Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
I cited clear examples, no opinions, of how Ohio has made abortions more and more difficult for women to get, which is there right to do.

You cited an opinion piece that contained gems such as:

And, make no mistake: If the federally protected right to abortion access is eliminated,the current anti-abortion supermajority in the Ohio Legislature will compete in a race to the bottom to completely ban abortion.

You quoted this specific part:

"Ohioans already face so many challenges when they seek abortion services because, since 2011, more than 20 anti-abortion laws have been passed. They've been effective at eliminating access: In January 2011, there were 16 clinics providing abortions in Ohio but, as of today, there are only eight. Ohio has also seen a trend of private hospitals that formerly performed abortions — particularly in the case of severe fetal anomalies — refusing to provide abortions because of political pressures and required signage and literature in facilities that provide abortion."



  • Have you carefully reviewed the "20 anti-abortion laws" to confirm that they are indeed "anti-abortion"? For example, would a 24-hour waiting period be an "anti-abortion law"? How about requiring that clinics provide literature on the risks of abortion?
  • Are you sure that the goal of all 20 laws was "eliminating access" as the opinion writer claims? How could you know that?
  • Are you sure that the new laws are the cause of the reduction in the number of abortion clinics?
  • Have the actual number of abortions in Ohio performed decreased over that period, weighted by age structure of the population?
  • Your point was that SCOTUS will shift in a way that will lead it to uphold more of these "restrictive" state laws. Are you sure that most of these laws are inconsistent with Roe? If not, what part of federal law do they violate?
 
Last edited:
Are you repeating what Libs are assuming?
Judge wrote the memoir. Judge put that quote in his yearbook. I’m just judging him by his words. He did have some pretty hot social media pics but he deleted all his accounts.
 
025E2CE7-2634-408D-9A3C-3E30D20AB116.jpeg

This idiot is pushing so hard but looks like he has a skeleton or two in his closet

So many damn hypocrites in Washington
 
You cited an opinion piece that contained gems such as:

And, make no mistake: If the federally protected right to abortion access is eliminated,the current anti-abortion supermajority in the Ohio Legislature will compete in a race to the bottom to completely ban abortion.

You quoted this specific part:

"Ohioans already face so many challenges when they seek abortion services because, since 2011, more than 20 anti-abortion laws have been passed. They've been effective at eliminating access: In January 2011, there were 16 clinics providing abortions in Ohio but, as of today, there are only eight. Ohio has also seen a trend of private hospitals that formerly performed abortions — particularly in the case of severe fetal anomalies — refusing to provide abortions because of political pressures and required signage and literature in facilities that provide abortion."



  • Have you carefully reviewed the "20 anti-abortion laws" to confirm that they are indeed "anti-abortion"? For example, would a 24-hour waiting period be an "anti-abortion law"? How about requiring that clinics provide literature on the risks of abortion?
  • Are you sure that the goal of all 20 laws was "eliminating access" as the opinion writer claims? How could you know that?
  • Are you sure that the new laws are the cause of the reduction in the number of abortion clinics?
  • Have the actual number of abortions in Ohio performed decreased over that period, weighted by age structure of the population?
  • Your point was that SCOTUS will shift in a way that will lead it to uphold more of these "restrictive" state laws. Are you sure that most of these laws are inconsistent with Roe?
Have you carefully reviewed them? I'm assuming the "opinion piece" isn't outright lying. This is sherdog, when you start questioning shit like you are doing here you make a conversation impossible. I'm not going to carefully review "20 anti abortion laws"...and neither are you. If you think in general that certain states aren't doing things (on the conservative side) to make abortion more difficult for those who wish to have one, fine by me. That's ridiculous and devoid of reality, but I'm not gonna argue that point anymore. And even if half the "20 anti abortion laws" are an effort to make it more difficult, my point stands.
 
Have you carefully reviewed them? I'm assuming the "opinion piece" isn't outright lying. This is sherdog, when you start questioning shit like you are doing here you make a conversation impossible. I'm not going to carefully review "20 anti abortion laws"...and neither are you. If you think in general that certain states aren't doing things (on the conservative side) to make abortion more difficult for those who wish to have one, fine by me. That's ridiculous and devoid of reality, but I'm not gonna argue that point anymore. And even if half the "20 anti abortion laws" are an effort to make it more difficult, my point stands.
I like the one that requires women to have a burial for their aborted twat snot
 
Have you carefully reviewed them? I'm assuming the "opinion piece" isn't outright lying. This is sherdog, when you start questioning shit like you are doing here you make a conversation impossible. I'm not going to carefully review "20 anti abortion laws"...and neither are you. If you think in general that certain states aren't doing things (on the conservative side) to make abortion more difficult for those who wish to have one, fine by me. That's ridiculous and devoid of reality, but I'm not gonna argue that point anymore. And even if half the "20 anti abortion laws" are an effort to make it more difficult, my point stands.

You dodged most of the questions I asked.

Your point was: "the Supreme Court will be less and less likely to stand in the way of States making abortion defacto very difficult or impossible for some people"

Yet you didn't give even one an example of SCOTUS "standing in the way".
 
42210812_1843013522448129_2839812430287077376_n.jpg

Oh man, cultural reference is on point!

Probably the most bizarre moment during Florence's impending arrival.
 
This is how low the libs are going. Above the law is saying that women interviewing for clerkships would dress a certain way because he likes a certain look. Really want man has never been affected by a attractive woman? THey are trying to imply he is a scum bag because attractive women found a way to manipulate him into a job.


https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/no-...ked-like-models-yale-professor-told-students/
A top professor at Yale law school who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned.

Amy Chua, a Yale professor who wrote a bestselling book on parenting called Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, was known for instructing female law students who were preparing for interviews with Kavanaugh on ways they could dress to exude a “model-like” femininity to help them win a post in Kavanaugh’s chambers, according to the sources.

Kavanaugh is facing intense scrutiny in Washington following an allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford that he forcibly held her down and groped her while they were in high school. He has denied the allegation. The accusation has mired Kavanaugh’s confirmation in controversy, drawing parallels to allegations of sexual harassment against Justice Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill in the 1990s.


Yale provided Kavanaugh with many of the judge’s clerks over the years, and Chua played an outsized role in vetting the clerks who worked for him. But the process made some students deeply uncomfortable.

One source said that in at least one case, a law student was so put off by Chua’s advice about how she needed to look, and its implications, that she decided not to pursue a clerkship with Kavanaugh, a powerful member of the judiciary who had a formal role in vetting clerks who served in the US supreme court.

SPONSORED CONTENT



Streamline Your Law Firm’s Billing With These 3 Tips

Ensuring that your firm gets paid for its legal services can be a tedious endeavor. The good news is there are tools to help your law firm invoice clients more efficiently, while also making it easier for clients to pay faster.

MYCASE

In one case, Jed Rubenfeld, also an influential professor at Yale and who is married to Chua, told a prospective clerk that Kavanaugh liked a certain “look”.

“He told me, ‘You should know that Judge Kavanaugh hires women with a certain look,’” one woman told the Guardian. “He did not say what the look was and I did not ask.”

Sources who spoke to the Guardian about their experience with Chua and Rubenfeld would only speak under the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution and damage to their future careers.

Chua advised the same student who Rubenfeld spoke to that she ought to dress in an “outgoing” way for her interview with Kavanaugh, and that the student should send Chua pictures of herself in different outfits before going to interview. The student did not send the photos.

SPONSORED CONTENT



Short Answers to Common Questions: I Would Love to Work Abroad, But I Don’t Want to Lose My Partnership-Track Role.

Can I Have My Pandan Cake and Eat It Too?

KINNEY RECRUITING

There is no allegation that the female students who worked for Kavanaugh were chosen because of their physical appearance or that they were not qualified.

However, the remarks from Chua and Rubenfeld raise questions about why the couple believed it was important to emphasize the students’ physical appearance when discussing jobs with Kavanaugh. The couple were not known to do that in connection with other judges, sources said.

“It is possible that they were making observations but not following edicts from him,” said one student who received such instructions. “I have no reason to believe he was saying, ‘Send me the pretty ones’, but rather that he was reporting back and saying, ‘I really like so and so’, and the way he described them led them to form certain conclusions.”

Kavanaugh is close to Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose retirement from the supreme court left an opening, and Kavanaugh was one of three judges who vetted clerks to serve in Kennedy’s chambers. His role as a so-called “feeder” judge made his clerkships among the most coveted posts for law students across the country, but especially at his alma mater, Yale.

According to one source, Chua invited a group of students that she mentored to a bar last year to catch up and discuss their plans for clerkships. The conversation turned to a high profile #MeToo case that was emerging in the news at the time involving a well known public figure.

The group began to talk about whether the federal judiciary would ever face similar scrutiny, and, according to a source, Chua then said she did not believe it would. She told the students she had known about allegedly abusive and harassing behavior by another judge, Alex Kozinski, who was head of the ninth circuit and was forced to retire from the bench last year after more than a dozen women accused him of harassment.

The conversation then turned to Kozinski’s protege and good friend Kavanaugh, who one source said was a familiar name even though he had not yet been nominated to the high court. Chua allegedly told the students that it was “no accident” that Kavanaugh’s female clerks “looked like models”. Student reacted with surprise, and quickly pointed out that Chua’s own daughter was due to clerk for Kavanaugh.

A source said that Chua quickly responded, saying that her own daughter would not put up with any inappropriate behaviour.

Chua has cancelled her classes at Yale this semester and, according to her office, has been hospitalised and is not taking calls. Rubenfeld sent an email to a the Yale law school community that said his wife had been ill and in hospital and had a long period of recuperation ahead of her.

The Guardian has learned that Rubenfeld is currently the subject of an internal investigation at Yale. The investigation is focused on Rubenfeld’s conduct, particularly with female law students. Students have also raised related concerns to Yale authorities about Chua’s powerful influence in the clerkships process. The investigation was initiated before Kavanaugh was nominated by Donald Trump to serve on the high court.

Rubenfeld said in a statement to the Guardian: “In June, Yale University informed me that it would conduct what it terms an “informal review” of certain allegations, but that to preserve anonymity, I was not entitled to know any specifics. As a result, I do not know what I am alleged to have said or done. I was further advised that the allegations were not of the kind that would jeopardize my position as a long-tenured member of the faculty.

For some years, I have contended with personal attacks and false allegations in reaction to my writing on difficult and controversial but important topics in the law. I have reason to suspect I am now facing more of the same. While I believe strongly that universities must conduct appropriate reviews of any allegations of misconduct, I am also deeply concerned about the intensifying challenges to the most basic values of due process and free, respectful academic expression and exchange at Yale and and around the country.

Nevertheless, I stand ready to engage with this process in the hope that it can be expeditiously concluded.

In a statement, Yale law school said it could not confirm or deny the existence of an internal investigation.

A Yale law school official said in an emailed statement: “This is the first we have heard claims that Professor Chua coached students to look ‘like models’. We will look into these claims promptly, taking into account the fact that Professor Chua is currently unreachable due to serious illness. If true, this advice is clearly unacceptable.”

Chua and her husband are towering figures at Yale and were described by one student as being the centre of gravity at the elite law school, connecting students to jobs and clerkships, and rewarding loyalty.

The couple wrote a controversial book together in 2014 called The Triple Package: How Three Unlikely Traits Explain the Rise and Fall of Cultural Groups in America. It said that a mix of feeling superior, with some insecurity, were two traits that led to success. It also emphasised the need for “impulse control”.

The couple have hired a well known crisis communications expert but he did not respond to specific questions from the Guardian about Chua’s remarks or the internal investigation.

In an emailed statement, Chua told the Guardian: “For the more than 10 years I’ve known him, Judge Kavanaugh’s first and only litmus test in hiring has been excellence. He hires only the most qualified clerks, and they have been diverse as well as exceptionally talented and capable.

“There is good reason so many of them have gone on to supreme court clerkships; he only hires those who are extraordinarily qualified. As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal, he has also been an exceptional mentor to his female clerks and a champion of their careers. Among my proudest moments as a parent was the day I learned our daughter would join those ranks.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Guardian was assisted in its reporting by Elie Mystal, the executive editor of the Above the Law blog. If you have tips on this story please contact the reporter [email protected]
 
Last edited:
Yeah....I think they thought it would be the typical Dems vs. Republicans disagreement thing.

But the Republicans threw the ultimate curveball and agreed with them, and called their bluff.

THAT was something they were not nor would ever be prepared for.

After 10 am tomorrow, it will all be over and the voting will FINALLY commence on Monday.

We are a long way from Monday. The Democrats are not going to sit on their hands until the confirmation. Even if she misses tomorrow's artificial "deadline", we definitely haven't heard the last of Mrs. Ford's allegations. What if the Democrats announce on Sunday Night that she has agreed to testify without an FBI investigation...with the caveat being she cannot be ready for 2 weeks? (not that she would show up for that one either) Do you really trust Susan Collins to say, "She had her chance, but now it is too late. We have to vote on Monday"? Maybe, maybe not, but I suspect both her and Flake would get cold feet and accept any delaying tactic that involves these allegations.

Also, who knows what else the Democrats will try to throw out there. Nothing would shock me at this point. There are going to be more fireworks before this one is over.
 
How fucking weird is it that killing babies is people’s primary concern. How will I kill it? You might have to drive to another state. Why isn’t it a drive through?

I’m for abortion the same way I’m for needle exchanges. The absence of them is a worse scenario. You are actively taking a step to kill the baby though. It isn’t like you don’t take vitamins or something. You have to actively kill it. So yeah it should be legal but don’t sell it as anything else.
Don't talk to me bro...

giphy.gif
 
You dodged most of the questions I asked.

Your point was: "the Supreme Court will be less and less likely to stand in the way of States making abortion defacto very difficult or impossible for some people"

Yet you didn't give even one an example of SCOTUS "standing in the way".
blah blah...

I think I'm gonna stick to Mueller shit with you. I can't handle 2 topics of this sort of pick apart argument tack during the work week.
 
blah blah...

I think I'm gonna stick to Mueller shit with you. I can't handle 2 topics of this sort of pick apart argument tack during the work week.
That's not "blah blah". It's literally just asking you to justify a sweeping claim that you made.
 
That's not "blah blah". It's literally just asking you to justify a sweeping claim that you made.
It's not important to me, I've said what I'm going to say.

let's move on. And a correction above, looks like they will negotiate a time next week for her to come in, not necessarily Monday. I'm guessing it will have to happen next week or not at all. It puts the Republicans in a ridiculously bad position but they can't really say it has to be Monday if she wants to do it Wednesday.
 
Ok. One good way to find out...

The solution to this whole thing is obvious. Forget an investigation by the FBI. The Republicans don't want that and it won't happen prior to testimony. The 3 people in the room at the time need to be brought to testify. From there you figure out what to do. The Republicans just accepting that Mark Judge won't testify is ridiculous and a clear admission (as if everyone didn't already know) that they want this to simply remain a he said she said and be on with confirming before they lose the house and possibly the senate and are essentially held hostage for the next few years by the Dems (which is inevitable in this climate).

We've already got 3 people saying it didn't happen (1 of which has written a sworn affidavit) and the accuser them-self has now said that they wont testify on Monday.

Sounds like a really short hearing on Monday.
 
Back
Top