New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

snoop_doxie said:
Their emotional outbursts would be disqualifying if the shoe were on the
other foot.
Click to expand...
Allow me to put a finer point on this.

To accept K's outbursts must also be to accept similar outbursts by any other nominee, including by left-leaning nominees, at least if one claims consistency and a lack of hypocrisy.

The necessary corollary to this would be that to condemn K's outbursts must also be to condemn similar outbursts by any other nominee, including by left-leaning nominees. As a left-ish Democrat, I have no problem with this corollary. If I failed to condemn something similar by a left-leaning nominee, I can state now that I should be criticized for such hypocrisy.
 
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...

Oh, you made an assumption that I would vote to confirm him? Bad liberal.
 
River said:
...

I don't think he should be confirmed, but not because of the baseless allegations. Instead based on he gave testimony that seemed false.
Click to expand...
One of these sentences is not like the other. If he gave false testimony, how do figure the allegation was baseless?

He clearly lied about the yearbook entries that were about sex and about his excessive drinking.
 
smartcooky said:
Look at my location
Click to expand...

So no then. :D

I love Nelson BC. It's about 400 miles from Seattle and has a ski resort there. Its also the town where the Steve Martin movie Roxanne was filmed. Great movie, and great little town.
 
River said:
Absolutely. This spectacle didn't need to happen, unless of course the point was to drag people through the mud publicly. There were offers made to interview Ford privately, even at her location. This was a public spectacle, purely because it served democrats agenda. Not to protect possible vitcims, or against salacious allegations with no evidence. This happened how it did, with pure intent.
Click to expand...

My my, how incompetent Grassley must have been to allow the Democrats to get such a spectacle when he controlled the committee. :rolleyes:
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I think incidents like this are when we find out who the actual skeptics and critical thinkers are. And it's not looking good.
Click to expand...

Really?

You think wanting an FBI investigation to look at both sides of these allegations, is not being skeptical?

You think that assessing the credibility of testimony, and the manner in which it is given, is not being skeptical?

I'll tell you what I am skeptical of; the whole of Kavanaugh's testimony. If you watched, you heard, just like the rest of us, when Kavanaugh....

1. Blamed the Clinton's for the position he finds himself.
2. Accused the Democrats of destroying his family and sullying his name.
3. Told bare faced, provable lies about the meanings of terms in his yearbook.
4. Refused to answer question after question that required a simple yes or no answer.

He was evasive, dishonest, belligerent, disingenuous and obnoxious and his behaviour was risible; all attributes that you do NOT want in a Supreme Court Judge (or any Judge on the bench for that matter). You don't have to be much of a skeptic to see this.

In no way is this man a suitable candidate for a seat on SCOTUS, even if the sexual assault allegations cannot be proved. The aforementioned behaviour ought to be sufficient to rule him out.
 
It was covered on Slate's Slow Burn podcast. They all agreed that Bork would be the hatchet man since they sincerely believed that Nixon would keep firing people until he found one willing to help him obstruct justice. They figured this would leave the DoJ dangerously understaffed.
acbytesla said:
Where did you read that? I hadn't heard that.
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
One of these sentences is not like the other. If he gave false testimony, how do figure the allegation was baseless?

He clearly lied about the yearbook entries that were about sex and about his excessive drinking.
Click to expand...



Right, so he lied most likely about those things. That is why I would not vote to confirm. There is absolutely zero corroborating evidence of Fords claims. Including the witnesses she named as being there. Do you dispute that?
 
Now the Kav Groupies are decrying the horrible and needless spectacle just concluded. Well, what would they expect when a hearing is rushed into being that's *deliberately restricted* to nothing more than a he said/she said?! No other witnesses or documents. No extension to the FBI background check.

If the the Goopers on the Committee had simply agreed to the FBI investigation the accuser and Dems both wanted from the start, it's likely that some smidgen of certitude would have resulted instead of the unavoidable, unmoved positions that this ineptly conceived, ill advised and rushed hearing could hardly be expected to alter.

And another thing. The sheer irony of the Kav Groupies trying to have it both ways: At this time--RIGHT NOW--an FBI investigation cannot possibly be probative. Oh, but only if the Dems had asked for an FBI investigation back when they first got Ford's accusation, instead of sitting on the letter. Yeah, sure, I'll buy that bridge you're selling!

Finally, as I and others (including legal minds on the telly) rightly point out. This is all moot in a just, parallel Universe. Kav's deplorable behaviour at Friday's hearing automatically is disqualifying. Even if he's completely innocent of *all* accusations, his intemperance betrays the political operative that he is. Such a mindset is utterly incompatible with a position demanding of confidence in impartiality. (His infamous actions regarding the pregnant teen in immigration custody is certainly indicative of his bias, and willingness to use his position to impose his agenda.)
 
I heard it mentioned on the telly that "boofing" means to ingest alcohol/drugs anally. In the context of an early '80s yearbook entry, this certainly seems to me to be more likely than a reference to butt secks.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't think that would happen even if Dems got the Senate. Their nominee would probably be Merrick Garland.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but how does that make sense? Trump nominates, Senate confirms or not. Garland isn't going to be nominated again for the Supreme Court unless some president chooses him again. Tain't likely to be Trump or Pence or any other Republican, far as I can tell.
 
River said:
Disagree. I have nothing invested in Kavanaugh. Don't care if he's shown to be a D bag.
Click to expand...

And you would still want him confirmed to the Supreme Court? Is he really the best judge conservatives can find? Or just the hack Trump needs?
 
Minoosh said:
The Renate explanation deserves to be looked into, and witnesses who could testify to the extent of Kavanaugh's early drinking history. Not because it was so bad; just because it would offset his own minimizing testimony and speak to his veracity. If he did get blackout drunk - and he was extremely evasive and aggressive regarding this - it ups the chances that he doesn't remember some of his alcoholic behavior. I suppose his financial situation has been explained, but that might bear further looking into, including a timeline showing how he got into debt and out of it.
Click to expand...

If he got blackout drunk in high school and denied it under oath, then (far as I'm concerned) nothing else matters. He lied under oath to the Senate. Not a reasonable pick for the Supremes.

Honestly, perjury is an even worse offense for justices than for our President. We all know the current President lies all the time (that this doesn't bother some people is a shame), but the Supreme Court consists of those who should take oaths most seriously.
 
Meadmaker said:
Depends on the type of lie. If he sexually assaulted anyone, he's out.


If it turns out that one night in the dorms he had to ask his roommate whether or not he threw up in the trash can when he stumbled in, no.

And if it turns out that he meant the same thing that everyone else meant by "boof", I'll scratch my head and wonder what the heck he's thinking, but otherwise wouldn't care. (Afraid he would be called homophobic? I really don't know why you would make up a different meaning. There are, I suppose, local variation in slang. In my home town, a "hooter" was a slang term for fellatio. I've never heard that use anywhere else in the world.)
Click to expand...

Er, surely, judges should take oaths seriously? Surely?

I think he probably committed perjury and I definitely believe this is reason to reject him. But an even easier reason is this: his performance was dramatically partisan, in a manner which would sully the Court's presumption of fairness. Let the bastard go, far as I'm concerned. He might have been playing to Trump, but no matter. That's a line that no SJ nominee should cross.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom