Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Heitkamp is a NO

http://wday.com/

She was already done. Now she is really done.

A Yes vote might have let her keep her seat. She didn't vote politically.

She might be sunk anyway, but I think a "yes" vote would have sunk her faster than a "no" vote. Being unprincipled on top of being a Democrat is no way to win an election in North Dakota.

You do not sound like you are from North Dakota.

I'm not. Am I wrong?

I think the pp was saying men dakotans are stupid.

Just stop. Name calling is beneath us here. South Dakotans generally live by the creed of 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. Shouting Ivy League liars get their as*es beat down pretty quick.

One thing Dakotans, North or South, can't abide is people who confuse one state for the other.

^^Saw your later correction, and you are forgiven. Particularly as you quoted Teddy Roosevelt, whom North Dakotans claim as one of their own.

Ha, I know, an unpardonable sin! Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The letter from the law professors opposing Kavanaugh now has OVER 2,400 SIGNATURES.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who has changed his mind on Kavanaugh, actually wrote a chapter in his book, praising one of Kavanaugh's decisions.

I hope this helps convince Senators how completely disqualifying Kavanaugh's performance in the hearing was. It shouldn't be this close.

+1 This makes me feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend this creep are gross. And yes, I'm consistent... When Bill Clinton lied under oath I thought it was right to impeach him. Here Bart/Brett lied multiple times and treated a coequal branch of government like s*it on his shoe. But oh well, Republicans overlook it because he's part of their tribe and because apparently sexual assault is no biggie if you're a drunk teen. Hypocrites.

+1 what do you expect from a bunch of old guys who keep giving Trump mulligans on all his moral failings. Most probably don't think sexually assaulting a women is a big deal anyways.

This. Many republican women don't care about the alledged assault, the drinking or the lying either.

My Republican evangelical friends who I know were assaulted in college (one had an abortion, as the result of a drunken date rape) are all announcing they are getting off social media for a few weeks. I bet they are. They know all their old friends know and will hopefully not say one word.

I think those people have this quaint notion rape is when a stranger wielding a knife or gun jumps out and violently drags a woman off. But if it's "just" a drunk boy who puts his weenie in a drunk woman (a la Brock the rapist) then it's not actually rape. Or if a giddy frat boy goes and grabs a woman by her crotch and then tries to pull her shirt off, no big deal! It's just vestiges of caveman interaction, ha ha, lighten up! And really, if it's an upper class white guy, especially if he's a Republican, then of course it's not assault if he pushes her down and tries to penetrate her. You should feel complimented a guy wants to grind on you!!

No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

+1. Also don’t like how this man is being strung up as the scapegoat for the women’s movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who defend this creep are gross. And yes, I'm consistent... When Bill Clinton lied under oath I thought it was right to impeach him. Here Bart/Brett lied multiple times and treated a coequal branch of government like s*it on his shoe. But oh well, Republicans overlook it because he's part of their tribe and because apparently sexual assault is no biggie if you're a drunk teen. Hypocrites.

+1 what do you expect from a bunch of old guys who keep giving Trump mulligans on all his moral failings. Most probably don't think sexually assaulting a women is a big deal anyways.

This. Many republican women don't care about the alledged assault, the drinking or the lying either.

My Republican evangelical friends who I know were assaulted in college (one had an abortion, as the result of a drunken date rape) are all announcing they are getting off social media for a few weeks. I bet they are. They know all their old friends know and will hopefully not say one word.

I think those people have this quaint notion rape is when a stranger wielding a knife or gun jumps out and violently drags a woman off. But if it's "just" a drunk boy who puts his weenie in a drunk woman (a la Brock the rapist) then it's not actually rape. Or if a giddy frat boy goes and grabs a woman by her crotch and then tries to pull her shirt off, no big deal! It's just vestiges of caveman interaction, ha ha, lighten up! And really, if it's an upper class white guy, especially if he's a Republican, then of course it's not assault if he pushes her down and tries to penetrate her. You should feel complimented a guy wants to grind on you!!

No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

You keep saying he's a good man when all evidence is to the contrary. He lied under oath, repeatedly. He is a drunk who slut shamed women then lied about it. Sorry you think drunk liars are good men. They aren't. You must have some pretty crap men in your life.

[Anonymous]

When are they going to vote? Tomorrow? I hope it's soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter from the law professors opposing Kavanaugh now has OVER 2,400 SIGNATURES.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who has changed his mind on Kavanaugh, actually wrote a chapter in his book, praising one of Kavanaugh's decisions.

I hope this helps convince Senators how completely disqualifying Kavanaugh's performance in the hearing was. It shouldn't be this close.

Most of the law professors probably don’t know a courtroom from a restroom.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or do you figure if you shout enough insults you'll get your way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When are they going to vote? Tomorrow? I hope it's soon.

Saturday ...a day to crush the matriarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The letter from the law professors opposing Kavanaugh now has OVER 2,400 SIGNATURES.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who has changed his mind on Kavanaugh, actually wrote a chapter in his book, praising one of Kavanaugh's decisions.

I hope this helps convince Senators how completely disqualifying Kavanaugh's performance in the hearing was. It shouldn't be this close.

Most of the law professors probably don’t know a courtroom from a restroom.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or do you figure if you shout enough insults you'll get your way?

PP is essentially stating a fact; most lawyers that are part of academia are really very mediocre. I have worked with dozens over the years and I can count on one hand those who were exceptional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

One credible one would suffice. We have not seen that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

Accusations are not enough; before I'd rule out any person who is accused of sexual assault, I'd want some level of corroboration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grassley is an old coot.

I liked how he called out the media today.
He explained that he has had protesters in his office every day for the past 2 weeks. People FOR Kavanaugh’s confirmation and people AGAINST. The people FOR his nomination wanted to talk to the media. The media refused because they were only interested in speaking to people who were against Kavanaugh.

Media bias at its finest. And, on full display to the American people.

I’m so glad he called them out on their gross bias. Good for him. Can you imagine if the NYT or Post ran a story about all the people who feel Kavanaugh has been treated abominably? It will be a cold day in hell before they actually report both sides.

You're too easy. Get your fur coat on!


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/02/amid-allegations-against-kavanaugh-worry-about-future-boys-men/?utm_term=.5000c4267299

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/21/us/ap-us-supreme-court-kavanaugh-women.html?login=smartlock&auth=login-smartlock

FWI, both the post and the times ran this AP story:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/29/us/ap-us-supreme-court-kavanaugh-women-supporters.html

Another one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-rise-and-the-reckoning-inside-brett-kavanaughs-circles-of-influence/2018/10/04/bd8dcf4e-c677-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.354a8fdf61d6

[Anonymous]

Collins has reportedly left the SCIF, said she was done with her review but would not announce her decision tonight: https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1047972912618266624

[Anonymous]

Murkowski has reportedly spent much of the afternoon in her office meeting privately with Alaskan women who flew to DC to tell her their stories of their sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s actually much simpler than that. We don’t like drunks. We don’t like sexual assaulters. And, we don’t like rapists.
We also don’t like for ANYBODY to be convicted, even in the court of public opinion, when there is no hard evidence to support the accusation. And, we don’t like mobs dragging a good man’s name through the mud simply because they “believe her” even when there is unsubstantiated and uncorroborated evidence. And, we don’t like this good man’s family being a target of mocking. And, we don’t like mobs of people accosting elected officials because THEY think they have a larger 1st Amendment right to do so.

His what name? He cut his teeth dogging the Clintons, harassing the Foster family. Did you mind all that mocking he helped subject the families to? His background check for his first judgeship took 30 months and he only got pushed through at W’s personal request. He perjured himself in 2006, to say nothing of his hearing this summer. He has no good name, and it is all his own doing.

Also, there are three accusations against him. I wonder how many you’d need to begin to suspect that maybe, perhaps, possibly Brett isn’t quite so well behaved as you’d like to suspect.

Accusations are not enough; before I'd rule out any person who is accused of sexual assault, I'd want some level of corroboration.

#Believe accusers