Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice Elana Kagan yesterday on her fears about the future legitimacy of the Supreme Court

Yeah, she's concerned because the court has now swung to the conservative side. I didn't hear her complaining when it leaned liberal. But that's what the electorate wanted and.....someone famously once said.....elections have consequences.

The court has not leaned liberal during her time on it. It leaned conservative, with Kennedy occasionally siding with liberals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice Elana Kagan yesterday on her fears about the future legitimacy of the Supreme Court

Yeah, she's concerned because the court has now swung to the conservative side. I didn't hear her complaining when it leaned liberal. But that's what the electorate wanted and.....someone famously once said.....elections have consequences.

No Justice including Thomas has EVER had a sniveling crybaby toddler shitfit during confirmation hearings revealing him or her to be a partisan.

Words mean things.

And NO Justice has EVER been falsely accused of participating in gang rapes, and having his wife threatened.

The hell does that have to do with Brett snuffling and screaming about the Clintons and revenge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice Elana Kagan yesterday on her fears about the future legitimacy of the Supreme Court

Yeah, she's concerned because the court has now swung to the conservative side. I didn't hear her complaining when it leaned liberal. But that's what the electorate wanted and.....someone famously once said.....elections have consequences.

No Justice including Thomas has EVER had a sniveling crybaby toddler shitfit during confirmation hearings revealing him or her to be a partisan.

Words mean things.

And NO Justice has EVER been falsely accused of participating in gang rapes, and having his wife threatened.

We have NO evidence that the accusations were false. And the folks having to move were the Ford’s.

LOL. The “evidence” she presented exonerate him.

[Anonymous]

I wish the media had just looked at the facts that CB presented. He beat her up and almost suffocated her. That would have been less deniable and enough to make someone think that he should not be confirmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, when I've read over the hateful remarks and accusations that liberals level at conservatives on this forum, I've often thought.,,,"wow, if only voters could see Democrats for who they really are: vicious, nasty people who go on the attack against anyone with a different opinion."

Now, thanks to the actions of the Democrats in the Senate, along with the entitled, screaming banshees in the halls, the voters KNOW. See you at the polls next month.

Spare us your faux piety, you the party of Newt Gingrich, JUdge Arpiao, Mitch McConnell, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Roy Moore, Charlottesville, QAnon, Comet Pizza, Richard Spencer, and Donald Trump. You sold civil society for a SCOTUS seat and were happy to do so. Your president insulted Gold Star parents and made a war widow cry, he bragged about grabbing women’s pussies and just this past week he mocked a woman for telling her story of sexual assault and you said that’s fine as long as we get SCOTUS in return. Your president takes ideas from a man who says the Sandy Hook parents are crisis actors. And it doesn’t shock or disturb you. You have no moral authority to opine about hateful Democrats as long as you sit back and do nothing about the ugliness that inhabits the White House. You are morally bankrupt and we are coming to take our country back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, when I've read over the hateful remarks and accusations that liberals level at conservatives on this forum, I've often thought.,,,"wow, if only voters could see Democrats for who they really are: vicious, nasty people who go on the attack against anyone with a different opinion."

Now, thanks to the actions of the Democrats in the Senate, along with the entitled, screaming banshees in the halls, the voters KNOW. See you at the polls next month.

Spare us your faux piety, you the party of Newt Gingrich, JUdge Arpiao, Mitch McConnell, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Roy Moore, Charlottesville, QAnon, Comet Pizza, Richard Spencer, and Donald Trump. You sold civil society for a SCOTUS seat and were happy to do so. Your president insulted Gold Star parents and made a war widow cry, he bragged about grabbing women’s pussies and just this past week he mocked a woman for telling her story of sexual assault and you said that’s fine as long as we get SCOTUS in return. Your president takes ideas from a man who says the Sandy Hook parents are crisis actors. And it doesn’t shock or disturb you. You have no moral authority to opine about hateful Democrats as long as you sit back and do nothing about the ugliness that inhabits the White House. You are morally bankrupt and we are coming to take our country back.

All of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Sad day when he is voted in. How infuriating is it to see the environment for my young daughters headed backwards in time.

I’m sure they’ll appreciate a country where a great woman took a brave stand for the presumption of innocence.

+ 1 million

No sorry my daughters have been groped by drunken frat boys and do not appreciate a country that elevates such dickish men to the highest level of power.

Brave woman? More like political pawn. What did McConnell say to her at lunch?

This “presumption of innocence” is so tired. This was not a trial. This was a job interview.

BK couldn’t get a job at Burger King after his performance last Thursday.

The presumption of innocence is not JUST for the courts. It is a principle on which our country was founded. It SHOULD permeate our society, but after this story, that is in doubt. Presumption of innocence should be applied in the work place, in journalism, and in life in general.
If you are not presuming innocence, you are presuming guilt. Based on no evidence.

You have hit on a concerning issue. And that is the increasing domination of work place "ethics" in our every day life.

Work places are not democracies. Many are overrun with an ethos of all is fair in love and war. We pretend they are meritocracies, but good people regularly are taken down by others who spread innuendo and sometimes outright lies. Anything that allows them to defeat their rival and climb the rungs of the organization.

Presumption of innocence and fairness have long ago left most work places if indeed they were ever present. Injured parties in the work place have to rely on the few fair senior people who have survived to defend them and to call out dirty tricks or navigate labyrinthine work places to help ensure a just outcome.

In the last couple of years at my work place I have had to jigger candidate selection to get a women who was being sexually harassed by her untouchable boss into a new reporting line. I have had to put together a coalition to defend a man unjustly accused by a woman of sexual harassment. I have been a lone voice defending a manager whose boss actively campaigned against her with senior management so she could cast her aside and replace her with a mini-clone.

I have had to make a private complaint to our EEO office about an AA who was on the verge of being denied a richly denied senior promotion. Right now I am having to help in the defense of another manager, an incredibly brilliant woman who is an ethnic minority, who is subject to a smear campaign--for a second time. She survived the first only through the intervention of the EEO office.

Enough already. I stand with Susan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, when I've read over the hateful remarks and accusations that liberals level at conservatives on this forum, I've often thought.,,,"wow, if only voters could see Democrats for who they really are: vicious, nasty people who go on the attack against anyone with a different opinion."

Now, thanks to the actions of the Democrats in the Senate, along with the entitled, screaming banshees in the halls, the voters KNOW. See you at the polls next month.

Internet anonymity exposes vicious, nasty behavior on both sides. Those of us with different opinions have experienced just the vitriol, believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Sad day when he is voted in. How infuriating is it to see the environment for my young daughters headed backwards in time.

I’m sure they’ll appreciate a country where a great woman took a brave stand for the presumption of innocence.

+ 1 million

No sorry my daughters have been groped by drunken frat boys and do not appreciate a country that elevates such dickish men to the highest level of power.

Brave woman? More like political pawn. What did McConnell say to her at lunch?

This “presumption of innocence” is so tired. This was not a trial. This was a job interview.

BK couldn’t get a job at Burger King after his performance last Thursday.

The presumption of innocence is not JUST for the courts. It is a principle on which our country was founded. It SHOULD permeate our society, but after this story, that is in doubt. Presumption of innocence should be applied in the work place, in journalism, and in life in general.
If you are not presuming innocence, you are presuming guilt. Based on no evidence.

You have hit on a concerning issue. And that is the increasing domination of work place "ethics" in our every day life.

Work places are not democracies. Many are overrun with an ethos of all is fair in love and war. We pretend they are meritocracies, but good people regularly are taken down by others who spread innuendo and sometimes outright lies. Anything that allows them to defeat their rival and climb the rungs of the organization.

Presumption of innocence and fairness have long ago left most work places if indeed they were ever present. Injured parties in the work place have to rely on the few fair senior people who have survived to defend them and to call out dirty tricks or navigate labyrinthine work places to help ensure a just outcome.

In the last couple of years at my work place I have had to jigger candidate selection to get a women who was being sexually harassed by her untouchable boss into a new reporting line. I have had to put together a coalition to defend a man unjustly accused by a woman of sexual harassment. I have been a lone voice defending a manager whose boss actively campaigned against her with senior management so she could cast her aside and replace her with a mini-clone.

I have had to make a private complaint to our EEO office about an AA who was on the verge of being denied a richly denied senior promotion. Right now I am having to help in the defense of another manager, an incredibly brilliant woman who is an ethnic minority, who is subject to a smear campaign--for a second time. She survived the first only through the intervention of the EEO office.

Enough already. I stand with Susan.

Why? Is Susan a victim here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do we “know” her allegation is not true?

She had no evidence. The 4 people she said were there claim no knowledge of the event. Her best friend does not know Kavanaugh. Nobody has stepped forward claiming they drove her home that night.
I could go on.............

Exactly. And if this had "worked," then we would have seen more liberal women come out of the woodwork for the next conservative nominee, making unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault....shoplifting a diamond ring....drowning a kitten.....anything.

I meant Ramirez.

Nobody knows for sure that Ford is lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is fantastic.

Have you read this story? Cops confiscated this sign

Seriously? On what grounds?

I’m going to recreate this sign and put it everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justice Elana Kagan yesterday on her fears about the future legitimacy of the Supreme Court

Yeah, she's concerned because the court has now swung to the conservative side. I didn't hear her complaining when it leaned liberal. But that's what the electorate wanted and.....someone famously once said.....elections have consequences.

No Justice including Thomas has EVER had a sniveling crybaby toddler shitfit during confirmation hearings revealing him or her to be a partisan.

Words mean things.

And NO Justice has EVER been falsely accused of participating in gang rapes, and having his wife threatened.

Falsely? How will we ever really know one way or another?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Sad day when he is voted in. How infuriating is it to see the environment for my young daughters headed backwards in time.

I’m sure they’ll appreciate a country where a great woman took a brave stand for the presumption of innocence.

+ 1 million

No sorry my daughters have been groped by drunken frat boys and do not appreciate a country that elevates such dickish men to the highest level of power.

You allow your daughters to go to drunken fraternity parties? Really?

DP. Wouldn't they be adults in college, PP? Why would their parents have to allow them to go to parties?

Then if they put themselves in the presence of drunk fraternity boys, they shouldn’t whine about being groped.

I never groped a woman who didn't want to be groped.
-former drunken frat boy

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, when I've read over the hateful remarks and accusations that liberals level at conservatives on this forum, I've often thought.,,,"wow, if only voters could see Democrats for who they really are: vicious, nasty people who go on the attack against anyone with a different opinion."

Now, thanks to the actions of the Democrats in the Senate, along with the entitled, screaming banshees in the halls, the voters KNOW. See you at the polls next month.

Spare us your faux piety, you the party of Newt Gingrich, JUdge Arpiao, Mitch McConnell, Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Roy Moore, Charlottesville, QAnon, Comet Pizza, Richard Spencer, and Donald Trump. You sold civil society for a SCOTUS seat and were happy to do so. Your president insulted Gold Star parents and made a war widow cry, he bragged about grabbing women’s pussies and just this past week he mocked a woman for telling her story of sexual assault and you said that’s fine as long as we get SCOTUS in return. Your president takes ideas from a man who says the Sandy Hook parents are crisis actors. And it doesn’t shock or disturb you. You have no moral authority to opine about hateful Democrats as long as you sit back and do nothing about the ugliness that inhabits the White House. You are morally bankrupt and we are coming to take our country back.

All of this.

This, this and this. +10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh. Sad day when he is voted in. How infuriating is it to see the environment for my young daughters headed backwards in time.

I’m sure they’ll appreciate a country where a great woman took a brave stand for the presumption of innocence.

+ 1 million

No sorry my daughters have been groped by drunken frat boys and do not appreciate a country that elevates such dickish men to the highest level of power.

Brave woman? More like political pawn. What did McConnell say to her at lunch?

This “presumption of innocence” is so tired. This was not a trial. This was a job interview.

BK couldn’t get a job at Burger King after his performance last Thursday.

The presumption of innocence is not JUST for the courts. It is a principle on which our country was founded. It SHOULD permeate our society, but after this story, that is in doubt. Presumption of innocence should be applied in the work place, in journalism, and in life in general.
If you are not presuming innocence, you are presuming guilt. Based on no evidence.

You have hit on a concerning issue. And that is the increasing domination of work place "ethics" in our every day life.

Work places are not democracies. Many are overrun with an ethos of all is fair in love and war. We pretend they are meritocracies, but good people regularly are taken down by others who spread innuendo and sometimes outright lies. Anything that allows them to defeat their rival and climb the rungs of the organization.

Presumption of innocence and fairness have long ago left most work places if indeed they were ever present. Injured parties in the work place have to rely on the few fair senior people who have survived to defend them and to call out dirty tricks or navigate labyrinthine work places to help ensure a just outcome.

In the last couple of years at my work place I have had to jigger candidate selection to get a women who was being sexually harassed by her untouchable boss into a new reporting line. I have had to put together a coalition to defend a man unjustly accused by a woman of sexual harassment. I have been a lone voice defending a manager whose boss actively campaigned against her with senior management so she could cast her aside and replace her with a mini-clone.

I have had to make a private complaint to our EEO office about an AA who was on the verge of being denied a richly denied senior promotion. Right now I am having to help in the defense of another manager, an incredibly brilliant woman who is an ethnic minority, who is subject to a smear campaign--for a second time. She survived the first only through the intervention of the EEO office.

Enough already. I stand with Susan.

Why? Is Susan a victim here?

Of herself. Riding out her fourth term after campaigning on only serving for two, maximum.

PP is wholly delusional about which party is most supportive of workplace equities. I worked in EEO and employment law.