New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[acbytesla]

The moral hazard is that this reasoning could be used to justify any and every question about any aspect of the candidate's life, going all the way back to adolescence.

(If my son ever tries to get confirmed for anything important, he's going to have some explaining to do about that incident at his bar mitzvah.)

The moral lesson is about truth and temperament. Own up to your mistakes. Don't pretend to be a choir boy when you weren't. Be humble. Don't attack those doing their jobs.

In other words, don't act like Trump.

 

[Meadmaker]

Bork was the first one rejected on partisan grounds, or so the story goes. I am not a historian.

At least two of Nixon's appointees were rejected. I don't know what happened before that.

Although those rejections were not partisan, they were strongly ideological. At that time, civil rights laws, which were a significant issue for the nominations, had strong opposition among Southern Democrats.

 

[The Shrike]

Bold prediction: No such investigations will ever take place.

Yet, Republicans will continue to shriek about lies, corruption, and conspiracies.

Lindsey Graham:

"the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,"

"the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics"

"This is hell"

All right, Senator. You were first elected to public office in 1993, so we're talking about a 25-year political career. If this is the worst political hatchet-job you've seen in the last 25 years, then please do investigate it. Surely, there should be serious retribution for something so grave. If you're right, I'll cheer your fortitude and insight for routing those unethical Democrats from public office. Please use everything in your power to get to the bottom of this. I'll be over here, holding my breath.

 

[crescent]

Looks like the report is coming out Thursday, though Republicans seemed to think it would already be complete. How it is being released is rather silly:

Republicans are putting strict limits on the viewing.

Only one copy is being made available to senators, and each party will take turns viewing it in one-hour increments, Durbin said.

“Get this — one copy! For the United States Senate,” he said. “That’s what we were told. And we were also that we would be given one hour for the Dems, one hour for the Republicans. Alternating.

“We tried to reserve some time to read it. That is ridiculous,” he said. “One copy?!”

“Bizarre, it doesn’t make any sense,” he added.

If all 100 senators decide to review the document and it takes each senator 30 minutes to peruse the document, it could take 50 hours for the entire chamber to examine it.

Linky.

I wonder what mind-bobbling nuthead reason they are going to have for such a restricted reading?

It does not matter much, as, despite what the Whitehouse and GOP said, the investigation was restricted and unable to interview many of the people involved.

A running list of everyone the FBI has interviewed in the Kavanaugh investigation so far

Attorneys for both Ford and Ramirez have raised this concern and noted that the agency has yet to interview Ford or follow up on a list of more than twenty corroborating witnesses that Ramirez has provided.

 

[Meadmaker]

I wonder what mind-bobbling nuthead reason they are going to have for such a restricted reading?

Privacy.


You really don't need to know what Tim Gaudette has to say about this. It is unfortunate that you even know anything about Tim Gaudette, unless he chooses to make it public himself.

Having literally only one copy does seem a bit strange, but I must admit I assumed the contents would be leaked no matter what they did. The only way it could conceivably stay private is to do what they are doing.


I'm confident that if there's anything actually significant in there, it will get out, one way or another.

 

[Cabbage]

See hilite. (added) That would be of interest. They would not be interested in answering the question of whether he had ever been black out drunk ever in his life.

Of course, the senators weren't interested in that question, either, except as a perjury trap a way of determining his honesty.


ETA: And if they tried to make a case out of "We don't know when the murder happened, but we know that he was blackout drunk at least once in his life, so he might have been blackout drunk on the night of the murder...."

Looks like you were on the verge of realizing your mistake in your ETA comment.

Why didn't you go all the way and finish it?

 

[crescent]

Privacy.


You really don't need to know what Tim Gaudette has to say about this. It is unfortunate that you even know anything about Tim Gaudette, unless he chooses to make it public himself.

Having literally only one copy does seem a bit strange, but I must admit I assumed the contents would be leaked no matter what they did. The only way it could conceivably stay private is to do what they are doing.


I'm confident that if there's anything actually significant in there, it will get out, one way or another.

I don't need to know. But you know, THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE needs to know. Are you actually suggesting that there is a reasonable need to limit the judiciary committee's access? To one-hour increments?

 

[Cavemonster]

See hilite. (added) That would be of interest. They would not be interested in answering the question of whether he had ever been black out drunk ever in his life.

Of course, the senators weren't interested in that question, either, except as a perjury trap a way of determining his honesty.


ETA: And if they tried to make a case out of "We don't know when the murder happened, but we know that he was blackout drunk at least once in his life, so he might have been blackout drunk on the night of the murder...."

Do you suppose that the likelihood that the suspect may have been blackout drunk on the night in question may have something to do with whether the subject was in the habit of getting blackout drunk?

 

[Meadmaker]

Looks like you were on the verge of realizing your mistake in your ETA comment.

Why didn't you go all the way and finish it?

Experience with message boards.

If I say, "If they tried to make a case out of....then X would happen." people end up arguing about some nitpicky element that is part of X.

As it is, I just left it hanging. It's obvious enough.

 

[I Am The Scum]

a perjury trap

I'll ask again: Who was the first one to ask Kavanaugh about his drinking habits at Thursday's hearing?

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't need to know. But you know, THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE needs to know. Are you actually suggesting that there is a reasonable need to limit the judiciary committee's access? To one-hour increments?

It does seem awfully severe.

On the other hand, it might be a series of statements that say, "At no time have we seen Mr. Kavanaugh commit sexual assault, and I have no memory of any party or gathering that matches the description of the alleged incident." If so, an hour should be plenty.

Certainly there is strong reason to believe that leaks would happen. It is conceivable, though in my opinion pretty unlikely, that using this method the private information might remain private. I think it will still leak.


You can bet that if one of the witnesses said, "I have no knowledge of that party, but one time he boinked Sally Smith after she chugged a bottle of Port", you'll hear about it.

 

[Cabbage]

Experience with message boards.

If I say, "If they tried to make a case out of....then X would happen." people end up arguing about some nitpicky element that is part of X.

As it is, I just left it hanging. It's obvious enough.

No, it's not obvious enough. It's your argument, bro; I'm not gonna make up some straw man argument for you just so you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

So tell me, what happens...."if they tried to make a case out of "We don't know when the murder happened, but we know that he was blackout drunk at least once in his life, so he might have been blackout drunk on the night of the murder...." "?

Again, my position is that if a suspect of murder/rape/whatever has had periods of blackouts, that is relevant information to the investigation. Therefore, your unfinished hypothetical is an absolutely relevant path to pursue. Do you disagree?

 

[acbytesla]

At least two of Nixon's appointees were rejected. I don't know what happened before that.

Although those rejections were not partisan, they were strongly ideological. At that time, civil rights laws, which were a significant issue for the nominations, had strong opposition among Southern Democrats.

Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth, who was rejectedf 45–55 due to concerns about Haynsworth's civil rights record and ethical issues.

Nixon then nominated Harrold Carswell, who had supportied segregation and opposrd women's rights. The Senate rejected his nomination 45 to 51

Nixon's finally appointed Harry Blackmun, who was confirmed by the Senate without opposition. Nixon also nominated Lewis Powell who was confirmed 89–1 and William Rehnquist who was confirmed 68–22

 

[Meadmaker]

I'll ask again: Who was the first one to ask Kavanaugh about his drinking habits at Thursday's hearing?

Mitchell? That's a guess.

 

[Meadmaker]

No, it's not obvious enough. It's your argument, bro; I'm not gonna make up some straw man argument for you just so you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

So tell me, what happens...."if they tried to make a case out of "We don't know when the murder happened, but we know that he was blackout drunk at least once in his life, so he might have been blackout drunk on the night of the murder...." "?

Again, my position is that if a suspect of murder/rape/whatever has had periods of blackouts, that is relevant information to the investigation. Therefore, your unfinished hypothetical is an absolutely relevant path to pursue. Do you disagree?

Yes. I disagree.

(As for the first question, I think the answer is obvious.)

 

[Craig4]

Okay, forget the allegations of attempted rape and other sexual misconduct. Forget the drinking. Look at other people who have sat on that hallowed bench and how they spent their younger lives. Any one of the allegations against him should derail his nomination in a fair and honest review. But we should have never heard those because he should never have been nominated.

Kavanagh shouldn't be under this scrutiny because he's mediocre. Look at how other people spent their 20s who made it to the bench and then tell me he deserves to sit there. He's a privileged white kid from an affluent suburb who worked as party functionary until someone put him on the bench. There's no record of service. He's never broken new ground on anything. He was a patronage appointment as presidential secretary, didn't screw up and got on the bench. You can disbelieve the allegations but you can't deny his mediocrity. Nominating a Supreme Court Justice should be a search for greatness and there is no demonstrated greatness in Kavanagh.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Mitchell? That's a guess.

Correct.

So here's what I don't get. Earlier in the thread, you said you were torn on Kavanugh because on one hand, you don't trust the guy. On the other hand, you felt that Democrats needed to be held responsible for their bad behavior.

But your latest gripe is that asking about Kavanaugh's drinking is a perjury trap, and that this is just absolutely dreadful. So stick to your own standard. Republicans brought up the subject of his drinking first. You're going to hold them responsible for their despicable behavior, right?

 

[Cabbage]

Yes. I disagree.

(As for the first question, I think the answer is obvious.)

Well, then.....answer it. Why do you think that path is irrelevant?

 

[The Big Dog]

There is one copy because they do not trust the dems not to leak it obviously.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you suppose that the likelihood that the suspect may have been blackout drunk on the night in question may have something to do with whether the subject was in the habit of getting blackout drunk?

A "habit" of being blackout drunk might be of interest, depending on circumstances. There is no evidence that Brett Kavanaugh had a habit of getting blackout drunk. Indeed, the evidence that he has ever been blackout drunk is weak. (I think he probably has, but the answer might hinge on some exact definition of "blackout". On my half dozen or so "blackout" occasions, I experienced partial memory loss. There might have been an hour where I have no memory, and another hour or two where I was sketchy on the details.)