smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.
- Thread starter This is The End
- Start date
Belz...
Fiend God
No, no, no. I have it on good authority that you should remember these sorts of details.
Because that fact is just oh so critical.
Can you provide the list of facts that a judge needs to consider critical and/or the list of non-critical facts?
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
...Or at least be able to prepare for questions by looking them up easily if you still have a calendar of your personal life from back then.
Can you please provide a quote where he said this from the transcript? I think that you are mistaken. Stacyhs posted the quote that I remember on this. It's vague and refers to "seniors," not to himself.
Yes, it does. Nathan Robinson has a JD (Doctor of Jurisprudence) degree from Yale.
Apologies, I still don't have the time to write out a good summary (or even a list) of all the lies Robinson identifies which Kavanaugh told. I will try to get that done late tonight (since I fell asleep late last night instead). In the meantime I encourage you to read the article. It's clearly written and identifies a large number of statements by Kavanaugh which are deceptive and false.
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
Unlikely. I am less than two years older than Kavanaugh. As teenagers every person I knew was aware of the legal drinking age. It was often discussed much like getting old enough to drive. And in the late 70s and early 80s legal drinking ages were changing. If you lived near a place with a lower drinking age then you also knew what it was there as well.
If you're applying for the job you should first learn to write as well as Robinson does. He really is very good. He writes clearly and in detail.
Go read the article he wrote; it's worth your time if you're interested in learning more about this situation. And if you find any errors -- either in substance or in style -- you'll then be able to specify clearly what they are. At the moment, based on your rather vague one-liner, you seem unable to do that.
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
A logical person might be thinking should unverifiable claims of sexual assault 30+ years ago be enough to stop the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
Yet look at all the crap such claims cause the catholic church, totally outrageous. Pennsylvania owes the catholic church an apology.
And really we are supposed to believe that a doctor was sexually abusing the US gymnastics team for 20 years? Pull the other one.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
It takes for ever too keep up with the main Kavanaugh thread, so we go ahead and debate the hearings in this one too? Give me a break. I thought all this thread was about was specifically a cartoon. What are we talking about here?
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 32,547
From the ABA Model Code of Judiciary Conduct
Kavanaugh certainly violated that rule in his testimony.
Belz...
Fiend God
Ah, I see you missed the recent discussions on this topic, so let me fill you in: the question of his guilt has become largely irrelevant. Kavanaugh has been shown unfit for the post because of his behaviour, lies and conspiratorial accusations last week. As for the cartoon in the OP, it illustrates the GOP's willingness to ignore allegations of sexual assault in order to pack the court with partisans who will tow the party line rather than serve justice.
Thermal
August Member
A logical person should be concerned about lying today about that event and related issues that came up reflects poorly on his current character.
He may have been a partier or whatever when he was young. May have done bad things. He baldfaced lied about them today. That is a serious integrity issue.
Ninja'd by Belz...
Last edited:
Yes, they grandfathered in those who were already 18 or older (and thus of legal drinking age prior to the change) when they raised the drinking age to 21. Kavanaugh was 17 at the time, so he was not grandfathered in.
Were you under the mistaken belief that Kavanaugh had been grandfathered in when the drinking age was raised?
Anyone who believes Kavanaugh was grandfathered in was misled by what Kavanaugh and Kavanaugh's supporters have said. Any drinking Kavanaugh did in Maryland during his high school years and early college years was illegal. When Kavanaugh was asked about his high school drinking he should have made that clear.
As others have already posted, the drinking age was raised in 1982. Here's a link to a good AP article confirming that fact.
Coincidentally (or perhaps not coincidentally) the day the age raise went into effect was July 1, 1982 -- the same day in summer 1982 when Kavanaugh got together for drinks with Mark Judge and PJ Smythe.
And now I really do need to turn computer off and start catching up on some things I'm way behind on.
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
You're right.
But why does it matter if it's "perjury" ?
For the ...ten thousandth time ... it's a not a trial. It's a job interview.
It's been demonstrated that Kavanaugh has mislead, mis-remembered, downplayed, and pretty clearly outright lied about his past.
His temperament was emotional, confrontational, sniveling and insincere.
As a country, we can do much better than this as a nominee for the supreme court.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Ahh, the research skills, kisses fingers like a french chef!
Followed by a whatabout Hillary.
Absolute solid gold post.
Belz...
Fiend God
I've seen it. It existed, but has been removed.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
A logical person might be thinking that when multiple people come forward independently to accuse even a burger flipper at McDonalds of rape that it's worth investigating. The Supreme Court Justices should be held to a higher standard than that.