New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regnad Kcin said:
I couldn’t quite make out much of Lindsay Graham’s faux-rage over the background noise of his hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

He was hearing from the spin rooms that Kavanaugh was losing sympathy for being so partisan and accusing Dems of being the source of all evil. Ol' Lindsey is a practiced litigator (JAG, I believe) and sez to hisself.... "Hmmm, you think that's partisan? Just watch this!"

It was a distraction.
 
Meadmaker said:
It was ok for a president, and I mean that for real. It really was ok for a president. As I heard Bill Maher express it, "The American people decided Ken Starr's questions were worse than Bill Clinton's lies."
Click to expand...


Two points in reply to this:

1: Bill Clinton already had the job - he was already President at the time. This compares to Kavanaugh, who does not have the job yet.

2: Bill Clinton got disbarred (more or less) due to the perjury charge after his term as President was over. I can't imagine a sitting Supreme Court justice getting disbarred or prohibited from practicing law, but unlike President it is a lifetime appointment.

Bill Clinton's term as President ended 18 years ago. The public may have been tolerant of his behavior at the time, but public opinion on matters relating to sexual assault and harassment have moved on since then, and he did face legal consequences for that perjury.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
It was ok for a president, and I mean that for real. It really was ok for a president. As I heard Bill Maher express it, "The American people decided Ken Starr's questions were worse than Bill Clinton's lies."

On the rape allegations, people wouldn't feel that way, but if it turns out there's no evidence of sexual assault, but the Democrats try to make a big deal about some equivocation about his level of intoxication, no one is going to give a hoot. The people who claim to be totally outraged will be universally people who think there's a constitutional right to abortion.
Click to expand...
Don't you think that Kavanaugh never being elected by the public for anything is an important distinction? Or that we're not talking about removing Kavanaugh from office but appointing him to very powerful position for life? People barely know Kavanaugh. The same cannot be said about Clinton.

Ken Starr investigated Clinton for 3 years and it led to a list of questions that Kavanaugh himself as a partisan hack wrote. If we go by the same standards that Kavanaugh set for Clinton Kavanaugh would not hold his present position let alone become a Supreme Court Justice.
 
Last edited:
My fellow liberals:

The more you talk about Clinton, the less they talk about Kavanaugh. Don't give them the luxury.

Notice how nobody can actually manage to say anything specific and positive about his testimony Thursday?
 
LondonJohn said:
And secondly, Kavanaugh displayed far more than simply "anger" on Thursday. Rather, he displayed a snarling, belligerent "how dare you" brand of self-righteous entitlement. And he artfully managed to alternate between that and maudlin appeals to emotion with his carefully-constructed tales of his diligence, things he learned at the knee of his father, and how his young daughter prayed for his accuser - complete with extravagant throat-catching, blinking, sniffling and pauses for water.
Click to expand...

I listen to right wing radio. They ate it up, and even more so Lindsey Graham's tirade.

The way people felt about the displays of anger is strongly correlated with the way they believed or did not believe him. If they thought he was innocent, then his righteous indignity was a natural reaction. If they thought he was guilty, then how dare such a scumbag be so hostile to those decent and upright senators.


Anyway, my main point wasn't specifically about his anger and whether it was justified, but about anger in general. It's just frowned upon these days. Expressing anger is taboo. Remember, "Have you no shame, Senator?" That guy was pretty angry. I think a lot of people these days would figure he must have actually been a communist. What about the fictional scene in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? I guess it wouldn't play well these days. No anger allowed.

Of course, it's odd. Some displays of anger are ok or at least understandable. I don't think it applies on this board, but I heard various talking heads express sympathy with people shouting and screaming from the public seats during the regular hearings. I guess it's ok to be angry sometimes.
 
Kavanaugh wasn't upset during the Fox interview, which,. according to sources, made him look weak in the eyes of Trump.
So for the testimony, he turned it up to show off to the one person who mattered.
I don't believe his anger was genuine, though his desperation might have been.
 
Meadmaker said:
Anyway, my main point wasn't specifically about his anger and whether it was justified, but about anger in general. It's just frowned upon these days. Expressing anger is taboo. Remember, "Have you no shame, Senator?" That guy was pretty angry. I think a lot of people these days would figure he must have actually been a communist. What about the fictional scene in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"? I guess it wouldn't play well these days. No anger allowed.
Click to expand...
Actually, it's the opposite. I'm so used to the GOP frothing at the mouth the instant it becomes politically expedient for them that I just don't buy it anymore. Graham's anger wasn't sincere. Kavanaugh's wasn't sincere. It's an act that's played itself out.
 
acbytesla said:
Don't you think that Kavanaugh never being elected by the public for anything is an important distinction? Or that we're not talking about removing Kavanaugh from office but appointing him to very powerful position for life? People barely know Kavanaugh. The same cannot be said about Clinton.

Ken Starr investigated Clinton for 3 years and it led to a list of questions that Kavanaugh himself as a partisan hack wrote. If we go by the same standards that Kavanaugh set for Clinton Kavanaugh would not hold his present position let alone become a Supreme Court Justice.
Click to expand...

Ok, so how about we go by the same standards we use ourselves in different situations, instead of comparing two sets of standards used by two sets of other people?


When Bill Clinton lied about his sex life, I was totally unconcerned, and thought the Republicans looked ridiculous for impeaching him and trying him. In this case, if I found that Brett Kavanaugh lied about the assault allegations, I would say throw the bum out, because that was the central and significant issue that was being investigated. If he was less than forthcoming and a bit weaselly about how much he drank 2/3 of his lifetime ago.....meh. The senators' questions were worse than the nominee's lies.


And it doesn't mean that I approve of Bill Clinton's lies or Brett Kavanaugh's lies. I don't even understand Kavanaugh's. They were about things 35 years ago, and made him look like a doofus, which is not exactly an endearing quality in a Supreme Court Justice, but when I hear "Perjury!", I think back to a similar situation 20 years ago, and remember how I explained to people that not all lies under oath are perjury. It's only perjury when it is something material to a case.

ETA: Just to clarify, I don't much like Kavanaugh, and I don't trust him. However, I don't like the tactics that have been used against him. In this particular aspect, I don't like the idea that anything and everything that a witness said will be combed over for some statement that might be false, and then it will be said to be a crime. That's kind of scary. I didn't like it when they tried to do it to Clinton, or Mrs. Clinton, or Brett Kavanaugh.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
I’m glad they get so much enjoyment out of it. Here, as out in the real world, there are multiple posters here who really don’t seem to give a damn about this country, as long as they are supporting their party or upsetting the Trumpsters or whatever.

I don’t think they’re taking into account, however, a lot of other people; including - but by no means limited to - people like me, a middle-aged, straight, white, Christian man (married, faithfully, to one woman, unlike so many of their idols), who’s a Democrat, and who’s deeply angry about the willful destruction of our country by these corrupt, hypocritical quislings.

They may very well win the battle of slandering a sitting United States Circuit Judge who has not had a whiff of scandal in the entire time he has been on the bench in order to attack Trump, but the long-term cost in driving away people like me has yet to be calculated. And when I say “driving away”, I mean I will never vote for a Democrat against any other party ever again, and I’m now highly motivated to not just vote, but actively work against them at every level. Well, that’s what happens when the unhinged democrats make a mockery of the system
Click to expand...

Hilited: And your past five years of slandering and smearing All Things Democrat? Was that just a start? Do we need to warn the Dem Machine in Illinois that you're comin' to get 'em?

I'm just trying to imagine how you, The Big Dog, could get any more anti-Democrat than you've consistently been.

As mission statements go, this is sorta like my protest when Ferrari was found to be cheating in F1 qualifying rounds. "I can't speak for the rest of you, but I, for myself, pledge that I will no longer buy Ferraris!"
 
If Ford lied during the testimony, that weakens her credibility.
If Kavanaugh lied during the testimony, this should utterly disqualify him from the Supreme Court and possibly trigger an impeachment investigation into his current position.

So unless you are certain that Kavanaugh said the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (as he swore) in his testimony, questioning Ford's replies is a dangerous game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom