╌>

Why The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Is Really Dead

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  docphil  •  6 years ago  •  89 comments

Why The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Is Really Dead
"Would you or anyone you know want to present a legimate case in front of a court in which Kavanaugh is a sitting judge?"

Given the theater of the Thursday senate hearing on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, one might ask the most pertinent question....."Would you or anyone you know want to present a legitimate case in front of a court in which Kavanaugh is a sitting judge?"

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is on, at least, a temporary hold. It is obvious that this hold and the current FBI background investigation is primarily based on the compelling testimony of Dr. Christine Ford and her vivid, if not totally substantiated, testimony on the accusation of at least inappropriate sexual behavior by the judge during his teen years. Those allegations are also brought up in two other women’s voices. I’m not going to write about the sexual allegations of these women as absolute factors that will move the Kavanaugh nomination forward or destroy the nomination completely. There will be hundreds, if not thousands of articles hypothesizing on these allegations. Ultimately, something will break and we will know about the allegations one way or another.

The issues that are now important are two others that were brought up either in action or words. Those are the issues of judicial temperament and alcoholism and lying about that alcoholism. Each of these may in themselves be enough to disqualify the applicant and the body of evidence to support those issues are as great or greater than the issues being primarily investigated, although they are, in their own way, at least tangential to the allegations.

The initial discussion should have to do with judicial temperament and the necessity for that impartial, calm, fact based acceptance of witness testimony without allowing individual feelings or political views getting in the way. At the most recent judiciary committee meeting, all who watched or listened to Judge Kavanaugh’s angry screed in his opening statement, his conspiratorial accusations, his egotism concerning his nomination using his history on the bench and in high school and college as reasons he deserved the nomination, had to come away with serious concerns about the man’s judicial temperament. People in Washington D.C. have rarely, if ever, heard a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States be so partisan, so angry, so derisive in both his opening statement and his responses to questions that were certainly relevant to his nomination. Rarely, if ever, has a court nominee treated his or her questioners with such disdain. One only has to look at the exchanges between Judge Kavanaugh, and both Senators Klobuchar and Whiteside. It was a disgrace to every nominee that preceded Judge Kavanaugh and every nominee that will follow. It was not the temperament that one expects to see in a SCOTUS nominee.

The second issue that came up at the hearing was the degree that Judge Kavanaugh had a drinking problem in his teens and early twenties, and how he reacted to inquiries around his drinking. It was interesting to note that the judge had admitted a lie when he made the statement that he liked beer while in high school and college. That line of questioning and Kavanaugh’s answer were absolutely different from the statements that the Judge first made about never drinking illegally while in high school and college. Many observers noted that the drinking age in both Maryland and Connecticut, during the years in question was 21, not 18. The lie was simple but telling. Kavanaugh also was circumspect to the point of lying concerning his reactions when he was drinking. There are too many credible accusations that Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker and was a belligerent drunk. We are being asked to look at this nominee as a choir boy in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is a case where the rush to judgment may have forced too many issues to surface, each of which may be disqualifying on their own, but taken as a body of issues should either force the candidacy to pull his own nomination, or have the President withdraw the nomination and nominate another conservative candidate, who might still meet the Heritage Foundation’s criteria and yet be able to survive, what will be an extensive background investigation.

The issue here isn’t political expediency, it is human decency. Unfortunately, Judge Brett Kavanaugh may pass the first test, but he has demonstrated that he has failed the second test, shamefully.



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
DocPhil
Sophomore Quiet
1  author  DocPhil    6 years ago

While I would much prefer to see the entire SCOTUS consist of judges who are moderates and open to the legitimately most relevant arguments, I am too old and have seen too many things to think that is a realistic possibility. The court is partisan. There is a democrat vs. republican divide. That will continue in at least the near future. What we should all support, regardless of political ideology is having SCOTUS nominees meet a minimal level of human decency. President Trump has placed one justice that meets the criteria in at least the most basic terms, but has now nominated another justice who doesn't meet the decency criteria. There must be other conservative judges who are able to meet the human decency test. Kavanaugh's name must be withdrawn before he further rips this country apart.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
1.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  DocPhil @1    6 years ago
the decency criteria

speaking of...

there is something very wrong when this many people....

are having that much fun while destroying a mans life.

320

/
kavanaugh will be confirmed regardless of their games...
and that red wave just got 10ft taller
320
 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
1.1.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @1.1    6 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Thrawn 31 @1.1.1    6 years ago
Removed for context

Hey now, just because some people dream about being raped by a luchador eagle swooping in on a tidal wave of fruit punch doesn't mean they're actually gay...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.2    6 years ago

It’s Kook-Aid actually.  Fitting.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
1.1.4  Skrekk  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @1.1    6 years ago

Looks like your eagle is drowning.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.3    6 years ago
It’s Kook-Aid actually.  Fitting.

KKKool-Aid...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
2  Nowhere Man    6 years ago

Kavanaugh hasn't ripped anything apart.

Just in case you haven't been following, he was on the way to confirmation with at least 6 democrat votes when the liberals pulled these allegations they had been sitting on out of the place they were sitting on....

It has devolved from there.

Clearly, it's the liberal democrats who are ripping the country apart.

And those who can't see it or refuse to recognize/follow the course of this have serious mental cognition issues.

I would suggest they seek help.

 
 
 
DocPhil
Sophomore Quiet
2.1  author  DocPhil  replied to  Nowhere Man @2    6 years ago

How can you have no concerns about his temperament and his tendency toward exaggeration and privatisation? Is this what anyone should want in a SCOTUS?

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
2.1.1  PJ  replied to  DocPhil @2.1    6 years ago

It's not about what's good for the country.  You're trying to be reasonable and thoughtful.  These are people who are only interested in moving their religious agenda forward.  They don't care who they hurt and they don't care about temperament because it's never been about temperament.  

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.1.2  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  DocPhil @2.1    6 years ago
How can you have no concerns about his temperament

his temperament?  really??  that's funny.

if anyone put me thru that much bs? the aftermath would have required multiple first responders.

his restraint was amazing.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  DocPhil @2.1    6 years ago
How can you have no concerns about his temperament and his tendency toward exaggeration and privatisation? Is this what anyone should want in a SCOTUS?

The American Bar Association says I have no reason to have concerns.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  DocPhil @2.1    6 years ago

How can you have no concerns about condemning someone based on allegations with no facts to support them?  Can we expect the same type of support when anyone comes out with unsubstantiated, unproven, allegations against Democrats? Judging from the way the women that came out against Bill Clinton were treated that answer is no.

As for Kavanaugh's temperament; how would you react when you family, career, and future are being dragged through the muck by the left and media based on nothing more that allegations that the accusers can't provide when and where on?  And all supposed "witnesses" have signed depositions stating it never occurred.

If the FBI investigation turns up nothing- how else can it- are you and the rest of the left going to back down?  No, you are going to double down and continue to scream for his head.  One way or another the left is going to try and end his career.  That is the only way they can prevent him from being on the SC.

I am not in favor of Kavanaugh being on the SC; but the smear campaign to ruin his life by the left and media is beyond wrong.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  PJ @2.1.1    6 years ago

So it is for the good of the country to destroy someone based on unsubstantiated, unproven, allegations?  Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply when it is a conservative, white, male it seems.

The left have lost it.  TDS is running rampant. Instead of finding a qualified; non convicted criminal; who is hated more than Trump; and doesn't know how our elections work to run for POTUS;  try finding a qualified candidate- shouldn't be that hard.  Of course that would mean actually coming up with a real platform; and not just be against all things Trump.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.3    6 years ago

384

 
 
 
DocPhil
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.7  author  DocPhil  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.3    6 years ago

The ANA  called for a reopening of the background investigation.

 
 
 
PJ
Masters Quiet
2.1.8  PJ  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.5    6 years ago

Please don't be so dramatic.  It's called continuing the background check.

EVERY SINGLE CIVIL SERVANT AND GOV'T EMPLOYEE goes through it.  And it continues as long as the person is in the government.

You've been brainwashed to believe this is something extraordinary.  It isn't.  This is the correct process that the republicans tried to circumvent when they tried to plow through the vote for Mr. Kavanaugh.  

But here's the good news.  The FBI will also be able to exonerate him from these claims.  You're happy about that, right?  You're confident that he hasn't lied, right?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  DocPhil @2.1    6 years ago
How can you have no concerns about his temperament

 Judges are not bound to be dispassionate in the face of charges about themselves. When one is charged without any evidence of being an angry drunken rapist pervert, he has a right to be outraged. The democrats did this or are you going to try and deny that?  Judge Kavanaugh can take that personally and in the future he can recuse himself from anything involving progressives facing legal action for using such tactics. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.4    6 years ago

Good points. I'm sure we won't be hearing any comments on the conduct of the democrats

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.12  Jack_TX  replied to  DocPhil @2.1.7    6 years ago

The ABA also gives Kavanaugh their highest integrity rating, based on his actual record on the bench.

This idea that we should have concerns about his "temperament" or "exaggeration" is just certified public bullshit.  

If he actually molested this girl, then we have something to talk about.  Pretending he's unqualified as a judge is simply a pathetic rationalization of emotional bias. 

 
 
 
DocPhil
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.13  author  DocPhil  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.11    6 years ago

The reason you won't hear many comments from liberals is because the free pass that you want Kavanaugh to have is laughable. There is nothing spurious about the claims. The remedy is simple......investigation. Trump supporters seem to want to fight the continuation of the FBI background check as the poison pill for the judge. If I am not guilty of something, I would welcome that investigation to clear "my good name."

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.14  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.12    6 years ago
The ABA also gives Kavanaugh their highest integrity rating, based on his actual record on the bench.

Actually they reduced his rating back in 2006 because the ABA realized he's a partisan hack.

And this time the ABA is calling for further FBI investigations because they realize how much harm could be cause by appointing a sexual predator and another misogynist to the court.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.14    6 years ago

Funny!!!!

The ABA gave Kavanaugh its highest rating THIS YEAR.

Why do you feel it necessary to lie about that?

ABA committee gives Kavanaugh a well-qualified rating
www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_committee_gives_kavanaugh_a...

The ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary on Friday gave its highest rating of well-qualified to Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.14    6 years ago
Actually they reduced his rating back in 2006 because the ABA realized he's a partisan hack.

Citation?

Regardless, his CURRENT rating is a unanimous "well qualified".  

And this time the ABA is calling for further FBI investigations because they realize how much harm could be cause by appointing a sexual predator and another misogynist to the court.

Citation?

Do go ahead and prove this isn't more of your leftist fantasy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  DocPhil @2.1.13    6 years ago
There is nothing spurious about the claims.

They are unsupported and should have been considered in a private session, but Feinstein had to use it to smear Kavanaugh and delay his confirmation for about a month. The FBI will now look at an unknown time & place, interviewing all Ford's named witnesses who say they have no recollection of the events she claims happened and an attempted assault Ford never told anyone about — not the police, not a friend, not her parents, not a word until 30 years later. I can only assume that the FBI will get us no further than we are today. When Friday comes there may be new allegations, maybe anonymous (our current state of "news" allows it), and tremendous pressure will be put on Flake, Murkowsky and Collins to cast a no vote or ask for another delay. That is absolutely where this long winding road leads.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.20  Skrekk  replied to    6 years ago
Who is the other misogynist?

Thomas is certainly one but the reality is that all the conservatives on the court in recent years have been misogynists including Kennedy.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.21  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.16    6 years ago
Citation? Regardless, his CURRENT rating is a unanimous "well qualified". 

Apparently not only don't conservatives bother to vet their own nominees but they don't even remember what happened the last time they nominated the very same dimwit.

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

History repeated itself. At least it had a spell of deja vu when the American Bar Association released an extraordinary statement at a crucial moment that raised concerns about Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to a powerful judicial position — just as it had done 12 years earlier.

Late Thursday evening, the ABA called for an FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on his Supreme Court nomination . The warning was all the more remarkable, because just hours earlier, Kavanaugh and his Republican defenders had cited the ABA’s previously glowing endorsement of the nominee — “the gold standard,” as one leading Republican put it.

Flash back to the mid-2000s and another fight in the Senate over Kavanaugh’s nomination to a federal court:

Democrats for three years had been blocking President George W. Bush’s 2003 nomination of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They argued he was biased, as shown by his work as a lawyer for Bush’s presidential campaign, for an independent counsel’s investigation into President Bill Clinton and for other conservative causes.

Republicans kept pushing to make Kavanaugh a judge on the powerful appeals court, year after year. In his defense, they cited multiple reviews by the ABA’s judicial review committee that found him “well qualified” — the big attorney association’s highest possible endorsement, meaning Kavanaugh had outstanding legal abilities and outstanding judicial temperament.

[ Analysis: Kavanaugh’s evasive testimony probably wouldn’t have been allowed in his own courtroom ]

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”

A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.21    6 years ago

And now the ABA has given him its highest rating based on his performance as a judge.

Do they routinely do that for shitty judges?

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.23  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.22    6 years ago
And now the ABA has given him its highest rating based on his performance as a judge.

The ABA and Yale law school have called for the FBI to fully investigate all the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, so we'll see how the ABA rates him once that's done and whether they think the severe limits which the WH has imposed will even allow a sufficient investigation.   However it seems that their derating of Kavanaugh in 2006 was exactly correct - he's barely qualified to be a judge of any kind.

The ACLU is now also opposed to his nomination......only the 4th SCOTUS nominee they've opposed in their 98 year history.    And the America Jesuit has retracted their endorsement and now oppose his nomination.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.23    6 years ago

So the ABA was all wrong when it gave Kavanaugh its highest possible rating unanimously?

The ABA hasn't changed its rating for him.

And who gives a shit what the ACLU has to say? They have no more input than you or I do.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.25  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.24    6 years ago
So the ABA was all wrong when it gave Kavanaugh its highest possible rating unanimously?

Looks like they got it right in 2006 when they said he was only barely qualified.   Apparently they regret giving their endorsement this time.

.

And who gives a shit what the ACLU has to say?

Anyone concerned with civil rights would.    It's not a surprise that you don't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.25    6 years ago

The ABA has not changed its ratings, so how can you credibly claim that they regret anything?

A logical person would tell me that if they regretted their rating, based on their very own criteria, then they would change it. They haven't.

I don't give two cents what your OPINION of my opinion of the ACLU is.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.27  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.26    6 years ago
The ABA has not changed its ratings, so how can you credibly claim that they regret anything?

LOL....we already know they had to reduce Kavanaugh's rating in 2006 due to his poor behavior during the nomination.    Do you doubt that they regret endorsing a credibly accused sexual predator today?    Their call for an indefinite suspension of the nomination speaks for itself as does their statement that failing to allow a comprehensive FBI investigation of all the allegations "would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court. It must remain an institution that will reliably follow the law and not politics."

Moreover it's clear that the ABA's concerns in 2006 were correct - as became abundantly evident in the hearing on Thursday.    Kavanaugh simply doesn't have the temperament or lack of bias to be a federal judge.

.

I don't give two cents what your OPINION of my opinion of the ACLU is.

Yeah, you've repeatedly made your views of civil rights issues clear.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.27    6 years ago

You can't have it both ways. No one forced the ABA to change its ratings in 2006 OR in 2018.

If they were so sure their ratings in 2006 were correct, why would they change them in 2018?

That would be STUPID, now wouldn't it?

The ABA changed their rating for him in 2018 based on his RECORD as a judge.

If, as you claim, it is "clear" the ABA's concerns in 2006 were correct, what would make them change them?

You have to give something believable besides the crap you are peddling here.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.29  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.28    6 years ago
If they were so sure their ratings in 2006 were correct, why would they change them in 2018

That's because he tried to hide his bias and poor temperament in the hopes of winning a seat on SCOTUS, but his angry rant and partisan lunacy on Thursday revealed his true character.    He even revealed that he has no respect for the judiciary committee itself.

.

That would be STUPID, now wouldn't it?

Yes it was.    No wonder they feel embarrassed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.29    6 years ago

Right, he fooled everyone in the ABA for TWELVE fucking YEARS.

FFS, that is REALLY UNBELIEVABLE!

SMMFH and LMFAO

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.27    6 years ago

Really?

Tell me what my thoughts on gay marriage are.

Tell me what my thoughts on equal rights are.

You MUST be able to do so since it so clear.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.29    6 years ago

Man, that Kavanaugh is such a smooth operator he even coerced the Supreme Court to uphold his decisions almost every single time and then managed to force them to cite his rulings in their own multiple times.

Man, he is one smart cookie!

WE WILL BE LUCKY AND THANKFUL TO HAVE SUCH AN UPSTANDING MAN ON THE COURT.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
2.1.33  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.31    6 years ago
Tell me what my thoughts on gay marriage are.

I know you vote for and support a party which is explicitly anti-LGBT and which seeks to repeal marriage equality.    That alone speaks volumes.

It's like a David Duke voter claiming to support mixed-race marriage.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.34  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @2.1.33    6 years ago

AH!

Dancing around because you simply can't back, yet again, one of your statements up.

Typical and expected, of course.

Yawn.

Please, stop jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.1.2    6 years ago

What restraint?  He was a whiny, crying, phony little bitch.  

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.1.36  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.35    6 years ago
What restraint? 

if I was kavanaugh, that circus would have turned into an MMA event.

 there is no way I would have wanted to or even tried to show his amount of patience.

 

  that is why im not a politician  :)

 

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.37  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.1.36    6 years ago

'if I was kavanaugh, that circus would have turned into an MMA event.'

Sure it would!  jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

And require many first responders right?    

Some of us are such bad asses from behind the keyboard.  

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.1.38  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.37    6 years ago

you know feinstein is done right? that avenatti fuk as well.

or have ya not yet figured that out?

a shit storm is coming to a political party near you  :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.39  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.1.38    6 years ago
'you know feinstein is done right? that avenatti fuk as well.'
How so?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.1.36    6 years ago

I'm sure that's not the only reason why you're not a politician.    

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.1.41  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.39    6 years ago
How so?

how can I put this gently...

FISA - works both ways.

 

cheers :)
 
 
 
KDMichigan
Junior Participates
2.1.42  KDMichigan  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @2.1.38    6 years ago
you know feinstein is done right? that avenatti fuk as well.

Not really. If she did leak it what is the worse than can happen to her? Be censured? She will still be a champion to the looney left.

Avanatti is becoming a champion of the LWNJ himself. They love them some shyster attorneys like crooked Hillary.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
2.1.43  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  KDMichigan @2.1.42    6 years ago

define: sedition

enjoy the show while it lasts, I already know the ending.

anyone needs me for the rest of the day?  they can find me here.

be back manyanna :)

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3  devangelical    6 years ago

Kavanaugh's partisan rant was enough to disqualify him alone. A rehearsed and scripted denial from years of practice. 100K pages of his documents from the Bush administration hidden by Trump through executive privilege and now Trump prohibiting the FBI from investigating the 3rd accuser. Republican transparency exposed.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
3.1  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @3    6 years ago
Kavanaugh's partisan rant was enough to disqualify him alone.

If he had remained calm and emotionless, you'd cite that as proof of his guilt. He responded like anyone who is wrongly accused might be expected to respond: pissed.

A rehearsed and scripted denial from years of practice.

Years of practice doing what? Denying false accusations? You know very well he has never been through anything like this.

100K pages of his documents from the Bush administration hidden by Trump through executive privilege

Yep, that's his right. Fortunately, the Senate still has over 1 million pages to sift through.

now Trump prohibiting the FBI from investigating the 3rd accuser

Because why waste resources on something so obviously dumb? Not even Senate Democrats were willing to ask about that because it's absurd on its face. For that accusation to be true, Kavanaugh would have to be the most brilliantly diabolical serial rapist in the history of civilization. We're talking about a large number of women who were drugged and gang raped but not a single one reported it to police and not a single other person who might have witnessed it (including the accuser who claims she went to over 10 of these events) bothered to report it either. You really believe that?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.1  bugsy  replied to  Tacos! @3.1    6 years ago
You really believe that?

Hell yea they believe that...because.....TRUMP!!!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.3  Jack_TX  replied to  devangelical @3    6 years ago
Kavanaugh's partisan rant was enough to disqualify him alone.

In your mind his being a Trump appointee is enough to disqualify him.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.3.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3    6 years ago
In your mind his being a Trump appointee is enough to disqualify him.

Good for Garland, good for Kavanaugh.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.3.2  Jack_TX  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.3.1    6 years ago

Thank you for admitting it.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
3.3.3  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.2    6 years ago
Thank you for admitting it.

Why not?   Even if Kavanaugh weren't a sexual predator and even if weren't a partisan hack who lacked the impartiality a judge needs, wouldn't it be appropriate for the Dems to do everything they can to block all judicial nominees like the GOP did to Obama?

If the GOP didn't want that done to them then why did they do it?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.3.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Skrekk @3.3.3    6 years ago
Why not?   

Because it's how a teenager would think.

Even if Kavanaugh weren't a sexual predator

There is almost no evidence to suggest he is, but I realize your "feelings" won't let you admit that.

and even if weren't a partisan hack

He isn't.

who lacked the impartiality a judge needs,

He doesn't.

wouldn't it be appropriate for the Dems to do everything they can to block all judicial nominees like the GOP did to Obama?

No. 

You have a long history of justifying ANY behavior that aids your political religion, so it's certainly unsurprising you would attempt to justify this.   I'm just surprised you aren't trying to make an argument for mass incarceration or public execution of any straight white men who refuse to bow to your leftist agenda.

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
3.3.5  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.4    6 years ago
wouldn't it be appropriate for the Dems to do everything they can to block all judicial nominees like the GOP did to Obama?
No. 

Why not?    Sounds like you're a hypocrite.   The GOP certainly thought it was appropriate to do that to Obama and it's doubly appropriate today since Trump is a Russian mole and an unindicted co-conspirator in federal crimes.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.3.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Skrekk @3.3.5    6 years ago
Why not? 

Already answered.

Sounds like you're a hypocrite.

Sounds like you are incapable of making a rational, non-emotional statement or going 24 hours without a personal attack.  

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
3.3.7  Skrekk  replied to  Jack_TX @3.3.6    6 years ago
Already answered.

Not that you were actually able to articulate an answer.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
Professor Quiet
4  Dean Moriarty    6 years ago

NPR’s excellent SCOTUS reporter Nina Totenberg sounded a little more optimistic about his chance of still getting in. She pointed out Friday night on All Things Considered that the Republicans have been waiting forty years for conservative control of the court and McConnell is working hard to rally the troops.  I wouldn’t count him out yet. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
Sophomore Participates
4.1  Skrekk  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4    6 years ago

I don't think that was optimism.    Her point was that the GOP has no ethics and confirmed Thomas despite very credible reports that he had sexually harassed several women.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
4.1.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Skrekk @4.1    6 years ago
Her point was that the GOP has no ethics and confirmed Thomas

Monsanto needed a "friendly" presence on the US Supreme Court and Thomas was their man.  Predators and their supporters blame women for being sexually harassed so Thomas faced little opposition.  Without the "MeToo" movement, Kavanaugh's conformation would have been a done deal with absolutely no mention of his predatory nature toward women.

Over the past few years, Justice Thomas has taken numerous expensive gifts and social engagements from groups which are extremely pro-agribusiness. In particular, Thomas’s   acceptance of a $15,000 “gift”   from the American Enterprise Institute and his speaking engagements in front of the Federalist Society present a conflict in regard to his deciding GMO cases. Both AEI and the Federalist Society consider themselves conservative “free-market” think-tanks, and have been virulently against increased regulations on GMO producers. As such, Thomas’s involvement with these groups creates a pressure for him to rule in favor of corporate interests—after all, if he were to vote against GMO producers, it is likely that he would no longer receive the money of AEI or the prestige of speaking in front of the Federalist Society.

Long story short, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is irreparably entangled with Monsanto—both in his past employment and his current affiliations—and he should automatically recuse himself if Monsanto has any involvement in a case. Unfortunately, Thomas has demonstrated a   shocking lack of judicial ethics —he has taken numerous “gifts” from people with interests in his court, “forgot” to report his wife’s lobbying income for years, and has refused to recuse himself from cases, even when there were glaring conflicts of interest—and it doesn’t appear as though this will change any time soon. If he were on any other court in the land, Thomas’s ethical violations would have resulted in his removal from the bench, but the fact that he is a Supreme Court justice virtually immunizes him from oversight.

For the immediate future, it appears that Monsanto has at least one friend on the Supreme Court who will put aside judicial ethics in order rule in its favor.
 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
5  Split Personality    6 years ago
But Kavanaugh was never a legal drinker in that state when he was a high schooler — he was still 17 when that state's drinking age was increased to 21 on July 1, 1982 . Anyone who turned 18 after that date, including Kavanaugh's classmates, also would have been unable to drink legally in the state. 2 days ago

Kavanaugh Said Legal Drinking Age in Maryland 18, It Was 21 ...


...
21
The change brings the Connecticut law full circle since 1972, when the state lowered the drinking age to 18 from 21 . The drinking age was raised to 19 in 1982 and to 20 in 1983. Under the new law, those who turn 20 by Sunday will be allowed to continue drinking legally. Aug 31, 1985

CONNECTICUT DRINKING AGE GOING UP - The New York Times


 
 

Who is online

CB
Tessylo
Jeremy Retired in NC
Texan1211
Just Jim NC TttH
Nerm_L
Right Down the Center
afrayedknot


43 visitors