New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Foolmewunz]

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

And... whatsamatter, can't Chad Ooh La La Yale Graduate afford a blog?

 

[Meadmaker]

I see you subscribe to the "perjury trap" idea. Please quote one question that was posed to Kav in such a way that it was designed to catch him in a lie. He was asked direct questions. Whether he lied or not depended totally on Kav, not the person who asked the question.

What's your point?

 

[Meadmaker]

Sorry? Digging through evidence regarding his behavior at the time is way worse than perjury for an SJC nominee?

Seriously? The man is nominated for the Supreme Court of the land. You're willing to grant him a little harmless lying under oath?

Yes.

The Democrats' questions were worse than Kavanaugh's lies.

If they could demonstrate that he lied about the sexual assaults, I wouldn't say that, but they were asking him if he got blackout drunk on a bus trip to Fenway Park several years after the alleged assaults.


Now, I'm sure someone will say something stupid about why there is a connection, but the real connection is that if they can dig any dirt at all on the man, they might be able to use it to overturn the nomination, so the ends justify they means. They'll leave no stone unturned looking for any dirt they can.

 

[Meadmaker]

That last statement could apply equally well to Kav. Indeed, his having the power of the President (remember Kav's being holed up for two or three days at the WH for questioning preparation?) and the GOP *majority* behind him in their steadfast backing, and knowing that an FBI background check extension was to be nixed at all costs, he good reason to believe he could lie with no consequence.

But in spite of that, he was nonetheless too gutless to go all in and clamor for an unbiased investigation. Because he knew that would have forced the Goopers' hand, and that would bring everything crashing down.

On the other side, what could Ford count on to shield her from lying? A Dem *minority* that looked to be unable to stop the ultimate ramrodding through of Kav. If the *full* FBI investigation she and the minority were insisting upon from the start did actually come to pass, she could be in a bad place for having made so certain a false allegation.

In the end, who between Kav and Ford had the most to lose by lying? For Kav it's just that he'd stay at his current post. For Ford it could be a criminal charge.

And who has the most to gain by lying? Kav gets his fervent ambition realized. Ford goes back to her daily life, hopefully with the harrassment and death threats subsiding.

Start of what? Start of the week?

And the rest is the argument from incredulity, with the bonus of a false dichotomy. I can't think of a reason she would lie, so she must be telling the truth.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes.

The Democrats' questions were worse than Kavanaugh's lies.

If they could demonstrate that he lied about the sexual assaults, I wouldn't say that, but they were asking him if he got blackout drunk on a bus trip to Fenway Park several years after the alleged assaults.


Now, I'm sure someone will say something stupid about why there is a connection, but the real connection is that if they can dig any dirt at all on the man, they might be able to use it to overturn the nomination, so the ends justify they means. They'll leave no stone unturned looking for any dirt they can.

Wrong. It goes to his veracity.

 

[Meadmaker]

Only an idiot or a politically-motivated operative would disagree that it's irrelevant to the committee's investigation for them to question Kavanaugh on things like his (outrageous and self-character-assassinating) high school yearbook entry,

Dang. I hate it when that happens. Either I'm an idiot, or a politically motivated operative. I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, and I've only once voted for a Republican senate candidate, and once for a Republican representative. Things aren't looking good on the "politically motivated front".


Wait. I have several times voted for Republican governors. That means I could be a GOP political operative, but you would think I might know that. I don't understand. I guess idiot is looking more and more likely.


Because I still think a question about a "boofing" comment written in a high school yearbook is irrelevant, and, more than that, only meant to embarrass the candidate based on his behavior at age 17, or catch him in a lie.

 

[I Am The Scum]

The Democrats' questions were worse than Kavanaugh's lies.

Do you think it's acceptable to confirm someone who lies under oath provided the opposing political party asked mean questions?

I'm legitimately trying to see how any of this is the slightest bit rational.

 

[Elagabalus]

...They'll leave no stone unturned looking for any dirt they can.

Golly. Imagine that! I wonder who started that trend?

 

[AnonyMoose]

Yes.

The Democrats' questions were worse than Kavanaugh's lies.

If they could demonstrate that he lied about the sexual assaults, I wouldn't say that, but they were asking him if he got blackout drunk on a bus trip to Fenway Park several years after the alleged assaults.


Now, I'm sure someone will say something stupid about why there is a connection, but the real connection is that if they can dig any dirt at all on the man, they might be able to use it to overturn the nomination, so the ends justify they means. They'll leave no stone unturned looking for any dirt they can.

Right, because if the democrats manage to get Kavanaugh booted from the list, the poor republicans will have no one else to choose from on their side of the political spectrum. No one at all. None zip nada.

This is a do or die situation for the GOP.

Must. Not. Lose. Kavanaugh.

He's our only choice, dammit.



Kavanaugh Kavanaugh!
He's our man!
If he can't do it....

We're all fricken doomed!

 

[Meadmaker]

What does that even mean? You sound like a conspiracy theorist right now. "Do you honestly believe what the government tells you?"

Do you honestly believe that a question about whether he was blackout drunk on a bus trip as a senior (or was it grad student?) at Yale was an attempt to elicit information that would help them determine whether or not he sexually assaulted a girl in high school? Or exposed himself to a girl freshman year of college?

If so, that's very naïve.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes.

The Democrats' questions were worse than Kavanaugh's lies.
If they could demonstrate that he lied about the sexual assaults, I wouldn't say that, but they were asking him if he got blackout drunk on a bus trip to Fenway Park several years after the alleged assaults.


Now, I'm sure someone will say something stupid about why there is a connection, but the real connection is that if they can dig any dirt at all on the man, they might be able to use it to overturn the nomination, so the ends justify they means. They'll leave no stone unturned looking for any dirt they can.

If you really think that then you are the poster boy for what's wrong with American politics.

"Wait, are you trying to catch me lying? How dare you?"

Kavanaugh was given free rein by the supposedly experienced woman questioner. She asked him a series of questions about drinking to excess, forgetting things or blacking out. To each, he was allowed to respond with a generic "No". After each "No" she moved to the next question with no follow up. It was scripted.

The Democrats wanted better answers. There are numerous reports of him being a belligerent aggressive drunk.

Any credibility of Ford or Kavanaugh hinges on the question of his behavior when drinking. He says he's a choir boy. They've heard differently. They wanted to and did question him on it. Read his responses, he avoided answering directly, even once. The Rapey Judge Support Team keep citing his responses to the friendly prosecutor and on the Fox interview. To the Dem questioners he went into a four corner defense and deflected and dodged.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do you honestly believe that a question about whether he was blackout drunk on a bus trip as a senior (or was it grad student?) at Yale was an attempt to elicit information that would help them determine whether or not he sexually assaulted a girl in high school? Or exposed himself to a girl freshman year of college?

If so, that's very naïve.

Do you honestly not understand that the pattern or boorish belligerent antagonistic drunken behavior is pertinent to the initial claim? That there's a seeming conflict between the image of the choir boy virgin who had a beer or two (which he pretends to think was legal) and the treasurer of the 100 keg club? The puke in the back of your friend's car blotto drunk?

See? He claims he was a choir boy at Yale, too. Why, he's always been a choir boy. So, yeah, his behavior through all that time is in question.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

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?

It all depends on the woman.

Marilyn Monroe --> "In the name of hell, Yes!"

Rosie or Whoopi --> It's impossible to get drunk enough to ever want to go there.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you think it's acceptable to confirm someone who lies under oath provided the opposing political party asked mean questions?

I'm legitimately trying to see how any of this is the slightest bit rational.

It depends on the questions.

I feel the same way about these questions and Kavanaugh's (probable) lies that I felt about Ken Starr's questions and Bill Clinton's lies. (By now I note that several pages have passed, so it would be very easy to miss, that my comment was based on a comment made by Bill Maher about President Clinton and Ken Starr.)

 

[Meadmaker]

Golly. Imagine that! I wonder who started that trend?

That's a good point. The Republicans went lower than low on the Benghazi/email/whatever else they were yapping about. Now the Democrats are joining them at the bottom of the barrel.


U...S...A..!

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Perhaps someone who lies to make himself look better and is blatantly partisan shouldn't be given a lifetime appointment to a panel of impartial judges?

 

[kellyb]

Yes.

The Democrats' questions were worse than Kavanaugh's lies.

I can understand how you'd feel that morally, digging into someone's yearbook to prove excessive drinking is morally worse than lying about said drinking.

But one is a crime (perjury) and the other is not, and we're talking about a lifetime position making judgments as a member in the highest law, the most powerful court in the whole land.

You think the right thing for us to do is just...pretend his perjury is not a crime AND give him this lifetime appointment?

Wouldn't that be kind of crazy?

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's a good point. The Republicans went lower than low on the Benghazi/email/whatever else they were yapping about. Now the Democrats are joining them at the bottom of the barrel.


U...S...A..!

I don't agree at all. Kavanaugh is scummy and should not be confirmed. He showed the world this with his lies and actions Friday. Democrats are wanting an investigation on a real crime, not a fictional one like the ones Republicans keep making up about the Clintons.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Perhaps someone who lies to make himself look better and is blatantly partisan shouldn't be given a lifetime appointment to a panel of impartial judges?

Yes, but what if someone asked him some mean questions?

That's actually where we're at in this conversation right now.

 

[acbytesla]

That's a good point. The Republicans went lower than low on the Benghazi/email/whatever else they were yapping about. Now the Democrats are joining them at the bottom of the barrel.


U...S...A..!

You're just full of false equivalences. They aren't remotely similar. No one would be investigating Kavanaugh unless he was up for a lifetime position on the Supreme Court. And by the way, did you see Hillary Clinton during the Ben Ghazzi hearings? She was brilliant during them.