New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

If you tried to secure a conviction in a non-political situation (i.e. an actual criminal trial, as opposed to an impeachment proceeding) it would be thrown out as a politically motivated selective prosecution.


The sexual assault allegations are different, but the drinking statements could never be prosecuted as perjury.

Yeah, yeah yeah

No-one is trying to "proveTM" perjury

What we are saying is that if you are a Judge, and you lie under oath, what you are proving is that you are unfit to be a judge.

Just answer me this (truthfully, if you can); do you want a Supreme Court judge who

Tell lies under oath?
Believes in conspiracy theories?
Presents himself as obviously partisan for one side or the other?
Is belligerent and hostile?
Loses his temper under pressure?
 
I've found myself using them *more* recently, because the square brackets are a pain in the ass to navigate to on android keyboards.
 
It's been around for a long time, and was *widely used* ( :)) in the not so distant days of early message boards and email.

And text messaging.

Thing is, there are plenty of references online to people using asterisks for emphasis (including from people who can afford blogs!), and I can find plenty of references online to people using quotation marks for emphasis (although these sources are saying that you shouldn't do it), but I cannot find a single example online of people talking about using asterisks as quotation marks.
 
No-one is trying to "proveTM" perjury


Well that's a relief, because there's no way it would ever happen, with respect to the drinking statements.



As for fitness for office, that, to me, is tough to judge. I didn't like him before Thursday. I liked him even less after Thursday. On the other hand I had a whole lot more respect for the Democratic senators before Thursday.


The fact that he (probably) lied about his drinking makes me question his judgement and character. The fact that he was asked about it makes me think that the Democratic senators are really awful people.
 
A flash back to Clinton's troubles and how they compare with Kavanaugh's.

But also an opinion of how we tend to look at things through our blue or red tinted shades.

Many Kavanaugh supporters, reading between the lines, have a larger truth that goes something like this: “Who knows for sure what happened? Probably something bad but maybe not exactly like she remembers. Most people could not withstand an inquisition into decades-old behavior, and in any event Democrats don’t really care about the truth, they care about beating him.”

Many Kavanaugh opponents have a larger truth that goes something like this: “No serious person could doubt that Christine Ford was speaking the truth. We don’t need to show that he is Harvey Weinstein to prove that he doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court. It is precisely the instinct to look away from bad behavior that allows the Weinsteins and Matt Lauers to fester. The hearing made clear that the smug and entitled young man of 1982 has grown into the smug and entitled middle-aged man of 2018 in ways that go far in explaining his conservative worldview.”
 
Well that's a relief, because there's no way it would ever happen, with respect to the drinking statements.



As for fitness for office, that, to me, is tough to judge. I didn't like him before Thursday. I liked him even less after Thursday. On the other hand I had a whole lot more respect for the Democratic senators before Thursday.


The fact that he (probably) lied about his drinking makes me question his judgement and character. The fact that he was asked about it makes me think that the Democratic senators are really awful people.
Then don't vote for them. It's not their job that's in question with the current debate. It's whether Kavanaugh is a good candidate for Supreme Court justice. Is he, or isn't he?
 
Regarding the date on Kavanagh's calendar that could be the date in question, and the rebuttal (paraphrasing)... there are more boys listed on Kavanaugh's calendar than Ford claimed were at the gathering, hence it contradicts Ford's claim.

Brace yourself and please give your full attention, this is a complex concept: People may have arrived at the gathering after Ford left.
 
Last edited:
Not... everything... is... about... awarding... points... to... one... of... the... sides.
:thumbsup:

One problem I have with other people (classmates, friends) trying to parse whether he was ever blackout drunk is that others would not know this unless he had indicated to them afterwards that he could not remember the night before. They would not know by observation at the time.

One problem I have is that much of the news coverage is conflating "blackout" with "pass out." Like "gee I never saw Brett black out." You literally can't see someone "black out" -- that's the point, they do things and don't remember them afterwards because their memory is "blacked out" for that time period. Passing out is visible and obvious, and you can't really do anything regrettable while passed out, other than get embarrassing photos taken of yourself. Which is why I will never be a supreme court judge.

I've found myself using them *more* recently, because the square brackets are a pain in the ass to navigate to on android keyboards.
I have set shortcut "autotext" on my phone - qo makes opening quote boxes with the brackets, and qc makes closing quotes. I should do this for italics as well, as it is a pain.
 
"Facts exist" is now officially just an opinion that can be disagreed with.
 
Delaying things didn't seem to worry the Republicans 2 years ago.
I'm sure TBD was all for holding off back then.

why don't y'all research it? The dems were so confident that Hilldawg was going to get the Presidency they let themselves get played.
 

Back
Top Bottom