The Kavanaugh Confirmation

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

Re: The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Postby M-Quigley » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:45 am

bignflnut wrote:
Chief Justice John Roberts said in a letter on Wednesday that he had transferred judicial misconduct complaints related to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Judicial Council of the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.

Although the complaints were originally lodged with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh's former court, the circuit executive of that court asked Roberts to transfer the matters to another circuit out of a "concern that local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process."

The complaints relate to testimony that Kavanaugh gave last month during his confirmation hearings, according to a source familiar, and do not pertain to his conduct as a sitting judge.

In a letter addressed to Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, the chief circuit judge of the Denver-based 10th Circuit, Roberts said he had selected the court to review the identified complaints and "any pending or new complaints related to the same subject matter." Tymkovich can handle the complaints himself, dismiss them or appoint a special committee to examine them.


Additional quotes from the link:

According to the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, any person may file a misconduct complaint against a federal judge in the circuit in which the judge sits.

In his letter, Roberts referred to more than a dozen complaints that had been filed between September 20 and October 5.


They're based on what he said as a nominee, and there is only a dozen complaints from the people who opposed him? :roll:
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Postby bignflnut » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:11 am

Let us continue to deny that this is a spiritual battle:

An event has been created and advertised on Facebook by witches who plan to place a public hex on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh through an occult ritual in New York City next Saturday, October 20th.

SNIP

“Please join us for a public hex on Brett Kavanaugh, upon all rapists and the patriarchy at large which emboldens, rewards and protects them,” reads the description for the event, “Ritual to Hex Brett Kavanaugh.”

The description reads: “We are embracing witchcraft’s true roots as the magik of the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised and it’s history as often the only weapon, the only means of exacting justice available to those of us who have been wronged by men just like him.”

“He will be the focal point, but by no means the only target, so bring your rage and all of the axes you’ve got to grind,” states Catland.


Too cliche to have it on Halloween or the day of the dead?
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Postby M-Quigley » Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:46 am

Just when you thought the Kavanaugh story was over: :roll:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-man ... nfirmation

A New York man threatened to kill two senators for supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, federal prosecutors said.

Ronald DeRisi, 74, of Smithtown, N.Y., was charged Friday with threatening federal officials. He was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation Friday, Newsday reported. DeRisi was ordered to be detained because he “could pose a danger to the community.”


In another call left on the other senator’s phone, the message said, “Listen … don’t you know the guy’s a sex offender? How could you not know that … I’m gonna get you,” according to Newsday.


So because the Senator voted for an alleged sex offender it's okay to murder someone? And by murder I don't mean the alleged sex offender but someone who voted for him? Twisted logic.

DeRisi made the calls from a pre-paid cellphone that authorities traced to his debit card, prosecutors said.


KInd of defeats the purpose of a pre paid card when you buy it with your debit card. :roll:

Investigators used cellphone records and “location information” from a phone provider to determine the calls were placed in the vicinity of DeRisi’s home in Suffolk County, according to the criminal complaint. They found ammunition and a BB gun at DeRisi’s home after a search warrant was executed, The New York Times reported.

DeRisi previously pleaded guilty to making other harassing calls in a case that involved at least 15 calls he placed to a victim’s home and office, according to the complaint.

DeRisi’s attorney, Peter Brill, said his client was “not able to comprehend right and wrong.” Brill said DeRisi “is not a physical threat to anyone.”


Right, because people who don't know right from wrong have never harmed anyone. :roll:
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 3047
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Postby Bruenor » Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:14 am

Confirmed several of the accusation against Kavanaugh were false. Wonder if actual charges will be filed, as they should be.

https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status ... wsrc%5Etfw
Senate Judiciary
‏Verified account @senjudiciary

Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original “Jane Doe” letter.
2:36 PM - 2 Nov 2018

Senate Judiciary
‏Verified account @senjudiciary
Nov 2

Ms. Munro-Leighton confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she “just wanted to get attention”; (2) “it was a tactic”; and (3) “that was just a ploy.” Potential violations of federal law include 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (materially false statements) and 1505 (obstruction).


It is illegal to make materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to Congressional investigators. It is illegal to obstruct Committee investigations."—Chairman @ChuckGrassley

— Senate Judiciary (@senjudiciary) November 2, 2018

Μολὼν λαβέ

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

- Thomas Paine
User avatar
Bruenor
 
Posts: 6265
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:03 pm
Location: Geneva, OH

Re: The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Postby bignflnut » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:18 am

Bearing false witness is frowned upon?

Huh.

Somebody find out where that idea comes from!
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Postby catfish86 » Mon Nov 05, 2018 9:38 am

The damage done to people who were actually victims of sexual assault is hard to fathom.

First, the false charges are like the Duke Lacrosse rape case, more likely to discourage people from believing accusations.

Second, Dr Ford's false testimony was a good act by someone who is eminently qualified to fake the accusations but did serve to trigger true survivors. Let's be honest, NONE of the evidence she offered to back her claim could be verified, including several possible witnesses who all refused to corroborate her story.

Overall, this was a huge setback for true survivors of abuse. The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
God,
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can
and the Wisdom to know the difference.

Carrying a gun is a right, not a crime.

Gun control is racist.
User avatar
catfish86
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2250
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 12:44 pm

Re: The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Postby bignflnut » Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:19 am

High Power wrote:The reason that I am wondering about this is that in order to keep from being controversial, and in so doing get the SCOTUS nomination, he had to go along with the crowd. I don't have the case at my fingertips now but I believe he wrote and opinion for Kennedy which was consistent with Roe V. Wade. Then during questioning about his feelings on abortion, his answers made the left uneasy. Of course, anything he would say would make the left uneasy but the subject of abortion, for them was particularly unnerving.

Then in later questioning, he was asked if the SCOTUS ever made a mistake. His reply was yes. The cases he cited were the Dred Scott case and Plessy V. Ferguson. That put the Democrats in a tight spot. They could whine about his views on abortion all day long but can't argue with both of his observations on the aforementioned cases involving slavery and racial discrimination.

To sum this up, I'm wondering if he has the attitude of; "I will have to write my opinions to be consistent with what the SCOTUS has already said but when I get on the bench, I don't have to be PC and I'll say whatever I want to. The pro-life crowd and gun rights supporters will have a friend in me?"

I'm not trying to say that's what I believe are Judge K's feelings but wondering if he is using the same tactic that other so-called "conservative" judges have used in the past. You know the ones like Souter, Kennedy and Roberts. They pretend to be conservative for a Republican President then flip when they get on the bench. In this case, could Judge K be pretending to be middle of the road but secretly very conservative?



Three of the court's conservatives said the court should have taken up the case, but Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

SNIP

The states argued that the Medicaid law does not give individual patients the right to sue when health care providers are excluded. If a state acts improperly, they said, the law provides only one remedy: The federal government can withhold Medicaid funds from the states. "Allowing private enforcement destroys the careful balance Congress established between the states and federal agencies," lawyers for Louisiana told the court.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken up the appeals because the issue of whether Medicaid recipients can sue is an important one.

"These cases are not about abortion rights," Thomas wrote. "So what explains the court's refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.'"


(*looks to the heavens as he whistles "Joy to the World"*)
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6460
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: The Kavanaugh Confirmation

Postby High Power » Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:40 am

bignflnut wrote:
High Power wrote:The reason that I am wondering about this is that in order to keep from being controversial, and in so doing get the SCOTUS nomination, he had to go along with the crowd. I don't have the case at my fingertips now but I believe he wrote and opinion for Kennedy which was consistent with Roe V. Wade. Then during questioning about his feelings on abortion, his answers made the left uneasy. Of course, anything he would say would make the left uneasy but the subject of abortion, for them was particularly unnerving.

Then in later questioning, he was asked if the SCOTUS ever made a mistake. His reply was yes. The cases he cited were the Dred Scott case and Plessy V. Ferguson. That put the Democrats in a tight spot. They could whine about his views on abortion all day long but can't argue with both of his observations on the aforementioned cases involving slavery and racial discrimination.

To sum this up, I'm wondering if he has the attitude of; "I will have to write my opinions to be consistent with what the SCOTUS has already said but when I get on the bench, I don't have to be PC and I'll say whatever I want to. The pro-life crowd and gun rights supporters will have a friend in me?"

I'm not trying to say that's what I believe are Judge K's feelings but wondering if he is using the same tactic that other so-called "conservative" judges have used in the past. You know the ones like Souter, Kennedy and Roberts. They pretend to be conservative for a Republican President then flip when they get on the bench. In this case, could Judge K be pretending to be middle of the road but secretly very conservative?



Three of the court's conservatives said the court should have taken up the case, but Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority.

SNIP

The states argued that the Medicaid law does not give individual patients the right to sue when health care providers are excluded. If a state acts improperly, they said, the law provides only one remedy: The federal government can withhold Medicaid funds from the states. "Allowing private enforcement destroys the careful balance Congress established between the states and federal agencies," lawyers for Louisiana told the court.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken up the appeals because the issue of whether Medicaid recipients can sue is an important one.

"These cases are not about abortion rights," Thomas wrote. "So what explains the court's refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.'"


(*looks to the heavens as he whistles "Joy to the World"*)


I had high hopes for Judge K. I'm disappointed. It looks like Amy Coney Barrett is a REAL conservative when/if Old Lady Ginsburg leaves.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
User avatar
High Power
 
Posts: 2264
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:03 pm

Previous

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests