Home | About | Donate

Brett Kavanaugh Lied Brazenly and Repeatedly Under Oath. Any Law Student Knows He Cannot Sit on the Supreme Court

Brett Kavanaugh Lied Brazenly and Repeatedly Under Oath. Any Law Student Knows He Cannot Sit on the Supreme Court

Gowri Ramachandran, James Sample

For a nominee to the nation’s highest court, an arms-length relationship with truth ought to be disqualifying in itself. Period.

1 Like

They are merely young and idealistic as we used to be. Soon, Fascism “Justice” 101 will be required for all law students.

1 Like

Ramachandran/Sample sez: “Has our political tribalism really become so acute as to render foundational maxims such as the Canons controversial? If so, then truly the loss will be felt by both Democrats and Republicans equally.”

And here we edge right up to the real matter at hand. As much wiser scribes than I have pointed out, this isn’t about Democrats™ vs. Republicans™.

It’s about haves vs. have nots.

3 Likes

Forty years ago when I was in graduate school my business law professor (who was also a practicing attorney) signaled the end of each class session by saying “Irrespective of today’s discussion, the question that always needs to be asked is: HOW MUCH JUSTICE CAN YOU AFFORD”.

Although that admonition has always been true, the Kavanaugh confirmation will elevate the SCOTUS to the legislature of last resort. Anybody or any corporation having the resources to try Congress’ legislation in court will be certain of the SCOTUS deciding in their favor. It won’t matter who controls Congress.

5 Likes

What you mean-um “Soon”, Kemo Sabé??   Torture-justifier John Yoo has been teaching “Law” at U. C. Berkeley for the past several years.

3 Likes

PLEASE, if you know how to do so, get word to every Senator you can, and to Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC — Brett Kavanaugh was NOT a Senior in high school on July 1, 1982, enjoying a “legal” beer (or 10?) with his fellow Seniors — he was ONLY 17 and drinking ILLEGALLY during the summer between his Junior and Senior years.  As he has confirmed, the July 1, 1982 entry in his calendar/diary referring to “skis” means “brewskis”, and HE WAS KNOWINGLY BREAKING THE LAW!!!   What else has he been misleading us about??

Problems with your statement include the necessity of proof that he has lied at all, because you can’t just assume and say he lied to make it true! And, EVERY person, law student or not, also knows that there has to be actual evidence to prove that any crime has been committed. So I guess you are just shit out of luck here! Maybe you should retract your headline and try to get actual evidence instead, if you are trying to be a real journalist!

See above.   He has (inadvertently) CONFESSED to illegal behavior while in high school — what more do you want??

There is an old joke about lawyers that contains a lot of truth but is not completely true.

Q. How can you tell if a lawyer is lying?
A. His lips are moving.

One can substitute politician for lawyer, and guess what? Upper court judges are primarily lawyers and not jurists.

One can also substitute police officer or military person and the joke is every bit as appropriate. Unfortunately, these people are not the perfect liars of logic puzzles; if they were one could arrive at truth from them with appropriate questions plus the assumption of lying.

People need to understand this any time they deal with courts and court judgments. As for the Senate and House, there are very few members that are not far worse than the members of the Charles Manson family.

There were “so many” they couldn’t think of “any”.

LOL.

“Bald assertion” and “mere accusation”.

Those are 2 logical fallacies.

This is from a Professor of Constitutional Law.

Didn’t we just go through this ONCE already in the hearing with the bald accusation there?

Just stop.
You should be embarrassed.

And where are the Criminal Law/Criminal procedure professors?

I don’t give a damn what any Law Professor thinks but THEM.

This was an accusation of criminal conduct not brought to the courts.
No due process.
No right to counsel.
No statute of limitations.
No evidence.
No rules of evidence.
No examination of the accuser’s credibility or mental health.

What do CRIMINAL LAW people think of this shit-show?

I don’t care what you people think.

All the issues in this are criminal.

So where are they?

I can only assume the Left has them silenced in some way, as they tend to do.
Are they all afraid to speak?

The SJWs will tear them down too?

Comment has been CENSORED BY COMMON DREAMS!