually objecting because of concern about what Kav would do to abortion and gay rights, it wasn't anything to do with Trump. And, you know, stripping away the right of gays to marry (which really shouldn't have taken much longer than Loving v. VA) or abortion rights is kind of something to be worried about.

But again, the fuss over Kavanaugh as articulated wasn't mainly about that, or at least, there was no indication allegations of anything were manufactured over it. All you really have is the typical gap of physical evidence in an old he-said/she-said case, or indeed any he-said/she-said case without physical evidence. But again, the focus was:

- Degree of belief in Ford's testimony, which again in criminal court could be deemed sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt if the jury accepted it.

- Opposition based on the uncharacteristically partisan tone of his statements at the hearing. For example, that this was all some scheme perpetrated by people trying to "take revenge for the Clintons" or a statement nearly like that. "What goes around comes around". The blatant anger and lack of decorum: how dare I have to appear here?!

- The simple fact that he acted like he only liked to have a beer or two, meanwhile the people who knew him at the time(s) said he was constantly getting ripped and "boofing". (which does not mean "farting", as he claimed). Why lie? That raised a question: if he lies about that, or even downplays it (if one wants to call downplaying inaccurately not-a-lie), what else might he downplay or lie about?



Maybe you don't think that should all be enough, but I do not see any reasonable conclusion that opposition was down to "TDS", which was my point - that's where this exchange started. If it was "TDS", it would have happened with Gorsuch. It didn't. There were other factors in play.

I believe almost every Dem on the panel stated they were going to vote against him before he was even heard. and this was the FIRST hearing, not the Two Door Ford instigated second hearing

 

[RAMOSS]

I want the democrats to spend the next two years engaging in slaking their butt hurt rather than doing stuff MOST of those who voted for them want.

I want them to find out the truth. I think the truth is important. Some people might be more interested in 'butt hurt'. But I want the truth, so there is not a shadow over the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court legacy. Truth and integrity seem to beyond some people's grasp

 

[Rogue Valley]

I want them to find out the truth. I think the truth is important. Some people might be more interested in 'butt hurt'. But I want the truth, so there is not a shadow over the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court legacy. Truth and integrity seem to beyond some people's grasp

Indeed. "Party and ideology above integrity" is the GOP mantra these days.

 

[Harshaw]

I want them to find out the truth. I think the truth is important. Some people might be more interested in 'butt hurt'. But I want the truth, so there is not a shadow over the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court legacy. Truth and integrity seem to beyond some people's grasp

What "truths" are "unknown"?

 

[RAMOSS]

What "truths" are "unknown"?

I want the accusations about sexual assault to be either laid to rest or confirmed.. one way or another. I want the 83 ethics violations investigated throughly... and not just dismissed.

 

[DarkWizard12]

The caring about the legitimacy of the court.

So that should stop democracts from adding seats too....right?