Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Kavanaugh will get 54 votes. Book it.

[Anonymous]

Regardless of his high school and college drinking and the sexual assault allegations, why isn't enough to take a pass on him simply because of his uber-partisan political operative activities?

Nobody should sit on the highest bench in the land if they are documented biased political activists. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of his high school and college drinking and the sexual assault allegations, why isn't enough to take a pass on him simply because of his uber-partisan political operative activities?

Nobody should sit on the highest bench in the land if they are documented biased political activists. Period.

That’s a reason TO vote for him. You don’t think Kagan is partisan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward two years. Dem house crawling all over the WH post-Mueller report; Trump facing strongest headwinds yet -- but facing a weak Dem contender after trouncing Flake in the primaries. GOP senate rushing judges to confirmation as it faces likely minority status in coming election. Kavanaugh swinging SC hard to the right, out of spite? Ginsburg 87 years old.

As of today, 2020 does not look like a bumper year for Dems to pick up Senate seats either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering why everyone believes her with no evidence?

It's not possible to conclude absolutely based on he said/she said, whether he assaulted her or not. The overall pattern she describes does fit with what we know about his high school years.

It's not about whether he assaulted her. It's about the fact that he lied or at least mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee UNDER OATH. He's a lawyer. He's a judge. He's a potential SCJ. He lied about being "Bart" (or at least mislead). He lied about the extent of his drinking. He lied about ralphing. And the Devil's Triangle. And boofing. Etc. Etc. Small lies matter. Please google "Kavanaugh lies" for a complete breakdown of his lies.

Do you really want a SCJ who lies, or at least prevaricates and obfuscates under oath, to the Senate???? Really, conservatives can't do any better than this guy?

+1. I watched him refuse to answer direct questions that were asked of him last week, and instead drone on about what how hard he worked, random memories from high school, etc. He did not come across as being honest during the process, and his behavior lowered my opinion of him greatly (I had not been following his nomination process closely before last week).

+2 And to the PP asking the question, supporters are avoiding this issue and trying to keep the focus on the assault part. The truth is, many people would have been OK with an inclusive hearing on that issue and resigned to the vote because these claims are hard to prove; but once he opened his mouth in the hearing, he lost their support/indifference because of his own behavior that day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Kavanaugh is confirmed, it will be because of Collins and Murkowski. Flake alone isn’t enough votes. Heitkamp and Manchin will decide what to do based on how Collins and Murkowski vote (because why tank their re-election campaigns with futile “no” votes), and you know they’re going to find that out in advance. Collins and Murkowski will decide together how they’re going to vote, and will vote the same way to give each other cover.

So if he’s confirmed, let us never forget it will be because Collins and Murkowski threw women under the bus in multiple respects. They should no longer get to play the centrist-supporter-of-women card.

The take away from this episode is the following:

1. Any candidate was going to be the target of a Dem search and destroy politics to block 5th seat going conservative

2. The SJC process is "broken" - we could have come to the same conclusion about an uncorroborated allegation without the Dems dragging TWO families through the mud. The new Chairman of the SJC will reform the process

3. The Dems will take a hit because of #2 and for attempting to weaponize the MeToo platform - the ruse was exposed and it is offensive to all sides

4. Kavanugh will be confirmed with 1 or 2 moderate Dems based on his 20+ years on the bench and excellent peer rating

Or:

1. Gorsuch got through fine. And Trump should have never put this guy forward. McConnell told this would happen and asked him not to nominate Kav because of his background. Whether anything was “proven” or not, this guy has skeletons.

2. Congress is broken, and the majority party in Congress for the last 8 years has been the Republicans.

3. If Kav is confirmed, the Republican losses in the midterm will be much worse than you can possibly imagine. Women who were upset about sexual assault put a Democrat into the Senate in Alabama. You seem to have no clue about the raw fury many women are feeling right now.

4. Unless two R senators vote no, Heitcamp and Manchin need to vote yes. It’s more important to Dems that they keep their seats than that they prove some point if the confirmation is going to happen. That’s how Dems take back the Senate. And shut down all consideration of any of Trumps nominees for anything, period. No hearings for any Trump nominee. And Trump has yet to fill more than half of the Senate confirmed appointments and has a penchant for firing members of his cabinet.

Two sides to every coin.

And—

5. Kavanaugh will always have an asterisks beside his name. He will always be a problem for the Court. And a Democratic House will impeach him. Will he keep his seat? Probably. Will he spend two years discussing in minute detail which other GP boy he had a Devil’s Triangle with and which orafice he entered? The same way he wanted to go with Bill Clinton? Yep. Will they subpoena all of his Bush era documents and got through them page by page and selectively embarrass him? Yep. Will he spdeserve it? Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FBI didn't talk to anyone of the people who Ford said could corroborate her story, i.e. the people she told her story to before Kavanaugh was nominated. They didn't talk to the polygrapher. They didn't get her therapist's notes.

They didn't talk to any of the people who could corroborate Debbie Ramirez's story.

There's no corroboration because they affirmatively avoided trying to find any.

https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/1047887942763663360

Ford legal team’s new letter to FBI Dir Wray - calls newest investigation a “stain on the process, on the FBI and on our American ideal of Justice.”

FBI: “Well, first we asked Mark Judge if he did it. Then we asked PJ and Timmy and Squi and Donkey Dong Doug, and all of them said they didn’t do it either. ... So we called it a day and went to get coffee. What more can we possibly do if they say they didn’t do it?!?”

/s

Donkey Dong Doug! Nice forking reference!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh will get 54 votes. Book it.

In 2019, a Democratic House of Representative will investigate Kavanaugh’s sexual assault, and bring him up for impeachment hearings on charges of lying to Congress. Book it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of his high school and college drinking and the sexual assault allegations, why isn't enough to take a pass on him simply because of his uber-partisan political operative activities?

Nobody should sit on the highest bench in the land if they are documented biased political activists. Period.

That’s a reason TO vote for him. You don’t think Kagan is partisan?

The SC is chock-full of partisans, always has been. I can usually predict their votes despite the fact that they are all reading from the same Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kavanaugh will get 54 votes. Book it.

In 2019, a Democratic House of Representative will investigate Kavanaugh’s sexual assault, and bring him up for impeachment hearings on charges of lying to Congress. Book it.

Have fun! He’ll be acquitted in the senate where it takes 60 votes and the dems will suffer mightily in the next election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fast forward two years. Dem house crawling all over the WH post-Mueller report; Trump facing strongest headwinds yet -- but facing a weak Dem contender after trouncing Flake in the primaries. GOP senate rushing judges to confirmation as it faces likely minority status in coming election. Kavanaugh swinging SC hard to the right, out of spite? Ginsburg 87 years old.

As of today, 2020 does not look like a bumper year for Dems to pick up Senate seats either.

Try again ...

“The disproportionate Democratic Senate exposure in 2018 is almost the mirror opposite of what awaits in both 2020 and 2022.”
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/will-senate-gop-feel-heat-2020

The Republicans will be trying to defend 21 seats in 2020 and 22 seats in 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of his high school and college drinking and the sexual assault allegations, why isn't enough to take a pass on him simply because of his uber-partisan political operative activities?

Nobody should sit on the highest bench in the land if they are documented biased political activists. Period.

That’s a reason TO vote for him. You don’t think Kagan is partisan?

No. I don’t. I think she has a legal philosophy that is very liberal. But I think she rules based on that philosophy, and not animosity towards one of the parties. They are different things. She has voted against the Obama Administration. I haven’t checked last years cases. But at some point she will rule for the Trump Admin. Because her interpretation of the law.

I don’t think any member of the current Courtis partisan— except RBG in the last couple year. I admire her a lot. And get the I’m in my 80s and don’t GAF attitude. But she is wrong to call out Trump publicly. That undermines the legitimacy of the Court too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Merrick Garland is ancient history.

Merrick Garland will never be ancient history. The reason we are in the position we are in is that McConnell with the backing of Senate Republicans cheated. He cheated, they went along with it and now they are pointing the finger at the Democrats saying you made this process partisan. Bullsh*t. The truth eventually comes out. If American democracy survives, and peoople are crazy to think it will just because it has for 200 years, books will be written and McConnell and the Republicans will be written about like Joseph McCarthy. If America is an autocracy or a kleptocracy after Kavenaugh allows Trump to pardon himself, his family, and any other of his teamates for cheating, conspiring, and defrauding America, the history will be written by our former allies as America comes to the realization that it squandered its status as a world power and shining city on a hill through tribal politics and selfish Americans backing immature selfish toddler toadies in the House & Senate. The grownup and honest way to handle the Republican's opposition to Merrick Garland would have been to hold hearings and then just vote him down on a straight party vote. That would have been honest. McConnell wants to gas light us all by pretending he played by the rules instead of admitting her changed the rules and moved the goal posts.

[Anonymous]

Just donated in support of Collins' opponent if she votes "Yes."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of his high school and college drinking and the sexual assault allegations, why isn't enough to take a pass on him simply because of his uber-partisan political operative activities?

Nobody should sit on the highest bench in the land if they are documented biased political activists. Period.

That’s a reason TO vote for him. You don’t think Kagan is partisan?

No. I don’t. I think she has a legal philosophy that is very liberal. But I think she rules based on that philosophy, and not animosity towards one of the parties. They are different things. She has voted against the Obama Administration. I haven’t checked last years cases. But at some point she will rule for the Trump Admin. Because her interpretation of the law.

I don’t think any member of the current Courtis partisan— except RBG in the last couple year. I admire her a lot. And get the I’m in my 80s and don’t GAF attitude. But she is wrong to call out Trump publicly. That undermines the legitimacy of the Court too.

A subtle yet critical distinction. I agree.