I don’t like the certificate idea because it seems to arbitrary. Maybe something like that but not arbitrary from a judge’s opinion. I grew up in a town that had very well-known crooked judges and I think we give them too much power as it is. That’s just my opinion though and gut feeling I don’t have a lot of sites or information to support it. Seems slippery slope ish.
@ JBGUSA — I have some questions for you, hoping to place your remarks in context.
(1) You shoplifted a 12¢ popsicle. How you classify that crime — less or more serious — than “grinding” on top of a 15-year old girl while attempting to remove her clothes and covering her mouth so her cries for help cannot be heard?
(2) Judge Kavanaugh was payed $184,500 a year for his job as Circuit Judge in 2014, probably about $200k by now as federal judges have been getting annual pay hikes of a higher percentage than the working class. Would you say that, as a recovering felon, Kavanaugh has been denied employment? Since he is the possibly-rehabilitated criminal, do you think he should be given preference over other applicants? $200k/year may not seem like much to you, but his present job is already considered cushy and prestigious.
(3) How about felony perjury? What do recent crimes of felony perjury tell us about whether a criminal is truly rehabilitated?
Answer these questions, and then we can address your questions in context.
BTW:
Their is no damn way in the world he could have done this enough to appease the left is there? He had nothing wrong in his judicial record so the dems dug up this allegation.
What if in the long run he is found to be totally innocent?
Dems have ruined the confirmation process with this circus.
At least Kavanaugh got “a circus”. Why don’t you share with us your opinion about Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley refusing to even schedule a Judiciary Committee hearing for Merrick Garland despite Garland being unanimously rated Garland “well-qualified” to sit on the Supreme Court by the ABA and having more judicial experience in federal courts than any nominee forthe Supreme Court in history?
Stranger
The existence of a sex offender list with mandatory registration for offenders would imply that sexual offences are viewed very differently than some teen aged shop lifting. But the OP knows that I’m sure.
When black kids get sent to jail for their ‘bad choices’, they are being held responsible for the actions they chose. But what’s happening to Brett is the result of the left? NOT the choices HE made?
Alrighty then!
It is, indeed.
As a liberal, I do believe in rehabilitation and forgiveness. I also think that everybody who wants a job should be able to get one, and be a productive member of society. If Brett Kavanaugh were applying to be a manager at Burger King or something, I’d say sure, let him have the job. Give him a chance. But if we’re talking about a lifetime appointment to a job that gives you power over the fates of millions of people, then yes I’m going to hold serious offenses from his past against him, even if it happened decades ago. I don’t think that makes me a hypocrite.
Do you really think that Garland would prefer to have a public hearing where he was accused of being a serial rapist, have his family receive death threats, and having his reputation attacked for weeks on end?
Garland was opposed for political reasons and was denied a pro-forma hearing where he could have listened to Senators bloviate while the outcome was never in doubt.
Kavanaugh is being opposed for political reasons, when the hearings were just about to end in his confirmation, an uncorroborated accusation of attempted rape was leaked to the press by the Democrats on the committee. They then worked with the accuser’s lawyers to delay the hearing so more unsupported allegations could come out. There has been no evidence of the allegations to come out other than the testimony of the accuser which has been denied by every witness to the alleged events she named. Meanwhile his character and reputation is under constant attack despite the lack of evidence against him.
Well, they didn’t hold Edmund Kemper’s unfortunate juvenile activity against him.
As a teen he shot and killed Grandma following an argument, then later murdered Grandpa, ostensibly so he wouldn’t have to find out that his wife had been killed.
After a relative brief respite in a juvenile facility, Kemper emerged as a valuable adult member of society, if you count as value his subsequently slaughtering 6 young women in California and his mom, who by all accounts was not a nice person.
I won’t go point-by-point and adjective-by-adjective through the following confused account, except to note that exactly one witness to the “alleged events” has “denied” them: Kavanaugh himself.
So you also get all your facts from FoxNews (and Trump’s tweets). Must feel empowering: “They just Report; you get to Decide.”
Why do you think that Garland would have been accused of being a serial rapist? AFAIK nobody’s ever suggested such a thing about him.
The fact is that cultural standards about sexual misconduct are in the process of radically changing. Histories of abusive behavior which just a few short years ago would have been shrugged off as mere “youthful indiscretion” are now ruining careers. If that means that Republicans and Democrats alike are going to have to exercise more care in vetting their candidates for public office, that’s ultimately a good thing.
Merrick Garland wouldn’t have been accused of being a “serial rapist” because the Obama Administration did thorough vetting of Supreme Court nominees instead of just picking someone who had made a previous decision in affirmation of one of the President’s policies, and because he has no history of drunken, aggressive, misogynistic behavior from which such an accusation could credibly arise. But that’s neither here nor there; Garland wasn’t denied a hearing because it would have been a “circus”, or because he was unqualified, or for any reason other than that McConnell, Grassley, and Company wanted to block the nomination until they could get a president who would offer a more favorable conservative candidate. The stated rationale–that it was against precedent for an outgoing president to nominate a justice for the Supreme Court–was a flat-out lie.
Neil Gorsuch was nominated, heard, and confirmed without any accusations of past personal misbehavior (even though Democrats clearly didn’t want him there and impugned his professional record on the basis of decisions even Gorsuch agreed were not his best work). Gorsuch had no adverse personal behavior to defend, was generally collegial even under contrarian questioning and speechifying by Democrats, and even called out Republicans for asking “softball” questions. Whatever you think of Gorsuch’s politics and view of interpreting the law, he is clearly an ethical judge held in good esteem.
Kavanaugh, by contrast, has blatantly lied about numerous issues unrelated to the three independent sexual assault allegations, clearly has some past behavior he refuses to own up to and apologize for, and has been defiant in giving straightforward answers to simple questions that are entirely pertinent to his ethical fitness to be on the Supreme Court such as “Have you discussed the Mueller investigation with anyone at Kasowitz Benson Torres, the law firm founded by Marc Kasowitz, President Trump’s personal lawyer?” There is every reason to question Kavanaugh’s credibility in general, and specifically in regard to the assault allegations which he claims could not have happened because of his extended virginity and scholarly habits as a teenager.
Stranger
If a women had put on such a display, tears and shouting, being uncooperative, she’d have been roundly criticized as hysterical and unfit for being too emotional.
Judges are supposed to be non partisan, whereas this bloke just couldn’t open his mouth without being openly, proudly partisan!
What kind of judge resists an investigation in the name of hearing all the evidence and reaching a fair decision?
What kind of judge needs all his documents/decisions hidden from the oversight committee?
Gorsuch was actually a good choice, all things considered.
OK,* taking K aside*, I would go for this, and even add anything over 20 years old that isnt a felony conviction not be considered.
Memories that old arent reliable and people do change over two decades.
And Let’s not get this into yet another Kavanaugh debate. We have plenty already.
We’ll never know, will we.
And even setting aside the sexual assault allegations, it’s not just that Kavanaugh did stupid and illegal stuff as a teenager, it’s that he’s lying about it now, to Congress. With easily provable lies.
Kavanaugh lied to Congress last week. At the age of 53. It’s hard to write that off as a “youthful indiscretion.”
Kavanaugh has denied them. Mark Judge has deniedthem. PJ Smith has deniedthem. Leland Keyser has denied them.
I am not sure of where you get your facts but you should think about changing to someplace that has actual facts.
No, I don’t think so, that is the point. Garland was treated much better than Kavanaugh.
I guess we will have to wait until a female judge gets accused of gang rape and find out how she reacts to it.
Kavanaugh did not resist any investigation, he has cooperated with every investigation there has been.
There have been more documents produced than for any nominee in history, over a million pages.
That is a ridiculous list, it includes such things as other people say he was black out drunk when only the person involved could actually know such a thing, and that he did not have a specific recollection of interacting with someone at a wedding, several are that he had to know the exact way a some information was obtained.
No fair minded person could think that they are worth a hill of beans.
Guys, I realize that the Op is kinda a backhand Kavanaugh defense, but it is a interesting point on it’s own.
Can we take the Kavanaugh discussion to any of the dozen active threads on it, and let this one actually discuss generalities?