New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Beelzebuddy said:
There's also the disrespect for the court he displayed in his testimony. He didn't act like the judge he was interviewing to be, he acted like the politician people suspected he was. He was not truthful, he was evasive, he was combative. He was a hostile witness when he should have been proving himself to be above that.


You're comparing sexual assault allegations against a supreme court nominee to a conspiracy theory on Twitter.
Click to expand...

This is an example of the right's attempt to minimize Kavanaugh's behavior during the hearing and his repeated lying.
 
To me it all seems remarkably simple:

1. I think that a person being nominated for a life time position for one of the most influential positions in the USA should be vetted very carefully.

2. I believe that Dr. Ford sincerely believes that Kavanaugh attacked her sexually when at school and that her account is sufficiently plausible (even if by no means proven) that a further, truly honest investigation of this accusation is essential before a final vote on the nomination. This guy is going to make major decisions that will affect the country and its people for decades; delaying a vote even a few weeks is a minor issue compared to the possibility of placing an attempted rapist on the highest court in the land. It is only reasonable. Not doing so for political expediency would be outrageous.

3. Kavanaugh denies he is guilty. Sure, that is possible too. So he very much deserves an investigation to clear his name. Frankly I cannot understand why he would want to be confirmed without being given this opportunity, which appears to have been the course he and the Republican leadership favored until their last minute U-turn on Friday. Being outraged is not a substitute for clearing one's reputation.

4. Separate from the sexual assault accusation, Kavanaugh has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to lie and dissemble under oath. His behavior in the committee hearings on Thursday not only confirmed this but further demonstrated that his temperament, political bias, and paranoia render him completely inappropriate for the high court.
 
Via Seth Abramson's retweets, a number of people have been turning up interesting things.

A 1990 warning from DC area headmasters (incl Georgetown Prep and Holton-Arms) to parents about student parties:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...a1c-89bb-8b004e21825e/?utm_term=.1182a1b5719e

A 2001 letter purported to be from Kavanaugh, apologizing to his mates for getting aggressive while gambling, which he doesn't recall:
https://twitter.com/NSANate/status/1045705005804785665

My biggest question right now is how on earth did this d-bag pass his background checks in the first place? Does having a history of getting blackout drunk not count against an applicant?
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
Via Seth Abramson's retweets, a number of people have been turning up interesting things.

A 1990 warning from DC area headmasters (incl Georgetown Prep and Holton-Arms) to parents about student parties:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...a1c-89bb-8b004e21825e/?utm_term=.1182a1b5719e

A 2001 letter purported to be from Kavanaugh, apologizing to his mates for getting aggressive while gambling, which he doesn't recall: https://twitter.com/NSANate/status/1045705005804785665 My biggest question right now is how on earth did this d-bag pass his background checks in the first place? Does having a history of getting blackout drunk not count against an applicant?
Click to expand...

If that email really is from K, then that is just more evidence that he lied through his teeth on Friday.
 
Stacyhs said:
If that email really is from K, then that is just more evidence that he lied through his teeth on Friday.
Click to expand...

Again, we are seeing cognitive dissonance by the Republicans and another declaration that truth doesn't matter.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
The accusation is that he tried to rape someone while piss-drunk. The lie is that he never drank that much and he never blacked out, despite literally everyone who knew him back then describing him as a blackout, belligerent drunk.

It is entirely material to the case.

[ETA] Oh also

Speaking of going by the same standards we use ourselves, you are familiar with Kavanaugh's role in the Clinton hearings, right?
Click to expand...

With due respect, his role in the Clinton hearings is not relevant. Even if Kavanaugh wants to be judged by different standards than he used against others, that fact is irrelevant regarding what the appropriate standards are. It might make him a hypocrite (and, if so, this is somewhat relevant for a justice), but strictly speaking, it's not directly relevant.

His performance on Thursday ought to be disqualifying because it was remarkably partisan, a stunning display of what we would like to avoid on the highest court.
 
River said:
How so?
Click to expand...

You posted that you "Don't care if he's shown to be a D bag." Unless you are arguing that having a D bag as a Supreme Court Justice is no problem, then having the nomination and confirmation process under the control of people who don't care if Kavanaugh is a D bag or not is the problem we are discussing.
 
acbytesla said:
Again, we are seeing cognitive dissonance by the Republicans and another declaration that truth doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

The fact that he didn't bother coming up with believable lies is a good hint to how he expected the seat to be handed to him since he was groomed for it.
 
Giordano said:
You posted that you "Don't care if he's shown to be a D bag." Unless you are arguing that having a D bag as a Supreme Court Justice is no problem, then having the nomination and confirmation process under the control of people who don't care if Kavanaugh is a D bag or not is the problem we are discussing.
Click to expand...

Here's a case that illustrates why having a D bag on the SCOTUS would be a problem:

 
Giordano said:
Maybe that is the problem?
Click to expand...

To be fair, I completely don't care about whether Kavanaugh is a D-bag or not, either. I do care about putting a lying and unrepentant criminal who we've had every reason to believe is driven by (extreme) partisan ideology rather than a respect for law or the good of the nation in a position of great authority when it comes to both law and the good of the nation.

As for closed door hearings of Ford... honestly, I think we all know that the Congressional Republicans would have strongly preferred that so that they could simply ignore what she had to say out of hand, in exactly the way that they've been blatantly trying to do throughout. I would first look at them for effectively removing that option from the viable field of play before I would blame the Democrats for being "fine" with helping to point a spotlight on an issue that the Republicans were trying to avoid dealing with at all.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
To me it all seems remarkably simple:

1. I think that a person being nominated for a life time position for one of the most influential positions in the USA should be vetted very carefully.

2. I believe that Dr. Ford sincerely believes that Kavanaugh attacked her sexually when at school and that her account is sufficiently plausible (even if by no means proven) that a further, truly honest investigation of this accusation is essential before a final vote on the nomination. This guy is going to make major decisions that will affect the country and its people for decades; delaying a vote even a few weeks is a minor issue compared to the possibility of placing an attempted rapist on the highest court in the land. It is only reasonable. Not doing so for political expediency would be outrageous.

3. Kavanaugh denies he is guilty. Sure, that is possible too. So he very much deserves an investigation to clear his name. Frankly I cannot understand why he would want to be confirmed without being given this opportunity, which appears to have been the course he and the Republican leadership favored until their last minute U-turn on Friday. Being outraged is not a substitute for clearing one's reputation.

4. Separate from the sexual assault accusation, Kavanaugh has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to lie and dissemble under oath. His behavior in the committee hearings on Thursday not only confirmed this but further demonstrated that his temperament, political bias, and paranoia render him completely inappropriate for the high court.
Click to expand...

I think that this was well said.
 
acbytesla said:
Kavanaugh is like Bork was in that he's a team player. Instead of having principles like Richardson and Ruckleshaus, Bork, the partisan hack fired Cox. The aftermath of course was the partisan Bork was nominated by Reagan, but the Senate did not approve.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but Richardson apparently encouraged Bork to stay on and fire Cox to keep the DoJ from falling apart completely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom