Poll of the Day > Is Kavanaugh actually qualified?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Just as a judge, was he a good judge? Did he follow the law? I don't know anything about him besides the whole alleged sexual assault.

SkynyrdRocker posted...

Just as a judge, was he a good judge? Did he follow the law? I don't know anything about him besides the whole alleged sexual assault.

Not a lot of people know what he stands for as a judge. All they know of him is that he's apparently a gang rapist. And that was the Democrat's game all along. Convince the entire world to doubt his character, and carefully watch his reactions to his interrogation *cough* "job interview" to see why they think he's unqualified for the job and pretend it has nothing to the sexual assault accusations.

I am so fucking happy he got confirmed this afternoon. Now there shall be an ocean of tears!!!! People claiming the system is corrupt. Claiming the FBI didn't do a good enough job digging. Claiming he should be withdrawn. Demand a second vote.

So much passion and anger and certainty towards a man not many people gave two shits about until their PERSONAL FEELINGS got itched with the sexual allegations in the era of #MeToo where apparently all women speak 100% fact always.

Makes me sick.

But, alas, he got confirmed today. He won. The crybabies lost.

*big ol' grin*
---

Simple answers no.
---

People actually had reasons to dislike Kav before this ford stuff even came out.

such as his remarks about executive power and the 4th amendment.

GreenKnight127 posted...

But, alas, he got confirmed today. He won. The crybabies lost.

So... how much do you know about the judicial system, can I ask?
Do you know anything that you're talking about, or just that you're happy people are mad?
---

Probably not, but democrats didn't give a shit because instead of doing anything of value they pursued a big fat nothing.
---

argonautweakend posted...

People actually had reasons to dislike Kav before this ford stuff even came out.

such as his remarks about executive power and the 4th amendment.

People will disagree with everything. There will always be people who disagree.

Just because you have people that disagree with you, doesn't mean you aren't qualified to do the job (and do it well).

See? That's the thing a lot of people can't wrap their mind around.

You CAN be perfectly qualified to do your job....while still having people disagree with you.

What ultimately matters is: Do enough people agree with you to vote you in?

Well.

As much as the media and Hollywood claimed to hate Trump....guess what? Most Americans (who actually got off their ass and voted) thought he was the best candidate.

And guess what? Most of the Senate could see through the bullshit and knew Kavanaugh was perfectly qualified.

So they won.
---

He's good on some things, not good on others. He's as qualified as any other judge but this entire thing could have been handled way better. There are legitimate concerns over his views of the 4th Amendment and his view of government power as a whole which could have been used against him instead of this whole rape charade.
---

argonautweakend posted...

People actually had reasons to dislike Kav before this ford stuff even came out.

such as his remarks about executive power and the 4th amendment.

Yup.
shadowsword87 posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

But, alas, he got confirmed today. He won. The crybabies lost.

So... how much do you know about the judicial system, can I ask?
Do you know anything that you're talking about, or just that you're happy people are mad?

He's just parrotin.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

But, alas, he got confirmed today. He won. The crybabies lost.

So... how much do you know about the judicial system, can I ask?
Do you know anything that you're talking about, or just that you're happy people are mad?

Lemme guess, yer pissed that he won because you thought he was a gang rapist? lol

And now that I'm happy he won, that must mean I know nothing about the judicial system or something? What?

lmao

shadowsword87, there's no way I can prove this, but I am willing to bet both my nipples that you didn't even know who the fuck Brett Kavanaugh was until the allegations came out about him and made it into a media frenzy.
---

argonautweakend posted...

People actually had reasons to dislike Kav before this ford stuff even came out.

such as his remarks about executive power and the 4th amendment.

Please elaborate on these.

I wasnt too involved honestly but I did hear those things brought up before this ford stuff shortly after Kav got the nom, so excuse me if my links arent the best, but

executive power:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/04/kavanaugh-trump-mueller-executive-power-219634

4A

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-confirmation-fourth-amendment/

SkynyrdRocker posted...

argonautweakend posted...

People actually had reasons to dislike Kav before this ford stuff even came out.

such as his remarks about executive power and the 4th amendment.

Please elaborate on these.

Hes on record stating that he thinks that acting US presidents should not be allowed to be investigated for crimes
---

Mead posted...

SkynyrdRocker posted...

argonautweakend posted...

People actually had reasons to dislike Kav before this ford stuff even came out.

such as his remarks about executive power and the 4th amendment.

Please elaborate on these.

Hes on record stating that he thinks that acting US presidents should not be allowed to be investigated for crimes

Well that's not good

argonautweakend posted...

I wasnt too involved honestly but I did hear those things brought up before this ford stuff shortly after Kav got the nom, so excuse me if my links arent the best, but

executive power:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/04/kavanaugh-trump-mueller-executive-power-219634

4A

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kavanaugh-confirmation-fourth-amendment/

Dang, those are some shitty views

Short answer, yes. Long answer, by most definitions, also yes -- he's got a JD, he served 12 years as a judge, he's alternatively been rated very qualified and qualified by the American Bar Association, etc. Of course, if you're partisan, it depends on your party whether you think he's qualified. The fact that you disagree with a particular view doesn't necessarily make a candidate unqualified.

Supposedly his criminal cases have been so non-controversial as to be called boring.
---

Zeus posted...

The fact that you disagree with a particular view doesn't necessarily make a candidate unqualified

Didn't you get the memo, Zeus?

Disagreeing with someone is exactly what makes them unqualified.

Everyone on the planet has to agree with them, otherwise they are unfit for the position.

Also, if the candidate doesn't share the same opinions as you, they are a rape-apologizing, bigoted, mansplaining, Nazi.

And if they have the audacity to question you about your own opinion....it is clearly hate speech and they should be arrested and/or assaulted.

This might come across as sarcasm, but there is a frightening percentage of Americans that genuinely think this way.
---

The party of no and the party of nothing.

Zeus posted...

Short answer, yes. Long answer, by most definitions, also yes -- he's got a JD, he served 12 years as a judge, he's alternatively been rated very qualified and qualified by the American Bar Association, etc. Of course, if you're partisan, it depends on your party whether you think he's qualified. The fact that you disagree with a particular view doesn't necessarily make a candidate unqualified.

Supposedly his criminal cases have been so non-controversial as to be called boring.

Pretty much this.

Also GreenKnight has a point (though perhaps not to the extreme). In politics, "qualifications" these days tend to boil down to the opinions of the person, and how well they align with the latest politically-correct mindset. People who go against socially-accepted opinions are "unqualified." But, academically-speaking, he's one of the most qualified guys out there (not politically, but professionally). The guy has quite a resume.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

And that was the Democrat's game all along. Convince the entire world to doubt his character, and carefully watch his reactions to his interrogation *cough* "job interview" to see why they think he's unqualified for the job and pretend it has nothing to the sexual assault accusations.

Right, it was all made up as a partisan ploy to keep him from sitting on the court. You know, the same way they made up a bunch of stuff about Gorsuch to try to do the same thing. You know, the guy who was totally legitimately nominated in the first place and not the result of an actual, objective unprecedented partisan stonewalling for a year. Oh wait.

But, alas, he got confirmed today. He won. The crybabies lost.

*big ol' grin*

You can tell Trump supporters are assholes because rather than actually caring about whether or not something is good for humanity they just relish 'winning' and 'seeing the other side cry' above all else. Textbook overly testosterone fueled douchebags.

Oh and before you try to deflect by bringing up Clinton for some reason, I didn't vote for her and I'm not a Democrat, so there goes your only counter argument.
---

man101 posted...

You can tell Trump supporters are a******s because rather than actually caring about whether or not something is good for humanity they just relish 'winning' and 'seeing the other side cry' above all else. Textbook overly testosterone fueled douchebags.

People have gotten less and less focused on what they feel would be the best for the country and just what the other people hate.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

man101 posted...

You can tell Trump supporters are a******s because rather than actually caring about whether or not something is good for humanity they just relish 'winning' and 'seeing the other side cry' above all else. Textbook overly testosterone fueled douchebags.

People have gotten less and less focused on what they feel would be the best for the country and just what the other people hate.

And Trump himself is stoking the fires of animosity every day so that he can ride on top of it and present himself as the best, the best, the best, with no regard for what the fallout will be. The antagonism he's perpetrating will outlive him by decades but he doesn't give a shit because he's an extreme narcissist.
---

On topic, Kavanaugh is clearly qualified on paper. But, even assuming for the sake of argument that the allegations against him are 100% fabricated, he still has the temperament of a 12 year old so I don't think he's level headed and objective enough to be good at the job.
---

He's highly qualified, but he's not a very good judge due to him siding with corrupt corporations most of the time.
---

Right, he is far from impartial on a lot of things. This is mostly Republican party of staying in power. The biblethumpers are in the bag now and will come out in droves in 4 weeks due to the fact this/these assholes WANTS to make abortion federally illegal. He has the temperament of a private school high school prep who never worked a day of labor in his life, cos he is. And he's way too young and for a lifetime appt to the scotus, they should all be 70+ lifetime squeaky cleAn judges and the president should not pick who it can be, should be a major majority congressional vote. Look how they select the pope ffs!
---

ferko420 posted...

He has the temperament of a private school high school prep who never worked a day of labor in his life, cos he is. And he's way too young and for a lifetime appt to the scotus, they should all be 70+ lifetime squeaky cleAn judges and the president should not pick who it can be, should be a major majority congressional vote. Look how they select the pope ffs!

This "temper" argument is intriguing to me, and I've seen it from many different people. We're actually quite tame compared to how it used to be (where good ole Aaron Burr shot the man we have on our 10 dollar bills in cold blood over disagreements). Defending your name against an accusation that (if true) makes you the scum of the Earth, is worth getting a little adamant about. You can't pin someone to the ground, beat the proverbial shit out of him with everything you have, and then fault him for not being tame by your standards in his response.

(Frankly, if he DIDN'T get adamant, I'd be more worried about him and the validity of his arguments; Bill Clinton was cool as ice cream in his interviews, and for good reason; he was full of shit).
---

man101 posted...

On topic, Kavanaugh is clearly qualified on paper. But, even assuming for the sake of argument that the allegations against him are 100% fabricated, he still has the temperament of a 12 year old so I don't think he's level headed and objective enough to be good at the job.

Being falsely accused of a heinous crime would provoke indignation in anybody except somebody so comfortable about having committed crimes of that nature that they can remain as passive as a robot.

Hop103 posted...

He's highly qualified, but he's not a very good judge due to him siding with corrupt corporations most of the time.

...what? Overlooking the misuse of the word "corrupt," there's no quota one way or another as to where you fall since each case should be viewed on its own merits. If 100% of the suits brought against corporations were frivolous, 100% should be found in favor of the corporations rather than 50/50 for the appearance of an equitable trend.

ferko420 posted...

Right, he is far from impartial on a lot of things. This is mostly Republican party of staying in power. The biblethumpers are in the bag now and will come out in droves in 4 weeks due to the fact this/these assholes WANTS to make abortion federally illegal. He has the temperament of a private school high school prep who never worked a day of labor in his life, cos he is. And he's way too young and for a lifetime appt to the scotus, they should all be 70+ lifetime squeaky cleAn judges and the president should not pick who it can be, should be a major majority congressional vote. Look how they select the pope ffs!

There's so much stupidity in this one post that it's impossible to know where to start or end. However, it's more than a little telling that you object to Kavanaugh on the basis of age when you made no such complaint about Elena Kagan who was 3 years younger than Kavanaugh when she got appointed. Nor did you raise hell when Sotomayor was elected despite the fact that she was only 2 years older than Kavanaugh and, as a woman, is projected to live longer anyway.

In fact, while you talk of wanting a 70+ age requirement (which would be fucking insane; right now people are worried about SCOTUS judges going senile and keeping their office, your plan could potentially bring them *in* senile), I'm not sure that any SCOTUS judge was that old when they took the job. Almost all of them tend to be right around Kavanaugh's age.
---

Dude either had a drunken hissy fit in front of the senate or he wasn't drunk and just acts like a lunatic when sober. First thing he said was this is revenge from the Clintons. For a post that is supposed to be non partisan (it is obviously partisan but usually they're better at hiding it). Of course he's not qualified even beyond his repugnant views.

shipwreckers posted...

ferko420 posted...

He has the temperament of a private school high school prep who never worked a day of labor in his life, cos he is. And he's way too young and for a lifetime appt to the scotus, they should all be 70+ lifetime squeaky cleAn judges and the president should not pick who it can be, should be a major majority congressional vote. Look how they select the pope ffs!

This "temper" argument is intriguing to me, and I've seen it from many different people. We're actually quite tame compared to how it used to be (where good ole Aaron Burr shot the man we have on our 10 dollar bills in cold blood over disagreements). Defending your name against an accusation that (if true) makes you the scum of the Earth, is worth getting a little adamant about. You can't pin someone to the ground, beat the proverbial shit out of him with everything you have, and then fault him for not being tame by your standards in his response.

(Frankly, if he DIDN'T get adamant, I'd be more worried about him and the validity of his arguments; Bill Clinton was cool as ice cream in his interviews, and for good reason; he was full of shit).

Of course this is republican cuck rationalizing but taking this argument in good faith it still ignores the fact that we're not talking about a criminal trial. This didn't have to be the guy. They could have put up any number of federalist society goblins instead of the one they picked who don't have credible rape allegations against them, but they didn't because they are evil.

CaptainHammer posted...

First thing he said was this is revenge from the Clintons. For a post that is supposed to be non partisan (it is obviously partisan but usually they're better at hiding it).

1) A grudge with the Clintons isn't necessarily partisan.

2) To be fair, the Clintons have a *lot* of reason to try to sabotage him -- he was involved in Bill's impeachment, among other incidents that hurt them. And the Clintons have the kind of clout to mount a campaign against him; which, of course, isn't to say that they did it, just that that it's not as far out of the realm of possibility as people want to suggest.

CaptainHammer posted...

Of course he's not qualified even beyond his repugnant views.

Again, among other *actual* indications of qualifications (you know, besides some internet guy with no understanding of law), the American Bar Association had confirmed he was qualified for the job. That's in addition to meeting every traditional qualification for the job. You can say that you have misgivings about his character or you don't trust his ruling, but when you pretend that he's not qualified you expose a ridiculous partisan bias utterly divorced from reality.
---