Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never saw Obama lose his temper like that. And we all know the kind of trash that was thrown at him.

Yep. It’s almost like Obama has a calm, cool temperment perfect for the Supreme Court. But nooooo we get Turd Ferguson.

I pray to god that the Democratic president nominates Obama to the court in 2021.

Someone who has never practiced law, argued a case, or served as a judge?

None of those things are actually prerequisites for Supreme Court justices.

Fun Fact: you can be a SCOTUS Justice and not have a law degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

Seriously, a 36 year old sexual assault allegation from a high school party? Ridiculous. Shame on Dianne Feinstein for letting the anarchists in her party drag that enfeebled misrememberer in front of a senate committee. Something happened to her perhaps, but it wasn’t Justice Kavanaugh.

He lied about Renate. He's an asshole.

And he can't apologize or admit he was wrong, at all.

[Anonymous]

You can see a narrow staircase in a picture on Zillow below:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3333-Tennyson-St-NW-Washington-DC-20015/452556_zpid/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Fun Fact: you can be a SCOTUS Justice and not have a law degree.

However, it must be said, that being Catholic or Jewish and having gone to Yale or Harvard really improves your chances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gardner has officially moved from a Yes to an undecided.

Yep: https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/04/cory-gardner-fbi-report-brett-kavanaugh/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can see a narrow staircase in a picture on Zillow below:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3333-Tennyson-St-NW-Washington-DC-20015/452556_zpid/

Picture 5 is a narrow staircase. The description of the house says the Family Rom is on 1st Floor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post EDITORIAL BOARD - which is CONSERVATIVE and has not opposed a Supreme Court nominee since Bork (PRO Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, etc.) - comes out AGAINST JUSTICE BRETT https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.ee08885fa601

Conservative? What planet do you live on?

Haha! seriously, that post is funny. The WaPo editorial board is hard left, basically an appendage of the democratic party.

Of course. That’s why they loved the war in Iraq so much.

Meh. The WaPo editorial page definitely skews liberal. When they publish things as an editorial board though? Tends to be pretty moderate. They did endorse Gorsuch. They had endorsed Kav.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

They didn't have the votes then. They don't have them now.

Partially correct. They didn’t have them then. They do now, especially after the fbi —was that Justice Kavanaughs seventh FBI investigation—turned up the same thing his first six did.
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.

If they had the votes, they would vote. Why on earth would they wait?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

They didn't have the votes then. They don't have them now.

Partially correct. They didn’t have them then. They do now, especially after the fbi —was that Justice Kavanaughs seventh FBI investigation—turned up the same thing his first six did.
Nada.
Zip.
Zilch.

No, they don't. With Collins, Murkowski, Flake, Gardner and Manchin all still undecided, the whip count is at best 47 yeas at the moment. And that assumes you haven't lost anyone else back to undecided like you did Gardner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bart's drinking buddies oppose his nomination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-were-brett-kavanaughs-drinking-buddies-we-dont-think-he-should-be-confirmed/2018/10/04/923cf6ac-c821-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html

Ah yes, Mr. Ludington with these earth shattering revalations

REPORTER: "What did [Kavanaugh] specifically testify to that you believe is a lie?"
LUDINGTON: “I have seen Brett drunk to the point he could easily be passed out.”
REPORTER: “But you never saw him passed out?”
LUDINGTON: "No, I never saw him passed out, but I saw him quite drunk."

Earth shattering stuff there considering Kavanaugh said he drank too much sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post EDITORIAL BOARD - which is CONSERVATIVE and has not opposed a Supreme Court nominee since Bork (PRO Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, etc.) - comes out AGAINST JUSTICE BRETT https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/vote-no-on-kavanaugh/2018/10/04/23495e3a-c7f3-11e8-b1ed-1d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.ee08885fa601

Conservative? What planet do you live on?

+1 Ha ha ha!!!

OP is correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hiatt

Um, no. #1:He is the editorial page editor, not the entirety of the editorial board, and NOT conservative. #2: Name one Republican they’ve endorsed for a high office recently.

Um like OP said, they have endorsed every SCOTUS nominee after Bork, including Alito, Clarence Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch. That's.Not.Liberal.

Please share a link to just one WAPO editorial board opinion piece that you view as conservative. I'd love to read it.

DP. The editorial board is pretty conservative. In the old-fashioned sense of the word.

I doubt PP knows what the traditional, old-fashioned, original definition of conservative is. Which is pretty darn funny when you think about it.

[Anonymous]

Is there a nuclear nuclear option so that confirmations only need 40 votes?

- Asking for the GOP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

Seriously, a 36 year old sexual assault allegation from a high school party? Ridiculous. Shame on Dianne Feinstein for letting the anarchists in her party drag that enfeebled misrememberer in front of a senate committee. Something happened to her perhaps, but it wasn’t Justice Kavanaugh.

He lied about Renate. He's an asshole.

Yes, absolutely.

But you know, he would spin it as saving her "honor." When instead he should have been apologizing profusely for the GTPrep boys being a$$holes to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rape in private, boys, and you'll be just fine.

Even though the number of false accusations by women is microscopic compared to the number of sexual assaults committed by men, Kavanaugh enthusiasts are exclusively focused on the very small problem and give no indication of giving a shit about the very big problem.

Look at the number of posts we've seen that claim there is "no corroboration." And, let's be clear, they don't say "Ford's claim has not been corroborated to my satisfaction." They are emphatic that it's *no* corroboration.

"The testimony of a witness is said to be corroborated when it is shown to correspond with the representation of some other witnesses, or to comport with some facts otherwise known or established."

Corroborating evidence includes:
- Ford’s description of Kavanaugh’s drinking buddies,

- Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry that describes his plans to go to “Timmy’s for skis with Judge, Tom, P.J. Bernie and … Squi,”

-Mark Judge’s memoir outlining his and “Bart O’Kavanaugh’s” drinking habits,

-Kavanaugh’s Beach Week letter discussing “prolific pukers.” There is a slew of other evidence corroborating Ford’s claims. (Seth Abramson wrote a detailed Twitter thread about all the corroborating evidence; it is worth reading.)

-The fact that Brett’s claims that he was a virgin who never drank to excess are belied by his own statements about how much he likes beer, and the statements of his high school and college pals that he was frequently drunk and bragged about his sexual prowess. Evidence that lessens Kavanaugh’s credibility and enhances Ford’s credibility is corroborating evidence.

There is corroboration. Repeatedly and falsely claiming that there is none (rather than arguing that the corroboration is insufficiently convincing) will serve to discourage any woman who doesn't get raped or sexually harassed in front of witnesses who are friendly to her.

Sigh. Beautifully written, but nobody wants to dispassionate examen the facts we have. We have become a nation where we don't even know how to look for the truth.

+1
The people claiming there’s no proof are being willfully blind and it’s incredibly frustrating.

The people who don't know what proof and corroboration mean are incredibly frustrating. There is no corroboration or proof of Ford having been assaulted by Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh drinking in high school, Ford knowing his friend's names...none of that is proof of sexual assault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catching up on the day just now. So it's a given that he's going to be confirmed? Reading the last page it seems like folks are resigned to the outcome

It was a given during that Roman circus of a hearing—the original one where Kamala came off as a blabbering idiot and Cory booker had his spongebob squarepants moment. All the heat lightning since then has just illuminated how crazed for power the left is. And it’s probably set back sexual assault victim advocacy by about 70 years.

Seriously, a 36 year old sexual assault allegation from a high school party? Ridiculous. Shame on Dianne Feinstein for letting the anarchists in her party drag that enfeebled misrememberer in front of a senate committee. Something happened to her perhaps, but it wasn’t Justice Kavanaugh.

He lied about Renate. He's an asshole.

Yes, absolutely.

But you know, he would spin it as saving her "honor." When instead he should have been apologizing profusely for the GTPrep boys being a$$holes to her.

unfortunately, telling a blatant lie cannot possibly save her honor, and he must be an idiot if he doesn't know that.