New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Craig4 said:
Kavanaugh in his 20s.
Click to expand...
All indicating IMO that Kavanaugh is not a towering figure and knows it. For someone with his credentials he's had a fairly mediocre career. No big paychecks from the private sector, a habit of carrying excessive credit card debt, a big mortgage and little home equity and debts that disappeared without an adequate explanation. Thursday, he won Trump's respect by coming out emotional and swinging during a proceeding that did nothing to create an impression of candor, maturity or any hint of judicial temperament.

I don't fault him for being a political hack, particularly, but his CV doesn't suggest anything except a career bureaucrat. We're missing 100,000 pages of his work product, 4 times as much as Bush wanted withheld. The FBI investigation is turning out to be severely constrained. This seems to be the best the GOP can do to salvage a dodgy Supreme Court nominee and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few defectors on the vote. Then again maybe some Democrats will cross over. I'd be shocked, but actually pleased to see some who may actually vote their conscious (or more likely, bow to political realities at home).

Kavanaugh is a profoundly unimpressive pick with just enough credentials to make him a plausible nominee. And, you know what? Fair enough. He may squeak by just as Trump himself did. He may be beholden to some of the same interests. We don't know how his debts went away, or why he seemed to need to impress his buddies, or what he did for the Bush administration that was so potentially damaging that Senate committee members can't even look at his memos. Or why his story changed on the Federalist Society, or why he gets so shirty when underage and in some cases adult drinking issues are brought up. There's another couple of issues, but frankly I wasn't paying too much attention earlier in the process.

The Senate can content themselves that they scraped together a skin-of-their-teeth confirmation vote. Kavanaugh will be the new Clarence Thomas, joining that distinguished jurist in moldering away, cranking out paint-by-the-numbers "conservative" positions. This is the process, folks. It was surprising to even get that one-week delay. Other presidents will come to power, other justices will retire, other senators will be sworn in. At this point I want senators to do whatever has the greatest chance of shaking up the Senate.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
He was either a pig of a human being, or he wanted all his friends to think he was a pig of a human being.

It's not exactly a distinction without a difference, but it's not far off.
Click to expand...

Neither is very good. I had a lot of roommates in college. I had one roommate who never seemed to fail at at finding girls to bed each weekend, and he was a genuine pig. He'd get them back to the house and it was put out or find your own way home. I drove 3 different girls home who said no to him. I also had a roommate who talked a lot but never got anywhere with women. It was pretty pathetic. I'd kind of feel bad for him until he would put on his act.
 
Meadmaker said:
A perjury trap described any situation where a subject of an interrogation under oath is asked a question whose answer is not important to the matter being investigated, but which the interrogator believes the subject may lie about. The question is asked in the hope that the subject of the interrogation will lie, so that the subject may be charged with perjury
Click to expand...

You can try to slice this twelve different ways from Sunday, but the answer is always the same and very, very simple...

DON'T TELL LIES UNDER OATH!!
 
Minoosh said:
No. But it would mean his categorical denial was less trustworthy, because there might have been an incident he forgot about.



Proving the incident happened is a very long shot. Proving he could have forgotten any such incident may be possible. If such proof or strong evidence is gathered, it also contradicts his testimony.
Click to expand...



Ah, maybe we can pin some unsolved murders on him while we are at it...

Ok, that was a joke but c’mon, that’s pretty weak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JoeMorgue said:
I love how the machinations of tribalism and the outrage machine have pushed it so far away from any question of whether or Kavanaugh would actually make a good Justice.
Click to expand...

I decided that a long time ago. He shows no respect for stare decisis and is a lap dog to corporate interests. He has shown that he thinks that POTUS is above the law. I see no reason to believe that Kavanaugh would give a damn about anyone of lower economic means.
 
Meadmaker said:
And, asking him about that in the senate hearing served what purpose?

Hint: If your answer involves anything related to gathering information, you are hopelessly naïve.
Click to expand...
I actually saw it almost as a way of giving him an *out*.

"Did you ever not remember what you had done because you drank so much?"

"Maybe, I don't remember."

"You could have attacked Dr. Ford."

"That would be terrible, and I sincerely apologize for even the possibility that it might be true. That is not how I would ever want to see myself, then or now. The women in my life are critical to me and I value and esteem them as well as their autonomy, body and soul. Gays too."
 
acbytesla said:
You know, the kind of guy who was all talk or if he was this pig of a human being. I knew both in college...so he could be either.
Click to expand...
I think he's the pretender, the phony, the wanna-be bad boy, the eternal preppie, and that he hasn't matured any in the interim. With luck he will not be too bad of a justice. His committee performance will dog him anytime a clearly partisan issue comes before the court. His handlers (and I don't doubt he has handlers) will keep him on a short leash and make sure he doesn't do anything too bold. Not enough to be noticed, just enough to keep him in line for the next 30 years.

Maybe I'm wrong. SC justices often surprise me with a feisty streak of independence. But I doubt if this one will.
 
smartcooky said:
You can try to slice this twelve different ways from Sunday, but the answer is always the same and very, very simple...

DON'T TELL LIES UNDER OATH!!
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm hearing on NPR that many of his former colleagues and classmates are coming out to the media about Brett's drinking habits for the sole reason that he is telling lies about it under oath. Those must all be partisan hacks to believe that a Supreme Court Justice should be truthful.
 
sylvan8798 said:
I actually saw it almost as a way of giving him an *out*.

"Did you ever not remember what you had done because you drank so much?"

"Maybe, I don't remember."

"You could have attacked Dr. Ford."

"That would be terrible, and I sincerely apologize for even the possibility that it might be true. That is not how I would ever want to see myself, then or now. The women in my life are critical to me and I value and esteem them as well as their autonomy, body and soul. Gays too."
Click to expand...

This would have disqualified him to the Republicans.
 
Minoosh said:
I think he's the pretender, the phony, the wanna-be bad boy, the eternal preppie, and that he hasn't matured any in the interim. With luck he will not be too bad of a justice. His committee performance will dog him anytime a clearly partisan issue comes before the court. His handlers (and I don't doubt he has handlers) will keep him on a short leash and make sure he doesn't do anything too bold. Not enough to be noticed, just enough to keep him in line for the next 30 years.

Maybe I'm wrong. SC justices often surprise me with a feisty streak of independence. But I doubt if this one will.
Click to expand...
The Religious Right has high hopes for what a conservative majority court might do. They have been working for decades to make this happen. In an ideal world, Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservative judges would disappoint them mightily. I'm not optimistic on that count. I guess we will find out soon enough.
 
Remember when this was about listening to women?

Now I guess it is about the fact that Brett liked to drink beer in college.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes, I'm hearing on NPR that many of his former colleagues and classmates are coming out to the media about Brett's drinking habits for the sole reason that he is telling lies about it under oath. Those must all be partisan hacks to believe that a Supreme Court Justice should be truthful.
Click to expand...

This and whatever the FBI finds won't mean jacksh** to most of the GOP and none of Trump's base. As McConnell said, they will vote this week. Hardly time to review the FBI report or contemplate it. The only R's who will consider it seriously are Murkowski, Flake, and Collins. The only hope is that the red state Dems are more concerned with the good of the country and their own consciences than getting re-elected.

I found it so sad when Sen. Flake said he would not have insisted on an FBI investigation if he were running for office again. Such is the fear of Trump. It's a sad state of affairs when members of Congress fear retribution from their own president.
 
sylvan8798 said:
The Religious Right has high hopes for what a conservative majority court might do. They have been working for decades to make this happen. In an ideal world, Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservative judges would disappoint them mightily. I'm not optimistic on that count. I guess we will find out soon enough.
Click to expand...

They would have someone like that confirmed already if they weren't so cultish to stick with Trump's pick no matter what. Trump's need to protect himself from the law by picking Bart Kavanaugh has put this in jeopardy. However, I know there is a very low risk that Republicans will not vote Bart into the position, but more of a risk than any of the other selections that the lizard Illuminati gave him.
 
I see zero chance that the Republicans don't vote him through. ZERO, this investigation is a sham.
 
On to that, "It tells us that he could have forgotten sexual assault" thing.

No. Just no. Let me illustrate. I was a binge drinker who had some blackouts. Here's the thing. I didn't actually have "a history of blackouts" as such. I had a few isolated incidents. During that time when I had the blackouts, some girls in our town were raped. Could I have possibly been the rapist? Maybe I raped those girls when I was blacked out?

Uhhh…..no. I knew where I was on the night of those blackouts. One of them occurred on November 9, 1979. I was in a trailer celebrating the "unofficial" cast party after the school play. By the time I reached blackout stage, there were three girls present. None of them were the girls that were raped, and the rapes did not occur in that part of town.

But wait. Maybe they just didn't report it. Maybe I assaulted one of them that night. Hmmm......there's absolutely no way that I could be sure, is there? Of course, I know the names of everyone who was in that trailer at the time. Maybe that could help? Surely one of them would have seen me and the victim go off together? If I gave the names of the others at the party, and none of them said there was anything suspicious? They all said they poured me into the spare bedroom, alone, and let me sleep it off for at least a couple of hours before attempting to sneak me back into my house? (Unsuccessfully) Well....what if they all said that whoever was accusing me wasn't even present? No, huh?

Just because I, or Kavanaugh, had a few blackouts doesn't mean that anything and everything that happened during those years might have happened during a time that I was blacked out. That's absurd.

If you could put Christine Blasey and Brett Kavanaugh at the same party, you'd have someplace to start, but "He blacked out at least once in his life, so he might not remember sexually assaulting someone during the summer of 1982." That's not really convincing.


ETA: And I realize I've fallen for a trap myself here. There's very close to zero evidence that Brett Kavanaugh ever experienced a blackout. There's just, "That guy drank a whole bunch. Surely there must have been at least one blackout." And there's one statement that could have possibly referred to a blackout on a bus trip that occurred at least four years after the most recent alleged assault.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom