Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:National council of churches asks for Kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/national-council-of-churches-calls-for-kavanaughs-nomination-to-be-withdrawn/ar-BBNTuVp?ocid=spartandhp

WOAH

Frankly, that's more significant than the Bar Association's disavowal.

Only if you are religious. I couldn’t care what they think.

My point is that it should matter to many people in Red states. It should give them pause. But you're right. Republicans who voted for DJT won't care. They have sold their souls to a fast talking huckster to get rid of health care for millions and get tax cuts for the rich. Our country is lost.

I would say our country is "found"...Lowest unemployment in history, lowest unemployment in history for minorities, wage growth, more disposable income for middle class due to lower taxes, $1 Trillion zero-tariff trade agreement with Canada and Mexico to bring back even more jobs; detente with North Korea; stronger military (peace through strength)...this is a miracle and will become more reported as we move to the election

Agree. And here's my fear as to how this will all play out.

The Democrats' smear campaign fails, and Kavanaugh is confirmed. Dems, who go into major meltdown upon a loss, will use this as a tool to scare more Dems to the polls, and they will take the House and win more in the Senate. They will then begin impeachment proceedings (which will ultimately fail because there's no way they get 2/3 of the senate needed to convict), and the country will be thrown into a Comstituional crisis.

The economy will falter, people will lose jobs, and a recession will be launched. More people on unemployment, on food stamps, on other government programs. Setting up for dependency in time for the 2020 election. For if it's one thing we know, it's that Dems need depdendent people in irder to win elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a searing indictment of the Republican party as having parted ways with true conservatism -- defined by words like responsibility, stoicism, self-control, frugality, fidelity, decorum, honor, character, independence, and integrity -- by a conservative who left the party after the 2016 election. He says Kavanaugh is no true conservative either.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/republican-party-conservative/571747/

The GOP threw frugality and fiscal responsibility away long ago, initially in the Reagan years, but now on a stunning scale involving trillion-dollar deficits as far as can be forecast. It abandoned most of its beliefs in fidelity and character when it embraced a liar, cheat, and philanderer as its nominee and then as president. But something else snapped this week.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy as expressed in various statements and conclusions was, for the most part, pretty standard conservative fare, save for one telltale element: his ascription of very high levels of immunity and discretion to the executive. In this respect, what passes today for conservatism is anything but. Where traditionally conservatives have wanted “ambition to check ambition,” as Alexander Hamilton put it, Republicans are now executive-branch kinds of people. It is not surprising that Kavanaugh himself worked at a high level in a Republican White House. The disdain of many contemporary Republicans for congressional power and prerogative makes them indistinguishable from liberals who (as recently as the Obama years) turned to sweeping uses of executive power to circumvent a balky House of Representatives and Senate.

It was, however, in the epic clash over the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford that the collapse of conservatism in the Republican Party became most evident. Eleven men, most of them old, hid behind a female prosecutor wheeled in from Arizona, because they could not, apparently, trust themselves to treat a victim of sexual assault with consideration and respect. So much for courage. Their anger at Democratic shenanigans was understandable, but virtually without exception. When they did summon up the nerve to speak (during Kavanaugh’s turn), their questions consisted almost exclusively of partisan baying at the opposition. Genuine conservatives might have snarled initially, but would have, out of regard for the truth, tried to figure out exactly what happened to Ford 35 years ago, and whether the character of the man before them was what it was said to be.

Perhaps the collapse of modern conservatism came out most clearly in Kavanaugh’s own testimony—its self-pity, its hysteria, its conjuring up of conspiracies, its vindictiveness. He and his family had no doubt suffered agonies. But if we expect steely resolve from a police officer confronting a knife-wielding assailant, or disciplined courage from a firefighter rushing into a burning house, we should expect stoic self-control and calm from a conservative judge, even if his heart is being eaten out. No one watching those proceedings could imagine that a Democrat standing before this judge’s bench in the future would get a fair hearing. This was not the conservative temperament on display. It was, rather, personalized grievance politics.

I would expect nothing less from the Atlantic.
I am assuming that Mr. Cohen, the writer of this piece, has never been falsely accused of sexual assault. Because if he had, I think he would change his tune a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Manchin.....

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) said in a new interview that he remains undecided about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, but bashed the judge's confirmation process as a "circus."

The key swing vote Democrat told Al Jazeera that he is looking at Kavanaugh's adult life and time in the judiciary. He added that he would decide after viewing the FBI's supplemental background investigation into the allegations of sexual assault against the judge whether the probe's scope was sufficient. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations leveled against him by three women.

"This has been horrible. It's another circus," Manchin said, referring to the confirmation process.


"I am looking at the gentleman as an adult from 22 to 53, 31 years of professional service. I am looking at him as a father," the senator added. "As a person in a community, how he interacts with his community. I am trying to put the human side to it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409831-manchin-on-kavanaugh-decision-im-trying-to-put-the-human-side-to-it

Manchin is stupid. More than enough evidence from Kavanaugh's adult years has been provided that would justify a No vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin.....

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) said in a new interview that he remains undecided about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, but bashed the judge's confirmation process as a "circus."

The key swing vote Democrat told Al Jazeera that he is looking at Kavanaugh's adult life and time in the judiciary. He added that he would decide after viewing the FBI's supplemental background investigation into the allegations of sexual assault against the judge whether the probe's scope was sufficient. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations leveled against him by three women.

"This has been horrible. It's another circus," Manchin said, referring to the confirmation process.


"I am looking at the gentleman as an adult from 22 to 53, 31 years of professional service. I am looking at him as a father," the senator added. "As a person in a community, how he interacts with his community. I am trying to put the human side to it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409831-manchin-on-kavanaugh-decision-im-trying-to-put-the-human-side-to-it

Manchin is stupid. More than enough evidence from Kavanaugh's adult years has been provided that would justify a No vote.

Really? What would THAT be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

I disagree. If allegations with no corroborating evidence is all it takes to eliminate qualified people from a position, we are heading down a very slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Julie Swetnick's false claim of Kavanaigh's involvement in gang rape parties given under penalty of forgery? If so, shouldn't she be prosecuted and jailed?

Penalty of forgery?

Autocorrect. Should be penalty of FELONY.

There are people who are willing to confirm her story that the FBI hasn't interviewed. How about finishing the investigation before we start leveling charges of perjury?

[Anonymous]

Does the U.S. Constitution specify that confirmation hearings must be televised? Didn't think so.

We could solve a lot of this by having closed hearings. Then we'd avoid all this grandstanding from politicians (like From Booker) who use it as an audition for the presidency.
It flies in conflict with the people's right to know, of course, but this entire circus has devolved into such a low level that it's worth considering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

I disagree. If allegations with no corroborating evidence is all it takes to eliminate qualified people from a position, we are heading down a very slippery slope.

It's not a slippery slope. We don't need a shrieking, weeping hyperpartisan liar on the bench. He lied multiple times under oath. He's not suitable for the highest court in the land. Period. The assault allegations don't even need to be addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her allegation was unsupported.
She was sympathetic in her testimony.
When you read the testimony--especially Mitchell's paper--it is clear that her testimony was seriously flawed, especially compared to her earlier statements. She couldn't remember what she told WAPO two months ago--how can you trust what she says happened 30+ (that is one of the issues) years ago. Particularly, when she initially said her "late teens" and changed it to"15."

If you look at the facts, the only reason anyone believes her is because they want to do so. The Dems mostly came out saying that they "believed her" even before we heard from her.

If this is what the Democrats represent, and, if they get the power, then we are in very serious trouble.

+1

They believe her because, well, they believe her. There has not been a single piece of hard evidence that corroborates her story. There have been a mountain of inconsistencies in her ever changing accounts surrounding this case. 1) Did she coach anyone for polygraph; 2) Did she take a polygraph on the same day of her grandmother's funeral 3) Did she share notes with the Post 4) Did she put in a second door for google interns or herself 5) Did she live in a 500 sq ft studio 6) Was she afraid of flying 7) Did she know who paid for her poly 8) Did she know her lawyers work for free 9) Did she know senate staffers were willing to come to her 10) 4 boys, or 2 boys; late teens, early 1980s, mid 1980s, 1980s, or 1982.

Honestly I don't know why Dr. Ford is not investigated for perjury.

Your nonstop attacking of Dr Ford does not change the fact that Brett Kavanaugh is not the right person for the job.
Sorry if you thought it would help. Or are you just a crazy misogynist fool? Or both perhaps..

Fact: Ford could not put together a comprehensive enough story with enough verifiable fact. She accused a man publicly of attempted rape, which resulted in absolute crucification in the media. He then had to come out and not only defend himself, but protect his family from the fallout. And he did just that. I would say he's not the right man for the job had he NOT come out swinging.

If "coming out swinging" is equated with lying through his teeth, then my teenage self wants you as a mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

Why are people surprised? Kavanaugh is unique in his opinion on how much to protect the president

Republicans don't want to be the party that had their president impeached for Russian collusion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin.....

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) said in a new interview that he remains undecided about Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, but bashed the judge's confirmation process as a "circus."

The key swing vote Democrat told Al Jazeera that he is looking at Kavanaugh's adult life and time in the judiciary. He added that he would decide after viewing the FBI's supplemental background investigation into the allegations of sexual assault against the judge whether the probe's scope was sufficient. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations leveled against him by three women.

"This has been horrible. It's another circus," Manchin said, referring to the confirmation process.


"I am looking at the gentleman as an adult from 22 to 53, 31 years of professional service. I am looking at him as a father," the senator added. "As a person in a community, how he interacts with his community. I am trying to put the human side to it."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409831-manchin-on-kavanaugh-decision-im-trying-to-put-the-human-side-to-it

Manchin is stupid. More than enough evidence from Kavanaugh's adult years has been provided that would justify a No vote.

Really? What would THAT be?

He's just not that great of a judge, for starters. Then tgmhere is the document theft and the repulsive way he conducted himself in the Clinton investigation. Not to mention, his little meltdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Kavanaugh is voted down, there will be a Red Wave the likes of which you've never seen. That means Rs will pick up more sears and have a new vote in January. Kavanaugh is in either way.

Actually, the theory is that the red public will be so disgusted with the GOP ineptitude that they will stay home. Also, the majority of people oppose Kavanaugh and oppose this administration. They have from the get go. It is a minority party that has shrunk in the past 20 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a republican. It appears to be a he/said she /said many years after the fact, with no "smoking gun"? I don't think an unsubstantiated allegation should bring any candidate down, Dem or Rep. However, I also did not like his blustery, whiny demeanor. I would say "next". There are plenty of others who can show a history of fantastic jurosprudence and keep their cool when the arrows start flying, as they will. We are a nation of 350 mlion. There's more than one great potential candidate. What do republicans feel they will lose by going to the next?

Moderate here. This is how I feel. We can pick someone better.

It’s not Kavanaugh vs no one. It’s Kavanaugh vs several dozen other better qualified judges without sexual assault stains in their records. Pick a better nominee.

I disagree. If allegations with no corroborating evidence is all it takes to eliminate qualified people from a position, we are heading down a very slippery slope.

There’s plenty of corroborating evidence. You’re just ignoring and discounting it.

And it is not a slippery slope we are struggling with - it’s a tainted nominee. Instead of fighting endlessly about how bad the taint is, just pick someone better and move on. The only reason we are still talking about this is that trump is too stubborn to pull the nomination and likes the political bickering. The rest of us want something to actually happen. If trump pulls the nomination, or it gets voted down, we can have another justice voted on within a week or two. Why are we wasting time on this chump? Move the country forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh has no business being on the SCOTUS. He will be tainted forever and should be impeached as soon as possible.

No grounds for imoeachment. And lying about slang terms for farting? Is that what you're hanging your hat on?

I am old enough to remember when a president was impeached for lying about a blow job. Lying is lying. And for SCOTUS, we expect impeccable. Kavanaugh isn't impeccable. Gorsuch is. The problem is the nominee.