Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.

[Dr. Keith]

They grandfathered in legal drinkers at the time the age went up.

But he didn't make the cut. And its not something you forget. My brother missed the same grandfather cut in Texas by about the same amount of time Kavanaugh did. He was pissed.

 

[Belz...]

Toe.

That's my input on this matter exhausted.

Oops. In my defense it's the first time I use that word.

 

[Belz...]

ABA committee gives Kavanaugh a well-qualified rating


I suspect the ABA did review his record before giving this rating.

Funny you bring up the ABA, given their recent opinions on Kavanaugh.

 

[eeyore1954]

Funny you bring up the ABA, given their recent opinions on Kavanaugh.

Can you enlighten me?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Can you enlighten me?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-kavanaugh-concerns-years-ago-republicans-dismissed-those-too/?utm_term=.4e06539da251

https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2018/09/aba_president_calls.html

 

[Belz...]

Can you enlighten me?

Sure, but this question is a bit disheartening. Have you not followed this discussion at all? Here's an example:

Yet back when Kavanaugh was first appointed to the court of appeals, the ABA was a bit more skeptical.

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20...ion-had-concerns-about-kavanaugh-12-years-ago
...in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh's nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement. The group's judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about "his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness." "One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee's ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship," the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. "Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: '(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.'" A particular judge had told the ABA that Kavanaugh had been "sanctimonious" during an oral argument in court. Several lawyers considered him inexperienced, and one said he "dissembled" in the courtroom.
...
...it downgraded the rating of the nominee to simply "qualified" -- meaning he met the ABA's standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate.

Hmmmm... sanctimonious... reminds me of his testimony during the hearings. So, he's showing at least some of the same negative traits now that got him downgraded to just 'qualified' in the past.

They also urged the Senate to investigate Kavanaugh.

 

[Ziggurat]

Kavanaugh said that he was legally drinking at 18 years of age. The drinking age at the time was 21. That's perjury.

No, actually, he did not claim that. Go look at the transcript again.

 

[plague311]

It takes for ever too keep up with the main Kavanaugh thread, so we go ahead and debate the hearings in this one too? Give me a break. I thought all this thread was about was specifically a cartoon. What are we talking about here?

Man you people whine. If you don't want to participate, don't. No one is forcing you to read the threads.

 

[theprestige]

I thought the cartoon seemed pretty reasonable (which in a political cartoon means "only somewhat hyperbolic and uncharitable") until I saw the cufflinks. Then it didn't make any sense at all. Ford's the one who tried to ruin someone's career with anonymous and unsupported accusations. Ford's the one trying to use the FBI as her personal therapy pet. I don't know how you'd convey her identity in a pair of forearms, though. Perhaps Dem cufflinks would get the cartoonist into the right ballpark?

 

[Belz...]

I thought the cartoon seemed pretty reasonable (which, in a political cartoon means "only somewhat hyperbolic and uncharitable) until I saw the cufflinks. Then it didn't make any sense at all.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sure, but this question is a bit disheartening. Have you not followed this discussion at all? Here's an example:

They also urged the Senate to investigate Kavanaugh.

He asked you for evidence of this:

"Funny you bring up the ABA, given their recent opinions on Kavanaugh."

You bring up an article from 2006.

"recent"

talk about disheartening, huh folks?

 

[Belz...]

He asked you for evidence of this:

"Funny you bring up the ABA, given their recent opinions on Kavanaugh."

You bring up an article from 2006.

"recent"

talk about disheartening, huh folks?

Boy, can you be even more dishonest? Read my whole post and also the damned discussion. Stop pretending, deliberately, that said discussion never took place. See, that's "fake news".

 

[The Big Dog]

Funny you bring up the ABA, given their recent opinions on Kavanaugh.

Can you enlighten me?

Sure, but this question is a bit disheartening. Have you not followed this discussion at all? Here's an example:

HERE BELZ Quotes an article:

"in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh's nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement. The group's judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about "his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness." "One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee's ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship," the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006.

They also urged the Senate to investigate Kavanaugh.

Boy, can you be even more dishonest? Read my whole post and also the damned discussion. Stop pretending, deliberately, that said discussion never took place. See, that's "fake news".

Yeah, read the actual posts for yourselves folks, "disheartening."

Stick a fork in this one folks

 

[applecorped]

I thought the cartoon seemed pretty reasonable (which, in a political cartoon means "only somewhat hyperbolic and uncharitable) until I saw the cufflinks. Then it didn't make any sense at all. Ford's the one who tried to ruin someone's career with anonymous and unsupported accusations. Ford's the one trying to use the FBI as her personal therapy pet. I don't know how you'd convey her identity in a pair of forearms, though. Perhaps Dem cufflinks would get the cartoonist into the right ballpark?

This

 

[ServiceSoon]

You mean that article from September 7th about stuff that happened before the hearing this week?

Are we discussing the alleged perjury charges from August, September, or present day? It's difficult for me to keep track of the countless frivolous assaults on Brett's character. Since you ignored the content of my post I'll assume you agree the previous allegations were baseless.

Moving onto the fresh claims of perjury, I'm sure these new claims have just as much veracity as the claims from the prior months.

Yes, it does. Nathan Robinson has a JD (Doctor of Jurisprudence) degree from Yale.

Apologies, I still don't have the time to write out a good summary (or even a list) of all the lies Robinson identifies which Kavanaugh told. I will try to get that done late tonight (since I fell asleep late last night instead). In the meantime I encourage you to read the article. It's clearly written and identifies a large number of statements by Kavanaugh which are deceptive and false.

Would you put more weight on the opinion of 4 autonomous legal scholars over that of 1 legal scholar?

Nathan's article is 18 pages of single spaced fodder. He maximizes the use of inductive reasoning and makes many inferences. This style of reasoning is called jumping to conclusions. It's creative writing. If he really has solved this case perhaps he should inform the FBI. I look forward to reading about the FBI's results.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, read the actual posts for yourselves folks, "disheartening."

Stick a fork in this one folks

Oh, still dishonest I see.

You might've missed this part:

Sure, but this question is a bit disheartening. Have you not followed this discussion at all? Here's an example:



They also urged the Senate to investigate Kavanaugh.

But of course you didn't. There is no end to your lies.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh, still dishonest I see.

You might've missed this part:



But of course you didn't. There is no end to your lies.

Well at least he dropped the pretense that his lenghthy quote from 2006 was recent!

But lets take a gander at:

"They also urged the Senate to investigate Kavanaugh," tucked in way at the bottom, as evidence ""Funny you bring up the ABA, given their recent opinions on Kavanaugh."

Say, lets take a gander at their actual recent opinions on kavanaugh, shall we??

“The Committee conducts non-partisan, non-ideological, and confidential peer review of federal judicial nominees. The ABA’s rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. [Robert] Carlson’s letter,” committee chairman Paul Mosley wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee.


Oh no, that is disheartening! TBD bringing the facts like a damn sledgehammer!

 

[eeyore1954]

Boy, can you be even more dishonest? Read my whole post and also the damned discussion. Stop pretending, deliberately, that said discussion never took place. See, that's "fake news".

What are you talking about disheartening?
You send recent and you refer to discussions from 2006.
And a small and they also are in favor of investigating the allegations.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I thought the cartoon seemed pretty reasonable (which in a political cartoon means "only somewhat hyperbolic and uncharitable") until I saw the cufflinks. Then it didn't make any sense at all. Ford's the one who tried to ruin someone's career with anonymous and unsupported accusations. Ford's the one trying to use the FBI as her personal therapy pet. I don't know how you'd convey her identity in a pair of forearms, though. Perhaps Dem cufflinks would get the cartoonist into the right ballpark?

no.
The goal of getting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is to reverse Women's rights, as many Republicans have stated in one form or another. And they are using a fake-legal process (like using Mitchell) to ram a candidate through without allowing for the constitutional right of the Senators to vet him.

Republicans are abusing their majority to politicize the Supreme Court.
No wonder Lady Justice doesn't want to play along.

 

[Belz...]

Well at least he dropped the pretense that his lenghthy quote from 2006 was recent!

First of all, "recent" was in reference to the ABA statements FROM A FEW DAYS AGO. Second, yeah 2006 is still rather recent.