New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

The Shrike said:
Strong disagree:


What else is there? A dude lied in a job interview. That would/should be disqualifying for a job frying McNuggets, so it sure as heck is disqualifying for a lifetime seat on the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I will reiterate that the senate could decide to not confirm him on no basis whatsoever. Or they could decide he wrote an article they didn't like, or wore a suit that was too tan. Really, the bar is so high for this job that the reasons for picking another candidate don't even have to be disclosed.

But lying during the interview process, much less under oath, is really beyond anything I thought I would ever see a nominee to the Supreme Court do. Until I saw this buffoon blame the Clintons. Jesus, that was maybe even worse.


If the FBI investigation goes no further to establish the validity of Dr. Ford's accusation we already have the lie(s), weasely lawyer speak instead of direct answers, and the unhinged indignation and conspiracy-laden partisanship from Kavanaugh's own statements.

But there's even more.

Dude, you're about to be confirmed to the SCOTUS. Allegations of drunken sexual aggression have surfaced to threaten that confirmation and you know – or at least you want everyone to think you know –*that they are fabricated and/or conflated with some other events in Dr. Ford's memory. Here's how I would expect and innocent and wrongly accused man to respond:

You humbly and respectfully approach the hearing confident that you will be exonerated and confirmed. I mean, you are a judge, so it's safe to assume that you believe in our judicial system, right?

In your opening statement, you bend over backwards to express your sympathy to Dr. Ford and all victims of sexual assault. You speak calmly, softly, and rationally to express the importance of the freedom victims must feel to be heard so that we can truly promote equality for women.

You deny the allegations – again calmly and rationally – and you might suggest a reason behind them, e.g., that Dr. Ford is confusing you with someone else or some other group of teenagers. You frankly and dispassionately own up to the hard-partying lifestyle you pursued in high school and college, but express again your confidence that you have been falsely accused.

Finally, you not only welcome it, you are one to call for the FBI investigation. You state the reason for this as clearing your name, sure, but the more important reason would be to find the perp still walking the streets out there who did this horrible thing to Dr. Ford.
Click to expand...

This is the most baffling aspect to this. Who was he playing to? His wife was clearly not on board. Any of his colleagues would have told them to follow the outline you and others have posted. Why would he stray from that? Who did he need to impress? Was it Trump?
 
The Big Dog said:
that is amazing!
Click to expand...

I know! That the best lawyer on the planet, who makes all other lawyers completely redundant would deign to post on this forum is indeed amazing.

It doesn't matter what rating the ABA gave Kavanaugh, all that's important is what rating you give the ABA.
 
https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1046800666692222976

President Trump when asked if the FBI should interview all 3 of Kavanaugh's accusers: "I've heard that the third one has, I have no idea if this is true, has very little credibility"
Click to expand...

Video embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1046806269468672002

This entire goddamn timeline is just once incessant insufferable law school exam
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1046806556325568512

I mean, I would TOTALLY put "I have no idea if this is true" into an examine to test a law student's grasp of actual malice and the definition of reckless disregard.
Click to expand...
 
The Big Dog said:
I think that the most natural explanation is a combination of both, with the drinking on the front end exacerbating the hinky memory on the back end.
Click to expand...
The notion that someone she knows -- Mr Big Man on Campus, captain of the team -- is on top of her, and she proceeds to misidentify on the spot, stretches credulity. Unless she was plastered.
 
Dr. Keith said:
This is the most baffling aspect to this. Who was he playing to? His wife was clearly not on board. Any of his colleagues would have told them to follow the outline you and others have posted. Why would he stray from that? Who did he need to impress? Was it Trump?
Click to expand...


Allow me to answer your question with a chart:


Kavanaugh -> Trump -> Senate -> Win!
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, as if his testimony last week was somehow from 1982. Fascinating.
 
Dr. Keith said:
If this impacts the midterms, the GOP Senators may be wishing they had handled this better.
Click to expand...

One way or another, no good can come of all this. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he hurts justice in the US for decades to come. If he's confirmed and then impeached by the Democrats, the senate will refuse to throw him out. If somehow the Democrats also hold the senate and convince enough Republicans to act against Kavanaugh, it'll set the stage for a long list of partisan impeachments of SCOTUS justices in the future. It's the same thing with Trump, whether or not he's impeached, or steps down, or is beaten in 2020. The downward slope is here.
 
xjx388 said:
I don't know . . . it's not so cut and dried. Did the Senate err in not removing Bill Clinton for his obvious perjury? I don't want to rehash the Clinton thing but I think there is an obvious parallel here.

See, in Clinton's case, I don't think the Senate erred. The thing he lied about was inconsequential -just because he had sex with Lewinsky does not mean that the Jones allegations were more likely to be true. But if he came clean about that inconsequential thing, the public perception would be that the Paula Jones allegations were more likely to be true -that's certainly the case that was being made. I can understand why he would lie about something minor in that case and I can't really hold it against him. Because I'm human, I guess, I can empathize with his no-win situation. But if I were Clinton, I probably would have stepped down voluntarily rather than have all that hashed out in public.

In Kavanaugh's case, he's in a similar no-win situation. If he comes clean about his drinking and what those yearbook things meant, it's going to create a perception that it's more likely he he committed sexual assault -which, IMHO, is as unfair as connecting the Lewinsky affair to a likelihood that Clinton assaulted Jones. So, I can similarly empathize with K's situation.

Still, because of the current political situation, I know what I would do were I in a position to make that decision; I would pull K's name from consideration. He did not acquit himself well in his testimony and that reflects badly on me for nominating him in the first place.
Click to expand...

There is an enormous difference:
Clinton was elected , Kavanuagh is being selected.
Confirming the impeachment of Clinton would have clearly been against the will of the people. His qualification was never an issue, since the voters got to decide if he was qualified.

Kavanaugh doesn't get to be confirmed by popular vote: he gets nominated by the president, and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate accepted. And the position is supposed to be the most impartial of all branches of the power. It is the duty of the Senate to confirm his suitability.
As has been said before, it is a job interview.
 
Belz... said:
One way or another, no good can come of all this. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, he hurts justice in the US for decades to come. If he's confirmed and then impeached by the Democrats, the senate will refuse to throw him out. If somehow the Democrats also hold the senate and convince enough Republicans to act against Kavanaugh, it'll set the stage for a long list of partisan impeachments of SCOTUS justices in the future. It's the same thing with Trump, whether or not he's impeached, or steps down, or is beaten in 2020. The downward slope is here.
Click to expand...

That's what scares/bothers me the most. Either a "bad thing" happens or a "good thing" happens that's going to get used against us (and by "us" I mean America not the Democrats) within a very short period of time.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status/1046800666692222976



Video embedded in tweet.

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1046806269468672002



https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1046806556325568512
Click to expand...


I guess Trump has set a new bar for future presidents.

No longer do presidents have to stick with the facts only. Now they can make statements that may or may not be true, may or may not be hearsay through the grapevine rumour mill.



A speech from the future US President Camacho at the International UN Delegates Conference (circa 2028):

"My brother told me that he knows a guy who works at a laundromat who has a cousin that dated this girl for a few weeks who knew a guy from South Korea who knows a girl from North Korea who's dating a guy that works as a shoe-shiner for Kim Jong-Un. Apparently, and I don't know if this is true or not, but apparently Kim Jong-Un has herpes that he got from his dog Bowser."
 
Belz... said:
You see, this is what I find a bit... strange. You first suggest he "seems to be credible", then you say "he lied" (maybe about other things, but he still lied.) Shouldn't the fact that he was willing to engage in perjury suggest that he is not quite as credible in his denials about the assault? Why are you suggesting he can lie about one thing but is totally believable on other things?
Click to expand...
He said he seemed credible outside of this process. Right there before the bit you bolded.
Click to expand...
Yes, he did specify ''outside of this process". Its just that (at least to me, your mileage may vary), "this process" is a little vague... outside the current confirmation hearing? Outside the specific assault allegations? Looks like I was assuming a much more narrow focus than others.
 
AnonyMoose said:
I guess Trump has set a new bar for future presidents.

No longer do presidents have to stick with the facts only. Now they can make statements that may or may not be true, may or may not be hearsay through the grapevine rumour mill.
Click to expand...

My concern is that since Trump supporters have apparently no issue with this, so long as he 'wins' for them, Democratic nominees might use the same tactics and get the same sort of support from their own voters in the future.
 
Belz... said:
My concern is that since Trump supporters have apparently no issue with this, so long as he 'wins' for them, Democratic nominees might use the same tactics and get the same sort of support from their own voters in the future.
Click to expand...

Yup.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round...
 
AnonyMoose said:
A speech from the future US President Camacho at the International UN Delegates Conference (circa 2028):

"My brother told me that he knows a guy who works at a laundromat who has a cousin that dated this girl for a few weeks who knew a guy from South Korea who knows a girl from North Korea who's dating a guy that works as a shoe-shiner for Kim Jong-Un. Apparently, and I don't know if this is true or not, but apparently Kim Jong-Un has herpes that he got from his dog Bowser."
Click to expand...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom