Official Brett Kavanaugh confirmation thread

If anyone has any doubt how this turned out:

Turn on CNN and watch the glum, hand-wringing panel.

Turn on Fox and watch the fired-up and even giddy panel.

'nuff said.

Ps the allegations of me cheating in the road race are false.

No Mark Judge statement.

It's good you were not on the thread today, as you would not like what people have been saying about you. They're saying you killed Jimmy Hoffa. You might need to seek counsel.

Wejo,

Everything you wrote is silly and unnecessary.

The only conclusion we can draw from this: task the FBI with re-opening the investigation to, y'know, investigate these new allegations (and every day more allegations, under threat of felony, are made).

Nothing else makes a lick of sense; only shameless political hacks try to act like this isn't called for.

What's the constitution say? Could the president make a pick and tell the senate to vote the next day?

Sure it would rile up the opposition, but how is that different than what's happening now?

It's not like sitting judges aren't vetted to get where they are. Their record is public.

This is the future. No hearings. No circus, no false accusations possible. Am I right?

flaggy my man, maybe you could stop bringing up cases that you think are related just because there are some words in common, it's not lost on anybody what you're trying to do :^)

You're missing something.

Or rather confusing, something anyway, for starters. As I understand it, FORD claimed there were four other people at the party - KAVANAUGH, JUDGE, KEYSER, and SMITH. KEYSER and SMITH said they don't remember the party. They don't deny it took place or deny they were there. They say they don't remember it. Saying you don't remember a party is very different from saying you don't think the party happened or denying you attended. But if the assault happened as FORD claimed with KAVANAUGH and JUDGE assaulting her alone in room muffling sound of her with their hands and music and SMITH and KEYSER didn't witness or experience anything unusual themselves, it's not remarkable that they don't remember.

As I understand it, and as SEN. BOOKER said, KEYSER also said she believes FORD even though she - that is, KEYSER herself - doesn't remember the party.

I think KAVANAUGH came off as incredibly immature and some of his explanations for things we know about his youth I found downright insulting they were so unbelievable. I've never heard of the Devil's Triangle thing - at least not in reference to it as a drinking game. I myself have heard people, esp. the party animal type that KAVANAUGH strikes one as having been, use the term in reference to female anatomy. But I'm actually willing to believe him about that, maybe it was a friend's quarter's drinking game and if it was probably derived from the more common meaning. But I'm willing to believe that. But I can't believe his claims about yearbook and drinking. His explanation for the Renate alumni yearbook blurb was insulting in that only the most gullible person would buy that that gesture was a sign of honor and friendship - remember she didn't know - or whatever he said, rather than it being a crude brag about sleeping with one girl or many. Finally, he said he's never blacked out, which is wholly unbelievable given how people in high school and college with him say he drank.

He also hid behind the Republicans on the Committee saying he'd do whatever the committee wants when he was told the best way to clear his name and satisfy everyone would be an FBI investigation.

Having said all that, I think Republicans will probably vote him onto the court.

Oh, Oh--

The American Bar Association is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to halt the consideration of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until an FBI investigation is completed

Hmmm. . . . Kavanaugh could be disbarred, based on the findings of an FBI investigation, and what is likely to come from claims in Maryland. And then what would Republicans do with a disbarred justice?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/kavanaugh-american-bar-association/index.html

johnny99 wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Not true. Leland Keyser, who characterized herself as a friend of Ford's, said through a lawyer that she "does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.”

Keyser didn't deny that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford. You understand that not recalling being at a party is a far cry from denying that Kavanaugh tried to rape Ford at that party.

Anyway, not only does Keyser not deny this attack, she believes that it did happen:

Keyser said that she did not recall the party, but that she was close friends with Ford and that she believes Ford’s allegation.

Precisely one person says it happened. Others say they believe her, find her "credible," etc, they don't deny it, blah blah blah. That is not corroboration, just their opinion. There's no evidence at all beyond the testimony of the accuser and the accused, and considering the accuser has presented no facts to investigate - such as where and when - there are no grounds for pursuing the issue further.

This may not be a criminal trial with its high standards of proof, but government proceedings should still concern themselves with facts. Otherwise they'll have people making up vague stories ad nauseam that can never be proved or disproved just for the sake of gridlock. It is clear that facts on this issue are neither known nor attainable.

sorry buddy, not sure the american bar association has any say in the matter, and is probably exposing itself as partisan in the process

kavanaugh's confirmation on saturday is bigger than trump becoming president

Alyssa Milano in the peanut gallery wrote:

The only person who did well today was Senator Booker

Spartacus was known to grope a intoxicated teenager now and again.

Wow Dougie!

rethuglican wrote:

sorry buddy, not sure the american bar association has any say in the matter, and is probably exposing itself as partisan in the process

You have no clue what the ABA is. Nor that it can disbar a lawyer. Which means that lawyer can no longer practice law.

Bad Wigins wrote:It is clear that facts on this issue are not going to be investigated.

Fixed it for you. You're welcome. For some reason, I imagined you crying like a spoiled frat boy when you wrote that comment.

He couldn't be disbarred for alleged actions that took place as a minor. On the other hand DiFi and Anna Eshoo both violated Maryland and California's mandatory reporting laws regarding sexual assaults on a minor. They already delayed the process by months.

You are quite correct that anyone who is admitted to the most exclusive university in America is entitled to a presumption of high intelligence. That said, Clarence Thomas got in, and no one suggests that he has distinguished himself intellectually during his time on the Supreme Court (or anywhere else, for that matter.) In the documentary “Best of Enemies”, Yale graduate William F. Buckley got handed his ass by Gore Vidal, who never even attended college.

I think that the criticism of Kavanaugh is that, like Thomas, he is not as bright as the typical Supreme Court Justice - not on a par with Rehnquist or Scalia, for example, and certainly not an intellectual giant like Bork.

FYI Kavanaugh’s resume does not state that he was first in his class - although being on the law review editorial board usually means that he was in the top 10%.

Yah, but it's not really about what is good for us as a society. Trump wants another bagman, of course--that's what he wants everywhere--and the legislatures have to decide whether to help him or oppose him. It's well-known that he values loyalty above all else, and hates opposition or dissidence, so the short-term winning plan is to do what Trump wants. The longer-term benefits are more complicated and require guessing whether the Republican Party can ever return to pre-Trump morality, which is difficult to say.

I was amazed to find outon the radio today that in American seniorjudges are politically appointed.

Your system is open to both political bias in terms of sentencing and corruption.

Here there is no relationship between a judge and a political party.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Appointments_Commission