New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Ziggurat said:
But belief is precisely what this is about. What did Kavanaugh believe the term meant? And I provided conclusive proof that some people believed it meant fart. That indicates quite clearly that Kavanaugh could have believed that too. The claim of perjury on that point falls apart completely.
Click to expand...


You don't think that writing in someone's yearbook, "Have you [farted] yet?", is enough to suggest that another, common meaning might be more probable?

Especially when the Kavanaugh's own roommate in college has stated that Kavanaugh used it to describe a sexual act?

None of that offers you the slightest cause for doubt?
 
Reading his op-ed, it only reinforces my impression of his personality. His confirmation is in the bag, showing a little humility and contrition would cost him literally nothing, he's *trying*, but he just *can't* do it. "I said things I should not have said" is probably as close to an apology as he's capable of giving, but it's not an apology. Then he goes back and tries to excuse it by whining some more at how unfairly he'd been treated and what an effect it's been having on his family.

[ETA] If you want a good facepalm yourself: https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822
 
Last edited:
Quinnipiac Poll: Generic Ballot show Dems’ lead on Repubs has shrunk to only 1 point.

WOMEN’s RAGE: Marist Poll: Generic Ballot among Suburban Women: Dems have lost 21 pts of their lead on Repubs during weeks of Kavanaugh confirmation.

-- Laura Ingraham (Oct 5, 2018)
Click to expand...


Awesome news. Not only will I get to celebrate the Kavanaugh confirmation, I'll be celebrating in November also. Nice!
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
You don't think that writing in someone's yearbook, "Have you [farted] yet?", is enough to suggest that another, common meaning might be more probable?
Click to expand...
Whenever I drink a nice, tall, refreshing glass of vent gleet, I know a boof will soon follow. If I was in the company of someone aware of the boofulent qualities of gleet, I wouldn't be surprised to hear Have you boofed yet?

By the way, I don't want an iota of flack from anyone claiming that vent gleet is a chicken's venereal disease. It means what I say it means. In fact, according to an ISF poster, if you challenge my definition, seeing as I'm the most credible source as to my meaning -- that makes you a conspiracy theorist.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not true. Recall the whole front door construction thing.
Click to expand...

I don't know what that is.

In a politically charged case where the 2000 doctors had no direct experience with the candidate in question? No. That would in fact be foolish.
Click to expand...

We _all_ have direct experience in that we've seen his demeanour and his ability to weave right-wing conspiracy theories. What, are you trying to gaslight me?

But belief is precisely what this is about. What did Kavanaugh believe the term meant? And I provided conclusive proof that some people believed it meant fart. That indicates quite clearly that Kavanaugh could have believed that too. The claim of perjury on that point falls apart completely.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. The standard of evidence is not "if someone, somewhere, at some time, could conceivably, under a hypothetical scenario in an imaginary universe with different physical laws, believed this for an instant, it means that I cannot in good conscience believe that he didn't." You keep looking for alternative explanations and saying that, if the possibility even exists, we can't conclude that he lied. That's not what job interviews are like. So why are you insisting on such a standard?
 
quadraginta said:
Those law professors were not concerned about his guilt or exoneration. They were concerned about his behavior during a confirmation hearing.
Click to expand...

Which, get this, isn't a technical matter involving the intricacies of the law for which expert training and experience in the law renders one particularly qualified to evaluate. Their opinion is of no more significance than yours or mine.
 
Ziggurat said:
Which, get this, isn't a technical matter involving the intricacies of the law for which expert training and experience in the law renders one particularly qualified to evaluate. Their opinion is of no more significance than yours or mine.
Click to expand...

No, as we've already explained before, it's about their ability to judge whether a colleague is fit to be on the team. I'd say professionals in the field have a more worthwhile opinion than you.
 
Belz... said:
No, as we've already explained before, it's about their ability to judge whether a colleague is fit to be on the team. I'd say professionals in the field have a more worthwhile opinion than you.
Click to expand...

experts can't be trusted.
Lots of experts can be trusted even less.
 
Belz... said:
I don't know what that is.
Click to expand...

You forgot already?

We _all_ have direct experience in that we've seen his demeanour and his ability to weave right-wing conspiracy theories. What, are you trying to gaslight me?
Click to expand...

First off, in regards to "direct", no, your experience is not direct. You saw him on TV, just like almost everyone else. You haven't met him, you haven't interacted with him, and neither have those signatories. Second, and more importantly, to the extent that watching him on TV suffices to form an opinion of him, you're actually proving my point. It doesn't take legal expertise to form an opinion of his demeanor. You are free to form whatever opinion you like on that basis. But for precisely the same reason, those signatories have no special authority on the topic. Your opinion is no less valid than theirs.

No it doesn't. The standard of evidence is not "if someone, somewhere, at some time, could conceivably, under a hypothetical scenario in an imaginary universe with different physical laws, believed this for an instant, it means that I cannot in good conscience believe that he didn't." You keep looking for alternative explanations and saying that, if the possibility even exists, we can't conclude that he lied. That's not what job interviews are like. So why are you insisting on such a standard?
Click to expand...

I proved that other people have used "boof" to mean fart, and you're talking about universes with different physical laws? How desperate are you?
 
Ziggurat said:
In a politically charged case where the 2000 doctors had no direct experience with the candidate in question? No. That would in fact be foolish.
Click to expand...

There are Republicans that have deemed Kavanaugh unfit.

The only thing here that is foolish is your out-of-hand dismissal of the opinions of hundreds (thousands?) of legal experts based on a partisan bias you merely assume exists.
 
I can't believe they are going to appoint Kavanaugh. They have a bunch of other candidates who surely have more composure and would appear less like a partisan hack.

His petulance and highly suspicious answers should render him unfit in the eyes of most Senators.

Why not just accept he is a dud and replace him?
 
phiwum said:
Why? They're very likely to retain control of the Senate.
Click to expand...

Oh, most likely, but they've been acting like impatient children, that it has to be done now now NOW.

I do wonder if it'll help, or hurt them in the midterms. Not that it matters, as The Democratic party is unlikely to make serious gains.
 
Hiya! Back again to reiterate that it was not Kavanaugh's youthful excesses that disqualify him for a seat on the Supreme Court, it was his petulant whining, obfuscation, and bald-faced lying during last week's hearing that do that.

Today I'm joined in this opinion by a special guest, Judge Brett Kavanaugh! Brett's op-ed acknowledges that his behavior last week was ill-becoming of a Supreme Court justice, but he got emotional 'cause he was just so darn angry.

Thanks Brett for an own goal more illuminating than if you provided a video of you funneling brewski's from a DKE toga party. And thank you GOP, as you vote to confirm this creep and subject the American people to his privileged, frat-boy partisan stain for the next 30 years or so. Good job.
 
Last edited:
The Shrike said:
Hiya! Back again to reiterate that it was not Kavanaugh's youthful excesses that disqualify him for a seat on the Supreme Court, it was his petulant whining, obfuscation, and bald-faced lying during last week's hearing that do that.

Today I'm joined in this opinion by a special guest, Judge Brett Kavanaugh! Brett's op-ed acknowledges that his behavior last week was ill-becoming of a Supreme Court justice, but he got emotional 'cause he was just so darn angry.

Thanks Brett for an own goal more illuminating than if you provided a video of you funneling brewski's from a DKE toga party. And thank you GOP, as you vote to confirm this creep and subject the American people to his privileged, frat-boy partisan stain for the next 30 years or so. Good job.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. None of that matters! It pisses off the dems/dimms/porgs/leftists and that makes it ok!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom