Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a nominee can’t get through confirmation without lapses in emotional regulation so severe they require damage control op-eds, they are unfit.

But it is nice he is expressing his lack of fitness.

Again, judges recuse themselves from cases in which there is a conflict of self interest because everyone knows it is impossible to be dispassionate in those situations. Why is this such a tough concept? Oh yeah. Grasping at anything.

Nobel try, but that is not what the world saw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statement from Kavanaugh via an editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822?mod=hp_opin_pos1

He’s not even making a pretense that he’s not campaigning like a politician.

Also, they don’t have the votes to confirm or they’d never let him put himself out there like this. This is a Hail Mary.

This whole thing is just so freaking bizarre. When has this ever happened before? My nerves are fried, I’ll be so glad when it over even if its not my preferred outcome as I suspect it will not be.

Equally freaking bizarre is the circumstances under which we got here. Kennedy had selected his clerks. He went to the White House, he announced his retirement. His son was Trump’s banker at Deutsche Bank. None, none, none of this even gives the appearance of appropriate or normal.

Exactly. They are all jerking each other off at our expense.

[Anonymous]

That letter is a groveling asskissing piece of work. What a ok. Nonpartisan after that tirade at the hearing. And the endless mention of coaching the basketball teams of his daughter's classmates. Not a professional requirement. Stop whipping out the "cool Dad" card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of this publication, but I agree with this article....

We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.

But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Whether an investigation takes place at a school, at a workplace, or in the criminal-justice system, neutral fact-finding must apply, regardless of how disturbing we find the offense, the group identity of the accused, or the political leanings of those involved. History demonstrates that ascribing honesty or dishonesty, criminality or righteousness solely on the basis of gender or race doesn’t increase the amount of equity in the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/

That is right. Blindly believing an accuser because of the nature of the crime is bias. It is not justice. Do all accusers deserve to be treated with respect and dignity? Of course. But facts must be pursued dispassionately and without prejudice. I'm sorry about whatever happened to Christine Ford, but she has no real case.

Great, so you will call your Senator and request the FBI to a proper investigation of this matter and not the sham the White house conducted this week?

The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh seven times and interviewed everyone Ford claims was there. Get some new talking points.

No kidding. What did they really think was going to happen when they kept saying it could be done in as little as 3 days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of this publication, but I agree with this article....

We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.

But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Whether an investigation takes place at a school, at a workplace, or in the criminal-justice system, neutral fact-finding must apply, regardless of how disturbing we find the offense, the group identity of the accused, or the political leanings of those involved. History demonstrates that ascribing honesty or dishonesty, criminality or righteousness solely on the basis of gender or race doesn’t increase the amount of equity in the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/

That is right. Blindly believing an accuser because of the nature of the crime is bias. It is not justice. Do all accusers deserve to be treated with respect and dignity? Of course. But facts must be pursued dispassionately and without prejudice. I'm sorry about whatever happened to Christine Ford, but she has no real case.

Great, so you will call your Senator and request the FBI to a proper investigation of this matter and not the sham the White house conducted this week?

The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh seven times and interviewed everyone Ford claims was there. Get some new talking points.

There are two people that Ford claims were there that were not interviewed. Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brett Kavanaugh in today's Wall Street Journal. Food for thought.

"I was very emotional last Thursday, crying and sniveling and making weird wrinkled-nose faces like a little bitch-man. I might have been too emotional at times, but that's me, a bitchy little pansy. I know that my tone was douchey, and unfortunately I said a few things that show the type of person I really am. I hope everyone can understand that I really, really want to be on the Supreme Court. It would be so awesome and I totally promise to do all of Trump's bidding and make sure he can operate outside the law. Seriously, whatever you want, I'll do it. Anyway, I testified with five people foremost in my mind: Squi, Judge, TK, Bernie, and Tobin. p.s. I never bagged Renate, cos I was virgin 'til I was 26, but I wanted all the guys to think I did."

Your reaction to a man who you loathe is to equate him to a woman? A negative, insulting word to use to describe a woman? You are one mixed up feminist.

WOW! YOU COULD BE A PROFESSIONAL SATIRIST. SO HILARIOUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statement from Kavanaugh via an editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822?mod=hp_opin_pos1

He appears on Fox and gets published in WSJ - both Murdoch owned outlets. Why not be interviewed by John Dickerson or Rachel Maddow?

It would be nice if he could do a little soul searching and admit, "hey I was kind of an a$$hole back in high school and college, I really did some sh!tty things, I was absolutely a terrible person when I was drunk, I apologize to all whom I offended with my drunken obnoxiousness. I've since realized how drinking heavily does not suit me and was not something I wanted to define me, I have come to learn to respect women more especially with daughters of my own and I hope they don't encounter the sort of boy I was back then..." etc.

[Anonymous]

What a joke--nonpartisan (NOT)...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brett Kavanaugh in today's Wall Street Journal. Food for thought.

"I was very emotional last Thursday, crying and sniveling and making weird wrinkled-nose faces like a little bitch-man. I might have been too emotional at times, but that's me, a bitchy little pansy. I know that my tone was douchey, and unfortunately I said a few things that show the type of person I really am. I hope everyone can understand that I really, really want to be on the Supreme Court. It would be so awesome and I totally promise to do all of Trump's bidding and make sure he can operate outside the law. Seriously, whatever you want, I'll do it. Anyway, I testified with five people foremost in my mind: Squi, Judge, TK, Bernie, and Tobin. p.s. I never bagged Renate, cos I was virgin 'til I was 26, but I wanted all the guys to think I did."

You are a very angry man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Note that he doesn’t apologize for insulting Dem senators and doesn’t take back his Clinton conspiracy claims or his “what goes around comes around.” Only that he may have been “too emotional” at times because other people make him do it.

Again, total lack of accountability for his own behavior. He wants it so he deserves it and no one had better take it from him.

This is why judges recuse themselves in cases in which they have a conflict. THEY ARE NOT EXPECTED TO BE DISPASSIONATE AND DISINTERESTED.

He's going to have to recuse himself for any case that involves women's issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brett Kavanaugh in today's Wall Street Journal. Food for thought.

"I was very emotional last Thursday, crying and sniveling and making weird wrinkled-nose faces like a little bitch-man. I might have been too emotional at times, but that's me, a bitchy little pansy. I know that my tone was douchey, and unfortunately I said a few things that show the type of person I really am. I hope everyone can understand that I really, really want to be on the Supreme Court. It would be so awesome and I totally promise to do all of Trump's bidding and make sure he can operate outside the law. Seriously, whatever you want, I'll do it. Anyway, I testified with five people foremost in my mind: Squi, Judge, TK, Bernie, and Tobin. p.s. I never bagged Renate, cos I was virgin 'til I was 26, but I wanted all the guys to think I did."

You are a very angry man.

DP. The entire country is very angry right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of this publication, but I agree with this article....

We are now in a time of chronic national convulsions, and the latest, over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, has resulted in the wrenching public and private testimony of women who have been sexually assaulted and who have never before spoken about it. Of course, this outpouring has a hashtag: #BelieveSurvivors. Women who tell their stories should have the support, and belief, of loved ones, friends, and a therapeutic community.

But when a woman, in telling her story, makes an allegation against a specific man, a different set of obligations kick in.

Even as we must treat accusers with seriousness and dignity, we must hear out the accused fairly and respectfully, and recognize the potential lifetime consequences that such an allegation can bring. If believing the woman is the beginning and the end of a search for the truth, then we have left the realm of justice for religion.

Whether an investigation takes place at a school, at a workplace, or in the criminal-justice system, neutral fact-finding must apply, regardless of how disturbing we find the offense, the group identity of the accused, or the political leanings of those involved. History demonstrates that ascribing honesty or dishonesty, criminality or righteousness solely on the basis of gender or race doesn’t increase the amount of equity in the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-and-problem-believesurvivors/572083/

That is right. Blindly believing an accuser because of the nature of the crime is bias. It is not justice. Do all accusers deserve to be treated with respect and dignity? Of course. But facts must be pursued dispassionately and without prejudice. I'm sorry about whatever happened to Christine Ford, but she has no real case.

Great, so you will call your Senator and request the FBI to a proper investigation of this matter and not the sham the White house conducted this week?

The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh seven times and interviewed everyone Ford claims was there. Get some new talking points.

And despite all of these background checks, they have never managed to talk to any of the college or high school classmates about his alcohol consumption or any of these allegations. His college classmates have confirmed they have NEVER been contacted. Dennis Hastert had clearance too, and no one ever uncovered his sex with little boys, so why don't you come up with some new talking points?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a nominee can’t get through confirmation without lapses in emotional regulation so severe they require damage control op-eds, they are unfit.

But it is nice he is expressing his lack of fitness.

Again, judges recuse themselves from cases in which there is a conflict of self interest because everyone knows it is impossible to be dispassionate in those situations. Why is this such a tough concept? Oh yeah. Grasping at anything.

Nobel try, but that is not what the world saw.

Your statement literally has no meaning.

[Anonymous]

Why do people lie about being victims of sexual assault? Who knows. But some people do. So the question isn't why would someone lie, but are they lying and what does the evidence indicate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a nominee can’t get through confirmation without lapses in emotional regulation so severe they require damage control op-eds, they are unfit.

But it is nice he is expressing his lack of fitness.

Again, judges recuse themselves from cases in which there is a conflict of self interest because everyone knows it is impossible to be dispassionate in those situations. Why is this such a tough concept? Oh yeah. Grasping at anything.

What use is a Justice who has to recuse himself from every case with a remotely political question? He’s already declared Dems the enemy, he’d have to recuse himself from every case with a partisan divide.