Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Toast by Thursday.

Agree. Too much coming out just tonight. But given he said he wouldn't withdraw, will he make Trump pull him, or will they force a vote?

Twitter says force a vote. And Trump has been know to force losing votes. See also, the ACA repeal. But more to the point, they never staffed up adequately, and Kav is McGann’s guy and McGann is leaving. They have been too busy with Kav to vet anyone as Plan B.

Barrett was recently vetted because she was the runner up.

Liberals don't want her because she's "too Christian." They're probably already devising their plan of attack.

What I find funny about all of this is that liberals are scared to death for Kavanaugh to be confirmed - they actually think he would overturn Roe v. Wade, which he wouldn't. And now that they've painted him as this horrible would-be rapist, the next nominee (Barrett) will be FAR MORE conservative than Kavanaugh ever would have been. So funny - and ironic! Oops!

[Anonymous]

Oh look. He’s a lying liar. No wonder Trump likes him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/chad-ludington-statement-brett-kavanaugh.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

“Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s who said he often drank with him, issued a statement on Sunday saying the Supreme Court nominee was not truthful about his drinking in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Toast by Thursday.

Agree. Too much coming out just tonight. But given he said he wouldn't withdraw, will he make Trump pull him, or will they force a vote?

Twitter says force a vote. And Trump has been know to force losing votes. See also, the ACA repeal. But more to the point, they never staffed up adequately, and Kav is McGann’s guy and McGann is leaving. They have been too busy with Kav to vet anyone as Plan B.

Barrett was recently vetted because she was the runner up.

Liberals don't want her because she's "too Christian." They're probably already devising their plan of attack.

Muskowski and Collins are hard nos on her because of they are pro-choice and Barrett won’t give them the wiggle room Kavanaugh will. She may be runner up. But she is not confirmable in this Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting in-depth article about how Gorsuch and Kavanaugh got where they are in law, whereas how Justice John Roberts got where he is:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/a-brief-guide-to-ultra-elitist-legal-culture-that-gave-us-brett-kavanaugh-ee028b712a2f/amp/

Ah yes, an analysis by a left-wing publication. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Toast by Thursday.

Agree. Too much coming out just tonight. But given he said he wouldn't withdraw, will he make Trump pull him, or will they force a vote?

Twitter says force a vote. And Trump has been know to force losing votes. See also, the ACA repeal. But more to the point, they never staffed up adequately, and Kav is McGann’s guy and McGann is leaving. They have been too busy with Kav to vet anyone as Plan B.

Barrett was recently vetted because she was the runner up.

Liberals don't want her because she's "too Christian." They're probably already devising their plan of attack.

Nobody wants her because she has said explicitly that she would overturn RvW.

Well then the liberals are taking a big chance. Could be an instance of "out of the frying pan and into the fire."

49 Democrats, plus Collins, plus Murkowski who say Barrett’s pledge to overturn Roe as a deal killer. You do the math. We’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok prediction time: one week out, Brett Kavanaugh will or won’t be confirmed?

He will. I hope I'm proved wrong but I think some of the endangered Dems also vote his way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't make it a fact.

Why is it so hard for you to understand? Either she is wrong or he is wrong. You can either throw your hands up and said you refuse to say which one is wrong. Or you can choose to believe one of them. You yourself choose to go with the guy who lied about several little things under oath and who has a certifiable past as a hard partier. Fine for you. Others of us choose to believe a woman whose story echoed experiences we also had. Why is that hard for you to understand that we choose to believe her because of that? Is it because you've never been raped or assaulted? Is it because you've never experienced being so frightened and ashamed of something that happened when you were a teenager? Is it because you've never experienced people telling you they don't believe you when you tell them something horrible?

If you are going to tell me that you were falsely accused of rape and that's why you believe him, then I would say fine, I understand. But I don't understand that you get so hot and bothered that those of us for whom her story comes too close to our own choose to believe her.

I am woman - I have never been falsely accused of rape. However, I have both daughters and sons. And a husband. If we're now in a climate where anyone can dredge up 35+ year old allegations - with no evidence - and have the accused labeled a "rapist," just like that, then I truly fear for what this nation has become.

I don't necessarily believe one of them over the other (Ford/Kavanaugh). What I DO vehemently object to, is this notion that he "must" be guilty, for no other reason than she says he is. If there was indisputable evidence, or corroborating witnesses saying he did it? That would be a completely different matter. But we have none of those things. And unless or until we do, he's still an innocent man and should be treated as such.

My DH is 45. DS and DD are teens. I posed this to DS and DH at dinner if they worried about this in the era of MeToo. And DH was like. No. Why would I. I’ve never done anything to be worried about. And anyone who knows me or knew me would say the same. And he is absolutely right. I don’t worry about DS because he is a better kid than that.

I’m sure there are people who worry about being accused of sexual misconduct from 1990. I think 99% of them are worried because they actually engaged in sexual misconduct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Really? I would think less of you, then, and would not hire you. But I don't believe you. I think you would seethe in private like any human being, and get your act together to behave professionally in public.
Someone who stands accused of belligerent behavior should absolutely be calm when questioned, doesn't that make sense? And someone nominated to the Supreme Court, where patience and and open mind are paramount, should absolutely display those qualities when interviewing for the job. Obvious, no?

But here's the truth: he was hamming it up for the President, not you or me. He understood that if he didn't act like Trump preferred he did, his nomination would be pulled - Trump had just talked about it the day before. Trump has been quoted to advise those accused of sexual misconduct to deny, deny, deny, and fight back.
I don't believe Kavanaugh acted in character on that day, since his character is to be aggressive only when drunk - and he wasn't drunk at the hearing. This was an act put on to impress one person. And because of that display of extreme partiality and sycophantry, he should NOT be confirmed for the Supreme Court, whose agenda calls for opinions in mid-October on whether a pardon on Federal crimes also excuses one from state crimes. Please let that last bit sink in and connect it to people you know who could benefit from that handy ruling. You are looking at the creation of a kleptocracy, and it won't be good for your honest and ethical conservative agenda. Get it now? Quid pro quo of the worst kind.

Cool story, bro.
But regarding the bolded, you have described exactly what Democrats are doing re: Ford. "Extreme partiality and sycophancy (FIFY)."

By defending himself, his family, and his party (all themes that resonate with the base) instead of defending the impartiality and integrity of our justice system, he showed himself to be a very sympathetic victim-of-false-accusation-under-siege but not a future Supreme Court justice. I think the point here is that the Supreme Court is just that, bigger than any of us -- bigger than any one party. It stands for the rule of law in the US. That's a very important ideal in our democracy and one that many people have died to protect. I do not think it can be swept aside for any one individual. He may be hurt, offended, and genuinely threatened by a false accusation. But he needs to understand that this isn't about any one of us. It's about the highest court in the nation. Americans deserve a full and free investigation into any claims of criminal assault or lying. No matter what has happened to him in this process, it doesn't put him above the law. This is something that conservatives should also be able to acknowledge, I hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok prediction time: one week out, Brett Kavanaugh will or won’t be confirmed?

He will. I hope I'm proved wrong but I think some of the endangered Dems also vote his way.

Manchin isn''t endangered but a no vote likely won't please his constituents. Heitkamp is struggling in her race and is a possible yes--faces same constituent problem. Am guessing Flake is a yes, especially if Dems start disparaging the week of investigation he won. If all that comes about Murkowski and Collins aren't needed. But Collins has a history of almost always folding to the party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Really? I would think less of you, then, and would not hire you. But I don't believe you. I think you would seethe in private like any human being, and get your act together to behave professionally in public.
Someone who stands accused of belligerent behavior should absolutely be calm when questioned, doesn't that make sense? And someone nominated to the Supreme Court, where patience and and open mind are paramount, should absolutely display those qualities when interviewing for the job. Obvious, no?

But here's the truth: he was hamming it up for the President, not you or me. He understood that if he didn't act like Trump preferred he did, his nomination would be pulled - Trump had just talked about it the day before. Trump has been quoted to advise those accused of sexual misconduct to deny, deny, deny, and fight back.
I don't believe Kavanaugh acted in character on that day, since his character is to be aggressive only when drunk - and he wasn't drunk at the hearing. This was an act put on to impress one person. And because of that display of extreme partiality and sycophantry, he should NOT be confirmed for the Supreme Court, whose agenda calls for opinions in mid-October on whether a pardon on Federal crimes also excuses one from state crimes. Please let that last bit sink in and connect it to people you know who could benefit from that handy ruling. You are looking at the creation of a kleptocracy, and it won't be good for your honest and ethical conservative agenda. Get it now? Quid pro quo of the worst kind.

Cool story, bro.
But regarding the bolded, you have described exactly what Democrats are doing re: Ford. "Extreme partiality and sycophancy (FIFY)."

By defending himself, his family, and his party (all themes that resonate with the base) instead of defending the impartiality and integrity of our justice system, he showed himself to be a very sympathetic victim-of-false-accusation-under-siege but not a future Supreme Court justice. I think the point here is that the Supreme Court is just that, bigger than any of us -- bigger than any one party. It stands for the rule of law in the US. That's a very important ideal in our democracy and one that many people have died to protect. I do not think it can be swept aside for any one individual. He may be hurt, offended, and genuinely threatened by a false accusation. But he needs to understand that this isn't about any one of us. It's about the highest court in the nation. Americans deserve a full and free investigation into any claims of criminal assault or lying. No matter what has happened to him in this process, it doesn't put him above the law. This is something that conservatives should also be able to acknowledge, I hope.

And btw -- I would have much more respect for him as a candidate had he tried to express this idea in his words, his demeanor, and his comportment in the hearing. Understandably he is emotional and may not be able to control all of that, but it doesn't excuse the way he aggressively answered questions about his drinking with questions about the senator's drinking or focused on his past accomplishments as if they were reasons for why he should not be asked certain questions. At no point in the hearing did I get the sense that he puts an ideal such as the integrity of the court and the justice system above his own personal feelings. Surely as a judge he has seen many false accusations play out before him. What he is supposed to embody is the fairness and impartiality of the process. He failed to uphold that as an ideal in his public representation of himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Really? I would think less of you, then, and would not hire you. But I don't believe you. I think you would seethe in private like any human being, and get your act together to behave professionally in public.
Someone who stands accused of belligerent behavior should absolutely be calm when questioned, doesn't that make sense? And someone nominated to the Supreme Court, where patience and and open mind are paramount, should absolutely display those qualities when interviewing for the job. Obvious, no?

But here's the truth: he was hamming it up for the President, not you or me. He understood that if he didn't act like Trump preferred he did, his nomination would be pulled - Trump had just talked about it the day before. Trump has been quoted to advise those accused of sexual misconduct to deny, deny, deny, and fight back.
I don't believe Kavanaugh acted in character on that day, since his character is to be aggressive only when drunk - and he wasn't drunk at the hearing. This was an act put on to impress one person. And because of that display of extreme partiality and sycophantry, he should NOT be confirmed for the Supreme Court, whose agenda calls for opinions in mid-October on whether a pardon on Federal crimes also excuses one from state crimes. Please let that last bit sink in and connect it to people you know who could benefit from that handy ruling. You are looking at the creation of a kleptocracy, and it won't be good for your honest and ethical conservative agenda. Get it now? Quid pro quo of the worst kind.

Cool story, bro.
But regarding the bolded, you have described exactly what Democrats are doing re: Ford. "Extreme partiality and sycophancy (FIFY)."

By defending himself, his family, and his party (all themes that resonate with the base) instead of defending the impartiality and integrity of our justice system, he showed himself to be a very sympathetic victim-of-false-accusation-under-siege but not a future Supreme Court justice. I think the point here is that the Supreme Court is just that, bigger than any of us -- bigger than any one party. It stands for the rule of law in the US. That's a very important ideal in our democracy and one that many people have died to protect. I do not think it can be swept aside for any one individual. He may be hurt, offended, and genuinely threatened by a false accusation. But he needs to understand that this isn't about any one of us. It's about the highest court in the nation. Americans deserve a full and free investigation into any claims of criminal assault or lying. No matter what has happened to him in this process, it doesn't put him above the law. This is something that conservatives should also be able to acknowledge, I hope.

Will we see Democrats acknowledge this the next time they nominate someone who has 11th hour allegations of sexual assault from 35 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Really? I would think less of you, then, and would not hire you. But I don't believe you. I think you would seethe in private like any human being, and get your act together to behave professionally in public.
Someone who stands accused of belligerent behavior should absolutely be calm when questioned, doesn't that make sense? And someone nominated to the Supreme Court, where patience and and open mind are paramount, should absolutely display those qualities when interviewing for the job. Obvious, no?

But here's the truth: he was hamming it up for the President, not you or me. He understood that if he didn't act like Trump preferred he did, his nomination would be pulled - Trump had just talked about it the day before. Trump has been quoted to advise those accused of sexual misconduct to deny, deny, deny, and fight back.
I don't believe Kavanaugh acted in character on that day, since his character is to be aggressive only when drunk - and he wasn't drunk at the hearing. This was an act put on to impress one person. And because of that display of extreme partiality and sycophantry, he should NOT be confirmed for the Supreme Court, whose agenda calls for opinions in mid-October on whether a pardon on Federal crimes also excuses one from state crimes. Please let that last bit sink in and connect it to people you know who could benefit from that handy ruling. You are looking at the creation of a kleptocracy, and it won't be good for your honest and ethical conservative agenda. Get it now? Quid pro quo of the worst kind.

Cool story, bro.
But regarding the bolded, you have described exactly what Democrats are doing re: Ford. "Extreme partiality and sycophancy (FIFY)."

By defending himself, his family, and his party (all themes that resonate with the base) instead of defending the impartiality and integrity of our justice system, he showed himself to be a very sympathetic victim-of-false-accusation-under-siege but not a future Supreme Court justice. I think the point here is that the Supreme Court is just that, bigger than any of us -- bigger than any one party. It stands for the rule of law in the US. That's a very important ideal in our democracy and one that many people have died to protect. I do not think it can be swept aside for any one individual. He may be hurt, offended, and genuinely threatened by a false accusation. But he needs to understand that this isn't about any one of us. It's about the highest court in the nation. Americans deserve a full and free investigation into any claims of criminal assault or lying. No matter what has happened to him in this process, it doesn't put him above the law. This is something that conservatives should also be able to acknowledge, I hope.

So beautifully put pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Really? I would think less of you, then, and would not hire you. But I don't believe you. I think you would seethe in private like any human being, and get your act together to behave professionally in public.
Someone who stands accused of belligerent behavior should absolutely be calm when questioned, doesn't that make sense? And someone nominated to the Supreme Court, where patience and and open mind are paramount, should absolutely display those qualities when interviewing for the job. Obvious, no?

But here's the truth: he was hamming it up for the President, not you or me. He understood that if he didn't act like Trump preferred he did, his nomination would be pulled - Trump had just talked about it the day before. Trump has been quoted to advise those accused of sexual misconduct to deny, deny, deny, and fight back.
I don't believe Kavanaugh acted in character on that day, since his character is to be aggressive only when drunk - and he wasn't drunk at the hearing. This was an act put on to impress one person. And because of that display of extreme partiality and sycophantry, he should NOT be confirmed for the Supreme Court, whose agenda calls for opinions in mid-October on whether a pardon on Federal crimes also excuses one from state crimes. Please let that last bit sink in and connect it to people you know who could benefit from that handy ruling. You are looking at the creation of a kleptocracy, and it won't be good for your honest and ethical conservative agenda. Get it now? Quid pro quo of the worst kind.

Cool story, bro.
But regarding the bolded, you have described exactly what Democrats are doing re: Ford. "Extreme partiality and sycophancy (FIFY)."

By defending himself, his family, and his party (all themes that resonate with the base) instead of defending the impartiality and integrity of our justice system, he showed himself to be a very sympathetic victim-of-false-accusation-under-siege but not a future Supreme Court justice. I think the point here is that the Supreme Court is just that, bigger than any of us -- bigger than any one party. It stands for the rule of law in the US. That's a very important ideal in our democracy and one that many people have died to protect. I do not think it can be swept aside for any one individual. He may be hurt, offended, and genuinely threatened by a false accusation. But he needs to understand that this isn't about any one of us. It's about the highest court in the nation. Americans deserve a full and free investigation into any claims of criminal assault or lying. No matter what has happened to him in this process, it doesn't put him above the law. This is something that conservatives should also be able to acknowledge, I hope.

Will we see Democrats acknowledge this the next time they nominate someone who has 11th hour allegations of sexual assault from 35 years ago?

Well, look at Franken's resignation statement: "it's become clear that I can't both pursue the Ethics Committee process and at the same time remain an effective senator" for the people of Minnesota.

Franken = Democrat. I think that was a pretty classy way of acknowledging, hey, I could fight this. But what I stand for demands that I step down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats will fight ANY conservative.

It's not the Democrats who've stopped the Kavanaugh vote - it's moderate Republicans. The few who are left who seem to be taking seriously their Constitutional duty of advice and consent. That's why the WH has so tightly limited the FBI investigation - they're trying to walk the fine line between not actually finding anything bad and giving Collins and Murkowski enough cover to vote for him.

The problem is, as people get over the shock of the hearing and actually think about it and watch clips from it, they're realizing that Kavanaugh's behavior - the lying, avoiding of questions, obsession with beer - is not what we want in a Supreme Court justice. Will those few undecided Senators be brave and vote against him? Or will they toe the party line? That's what this week is about.

Speak for yourself. The people I know feel exactly the opposite way. We feel his anger and emotions were fully warranted, given the accusations against him. I don't hold that against him at all. I would have been very shocked had he remained calm and pleasant, given the obvious assumption of guilt many of the Democrats have toward him. I know if I were accused of something I didn't do, I'd be hard-pressed not to throttle those asking the questions.

Really? I would think less of you, then, and would not hire you. But I don't believe you. I think you would seethe in private like any human being, and get your act together to behave professionally in public.
Someone who stands accused of belligerent behavior should absolutely be calm when questioned, doesn't that make sense? And someone nominated to the Supreme Court, where patience and and open mind are paramount, should absolutely display those qualities when interviewing for the job. Obvious, no?

But here's the truth: he was hamming it up for the President, not you or me. He understood that if he didn't act like Trump preferred he did, his nomination would be pulled - Trump had just talked about it the day before. Trump has been quoted to advise those accused of sexual misconduct to deny, deny, deny, and fight back.
I don't believe Kavanaugh acted in character on that day, since his character is to be aggressive only when drunk - and he wasn't drunk at the hearing. This was an act put on to impress one person. And because of that display of extreme partiality and sycophantry, he should NOT be confirmed for the Supreme Court, whose agenda calls for opinions in mid-October on whether a pardon on Federal crimes also excuses one from state crimes. Please let that last bit sink in and connect it to people you know who could benefit from that handy ruling. You are looking at the creation of a kleptocracy, and it won't be good for your honest and ethical conservative agenda. Get it now? Quid pro quo of the worst kind.

Cool story, bro.
But regarding the bolded, you have described exactly what Democrats are doing re: Ford. "Extreme partiality and sycophancy (FIFY)."

By defending himself, his family, and his party (all themes that resonate with the base) instead of defending the impartiality and integrity of our justice system, he showed himself to be a very sympathetic victim-of-false-accusation-under-siege but not a future Supreme Court justice. I think the point here is that the Supreme Court is just that, bigger than any of us -- bigger than any one party. It stands for the rule of law in the US. That's a very important ideal in our democracy and one that many people have died to protect. I do not think it can be swept aside for any one individual. He may be hurt, offended, and genuinely threatened by a false accusation. But he needs to understand that this isn't about any one of us. It's about the highest court in the nation. Americans deserve a full and free investigation into any claims of criminal assault or lying. No matter what has happened to him in this process, it doesn't put him above the law. This is something that conservatives should also be able to acknowledge, I hope.

Will we see Democrats acknowledge this the next time they nominate someone who has 11th hour allegations of sexual assault from 35 years ago?

Depends, when was the last time Dems nominated someone with a 35 year old sexual assault claim against them? I thought it was never. Because Dems vet their judicial nominees rather than outsourcing to the Federalist Society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't make it a fact.

Why is it so hard for you to understand? Either she is wrong or he is wrong. You can either throw your hands up and said you refuse to say which one is wrong. Or you can choose to believe one of them. You yourself choose to go with the guy who lied about several little things under oath and who has a certifiable past as a hard partier. Fine for you. Others of us choose to believe a woman whose story echoed experiences we also had. Why is that hard for you to understand that we choose to believe her because of that? Is it because you've never been raped or assaulted? Is it because you've never experienced being so frightened and ashamed of something that happened when you were a teenager? Is it because you've never experienced people telling you they don't believe you when you tell them something horrible?

If you are going to tell me that you were falsely accused of rape and that's why you believe him, then I would say fine, I understand. But I don't understand that you get so hot and bothered that those of us for whom her story comes too close to our own choose to believe her.

I am woman - I have never been falsely accused of rape. However, I have both daughters and sons. And a husband. If we're now in a climate where anyone can dredge up 35+ year old allegations - with no evidence - and have the accused labeled a "rapist," just like that, then I truly fear for what this nation has become.

I don't necessarily believe one of them over the other (Ford/Kavanaugh). What I DO vehemently object to, is this notion that he "must" be guilty, for no other reason than she says he is. If there was indisputable evidence, or corroborating witnesses saying he did it? That would be a completely different matter. But we have none of those things. And unless or until we do, he's still an innocent man and should be treated as such.


Lady, if the thing that keeps you up at night is worrying about false rape accusations, you need to wake the heck up.

What should keep you up at night is the sheer horror at the stories about what has happened to women over decades and how it has been covered up.

What we are in is a climate where women are finally speaking up and telling their stories of abuse, assault, harassment. Stories they buried for years and years, because they knew if they told them they would not be believed and/or would be bullied/smeared.
We are in a climate where we are FINALLY starting to make headway that mistreatment of women never excusable, not for male-bonding, not for male entertainment, not for any reason.
Boys will be boys, teen boys do stupid things...these will no longer be acceptable excuses.
These are GOOD things.

I agree completely that we cannot condemn him as guilty automatically based on her testimony. This is why the investigation is critical, and, if he is innocent, he should welcome it.
I don't think (notice I said think) he is innocent based on his performance at that hearing (lie and evade), but I would never say I know. I agree further information is needed.