Supreme Court Nominee #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
My husband just brought up an interesting idea, that the FBI investigation will look at Dr. Ford, and see what can be dug up...to completely discredit her charges.
 
simba16 said:
Just starting reading up thread but wanted to mention polygraphs. Kavanaugh said he hadn't taken one; "not reliable" he told Sen Kamala Harris. But in 2016 he issued a ruling stating that polygraphs were reliable, important tool in law enforcement "? What is he afraid of?
Click to expand...
Do you have a link for that? I haven't heard that one yet and would like to understand the context of this ruling. Thanks.
 
Since there is more info to come I am still trying to maintain an open mind. But, honestly, if I were to make a decision based on Thursday's testimonies, it would NOT be in favor of Judge Kavanaugh.

I thought he was terribly rude and disrespectful of several committee members while they were questioning him. I thought he was lying about how little he drank during high school and college. I also thought he was lying about some of those "definitions" he gave.

In the overall, I felt his demeanor and performance was not in keeping with the behavior I would expect from a member of the Supreme Court.

All of this is my own opinion, of course.
 
Moo.
I still don’t understand how it came to this. Sen. Feinstein has been in DC for a long time. Many SC confirmations have come before her. A woman (presumably her constituent) writes a letter in July with concerns about a SC nominee. She asks for anonymity. Sen. Feinstein knows many people and processes in DC. Nothing was done. (Huh?)

Sometime in September, the letter is ‘leaked’ (but not by the Senator or any of her staff). JK hearings are over and they are ready to vote. All of a sudden BOOM!

Why didn’t Sen. Feinstein do something earlier (while keeping Dr. Ford anonymous)? Did she not care? Did she forget? Did she not know what to do? Simply following the processes in place (ie. report, investigate, conclude) would have eliminated ALL of this.

These are simple steps that most people know. I just don’t get it. Moo

Why aren’t these questions being asked?
 
He needs to withdraw. His reputation isn't as great as some might imply.

bbm

sds71 said:
The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.
The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.
Click to expand...

From the link:

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”

A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom.

The reviews weren’t all bad.​
 
mikkismom said:
Moo.
I still don’t understand how it came to this. Sen. Feinstein has been in DC for a long time. Many SC confirmations have come before her. A woman (presumably her constituent) writes a letter in July with concerns about a SC nominee. She asks for anonymity. Sen. Feinstein knows many people and processes in DC. Nothing was done. (Huh?)

Sometime in September, the letter is ‘leaked’ (but not by the Senator or any of her staff). JK hearings are over and they are ready to vote. All of a sudden BOOM!

Why didn’t Sen. Feinstein do something earlier (while keeping Dr. Ford anonymous)? Did she not care? Did she forget? Did she not know what to do? Simply following the processes in place (ie. report, investigate, conclude) would have eliminated ALL of this.

These are simple steps that most people know. I just don’t get it. Moo

Why aren’t these questions being asked?
Click to expand...
This has been answered a million times already but I understand Republicans want to shift the focus to Feinstein and away from an accused sex predator nominee.
 
I want to give my take on polygraphs. I don't feel the conclusions from them are reliable enough to be used as evidence in a court of law.

But I do believe they can be useful to law enforcement. When a non law enforcement polygraph examiner asks a suspect questions the answers given can be used in court. There is no requirement for a Miranda Warning.

That can be very useful in prosecuting criminals. JMO
 
RANCH said:
Do you have a link for that? I haven't heard that one yet and would like to understand the context of this ruling. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Maybe I read at WaPo. Can't remember but I've heard it from several sources. Can you google?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 696 (members: 169, guests: 527)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
527
Total visitors
696
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,280
Messages
18,237,236
Members
234,330
Latest member
Mizz_Ledd
Back
Top