What conduct do you feel is a deal breaker for SCOTUS nominees

[Jimmy Higgins]

Being on the wrong side of the political aisle. I doubt anything else really matters to the parties.

This. The Republicans would have sped Garland through had a Republican president nominated him.

Not this. Garland woudn't erode Roe v Wade, so he doesn't pass that litmus test.

 

[Terrell]

Are talking about a guy nominated by a Republican or Democrat?

Or a female?

Is she a Republican & does her choice toe the Republican line? If the answer to both questions is yes, they'll push it right through. It's all about the power of the Supreme Court being exercised in a manner they approve of. (cold hard pragmatism) If the nominee fulfills that they're going to let him or her through. Bonus if the Justice is in their late 40s early 50s, & in good health, since it's a lifetime appointment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are talking about a guy nominated by a Republican or Democrat?

assume that it could be either.

You do realize that the answer varies greatly based no the party, right?

Kavanaugh wanted to help impeach Clinton for lying about sex. Talk about fucking hypocritical!

I'd like to see a your-own-petard law for politicians:

Kavanaugh wanted Clinton impeached for lying about sex. Therefore proving that Kavanaugh lied about sex should result in his automatic impeachment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that Kavanaugh is gay. We need to sticky this post so when it comes out in ten years or so, I can say, "See, I was right... he was gay."

 

[untermensche]

I'm going out on a limb and suggesting that Kavanaugh is gay. We need to sticky this post so when it comes out in ten years or so, I can say, "See, I was right... he was gay."

He's just a typical privileged bully.

Clearly a bully mentality.

That was clear.

 

[PyramidHead]

When you ask about what should be a deal-breaker, you're tacitly making the assumption (not you personally, but the spirit of the question) that anybody has what it takes to be one of the small group of people who have the power to control millions of people's lives through their decisions. I mean, this is the system we have, and maybe there aren't too many better options, but it's still an absurd amount of power and responsibility. We take it for granted because it's familiar, so we think that somebody who is reasonably intelligent and doesn't have any "deal-breakers" might as well get the job. I don't feel comfortable with any nomination to that position, to be honest, and part of me wants to say that seeking to hold it should be a deal-breaker in itself.

 

[untermensche]

It was supposed to be a source of power to check the power of the other two branches.

The problem is this guy does not seem to be much of a check on presidential power.

 

[Jarhyn]

When you ask about what should be a deal-breaker, you're tacitly making the assumption (not you personally, but the spirit of the question) that anybody has what it takes to be one of the small group of people who have the power to control millions of people's lives through their decisions. I mean, this is the system we have, and maybe there aren't too many better options, but it's still an absurd amount of power and responsibility. We take it for granted because it's familiar, so we think that somebody who is reasonably intelligent and doesn't have any "deal-breakers" might as well get the job. I don't feel comfortable with any nomination to that position, to be honest, and part of me wants to say that seeking to hold it should be a deal-breaker in itself.

More, this isn't to say that an absence of deal breakers is a deal maker. Yes, the person you got a blind date with has a job, and is fairly stable and seems to truely respect you as a person, but they are boring and they ordered food that puts you off. You don't call them back. Why? It wasn't any glaring red flag, you just didn't think they were the best candidate.

Same is true for SCOTUS, or should be. Just because a guy doesn't have any glaring red flags doesn't mean they are a great choice, just that they aren't a really BAD choice just waiting to have happened


Also, up to 12 now. Looks like "lying (or dissembly) under oath" is a universal deal breaker from 100% of respondents.

What else would you guys suggest that no SCOTUS candidate should be considered after?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I saw a sailor prosecuted for violating Navy policy on drugs. The actual specific violation was 'possession of drug paraphernalia.' But his discharge didn't make a distinction between use of drugs, suspected use of drugs, or possession of drugs, or possession of things that indicate a use of drugs.

He never failed a piss test, they never found drugs in his barracks room, never came in late and bleary-eyed.

He had a tape with the song 'Cocaine' on it. He admitted to listening to it. He was kicked out of the navy early in the shift from 'if it doesn't affect his work' phase to the new, improved, 'Zero Tolerance' phase. His side of the story is drastically different than his paperwork reflected.

I'm the one that picked 'lying' alone. Because I would be willing to at least listen to someone trying to justify past mistakes, lessons learned, changes made, personal growth.

"I was young, I was stupid, peer pressure, someone slipped me some bath salts and we're lucky I didn't eat her face, too,' whatever he wants to say. "I've joined a church, joined an advocacy group, cut off my testicles, take up knitting' to keep it from happening again.
Or maybe the accusation of rape was from an Evangelical woman he wolf-whistled at, or the accusation of sloppy drunk was from a Mormon who saw her sip one beer.

Not to condone rape or drunkenness, but I would hope I would at least listen to his side of the story before judging

The deal-breaker for me is if they're lying. Then he's effectively admitting that his side of any story is no better than the accusation. Plus, disregarding the oath taken.
Even if you thought you had a good reason for lying, your side of the story AFTER the lie can't be trusted, either.

 

[Angry Floof]

The only one I didn't check was "sloppy drunkenness," which I would only check if it's a regular and current thing and not just drunk in college a few times. Even a drunken fight in college wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker depending on circumstances.

I worked with security clearances for years and seen many an application adjudicated and read many files of approved clearances where there were issues like a past credit problem or such, and one that actually did have an arrest on his record for drunken fighting in college that got him a criminal record as an adult. He got a TS/SCI with crypto, if I'm not mistaken.

But adjudication is done case by case, with every flag and issue investigated and questioned. In my own clearance investigation interview, I had to explain an auto repossession with an outstanding debt attached. When I did explain what happened with that, the investigator took my statement and I was approved. I held public trust and Secret clearances in spite of my credit situation at the time (though never actually worked with classified information. It was a "just in case" clearance.)

If Kavanaugh applied for a clearance now, he would not get one in a million years without those underhanded maneuvers by our corrupt GOP.

 

[fast]

I would disqualify anyone who was evasive.

Even a little bit.

Outright lies and you should be charged with a crime.

Why don't you disassociate and compartmentalize and keep character out of the picture?

I don't hold hypocrisy as remotely relevant. Only a subset of character is critical. Will he perform as commensurately as duty demands? That's the key. What are the functional characteristics not merely expected but specifically demanded of the position? To judge in unbiased fashion?

To discrimate exactly where it's called upon to do so. I expect impartiality, unpredjudicedness, neutrality, a nonpartisan bent, strong willed intent to remain disinterested, or detached even, dispassionate, objective, value-free, open-minded, equitable, even-handed, fair where fairness is called for.

So, to that end, what's with all these character related expectations? It's when you're up to bat that I expect a batter to perform--not to hold a grudge like a fan shows towards a disgraced actor.

When I watched America's got talent or Dancing with the Stars, it was the performance that I felt deserved judging, not the backstory of the hurdles overcome, not the affiliation to the military and their service (to which is appreciated either way) and not the heartfelt tear-jerking intentions reflective of their character.

If I need someone to hold a sign up to deal with traffic (signs of past cowardice in the face of danger might make a difference), if I need a person to ensure money gets to the bank (signs of untrustworthiness with money might make a difference), but I don't need a sober judge to remain indifferent and blast drunk drivers. I hope he is a hypocrite. I expect hypocracy. Do your job.

You speak of disqualifying someone even for evasiveness. I was on the fence with lying under oath, but not even honesty (in all instances in all venues) is a necessary ingredient for being an absolutely astounding great judge. What he does when up to bat is where the proof is in the pudding.

I'd feel more relaxed being amidst one with great values of honesty and honor--and might even consider taking subpar skills for it, but this world is nothing but full of people that are full of shit. Eyes wide open, we should know this in heart of hearts.

Integrity. It's nice to affiliate ourselves with those capable of espousing that they have it and respect it, but when they are no better, put before me a judge that can at least judge well. Yeah, he may have fingered someone or whatever the hell they said, and you want what (?), someone that will not only be truthfull but not even for a moment hesitate or be evasive to a question posed to him? That's why exactly? The value of honesty, integrity, and honor are values that Trump our second rate skills? Sounds reasonable ... until they too are nothing but a faced.

Your view is admirable. Mine, despicable, if I actually held it. I try to be cautious and not generalize, but it's most (and not merely many) members of our species that have proven time and time again that trust is as fleeting as the wind.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The simplest and most direct answer to all of this is in the word "supreme." The whole point of the SCOTUS is to be (literally) the best of the best of the best. The supreme members of our nation's jurisprudence, nothing less. They are supposed to be the finest, most impartial, most dispassionate (while still compassionate) pinnacles of humanity possible. The standards are deliberately impossible to meet, so that the bar is the highest possible bar there can be in our society. Period.

There is no grey area. If you are not completely above reproach, then you shouldn't even step up when called upon. Kavanaugh CLEARLY knew he had skeletons in his closet--both minor and massive--and lied about even the minor ones without hesitation. There's no question that this alone disqualifies him. He's a fucking judge and he committed perjury. Even if he's exonerated of any sexual assault/harassment, that alone should be the end of his career, let alone any chance at being a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[TSwizzle]

The poll is ambiguous. The options should state "accused of rape" and "convicted of rape" etc.

 

[Jarhyn]

The poll is ambiguous. The options should state "accused of rape" and "convicted of rape" etc.

No, I don't care about whether they were accused. This, as I stated in the post isn't about Kavenaugh explicitly. You saw what you saw, at the hearing. A man doing his very best to dissemble about a whole lot of stuff, and a bunch of people making speeches about how questions shouldn't be asked, and then him not answering the questions. If he was innocent, he would have described what actually happened at parties: drunkenness and assaults. He could have named names, admitted to fights, or expressed shame in, well, anything he would have had to do to fit in in high school given his aspirations of sports. But he didn't say anything about that, didn't cop to being a human teenager, or a fearful college student. Because he wasn't. He was a raping piece of shit and we all know it from the fact that all of us here have seen enough liars, hell, BEEN those liars sometimes. I know I lied to myself about some things from time to time.

So quit your bullshit.

Besides, the fuck had a million and change get paid off by someone... and nobody knows how. That's "your head in a basket" kinda money if you don't pull through on something, and nobody paid that much to get somebody to do something honest. That's just the way of things.

Edit: Let's frame this another way. Let's say whoever was nominated to the Supreme Court had raped YOU. No ambiguity there. Would you vote to confirm?

 

[Lion IRC]

This is all about the love of money. Roe vs Wade is huge stakes. People will do whatever it takes.
70% of abortions are done for financial motive.
Turn the tables and ask if the liberal left would accept a rapist if that was the only way to stop Kavanaugh getting the job.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Edit: Let's frame this another way. Let's say whoever was nominated to the Supreme Court had raped YOU. No ambiguity there. Would you vote to confirm?

Why go there, though?
THen it's not about go/no-go behavior, it's about a personal grudge against a candidate.

 

[Jarhyn]

Edit: Let's frame this another way. Let's say whoever was nominated to the Supreme Court had raped YOU. No ambiguity there. Would you vote to confirm?

Why go there, though?
THen it's not about go/no-go behavior, it's about a personal grudge against a candidate.

No, more, about absolute and undeniable knowledge that it happened.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is all about the love of money. Roe vs Wade is huge stakes. People will do whatever it takes.
70% of abortions are done for financial motive.
Turn the tables and ask if the liberal left would accept a rapist if that was the only way to stop Kavanaugh getting the job.

More,
About the love of children. Because having children that you cannot afford isn't just evil to yourself, it's evil to the children too.


So it's good to know you're for lying and rape so long as it gets your way. We've already seen liberal democrats abandon party members over mere rape allegations nowhere near as credible

 

[Keith&Co.]

Edit: Let's frame this another way. Let's say whoever was nominated to the Supreme Court had raped YOU. No ambiguity there. Would you vote to confirm?

Why go there, though?
THen it's not about go/no-go behavior, it's about a personal grudge against a candidate.

No, more, about absolute and undeniable knowledge that it happened.

Then is there a way to suggest intimate knowledge without a personal offense?

Say, you have read a report from a police investigation that proves his guilt, but the cops did not read the man his rights or something, so the evidence is inadmissible in a trial, and the chairman won't allow it at the hearing.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, more, about absolute and undeniable knowledge that it happened.

Then is there a way to suggest intimate knowledge without a personal offense?

Say, you have read a report from a police investigation that proves his guilt, but the cops did not read the man his rights or something, so the evidence is inadmissible in a trial, and the chairman won't allow it at the hearing.

This is fair, but from an ethical standpoint, everyone should have enough empathy for their fellow man to take an offense against any of us as an offense against ourselves ANYWAY.