Did you happen to note the date on your article, pp. It is 2006. At the time of his nomination and confirmation, he was rated as well-qualified. So, who is the one who was asleep last year?????? |
Right. He was well qualified. But not always. Because of inexperience and dissembling. That came up during his confirmation but the Republicans just brushed it off, just the same as they brushed off his other issues. And apparently you were asleep. |
What a typical liberal "know-it-all" response. Let's review what happened here..... I respond to your BS talking points. You respond with a completely false statement....."You are the one defending a mediocre man who was put on the Supreme Court despite not being assessed as well-qualified by the ABA" I respond with evidence that you are flat out wrong. You then respond with an article from 2006 presumably trying to back up your false statement. I then reply with more evidence that you are indeed wrong..."The American Bar Association will no longer review its "well qualified" rating of Justice Brett Kavanaugh now that the Senate confirmed him, an ABA official told CNN Monday. The official, who declined to speak on the record, cited an ABA policy of ending its rating process once a nominee is confirmed." I then point out that your "evidence" is from a totally different situation from 12 years prior to his confirmation to SCOTUS. You then reply with another BS statement to try to cover your A$$ because, and this is the important part, YOU ARE UNABLE TO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. So damned typical. |
Of course, that’s why his confirmation was held up for three years. Because he was so eminently well-qualified. |
Get with the program. We are talking about his nomination and confirmation to SCOTUS. And, yes, he is eminently well-qualified. |
Yep, brushing it off. SMH |
Really? Because last I checked, the only person who accused him of anything, waited to do so 35 years after the alleged incident occurred, and had no one who could back up her claim. Remember Swetnik? Fraud. She backtracked her entire story when called on it. I can't even believe you would include her in your "credible females" remark. Do you remember the hundreds of women who came forward in support of Kavanaugh? Women who had grown up with him, worked with him, known him for years... not one accusation of impropriety. So yes, although I don't know him personally, I will continue to defend him as I would anyone in his position. The only people who are actually dimwitted are those who jump at the chance to take down someone they disagree with politically, with no actual evidence of wrongdoing. Innocent until proven guilty - does that mean anything to you? |
+1,000,000 |
EXACTLY. Honestly, I picture these nutcases waiting outside his house, just dying to nab him in the act of... something. They *will* find him guilty of something, even if they have to manufacture it themselves (a la Swetnick). |
DP. I "pray" that no member of your family is every falsely accused of anything. That would certainly be devastating, wouldn't it? |
|
“Falsely accused”. You seem pretty sure about that. Were you there that night?
|
Don’t need to be. Blasey ford appeared to be an early onset dementia patient. She certainly didn’t convince any republicans. |
If dp is a trump supporter his family is falsely accused of racism and white privileged and the patriarchy and sexual harassment daily. Daily. So I’d guess he’s pretty familiar with false accusations. |
MAGAs don’t care about facts or truth so no surprise there. |
Facts? Truth? How about presumption of innocence? Blasey Ford was unable to provide any actual proof of her claims. Zilch. She had no facts. And, it appeared that her truth was just that - HER truth. Not THE truth. |