New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Bob001 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Clearly you are mentally superior, and pay attention better than most. I'm defeated. You win.
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...

In addition, just as Trump did in his press conference the night before, he regularly and repeatedly jumped into a rant without allowing the questioner to finish their question. Exactly the behavior a fair and impartial judge should avoid. He will be a horrible justice regardless of whether the accusations have merit.
 
Lurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

I love the GOP expect us to believe that a man that can't interpret the original intent of his yearbook will be able to practice an "original intent" interpretation of the constitution while SCOTUS.
 
kookbreaker said:
Way back when th Terry Schiavo case was being considered by SCOTUS, I was at dinner with several friends. Most of them were far more liberal than me and were lamenting what would come when the Scalia court got its mitts on the case. The mood was grim.

But one of our numbers was a Republican. He simply stated calmly “don’t worry, these people are judges first, Republicans a distant second, they won’t rule against what the law says just because the White House and Congress GOP are in a frenzy”.

He was right. The Schiavo Case was rejected. The Scalia court looked at it and flatly said “No.”

Yesterday, I reminded my wise Republican friend about that conversation and asked if he felt that Kavanaugh would remember that he was a judge first and a Republican second.

His answer was “after his crying, whiny partisan speech yesterday? No.”
Click to expand...

I'm with your friend on that. Kavanaugh has been built from Law Scool graduation up to be a partisan tool, and one purposefully suited to reinforce presidential power.

His speech only serves to reinforce that purpose.
 
Bogative said:
The main difference being Pizzagate occurred on twitter and infowars, this is occurring on Capitol Hill and throughout the MSM.
Click to expand...

No, the main difference being Pizzagate had completely imagined "victims" and events, and here we have a real alleged victim giving testimony. Nice try to diminish a real concern by mislabeling it and your opponents, though! A debate classic!
 
uke2se said:
The partisan majority in SCOTUS is worth anything and everything. It would cement a victory in the culture wars for a generation to come, and winning is more important than anything else.
Click to expand...
Internally I've experimented with a "grand bargain" scenario in which Kavanaugh is confirmed, but the GOP loses both the Senate and the House.

My brother just came over and we accidentally started talking about politics. He's a Trump supporter and said, "Don't get me started." What interested me is there was no heat, no anger with each other. Everything he said Dems do, I agreed, and said, "Both sides do it." (He probably doesn't study purportedly skeptic websites, or he would know I was introducing a fallacy ;) .) He said it was wrong for the GOP to hold up any appointee of Obama's for over a year, but only when I pointed that out; it's not something he paid attention to at the time. He understood exactly the Catch-22 Kavanaugh was facing about admitting to alcoholic blackouts. No one, except maybe Trump, thought higher of Kavanaugh for his answer to the question about whether he had ever experienced a blackout.

I'm willing to believe Kavanaugh is actually a pretty nice guy as long as he's not drinking. I might even agree with some of his legal thinking. What I will find extremely distressing is if the GOP holds on to both the House and Senate.
 
smartcooky said:
I am really uncomfortable with the idea of putting a lying conspiracy theorist on SCOTUS. After his rant about blaming the stalling of his confirmation "revenge for the 2016 elections" and "the Clintons", how can he ever be trusted to make politically balanced decisions?
Click to expand...
IMO, If it was payback, it was over the way Republicans refused to consider Obama's nominee, then told the public that the Senate had never approved a nominee in a presidential election year. I saw Cruz get tripped up on that lie.

This is all probably a little too subtle for Trump's fans. They need to hear the word "Clinton" before deciding what to think. Something Trump would be well aware of.
 
Bogative said:
Yup. This is the left's "Pizzagate."

Digging through high school yearbooks and college records looking for secret code words for sexual assault, rape etc.
Click to expand...
If you have questions about a nominee's behavior at age 17, why wouldn't you look at yearbooks?
 
They did the calculations.

Fords claim is worthless at this point
The drunk girl at Yale’s claim is worthless
Avenatti is an idiot.

Sure, let’s let the FBI investigate what might have been a busy Saturday at ASU.

Confirm BK and listen to the lamentations of the women.
 
And the fix is in:

The White House is limiting the scope of the FBI’s investigation into the sexual misconduct allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, multiple people briefed on the matter told NBC News.

While the FBI will examine the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez, the bureau has not been permitted to investigate the claims of Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s, those people familiar with the investigation told NBC News. A White House official confirmed that Swetnick's claims will not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh.

...

Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview, according to several people who discussed the parameters on the condition of anonymity. They characterized the White House instructions as a significant constraint on the FBI investigation and caution that such a limited scope, while not unusual in normal circumstances, may make it difficult to pursue additional leads in a case in which a Supreme Court nominee has been accused of sexual assault.

The limited scope seems to be at odds with what some members of the Senate judiciary seemed to expect when they agreed to give the FBI as much as a week to investigate allegations against Kavanaugh, a federal judge who grew up in the Washington DC area and attended an elite all-boys high school before going on to Yale.

Sen. Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who led an 11th hour move in the Senate committee for an FBI inquiry, said he thought the bureau would decide how to carry it out. His Democratic colleague Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island said he expected the FBI probe to include "adequate staffing," support from the committee for "rapid immunity and subpoena decisions as needed, plus the ability to investigate claims of a "penchant for drunkenness and inappropriate treatment of women, particularly where specifically related to incidents under investigation."
Click to expand...

Linky.

I wonder how Flake feels about his "gentleman's agreement". Now when nothing new turns up, the Republican line will be "we did the FBI investigation" and the Democrats will be saying it wasn't sufficient.
 
jond said:
In addition, just as Trump did in his press conference the night before, he regularly and repeatedly jumped into a rant without allowing the questioner to finish their question. Exactly the behavior a fair and impartial judge should avoid. He will be a horrible justice regardless of whether the accusations have merit.
Click to expand...

Not just a "questioner," but United States Senators with the power to vote for him or against him. I was truly astonished that Sen. Klobuchar didn't smack him down hard when he asked her how much she drinks. She could have said "Mr. (not Judge) Kavanaugh, you're the only person in this room accused of attempted rape." (Democrats are too damn nice!) Imagine how Kav treats witnesses and petitioners who have no power.
 
The Big Dog said:
They did the calculations.

Fords claim is worthless at this point
The drunk girl at Yale’s claim is worthless
Avenatti is an idiot.

Sure, let’s let the FBI investigate what might have been a busy Saturday at ASU.

Confirm BK and listen to the lamentations of the women.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that Kavanaugh was completely honest in his testimony Thursday?
 
smartcooky said:
4. Refused to answer question after question that required a simple yes or no answer.
Click to expand...
Dr. Ford's unequivocal answers, compared to Kavanaugh's dissembling and refusals to answer, make her more qualified than Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, in that regard only.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
And the fix is in:



Linky.

I wonder how Flake feels about his "gentleman's agreement". Now when nothing new turns up, the Republican line will be "we did the FBI investigation" and the Democrats will be saying it wasn't sufficient.
Click to expand...

Avenatti already refused to cooperate with the committee. I am certain that the dems are not dumb enough to stake their reputation on whoever avenatti was able to scrape off the bottom of a rock.
 
Belz... said:
Are you seriously comparing people who think the sexual assault allegations are credible to those who think that holograms of planes were used to cover thermite demolition of the WTC in order to destroy sensitive documents, justify a war and give Silverstein a new contract?
Click to expand...
Trump is a 9/11 truther.

I don't want to re-watch, but did Lindsey Graham say anything of substance in his rant besides blaming the Democrats for digging up high school yearbooks? All these apologies about Dems dragging Kavanaugh through the mud and what it was doing to his poor family. Republicans ran out their clock giving speeches on how icky that was.

Why didn't Democrats do this to Neil Gorsuch?
 
Paul2 said:
Dr. Ford's unequivocal answers, compared to Kavanaugh's dissembling and refusals to answer, make her more qualified than Kavanaugh for SCOTUS, in that regard only.
Click to expand...

Where was it?
Uhhh
When was it?
Uhhh
Whose house was it?
Uhhh
How’d ya get there?
Uhhh
How did you get home?
Uhhh

So unequivocal. The only facts she was able to provide were the people there, and they all said she was full of ****.
 
LSSBB said:
....Kavanaugh has been built from Law Scool graduation up to be a partisan tool, and one purposefully suited to reinforce presidential power.
Click to expand...

Its funny how things that people post or say sometimes trigger a totally random, tangential thought.

What you have just said suddenly made me think of Frank Herbert's "Dune" and how the Bene-Gesserit (GOP) worked so hard over generations to bring to fruition, a plan to bring two bloodlines together at a specific time to produce a male heir, the kwitsatz hadderach (Kavanaugh) so that they could gain control of all of the Great Houses of the Empire, only to have their plan thwarted at the last moment when a member of their group, the Lady Jessica (Flake) did something completely unexpected and that they didn't predict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom