well no wonder Amy Chua defended Brett Kavanugh so emphatically

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Except....this inappropriate appointment. He just seems to make mistakes when pretty young women are involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Except....this inappropriate appointment. He just seems to make mistakes when pretty young women are involved.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

Squi can corroborate it. CBF said Bretty’s best friend was in the room. That they were laughing.

And you investigate it the same way you investigate lots of old crimes. The FBI does this already, you know.

It’s bizarre, absolutely bizarre the level of hypocrisy conservatives have. I mean I’m beginning to suspect you all have some shared brain anomaly that enables this level of self delusion in regards to your motivations. This is the highest court on the land and the people appointed tonit are supposed to be beyond reproach, just nearly perfect people. But this guy - alcoholic, owned by some mysterious benefactor, a hypocrite himself (you can’t poke your nose in someone’s sexual activities and then get bent out of shape when it bends around to you) and the alleged aggressor in several reported sexual assaults. That’s not beyond reproach. That’s wildly inappropriate.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

It’s easier than you think to avoid certain topics during background investigations...

I'm well aware of how background checks work, and no - it's not easy at all to avoid certain topics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

Squi can corroborate it. CBF said Bretty’s best friend was in the room. That they were laughing.

And you investigate it the same way you investigate lots of old crimes. The FBI does this already, you know.

It’s bizarre, absolutely bizarre the level of hypocrisy conservatives have. I mean I’m beginning to suspect you all have some shared brain anomaly that enables this level of self delusion in regards to your motivations. This is the highest court on the land and the people appointed tonit are supposed to be beyond reproach, just nearly perfect people. But this guy - alcoholic, owned by some mysterious benefactor, a hypocrite himself (you can’t poke your nose in someone’s sexual activities and then get bent out of shape when it bends around to you) and the alleged aggressor in several reported sexual assaults. That’s not beyond reproach. That’s wildly inappropriate.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

It’s easier than you think to avoid certain topics during background investigations...

+1
I don’t know who reported the posts that came after the one to which you’re responding, but as always seems to happen, it included a lot of Republicans willfully missing the point.

Like: who owns Brett? Why did Chua jump in so strongly for this pervy crud bucket? Was it just to get her daughter a leg up?

Actually, no. It included lots of liberals gleefully accusing Kavanaugh of something with nothing to go on but their incredible partisan rage. As usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Bingo. End of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

Squi can corroborate it. CBF said Bretty’s best friend was in the room. That they were laughing.

And you investigate it the same way you investigate lots of old crimes. The FBI does this already, you know.

It’s bizarre, absolutely bizarre the level of hypocrisy conservatives have. I mean I’m beginning to suspect you all have some shared brain anomaly that enables this level of self delusion in regards to your motivations. This is the highest court on the land and the people appointed tonit are supposed to be beyond reproach, just nearly perfect people. But this guy - alcoholic, owned by some mysterious benefactor, a hypocrite himself (you can’t poke your nose in someone’s sexual activities and then get bent out of shape when it bends around to you) and the alleged aggressor in several reported sexual assaults. That’s not beyond reproach. That’s wildly inappropriate.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

It’s easier than you think to avoid certain topics during background investigations...

I'm well aware of how background checks work, and no - it's not easy at all to avoid certain topics.

It actually is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

Squi can corroborate it. CBF said Bretty’s best friend was in the room. That they were laughing.

And you investigate it the same way you investigate lots of old crimes. The FBI does this already, you know.

It’s bizarre, absolutely bizarre the level of hypocrisy conservatives have. I mean I’m beginning to suspect you all have some shared brain anomaly that enables this level of self delusion in regards to your motivations. This is the highest court on the land and the people appointed tonit are supposed to be beyond reproach, just nearly perfect people. But this guy - alcoholic, owned by some mysterious benefactor, a hypocrite himself (you can’t poke your nose in someone’s sexual activities and then get bent out of shape when it bends around to you) and the alleged aggressor in several reported sexual assaults. That’s not beyond reproach. That’s wildly inappropriate.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

It’s easier than you think to avoid certain topics during background investigations...

+1
I don’t know who reported the posts that came after the one to which you’re responding, but as always seems to happen, it included a lot of Republicans willfully missing the point.

Like: who owns Brett? Why did Chua jump in so strongly for this pervy crud bucket? Was it just to get her daughter a leg up?

Actually, no. It included lots of liberals gleefully accusing Kavanaugh of something with nothing to go on but their incredible partisan rage. As usual.

$60,000-200,000 and a house they couldn’t afford is something to go on. It’s factual. As is the fact that the WH stopped the FBI from doing a thorough investigation. If there was nothing to find, why tie the FBI’s hands?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

Squi can corroborate it. CBF said Bretty’s best friend was in the room. That they were laughing.

And you investigate it the same way you investigate lots of old crimes. The FBI does this already, you know.

It’s bizarre, absolutely bizarre the level of hypocrisy conservatives have. I mean I’m beginning to suspect you all have some shared brain anomaly that enables this level of self delusion in regards to your motivations. This is the highest court on the land and the people appointed tonit are supposed to be beyond reproach, just nearly perfect people. But this guy - alcoholic, owned by some mysterious benefactor, a hypocrite himself (you can’t poke your nose in someone’s sexual activities and then get bent out of shape when it bends around to you) and the alleged aggressor in several reported sexual assaults. That’s not beyond reproach. That’s wildly inappropriate.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

It’s easier than you think to avoid certain topics during background investigations...

I'm well aware of how background checks work, and no - it's not easy at all to avoid certain topics.

It actually is.

Then you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to hide things on your background check. I’ve had multiple investigations for my security clearances and *everything* was discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’d been investigated six times before, or did you miss that little nugget?

This is like communicating with an eight year old. It’s been pointed out on this thread that he had background investigations. How these work is that you, the one being investigated, provides an address where you’ve lived for the last x years and the name of a person you were acquainted with at that address. So for most of these, his time in high schoo, wouldn’t even have come up and if he didn’t supply Christine Blasey Ford’s name - and why would you give the name of someone you sexually assaulted? - it wouldn’t come up. The background investigator comes and asks your friends or family or whoever you listed a set series of questions, the end. Some branches require polygraphs, but he was appointed to many of the positions that necessitated the background and those aren’t usually poly’d. It’s not a thorough investigation meant to turn up everything in your life.

And AGAIN: the WH severely limited the scope and duration of the investigation of the CBF incident. It was not investigated,

DP
And, as has been pointed out numerous times here,...............
How in the hell do you expect the FBI to conduct an investigation of an incident that one person claimed happened, but the people SHE said were present have no knowledge of it? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the day, the date, or even the year in which the alleged incident happened? An incident in which the "complainant" cannot give the location at which the incident happened? An incident that nobody else can corroborate?

Nah, y'all didn't want an investigation. That was all a delay tactic. You were hoping and praying for a delay long enough - just long enough - that a new nominee would need to be named and vetted in HOPES that you would win the Senate and block any confirmation. We are not stupid.

Squi can corroborate it. CBF said Bretty’s best friend was in the room. That they were laughing.

And you investigate it the same way you investigate lots of old crimes. The FBI does this already, you know.

It’s bizarre, absolutely bizarre the level of hypocrisy conservatives have. I mean I’m beginning to suspect you all have some shared brain anomaly that enables this level of self delusion in regards to your motivations. This is the highest court on the land and the people appointed tonit are supposed to be beyond reproach, just nearly perfect people. But this guy - alcoholic, owned by some mysterious benefactor, a hypocrite himself (you can’t poke your nose in someone’s sexual activities and then get bent out of shape when it bends around to you) and the alleged aggressor in several reported sexual assaults. That’s not beyond reproach. That’s wildly inappropriate.

OMG.
CBF said lots of things. Lots of things that had no evidence.
What is bizarre is that you think the FBI would be able to find more evidence about an alleged incident for which there were no details. Total insanity.
And FFS - if Kavanaugh were an alcoholic, that WOULD have shown up on a background check. You are accusing him of all kinds of things - none of which are true.
What is bizarre is that YOU believe all the crap the left wing media threw out and hoped would stick - and evidently, some very gullible people like you fell for it. That is bizarre.

+1,000,000
Of course he's not an alcoholic. Six background checks would have turned that up. Even SC justices are allowed to drink alcohol - ask RBG. She loves her wine.

It's so completely ironic that these idiots are always accusing Trump supporters, conservatives, independents - and really, anyone who is not a liberal - of being brainwashed by "right-wing media." It's clear that exactly the opposite is happening here (and in other instances). These liberals actually believe the wildest of tales spun by the MSM. Not a good look, liberals.

It’s easier than you think to avoid certain topics during background investigations...

I'm well aware of how background checks work, and no - it's not easy at all to avoid certain topics.

It actually is.

Then you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to hide things on your background check. I’ve had multiple investigations for my security clearances and *everything* was discussed.

People don’t always want to share undesirable behavior. If you and the only other person who knows about it (and you listed as a contact) don’t share it, it won’t be revealed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Bingo. End of story.

Nope. Not end of story. Here we are again in 2019 with some inappropriate behavior and a pretty young woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Bingo. End of story.

Nope. Not end of story. Here we are again in 2019 with some inappropriate behavior and a pretty young woman.

He hired a clerk. Sorry you don't like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Bingo. End of story.

Nope. Not end of story. Here we are again in 2019 with some inappropriate behavior and a pretty young woman.

He hired a clerk. Sorry you don't like that.

May I never approach issues like a conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Bingo. End of story.

Nope. Not end of story. Here we are again in 2019 with some inappropriate behavior and a pretty young woman.

He hired a clerk. Sorry you don't like that.

You really have no morals at all. That's disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Bingo. End of story.

Nope. Not end of story. Here we are again in 2019 with some inappropriate behavior and a pretty young woman.

He hired a clerk. Sorry you don't like that.

May I never approach issues like a conservative.

Seriously. I couldn't live with myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You folks can litigate this and relitigate this all you want.

Fact is.........Kavanaugh sits on SCOTUS and can hire the clerks he wants. Seems he has done a good job so far.... gets high praise from RBG for increasing the number of female clerks so that now, there are more women then men clerks.

Not a bad thing, IMO.
And, he seems to be doing a good job on the court.

Bingo. End of story.

Nope. Not end of story. Here we are again in 2019 with some inappropriate behavior and a pretty young woman.

He hired a clerk. Sorry you don't like that.

May I never approach issues like a conservative.

Seriously. I couldn't live with myself.

Some day you'll grow up and realize your viewpoint is myopic and void of reason.