User Tag List

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 112

Thread: Judging the Mitchell Report

  1. #76
    Silver Member lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks
    8,188
    Thanked 2,972 Times in 1,919 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147610
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    ...Her husband corroborated her naming him. He wasn't called.
    All you said does not change the fact that Dr. Ford was the one who provided the 'alleged' whatever happened to her and her witnesses, and all her witnesses did not corroborate her claims, even her long life friend. I do not believe Dr. Ford provided her husband as a witness to her 'alleged' whatever happened to her, therefore, I believe that is why he was not called.

    I still feel sorry for her though. I hope that all that advised her to be publicly humiliated will be investigated for their unprotection of their client. I, being their client, would sue the pants or skirts out of them, if I could for not advising me properly and making sure I knew that I was going to be dragged through the mud, exactly as Judge Kavanaugh.
    No man can come to God except through Christ. (Jn. 14:20)
    No man can come to Christ unless he comes through the Cross. (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:13–18)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:23–24)

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to lifeisgood For Your Post:

    Tambora (October 4th, 2018)

  3. #77
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,872
    Thanks
    133
    Thanked 813 Times in 516 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    406774
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    I see the opposite of moral anarchy in the Democrat agenda. Political correctness is nothing but moral stricture; a moral code of speech, and Democrats would like nothing more than to outlaw certain 'politically incorrect' speech. Furthermore, wrt your observation about the polarization of the parties, it has become more and more practically immoral to disagree with certain Democrat party planks. I understand that in the context here you're probably thinking about abortion when you say 'moral anarchy,' but Democrats are constructing a definite moral code in their work, and they are violating the First Amendment right to free speech and against the establishment of religion in so doing, in my view. While they insist that abortion ought to be freely available, and even funded publicly, they just as strongly push the notion that to be anti-abortion is immoral, according to their fabricated moral code.
    Not just on abortion, but on so-called homosexual marriage, the establishment clause, the right to bear arms, the outlawing of even offering to assist someone in reforming their deviance....the list goes on.

    The moral anarchy to which I refer is possibly more accurately a moral usurpation. Political correctness as a substitute for a broadly Christian moral foundation. In practice, the United States has always been founded in the principles of Christianity. Her legal code and constitution find their grounding in scripture but don't require that a resident be an adherent. But American principles are historically Christian. The last 50 years has seen an active (and increasingly vocal) rejection of those principles - but since nature abhors a vacuum, something has to fill its place. And political correctness is - as you have said - the place where many are trying to find a moral replacement. It's anarchical in that it is based on man's own ideas of right and wrong absent God. But I would agree with you that much of Washington has submitted itself to PC thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    We all have 'wordlviews,' Democrats included. Worldviews found 'narratives,' and it is Democrat narratives from which many people derive their 'tropes.' It is according to these tropes that people make their judgments.

    I think, rather than condemning people for being 'emotional,' it's clearer to talk about worldviews and narratives and tropes, because I myself am also very 'emotional,' but, I reject the worldviews of many Democrats, and their narratives and tropes. I have my own. It is useful to know about what other people are perceiving however, so that you can talk to and about them, in terms that are understood. We can be more respectful.
    When emotion and reaction to images is the foundation of the formation of beliefs and opinions, there is a serious problem. It is endemic to our culture, now. Not that all have capitulated to it, but it has insinuated itself into every facet of life - even institutions of higher learning. How do you reason with someone who has formed their beliefs based almost solely on emotions and images that have been prepared specifically for them? I'm not talking just political manipulation - I'm talking email, facebook, twitter, instagram etc... The narcissism that has been fostered is on a scale unimagined by previous generations. I grew up in the '80's and don't recognize where we are. If you offend someone (and it is oh so easy to do that today) you have committed the worst crime imaginable. You are literally in danger of being turned over to the authorities. That offense comes because everyone is worried about how they feel and have been brought up to believe that their self-esteem is the most important thing (even more important than learning). That's why bakers are being sued. That's why men are being allowed into women's restrooms. That's why parents will believe their preteens are the wrong gender (!!). Saying "no" just doesn't play well. It sounds bad and it hurts my feelings. So how do you reason with someone who can't take disagreement? Who is used to getting their way and manipulating things so that they do? That's what I'm talking about when I talk about emotion. And images play against the reason that the above emotion can't handle.

    I realize this is a few steps removed from the Kavanaugh hearing specifically, but it's all symptomatic of a rotten system - a perverse people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    I have not heard his testimony of Christian faith in the Gospel, so I am agnostic on the matter. Even serious sinners can still be Christians, since there are a wide variety of circumstances and conditions that can negatively affect our morals, and that are largely beyond our immediate control, including social pressures. Their objective sin remains so, but we cannot judge another's soul on the basis of their behavior, with the abundantly clear scriptural example of bona fide murder (cf. 1Jo3:15KJV) being an obvious exception. And nobody's accusing him of that.
    The scriptures say no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of heaven (I Cor 6:10). While sobering up won't save the drunkard, it is just those evidences that do serve to tell us who can be considered a brother or sister in Christ. And it is not in the way of judgment. There but by the grace of God go I. That said, I haven't heard enough to know if his drinking would affect his ability to serve properly (or if his drinking in college is far beyond what he drinks now). Just the fact that the mania is on both sides of the aisle. Kavanaugh is a judicial candidate with impeccable academic and legal credentials. But that doesn't make him a savior in any sense of the word (except maybe for a certain political agenda).
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  4. #78
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,705
    Thanks
    4,417
    Thanked 3,867 Times in 2,209 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147690
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    I would love to see a man of his stance and constitutional conviction (as I understand him to be) on the court. The Democrats, of course, don't want to tilt the balance in any direction that might risk Roe v. Wade and legislate-by-judge that has characterized much of the left in recent years.
    Thank you for weighing in, brother.

    My support for Kavanaugh was based upon his views concerning Presidential powers and their extent. I tend to view Roe v. Wade as nearly black letter law. I may be wrong in that view and @Town Heretic, someone that actually knows the law, can set me straight, but I am not basing my support for someone like a Kavanaugh or a Barrett to overturn the established constitutional right to abortion on demand. Instead they will hopefully have other options to weaken Roe v. Wade by careful consideration about what "on demand" actually should mean.

    At best, I pray that when related abortion issues reach SCOTUS there will be more movement towards mandated delays in abortion, further limits on the gestational bounds of abortion (less than the usual 22 weeks), more limits on undocumented minors seeking abortion, limits related to known birth defects in the unborn that often are used for abortion demand, more limits to reproductive rights, and more requirements for counseling/parental consent for minors seeking abortion.

    I also would pray that SCOTUS would rule that the states are to make these decisions, that the woman’s right to choose whether and when to become a parent is not strong enough to overcome the state’s interest in protecting the unborn. These narrower lawmaking options are things to hope for given the precedents set by Roe v. Wade. If the court moves in these directions, Roe v. Wade will remain but be neutralized in a great extent, especially given laws on the books in many states that are triggered by future SCOTUS Roe v. Wade related rulings.

    Do I pray that SCOTUS recognize the personhood of the unborn? Of course. We have had that opportunity in the past, but even Scalia would not venture to make the declaration.

    It is disappointing as a Christian that such a law (Roe v. Wade) exists, but I am not so naive (heh!) to think Roe v. Wade is going to be completely undone. Instead I am more hopeful that right-to-life supporters on the bench will be circumspect and wise enough to not extend abortion rights beyond what Roe v. Wade now encompasses and will work to limit its reach.

    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    But people are making their decisions now based almost solely on emotion, images and the immediate. There has always been some degree of that with media, but in today's world it has run rampant.
    Indeed. McLuhan was prescient, the medium is the message. I have already noted how fearful I am about the sea changes all around us today.

    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    But another thing that is lost in all of this is that Kavanaugh is just a man. ...The well has been poisoned. I wish someone had gotten up in the hearing and read Isaiah 59:1-15 -- that would have been a picture of a different sort.
    Yes, he is just a man. I feel for him. He has been through quite an ordeal. But I expected him to weather and prepare for the storm he fully new was coming. He went into the proceeding eyes wide open, else he is but a fool. Obviously he is not, so it is proper to examine how he prepared for what was to come. That should be what we are to consider. TH made a point I had overlooked above, that Kavanaugh prepared his remarks, deliberated upon them just as a good jurist should do. What we witnessed should give us pause to examine the expected detachment and temperament of a potential Supreme Court judge. Perhaps he became so emotional that he went off script. I do not know. I can only decide based upon what I have observed: a man seeking the highest judicial office in the land that could not control himself in the presence of those that have the authority to decide his future.

    Isaiah 59:1-15 is apropos. Sadly, we are fast becoming a nation that has no room for God anymore. This is ironic in the context of this discussion. The law. The law which has its root in God's law. The law that developed out of the teachings of Scripture. We have forgotten our history. God have mercy upon us.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ask Mr. Religion For Your Post:

    nikolai_42 (October 4th, 2018),Town Heretic (October 4th, 2018)

  6. #79
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,872
    Thanks
    133
    Thanked 813 Times in 516 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    406774
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Thank you for weighing in, brother.
    This is not an easy subject or one that one can easily be neutral on - and I'm not normally very vocal on political matters - so I realize that there can be differences here. That said, I appreciate your gracious response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    My support for Kavanaugh was based upon his views concerning Presidential powers and their extent. I tend to view Roe v. Wade as nearly black letter law. I may be wrong in that view and @Town Heretic, someone that actually knows the law, can set me straight, but I am not basing my support for someone like a Kavanaugh or a Barrett to overturn the established constitutional right to abortion on demand. Instead they will hopefully have other options to weaken Roe v. Wade by careful consideration about what "on demand" actually should mean.
    I am with you on that. It would seem odd for the SCOTUS to overturn its own decision, so I would guess you are correct in how it could be weakenened. My (admittedly poor) understanding (and you allude to this later) is that it only took the power to decide from the states and gave it to the Federal Government. If that's the case, then it would seem to me that it would be harder to undo without the court reversing itself. But this is certainly TH's area of expertise - not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    At best, I pray that when related abortion issues reach SCOTUS there will be more movement towards mandated delays in abortion, further limits on the gestational bounds of abortion (less than the usual 22 weeks), more limits on undocumented minors seeking abortion, limits related to known birth defects in the unborn that often are used for abortion demand, more limits to reproductive rights, and more requirements for counseling/parental consent for minors seeking abortion.

    I also would pray that SCOTUS would rule that the states are to make these decisions, that the woman’s right to choose whether and when to become a parent is not strong enough to overcome the state’s interest in protecting the unborn. These narrower lawmaking options are things to hope for given the precedents set by Roe v. Wade. If the court moves in these directions, Roe v. Wade will remain but be neutralized in a great extent, especially given laws on the books in many states that are triggered by future SCOTUS Roe v. Wade related rulings.

    Do I pray that SCOTUS recognize the personhood of the unborn? Of course. We have had that opportunity in the past, but even Scalia would not venture to make the declaration.
    I'm sure that's a definition that would have multitude repercussions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    It is disappointing as a Christian that such a law (Roe v. Wade) exists, but I am not so naive (heh!) to think Roe v. Wade is going to be completely undone. Instead I am more hopeful that right-to-life supporters on the bench will be circumspect and wise enough to not extend abortion rights beyond what Roe v. Wade now encompasses and will work to limit its reach.
    The few things I have heard about the doctors and corporations involved in abortion leaves me speechless. I'm of the opinion that the real change - while partly legal - will be at the grass roots. It will have to be. A nation will not elect a leader that comes out against what it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Indeed. McLuhan was prescient, the medium is the message. I have already noted how fearful I am about the sea changes all around us today.
    There's an errant quote around that is attributed to Dostoyevsky :

    First art will imitate life, then life will imitate art, then life will find its very meaning from the arts.
    Ravi Zacharias indicated Dostoyevsky said this but I could never find the proof of it. That said, it could be a paraphrase of some sort. At any rate, I've been struck at how accurate it has been. I suppose it could be a synthesis of quotes (including McLuhan).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Yes, he is just a man. I feel for him. He has been through quite an ordeal. But I expected him to weather and prepare for the storm he fully new was coming. He went into the proceeding eyes wide open, else he is but a fool. Obviously he is not, so it is proper to examine how he prepared for what was to come. That should be what we are to consider. TH made a point I had overlooked above, that Kavanaugh prepared his remarks, deliberated upon them just as a good jurist should do. What we witnessed should give us pause to examine the expected detachment and temperament of a potential Supreme Court judge. Perhaps he became so emotional that he went off script. I do not know. I can only decide based upon what I have observed: a man seeking the highest judicial office in the land that could not control himself in the presence of those that have the authority to decide his future.
    I'm still not convinced that Kavanaugh wasn't told he needed to inject emotion into his presentation. I missed the original 30+ hours of questioning he underwent, but apparently he endured that with little emotion. So I wondered if maybe he was told that he needed (for the hearing) to be more...human.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Isaiah 59:1-15 is apropos. Sadly, we are fast becoming a nation that has no room for God anymore. This is ironic in the context of this discussion. The law. The law which has its root in God's law. The law that developed out of the teachings of Scripture. We have forgotten our history. God have mercy upon us.

    AMR
    It is indeed a fearful thing....
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to nikolai_42 For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 4th, 2018)

  8. #80
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 126 Times in 112 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    15294
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    Not just on abortion, but on so-called homosexual marriage, the establishment clause, the right to bear arms, the outlawing of even offering to assist someone in reforming their deviance....the list goes on.
    I'm a bit confused what you mean by including the 'right to bear arms' in this list. Democrats believe that even the possession of certain weapons is criminal and immoral. That's part of their worldview, and their narratives. I'm with you on the other examples, with of course some caution about particulars that we don't have to get into.

    Just for example, while I can and do support the right of people to enter into a marriage contract with someone of their same sex, I repel the consequent Democrat agenda to silence Christians in maintaining the objective immorality of samesex sexual behavior (SSB), and to pressure us all to declare SSM 'equal' in all ways to traditional marriages.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    The moral anarchy to which I refer is possibly more accurately a moral usurpation.
    I agree with that.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    Political correctness as a substitute for a broadly Christian moral foundation.
    Yes. I see the same thing, although probably it is not legally the same thing, since there aren't the other typical things we all associate with religion and religious behavior and practice, in what the Democrats are doing. It has the precisely same feel however to religious authorities pressuring people with material threats to abide by a religiously derived moral code. And that is illegal, and should be. The Reformation made an indelible imprint upon us, that religious liberty is a valid right, and the right does require that we not be subject to the use of force in order to abide by this or that morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    In practice, the United States has always been founded in the principles of Christianity.
    Also and perhaps more distinctly, we have always believed that no religion ought to govern our civil authorities, and no laws should be made that reflect the establishment of any religion. We are free to govern and make laws independent of all religion and religious philosophy.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    The last 50 years has seen an active (and increasingly vocal) rejection of those principles
    Largely because we have violated our own Bill of Rights in many cases you're referring to.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    - but since nature abhors a vacuum, something has to fill its place. And political correctness is - as you have said - the place where many are trying to find a moral replacement.
    Well, I think that repealing and overturning laws that were unconstitutional was right and just, and that made our society more free, which is a good thing. But now, you're right, we are bending toward making new laws that replace the old laws, and that are just as unconsitutional. They aren't based on a recognized religion, which is how I believe they've crept into our codes, and they ought not be there. The PC agenda violates the First Amendment as I've said, in my view, and not that I want to say things that are not PC, but simply because it violates our right, just as the old laws based on Christian morality should have been redacted.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    It's anarchical in that it is based on man's own ideas of right and wrong absent God.
    OK, I get the gist. Where totalitarianism is the opposite of anarchy though, Democrats are more totalitarian and less anarchic in many of the laws they make and want to make, in these matters we're discussing here.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    But I would agree with you that much of Washington has submitted itself to PC thought.
    Namely, every Democrat.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    When emotion and reaction to images is the foundation of the formation of beliefs and opinions, there is a serious problem.
    Our worldview comes from somewhere, and it can derive from emotions. But consider viewing discarded aborted fetuses. This can evoke very strong emotions, which can go on to form a worldview where abortion is immoral and should be outlawed. Or consider hearing the Gospel. I can get very emotional about this, and it has led to my own worldview, which demands that we protect the Church from unjust meddling, interference, and even persecution by civil authorities. The presence or absence of emotion might just be practically irrelevant, since whatever founds our worldviews and narratives and tropes, we act, speak, and vote accordingly. Where emotions are fluid and subjective, these things are concrete.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    ...institutions of higher learning.
    These have become the 'churches' of Democrat morality, in my view. Nowhere are dissidents treated more like how those bucking religious morality are treated in strictly religious settings, than in colleges and universities. Non-Democrats are handicapped and Democrats are favored in these places.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    How do you reason with someone who has formed their beliefs based almost solely on emotions and images that have been prepared specifically for them?
    Emotions are the culmination of all of our thoughts and choices leading up to the moment we experience the emotions. I've never confronted emotions in myself or in others that are simply beyond our ability to talk about them. And anything that can be talked about, can be reasoned about too. Implications and consequences of our choices are good starting points, no matter whether our choices are governed by just our emotions, or by what we believe are strictly rational grounds.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    I'm not talking just political manipulation - I'm talking email, facebook, twitter, instagram etc... The narcissism that has been fostered is on a scale unimagined by previous generations. I grew up in the '80's and don't recognize where we are. If you offend someone (and it is oh so easy to do that today) you have committed the worst crime imaginable. You are literally in danger of being turned over to the authorities.
    Much like how Protestants in the 1500s must have felt.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    So how do you reason with someone who can't take disagreement? Who is used to getting their way and manipulating things so that they do? That's what I'm talking about when I talk about emotion. And images play against the reason that the above emotion can't handle.
    I believe I've said my piece on the matter of emotion, but in answer to questions here; there is no reasoning with someone hellbent on being unreasonable and inflexible in their positions. But that's handled by voting. It's handled by defending free speech. It's handled by being able to try to persuade others to your way of thinking instead, those who aren't being purposely unreasonable. The 'independents,' perhaps.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    ...a rotten system - a perverse people.
    Even many Christians are, strictly speaking, objectively perverse though, so we have to be careful with this analysis.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    The scriptures say no drunkard will inherit the kingdom of heaven (I Cor 6:10).
    Scripture says lots of things, and then again it's silent on lots of things too. In order to interpret it correctly we must process all the available data, with proper weighting on that data to assist us. Protestants reject what is not either explicit in Scripture, or what can be easily reasonably inferred from it. Catholics and Orthodox Christians admit that the whole Word of God is not contained in and confined to just the Bible though, and receive reliable Apostolic oral traditions as equal to the scriptures in moral authority. The reason I included only bona fide murder as an exception to the general rule that we cannot judge another's soul based on their outward behavior, is because of the explicit overlap between what John writes in 1st John 3:15 KJV, and what Paul writes elsewhere, including 1st Corinthians. It's indisputable, whereas the reality of many Christians being objectively guilty of other serious sins, has some answer, at least in the most ancient authorized Christian teachings on the matter.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    While sobering up won't save the drunkard, it is just those evidences that do serve to tell us who can be considered a brother or sister in Christ. And it is not in the way of judgment. There but by the grace of God go I.
    We're a bit far afield here but if you don't mean by what you write 'the way of judgment,' then I wonder what it is. For the Catholics, committing serious sins breaks communion with the Church, and submits us to judgment if we go ahead and receive Holy Communion without first reconciling with her. But otoh, do we require a bona fide Christian to do a good job as a Supreme Court justice? I can imagine Christians with less intelligence, with poorer morals, and nonbelievers with greater intelligence and greater morals, and I'd be more apt to go with the latter than the former in most professional positions. I'd prefer that everybody is good and a believer, but in civil matters it isn't necessary, or even necessarily advantageous or desirable, to have exclusively Christians manning the posts.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    That said, I haven't heard enough to know if his drinking would affect his ability to serve properly (or if his drinking in college is far beyond what he drinks now).
    General Grant was a notorious drunk, and he won the Civil War. Supreme Court cases aren't nearly as grave.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    Just the fact that the mania is on both sides of the aisle. Kavanaugh is a judicial candidate with impeccable academic and legal credentials. But that doesn't make him a savior in any sense of the word (except maybe for a certain political agenda).
    Right. I've already revealed myself to be 'one-issue,' and what I need is a justice who's going to fight to defend the right of the people to keep and bear all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, against Democrats and wrong-headed Republicans and independents. He could do that, but so could a number of other judges.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  9. #81
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 126 Times in 112 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    15294
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    You have assigned Kavanaugh's behavior to righteous indignation, but the very definition of the word is to be found in the teachings of Scripture. Our Lord's driving the money-lenders out of the temple was righteous indignation. Was he sinning? No, for the very phrase righteous indignation assumes a purity of life including rectitude (conformity to a right standard) and a righteous act or quality (holiness). Righteous indignation is the only form of anger than Scripture permits. All other forms are sin, sin, sin.

    By the Biblical standard, there was very little in Kavanaugh's eruptive behavior that anyone should label as righteous indignation. In the information age, where any thought that pops into someone's noggin is committed to online words, things like reticence and trepidation, have been replaced by certainty and daring. Accordingly, the phrase, righteous indignation nowadays appears to mean unbridled anger at any slight, real or imagined. Sigh.

    There's but a letter difference between anger and danger. Kavanaugh demonstrated it to be so.
    It being one of the seven 'deadlies;' along with Sloth, Lust, Avarice, Envy, Pride, and Gluttony. Or now they're called 'capital sins.' These seven are part of an ancient catechetical tradition of the Church's teachings on morality.

    If Judge Kavanaugh is a victim here, then his anger is understandable and even expected, if not excused outright, in my view. Furthermore, I don't think that it has any bearing on his ability to serve us well in the Supreme Court, given the nature of that job.

    And if he is not a victim, then he is a wretch.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  10. #82
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by lifeisgood View Post
    All you said does not change the fact that Dr. Ford was the one who provided the 'alleged' whatever happened to her and her witnesses, and all her witnesses did not corroborate her claims, even her long life friend.
    She provided names of people she recalled being there. They weren't given in order for them to support her claim, but only as a recollection. It would be odd to expect the two men in the room to agree with her account and there was no reason for the other two she remembered to recall a party decades gone, among who knows how many others, where they would have been unaware of the unfortunate incident that would have made it memorable.

    That said and like you, I'd be furious with my "allies" were I Dr. Ford.


    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    ... if he is a victim, it is either due to mistaken identity made in good faith, or it is due to deliberate dishonesty; and either way, there is no reason to disqualify him for the job over this.
    That we differ over. His own litmus for a judge was the thing he violated repeatedly and deliberately. His prepared remarks, the very opening of them violated his stated principles and the needless nature of his blatant partisanship makes it doubly troubling, given the politicians present, willing, and demonstrably able to make that case.

    His regrettable behavior in this case can be justly I think chalked up to him being a victim of a terrible inquisition.
    I'd say no. It's one thing to lose your composure when blindsided by a thing. That wasn't where his trouble could be found.

    While the best among us could have handled it better than he has, I don't think that this trial is relevant to, or bears on, what his duty would be on the Supreme Court.
    I wish I was as sure. If he could turn on his own expectations so certainly will he be as likely to carry a grudge and be the partisan voice he once reasoned against in lecturing others?
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  11. #83
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    In the wake of Kavanaugh's testimony a wave of negative response has been pouring into congress from lawyers and professors of law, including some who supported his nomination.

    From the Washington Post article, Unfathomable... by Susan Svrluga, 10/4/18. LINK

    "More than 2,400 law professors have signed on to a letter saying that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial restraint at a Senate hearing last week — behavior that would be disqualifying for any court nominee...Afterward, law professors across the country began discussing, “with great distress, the unprecedented and unfathomable demeanor of Judge Kavanaugh,” said Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia Law School.

    The letter, which was emailed to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) late Thursday afternoon, grew out of those conversations. “It was a spontaneous reaction to the hearing,” Harcourt said.

    The groundswell was overwhelming, he said, with hundreds of lawyers from more than 190 law schools signing on within hours.

    “As someone who knew and liked Brett Kavanaugh when we clerked together, I have tried very hard to stay out of this process and to give him the benefit of the doubt,” said Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School. But Kavanaugh’s behavior at the hearing last week “was not what we should expect of a Supreme Court Justice. Telling obvious lies about his background, yelling at senators, refusing to answer questions, and blaming his troubles on others is not appropriate behavior.”

    Signatories included Martha Minow — the former dean of Harvard Law School, where Kavanaugh taught a popular course — other law school deans and former deans, and some scholars who previously supported Kavanaugh.


    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 4th, 2018)

  13. #84
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 126 Times in 112 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    15294
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    [If Kavanaugh] is not a victim, then he is a wretch.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    If he could turn on his own expectations so certainly will he be as likely to carry a grudge and be the partisan voice he once reasoned against in lecturing others?
    That's not my problem since I'm one-issue. He just has to follow his hand on the Second Amendment, and at worst he's a useful idiot to me.

    But the thing is, as we consider the choice here, between whether he is a victim or not, and we realize that if he is not a victim, that he is therefore a scoundrel . . . it really impresses me, all the definite evidence that makes him look as if he's just that. He might even be a scoundrel And a victim; the way he's been handling things.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  14. #85
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,705
    Thanks
    4,417
    Thanked 3,867 Times in 2,209 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147690
    Kavavaugh Op-Ed:

    I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge - Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 PM ET
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an...dge-1538695822

    Spoiler

    I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

    That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

    As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

    The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

    During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

    After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

    Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

    I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

    Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

    I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.



    Thoughts?

    I had hoped for an explicit apology for his outbursts. Perhaps even something irenic in Mrs. Ford's direction. Nevertheless, I think it was a step in the right direction. But it may be too little, too late.

    The comments to the op-ed are worth reviewing, too.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  15. #86
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Kavavaugh Op-Ed:

    I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge - Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 PM ET
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an...dge-1538695822

    Spoiler

    I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

    That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

    As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

    The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

    During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

    After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

    Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

    I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

    Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

    I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.



    Thoughts?

    I had hoped for an explicit apology for his outbursts. Perhaps even something irenic in Mrs. Ford's direction. Nevertheless, I think it was a step in the right direction. But it may be too little, too late.

    The comments to the op-ed are worth reviewing, too.

    AMR
    He knew what the charges and examination would be about. He chose who to have with him that day. It was wrong to suggest their presence sponsored remarks that were prepared before hand, or to blame subsequent conduct unbecoming because they were present. And his prepared remarks were partisan, ill considered and angry from the outset.

    "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

    This from the man who told a Columbia Law audience that a judge must be "calm before the storm." The man who told them, "Don't be a jerk" and that it was important that a judge "avoid any semblance" of political partisanship.

    The same man authored both the sage counsel and the subsequent partisan, emotional, disrespectful launch (and likened behavior to those opposed to him). So who do we believe will be the judge for life, without any controlling authority to answer to beyond his own judgement? And is the worry enough, the display before the nation and senate enough to feel uneasy with his selection?

    Can we be comfortable with Kavanaugh's assurance? Should we and must we risk it given the authority and power of the office he would assume?

    No, Kavanaugh's op-ed was telling. Even with every reason to understand his error and the arrogance that surfaced to his detriment, he missed the chance to reform the impression and offered a passing admission, a thin, general apology wrapped in specific excuse and inferential blame. Taken outside of his comfort zone, put into an inferior position and under stress he gave us a glimpse at the engine beneath his accomplishments and the steady effort to look a part he had in mind. And even though a a particular apology without caveat would have served him better, Kavanaugh could not separate his sense of hero from his narrative.

    That fellow hasn't truly learned his lesson. That fellow will hold a grudge.


    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (October 5th, 2018)

  17. #87
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    20,176
    Thanks
    3,568
    Thanked 7,713 Times in 4,458 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147820
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    That's not my problem since I'm one-issue.
    I don't find that a reasonable position in relation to a court charged with protecting us on a wide range of Constitutional issues, but I don't mean to insult you by the remark.

    He just has to follow his hand on the Second Amendment, and at worst he's a useful idiot to me.
    I support the amendment, but I'd revisit and restrict everything short of the weapons most like those in existence when the right was framed, meaning single shot breech and bolt weapons.

    But the thing is, as we consider the choice here, between whether he is a victim or not, and we realize that if he is not a victim, that he is therefore a scoundrel . . . it really impresses me, all the definite evidence that makes him look as if he's just that. He might even be a scoundrel And a victim; the way he's been handling things.
    You know, I've been mulling that one myself. You can hold both positions without being unreasonable. I'm inclined to think he did it, that his outrage was focused on carrying a certain audience and the party that nominated him. A distraction from the credibility of her testimony. A way out. Give her a nod then make it about something else while people don't consider the testimony you aren't disputing except on the one point, while that testimony sits there, passed over, even with its insistent focus and unrelenting certainty that he was the boy with loose hands and a presumptive arrogance that led him into folly.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  18. #88
    Over 1500 post club nikolai_42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,872
    Thanks
    133
    Thanked 813 Times in 516 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    406774
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    He knew what the charges and examination would be about. He chose who to have with him that day. It was wrong to suggest their presence sponsored remarks that were prepared before hand, or to blame subsequent conduct unbecoming because they were present. And his prepared remarks were partisan, ill considered and angry from the outset.

    "This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

    This from the man who told a Columbia Law audience that a judge must be "calm before the storm." The man who told them, "Don't be a jerk" and that it was important that a judge "avoid any semblance" of political partisanship.

    The same man authored both the sage counsel and the subsequent partisan, emotional, disrespectful launch (and likened behavior to those opposed to him). So who do we believe will be the judge for life, without any controlling authority to answer to beyond his own judgement? And is the worry enough, the display before the nation and senate enough to feel uneasy with his selection?

    Can we be comfortable with Kavanaugh's assurance? Should we and must we risk it given the authority and power of the office he would assume?

    No, Kavanaugh's op-ed was telling. Even with every reason to understand his error and the arrogance that surfaced to his detriment, he missed the chance to reform the impression and offered a passing admission, a thin, general apology wrapped in specific excuse and inferential blame. Taken outside of his comfort zone, put into an inferior position and under stress he gave us a glimpse at the engine beneath his accomplishments and the steady effort to look a part he had in mind. And even though a a particular apology without caveat would have served him better, Kavanaugh could not separate his sense of hero from his narrative.

    That fellow hasn't truly learned his lesson. That fellow will hold a grudge.


    This is a tough one. When judges have a conflict of interest or don't believe they can be impartial, they are supposed to recuse themselves, aren't they? But is it not possible to separate the personal from the judicial? Is objectivity something we are to expect from a justice when it's all about his own actions? Maybe the question does arise if he can properly separate personal situations impacted by case matter, but at what point is the ice water in the veins allowed to thaw just a little (okay...more than a little in Kavanaugh's case)? These aren't rhetorical questions.

    And the next question I have would be if this disqualifies him from any service as a judge on any appellate court. Why only the Supreme Court? Because if that happens, then this man truly has been ruined and any previous service is now called into question. And if not, what would qualify him for a lower court but not SCOTUS? Constitutional issues, I would think, would be the easiest ones in which the judge could objectify the material at hand and separate himself emotionally from it.

    Or am I looking at this wrong?
    If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    Jeremiah 17:9

    Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
    Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

    Isaiah 50:10-11

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to nikolai_42 For Your Post:

    Town Heretic (October 5th, 2018)

  20. #89
    Silver Member lifeisgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,881
    Thanks
    8,188
    Thanked 2,972 Times in 1,919 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147610
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Kavavaugh Op-Ed:

    I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge - Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 PM ET
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an...dge-1538695822

    Spoiler

    I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

    That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

    As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

    The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

    During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

    After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

    Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

    I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

    Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

    I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.



    Thoughts?

    I had hoped for an explicit apology for his outbursts. Perhaps even something irenic in Mrs. Ford's direction. Nevertheless, I think it was a step in the right direction. But it may be too little, too late.

    The comments to the op-ed are worth reviewing, too.

    AMR
    If my father/husband/son was placed in Judge Kavanaugh's position, being non-corroborated injurious, allegation of something that maybe happened, maybe it did not happen, can't quite remember, in the last second of the game, I would expect the same reaction and if that reaction did not come to the surface, I would definitely start questioning them over the accusations. I expect any man who is wrongly accused with non-corroborated evidence to have the same reaction. Or are some here expecting a robot as a Justice?

    Anybody seen Ruth Bader Ginsburgh in 2010 and 2015 sleeping hearing the State of the Nation address? She said she had imbibed too much wine (translation: Ginsburgh said she was drunk.) Last I checked she is still a Justice. I wonder if it was only when she was caught drunk or did she had the custom of imbibing a little too much over all her life. Rhetorical comment.

    Some speak as if Justices were robots and never get angry over anything, they're so mellow, they just let everything roll over their backs, they never get drunk. Yeah, right.

    Some speak as if they never get angry over anything, even here at TOL they're so mellow and they never disagree when someone make a libel statement against them. Yeah, right.
    No man can come to God except through Christ. (Jn. 14:20)
    No man can come to Christ unless he comes through the Cross. (Jn. 3:16; Eph. 2:13–18)
    No man can come to the Cross without a denial of self. (Lk. 9:23–24)

  21. #90
    Over 500 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    742
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 126 Times in 112 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    15294
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    Kavavaugh Op-Ed:

    I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge - Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 PM ET
    Spoiler

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an...dge-1538695822

    Spoiler

    I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

    That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.

    As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.

    The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player. As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

    During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

    After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

    Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

    I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

    Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

    I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.



    Thoughts?
    Spoiler


    I had hoped for an explicit apology for his outbursts. Perhaps even something irenic in Mrs. Ford's direction. Nevertheless, I think it was a step in the right direction. But it may be too little, too late.

    The comments to the op-ed are worth reviewing, too.

    AMR
    It's the written rulings of the Supreme Court that become history, not what justices utter. Here, I think that Judge Kavanaugh showed that regardless of this debacle (an unbiased assessment, whether or not he is a victim), he can write. Many people, myself included and my guess is many who participate frequently in internet discussion boards and forums too, think by, in, through, etc., writing. This op-ed I think shows that perhaps it is so with Kavanaugh as well.

    His job won't involve uttering. It only involves writing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I don't find that a reasonable position in relation to a court charged with protecting us on a wide range of Constitutional issues, but I don't mean to insult you by the remark.
    I appreciate you not intending insult. I've described a bit already itt that I see gun rights as a mountain, with every other issue being molehills of various heights. It is just my conclusion from studying history, and applying what is today unusual thinking to the horrible gun violence that we suffer from, combined with other real risks that humans face every day around the globe, not involving murderers trying to kill and rapists trying to rape us, these latter, being the primary reason for my valuation of gun rights. Murderers are real.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I support the amendment, but I'd revisit and restrict everything short of the weapons most like those in existence when the right was framed, meaning single shot breech and bolt weapons.
    I support the amendment also. I agree with the Supreme Court that it "extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You know, I've been mulling that one myself. You can hold both positions without being unreasonable. I'm inclined to think he did it, that his outrage was focused on carrying a certain audience and the party that nominated him. A distraction from the credibility of her testimony. A way out. Give her a nod then make it about something else while people don't consider the testimony you aren't disputing except on the one point, while that testimony sits there, passed over, even with its insistent focus and unrelenting certainty that he was the boy with loose hands and a presumptive arrogance that led him into folly.
    He is either a victim, or he is not; and if he is not a victim, then he is a scoundrel. But he might be a scoundrel anyway. It is both true that he is either a victim or not, and that he is either a scoundrel or not, but if he is not a victim, he is definitely a scoundrel.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us