Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

[barfo]

For those (not necessarily here) wondering why someone may get fired up, choked up, fight back against allegations like this instead of just taking it like a quiet white male should, I offer up the first of what will likely be many hit pieces. Probably on both parties. Only one deserved--the FBI will inconclusively show us which, of course.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/erik-brady/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-right-he-can-no-longer-coach-girls-basketball/1459496002/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...-no-longer-coach-girls-basketball/1459496002/

You think that is a 'hit piece'??? It reads to me like a discussion of the issue that Kavanaugh himself raised, and seems to me just an attempt to discuss what could or could not prevent him from coaching. Where is the 'hit' that I missed?

As we've seen that Soros-paid "confronters" have no issue with getting in the face of congressmen at their place of work, or at dinner...

Is there actually evidence of Soros paying any of them? Or is this hyperbole?

I could only imagine showing up at a 5th-grader's basketball game.

Wow, you don't have much imagination.

Cleared or not. This is why someone might be fired up. Or call out people he thinks are pieces of excrement, whether or not they're senators. Maize and Spartacus and Blumenthal and Feinstein may want to hold off on asking for "full investigations" of what went on.

Here, you are just being partisan, same as him. Yeah, he thinks they are pieces of shit, because he's hyper partisan. Trouble is, judges aren't supposed to be partisan.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

Some of you ma be surprised but what did it for me and not wanting to see Kav through, wasn't the whole he said, she said deal, as i don't actually know without a a shadow of doubt re guarding the accusation. This why I like the idea of another investigation. What did it for me was when he showed bias with his comments about Clinton, and most of you know how I feel about both Clintons.
I Justice cannot be bias and certainly not shout it from the roof tops. If it was another position it would sway me because out of fairness both sides of the isle are about biased and partisan as you can get.
This isn't going to get better and in fact it going to get worse, with media and the frenzy taking place. And it doesnt material it Trump, Clinton, Rubio, Blumenthol (The Viet nam vet) it will always be search and destroy from both sides. Im hoping a moderate trustworthy independent can evolve and become a legitement contender for 2020. Right now Neither side has anyone Im impressed with.

 

[yankeesince59]

Do you know of a case?

Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus

...ummm, that's part of the purpose of the investigation.

 

[yankeesince59]

So the only thing that should ever disqualify a judicial nominee is a criminal conviction?

barfo

TAH DAH !!!...winner winner, chicken dinner.

 

[yankeesince59]

The FBI should do 7 background checks on him.

Oh wait, they already did those.

How many has his accuser passed?

...how many polygraphs has the accused passed?

 

[BrianFromWA]

From reading many of your posts, you appear to be a pro trumper and a devout republican which is entirely your freedom to choose, but understand that Trump has created much of this polarizing effect with his constant attacks on media and those that disagree with him and consistently calling those he doesn't approve of as the "enemy. He does nothing to try and bring this country together and in fact creates the exact opposite.

You have misread me. Which is odd, since I'm pretty open in my positions and voting record, aside from not talking about the President.

 

[CupWizier]

The FBI should do 7 background checks on him.

Oh wait, they already did those.

How many has his accuser passed?

Is his accuser being looked at for a lifetime position in the highest court? No, so that comment was pretty foolish. As for his other background checks, have they already looked into these accusations? Again no, so another foolish comment.

 

[CupWizier]

You have misread me. Which is odd, since I'm pretty open in my positions and voting record, aside from not talking about the President.

All I can go on the perception from reading your posts. There is no crime in being a republican as I have many friends who are. I registered as an independent and with this administration I definitely lean more left but also agree with some republican viewpoints as well. In my book, Trump is poisonous to this country and has caused way more harm than good.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Is there actually evidence of Soros paying any of them? Or is this hyperbole?

C'mon man....is that my MO?

The Flake confronter is co-executive director of a community advocacy group that is Soros-backed. No judgement there, people can accept money from whoever they want to, but it's kind of a fact.

Here, you are just being partisan, same as him. Yeah, he thinks they are pieces of shit, because he's hyper partisan. Trouble is, judges aren't supposed to be partisan.

a) I don't think they're pieces of shit because they're Democrats or progressives or Honey Nut Cheerio lovers, but because they've done things I think are shitty things to do. I'm not even talking about this case.
b) At the risk of bringing up hypotheticals, he didn't rail against the Democrats out of partisanship, but because they were the ones that launched (what he considers to be) an attack on him. I would submit that if Flake and Collins did and said what Feinstein and Booker did and said, he would've called them out with similar vehemence. So that's not partisan, either.
c) As far as partisanship goes, I'm in full agreement that he should recuse himself from any cases in which a 35y/o sexual harassment charge is levied against him. He's totally biased when it comes to defending himself.
d) As far as cases of other partisanship go, the judge has a relatively lengthy record of case law and decisions built up. Not being a lawyer, I don't know how good he was at it, but I'd imagine that if he was a bad jurist he wouldn't be here, though Sotomayor had some pretty interesting interpretations and still got confirmed, so...

 

[MarAzul]

He looks so much more guilty.

To you? I wish you could explain why. No logic in that for me.

 

[BrianFromWA]

There is a fine line between being angry and defending yourself... but when you go into childrens antics of belittling and being condescending... the latter tends to lead to being guilty. Like I said before, had he just vehemently denied and stayed steadfast in that, I'd tend to agree... but then he just went off the rails. He looks so much more guilty.

Fair enough. As I said, I have no idea what happened on a yet-to-be-determined night in 1982. If he raped her, he deserves to burn. If he didn't, his life is being torn to shit for political reasons by people who have no compunction lying. I'd have gone even further in calling out Feinstein and others in my responses. I probably wouldn't have said "I like beer" as much, but in terms of bringing up how he's been affected instead of the weeks of just being a nominee under questioning was apropro, in my eyes. But I can see how someone might not want an angry white man as a judge.

 

[BrianFromWA]

...that's no excuse for his behavior.

Says you. To each his own. As I've asked before, how would you have wanted him to respond, in order for you to believe him? My hypothesis is that there isn't a way, but I won't try to speak for you.

 

[MarAzul]

Or call out people he thinks are pieces of excrement, whether or not they're senators.

Ha!
I hate to say it! But that Senator Blumenthal may indeed have a punchable face!!!

 

[calvin natt]

Says you. To each his own. As I've asked before, how would you have wanted him to respond, in order for you to believe him? My hypothesis is that there isn't a way, but I won't try to speak for you.

He shouldn’t have responded like an entitled little brat. He shouldn’t have revealed his clear political bias, and he did. He literally did the opposite of what I want from a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[CupWizier]

C'mon man....is that my MO?

The Flake confronter is co-executive director of a community advocacy group that is Soros-backed. No judgement there, people can accept money from whoever they want to, but it's kind of a fact.



a) I don't think they're pieces of shit because they're Democrats or progressives or Honey Nut Cheerio lovers, but because they've done things I think are shitty things to do. I'm not even talking about this case.
b) At the risk of bringing up hypotheticals, he didn't rail against the Democrats out of partisanship, but because they were the ones that launched (what he considers to be) an attack on him. I would submit that if Flake and Collins did and said what Feinstein and Booker did and said, he would've called them out with similar vehemence. So that's not partisan, either.
c) As far as partisanship goes, I'm in full agreement that he should recuse himself from any cases in which a 35y/o sexual harassment charge is levied against him. He's totally biased when it comes to defending himself.
d) As far as cases of other partisanship go, the judge has a relatively lengthy record of case law and decisions built up. Not being a lawyer, I don't know how good he was at it, but I'd imagine that if he was a bad jurist he wouldn't be here, though Sotomayor had some pretty interesting interpretations and still got confirmed, so...

And Trump has been known to pay people to come to his rallies.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Some of you ma be surprised but what did it for me and not wanting to see Kav through, wasn't the whole he said, she said deal, as i don't actually know without a a shadow of doubt re guarding the accusation. This why I like the idea of another investigation. What did it for me was when he showed bias with his comments about Clinton, and most of you know how I feel about both Clintons.

This is interesting, and I missed what he said about the Clintons. (And I don't know how you feel about the Clintons ) But he was part of Bill's Lewinsky deposition team, iirc. I'd submit he probably knows more than most about them, especially about stuff R's would've tried to dig up in the 90's. From my very limited experience with the former SecState (and my father's and friend's experience with her), I'm biased against her as well. But that's just me.

I Justice cannot be bias and certainly not shout it from the roof tops. If it was another position it would sway me because out of fairness both sides of the isle are about biased and partisan as you can get.

I think (maybe naively) that there is a difference between bias in self-defense and court decisions. In terms of being a lawyer and judge and Law Professor the guys credentials seem pretty impeccable...I don't think ("think" being the operative word) that his bias (if any) has been borne out in the decade of case law and decisions in some pretty high court cases. Then again, I don't know that for sure.

This isn't going to get better and in fact it going to get worse, with media and the frenzy taking place. And it doesnt material it Trump, Clinton, Rubio, Blumenthol (The Viet nam vet) it will always be search and destroy from both sides. Im hoping a moderate trustworthy independent can evolve and become a legitement contender for 2020. Right now Neither side has anyone Im impressed with.

I don't know about that. Up until now, has there been anyone on the R side who's tried to "search and destroy" a candidate? Sure, Garland never got a vote (thanks, Biden), but I don't remember anyone saying "Garland's not getting a vote b/c he's a liberal piece of shit rapist". They just said "let the election matter". Kagan was, to my knowledge, a very tame confirmation (Graham was one who crossed the aisle)--the filibuster was to see if they could just not get Obama's candidate that wasn't 2nd Amendment-friendly to be someone else. Even Sotomayor's apology for her "wise Latina better than white man" remarks helped get the votes needed.

 

[MarAzul]

...it was his explanation, and a very weak one.

Weak heh? But than the one I would have given. Senator, I have no fucking idea.

 

[CupWizier]

He shouldn’t have responded like an entitled little brat. He shouldn’t have revealed his clear political bias, and he did. He literally did the opposite of what I want from a Supreme Court Justice.

That's just it. He hit a lot of check boxes as someone I wouldn't want as a supreme court justice.

 

[CupWizier]

This is interesting, and I missed what he said about the Clintons. (And I don't know how you feel about the Clintons ) But he was part of Bill's Lewinsky deposition team, iirc. I'd submit he probably knows more than most about them, especially about stuff R's would've tried to dig up in the 90's. From my very limited experience with the former SecState (and my father's and friend's experience with her), I'm biased against her as well. But that's just me.

I think (maybe naively) that there is a difference between bias in self-defense and court decisions. In terms of being a lawyer and judge and Law Professor the guys credentials seem pretty impeccable...I don't think ("think" being the operative word) that his bias (if any) has been borne out in the decade of case law and decisions in some pretty high court cases. Then again, I don't know that for sure.
I don't know about that. Up until now, has there been anyone on the R side who's tried to "search and destroy" a candidate? Sure, Garland never got a vote (thanks, Biden), but I don't remember anyone saying "Garland's not getting a vote b/c he's a liberal piece of shit rapist". They just said "let the election matter". Kagan was, to my knowledge, a very tame confirmation (Graham was one who crossed the aisle)--the filibuster was to see if they could just not get Obama's candidate that wasn't 2nd Amendment-friendly to be someone else. Even Sotomayor's apology for her "wise Latina better than white man" remarks helped get the votes needed.

and why would they have to? they had the votes from the very beginning to stop it and McConnel pledged that he wouldn't bring a vote as well as he stated he would make sure Obama didn't get any of his ideas passed as well. You don;t have a problem with that?

 

[BrianFromWA]

He shouldn’t have responded like an entitled little brat. He shouldn’t have revealed his clear political bias, and he did. He literally did the opposite of what I want from a Supreme Court Justice.

As I've said, that's fair. But do you think that his "clear political bias" (I mean, dude worked personally for W and investigated the Clintons) has been unrevealed until now? How did it affect his other case law? How did Kagan's clerkship for Marshall (known to be both partisan and activist) affect her confirmation or rulings?

If you think his anger disqualifies him, that's fine. If you think calling out people who (if he's right) made shit up out of thin air to destroy his life for the sake of not getting a 5th conservative seat on the Court is inappropriate, then I disagree but understand.

 

[MarAzul]

What did it for me was when he showed bias with his comments about Clinton, and most of you know how I feel about both Clintons.

Wow!
I don't see how you could expect anything but biased resentment from the judge while he is being subject to extreme bias from 10 unified Democrats with a hard on.

 

[yankeesince59]

To you? I wish you could explain why. No logic in that for me.

...that question can be pointed in both directions.

 

[MarAzul]

He literally did the opposite of what I want from a Supreme Court Justice.

Ah! I think this is honest.

 

[yankeesince59]

Weak heh? But than the one I would have given. Senator, I have no fucking idea.

...unfortunately, you were not the one being questioned.

 

[BrianFromWA]

That's just it. He hit a lot of check boxes as someone I wouldn't want as a supreme court justice.

From what I've read, you didn't want him as a supreme court justice when he was a squeaky-clean virgin law nerd. But confirmation bias is powerful.

As far as Kavanaugh goes, it doesn't matter much to me if he's confirmed or not in terms of what I'm rooting for from the court. He's probably #3 or #4, ideologically, on the short list that I prefer. There's going to be a conservative judge posted to the seat at some point no matter what happens so it's fine. And as long as Thomas stays on the court longer than either RBG and Breyer, the court will stay (even if D's win the Senate and shoot down everyone) 4-3 conservative and we'll stay away from progressive ideology for a generation. And if either the R's win the Senate or Trump wins in 2020, I'll get another shot for someone I agree with to be posted. That's why I'm fired up on this not because I have some glaring need for this particular dude to be confirmed, but because it seems like a crappy tactic for governance.

 

[yankeesince59]

Wow!
I don't see how you could expect anything but biased resentment from the judge while he is being subject to extreme bias from 10 unified Democrats with a hard on.

...speaking of "bias".

 

[MarAzul]

From what I've read, you didn't want him as a supreme court justice when he was a squeaky-clean virgin law nerd. But confirmation bias is powerful.

As far as Kavanaugh goes, it doesn't matter much to me if he's confirmed or not in terms of what I'm rooting for from the court. He's probably #3 or #4, ideologically, on the short list that I prefer. There's going to be a conservative judge posted to the seat at some point no matter what happens so it's fine. And as long as Thomas stays on the court longer than either RBG and Breyer, the court will stay (even if D's win the Senate and shoot down everyone) 4-3 conservative and we'll stay away from progressive ideology for a generation. And if either the R's win the Senate or Trump wins in 2020, I'll get another shot for someone I agree with to be posted. That's why I'm fired up on this not because I have some glaring need for this particular dude to be confirmed, but because it seems like a crappy tactic for governance.

It is nice to be looking forward to wins no matter the short term results here.

 

[MarAzul]

What did you expect? For the Dems to gladly confirm him? The republicans are the shit show. Changing rules so they can get their guy through. Holding back thousands of papers. Not given dems time to read through.

And now he is my mod!!! Fucking wonderful.

 

[CupWizier]

As I've said, that's fair. But do you think that his "clear political bias" (I mean, dude worked personally for W and investigated the Clintons) has been unrevealed until now? How did it affect his other case law? How did Kagan's clerkship for Marshall (known to be both partisan and activist) affect her confirmation or rulings?

If you think his anger disqualifies him, that's fine. If you think calling out people who (if he's right) made shit up out of thin air to destroy his life for the sake of not getting a 5th conservative seat on the Court is inappropriate, then I disagree but understand.

these are my check boxes

1) anger
2) obvious bias against the democratic party
3) sexual accusations
4) his opinion that presidents can't be criminally charged while in office
5) Republicans only turning over 10% of available documents regarding Kavanaugh
6)Roe vs Wade
7} fact that republicans stole a supreme court justice seat and refused to allow Garland his rightful position with political BS about elections

and I'm sure there are a few more I am missing

 

[MarAzul]

Holding back thousands of papers. Not given dems time to read through.

Ah now this is a genuine concern. How many tons of paper would it take to change one of the 10 democrat votes from Nay to Yah?
How much more time would be need for that vote?