[About Lawyers]

"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
09/27/2018 at 23:12 • Filed to: None

I think we know where this is going. Jump, Or look at this beautiful car!

Beyond Dr. Blase y Ford’s testimony, beyond the wrongdoing by both sides and the politicization of the hearing, or political leanings... Kavanaugh doesn’t seem fit to serve in the Supreme court on attitude alone.

I don’t know about you, but to me a justice must have the patience and nuance to understand even a shitty situation like Kavanaugh’s without going nuts on Senators. He lost his cool and made everything way too personal not a great way to leave a good impression on the people meant to vote you in . Also, saying it’s a smear campaign by the left? By saying so I think he removed any credible shred of impartiality he had, which I think is very important for the bench he’s trying to be sat in.

Does the Supreme Court really need a Justice that holds such a grudge to a political group? Would Kavanaugh recuse himself when cases of electoral law, campaign finance or districting come to the court? If he must given his grudge againts a large political group, doesn’t that make him kind of... useless?

Plus, he’s perjured himself at times; it doesn’t seem like a great catch, specially compared to the hundreds of judges who are probably more professional and who have, you know, not perjured themselves in the past.

This isn’t only about Kavanaugh: in a sense the Supreme Court has been abused by political parties all the time and the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! has turned app arent . Some Justices are comically casual about their very important job: Hell, somehow a discussion around torture ended up including the film Die Hard.

DISCUSSION (45)

fintail > Spanfeller is a twat
09/27/2018 at 23:31

To some people, especially those who claim to be tough and “real” (but are offended at every turn), everything is a conspiracy.

It doesn’t matter though, as there’s no collusion, and even if there was, that isn’t illegal.

atfsgeoff > Spanfeller is a twat
09/27/2018 at 23:36

He lost his cool and made everything way too personal not a great way to leave a good impression on the people meant to vote you in.

He didn’t make anything personal; the accusations against him are personal in nature. Blasey accused him of sexual assault during high school, over 35 years ago.

To compound that, he’s already been made to answer more written questions (over 2500) regarding his qualifications, reputation, judgment and demeanor than all other Supreme Court nominees in the history of the nation, combined. Yeah he has a right to be a bit annoyed at this point.

As for him claiming it’s a smear campaign by the left, well, Senator Feinstein held the proverbial smoking gun in the form of sitting on the allegations forwarded from Ford to her, for months, and only just now revealing them for maximum damage. Since she is a member of the left, there is some credence to his opinion there.

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat
09/27/2018 at 23:37

If you want to tone-police a legislative committee hearing, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Spanfeller is a twat > atfsgeoff
09/27/2018 at 23:44

A: He made most things personal, he started talking about his name.

B: He’s got a huge paper trail, no wonder he was scrutinized, and if he was annoyed for all the questions and broke down because of them, it is yet another piece of proof he’s not worthy of the supreme court.

C: It doesn’t matter if it was a smear campaign by Sen. Feinstein. She’s one of millions of people that side with “the left”; if he’s going to hold such a grudge to such a large portion of the population it just speaks to a lack of maturity and preparation to sit on a court with such importance and that already faces important challenges of partizanship.

Spanfeller is a twat > For Sweden
09/27/2018 at 23:44

WHAT DID YOU SAY TO ME?!?!

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat
09/27/2018 at 23:45

Spanfeller is a twat > fintail
09/27/2018 at 23:46

This hearing was a shitshow. I’d be disappointed if something like this happened here; and it’s a low bar.

atfsgeoff > Spanfeller is a twat
09/27/2018 at 23:56

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t: If he stood rigid and coldly denied any wrongdoing without any emotion, the left would call him a sociopath. He went with a more emotional response instead, so now he lacks maturity to be on the Supreme Court.

fintail > Spanfeller is a twat
09/28/2018 at 00:01

Look at this regime and what has been building for years , I think it’s par for the course. To paraphrase someone I can’t remember: this is what America is coming to.

The real question might be when will it happen again?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > atfsgeoff
09/28/2018 at 00:02

I heard an operative of one of the Presidents Bush say that all of this was Democrats’ revenge for Merrick Garland. If that is so, then isn’t he admitting the the Garland thing really was a shady thing? If it was not shady, but fair billiards because of something Dems had done previously, what was the dastardly thing Dems had done to warrant Garland being kept from a hearing for over a year? I’m not trying to play Whatabout here, but more like, WTF ?

But if that operative is right, then it seems to me the Republicans have brought this on themselves, though I think DiFi definitely poked some people in the eye with a sharp stick.

Let all of this be a cautionary tale to rich frat kids in high school.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > atfsgeoff
09/28/2018 at 00:04

I agree; he’s screwed either way, and even if he gets the appointment . If he hadn’t been nominated by such a repugnant president, then he might not have suffered all of this.

HammerheadFistpunch > Spanfeller is a twat
09/28/2018 at 00:05

If you don’t think you’d be fed up to the point of losing your cool being the centerpiece of a political battle so intense death threats come to you and your family...you are lying.

Whoever he is or isn’t. whatever he did or didn’t do...he’s been put through the meat grinder. Frankly his tone is the least of my concerns.

Chariotoflove > Spanfeller is a twat
09/28/2018 at 00:06

I did not watch the hearing of which you speak, but I remember Clarance Thomas getting visibly pissed off and chastising the senators during his Anita Hill “shit show”, and it worked out for him in the long run. So, I don’t think losing your cool in such a situation automatically disqualifies you from the job or ruins your candidacy . It makes you human.

Spanfeller is a twat > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 00:16

It’s an interesting assertion I agree, which is why I raise the perjury question as wekk . What are your concerns?

HammerheadFistpunch > Spanfeller is a twat
09/28/2018 at 00:18

I think its easy to find dirt if you dig hard enough. No one is clean. NO ONE.

DipodomysDeserti > atfsgeoff
09/28/2018 at 00:28

The guy spent a few hundred k on Nationals tickets. Nothing he does could convince me he’s not a sociopath, including his proclaimed love of beer.

aquila121 > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 00:34

So has the victim accusing him, just as a reminder.

I'm infuriated by the motherfuckers suggesting there is nothing on Earth that would cause them to pull (or even delay) the nomination vote to allow an investigation. Even if he's guilty, there are some craven jackwads who would vote in his favor, and that is beyond unacceptable.

HammerheadFistpunch > aquila121
09/28/2018 at 00:39

Now I fully agree that ramming through a vote is antithetical to all that this position stands for. I’m also fully aware that this is team red vs team blue and logic or sense has nothing to do with it. Team red knows they can’t get what they want unless they press their advantage now, team blue will knock the ball into the fire to avoid a team red point. None of this is how it ought to be.

The moral of the story here is that you don’t want to be the ball.

Frankly I am disgusted by both sides here, deeply.

Nick Has an Exocet > Spanfeller is a twat
09/28/2018 at 01:53

I’m entirely okay with showing emotion. Frankly, there’s nothing scarier than an emotionless judge - especially if it’s his own life being called into question. I watch a good amount of the hearing when I got home tonight. I find the entire thing to be a disgrace. I will say though , even though I rarely pick sides (hell, I’m so far North of center, no label really applies) I blame the democrats. What they’ve done here has the potential of being a major strike against women’s rights if they lose (and they don’t stand much of a chance against winning after what I saw today). That’s a bad deal and they should have thought that through.

Spanfeller is a twat > Nick Has an Exocet
09/28/2018 at 02:03

I blame both parties, both have clear conflicts of interest that might not align with the interests of the accusers or the nation.

Spanfeller is a twat > Chariotoflove
09/28/2018 at 02:07

It’s worked before, there’s no doubt there.

I just feel that on monday the dust will settle and the whole theater will conclude with a relatively obvious result.

Nick Has an Exocet > Spanfeller is a twat
09/28/2018 at 02:13

I always say that life is easier when you realize that no one has your interests in mind except yourself.

No matter which groups "gets their guy" … it's not for us.

RPM esq. > Spanfeller is a twat
09/28/2018 at 03:34

I practice almost entirely in federal court and often in federal appellate courts. Regardless of the merits of the accusations against him, his disrespectful, emotional demeanor and overt partisanship were wildly inappropriate for a federal judge and in a sane world would be disqualifying. Judges have political preferences like anybody else, and they can certainly vote how they like in their personal lives, but it fundamentally violates their role under the Constitution to engage in partisan bickering or to allow their personal beliefs and preferences to affect their decisions on the law. It’s impossible to avoid the latter entirely, of course, but come on... angry generalizations about “the left” are completely inappropriate. The whole point of lifetime appointments is to make the federal judiciary as apolitical as possible, and this nominee makes a mockery of that more than perhaps any other in recent history ( the laughable and abortive Harriet Miers nomination aside, maybe ).

RPM esq. > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 03:39

“Team Red” really did this to themselves with the shameful and unprecedented way they t anked the Garland nomination, and forcing a vote here just confirms that their sole interest is in exercising power at literally any cost to everyone else. I’m not particularly lefty by nature but they come out of this looking far worse to me.

RPM esq. > atfsgeoff
09/28/2018 at 03:46

That’s not remotely true. Judges are supposed to be rigorous and unemotional in doing their job—you know, judicial and judicious. He came off as petulant and immature , as well as disingenuous. Those are not qualities anyone wants in a judge. “R igid” would have been much better for him.

The Dummy Gummy > Spanfeller is a twat
09/28/2018 at 08:03

This is honestly the best take, but party liners will disagree for obvious reasons.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 08:09

Pretty sure all justices have received death threats when taking the nomination, the key here is he targets a political party with hatred. The lifetime appointed Supreme Justice should be unbiased.

HammerheadFistpunch > RPM esq.
09/28/2018 at 11:37

As I’ve said before, they are both side deplorable in their tactics.

HammerheadFistpunch > The Dummy Gummy
09/28/2018 at 11:47

Lets not kid ourselves by hiding behind a supposed neutral stance - he’s right (to a degree). T he left IS intentionally blocking him based solely on political ideology and perhaps even pettiness over similar instances of this happening to them...garland for example. Just as the right will do anything to push him forward. He’s absolutely right to point this political bias out. Thats not to say that this proves that they manufactured these allegations , far from it, but to blame the left for doing whatever is in their power to stop him based not on his qualities as a judge is an accurate and hardly disputable point of contention.

We also need to get over the idea that c hief justices are incapable of being both qualified judges and human. RBG has been a vocal critic of Donald T rump for years, do we question her loyalty to the rule of law? These are people who’ve lived lives, of course they are going to have bias. The beauty of the law is that it’ s not about political leanings or personal opinion. There exists no, and never will exist, a completely unbiased person and this includes chief justices.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 12:26

She should have been gone when she clearly had a bias. My stance is neutral whiles yours is obviously not.

As Kavanaugh should be gone. His opening statement was a disgrace to all justices future and past.

There exists no, and never will exist, a completely unbiased person and this includes chief justices.

That’s fine but many justices before him will remove their bias when voting on issues. When there is blatant, unhinged, hard leaning bias...see ya later.

HammerheadFistpunch > The Dummy Gummy
09/28/2018 at 12:42

So which is it?

People can turn off their accumulated human experience when it’ s time to go to work.

P eople are incapable having having an a personal opinion and leaving it at home.

Look, you either accept that you can have biases AND reach conclusions that are based in fact and prece dent , or you can’t.

“my stance in neutral ”

No its not.

No one’ s stance is neutral, getting there is an important step in learning to judge impartially. If you don’t know where your biases are, and we ALL have them, you can’t very well account for them in your calculation.

You don’t have to believe that you have bias that affects your judgement, for that to actually be the case. At least acknowledging it gives you some power over it.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 12:56

Sure bud. It’s hilarious how badly you contradict yourself in this breakout without even realizing it. Good luck with that.

HammerheadFistpunch > The Dummy Gummy
09/28/2018 at 12:58

Spell it out.

Im not saying I don’t have bias, Im not saying anything of that sort. Im saying exactly what I’ve explained. I can be a person with bias AND STILL reach reasonable conclusions. Do you really think there is a single judge in the entire world that is unbiased?

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 13:04

I didn’t say any of that, but keep at that guessing game homie.

I said my position is neutral and you said I couldn’t be. Then you went on that all judges have a bias but they r each conclusions that are based in fact and precedent, or you can’t.

So either you accept the notion of someone possibly having a bias and having a neutral position or you don’t. You contradicted in the same post.

HammerheadFistpunch > The Dummy Gummy
09/28/2018 at 13:48

“So either you accept the notion of someone possibly having a bias and having a neutral position or you don’t. You contradicted in the same post.”

This is nonsense and it contradicts nothing.

We disagree on one fundamental point that I think is the hangup here; I say there IS no neutral position. A neutral position is a fundamentally flawed concept for 2 reasons:

1. T he sum of a person’ s experience forms their frame of reference on the world . The way you th ink is unique to your set of circumstances.

2. There is, then, no common frame of reference for all people . Whats “neutral” to your frame of reference is “off neutral” to others .

This is bias and its universally inescapable.

This isn’t to say that fact and truth are subjective, something can be indisputable regardless of your personal bias (frame of reference), but pure truth, pure fact is difficult to find and rare (I mean, how many things do we as humans ALL universally agree on is fact?)

The law exists as an imperfect way to solve for the equation of unbalanced bais. We appoint people to write laws as an attempt to create a common frame of reference that is accepted by a majority (in that the elected lawmaker s are elected in that manner), judges then have a responsibility to judge against that common standard.

THIS is how you can be both biased and fair. You don’t have to share the same reference to make decisions if you agree to abide by the shared reference.

This makes the person (the judge) no less personally biased against any one person or a group or people, but it allows them to perform their fun ction of arbiters of that common reference.

Don’t kid yourself, judges are biased...all of them. People are biased...all of them . There is NO “neutral pos ition” only except when we can all agree on and define where the center, or reference frame, is. Even that is open to interpretation as the collective sum of human experience guides the majority opinion ON that common frame .

So no, You aren’t neutral, and neither am I. Yes, you can judge fairly AND have an opinion.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 14:17

I can’t fathom how you can’t see how the two statements you said don’t contradict, but ok. I didn’t read your full book here because I rather not dive into this any further. You do you.

HammerheadFistpunch > The Dummy Gummy
09/28/2018 at 14:18

Well. The first line is yours so...

This is actually a great opportunity to prove my point

You and I disagree, youre being dismissive and frankly a bit of an ass ... But here you are, not in banadu because you and I can not like each other’s view s and I can still judge fairly based on our agreed upon rules. So, yeah... There you go.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 14:22

You’re really bad at context; you don’t count quoted text when talking about whats being discussed. But since you need it spelled out for you:

This is nonsense and it contradicts nothing.

Also I edited my original comment because it came off way to harsh.. but I guess I should have left it because this conversation have become trite.

HammerheadFistpunch > The Dummy Gummy
09/28/2018 at 14:26

I also edited.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 14:36

I was dismissive from the beginning until now because you’ve basically approached it as, it is my way or the highway. You then followed it up by contradicting yourself. So like a bald tire on soapy pavement, this conversation went no where fast. But thanks for calling me an ass, pumpkin, you have a great day.

*I have no idea what a banadu is.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 14:36

*I have no idea what a banadu is.

HammerheadFistpunch > The Dummy Gummy
09/28/2018 at 14:42

Banadu is where you go when you don’t follow rule 1. I don’t regret saying you were being an ass, you were. You’ve been argumentative, dismissive and still are. You keep saying I contract myself but when I present my defense you say

“Too long don’t care”.

seriously man. grow up.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 14:46

I didn’t say you should regret it.

seriously man. grow up.

hey pot, meet kettle.

The Dummy Gummy > HammerheadFistpunch
09/28/2018 at 14:52

Also, calling for a ban because you responded with an argumentative stance and I became dismissive ( because I really didn’t want to get into an argument on oPPo)? That doesn’t really seem fair... but I digress at this point .

Like I said, have a great weekend. S orry I offended you.

HammerheadFistpunch > The Dummy Gummy
09/28/2018 at 14:53

It’s not a threat. It’s an example of my points.