You must have me confused with somebody who thinks you’re witty and profound. :rolleyes:
Another article saying that Kavanaugh lied to the committee.
There’s a shit-ton of excluded middle there.
Seriously, where do dissenting opinions come from? Are they all because some Justices “deliver[ed] a reading of the law as written, applied to the facts before” them, and some didn’t? Is it all balls and strikes, with dissenters refusing to recognize that that pitch outside the strike zone is really a ball, and insisting in their dissents that it’s really a strike?
Because if it’s possible that in some circumstances, there’s more than one correct way for a Justice to “deliver a reading of the law as written, applied to the facts before” him/her, then the choice of which possible correct way to read and apply the law must involve wisdom and judgment (or lack thereof, but that’s not to be desired, is it?).
So, guys, are you all done whatabouting all of the failed Republican (and Whig!) Court nominations yet? Is it time to dig into the histories of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican administrations now?
Dissents can arise when a judge has a different view of the role of the judiciary, and they can arise when judges reach different conclusions even though they share a general agreement on the proper role of the judiciary.
For example, Judge (1) above, appointed by Trump, would reach very different conclusions in many cases than Judge (1) appointed by Obama, yet both believe that a judge’s role is to deliver justice and wise social policy.
Judge (2)s might also dissent from each other, but much less than their Judge (1) counterparts do.
The (2) model does not create uniform decisions— it simply has greater fidelity to the notion that we have a representative democracy, and much less variance in results than (1) model.
The argument boils down to “there is no way he could not have known…”. That’s different from showing “here is proof that he did know”. Also, note that your article ends with:
I quote that in deference to the subject of this thread.
No it isn’t. Draw a Venn diagram if it helps.
If the (2) model doesn’t create uniform decisions, it means there has to be some input to supplement the law and the facts to determine which of the possible decisions consistent with the law and the facts should be the actual decision.
Even if that input is rolling a literal die, there still has to be such input.
Seems like wisdom and judgment derived from life experience would be better than rolling a die.
Senator Feinstein has a secret document that supposedly reveals information about a years old incident involving Kavanaugh and an unnamed woman. So far nothing but rumor at this point about the details, though Feinstein says she has a document that she referred to law enforcement relating to Kavanaugh.
A possibly interesting tidbit:
*The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein of California, said Thursday that she has referred a letter concerning Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to federal authorities.
“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Sen. Feinstein said. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”*
Edit: Ninjaed
You left out the details:
Some person who is not the person affected is claiming Kavanaugh did something in High School. Am I getting that right?
Interesting anecdote. Kavanaugh was at Georgetown Prep 2 years ahead of Gorsuch, who also went there. Kavanaugh went to Yale, though, while Gorsuch went to Harvard. Harvard. Yale. That’s some serious diversity right there!
disregard
Trump is the nominating power. That is a given today. Under that, do you prefer that he picks a judge that agrees “wisdom and life experiences” are a central source of insight? This would be a judge whose wisdom and life experiences resonate with Trump.
Or do you prefer he picks judges that believe wisdom and life experiences ought not to be a central source of insight?
Heads they win, tails, they win, but we get to pick! Gee, that’s swell! And the peasants rejoice…
another pubic hair on a Coke can or long dong silver video?
Still wondering why there were, and still are, complaints about Bork’s rejection.
because she’s from Iceland?
If you haven’t figured it out during the many times we’ve rehashed that topic, you’re probably doomed to be left wondering.
So she honored the individual’s desire not to press the matter further by referring it to federal investigative authorities? That’s an interesting way to put it.
As I recall, Anita Hill didn’t want to come forward either, but Nina Totenberg forced the issueafter it was leaked.
Not that Ms. Feinstein would do anything unethical, unless she could get the hearings further delayed or re-opened, or as a simple smear. IOW, she would.
Regards,
Shodan