PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court criteria?



Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 09:00 AM
What will be the criteria to be attained for appointment to the Supreme Court in the future?

Apparently
7 Things You Might Not Know About the U.S. Supreme Court - HISTORY (https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court)There are no official qualifications for becoming a Supreme Court justice. The Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation's highest court.Oct 8, 2013

https://www.history.com/.../7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court (https://www.history.com/news/7-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-u-s-supreme-court)


Apart from age, citizenship and residency qualifications will, or should, the any or all of the following example topics and others be considered?


[*=1]Virgin, e.g. age lost?
[*=1]Sexual affairs?
[*=1]One night stands/etc, when single and if when married?
[*=1]Teenage fumblings.
[*=1]Married or single?
[*=1]Parking tickets?
[*=1]Criminal convictions?
[*=1]Alcohol usage?
[*=1]Tobacco usage?
[*=1]Drugs (Heroin/crack/meths/marijuana/etc)?
[*=1]Relatives, e.g. Russian, N.Korean etc?
[*=1]Lie detector test (what questions to be asked)?
[*=1]NRA membership?
[*=1]KKK membership?
[*=1]Other extreme club/group membership, past or present?
[*=1]Donations to charity?
[*=1]Wooden boat owner?
[*=1]Have you or your partner had an abortion?
[*=1]Credit rating?



What of above should be excluded?

If not any the above, what else should be examined in detail?

CWSmith
09-27-2018, 09:16 AM
I can see at least 9 of the above that I would consider important considerations.

However, if Kavanaugh has lied about his own criminal activity, I think that rises to the top. Don't you?

Keith Wilson
09-27-2018, 09:21 AM
OK, RP, this is another example of who some folks call you a troll. We have a fellow nominated for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court of the US who has been plausibly accused of sexual assault by two women, possibly three. Whether one thinks Mr Kavanagh should be confirmed or not, this is serious stuff. Your post can be reasonably interpreted as trivializing the accusations against him. Really?? Virginity? Parking tickets? TEENAGE FUMBLINGS?? Mr Kavanagh was accused of attempted rape.

Norman Bernstein
09-27-2018, 09:23 AM
What will be the criteria to be attained for appointment to the Supreme Court in the future?

Political agenda is the only REAL criteria. Nobody is being fooled; the Supreme Court is the MOST political branch of US government.... nominees are picked for their political orientation. The objective of each nominee is to simply NOT reveal, in the hearing, what would be obvious to anyone with knowledge of the history of the candidate.

What might be the grounds for rejection? Once again, political agenda.... although it's entirely possible to reject a nominee if there's a question of their character, as in the case of Kavanaugh.

LeeG
09-27-2018, 09:32 AM
Hey RP, how about a tendency to mislead and lie? How about a political ideology that wishes to take away women’s health choices?

These things are here and now, not 35 yrs ago. Do you understand?

SchoonerRat
09-27-2018, 09:36 AM
How 'bout perjury?

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 10:27 AM
OK, RP, this is another example of who some folks call you a troll. We have a fellow nominated for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court of the US who has been plausibly accused of sexual assault by two women, possibly three. Whether one thinks Mr Kavanagh should be confirmed or not, this is serious stuff. Your post can be reasonably interpreted as trivializing the accusations against him. Really?? Virginity? Parking tickets? TEENAGE FUMBLINGS?? Mr Kavanagh was accused of attempted rape.

Some items were written 'tongue in cheek' e.g. you forgot #17.

I was trying to have a discussion on what the future nominees would likely be subjected to.

What prompted me to post the thread for discussion was that the Constitution spells out age, citizenship and residency requirements for becoming president of the United States or a member of Congress but mentions no rules for joining the nation's highest court.

I was trying to have a discussion on what the future nominees would likely be subjected to and what criteria was valid.

I posted examples of what has come up, among other items, regarding the current nomination as starting points for discussion I purposely asked for future criteria.

I also asked:

. . . . What of above should be excluded?

. . . . If not any the above, what else should be examined in detail?

Should I have avoided making any suggestion or item and just left the OP as a basic bland and spartan :

. . . . "What will be the criteria to be attained, apart from age, citizenship and residency qualifications, for appointment to the Supreme Court in the future?"

Many here would ask 'like what?, which is why I posted 'items/topics' which could be discussed etc.


Made purposely no mention of the current nominee or what he has been accused about nor the seriousness of that matter.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 10:32 AM
I can see at least 9 of the above that I would consider important considerations.

However, if Kavanaugh has lied about his own criminal activity, I think that rises to the top. Don't you? Great point. For the record I would consider that lying (perjury) in order to attain such an important appointment; position and length of time etc; a major - if not the major - item.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 10:43 AM
Hey RP, how about a tendency to mislead and lie? How about a political ideology that wishes to take away women’s health choices?

These things are here and now, not 35 yrs ago. Do you understand?

Lets discuss all the future criteria that should be considered.

As to tendency to mislead I refer to Norman's post "The objective of each nominee is to simply NOT reveal, in the hearing, what would be obvious to anyone with knowledge of the history of the candidate." The candidate should thoroughly interviewed and all answers double checked.

As to lying, any candidate found to be deliberately doing so should convicted of perjury , with the maximum sentence under the law.

As to "How about a political ideology that wishes to take away women’s health choices?", well I am pro-choice regarding abortion.
Any appointment as a Judge should be to judge in accordance with the law.
If the law is changed, by House or Representatives and Senate, then the Supreme Court judges should judge in accordance with the law.

I agree with "These things are here and now, not 35 yrs ago" and in the OP I asked (all on forum) about future criteria and what should be taken into account.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 10:46 AM
How 'bout perjury? See my Post #8 "I would consider that lying (perjury) in order to attain such an important appointment; position and length of time etc; a major - if not the major - item. "

and also in #9 "As to lying, any candidate found to be deliberately doing so should convicted of perjury , with the maximum sentence under the law."

Don't you agree?

Keith Wilson
09-27-2018, 11:07 AM
One more time: Nomination to the Supreme Court and the hearings that follow is not a criminal trial; it's a job interview. While I think everyone would agree that it should be fair, there are certain things about criminal prosecution that simply don't apply here, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt', for example.

oznabrag
09-27-2018, 11:16 AM
Some items were written 'tongue in cheek' . . .

Made purposely no mention of the current nominee or what he has been accused about nor the seriousness of that matter.

The matter is serious.

We are going to remove Trump from office and install him as Dictator-For-Life of Nevis-St. Kitts.

Happy now?

Canoez
09-27-2018, 11:37 AM
I think Kavanaugh likely perjured himself during his exchange with Senator Leahy on the subject of stolen Democratic documents, and warrantless wiretapping, torture and detainee treatment during the Bush administration.

I think he has no scruples about perjuring himself today as there is likely no penalty for him to do so.

Ian McColgin
09-27-2018, 11:56 AM
The prime consideration is "judicial temperament."

An attorney argues for a client. That means you have a conclusion and you adduce facts, law, and reasoning that arrive at that conclusion.

All people have at least a nudge of where they are on almost any question and reliably "think" their way there. Scrupulous thinkers make sure they understand their biases and account for them, just as all scientists know that often the experimenter causes the outcome either by how the question is framed or by the mere fact of observation changes the event. And we see all over the place researchers so sure of their hypothesis that they warp or suppress conflicting data.

A judge may be liberal or conservative and still be a true judge if she or he knows personal bias and works to prevent that from bringing a premature conclusion before all reasoning is done.

Coming with that judicial temperament will be deep intellectual and spiritual honesty. Such honesty should insulate a judge's resistance to corruption and the blandishments of power.

How you find if a judge meets these requirements is more complex.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 12:00 PM
The matter is serious.

We are going to remove Trump from office and install him as Dictator-For-Life of Nevis-St. Kitts.

Happy now?

LOL.



I think Kavanaugh likely perjured himself during his exchange with Senator Leahy on the subject of stolen Democratic documents, and warrantless wiretapping, torture and detainee treatment during the Bush administration.

I think he has no scruples about perjuring himself today as there is likely no penalty for him to do so. The hearing/interview should undertaken with the candidate(?) under oath. Might be a way forward for the review of future nominees.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2018, 12:06 PM
One more time: Nomination to the Supreme Court and the hearings that follow is not a criminal trial; it's a job interview. While I think everyone would agree that it should be fair, there are certain things about criminal prosecution that simply don't apply here, "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt', for example.
One major issue on this hearing is that there have been accusations and denials (apparently there are others that are saying that they did what Kavanaugh did).
Another issue is as Norman pointed out, it is all political.

Would it be appropriate for SC judges be appointed for a certain term rather than for life?

Canoez
09-27-2018, 12:50 PM
The hearing/interview should undertaken with the candidate(?) under oath. Might be a way forward for the review of future nominees.

Any testimony in the Senate is considered under oath. Both Ford and Kavanaugh will testify. The testimony will provide two polar opposites about the incident in question. Which one will be the truth?

Do you believe others who have spoken about the parties that were attended by Kavanaugh and Judge and their behavior at those parties?

Do you believe Judge's own statements? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/mark-judges-girlfriend-is-ready-to-talk-to-fbi-and-judiciary-committee-her-lawyer-says/?utm_term=.00104f891f56)

I'd say that speaks to a pattern of behavior.

Bob Adams
09-27-2018, 02:43 PM
1. Be without sin of any kind since birth.
or
2. Be a Democrat.

Keith Wilson
09-27-2018, 02:47 PM
1. Be without sin of any kind since birth.
or
2. Be a Democrat.This is starting to get offensive. How about 'Never tried to rape anyone'? :mad:

leikec
09-27-2018, 02:55 PM
1. Be without sin of any kind since birth.
or
2. Be a Democrat.

I believe Ms Ford absolutely. There are other extreme right wing judges on the list who will satisfy you.


Jeff C

Bob Adams
09-27-2018, 03:26 PM
I believe Ms Ford absolutely. There are other extreme right wing judges on the list who will satisfy you.


Jeff C

I am not right wing. This is a she said he said situation that should have, if true, been reported years ago. You people here believe her only because it is what you want to believe.

skuthorp
09-27-2018, 04:10 PM
Well, reluctantly, I think RP has a point. You may find with the extreme partisanship of the Court appointments process that no one suitable will accept nomination because of the risk of losing what they already have, and more.

Osborne Russell
09-28-2018, 08:11 AM
The prime consideration is "judicial temperament."

An attorney argues for a client. That means you have a conclusion and you adduce facts, law, and reasoning that arrive at that conclusion.

All people have at least a nudge of where they are on almost any question and reliably "think" their way there. Scrupulous thinkers make sure they understand their biases and account for them, just as all scientists know that often the experimenter causes the outcome either by how the question is framed or by the mere fact of observation changes the event. And we see all over the place researchers so sure of their hypothesis that they warp or suppress conflicting data.

A judge may be liberal or conservative and still be a true judge if she or he knows personal bias and works to prevent that from bringing a premature conclusion before all reasoning is done.

Coming with that judicial temperament will be deep intellectual and spiritual honesty. Such honesty should insulate a judge's resistance to corruption and the blandishments of power.

Yep. Well said.


How you find if a judge meets these requirements is more complex.

But nonetheless vital. That's where I disagree with Norman. That some people use bogus criteria doesn't mean those are the criteria.

Would America's view of Kavanaugh's fitness for the Supreme Court be the same if yesterday's hearings had not been held?

Rum_Pirate
09-28-2018, 08:34 AM
1. Be without sin of any kind since birth.
or
2. Be a Democrat.


This is starting to get offensive. How about 'Never tried to rape anyone'? :mad:

Don't see anything offensive in Bob's post.

The 'Never tried to rape anyone' is included under Bob's item 1.

Norman Bernstein
09-28-2018, 08:36 AM
I am not right wing. This is a she said he said situation that should have, if true, been reported years ago. You people here believe her only because it is what you want to believe.

I agree, it's a 'he said, she said'... without ANY likelihood of ever getting a definitive answer as to the absolute truth.

However, there are OTHER reasons to think that Kavanaugh should be denied a seat on the Supreme Court:

1) I believe that he perjured himself at his last confirmation hearing, when he tried to play innocent about the fact that he had read stolen Democratic talking points while he was a political operative (best description I can think of) for the Bush administration. His explanation doesn't pass the smell test.

2) I believe he was entirely disingenuous about his description of his own character, as a young man... he repeatedly talked about his grade point average, his service activities, his sports achievements... but unconvincingly tried to de-emphasize his wilder behavior in prep school and college. We're not idiots, and we KNOW what goes on, at that age... his self-depiction as a choirboy was NOT convincing. We don't judge someone by the mistakes they may have made in youth... as long as they are willing to acknowledge them. Kavanaugh has not done so.

3) His behavior in the hearings demonstrates that, by virtue of temperament, he is unqualified to serve. We all know that Supreme Court nominees are chosen specifically for their political biases, and their usual record of votes on the Court most consistently demonstrate those biases. However, in the hearings, Kavanaugh was unable to hide his severe political bias... the accusation against his critics for supposedly trying to extract 'revenge for the Clintons' is a clear demonstration of extreme (and irrational) partisanship. If he was unable to conduct himself in a dignified manner in the hearing, what does it say about the man's temperament?

Tom Lathrop
09-28-2018, 11:49 AM
Political agenda is the only REAL criteria. Nobody is being fooled; the Supreme Court is the MOST political branch of US government.... nominees are picked for their political orientation. The objective of each nominee is to simply NOT reveal, in the hearing, what would be obvious to anyone with knowledge of the history of the candidate.

What might be the grounds for rejection? Once again, political agenda.... although it's entirely possible to reject a nominee if there's a question of their character, as in the case of Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh made his political orientation extremely clear in his tirade yesterday. Nothing could be as disqualifying for a supreme court judge as that rant. Of course both he and Lindsay Graham were following the winning strategy used by and advised by Trump. Certainly worked among the GOP faithful.

Rum_Pirate
09-28-2018, 11:52 AM
Kavanaugh made his political orientation extremely clear in his tirade yesterday. Nothing could be as disqualifying for a supreme court judge as that rant. Of course both he and Lindsay Graham were following the winning strategy used by and advised by Trump. Certainly worked among the GOP faithful.
Yes, what sections I saw was a 'rant'.

Keith Wilson
09-28-2018, 12:02 PM
I am not right wing. This is a she said he said situation that should have, if true, been reported years ago. You people here believe her only because it is what you want to believe.It is a 'he said, she said' situation because the Republicans on the committee are desperately trying to keep it so. No other witnesses, not even the other guy who according to Ms. Ford was there the the assault occurred. No FBI investigation. No attempt to get any more information at all; gotta take a vote today! Gee, I wonder why that is? http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

LeeG
09-28-2018, 12:12 PM
I am not right wing. This is a she said he said situation that should have, if true, been reported years ago. You people here believe her only because it is what you want to believe.

I believe it’s quite likely that young Kavanaugh matured out of frightening abusive drunk behavior as a young man and is most likely a high functioning alcoholic who has also accomplished many life goals. He’s also shown to lie about little things, has pursued a political path that has very cruel consequences for others and is shown in his tirade to be tremendously partisan. These allegations having shaken him up as though he was caught, same with the comments about drinking, not someone secure in his story. His lack of control doesn’t reflect someone secure in their holding the truth.
His suitability doesn’t rest on her testimony but his reaction to it and Trumps objections to researching his work under GW.

TomF
09-28-2018, 12:14 PM
I agree.

Rum_Pirate
09-28-2018, 12:40 PM
I believe it’s quite likely that young Kavanaugh matured out of frightening abusive drunk behavior as a young man and is most likely a high functioning alcoholic who has also accomplished many life goals. He’s also shown to lie about little things, has pursued a political path that has very cruel consequences for others and is shown in his tirade to be tremendously partisan. These allegations having shaken him up as though he was caught, same with the comments about drinking, not someone secure in his story. His lack of control doesn’t reflect someone secure in their holding the truth.
His suitability doesn’t rest on her testimony but his reaction to it and Trumps objections to researching his work under GW.


Agree with much of what you say but what evidence is there that he is "most likely a high functioning alcoholic" ?