Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[JimmyJames 12271]

I’m tired of all of this crap damnit! 

You know, when you were a baby in your crib, and your father looked down at you, he had but one hope - some day my son will grow to be a man. Well look at you now. You just got your asses whipped by a bunch of goddamn nerds. [shouts] NERDS! Well, if I was you, I'd do something about it. I would get up and redeem myself in the eyes of my father, my maker, and my COACH!

Confirm BART! 

[Jag102 98]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Maybe in your mind.  Those of us who are reasonable adults would think critically and seriously consider a more measured response from Kavanaugh. Instead, he literally acted LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD, screaming and interrupting Senators that were questioning him in a respectful manner the whole time. That raises a flag for anyone truly paying attention to his testimony.

Also, not lying repeatedly about his teenage years would be helpful. 

 

In my mind (without addressing your "reasonable adults would think critically and seriously"), he defended himself against allegations made by another. Nothing more. I'm more interested in his judicial philosophy. 

[Dirk X West 772]

3 minutes ago, Jag102 said:

In my mind (without addressing your "reasonable adults would think critically and seriously"), he defended himself against allegations made by another. Nothing more. I'm more interested in his judicial philosophy. 

And the repeated lies are not an issue in your mind?

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

You sold me

Good. 

God damnit we forgot to practice. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Message Board User 12396]

17 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’d like him to act like someone fit to hold a seat on the highest court in the land. I’d like him to be able to control his emotions during a hearing. I’d like him to treat senators respectfully since it is their job to advice and consent.

You know, do the hard stuff like act like an adult.

Insanity.

[Hank Kingsley 21062]

6 minutes ago, Jag102 said:

In my mind (without addressing your "reasonable adults would think critically and seriously"), he defended himself against allegations made by another. Nothing more. I'm more interested in his judicial philosophy. 

Art Briles defended himself against allegations made by others. Nothing more. Are you more interested in his coaching philosophy?  Would you hire him?

[SmokeyTheBear 5568]

17 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’d like him to act like someone fit to hold a seat on the highest court in the land. I’d like him to be able to control his emotions during a hearing. I’d like him to treat senators respectfully since it is their job to advice and consent.

You know, do the hard stuff like act like an adult.

This is a job interview, right? If after a bathroom break, you have to apologize to your interviewer because of the way you spoke to them prior to the bathroom break....you are probably not going to get that job. Of course that was before we hired Trump and entered bizzaro world. 

[hobbes2702 13083]

2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

This is a job interview, right? If after a bathroom break, you have to apologize to your interviewer because of the way you spoke to them prior to the bathroom break....you are probably not going to get that job. Of course that was before we hired Trump and entered bizzaro world. 

The Klobuchar exchange should be disqualifying by itself. How embarrassing was that? 

[SmokeyTheBear 5568]

14 minutes ago, Jag102 said:

In my mind (without addressing your "reasonable adults would think critically and seriously"), he defended himself against allegations made by another. Nothing more. I'm more interested in his judicial philosophy. 

The tirade about the Clintons, Soros and the radical left and how this was a hit job doesn't concern you? I don't doubt that a lot on the right think it at some level, but for a candidate to speak it (regardless in what tone and manner) raises major red flags to me. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by SmokeyTheBear

[EMAWesome 101]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There is zero chance that anybody who watched last Thursday's testimony comes away from it understanding that Kavanaugh is not going to deep dick the democrats at every chance he gets if he is confirmed to the SCOTUS. 

Maybe the Democrats should have thought about that before they decided to smear his name in front of the entire world. 

 

 You really think that we get to call you every name in the book and accuse of whatever in the hell we feel like accusing you of but you don't get any payback against us when we do because that means your unqualified for the position is a logical precedent to make in these proceedings?  If you set that precedent absolutely no one is ever going to get confirmed at a Supreme Court hearing ever unless the president who nominates him and the U.S. Senate are both held by the same party.  No more Ruth Ginsberg, no more John Paul Stevens, no more Anthony Kennedy, no more David Souter, no more Clarence Thomas (yes the Democrats controlled the Senate when he was confirmed), no more Lewis Powell, no more Harry Blackmun, no more Warren Burger, and no more Potter Stewart.  If neither the Democrats and Republicans have control of both the White House and the Senate there will be no Supreme Court justices making it through this process no matter what their qualifications.  All the Senate majority would have to do is say we don't like the way he talked to us while we were accusing him of things no one can prove or disprove so we aren't confirming him.   It's amazing to go back and look at the confirmation votes for Supreme Court nominees from 1970 to 2007 and see how the vast majority were approved with at least a 90% yes vote in the Senate no matter what party was the majority and no matter what the leanings of the nominee.  I'm doubtful either political party will make one step towards returning to those days the rest of my life now.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13529]

At least we solved the question of whether Brett Kavanaugh was Bart O’Kavanaugh.    There wasn’t clear evidence that they were one and the same. Now the dots are connected. 

[EMAWesome 101]

21 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Maybe in your mind.  Those of us who are reasonable adults would think critically and seriously consider a more measured response from Kavanaugh. Instead, he literally acted LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD, screaming and interrupting Senators that were questioning him in a respectful manner the whole time. That raises a flag for anyone truly paying attention to his testimony.

Also, not lying repeatedly about his teenage years would be helpful. 

 

LOL, at Cory Booker questioning him in a respectful manner any of the time, never mind the whole time.  How many times did Booker cut him off after he heard what he wanted to hear from Kavanaugh but before Kavanaugh could finish his answer?  When was the last time you went to a job interview and the person interviewing you cut you off before you could finish answering a question?

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, EMAWesome said:

Maybe the Democrats should have thought about that before they decided to smear his name in front of the entire world. 

 

 You really think that we get to call you every name in the book and accuse of whatever in the hell we feel like accusing you of but you don't get any payback against us when we do because that means your unqualified for the position is a logical precedent to make in these proceedings?  If you set that precedent absolutely no one is ever going to get confirmed at a Supreme Court hearing ever unless the president who nominates him and the U.S. Senate are both held by the same party.  No more Ruth Ginsberg, no more John Paul Stevens, no more Anthony Kennedy, no more David Souter, no more Clarence Thomas (yes the Democrats controlled the Senate when he was confirmed), no more Lewis Powell, no more Harry Blackmun, no more Warren Burger, and no more Potter Stewart.  If neither the Democrats and Republicans have control of both the White House and the Senate there will be no Supreme Court justices making it through this process no matter what their qualifications.  All the Senate majority would have to do is say we don't like the way he talked to us while we were accusing him of things no one can prove or disprove so we aren't confirming him.   It's amazing to go back and look at the confirmation votes for Supreme Court nominees from 1970 to 2007 and see how the vast majority were approved with at least a 90% yes vote in the Senate no matter what party was the majority and no matter what the leanings of the nominee.  I'm doubtful either political party will make one step towards returning to those days the rest of my life now.

Rant rant rant 

blah blah blah 

Dems do it to so that makes it ok. Everything my team does the dems do too. So it’s ok. 

Obama Hillary soros. Blah blah blah. 

Hear me speak. 

Internet. 

[horncyclist 1391]

Maybe the Democrats should have thought about that before they decided to smear his name in front of the entire world. 
 
 You really think that we get to call you every name in the book and accuse of whatever in the hell we feel like accusing you of but you don't get any payback against us when we do because that means your unqualified for the position is a logical precedent to make in these proceedings?  If you set that precedent absolutely no one is ever going to get confirmed at a Supreme Court hearing ever unless the president who nominates him and the U.S. Senate are both held by the same party.  No more Ruth Ginsberg, no more John Paul Stevens, no more Anthony Kennedy, no more David Souter, no more Clarence Thomas (yes the Democrats controlled the Senate when he was confirmed), no more Lewis Powell, no more Harry Blackmun, no more Warren Burger, and no more Potter Stewart.  If neither the Democrats and Republicans have control of both the White House and the Senate there will be no Supreme Court justices making it through this process no matter what their qualifications.  All the Senate majority would have to do is say we don't like the way he talked to us while we were accusing him of things no one can prove or disprove so we aren't confirming him.   It's amazing to go back and look at the confirmation votes for Supreme Court nominees from 1970 to 2007 and see how the vast majority were approved with at least a 90% yes vote in the Senate no matter what party was the majority and no matter what the leanings of the nominee.  I'm doubtful either political party will make one step towards returning to those days the rest of my life now.

Or you could nominate someone that doesn't have multiple people who will come forward with credible accusations of sexual assault. And fuck you.

[EMAWesome 101]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We deserve better trolls.  When is Johnny Sack showing back up?

 

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s rat fucking night. Doesn’t want to waste 10 large. He’ll be back tomorrow night. 

It's pretty amazing, between Hugo, Dennison, bad teammate, Jimmy James, and Jimmy Jazz alone there have to be at least two hundred posts I am in complete disagreement with.  Enough so I am sure I have had to have called you something or another.  However, no matter how much I disagree with all of you, no matter how blatantly ignorant and logically incompetent  I find your positions and arguments to be I have never called any of you trolls.  You twats on the other hand call me one every day I post.  The most intolerant and small minded people here are you. 

[hayden_horn 11365]

13 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

this is damning.

1) FFFFF with nothing else attached - that matches the find them, french them, finger them, fuck them, forget them claim. that's something a crew would sign off with, not a reference to fuck. fuck, bart. that makes no sense.

2) oh, he signed it bart. that connects those stories as well. his friend judge (anyone know if judge has boofed (farted) yet?) made the drunk character bart, and threw an "o" in front of his name. real clever, mr generation x drunk.

3) also in that letter, he claims that they are loud drunks who throw up a lot. this connects several dots, including king (or whatever) of the ralph club.

[EMAWesome 101]

1 minute ago, horncyclist said:

5 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Maybe the Democrats should have thought about that before they decided to smear his name in front of the entire world. 
 
 You really think that we get to call you every name in the book and accuse of whatever in the hell we feel like accusing you of but you don't get any payback against us when we do because that means your unqualified for the position is a logical precedent to make in these proceedings?  If you set that precedent absolutely no one is ever going to get confirmed at a Supreme Court hearing ever unless the president who nominates him and the U.S. Senate are both held by the same party.  No more Ruth Ginsberg, no more John Paul Stevens, no more Anthony Kennedy, no more David Souter, no more Clarence Thomas (yes the Democrats controlled the Senate when he was confirmed), no more Lewis Powell, no more Harry Blackmun, no more Warren Burger, and no more Potter Stewart.  If neither the Democrats and Republicans have control of both the White House and the Senate there will be no Supreme Court justices making it through this process no matter what their qualifications.  All the Senate majority would have to do is say we don't like the way he talked to us while we were accusing him of things no one can prove or disprove so we aren't confirming him.   It's amazing to go back and look at the confirmation votes for Supreme Court nominees from 1970 to 2007 and see how the vast majority were approved with at least a 90% yes vote in the Senate no matter what party was the majority and no matter what the leanings of the nominee.  I'm doubtful either political party will make one step towards returning to those days the rest of my life now.

Read more  

Or you could nominate someone that doesn't have multiple people who will come forward with credible accusations of sexual assault. And fuck you.

Who are these multiple credible accusations?  Ford's is the best and on a credibility scale I would rate it iffy at most.  None of the others would ever make it out of a D.A.'s office.  Hurt because I forgot to mention you with the rest of the thought police around here?  Sorry, I'm not perfect.

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

 

It's pretty amazing, between Hugo, Dennison, bad teammate, Jimmy James, and Jimmy Jazz alone there have to be at least two hundred posts I am in complete disagreement with.  Enough so I am sure I have had to have called you something or another.  However, no matter how much I disagree with all of you, no matter how blatantly ignorant and logically incompetent  I find your positions and arguments to be I have never called any of you trolls.  You twats on the other hand call me one every day I post.  The most intolerant and small minded people here are you. 

Two hundred posts? That’s a lot. 

[Jag102 98]

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Art Briles defended himself against allegations made by others. Nothing more. Are you more interested in his coaching philosophy?  Would you hire him?

Yes, Art did defend himself, that is what defendants do. Unfortunatly for Mr. Briles, there was a bit of additional evidence other than his denials, there is none in this case. This comes down to whether you believe Ms. Ford or Justice Kavanaugh. I assume you don't like his judicial philosophy, so I believe this will be an additional reason you do not like this pick.   

[JimmyJames 12271]

And I’m not getting how me pointing out Johnny sack is taking the night off tonight to pay 10k to watch rats fuck is somehow calling you a troll. Curious to hear that explanation. 

Edited October 3, 2018 by JimmyJames

[hobbes2702 13083]

11 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

LOL, at Cory Booker questioning him in a respectful manner any of the time, never mind the whole time.  How many times did Booker cut him off after he heard what he wanted to hear from Kavanaugh but before Kavanaugh could finish his answer?  When was the last time you went to a job interview and the person interviewing you cut you off before you could finish answering a question?

You can’t be this stupid can you?

[Hank Kingsley 21062]

5 minutes ago, Jag102 said:

Yes, Art did defend himself, that is what defendants do. Unfortunatly for Mr. Briles, there was a bit of additional evidence other than his denials, there is none in this case. This comes down to whether you believe Ms. Ford or Justice Kavanaugh. I assume you don't like his judicial philosophy, so I believe this will be an additional reason you do not like this pick.   

I have zero problems with a SC Judge that has conservative values, as long as they are not overly partisan and don't mess with Roe. 

I fucking hate liars.  Kavanaugh thinks he's above answering some questions truthfully. Fuck him. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by Hank Kingsley

[bolverk 29738]

4 minutes ago, Jag102 said:

Yes, Art did defend himself, that is what defendants do. Unfortunatly for Mr. Briles, there was a bit of additional evidence other than his denials, there is none in this case. This comes down to whether you believe Ms. Ford or Justice Kavanaugh. I assume you don't like his judicial philosophy, so I believe this will be an additional reason you do not like this pick.   

Beep. Beep. Clean up on page 266. Can we get an IP check on this sock?

[mchookem 16415]

49 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Give the people what they want vis-a-vis their Senators in this case, one way or another. I would imagine he wouldn't be confirmed if they voted tomorrow at 8am, but who knows. 

ok, but only if we apply the Merrick Garland standard, and see what new senators the people want

[hobbes2702 13083]

13 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

 

It's pretty amazing, between Hugo, Dennison, bad teammate, Jimmy James, and Jimmy Jazz alone there have to be at least two hundred posts I am in complete disagreement with.  Enough so I am sure I have had to have called you something or another.  However, no matter how much I disagree with all of you, no matter how blatantly ignorant and logically incompetent  I find your positions and arguments to be I have never called any of you trolls.  You twats on the other hand call me one every day I post.  The most intolerant and small minded people here are you. 

[SaucyJack 3504]

From Code of Conduct for United States Judges

 

(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar conduct of those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.

COMMENTARY

Canon 3A(3). The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Courts can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

 

Judges have been sanctioned for their public behavior that does not comport with the above as well.

[Stros 153]

It's pretty amazing, between Hugo, Dennison, bad teammate, Jimmy James, and Jimmy Jazz alone there have to be at least two hundred posts I am in complete disagreement with.  Enough so I am sure I have had to have called you something or another.  However, no matter how much I disagree with all of you, no matter how blatantly ignorant and logically incompetent  I find your positions and arguments to be I have never called any of you trolls.  You twats on the other hand call me one every day I post.  The most intolerant and small minded people here are you. 

Don’t forget that you’re a racist, rapist, idiot, bible thumper, Fox News lover, and a uniformed voter.

[Jag102 98]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I have zero problems with a SC Judge that has conservative values, as long as they are not overly partisan and don't mess with Roe. 

I fucking hate liars.  Kavanaugh thinks he's above answering some questions truthfully. Fuck him. 

 

 

 

 

About the lies, did these arise after he was appointed to the DC Court of Appeals?  Just curious, I would have assumed any of those statements would have be cleared by the FBI check. Also, about that Roe decision, there are many that think it was wrongly decided, much like Plessy vs. Ferguson. I am one. 

[Hank Kingsley 21062]

1 minute ago, Jag102 said:

About the lies, did these arise after he was appointed to the DC Court of Appeals?  Just curious, I would have assumed any of those statements would have be cleared by the FBI check. Also, about that Roe decision, there are many that think it was wrongly decided, much like Plessy vs. Ferguson. I am one. 

So you haven't really even paid attention to his testimony. Awesome.

 

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Did things get better for Brett Kavanaugh today?

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, Stros said:

Don’t forget that you’re a racist, rapist, idiot, bible thumper, Fox News lover, and a uniformed voter.

Don’t forget snowflake. He’s a persecuted snowflake like you. 

[horncyclist 1391]

this is damning.
1) FFFFF with nothing else attached - that matches the find them, french them, finger them, fuck them, forget them claim. that's something a crew would sign off with, not a reference to fuck. fuck, bart. that makes no sense.
2) oh, he signed it bart. that connects those stories as well. his friend judge (anyone know if judge has boofed (farted) yet?) made the drunk character bart, and threw an "o" in front of his name. real clever, mr generation x drunk.
3) also in that letter, he claims that they are loud drunks who throw up a lot. this connects several dots, including king (or whatever) of the ralph club.

It shows he made up the stuttering story. Another lie.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13529]

8 minutes ago, Jag102 said:

About the lies, did these arise after he was appointed to the DC Court of Appeals?  Just curious, I would have assumed any of those statements would have be cleared by the FBI check. Also, about that Roe decision, there are many that think it was wrongly decided, much like Plessy vs. Ferguson. I am one. 

There is no evidence that the fbi ever validated the questionable statements from the previous times he testified or had a hearing before Congress.   I doubt they were asked to do so.  Fbi checks are interviewing people that have known you throughout your life.  I also believe that you advise the fbi who to interview from your past.  

[bolverk 29738]

52 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I'm detecting a pattern here.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

4 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

There is no evidence that the fbi ever validated the questionable statements from the previous times he testified or had a hearing before Congress.   I doubt they were asked to do so.  Fbi checks are interviewing people that have known you throughout your life.  I also believe that you advise the fbi who to interview from your past.  

This is correct. Not that anyone cares about the truth. 

[scottsins 1981]

Innocent until proven guilty, but also lock up my political rivals because I don't like them. 

And he still supports the death penalty for the Central Park 5, AFTER they were exonerated on actual innocence claims.

[sachick 1189]

 

What a vile human.

[Jag102 98]

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

There is no evidence that the fbi ever validated the questionable statements from the previous times he testified or had a hearing before Congress.   I doubt they were asked to do so.  Fbi checks are interviewing people that have known you throughout your life.  I also believe that you advise the fbi who to interview from your past.  

I don't know if this statement is reliable. 

[retread 2951]

[Jag102 98]

1 minute ago, retread said:

So you have no evidence of a lie, so you post this picture?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, Jag102 said:

So you have no evidence of a lie, so you post this picture?

Well you don’t have any non-evidence 

[Revolution512 1495]

1 hour ago, Dirk X West said:

And the repeated lies are not an issue in your mind?

By which side?

[Dirk X West 772]

Just now, Revolution512 said:

By which side?

By kavanaugh, you fucking moron.

[atomheartbevo 89858]

1 hour ago, retread said:

 

He just couldn't help himself.  Somebody kept him a little quiet on twitter over the weekend, but ultimately, he couldn't help himself.

Good for him though, he's helping drive up voter registration and turnout.

[DixonHur 11395]

7 minutes ago, Jag102 said:

So you have no evidence of a lie, so you post this picture?

No evidence he lied?  Are you fucking kidding me?  It's like a "who's on first" routine with these guys. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Not one of the Democrats on the committee were voting for him.  Just like none of those dickheads voted for Gorsuch.  

[David Dennison 18952]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Not one of the Democrats on the committee were voting for him.  Just like none of those dickheads voted for Gorsuch.  

Why would they after what the Republicans did to Merrick Garland?

[atomheartbevo 89858]

1 hour ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

The tirade about the Clintons, Soros and the radical left and how this was a hit job doesn't concern you? I don't doubt that a lot on the right think it at some level, but for a candidate to speak it (regardless in what tone and manner) raises major red flags to me. 

Yeah, lots of red flags there.

I'm thinking Bart was speaking to an audience of one with that.

And that audience of one told Mitch to get his fucking shine box or he's out $200,000 a year.

[tantric superman 4668]

No shit.  I wouldn't vote for any of them for one Presidential term.