New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[acbytesla]

"Honorable members of the committee, my name if Brett Kavanaugh. In recent days there have been allegations against myself that I sexually assaulted a number of women during my student days. I deny these allegations. I will be the first to admit that, during those years, I did drink heavily, to the point of making myself sick. It was a juvenile and irresponsible behaviour that I've thankfully grown out of. It is possible that, at some point, I blacked out, and that I did or said things that I today do not remember. I have never, to my knowledge, sexually assaulted anyone, but it is possible, if perhaps unlikely, that I have said or done reprehensible things while under the influence, and which I do not recall. If that is the case, then I would be horrified at the revelation, and would offer my sincere apologies to anyone that I would have hurt. In any event, I hope that turning my life around since those days shows that I am sincere in my dedication to acting responsibly in a civil, adult world, and that I am still worthy of your consideration. I leave my fate in your hands."

I just wrote that off the top of my head. Saying that wouldn't have taken 45 minutes, and would sound a lot more responsible and respectable.

EXACTLY!! I did some things as a teenager that I am not proud of. In fact, I think if you didn't, you really have never lived. Humans make mistakes. It's how one responds and learns from them that matters. Being belligerent, indignant and lying about it is not what a responsible adult does, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[dmaker]

The question is: can a candidate admit to past faults and credibly promise to do better henceforth? Or are they stuck in their teenage morality?

No, the question is can they refrain from lying about it now. When they cannot, then perhaps you have found the answer to your second question.

 

[acbytesla]

Amusingly, it's Kavanaugh's defense that convinced me he wasn't fit to be on the SCOTUS, not the accusations, or his legal opinions.

Me too. I thought Ford was credible, but a he said/she said 30 years post hoc is simply too hazy. Kavanaugh's responses were horrible. He disqualified himself from the position, not her.

 

[I Am The Scum]

there are 469 job openings to be filled November 6.

You know this is a thread about the Supreme Court, right?

 

[The Big Dog]

what is really fascinating is that despite all the character assassination loaded by the dems as a delay tactic, virtually no one has said a word about his actual courtroom demeanor, his opinions, his legal analysis.

Just some vague claims about something that might have happened in 1982.

 

[Worm]

I'm still kind of amazed that there are people who kept a calendar of social events while at High School.

 

[Belz...]

what is really fascinating is that despite all the character assassination loaded by the dems as a delay tactic, virtually no one has said a word about his actual courtroom demeanor, his opinions, his legal analysis.

We've spoken at length about his actual hearing demeanor. And yes, we've mentioned his opinions and legal analyses too. Perhaps you were too busy blaming democrats for your misfortunes to notice.

Not everyone here sees everything in an us-vs-them fashion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You know this is a thread about the Supreme Court, right?

No he doesn't, that's the point.

T him it isn't, indeed can't be, about anything other than a broad "us vs them" battle.

The idea of discussing any part of this in any context that isn't a symbolic meta-debate about the sides themselves is literally impossible for him to conceptualize.

 

[angrysoba]

Amusingly, it's Kavanaugh's defense that convinced me he wasn't fit to be on the SCOTUS, not the accusations, or his legal opinions.

Me too. I thought Ford was credible, but a he said/she said 30 years post hoc is simply too hazy. Kavanaugh's responses were horrible. He disqualified himself from the position, not her.

I'm in pretty much the same boat.

I pretty much expect the politics from both sides, but Kavanaugh really is a dud even if the allegations are not true and that's based on his temperament and his pretty obvious perjury.

 

[JoeMorgue]

what is really fascinating is that despite all the character assassination loaded by the dems as a delay tactic, virtually no one has said a word about his actual courtroom demeanor, his opinions, his legal analysis.

Just some vague claims about something that might have happened in 1982.

That's your argument?

"Come on it's not like he's ever sexually assaulted someone in the courtroom."

Somethings transcend the barrier between professional and private conduct. Sexual assault is most certainly one of those things.

 

[crescent]

what is really fascinating is that despite all the character assassination loaded by the dems as a delay tactic, virtually no one has said a word about his actual courtroom demeanor, his opinions, his legal analysis.

Just some vague claims about something that might have happened in 1982.

His theft of documents seems to not get the attention it deserves, either.

I Wrote Some of the Stolen Memos That Brett Kavanaugh Lied to the Senate About

Kavanaugh received confidential memos, letters, and talking points of Democratic staffers stolen by GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda. That includes research and talking points Miranda stole from the Senate server after I had written them for the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for the minority.

Receiving those memos and letters alone is not an impeachable offense.

No, Kavanaugh should be removed because he was repeatedly asked under oath as part of his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings for his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit about whether he had received such information from Miranda, and each time he falsely denied it

 

[The Great Zaganza]

what is really fascinating is that despite all the character assassination loaded by the dems as a delay tactic, virtually no one has said a word about his actual courtroom demeanor, his opinions, his legal analysis.

Just some vague claims about something that might have happened in 1982.

I defer to the ABA as the experts on the matter:

...in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”


“One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee’s ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship,” the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. “Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.’”

A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been “sanctimonious” during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he “dissembled” in the courtroom.

The reviews weren’t all bad.

In the end, the ABA committee weighed Kavanaugh’s “solid reputation for integrity, intellectual capacity, and writing and analytical ability” against “concern over whether this nominee is so insulated that he will be unable to judge fairly in the future.” In a split vote, it downgraded the rating of the nominee to simply “qualified” — meaning he met the ABA’s standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.

in other words, a partisan hack.

 

[dmaker]

Just some vague claims about something that might have happened in 1982.

You are perhaps not paying very much attention. Have you missed where many members have stated it is his performance under oath that disqualifies him in their opinion?

 

[Bob001]

A guide to the questions the FBI won't be allowed to ask.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...n-limits-on-probe-of-kavanaugh/?noredirect=on

 

[xjx388]

As someone who most here probably see as conservative (I don't think I am, particularly, but the GOP platform does match my positions most closely even if I agree with a few Democrat planks), this is a very difficult situation to parse.

On the one hand, we have a very credible accusation from Ford. I think a very reasonable position to take is -woah, step back, dump this guy and find someone who is above reproach.

On the other hand, we have a strong denial from a guy who, outside this whole process, seems to be credible. He's been a federal judge and been through the vetting process before. If he didn't do this, then another reasonable position is to stand up against false allegations because the alternative is to allow every candidacy to become derailed by unverifiable allegations.

How are we supposed to judge this kind of thing? Are we just supposed to back away from someone with any such allegation? I know this isn't a criminal trial, but it is a Federal investigation. If you cannot corroborate the claim -no one remembers such a party, no one else witnessed it, she told no one afterwards- then how can you reasonably move forward? In such an investigation, we should adhere to an innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

Now, having seen the testimony, my own position is that the GOP should dump him. He lied, pure and simple. He may actually not have done the assault, but he covered up his youthful problems with drinking (which has been corroborated by many others) and the whole "boofing", "Devil's triangle", "Renate Alumni" stuff which -c'mon man we aren't stupid! I think the best outcome here is to remove his name from consideration and just let him keep on keeping on as a Federal Judge.

But I can still see the other position -back him- as somewhat reasonable. Are we really going to condemn a guy who, by all current accounts, 1)would never do such a thing, 2)does not seem to have the drinking problem anymore and 3)was appointed and has served as a Federal Judge for 12 years, -political positions aside- without such controversy?

I don't think it's as cut and dried as many here would argue but I would err on the side of dumping him, were it in my hands.

 

[varwoche]

Despite how long the thread is, I haven't noticed a single alternate scenario proposed in support of Kavenaugh's testimony. Such as...

• she's lying, and willingly participating in a conspiracy to sink Kavenaugh
• she's a delusional mental case
• she has misidentified the perp

Etc. Anyone?

 

[Venom]

Is Kavanaugh really the best candidate the republicans (Trump?) could come up with? Does this mean that anyone else considered for the post is even less suitable?

He was chosen from a pool of more than twenty candidates. He wasn't even singled out to be recommended to Trump IIRC. Wonder why he picked him as well.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

But I can still see the other position -back him- as somewhat reasonable. Are we really going to condemn a guy who, by all current accounts, 1)would never do such a thing, 2)does not seem to have the drinking problem anymore and 3)was appointed and has served as a Federal Judge for 12 years, -political positions aside- without such controversy?

If you agree that, under stress, he behaved inappropriately under oath, so much so that he shouldn't get to sit on the Bench -
then the rest is irrelevant.

Are we supposed to have some kind of Affirmative Action for White Men Falsely Accused? Do we have to overlook an obvious perjury to make up for the fact that he had to defend himself against an allegation of sexual assault?

 

[Belz...]

But I can still see the other position -back him- as somewhat reasonable. Are we really going to condemn a guy who, by all current accounts, 1)would never do such a thing, 2)does not seem to have the drinking problem anymore and 3)was appointed and has served as a Federal Judge for 12 years, -political positions aside- without such controversy?

I agree with your post right up until this point. I'll leave (3) aside but we can't know (1) without an investigation. As for (2), I wouldn't be so sure. His behaviour in court doesn't seem all that stable to begin with. I can't say that I believe that he doesn't drink excessively anymore.

But all that is beside the point. As you said, he lied. And as I said, his behaviour at the hearings is entitled, unstable and belligerent. He has no place on the highest court in the country.

 

[The Big Dog]

Despite how long the thread is, I haven't noticed a single alternate scenario proposed in support of Kavenaugh's testimony. Such as...

• she's lying, and willingly participating in a conspiracy to sink Kavenaugh
• she's a delusional mental case
• she has misidentified the perp

Etc. Anyone?

kavanaugh's, Leland's, PJ's, Ford's testimony/statements you mean?

It appears that she conflated various events and claims, and that while something happened to her, that her memory is so faulty that she misidentified the people involved.