Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just thought I'd point out that this thread didn't age well.

Just because the Dems have decided to toss out some bogus allegations at Kavanaugh, doesn’t mean he isn’t eminently qualified and suited to be on SCOTUS.
He’ll be confirmed, despite the dirty tricks the Dems are pulling.

agree, I don't think anyone has the energy to be 24/7 on this next week. It's too weak and based on teenager memories of what may or may not have happened. That's all it's been reduced to and when you step back and see that, you want to barf and move on. This doesn't have legs to last more than the two days it has.

over & out .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just thought I'd point out that this thread didn't age well.

Just because the Dems have decided to toss out some bogus allegations at Kavanaugh, doesn’t mean he isn’t eminently qualified and suited to be on SCOTUS.
He’ll be confirmed, despite the dirty tricks the Dems are pulling.

I agree with 1/2 your post. He will be confirmed.

BTW, Jeff is totally going to lock this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a no lose situation for the Republicans.

It puts Democrats up for reelection from red states on the spot. If they vote against Kavanaugh, it would be ammunition for the Republicans running against them. And even if they vote against Kavanaugh, there are enough votes to confirm him.

The Democrats are trying to delay the confirmation precisely because they don't want vulnerable Democrats to vote against Kavanaugh and they are hoping that control of the Senate will flip in which case they can block Kavanaugh.

All the more reason for the Republicans to get it done before the mid-terms.

That may be a parallel consequence, but that is NOT why Democrats are "trying to delay" and why average Americans don't approve of his confirmation -- it's because the Senate is avoiding proper procedure and - whether they intended this or not - appear to be trying to hide something(s) from Kavanaugh's history. i.e., Democrats are not trying to delay, rather it would appear Republicans are trying to rush.

Please ........ the Democrats are using the need for documents as an excuse. I don't blame them - just as I did not blame the Republicans for using their control of the Senate to block Garland. But let us not pretend the Democrats have any intention of giving Kavanaugh a fair hearing. He could walk on water and the Democrats would say that he can't swim.

spot on.

Anonymous wrote:just thought I'd point out that this thread didn't age well.

Just because the Dems have decided to toss out some bogus allegations at Kavanaugh, doesn’t mean he isn’t eminently qualified and suited to be on SCOTUS.
He’ll be confirmed, despite the dirty tricks the Dems are pulling.

just thought I'd point out that this thread didn't age well.

Anonymous wrote:Liberal Yale professor endorses Kavanaugh unreservedly

After writing a controversial op-ed titled “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh,” Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar said Tuesday he will speak in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court nominee before the Senate Judiciary Committee if asked to do so.

“The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move,” Amar wrote for The New York Times in an op-ed posted online Monday night shortly after Trump revealed Kavanaugh’s nomination in a ceremony in the East Room.

Amar called Kavanaugh a “superb nominee” who deserved “ninetysomething” Senate votes because of his strong credentials and the fact that “he reads and learns” a wide range of views. Kavanaugh “commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists,” Amar added.

“I have followed his career with care,” Amar told The National Law Journal, adding that “it’s my job” to share the information and expertise he has about Kavanaugh, a onetime student of his at Yale. “Let my fellow citizens decide.” Amar is a prolific liberal scholar of the Constitution.


https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/07/11/akhil-amar-liberal-prof-at-yale-law-would-testify-for-kavanaugh-if-asked/?slreturn=20180730103304

I am a liberal Democrat and I'm am not necessarily opposed to his actual confirmation, though I do have some issues with some of his positions and the way his nomination came about. Frankly I don't care if every single liberal judge, justice, law professor, legal scholar, attorney in the country signed a petition saying he's the greatest legal mind since the Founding Fathers -- above all I expect the Senate to follow normal order when holding hearings and confirmation processes about someone who will sit there for another 45 years. Period.

Not sure why people on this thread don't get that.

Liberal Yale professor endorses Kavanaugh unreservedly

After writing a controversial op-ed titled “A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh,” Yale Law School professor Akhil Amar said Tuesday he will speak in favor of the U.S. Supreme Court nominee before the Senate Judiciary Committee if asked to do so.

“The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move,” Amar wrote for The New York Times in an op-ed posted online Monday night shortly after Trump revealed Kavanaugh’s nomination in a ceremony in the East Room.

Amar called Kavanaugh a “superb nominee” who deserved “ninetysomething” Senate votes because of his strong credentials and the fact that “he reads and learns” a wide range of views. Kavanaugh “commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists,” Amar added.

“I have followed his career with care,” Amar told The National Law Journal, adding that “it’s my job” to share the information and expertise he has about Kavanaugh, a onetime student of his at Yale. “Let my fellow citizens decide.” Amar is a prolific liberal scholar of the Constitution.


https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/07/11/akhil-amar-liberal-prof-at-yale-law-would-testify-for-kavanaugh-if-asked/?slreturn=20180730103304

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if they aren't trying to delay, why are Rs fussing about having provided documentation when they've provided <10% of the documentation of the type that was provided on prior modern justices? Come on.

Meant, if they aren't trying to rush.

Another BS claim.

Over 1 million pages of documents have been provided regarding Kavanaugh. Senators reviewed about 182,000 pages of documents on Gorsuch and about 170,000 pages on Kagan.

The Democrats are looking to delay - first, requesting documents that have no relevance to his judicial decisions or work, and then, no doubt, to claim they don’t have time to review any additional documents. It isn’t going to work.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/31/senate-digs-through-record-1-million-pages-documents-kavanaugh/864516002/

And that absolute number of documents only represents a small proportion of what is out there. Why should he be held to a different standard than previous modern justices, whose histories have been reported in full?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if they aren't trying to delay, why are Rs fussing about having provided documentation when they've provided <10% of the documentation of the type that was provided on prior modern justices? Come on.

Meant, if they aren't trying to rush.

Another BS claim.

Over 1 million pages of documents have been provided regarding Kavanaugh. Senators reviewed about 182,000 pages of documents on Gorsuch and about 170,000 pages on Kagan.

The Democrats are looking to delay - first, requesting documents that have no relevance to his judicial decisions or work, and then, no doubt, to claim they don’t have time to review any additional documents. It isn’t going to work.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/31/senate-digs-through-record-1-million-pages-documents-kavanaugh/864516002/

Anonymous wrote:And if they aren't trying to delay, why are Rs fussing about having provided documentation when they've provided <10% of the documentation of the type that was provided on prior modern justices? Come on.

Meant, if they aren't trying to rush.