Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[MixtyMotions 102]

An article for those on either side interested in something other than poo flinging:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/why_a_loss_on_kavanaugh_could_mean_a_win_on_nov_6_138230.html

[triplehorn 2664]

2 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Guess you didn't watch 60 mins where Flake gave Kavanaugh a pass given what he'd been accused of.  Flake did all this to get the heat to turn down at bit on the partisanship.  Doesn't really look like that is happening.

What Flake and Coons said was that evidence of lying under oath would end his nomination.  A lot more has come into focus even since Sunday.  

[Anastasis 23479]

13 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Kyle Griffin:

Jeff Flake called Kavanaugh's interactions with senators during last week's hearing "sharp and partisan."

"We can't have that on the Court," Flake said.

 

Sounds like Flake is a No in the full vote, if it ever happens.

 

Speaking with Jeffrey Rosen, the president of the National Constitution Center, and Democratic Senator Chris Coons at The Atlantic Festival on Tuesday morning, Flake called the judge’s interactions with lawmakers “sharp and partisan.”

“We can’t have that on the Court,” said the Arizona senator, who didn’t elaborate on which interactions he was referring to.

Flake’s “gentleman’s agreement” with Coons, from Delaware, led to the FBI reopening its investigation into Kavanaugh late last week. The bureau is examining the sexual-assault allegations of Christine Blasey Ford, who also testified on Thursday.

I caught up with Flake briefly as he left the event, and asked if this meant he would not vote to confirm Kavanaugh, even if the FBI cleared him by week’s end. He appeared rattled, and his handlers rushed him into the stairwell. “I didn’t say that …” he stammered. “I wasn’t referring to him.”

 

 

[elfenix 34328]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

that's it. blackout = lost time. when someone relates to you a story about last night that you don't remember = blackout. 

i don't actually think it's, in and of itself, a bad thing, necessarily. we all get over our skis from time to time. that he refused to admit it speaks to his strategy of trying to appear flawless.

yup.  it's not even that you don't necessarily remember going to sleep.  it's possible to drink, black out, events happen, and then sober up enough that your memory starts working again, with no recollection of  those events. 

 

<--- remembers leaving cottonwood, but not puking in the parking lot. 

[triplehorn 2664]

7 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

An article for those on either side interested in something other than poo flinging:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/10/02/why_a_loss_on_kavanaugh_could_mean_a_win_on_nov_6_138230.html

Ha.  Then it's a no brainer for Mitch to kneecap Brett even if he HAS the GOP votes.  

Failure to conform Brett would be 100% a Trump/GOP Senate failure.  To repeat A 100% Trump/GOP failure. 

But shift self blame and be mad at the others.  No GOP competency, no accountability.

Every Republican with a note of sanity has to vote this incarnation of the GOP out of office and replace them with men an women of substance.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

I think regardless of how Kavanaugh shakes out, R turnout will have really jumped from what we expected a month ago.  This fight right before elections reminded Rs they are on the brink of losing things.  They'll show up to the polls.

[hobbes2702 13049]

5 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think regardless of how Kavanaugh shakes out, R turnout will have really jumped from what we expected a month ago.  This fight right before elections reminded Rs they are on the brink of losing things.  They'll show up to the polls.

It will increase turnout period not just for Rs. And increased turnout generally favors blue not red

[happyfunball 481]

6 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think regardless of how Kavanaugh shakes out, R turnout will have really jumped from what we expected a month ago.  This fight right before elections reminded Rs they are on the brink of losing things.  They'll show up to the polls.

Unless they chalk it up to FAKE NEWS

[atomheartbevo 89735]

26 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

What Flake and Coons said was that evidence of lying under oath would end his nomination.  A lot more has come into focus even since Sunday.  

Is lying about Ramirez enough for Flake?  That’s all he should need if it’s simply lying. 

[atomheartbevo 89735]

10 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think regardless of how Kavanaugh shakes out, R turnout will have really jumped from what we expected a month ago.  This fight right before elections reminded Rs they are on the brink of losing things.  They'll show up to the polls.

It’ll jump, but no Hillary (and Trump) combined with Trump saying the Rs will rack up the wins, thereby depressing R turnout.  It’s amazing how many people will avoid voting simply because they think their side is going to win.

[triplehorn 2664]

8 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I think regardless of how Kavanaugh shakes out, R turnout will have really jumped from what we expected a month ago.  This  fight fuck up right before elections reminded Rs they are on the brink of losing things.  They'll show up to the polls.

fify

If brett goes down hard and the senate flips, Trump's court packing could hit a wall he can only fantasize about while touching himself.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[InkaUtexas 26007]

It will be leaked. 

[happyfunball 481]

BENJAMIN WITTES is the editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Quote

I Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn’t Confirm Him
This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not writ

Quote

If I were a senator, I would not vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

These are words I write with no pleasure, but with deep sadness. Unlike many people who will read them with glee—as validating preexisting political, philosophical, or jurisprudential opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination—I have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence. I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character—more than once—and taken a fair bit of heat for doing so. I have also spent a substantial portion of my adult life defending the proposition that judicial nominees are entitled to a measure of decency from the Senate and that there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.

This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.

I am also keenly aware that rejecting Kavanaugh on the record currently before the Senate will set a dangerous precedent. The allegations against him remain unproven. They arose publicly late in the process and, by their nature, are not amenable to decisive factual rebuttal. It is a real possibility that Kavanaugh is telling the truth and that he has had his life turned upside down over a falsehood. Even assuming that Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations are entirely accurate, rejecting him on the current record could incentivize not merely other sexual-assault victims to come forward—which would be a salutary thing—but also other late-stage allegations of a non-falsifiable nature by people who are not acting in good faith. We are on a dangerous road, and the judicial confirmation wars are going to get a lot worse for our traveling down it.
Despite all of that, if I were a senator, I would vote against Kavanaugh’s confirmation. I would do it both because of Ford’s testimony and because of Kavanaugh’s. For reasons I will describe, I find her account more believable than his. I would also do it because whatever the truth of what happened in the summer of 1982, Thursday’s hearing left Kavanaugh nonviable as a justice.

A few days before the hearing, I detailed on this site the advice I would give to Kavanaugh if he asked me. He should, I argued, withdraw from consideration for elevation unless able to defend himself to a high degree of factual certainty without attacking Ford. He should remain a nominee, I argued, only if his defense would be sufficiently convincing that it would meet what we might term the “no asterisks” standard—that is, that it would plausibly convince even people who vociferously disagree with his jurisprudential views that he could serve credibly as a justice. His defense needed to make it possible for a reasonable pro-choice woman to find it a legitimate and acceptable prospect, if not an attractive or appealing one, that he might sit on a case reconsidering Roe v. Wade.

Kavanaugh, needless to say, did not take my advice. He stayed in, and he delivered on Thursday, by way of defense, a howl of rage. He went on the attack not against Ford—for that we can be grateful—but against Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and beyond. His opening statement was an unprecedentedly partisan outburst of emotion from a would-be justice. I do not begrudge him the emotion, even the anger. He has been through a kind of hell that would leave any person gasping for air. But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.

Read Julian Zelizer on what happened to Lindsey Graham

Consider the judicial function as described by Kavanaugh himself at his first hearing. That Brett Kavanaugh described a “good judge [as] an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no litigant or policy.” That Brett Kavanaugh reminded us that “the Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices on the Supreme Court do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/

[bad_teammate 13218]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

drip drip drip

[Don Johnson 4754]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Honest question - are there likely things in this report about people other than Kavanaugh that just don't need to be made public?  I imagine the people being interviewed were asked some quite personal questions.

[DDD Dad 14344]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

To be fair I thought I saw earlier today that Sen. Feinstein was also saying the report should be kept confidential (to protect the sources coming forward confidentially).

[Longhorn_Fan68 33876]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

this tweet sums up feelings about this vermin and his ilk:

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

To be fair I thought I saw earlier today that Sen. Feinstein was also saying the report should be kept confidential (to protect the sources coming forward confidentially).

Redacted version not possible? 

[DDD Dad 14344]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Redacted version not possible? 

I don't know.  I believe she said the entire report should stay within the Senate (maybe even the SJC).  Will have to go look and see if I can find the report.

[triplehorn 2664]

Depending on the outcome of the report, Brett could face losing everything, though that case can already be made today.

[RomaVicta 29938]

2 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

does anyone here, who is a drinker at all, not blacked out?

Are you about to black out?

I've never blacked out or had memory loss from heavy drinking. I've only drank way too much a few times, usually when I have people bringing me drinks or refilling my glass before it's empty. I don't like the feeling that I get when I approach being wasted.

I think younger people sometimes drink to extreme excess to quantify that they are really having a good time. We did 20 shots on my birthday. We were wasted.

That doesn't like any fun to me. Now I'll go see the Padre and have him punch my ticket.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33876]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Depending on the outcome of the report, Brett could face losing everything, though that case can already be made today.

again you'd think these motherfuckers would learn from those who came before them - side with trump and your whole world gonna get turned upside down. don't feel sorry for him in the least

Edited October 2, 2018 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Horn Dog 9875]

9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I don't know.  I believe she said the entire report should stay within the Senate (maybe even the SJC).  Will have to go look and see if I can find the report.

Yes, just distribute the report to 100 spot light seeking individuals with little to no morals and tell them to keep quiet.  That is A foolproof way to ensure that this report stays secret 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

21 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Honest question - are there likely things in this report about people other than Kavanaugh that just don't need to be made public?  I imagine the people being interviewed were asked some quite personal questions.

This is the reason I'm actually okay with it remaining confidential as long as all Senators and not just Republicans get to review the report.  The alternative would be a heavily redacted report in an effort to protect personal details about non-public figures or a summary of findings being released to the public.  

[Anastasis 23479]

Fuck that shit. Release the full unredacted report. 

[Skyline 325]

8 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I keep hearing that and it makes sense but why would she want to be AG?  Trump's White House is a total shit show to the point the #3 took a job at WMT just to GTFO.  

Some talking head over the weekend made the comment about Graham in that she's always had a protector with the Beltway media crowd in McCain.  Now that McCain's gone, she needs to find another strong pimp hand so she's going with Trump.  

On the other hand, The GOP is absolutely headed in the same direction as Trump. We won't be able to wash our hands of him, his policies will be treated as the core until a different GOP president. Which means Trump's influence will be heavy going forward. Graham's 63, he could still have a run left in him. 

[Asithappens 974]

30 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

It will be leaked. 

And it should be.

[Asithappens 974]

21 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Depending on the outcome of the report, Brett could face losing everything, though that case can already be made today.

Lose his current job?

Wife divorces him?

 

[InkaUtexas 26007]

1 minute ago, Asithappens said:

And it should be.

I don't know about that. I would rather see a redacted copy with recommendations from all Senators involved. If you want witnesses to come out in the future they might want to be protected. 

But it will be leaked. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

There should be a “for the public” version made available.

Kinda like the IC did with Russian interference in Jan 2017

Edited October 2, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[RomaVicta 29938]

2 hours ago, MixtyMotions said:

CNN has a big interview with Hillary on this.  I thoroughly approve.  Hillary epitomizes so much.  She's the perfect representative of the anti-Kavanaugh forces.  Nothing she says is about the facts of what really happened.  My only complaint is that the CNN interviewer can't seem to understand the importance of getting her to explain her theories as they apply to Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Leslie Milwee and Paula Jones.

 

2 hours ago, MixtyMotions said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqovG99Q9GA

Negged for saying this was CNN when it is actually C-Span. Also for your weird claim about her speaking about the facts. She answers the questions posed. The interviewer is not responsible for promoting the embraced speculations of the rabid right.

He didn't ask her about murdering Vince Foster or her affair with him or the appeal of an affair with him for a well known Lesbian such as Hillary. Did she know that Obama was both a radical black Christian and a closet Muslim terrorist? What's with this guy, anyway?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Perhaps she should agree to an interview with The American Spectator to appease you and the sexual assault on minors apologists for whom you provide pastry. Life on the shit barge is affecting your brain.

 

[pepper brooks 580]

the report should be released.  what a load of bullshit.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, Calihorn said:

Not my style

Shit we had a bar that did the fishbowls, but they were filled with Schaffer beer.....  we got plenty drunk on those......

[RomaVicta 29938]

2 hours ago, Eastwood said:

What kid experimenting with alcohol hasn't taken it too far a couple of times and blacked out?

It's amusing that popular figures don't just do drugs or drink; they experiment.

In documentaries, there is always some emotional trauma to justify the scientific endeavor. The lead singer's dog was carried off by an eagle. In his sorrow, he began to experiment with drugs.

On topic, as we all know, the issue with Kavanaugh is not experimentation or blacking out but his veracity. Dr. Ford has raised a serious charge that many of us believe. Kavanaugh has chosen a defense where his virtue (captaincy of the varsity, charity works, weight lifting with Biff and Chip, maybe number one in his class; did I mention captaincy of the varsity?) makes it impossible for him to have done such a thing.

He's lying about that virtue. That undermines his defense. 

I think he's a lying, drunk dickhead who assaulted women by force against their will. He should have been put in a cage; he surely doesn't belong on the bench hearing cases.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Welp, my one of my Senators is getting into it with Avenatti today

 

[chainsaw 9872]

It's not like they can't impeach him later, once a real investigation has taken place.  I'm not sure what they think they're going to get in exchange for ramming this through.

[RomaVicta 29938]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

It's called browning out my dude. Where you can remember some parts of the night but not the whole thing.

And you shit your pants.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, chainsaw said:

It's not like they can't impeach him later, once a real investigation has taken place.  I'm not sure what they think they're going to get in exchange for ramming this through.

Do you know how hard it is to impeach a Supreme Court Justice? 

It hasn’t been done in over 200 years.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

It's not like they can't impeach him later, once a real investigation has taken place.  I'm not sure what they think they're going to get in exchange for ramming this through.

Moreover, it’s not like the republicans can’t find someone else

[Mdhorn 5974]

49 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

what happened to transparency?

[kevwun 15806]

If you ask Mitch, I'm sure he'll be happy to blame it on the Democrats.

[chainsaw 9872]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Do you know how hard it is to impeach a Supreme Court Justice? 

It hasn’t been done in over 200 years.

He's still a political albatross.  His rapeyness and the truth about his youthful "indiscretions" Talk Not Going Away. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Because Brett Kavanaugh is the last motherfucker on earth that can sit on the Supreme Court. 

[Eastwood 4394]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

It's amusing that popular figures don't just do drugs or drink; they experiment.

In documentaries, there is always some emotional trauma to justify the scientific endeavor. The lead singer's dog was carried off by an eagle. In his sorrow, he began to experiment with drugs.

On topic, as we all know, the issue with Kavanaugh is not experimentation or blacking out but his veracity. Dr. Ford has raised a serious charge that many of us believe. Kavanaugh has chosen a defense where his virtue (captaincy of the varsity, charity works, weight lifting with Biff and Chip, maybe number one in his class; did I mention captaincy of the varsity?) makes it impossible for him to have done such a thing.

He's lying about that virtue. That undermines his defense. 

I think he's a lying, drunk dickhead who assaulted women by force against their will. He should have been put in a cage; he surely doesn't belong on the bench hearing cases.

Not quite sure where you are going with the "amusing that popular figures don't just do drugs" angle. Plenty of popular figures not only do drugs, but are all out junkies. If you think I'm somehow letting Kavanaugh off the hook, you're way off the mark.

Teens and young adults can usually be classified as experimenting because they are in the process of deciding how they are going to continue to use in the future. The vast majority of high school and college students use to excess and in the end decide whether they will continue to use to excess in the future, cut back, or stop altogether. Sounds like Kavanaugh decided, through his experimentation, to be a drunk prick. Those drunk chickens are coming home to roost and I hope that it disqualifies him from the position.

[sachick 1189]

So they're begging to be interviewed by the FBI but we still have people who thinks she's lying? That's some 4D chess.

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[tantric superman 4667]

delete post

Edited October 2, 2018 by tantric superman
stupid post squi

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, sachick said:

So they're begging to be interviewed by the FBI but we still have people who thinks she's lying? That's some 4D chess.

 

 

This is investigation malpractice. 

Lots of other information could emerge in the investigation process that Dr. Ford could answer questions about. 

[chainsaw 9872]

Sounds like the tired old "Slut Therefore Not Rape" song.