New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Chad Ludington is the most Yale name I have ever heard.

Sounds to me like Chad is a bit of a douche.

Sniff, Brett did not try to defuse the situation.. sniff sniff
 
I must admit I'm in a quandary. So much of what people are saying about Kavanaugh is true. He's a political operative. He wasn't honest. At best, he stretched the truth about his drinking habits. Like so many high school and college kids of the era, he drank, a lot, and to excess, but he tried to paint a "choir boy" image. It's kind of weaselly.

Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.

So, either they win, or Kavanaugh wins. If Kavanaugh wins, we get a conservative on the court, with an agenda, who says he doesn't have one. Also, someone who, in his youth, was not exactly a perfect gentleman, and conceivably could have been much, much, worse.

If Kavanaugh loses, the senate Dems win, and they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior. Since they are being rewarded, we can expect more of it in the future. However, Trump nominates someone else, but someone who is likely to vote in a way that is almost identical to how Kavanaugh would have voted.

It's a no win situation, but which is the lesser of two evils?

Do you have a large some of money riding this or something? This is weird. What exactly did you think was going to happen? These SJC nominee hearings have a long history of being uncontroversial? :rolleyes:
 
Let's "investigate" a potential crime.

But we're not allowed to take fingerprints, check for DNA samples, snap pictures of the crime scene, get an autopsy report, verify the suspect's alibis, dig too far back into the suspect's personal history, or interrogate anyone who may have been directly involved and/or may be a key eyewitness during the time that the potential crime happened.... Oh and by the way, you're only allowed a handful of days to get it done before a decision is made.

Just imagine if that's how all criminal investigations were handled.

Keystone cops and kangaroo courts.

Weeeeeeeee!
 
"Sure we could not put a sexual predator on the Supreme Court... but then I'd have to briefly stop poking the other social-political tribe and drop my end of the rope a pointless round of point scoring and their political pee-pee might look a little bigger than my side's political pee-pee for the brief few moments until the Facebook algorithm tells us what the next thing we're to be outraged about is."

Yes, quite a pickle that. It's practically Sophie's Choice.

OK. That was funny.
 
Let’s investigate a potential crime.

Come back in 35 years and we will start then.
 
...Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.
The weird aspect is the ancient, high school context. This is an aspect that is not of Democratic making. Once the GOP caved to the mounting pressure and proceeded with the hearing, they became co-owners of the high school context.

Within this abnormal context, checking the yearbook for evidence impresses me as highly reasonable / diligent. Once down that path, the credence that Kavenaugh's contemporaneous writing lends to the allegations is the making of none other than Kavenaugh.

For these reasons, I reject the blame you lay on Democrats. It's disproportionate.

Researchers / dirt-diggers (take your pick) must have been dumbfounded to discover such a treasure trove.
 
I must admit I'm in a quandary. So much of what people are saying about Kavanaugh is true. He's a political operative. He wasn't honest. At best, he stretched the truth about his drinking habits. Like so many high school and college kids of the era, he drank, a lot, and to excess, but he tried to paint a "choir boy" image. It's kind of weaselly.

Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.

So, either they win, or Kavanaugh wins. If Kavanaugh wins, we get a conservative on the court, with an agenda, who says he doesn't have one. Also, someone who, in his youth, was not exactly a perfect gentleman, and conceivably could have been much, much, worse.

If Kavanaugh loses, the senate Dems win, and they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior. Since they are being rewarded, we can expect more of it in the future. However, Trump nominates someone else, but someone who is likely to vote in a way that is almost identical to how Kavanaugh would have voted.

It's a no win situation, but which is the lesser of two evils?

No, it is not scummy. It is the Senate's job to know EVERYTHING possible about a person who will make decisions for the country for maybe the next 30 years. The Republicans have only themselves to blame. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about this nomination process has been normal. Instead of full discovery which is the norm where EVERY DOCUMENT about a candidate is made available to the judiciary committee, the Republicans limited it to 10 percent of them. They have basically said this is our boy, we don't care what he has done.

My opinion is they had an obligation to get at the bottom of everything and assess Kavanaugh's character. I don't know nor do i care if Kavanaugh was just a drunken frat boy 30 years ago, but i damn well care that he is truthful. And the committee, both Democrats and Republicans have not only the right to ask him any and all questions no matter how embarrassing, but an obligation to do it.
 
I see that the leftists are trying to flip the burden onto the accused.

Now BK has to show he was out of town the whole time . Sure he was out of town most weekends or at other events, but that is not corroboration, I guess, guilty until proven innocent.

I see the reactionaries are trying to flip the burden (for Kavanaugh's perjury) onto the questioners.

In short, no. BK has to explain why him being out of town on weekends supports anything pertaining to him being a choir boy. There are numerous references in his very own hand in his very own calendar to meeting with his kegger buddies on weekdays.

We base this line of investigation on a statement by BK that "it was most likely a weekend she was referring to"(I paraphrase). He then went on to prove that his own strawman wasn't very likely.

Kavanaugh perjured himself.
 
Or worse, he was bragging about having sex with her, at a time when she was too drunk, or drugged, to know about it.
I'm getting more a picture of alcohol interfering with an erection.

Perhaps the men in this forum can enlighten me, if you are ****-faced drunk, can you get an erection?
 
No, it is not scummy. It is the Senate's job to know EVERYTHING possible about a person who will make decisions for the country for maybe the next 30 years. The Republicans have only themselves to blame. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about this nomination process has been normal. Instead of full discovery which is the norm where EVERY DOCUMENT about a candidate is made available to the judiciary committee, the Republicans limited it to 10 percent of them. They have basically said this is our boy, we don't care what he has done.

My opinion is they had an obligation to get at the bottom of everything and assess Kavanaugh's character. I don't know nor do i care if Kavanaugh was just a drunken frat boy 30 years ago, but i damn well care that he is truthful. And the committee, both Democrats and Republicans have not only the right to ask him any and all questions no matter how embarrassing, but an obligation to do it.


Meh.

Who cares if the next supreme court justice (may his holiness reign for the next 30 years) might be a criminal felon who secretly hates the female gender and only thinks of them as chunks of meat to be used and abused.

Just so long as he's a republican (any republican will do, we're not fussy) that makes decisions favourable to the republican agenda.








Okay, ignore that "any republican will do" comment I just made because apparently this guy is the one and only republican-flavoured judge they have to choose from on the list.
 

Back
Top Bottom