Kavanaugh does not belong on Supreme Court, says retired justice Stevens

[Dracil]

Kavanaugh does not belong on Supreme Court, says retired justice Stevens | Reuters

Stevens, a lifelong Republican, praised Kavanaugh and one of his rulings on a political contribution case in the 2014 book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

“At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said at the event hosted by a Palm Beach Post reporter.

“I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability ... I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”

Some people seem to think that the opposition to Kavanaugh is just some sort of Democractic ploy. But time and time again, ever since the hearing, people who initially supported him, like the American Bar Assocation, the Jesuit Magazine, and even a former Republican SCOTUS, have all changed their mind since then.

If anything it seems it's mostly the Republican Senators who are much more interested in a partisan win than necessarily doing the right thing for the country.

 

[TuxAme]

How can the republicans be accused of partisanship when democrats are the ones who hid the allegations until the eleventh hour?

Pots and kettles aside, I fail to see why being visibly angry about false allegations that are ruining your life (and those of your loved ones)- and which have resulted in a democratic staffer doxxing several of your supporters- should result in people losing their trust in you.

 

[Chesterton]

...his performance in the hearings...

It's come to this. You get confirmed or not based on your acting "performance". Wow.

 

[URA]

Prayers going out for our government; I don't know nearly as much as I should about these issues, but I know someone who does.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Everyone who changed their mind about Judge Kavanaugh and turned against him did so the minute they found out that President Trump chose him as his nominee. In other words, they are against Kavanaugh because they are against Trump.

 

[NotreDame]

Kavanaugh does not belong on Supreme Court, says retired justice Stevens | Reuters



Some people seem to think that the opposition to Kavanaugh is just some sort of Democractic ploy. But time and time again, ever since the hearing, people who initially supported him, like the American Bar Assocation, the Jesuit Magazine, and even a former Republican SCOTUS, have all changed their mind since then.

If anything it seems it's mostly the Republican Senators who are much more interested in a partisan win than necessarily doing the right thing for the country.

Oh? Really? The Democrats aren’t interested in a “partisan win”? American Bar Association doesn’t want a partisan outcome?

It’s comical you’ve reduced the determination of “right thing for the country” to a popularity contest of who’s who that doesn’t support Kavanaugh.

 

[Desk trauma]

Is there any historical precedent of former justices speaking against nominees for the court?

 

[NotreDame]

Is there any historical precedent of former justices speaking against nominees for the court?

Not that I can recall or remember, and a Google search yielded no positive finds.

 

[Speedwell]

If anything it seems it's mostly the Republican Senators who are much more interested in a partisan win than necessarily doing the right thing for the country.

Of course they think they are doing the right thing. Only a partisan win can save the country from evil Liberals. They are not altogether self-serving hypocrites. They, like the Democrats, have gotten to the point that they think their end is so righteous that it justifies almost any means.

 

[Go Braves]

It's come to this. You get confirmed or not based on your acting "performance". Wow.

Well he may have acted with the theatrics of a soap opera star but he's a judge & he acted unglued. He was reading prepared statements. So he planned out that nonsense. He made his bias & lack of integrity perfectly clear. Now all the folks who have stood up in opposition to that have made that perfectly clear, so regardless of what happens that's recorded.

 

[variant]

Is there any historical precedent of former justices speaking against nominees for the court?

He probably doesn't like the deeply partisan divide that the court is supposed to be above exposed in such a manner.

The myth is long gone though, the justices are politicians who wear robes, in Kavanaugh's case the man is a deeply partisan hack who the Senate might give a robe in a strictly divided partisan vote.

 

[Chesterton]

Well he may have acted with the theatrics of a soap opera star but he's a judge & he acted unglued. He was reading prepared statements. So he planned out that nonsense. He made his bias & lack of integrity perfectly clear. Now all the folks who have stood up in opposition to that have made that perfectly clear, so regardless of what happens that's recorded.

I didn't see him acting unglued. You'd be biased against people trying to smear you, too.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I didn't see him acting unglued. You'd be biased against people trying to smear you, too.

...and a poor choice for the supreme court.

 

[Chesterton]

...and a poor choice for the supreme court.

Poor choices for Senators.

 

[Ringo84]

It's come to this. You get confirmed or not based on your acting "performance". Wow.

Oh..so he was faking the anger in order to bluster his way through the hearing, then?
Ringo

 

[Albion]

It seems as though Mr. Justice Stevens says just about the same thing of every nominee who isn't as Liberal as he was.

 

[Chesterton]

Oh..so he was faking the anger in order to bluster his way through the hearing, then?
Ringo

I don't know. What do you think? 98 y.o. likely senile Stevens called it a "performance."

 

[Ringo84]

I don't know. What do you think? 98 y.o. likely senile Stevens called it a "performance."

Can't help but notice that the personal attacks on Stevens' "senility" came out the moment you were challenged on that Freudian slip you made about Kav's performance.

It's been a source of continual interest to me that the people who are so convinced of Kav's innocence must resort to trashing people who disagree. If I knew someone I supported was 100% innocent, I'd rely on evidence rather than making "sly" references to "senility"....but that's just me.
Ringo

 

[Go Braves]

I didn't see him acting unglued. You'd be biased against people trying to smear you, too.

Well John Paul Stevens, a conservative Supreme Court Justice who was on that bench longer than any other justice still alive, was able to see how how unglued he acted & called him out for that. Thousands of law professors did as well, including ones who'd supported Gorsuch's nomination.

 

[Chesterton]

Can't help but notice that the personal attacks on Stevens' "senility" came out the moment you were challenged on that Freudian slip you made about Kav's performance.

Why do you say a slip? My only post in this thread was to mention he called it an acting performance. Maybe he thought he was watching a TV drama.

It's been a source of continual interest to me that the people who are so convinced of Kav's innocence must resort to trashing people who disagree.

I say that because I heard the full audio of Steven's comments. He wasn't making sense.

If I knew someone I supported was 100% innocent, I'd rely on evidence rather than making "sly" references to "senility"....but that's just me.

Evidence to prove a negative? To prove his innocence? lol, we've already discussed your strange un-American views.