Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 5

[Anonymous]

This comment in the NYT in response to the WSJ op ed says it +1000, and is the reason why the ABA doesn't support him and a good chunk of the legal community:

My God, am I actually reading these words? Kavanaugh has defended his appalling performance by saying "I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad"?

Seriously? No, Mr. Kavanaugh. No, you were not. You were there as a candidate for the Supreme Court. You were there as a model of judicial temperament. You were there as a mature and rational person who, if innocent, would lay out his case. You were there as a grown man with perspective, analytical powers, and the ability to control his impulses.

You showed yourself to be none of these things.

If you had a shred of integrity, you would have withdrawn your candidacy rather than let the process devolve into this spectacle. You took your cues from the Trump White House, which rose upon grievance and male rage and conspiracy theories. You holed up with their people and had them train you. You deployed their base and primitive weapons with laser focus.

Breathtaking. Truly, have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Democrats historically have not had much objections to a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. But here the nominee just pushed all of the left wing's buttons, from being suspected of being willing to protect Trump et al. from consequences of their actions to possibly enabling states to ban abortion.

Don't forget his role in the Starr investigation -- urging questions about Clinton's ejaculate to cause pain rather than for any legal purpose -- and his pursuit of Vince Foster murder conspiracies.

[Anonymous]

LOL, they are going to need Pence just for cloture.

[Anonymous]

Flake spent last weekend in… Wait for it… New Hampshire.

He cannot be nominated to anything in today’s Republican Party if he does not vote yes.

Collins will announce yes at 3 o’clock yes, and then it is game over. She’s always the big swing vote and she always goes Republican on the big stuff late in the game. Standard practice for her.

This will allow Murkowski and Manchin to vote no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe we should all go and watch "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Kavanaugh is no Tom Robinson. Be ashamed.

Ashamed of the belief in the foundation of our legal system of innocence until proven guilty? Never.

I have no doubt that something terrible happened to Dr. Ford. I watched her testimony, and I feel sympathy for her. I really do.

However, there is absolutely no evidence that Judge Kavanaugh did anything to her. You are letting your emotions take over your rational thinking.

I don't know if Ford and Kavanaugh intersected or what happened when they did.

I know that his behavior today is unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice. His behavior over his past professional life is also unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice.

The man's personal and professional life was blown apart by this accusation. He was angry about being blindsided by the accusation. I give the man a pass for righteous anger.

Again: judges don’t get to be righteously angry. They don’t get to cry and gnash their teeth. They don’t get name their (imagined) enemies (especially when they have themselves acted as partisan hacks). Judges don’t get to be human in that sense. They must be calm and controlled.

At the hearing, he was not appearing as Judge Kavanaugh. He was appearing as Brett Kavanaugh - human being and one who has been wrongly accused of heinous allegations.

The man is literally a sitting judge and is bound in all cases and times, by the judicial code of honor, which he violated on numerous occasions.

The Judicial Conference of the United States is not going to do anything to sanction Judge Kavanaugh, even if by some crazy event he doesn’t get confirmation for his Supreme Court nomination.

Oh, and if, or really, when he gets confirmed, he’s not recusing himself from ANY cases.

Finally, the President is going to ready legislation to expand the Supreme Court to 11. Amy will be one of them, and someone else under 50 will be the other.

None of that will happen"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BK supporters. Do you really think he's the right choice for the Supreme Court or do you just want to "win"?

I go back an forth on whether or not I want him on the court. I want a conservative on the court. I would prefer BK over the possibility of losing the seat. I also despise the dirty politics the dems played during the process. I know the Republicans do the same thing. Doesn't make it right. I also hate the way the Dems are so hypocritical about the allegations over BK but don't say a word about Ellison. I also don't appreciate the way that they are lobbying a presumption of guilt on BK.

I hope he doesn't get the vote and they nominate and push through another conservative judge. Part of me would enjoy watching crying chuck Schumer and Feinstein lose.

Hardiman would get 75+ votes for confirmation before the midterms.

And that is the crux of the matter! If there was still a little bit of trust remaining between Rs and Ds, they could hash out a deal to confirm a more centrist conservative. Democrats historically have not had much objections to a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. But here the nominee just pushed all of the left wing's buttons, from being suspected of being willing to protect Trump et al. from consequences of their actions to possibly enabling states to ban abortion.

I just wish there had been some overture on the Democrat side to such a deal.

An overture that would be promptly rebuffed. There is no need for bipartisanship now that Mitch blew up the Senate. He could have supported a consensus candidate but didn’t because he didn’t have to. Don’t blame the minority for working with what little they had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judicial Code of Conduct - section Kavanaugh violated

An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

I have inserted this quote from the Judicial Code of Conduct (Canon 2) at least 5 or 6 times on these threads to nothing but *crickets*. Modern Republicans don't care about rules or decency any more. Our country is lost.

I pulled out the last line of this text. A little louder for the people in the back:

A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

This part too. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct.

He must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, but professionally and personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BK supporters. Do you really think he's the right choice for the Supreme Court or do you just want to "win"?

I go back an forth on whether or not I want him on the court. I want a conservative on the court. I would prefer BK over the possibility of losing the seat. I also despise the dirty politics the dems played during the process. I know the Republicans do the same thing. Doesn't make it right. I also hate the way the Dems are so hypocritical about the allegations over BK but don't say a word about Ellison. I also don't appreciate the way that they are lobbying a presumption of guilt on BK.

I hope he doesn't get the vote and they nominate and push through another conservative judge. Part of me would enjoy watching crying chuck Schumer and Feinstein lose.

Hardiman would get 75+ votes for confirmation before the midterms.

And that is the crux of the matter! If there was still a little bit of trust remaining between Rs and Ds, they could hash out a deal to confirm a more centrist conservative. Democrats historically have not had much objections to a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. But here the nominee just pushed all of the left wing's buttons, from being suspected of being willing to protect Trump et al. from consequences of their actions to possibly enabling states to ban abortion.

I just wish there had been some overture on the Democrat side to such a deal.

Trump has poisoned it all.

[Anonymous]

Murhowski NO on cloture
Collins, Flake YES on cloture
and Manchin waited to vote YES once he saw which way the vote was going

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murhowski NO on cloture
Collins, Flake YES on cloture
and Manchin waited to vote YES once he saw which way the vote was going

This is big news!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the BK supporters. Do you really think he's the right choice for the Supreme Court or do you just want to "win"?

I go back an forth on whether or not I want him on the court. I want a conservative on the court. I would prefer BK over the possibility of losing the seat. I also despise the dirty politics the dems played during the process. I know the Republicans do the same thing. Doesn't make it right. I also hate the way the Dems are so hypocritical about the allegations over BK but don't say a word about Ellison. I also don't appreciate the way that they are lobbying a presumption of guilt on BK.

I hope he doesn't get the vote and they nominate and push through another conservative judge. Part of me would enjoy watching crying chuck Schumer and Feinstein lose.

Hardiman would get 75+ votes for confirmation before the midterms.

And that is the crux of the matter! If there was still a little bit of trust remaining between Rs and Ds, they could hash out a deal to confirm a more centrist conservative. Democrats historically have not had much objections to a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. But here the nominee just pushed all of the left wing's buttons, from being suspected of being willing to protect Trump et al. from consequences of their actions to possibly enabling states to ban abortion.

I just wish there had been some overture on the Democrat side to such a deal.

It isn't up to the democrats to make such an overture. They have no power at all in the government right now. None.

You don't understand. If D leaders could offer adequate proof to R leaders that they would be supportive of a more moderate conservative nominee, and if such information could be relayed to the White House, that would go a long way to reassure the GOP that if this nominee was pulled, Ds will confirm another one instead of stalling. This is what I would do. If the White House balks, it would be proof that all Trump wants is self-protection with a bought candidate who will vote on his behalf re: pardons, etc. But then D would be able to say that this is not a problem of their making, and come out looking like the good guys.

[Anonymous]

Murkowski's no means ".. if they lose collins or flake, judge kavanaugh's nomination goes down"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murhowski NO on cloture
Collins, Flake YES on cloture
and Manchin waited to vote YES once he saw which way the vote was going

This is big news!

Don't understand. Murkowski should have voted yes now, and no on confirmation. Why drag it out?

[Anonymous]

Murkowski is a no on cloture which leads one to believe that she is a no on confirmation. It probably does come down to Collins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL, they are going to need Pence just for cloture.

Mancin voted to proceed, so Pence not needed.