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

[Jarhyn]

Seeing as Trausti, Derec, and Dismal, among others, have been posed this question a few times and either missed it or ignored it, or have made repeated attempts to dodge it, I figured I'd put it somewhere they can't ignore it for a while...

Note that this isn't a thread to discuss whether certain persons perjored themselves over what Boufing or Devils Triangle means, or about how drunk they get or about whether they attended a party on Thursday, July 1, 1982 with their friends Squi, PJ, Tobin and Judge and then attempted to rape a woman. This thread isn't about those things. Let's just keep this to a discussion of what people here feel is a disqualifying condition for a SCOTUS nominee.

 

[phands]

Seeing as Trausti, Derec, and Dismal, among others, have been posed this question a few times and either missed it or ignored it, or have made repeated attempts to dodge it, I figured I'd put it somewhere they can't ignore it for a while...

Note that this isn't a thread to discuss whether certain persons purported themselves over what Boufing or Devils Triangle means, or about how drunk they get or about whether they attended a party on Thursday, July 1, 1982 with their friends Squi, PJ, Tobin and Judge and then attempted to rape a woman. This thread isn't about those things. Let's just keep this to a discussion of what people here feel is a disqualifying condition for a SCOTUS nominee.

I have all 3 of them on ignore for, obvious reasons.

Deal Breakers...

1. Being obviously biased. And yet candidates are openly selected and nominated for their biases,
2. Perjuring themselves in front of the interview panel.
3. Refusal to be completely and deeply background checked by the FBI.
4. Being supported by Derec, Trausti and Dismal.
5. Being openly religious...of *any* flavour.

ETA: 6. Being an entitled, elitist whiny little bitch.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

assume that it could be either.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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!

 

[Jarhyn]

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 understand that there are probably more things here, and I could have split it on context based on party affiliation. I'm sorry I missed that, but it's too late now.

Maybe we can discuss other deal breakers as well, though

Personally, I would say an intent to overturn ROE, taking the position that the Chinese Exclusion Act's racially prejudiced policy was acceptable, believing that a sitting president should be above the law, or that a presidential pardon should confer absolute immunity from state prosecution.

 

[ZiprHead]

I chose all of them except sloppy drunkenness. Done on their own time and not hurting anyone else, none of my business.

 

[phands]

I chose all of them except sloppy drunkenness. Done on their own time and not hurting anyone else, none of my business.

A subsequent hangover can have marked effects on judgement.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, we have at least one response saying that rape and sexual assault aren't deal breakers, but we are still sitting at 100% for lying or dissembly under oath.

I'm ALMOST regretting making this thing anonymous!

- - - Updated - - -

Not to mention that drunkenness is, itself, an avenue to blackmail. Being sloppy drunk opens you up to all manner of vulnerability.

 

[Toni]

I chose all of them except sloppy drunkenness. Done on their own time and not hurting anyone else, none of my business.

A subsequent hangover can have marked effects on judgement.

It can, but I am going to assume that if someone's ability to perform the duties of their position was appreciably affected, actions would be taken to remove that individual from the bench.

BTW, a very controlled drunk is also dangerous.

 

[phands]

I chose all of them except sloppy drunkenness. Done on their own time and not hurting anyone else, none of my business.

A subsequent hangover can have marked effects on judgement.

It can, but I am going to assume that if someone's ability to perform the duties of their position was appreciably affected, actions would be taken to remove that individual from the bench.

BTW, a very controlled drunk is also dangerous.

And if that decision, swayed by a hangover, caused a death penalty to be the outcome? This wouldn't happen in a civilized country, but this is the US.

 

[ZiprHead]

I chose all of them except sloppy drunkenness. Done on their own time and not hurting anyone else, none of my business.

A subsequent hangover can have marked effects on judgement.

Bolded for emphasis.

 

[untermensche]

I would disqualify anyone who was evasive.

Even a little bit.

Outright lies and you should be charged with a crime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone remember when Ginsburg stepped aside from consideration when the G HW Bush Admin and conservatives got all antsy about marijuana use? Anyone remember that Republican Party at all?

Two things both me about Kavanaugh and any Supreme Court justice... the $200k UNSECURED debt existing the in the first place and it disappearing magically. Shouldn't the only debt that can exceed your income be secured and a mortgage? While I can imagine it, how does one that is supposed to be responsible acquire $200,000 in credit card debt, if they make $200k-ish a year?

My other issue is stuff like Alito's unitary executive crap, stuff that is made up to provide broad powers to the President.

Roberts was SCOTUS good. Alito, I thought he was way too partisan. I wasn't happy with Gorsuch, but I can't remember so far back because Trump has warped space and time and I can't remember the 40 or so effective years back that Gorsuch was confirmed.

 

[Terrell]

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

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He committed a federal crime when he lied to Congress. Automatic disqualification and disbarment at the very least.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He committed a federal crime when he lied to Congress. Automatic disqualification and disbarment at the very least.

Ya, but you're forgetting the "rich white person with the right friends" exception to the perjury rule.

 

[starwater]

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

Or a female?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, looks like we are up to 9 now. No indication on whether those three voted, but it looks like only one person seems to think sex assault and rape aren't deal breakers. Even so, still sitting at a whopping 100% saying lying and dissembly is a deal breaker.

I wonder if he was lying under oath when he claimed Boofing is farting...

Personally I find the mysterious financials to be a rather disappointing matter, as far as the forum's education goes


Really, the biggest, most important issue should be large debts mysteriously vanishing, because these constitute a blackmail risk and bribery risk. What's worse than a SCOTUS justice that rapes women and lies under oath? One who is BOUGHT, that's what.