Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[triplehorn 2664]

13 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Again, his wife worked as well, they were probably pulling in $300k at least between the two of them. The financial stuff is/ should be easy to trace.  

True they are looking for blackmail potential, but the other issues that come up they go in the report as well.  The background checks when conducted would reveal these issues that are now suddenly coming to light, unless they were concealed from the report or all the victims kept their mouths shut. 

 

His wife is a town Council member in Chevy Chase, MD, where she's been involved in, among other sundry tasks, arranging snow removal - not a 6 figs endeavor.

Consistent with countless other women who've been subjected to sexual assault - individuals often don't come forward.  That's what we're seeing here.

Again, the financial shadiness very well could be more recent.  And you have to take a step back and realize that, with this current crop of individuals in control of what appears to be a corrupt GOP syndicate, holding blackmail on a seated SCOTUS justice would arguably be a job pre-requisite.  All indications from GOP behavior through rushing, pressuring, lack of standard due diligence in the face of alarm bells going off, and pre-judging support this.

[MixtyMotions 102]

https://www.predictit.org/Market/4602/How-many-Yea-votes-will-Kavanaugh-receive-in-a-confirmation-vote-by-Oct-31

[happyfunball 481]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Dear Republicans, do yourself a favor and pull Kavanaugh.  

If I was a left wing partisan hack, I would love nothing more than for you force Kananaugh through.  

Moreover, if I was Jeff Flake and looking to run for President one day, I would absolutely vote NO on Kavanaugh just for the political capital gained.

Actually, it is better for the dems this election cycle if this story continues and ultimately a failed vote. Given the trajectory, I'd bet this continues to be a story until at least end of this week where either he will be confirmed or a vote fails on the floor.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Has she left California yet?  Someone should figure that out.  

[jimmyjazz 45898]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Has she left California yet?  Someone should figure that out.  

Still not funny.

[David Dennison 18854]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Still not funny.

Laughing at, not with.

[retread 2951]

Tell the Donner one again ...

[Lurch 5930]

Johnny Sack has been triggered and seems like a rape apologist

I’m here for the eventual meltdown

[Dertyberd 394]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Dear Republicans, do yourself a favor and pull Kavanaugh.  

If I was a left wing partisan hack, I would love nothing more than for you force Kananaugh through.  

Moreover, if I was Jeff Flake and looking to run for President one day, I would absolutely vote NO on Kavanaugh just for the political capital gained.

He wouldn't make it through the primary.  R voters would never forgive him for a no vote of any kind for the precious.  SC seats are all a lot of their base has left for identifying as R's.  

[safe sex 11709]

What is it with conservative men and punching down...? Oh.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

He wouldn't make it through the primary.  R voters would never forgive him for a no vote of any kind for the precious.  SC seats are all a lot of their base has left for identifying as R's.  

I think it would only work if he said no to this and yes to the next one immediately.  That can be spun as showing how thoughtful he is.  Or that he's a [palin] maverick [/palin].  If he says no here and it actually screws up the plan to get a solid right wing court because of whatever future event keeps it from happening, I think you'd be right.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

5 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

He wouldn't make it through the primary.  R voters would never forgive him for a no vote of any kind for the precious.  SC seats are all a lot of their base has left for identifying as R's.  

I agree here.  John McCain was a goddamn war hero and former Presidential nominee, and they treated that man like he's the modern day Hitler because he had the audacity to ONLY agree with Trump 83% of the time.

[Loco 3752]

23 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

And we’re missing the bigger picture: Kavanaugh’s own defense is plagued with sloppy legal research and analysis.  Seems like a relevant concern in evaluating a potential Supreme Court Justice.

BrickHorn was about to learn, that in the future, justice was not only blind, but had become rather retarded as well.

[G650 14249]

1 minute ago, Loco said:

BrickHorn was about to learn, that in the future, justice was not only blind, but had become rather retarded as well.

I wonder if his wife is a pilot.

[Dertyberd 394]

Just now, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think it would only work if he said no to this and yes to the next one immediately.  That can be spun as showing how thoughtful he is.  Or that he's a [palin] maverick [/palin].  If he says no here and it actually screws up the plan to get a solid right wing court because of whatever future event keeps it from happening, I think you'd be right.

Possible, but that's a serious gamble for a guy who has yet to take stand on anything.  20 years ago you have a great point and I'm with you. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33868]

...or confirmed

Fuck off. This isn't naming a team captain. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land and whomever sits in that seat will have a long lasting influence on how the constitution is interpreted.

Kavanaugh is a terrible choice for such an important position - and that was before we learned he was rapey

[jimmyjazz 45898]

I'm feeling nostalgic.  Let's review the statements by a couple of Republican senators after the nomination (and subsequent stonewalling) of Merrick Garland, referring to their plans going forward:

Quote

 

John McCain:  “I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up. I promise you.”

Richard Burr:  “If Hillary becomes president, I’m going to do everything I can do to make sure that four years from now, we’re still going to have an opening on the Supreme Court.” 

 

 

. . . just in case any of you right-wing patriots wants to make the case that the proximity to the November elections was the overarching reason for refusing to consider Merrick Garland.

 

[happyfunball 481]

 

[Js1 85310]

6 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

Dorm room talk?

[hpslugga 4058]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm feeling nostalgic.  Let's review the statements by a couple of Republican senators after the nomination (and subsequent stonewalling) of Merrick Garland, referring to their plans going forward:

 

. . . just in case any of you right-wing patriots wants to make the case that the proximity to the November elections was the overarching reason for refusing to consider Merrick Garland.

 

Oh there's no question it wasn't about that. McConnell kept invoking "the Biden Rule" 1) as if that were even a real thing and 2) as if he was rendering what Biden actually said. It's just classic straw-grasping.

[hayden_horn 11362]

7 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

strangely, his best defense here is "well, yeah, i was lying to try and look more cool"

[yoladu 4093]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Dorm room talk?

The GOP has identified a number of safe spaces for lying: dorm rooms, locker rooms, etc.

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

11 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

Yeah, I think we are going to look back at his Choir Boy performance last night as the moment when this all fell apart.  

[retread 2951]

It's good to see more of his classmates coming forward.

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

13 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

Just another liberal elite professor poisoning the minds of our young people. Besides, Kantrowitz sounds jewey, and you know how they lie...

[kevwun 15774]

He's gonna lie himself out of the nomination and his current appointment.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

1 minute ago, kevwun said:

He's gonna lie himself out of the nomination and his current appointment.

that's an interesting point.  if they have to pull his nomination because he is a little rapey, does he go back on the federal bench?  gross.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

39 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I agree here.  John McCain was a goddamn war hero and former Presidential nominee, and they treated that man like he's the modern day Hitler because he had the audacity to ONLY agree with Trump 83% of the time.

And when he ran for president the left classified him as literally Hitler.  

[David Dennison 18854]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And when he ran for president the left classified him as literally Hitler.  

No, not literally. Not even figuratively.

 

[jimmyjazz 45898]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And when he ran for president the left classified him as literally Hitler.  

Do you traffic in the truth . . . ever?

[bad_teammate 13194]

5 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

that's an interesting point.  if they have to pull his nomination because he is a little rapey, does he go back on the federal bench?  gross.

The Democrats should absolutely be looking at the impeachment rules and applying them as textually strictly as possible. Draining the swamp means holding those in power to account and that is exactly what should happen in this case. If lying under oath is grounds for removal from his seat on the bench, there is no reason for the Democrats to not pursue that immediately upon gaining control of Congress.

Drain the swamp of every Good Old Boy, Ivy League rat in power.

Pack the court with decent human beings who are honest under oath.

This shouldn't be that hard.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

This "FBI background check" business also needs to be clarified, since it is repeatedly getting misused.  Federal judges, including SCJs are NOT required to have a clearance, let alone a Top Secret clearance.  The non-clearance background check for judges or other federal employees deemed "high risk", which is the level where the FBI gets involved, only go back five years in general and are way less stringent than security clearances.  The FBI (and DOJ) checks references that the applicant lists, credit reports/history, taxes, residence history etc and may interview some of the references the applicant lists.  They don't dig into stuff more than 5 or 10 years old, let alone 30 years.  Unless there is some adverse information that comes out (which is the case here).

A security clearance investigation is more rigorous, but still generally only goes back 10 years, and again, except for Top Secret which is a little more stringent and does involve interviews with references, the applicant lists references (co-workers, friends, neighbors etc) and that's who the investigating agency talks to, if at all.  They don't go back and look at high school classmates (unless they are listed as references).  

Knowing these processes is important because in background check, the FBI isn't going to find out about jack shit that happened in the past, unless either there is an accessible record of it, or a reference that the applicant listed brings it up.  So no, they would not have known nor should they have known about the high school and college stuff.

[Gil Bang 25943]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, not literally. Not even figuratively.

 

Well, I may have compared Palin to Himmler a time or two. 

[Chad Fuck 17669]

29 minutes ago, yoladu said:

The GOP has identified a number of safe spaces for lying: dorm rooms, locker rooms, etc.

The UN...

[bolverk 29660]

32 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And when he ran for president the left classified him as literally Hitler.  

Negged for telling a flat-out lie. Had you said Bush or Trump, you could've gotten away with it, because some did/have. Never McCain though.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

58 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm feeling nostalgic.  Let's review the statements by a couple of Republican senators after the nomination (and subsequent stonewalling) of Merrick Garland, referring to their plans going forward:

 

. . . just in case any of you right-wing patriots wants to make the case that the proximity to the November elections was the overarching reason for refusing to consider Merrick Garland.

 

I'll just tell you, I didn't have a problem with the Republican position on Garland.  It was Scalia's seat, and Garland is to the left of center.  I happen to like balance on the Court, and putting Garland on the Court would have created a solid 5-4 liberal majority.

At the same time, I was realistic about the consequences.  I told several people--and may have posted on this board's predecessor--"the bill for this shit's going to come due one day."  

And for the record, I don't think that day has yet arrived.  Kavanaugh would be opposed irrespective of what happened to Garland.  For one thing, he's outside the mainstream of legal thought on the scope of executive power.  For another thing, he's more of a political hack than he is a legal scholar.  And for another thing, apparently he's an attempted rapist.  Add it all up, and the Democrats were always going to oppose this nomination.

But regardless of what ends up happening with this nomination, this isn't the end.  There's a bill that's going to come due one day.

[jimmyjazz 45898]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

I'll just tell you, I didn't have a problem with the Republican position on Garland.  It was Scalia's seat, and Garland is to the left of center.  I happen to like balance on the Court, and putting Garland on the Court would have created a solid 5-4 liberal majority.

But you're cool with a solid 5-4 conservative majority?  You know, "balance"?

[Mack Tripper 696]

And when he ran for president the left classified him as literally Hitler.  

It was W’s people who race baited regarding McCain’s adopted daughter during the primary.

[hayden_horn 11362]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

I'll just tell you, I didn't have a problem with the Republican position on Garland.  It was Scalia's seat, and Garland is to the left of center.  I happen to like balance on the Court, and putting Garland on the Court would have created a solid 5-4 liberal majority.

At the same time, I was realistic about the consequences.  I told several people--and may have posted on this board's predecessor--"the bill for this shit's going to come due one day."  

And for the record, I don't think that day has yet arrived.  Kavanaugh would be opposed irrespective of what happened to Garland.  For one thing, he's outside the mainstream of legal thought on the scope of executive power.  For another thing, he's more of a political hack than he is a legal scholar.  And for another thing, apparently he's an attempted rapist.  Add it all up, and the Democrats were always going to oppose this nomination.

But regardless of what ends up happening with this nomination, this isn't the end.  There's a bill that's going to come due one day.

this reminds me of an even earlier predecessor board, during the bush administration, when i warned that congress ceding more power to the executive position was a terrible long-term strategy, even as a naive person who supported the idea of intervention in iraq at the time. because, as you say, the shoe is going to always be someday on the other foot. now we are dealing with the long-term implications of that with an out-of-control, borderline psychotic executive, and a weak congress that worries about the president's power to unseat them politically in a primary. 

but that was a long time ago.

[Mack Tripper 696]

 

Between the calendar bullshit, the douchey (at best) yearbook entries, and the overall rapeyness, it’s like Trump nominated Patrick Bateman to the Supreme Court. His next alibi will be that he couldn’t have sexually assaulted someone because he was returning some video tapes.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

But you're cool with a solid 5-4 conservative majority?  You know, "balance"?

No--not really.  I don't know where you got the idea that I support Kavanaugh.  I'd prefer to have Kennedy replaced by a legitimate swing vote in order to retain the 4-4-1 dynamic that has existed on the Court for some time.

[hayden_horn 11362]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

But you're cool with a solid 5-4 conservative majority?  You know, "balance"?

actually, i kind of am. i would prefer the court to move in a conservative manner, with obvious moves like gay marriage progressing society. nobody really wants a packed court in any particular ideology, which is why what the republicans are doing with kavanaugh is stupid and dangerous. because, as ghost points out, the bill comes due. they should've jettisoned this guy and picked another. but they won't. 

which really makes one wonder...why?

[jimmyjazz 45898]

Just now, Ghost of LL said:

No--not really.  I don't know where you got the idea that I support Kavanaugh.  I'd prefer to have Kennedy replaced by a legitimate swing vote in order to retain the 4-4-1 dynamic that has existed on the Court for some time.

Just your assertion that you were OK with their position on Garland.  The alternative was obvious -- someone pretty far right (or continued stonewalling as voiced above by McCain and Burr).

I probably read a bit too much into your statement, but practically, it doesn't seem a swing vote is really in the cards these days.

[Js1 85310]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No--not really.  I don't know where you got the idea that I support Kavanaugh.  I'd prefer to have Kennedy replaced by a legitimate swing vote in order to retain the 4-4-1 dynamic that has existed on the Court for some time.

THOMAS.

HARDIMAN.

[Fozzz 152]

I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal, so i'm cool with a return to the Lochner era as long as the court prohibits Southern bigots from preventing the gays to marry.  A gilded age but with more rainbow flags is my preferred America.  

Edited September 25, 2018 by Fozzz

[Ghost of LL 15531]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just your assertion that you were OK with their position on Garland.  The alternative was obvious -- someone pretty far right (or continued stonewalling as voiced above by McCain and Burr).

I probably read a bit too much into your statement, but practically, it doesn't seem a swing vote is really in the cards these days.

And I'm very much ok with Gorsuch replacing Scalia.

Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy is a very different matter.

[jimmyjazz 45898]

Kavanaugh was groomed by Kennedy.  Problem is, Kavanaugh is apparently not very intelligent (in any real sense of the word), and he's a shitheel.

[G650 14249]

59 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And when he ran for president the left classified him as literally Hitler.  

Dude, just stop. You are making yourself looking ridiculous in this thread.

John McCain is literally like 1b in my all time statesman ranking, and I can tell you no one of any import left, right or center called him Hitler.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The biggest problem I have with the new breed of conservative justices is they tend to side with corporate and big money interests above all others (i.e. citizens united).  That stuff is crippling if it gets out of hand. 

[jimmyjazz 45898]

"If"?