All Things SCOTUS

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
The dozen judicial conduct complaints arising before and after Kavanaugh's confirmation process that were deemed "substantial" by a Federal District Court judge will be transferred out of the DC district to the 10th District Court by Chief Justice Roberts after Judge Merrick Garland recused himself.

The complaints in addition to perjury during his confirmation to SCOTUS are related to false testimony before the Senate in previous confirmations hearings in 2004 and 2006.

Those allegations had already been widely discussed in the Senate and in the public realm. Roberts did not see an urgent need for them to be resolved by the judicial branch while further complaints were incoming during his SCOTUS confirmation.

The American Bar Association has not completed their reconsideration of Kavanaugh's rating based on his conduct in the Senate hearings on concerns about temperament and honesty. They had previously downgraded the former White House Aide's rating of well-qualified to qualified in 2006.

The eight other Supreme Court Judges have all been rated as "well-qualified" by the ABA.

Senate voting on SCOTUS nominees from 1789-present.



Question, where does the bold part come from? Especially the quoted "substantial"?

The article you like to ( https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/roberts-kavanaugh-supreme-court-892055 ) says:

"The complaints, related to comments Kavanaugh made during his contentious confirmation hearings last month, were originally filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Kavanaugh served as a federal judge before his confirmation on Saturday..."

"Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who also serves on the D.C Circuit, said in a statement Saturday that complaints had been filed against Kavanaugh.,She characterized them as related to comments he made during his confirmation hearings and not to conduct as a federal judge.

Under federal law, any person may file a complaint against any federal judge in the circuit on which he or she sits. Those complaints are then reviewed, and if they are found to have merit, a special committee investigates further."
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Legacy doesn't care about the details or any facts that counter his narrative or might question the accuracy or bias.
Just picks a link that sounds good and paints his narrative wowing us with his unbiased bias.

And honestly who cares about the ABA since they outed themselves and started publishing "views" on political issues. Just like his massive failure citing that National Council of Churches now disapproved, when really, the org he cited has been known as the Dem's mouthpiece for a very long time.
 

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
Everyday the left gets further and further unhinged from reality. It's quite comical to watch actually.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Everyday the left gets further and further unhinged from reality. It's quite comical to watch actually.

The libs are living in the Matrix....

Hillary-Intense.jpg
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Question, where does the bold part come from? Especially the quoted "substantial"?

The article you like to ( https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/roberts-kavanaugh-supreme-court-892055 ) says:

"The complaints, related to comments Kavanaugh made during his contentious confirmation hearings last month, were originally filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Kavanaugh served as a federal judge before his confirmation on Saturday..."

"Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who also serves on the D.C Circuit, said in a statement Saturday that complaints had been filed against Kavanaugh.,She characterized them as related to comments he made during his confirmation hearings and not to conduct as a federal judge.

Under federal law, any person may file a complaint against any federal judge in the circuit on which he or she sits. Those complaints are then reviewed, and if they are found to have merit, a special committee investigates further."

Anymore I don't have the time or inclination to make an inclusive and substantive comment with all the appropriate linked articles, but am happy to provide those in a reply that is not comprised of pixies or pithy judgments based on stereotypes, etc.

Those complaints landed on Henderson's desk after Garland recused himself and she determined whether they were frivolous or substantive enough to forward them to Roberts where they sat during Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing. They were based on his testimonies in that hearing but also on his statements at those previous nomination hearings as noted. She dismissed some of those as frivolous - three if memory serves - and forwarded the other twelve based on her determination that they were substantive. Her full statement was:
“The complaints do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge. The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
(National Law Journal)

The article goes on to say:
But Roberts went on to say that the justices “do in fact consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations,” as well as other sources for guidance on ethical issues. “For that reason, the court has had no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance. But as a practical matter, the code remains the starting point and a key source of guidance for the Justices as well as their lower court colleagues.”

Roberts did not spell out any formal procedure for handling complaints about the conduct of justices.

A bipartisan bill that passed out of the House Judiciary Committee in September would compel the Supreme Court to develop its own ethics code, among other changes.

Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, which has advocated for a Supreme Court ethics code, said Saturday he hopes the bill becomes law, “and the ongoing confusion over judges and justices’ ethical obligations becomes a relic.”

A Forbes article says:
The Legal Basis Of The Ethics Complaints

The complaints were not made without legal basis. More than 2,400 law professors have determined that Kavanaugh has “displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court.”

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens also stated that Judge Kavanaugh has demonstrated bias and is “not fit for the Supreme Court.” Former Justice Stevens, in remarks to retirees in Boca Raton, Fla, declared that Kavanaugh’s statements on September 27 revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work. “They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities.”

Judge Brett Kavanaugh himself has expressed regrets in the Wall Street Journal, about “a few things [he] should not have said” in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, though without giving specifics.

Now, Chief Justice Roberts has requested Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, the chief circuit judge of the Denver-based Tenth Circuit, to review the complaints against Kavanaugh and "any pending or new complaints related to the same subject matter." Judge Tymkovich has the option of handling the complaints himself, dismissing them or appointing a special committee to examine them.

Unlike the allegations of Justice Kavanaugh’s sexual misconduct and excessive drinking as a teenager, there is no question here about the facts as to what happened, since they occurred on national television. At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Kavanaugh’s behavior was startingly non-judicial in nature. From the outset in his prepared statement, he was angry and confrontational in manner. He was aggrieved and complaining about the situation in which he found himself. He was impolite and challenged the integrity of the Senate questioners and portrayed the hearing in the starkest partisan terms.

Kavanaugh made no apparent effort to bring a lifetime of professional expertise and perspective to bear on the difficult issues under consideration. Instead, he was dismissive of the inquiry and was careless on matters of fact that had been asserted by other potential witnesses on the subject under discussion. He made obfuscating responses to questions about the meaning of words. He made no apparent effort to hold emotions in check and shouted at U.S. Senators and accused them of wrongdoing. He repeatedly sought to shift the attention and blame to others for what was taking place. He resisted further legal inquiry into the issues under discussion. He approached the inquiry with an attitude of entitlement and self-pity. His conduct was remarkably unprofessional.

Although Kavanaugh’s behavior was the very opposite of what one hopes for and expects in a judge, it succeeded in its immediate intent of winning the applause of President Trump and his Republican supporters. Yet his performance, which has been accurately satirized on Saturday Night Live, appalled the rest of the country and raised strictly legal questions about his temperament to sit as a judge on any federal court, let alone the Supreme Court.

Next Steps

The situation is unique in that never before has a Supreme Court appointee joined the court at a time when a fellow judge has concluded that misconduct claims against that appointee warrant review and when a former Supreme Court Justice has concluded that the appointee’s behavior was disqualifying.

Technically, Supreme Court justices are not subject to the misconduct rules governing these claims. But if complaints against a sitting Justice are not dealt with in an impartial apolitical manner, then there will be an asterisk against Judge Tymkovich and Justice Kavanaugh for the remainder of their terms, and indeed the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

There is therefore a risk that Mitch McConnell's seeming accomplishment of a “rock-solid Republican majority on the Supreme Court for a generation” may yet turn out to be something of a Pyrrhic victory.

I previously linked the statement by the 2,400 law professors so I won't do that again.

I take no offense at posts like:
Legacy doesn't care about the details or any facts that counter his narrative or might question the accuracy or bias.
Just picks a link that sounds good and paints his narrative wowing us with his unbiased bias.
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Supreme Court is a historically regressive and presently expendable institution: <a href="https://t.co/TFB4AZqmWj">https://t.co/TFB4AZqmWj</a> <a href="https://t.co/CWcc1WboOK">pic.twitter.com/CWcc1WboOK</a></p>— Slate (@Slate) <a href="https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1050750764023537664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The case for abolishing the Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/WJU1Nxa1LQ">https://t.co/WJU1Nxa1LQ</a></p>— Vox (@voxdotcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1050720248981331968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2010, Dems lose Congress: "This gerrymandering thing has got to go!"<br>2016, Dems lose Presidency: "The Electoral College is nonsense!"<br>2018, Trump appoints Kavanaugh: "Why do we even have a Supreme Court?"<br><br>This three branches of government thing is just sooo passe, apparently. <a href="https://t.co/c3mzanFSdl">https://t.co/c3mzanFSdl</a></p>— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) <a href="https://twitter.com/emzanotti/status/1050770276495937536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Not the SCOTUS, but....
The Prez just gave a huge FU to Harris and Feinstein.
Changing the Nutty 9th is big job....

Trump snubs Feinstein, Harris to nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-snubs-feinstein-harris-to-nominate-conservative-judges-to-liberal-9th-circuit

Cocaine Mitch had a deal with Schumer to get 15 (I believe) total judges thru and he would recess the Senate so they could get home and campaign
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Cocaine Mitch had a deal with Schumer to get 15 (I believe) total judges thru and he would recess the Senate so they could get home and campaign

Yup, but I those 15 are done. Wish all 15 had been done on the Left Coast....

This cracked me up...

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., who is up for reelection this fall in a state where Trump is popular, was asked if McConnell was deliberately trying to tether vulnerable Democrats to Washington. Tester laughed and replied, “I know you guys are smart enough to figure that out.”
 

ickythump1225

New member
Messages
4,036
Reaction score
323
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Supreme Court is a historically regressive and presently expendable institution: <a href="https://t.co/TFB4AZqmWj">https://t.co/TFB4AZqmWj</a> <a href="https://t.co/CWcc1WboOK">pic.twitter.com/CWcc1WboOK</a></p>— Slate (@Slate) <a href="https://twitter.com/Slate/status/1050750764023537664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The case for abolishing the Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/WJU1Nxa1LQ">https://t.co/WJU1Nxa1LQ</a></p>— Vox (@voxdotcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/1050720248981331968?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2010, Dems lose Congress: "This gerrymandering thing has got to go!"<br>2016, Dems lose Presidency: "The Electoral College is nonsense!"<br>2018, Trump appoints Kavanaugh: "Why do we even have a Supreme Court?"<br><br>This three branches of government thing is just sooo passe, apparently. <a href="https://t.co/c3mzanFSdl">https://t.co/c3mzanFSdl</a></p>— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) <a href="https://twitter.com/emzanotti/status/1050770276495937536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E781QE7ZQK8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainme...nfo-that-contradicted-michael-avenatti-client
NBC News raises eyebrows by sitting on info that contradicted Michael Avenatti client's gang rape claim
Controversial attorney Michael Avenatti and client Julie Swetnick claimed last month Kavanaugh took part in high school gang rapes just as Kavanaugh was defending himself against a separate, uncorroborated claim. Avenatti connected NBC News with an anonymous woman he claimed could corroborate Swetnick's allegations, but instead accused the lawyer of "twisting" her words. Still, NBC went with Swetnick's story without disclosing the exculpatory reporting.
 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,455
Reaction score
8,536
LOL

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We still believe Julie Swetnick. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BelieveSurvivors?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BelieveSurvivors</a></p>— Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) <a href="https://twitter.com/PPact/status/1055553082585702400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 25, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
#BelieveSurvivors

Kavanaugh accuser referred to DOJ for false statements, Grassley’s office announces
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ka...r-false-statements-grassleys-office-announces

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Friday referred a woman who'd accused Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of raping her “several times” in the backseat of a car to the Justice Department for “materially false statements” and “obstruction.”

Kavanaugh, confirmed to the high court on Oct. 6, was infamously accused by multiple women of sexual assault and misconduct before the confirmation.


Judy Munro-Leighton, according to Grassley’s office, “alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her ‘several times each’ in the backseat of a car.”

Those accusations were made via a "Jane Doe" letter provided to Sen. Kamala Harris, a California Democrat and committee member, Grassley’s office wrote.

Upon further investigation, however, inconsistencies in the story emerged.

“Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and determine that she: (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky,” Grassley’s office wrote.

“Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by ... Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original 'Jane Doe’ letter,” Grassley’s office wrote in a Friday referral to the DOJ.

“When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the ‘Jane Doe’ from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: ‘No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”

“In short, during the Committee’s time-sensitive investigation of allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, Ms. Munro-Leighton submitted a fabricated allegation, which diverted Committee resources. When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a ‘ploy,’ and a ‘tactic,’” Grassley’s office wrote. “She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

Friday’s referral to the DOJ was not the first time Grassley has asked for an investigation into Kavanaugh’s accusers.

Last week, Grassley referred attorney Michael Avenatti and client Julie Swetnick -- who'd accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct -- for criminal investigation regarding a potential “conspiracy” to provide false statements to Congress and obstruct its investigation.

Avenatti is also a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and works as the attorney for adult film star Stormy Daniels, who maintains she had a sexual encounter with President Trump years before his election. Avenatti represented Swetnick, who accused Kavanaugh during confirmation proceedings of being involved in or present at “gang” and “train” rapes at high school parties in the 1980s.
 
Last edited:

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,455
Reaction score
8,536
Ginsburg fell and broke 3 ribs. Can't wait for the Kavanaugh accusations to start rolling in.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Ginsburg fell and broke 3 ribs. Can't wait for the Kavanaugh accusations to start rolling in.

WTF is it with rib injuries this week....
she's a tough bird. second time she's broke ribs, beat cancer twice, heart problems with a stint. she actually went home after it happened, then went to the hospital.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,627
Reaction score
2,732
We are going to find out how ADA accessible the SCOTUS is when she is running folks over in her Rascal for at least the next two years. She'll drink straight formaldahide if necessary to hold that seat down.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
We are going to find out how ADA accessible the SCOTUS is when she is running folks over in her Rascal for at least the next two years. She'll drink straight formaldahide if necessary to hold that seat down.

Yup. As long as she draws breath, she does not have to retire. No mechanism exists for removing a SCOTUS who is permanently incapacitated by illness/injury. One could argue that she could be in a coma for 5 years, and still could not be retired.

I think she'll do everything she can to hold on till 2020. If Trump gets another term, I think she'll retire.
 
Top