New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
Not quite that, but if he had said, "When I was a teenager, I drank too much at a time when it wasn't legal for me to drink at all, and when most of my friends did the same. As an adult and a parent, I know now that I was stupid and I was wrong. But I never attacked anybody." Etc. But he didn't; by his telling, he's been a choir boy all his life. He protests way too much.
Click to expand...

On the "choir boy" point, I have to agree. He struck me as lying. I think because of that he earned the FBI investigation. Had he come across as honest, I think Flake would not have stood up to his GOP colleagues. So if he doesn't make it, he has only himself to blame.
 
picture.php
 
Bob001 said:
Not quite that, but if he had said, "When I was a teenager, I drank too much at a time when it wasn't legal for me to drink at all, and when most of my friends did the same. As an adult and a parent, I know now that I was stupid and I was wrong. But I never attacked anybody." Etc. But he didn't; by his telling, he's been a choir boy all his life. He protests way too much.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If he had owned his drinking behavior as a teen/young adult, almost all of us could relate. Most of us engaged in such irresponsible drinking behavior. And most of us outgrew that kind of immature behavior, no longer getting falling down drunk every week. But his "choir boy" refusal to admit to his behavior, to take responsibility for it, and cry and sniffle through his self-pitying act is immature and just stupid. Admitting to his drinking is not admitting to sexual assault. But he couldn't even do that. Instead, all we heard was how he "liked beer" and may have "had too much" once in a while.

I compare it to Bill Clinton. If he had just owned up to what he did with M. Lewinsky, admitted what he did was wrong, and apologize to his family and to the US public instead of lying, he'd likely never have been impeached.
 
Meadmaker said:
On the "choir boy" point, I have to agree. He struck me as lying. I think because of that he earned the FBI investigation. Had he come across as honest, I think Flake would not have stood up to his GOP colleagues. So if he doesn't make it, he has only himself to blame.
Click to expand...

Lying under oath at a confirmation hearing doesn't merely earn you an investigation. To any halfway rational person, it's disqualifying.
 
Meadmaker said:
I didn't like his less than honest approach to some questions. However, his anger didn't bother me a bit. When they started harping on his drinking and possible blackouts, I really wish he would have said, "Yeah. So what?"

However, he didn't. Instead, if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt he displayed a Clintonesque sort of lying, in which he said something which would be true, if interpreted in a specific manner.

The worst thing about it was that I think he did the same thing about the more substantive parts of his record during the "regular" hearings. He doesn't strike me as particularly honest.

But the anger? From him, or from Lindsey Graham? I have no problem with it. It actually seems a pretty appropriate response.
Click to expand...

I don't mind people getting angry. But I very much believe there are places where self control is demanded. I thought Lindsey Graham's reaction was over the top faux outrage.

But Kavanaugh's anger seemed like a form of entitlement. A sort of 'how dare you question me...even if my answers seem questionable. Never mind that it is their job to question and try and trip him up.

IMV, I saw him as a privileged pompous ass with ZERO compassion and empathy for others. Everything about Kavanaugh screamed old boys club. Almost an identical upbringing as Turd Trump.

Both attended private all boys school where trust fund turds strut their very unearned positions over others. Frat boys at 15 given every ******* thing.

Lose this d-bag and move on to someone else.
 
Meadmaker said:
On the "choir boy" point, I have to agree. He struck me as lying. I think because of that he earned the FBI investigation. Had he come across as honest, I think Flake would not have stood up to his GOP colleagues. So if he doesn't make it, he has only himself to blame.
Click to expand...

This is silly. Everyone but Brett Kavanaugh is conceding he was lying under oath on this point. That should be disqualifying for his current position let alone having him under consideration for a SCOTUS position. It damages the integrity of the court but the GOP needs their conspiratorial partisan hack so they're sticking with him.
 
Don’t Pretend the Kavanaugh Facts are Unknowable

Ford does not recall precisely what date Brett Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her, but she testified that approximately six weeks afterward she saw Mark Judge—who she claims was in the room during the assault—working at the Potomac Village Safeway. “If we could find out when he worked there, then I could provide a more detailed timeline,” Ford said. That would be an important fact, indeed.

....

The facts surrounding Judge’s employment at Safeway are objective, documented, and readily ascertainable, and would provide a definitive date range for the assault. So why doesn’t the committee figure out those facts? The committee could easily subpoena Safeway for Judge’s employment records, or subpoena Judge himself. If Mitchell were prosecuting this case in Arizona, that’s the first thing she would do. Did she suggest to Senator Chuck Grassley that he issue a subpoena to Safeway?
Click to expand...

There’s nothing arcane or even particularly difficult about the investigatory steps the government could take to reach a reasonable factual conclusion about the Kavanaugh allegations. I simply cannot understand why the Judiciary Committee refuses to use the resources it has—namely, subpoena power, through which the committee can compel witnesses to testify and produce documents.

The committee’s approach to the Kavanaugh hearings reinforces the false image of trial practice as just throwing two people up there and letting the jury decide whom to believe. That’s not what trials are. When both sides have adequate resources (an important caveat), trials—and the months-long periods of document production and deposition testimony that lead up to them—are extraordinarily good vehicles for arriving at the truth.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
Why this isn't being talked about more by the Dems is beyond me. K perjured himself repeatedly. On that alone, he should be disqualified.
Click to expand...

Leahy brought it up this morning during the committee statements. It was part of his basis for voting no.
 
Stacko said:
Leahy brought it up this morning during the committee statements. It was part of his basis for voting no.
Click to expand...

Good! It should be brought up again an again. Not that some people will see it as disqualifying. I mean, Bill Clinton wasn't impeached for lying under oath. Oh, wait....
 
Meadmaker said:
But the anger? From him, or from Lindsey Graham? I have no problem with it. It actually seems a pretty appropriate response.
Click to expand...

Funny, I don’t recall Obama losing his **** over having his legitimacy as a president and American citizen constantly questioned by the conspiracy theorist who has his old job. Nor did Hillary Clinton lose hers over the same conspiracy theorist endlessly accusing her of criminality and leading gleeful chants of “Lock her up!” with throngs of the same hypocrites now pretending they care about due process.

And if either of them had lost their **** the way Kavanaugh and Graham did? Fox News would have spun off a new channel dedicated to the sole purpose of deriding them as having temperaments unfit for high office.

And you know what else I don’t recall? Lindsey Graham giving much of a **** about those particular strains of character assassination.
 
Stacyhs said:
Why this isn't being talked about more by the Dems is beyond me. K perjured himself repeatedly. On that alone, he should be disqualified.
Click to expand...

I agree. It should be HAMMERED home. As in, how can we allow a criminal to sit in judgement on others?

The Republicans impeached Clinton because he lied in a deposition. Kavanaugh lies to the United States Senate and not only aren't we going take action against him, we are going to give him one of the most important jobs we have...a position for life? You can't be serious?

Imagine lying to a prospective employer and still being hired? Of course Republicans KNEW Trump was a also a lying POS and they made him President. So it shouldn't be surprising they will make another lying POS a Supreme Court Justice.
 
Last edited:
sir drinks-a-lot said:
I don't suppose any of you think the FBI should look into Ford at all, am I right?
Click to expand...

??? She's core to the investigation. How would they not look into her?

The catch is - she's not running for anything, not seeking an appointment.

But if she perjured herself, then that's a thing. If they have enough evidence to press charges for that, then that happens.

But they would need a lower standard of evidence (none at all really) of showing that Kavanaugh lied enough to convince senators not to approve him.

Keep in mind that this "FBI Investigation" is just a resumption/continuation of Kavanaugh's background check. It's not a criminal investigation.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I didn't like his less than honest approach to some questions. However, his anger didn't bother me a bit. When they started harping on his drinking and possible blackouts, I really wish he would have said, "Yeah. So what?"

However, he didn't. Instead, if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt he displayed a Clintonesque sort of lying, in which he said something which would be true, if interpreted in a specific manner.

The worst thing about it was that I think he did the same thing about the more substantive parts of his record during the "regular" hearings. He doesn't strike me as particularly honest.

But the anger? From him, or from Lindsey Graham? I have no problem with it. It actually seems a pretty appropriate response.
Click to expand...
It's appropriate to be angry (if one is either innocent or indignant that women would dare try to deny him his due). It's wildly inappropriate to show one's anger in that setting, especially in such an over-the-top fashion. Is he a child or a federal judge looking for a promotion?

The bottom line is that this kind of display is abnormal. One wouldn't expect it out of a fellow employee in a minimum wage call center, let alone a federal judge trying to prove that he's the right person to be given a seat on the Supreme Court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom