Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[burntorangebongos 10710]

Yes. My answer is yes.

[hobbes2702 13031]

15 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 

Wait, so hypothetically, you would choose dogs and hoses over billions of dollars in damage?

 

These people keep telling you who they are. Believe them

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Thank you Orrin Hatch for bringing the wood to those who say Judge Kavanaugh doesn’t have “judicial temperament”. I have never been more fired up to vote Republican in the midterm. Sorry Beto, I’d much rather grab a beer with you than Ted and you seem like a good dude, but the Democrats needs to be put in their place. The GOP base is as energized as I have seen it. This is one of the best columns I have read about this farce. The Democrats were going to pull out all of their dirty tricks to stop whichever nominee we chose.

P.S. Tucker Carlson’s new book Ship of Fools has been a fantastic. I have already read half of it and it just came out yesterday.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Righteous Anger

His foes seem to think a good judge would respond like a robot to scurrilous personal attacks.

Orrin Hatch

Oct. 2, 2018 6:35 p.m. ET

A notable shift occurred in the left’s anti-Kavanaugh campaign over the weekend. Attention has turned away from Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault—the entire reason for last week’s hearing and the ensuing delay in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote—and toward his behavior at the hearing.

We’re starting to see arguments like the following: Even if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, what he said at the hearing, and how he said it, is disqualifying.

This is rich. The hearing occurred in the first place only because of Democratic duplicity. It occurred only because Senate Democrats sat on Ms. Ford’s allegations for six weeks rather than referring them to committee investigators, as they should have done immediately. It occurred only because Ms. Ford’s lawyers—recommended to Ms. Ford by Senate Democrats—refused to tell their client of our invitation to testify privately in California, as she said she preferred.

That Judge Kavanaugh had the temerity to defend himself vigorously is now being counted as a strike against him. Over and over we hear him described as “angry,” “belligerent” or “partisan,” followed by the claim that his conduct at the hearing shows that he lacks a judicial temperament. Even “Saturday Night Live” got in on the action.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Do the people making this argument really expect a man who until five seconds ago had an unblemished reputation to sit passively while his reputation is viciously and permanently destroyed? While he is accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable? Judge Kavanaugh’s critics seem to be aghast that he is a human being who is unwilling to take slander lying down.

Had Judge Kavanaugh sat dispassionately through Thursday’s hearing and denied the allegations weakly, his critics would have taken his lack of forcefulness as proof of guilt. We all know this. We’re not stupid. Spare us the pearl-clutching.

More to the point, this whole “temperament” argument is a non sequitur. Obviously Judge Kavanaugh would recuse himself if his own case came before the court. We’re told that a man who reacts with understandable indignation when he is falsely accused cannot be a dispassionate arbiter of disputes involving third parties. 

But we don’t need to guess about how Judge Kavanaugh behaves when he’s actually on the bench. He has a 12-year track record. And here’s what the American Bar Association had to say about him after interviewing more than 100 fellow judges and lawyers who know and have appeared before him: “Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly praised Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament.”

Then there’s the matter of Judge Kavanaugh’s alcohol consumption. Not since Prohibition have so many news outlets reported on drinking habits with such interest. 

Countless articles have been written about how Judge Kavanaugh “lied” about his high-school and college drinking at the hearing, thereby calling into question his honesty. These articles claim the judge portrayed himself as a “choirboy” who, in the words of the New York Times, enjoyed “a beer or two as a high school and college student.” Then they hit back with quotes from college acquaintances who say they saw the judge drink quite a lot.

This is known in the business as a straw man. Judge Kavanaugh never claimed he always drank in moderation. To the contrary, he admitted, “Sometimes I had too many beers.” If Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents want to claim he lied about his drinking when he was younger, perhaps they should stop lying about what he actually said.

A slightly different straw man concerns Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at the hearing that he never blacked out from drinking. The Times and others have gathered testimonials from classmates who say they heard the judge “slur his words” and saw him “staggering” from alcohol consumption, as if this were proof that he blacked out from drinking. But of course Judge Kavanaugh never denied that he slurred his words or staggered. He said he never blacked out. Even a teetotaling Mormon knows the difference.

What’s going on here is obvious. Having failed to bring down Judge Kavanaugh with unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse, his opponents are now trying to call into question his character in defending himself from those allegations. It’s the ultimate set-up job. If the initial charges don’t work, we’ll destroy him when he defends himself. The good judge is damned no matter what he does.

This is further evidence that this whole sordid saga was never about the truth. It was never about justice for Ms. Ford. It was always and only about defeating Judge Kavanaugh by any means necessary. If the claims about sexual assault—a serious and important topic that deserves respectful consideration, not this farce—fail to stick, we’ll take him down with straw men about drinking and nitpicking about yearbooks.

The latest claim is that Judge Kavanaugh lied when he testified that he first learned about Deborah Ramirez’s allegations of lewd conduct from “the New Yorker story.” NBC News reports he might have discussed the matter with fellow Yale alumni before the story’s publication. In fact, he testified he’d heard “that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered” the events she described. The New Yorker quotes him denying the allegations—so it seems a fair conclusion he learned of the precise claim from the New Yorker story as it was being prepared for publication.

He also reportedly threw ice at someone in a bar in 1985. So there’s that.

I for one have had enough of this charade. Judge Kavanaugh is a good man and a good judge who doesn’t deserve this treatment or anything like it. What he does deserve is confirmation.

Mr. Hatch, a Utah Republican, is president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

 

 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

2 minutes ago, Amobie said:

It's not a conspiracy theory to say the democrats are openly trying to oppose this nominee prior to him being named.  Those signs didn't print themselves. 

I think the democrats did see this as an opportunity to hopefully get a less conservative judge nominated after the midterms.  They weren't going to be able to obstruct for 2 years with Gorsuch but maybe the could do it for 3 months?  Maybe..  if they can get far enough into the nomination process and then find a way to throw a wrench in it. They were practically begging people to come forward.  Before the second accuser surfaced, Michael Moore was pleading for someone to come forward and stop this evil man.

The scenario where she is lying doesn't require that she was ready, willing or coordinating with the Dems at the time of Gorsuch either.  To a lot of people, this nomination is about Roe and that's practically a religion to some on the West coast.  Stop him by any means necessary and become a Hero.  As others have pointed out, she made $1 million in a day thanks to her gofundme so she had an incentive.  I'm sure she will get a book deal and all that jazz too now.

I don't doubt that Democrats are happy about Ford coming forward if it in someway can thwart Kavanaugh's confirmation, all sympathies for Dr. Ford aside, it's a political "win" in today's team sport politics. BUT a logical person cannot deduce that their desire to block Kavanaugh in way, shape or form takes away from Dr. Ford's credibility. For one, Dr. Ford reached out to her local representative with her allegations towards Kavanaugh when he was merely on the short list, prior to his nomination. In her testimony, she stated she did it at this time in the hopes that it would get to the White House so they would pick one of the other conservative judges, which obviously did not happen. 

The whole notion that the Dems put Ford up to this to block Kavanaugh is such BS. If they did, then they have been planning this for six years. 

Even if the Republicans block Kavanaugh's nomination (the Democrats do not have the votes to block anything, simple math), they can still shove Amy Coney Barrett onto the court before January and still have the same success in overturning Roe v. Wade, putting prayer back in school, etc. etc. 

[David Dennison 18851]

They are really upset they can't unite their own caucus.

So they blame Democrats.

[Hammock 104]

47 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

need more accusations.

Consider calling your Senator.  Could be a gamechanger.

Boy, you know they’re saving the best for last. 

Sheila Jackson. 

[shnsajax 3591]

Just so you know, in the text editor there is a little eye ball 2nd from the right that allows you to spoil large articles and font. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Amy Coney Barrett 

Laughable people think Trump would nominate her to the Supreme Court.  

[Captainant 27641]

TIL that responding to allegations without invoking conspiracy theories and resorting to partisan threats is considered "acting like a robot". You're reading state propaganda that has several links to the president through its author, and you're trying to tell us that it has the REAL information. Color me shocked, but independent journalists and thinkers don't share mr. calson's views.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Laughable people think Trump would nominate her to the Supreme Court.  

Laughable for people to think they have any clue as to what Trump will do next, Trump doesn't even know. 

[David Dennison 18851]

Any of you Republicans on here want to explain why Mitch McConnell is having such a hard time whipping Republican votes?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

God damn. Orrin Hatch’s piece that I just posted was fucking beautiful. I have a huge fucking smile right now from reading it. Jeff Flake and the other pathetic RINOs - learn from Sens. Hatch and Graham who have exhibited the courage and conviction to call out our enemies.

[burntorangebongos 10710]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Laughable people think Trump would nominate her to the Supreme Court.  

He doesn't care who he gives to his base, just as long as he feeds them what he wants. He may now be emotionally vested in BK but that is only because he cant resist piss fights.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Laughable for people to think they have any clue as to what Trump will do next, Trump doesn't even know. 

You’re kidding right? Trump is insanely predictable.

[Bozo_Casanova 26438]

Thank you Orrin Hatch for bringing the wood to those who say Judge Kavanaugh doesn’t have “judicial temperament”. I have never been more fired up to vote Republican in the midterm. Sorry Beto, I’d much rather grab a beer with you than Ted and you seem like a good dude, but the Democrats needs to be put in their place. The GOP base is as energized as I have seen it. This is one of the best columns I have read about this farce. The Democrats were going to pull out all of their dirty tricks to stop whichever nominee we chose.

P.S. Tucker Carlson’s new book Ship of Fools has been a fantastic. I have already read half of it and it just came out yesterday.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Righteous Anger

His foes seem to think a good judge would respond like a robot to scurrilous personal attacks.

Orrin Hatch Oct. 2, 2018 6:35 p.m. ET

A notable shift occurred in the left’s anti-Kavanaugh campaign over the weekend. Attention has turned away from Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault—the entire reason for last week’s hearing and the ensuing delay in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote—and toward his behavior at the hearing.

We’re starting to see arguments like the following: Even if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, what he said at the hearing, and how he said it, is disqualifying.

This is rich. The hearing occurred in the first place only because of Democratic duplicity. It occurred only because Senate Democrats sat on Ms. Ford’s allegations for six weeks rather than referring them to committee investigators, as they should have done immediately. It occurred only because Ms. Ford’s lawyers—recommended to Ms. Ford by Senate Democrats—refused to tell their client of our invitation to testify privately in California, as she said she preferred.

That Judge Kavanaugh had the temerity to defend himself vigorously is now being counted as a strike against him. Over and over we hear him described as “angry,” “belligerent” or “partisan,” followed by the claim that his conduct at the hearing shows that he lacks a judicial temperament. Even “Saturday Night Live” got in on the action.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Do the people making this argument really expect a man who until five seconds ago had an unblemished reputation to sit passively while his reputation is viciously and permanently destroyed? While he is accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable? Judge Kavanaugh’s critics seem to be aghast that he is a human being who is unwilling to take slander lying down.

Had Judge Kavanaugh sat dispassionately through Thursday’s hearing and denied the allegations weakly, his critics would have taken his lack of forcefulness as proof of guilt. We all know this. We’re not stupid. Spare us the pearl-clutching.

More to the point, this whole “temperament” argument is a non sequitur. Obviously Judge Kavanaugh would recuse himself if his own case came before the court. We’re told that a man who reacts with understandable indignation when he is falsely accused cannot be a dispassionate arbiter of disputes involving third parties. 

But we don’t need to guess about how Judge Kavanaugh behaves when he’s actually on the bench. He has a 12-year track record. And here’s what the American Bar Association had to say about him after interviewing more than 100 fellow judges and lawyers who know and have appeared before him: “Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly praised Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament.”

Then there’s the matter of Judge Kavanaugh’s alcohol consumption. Not since Prohibition have so many news outlets reported on drinking habits with such interest. 

Countless articles have been written about how Judge Kavanaugh “lied” about his high-school and college drinking at the hearing, thereby calling into question his honesty. These articles claim the judge portrayed himself as a “choirboy” who, in the words of the New York Times, enjoyed “a beer or two as a high school and college student.” Then they hit back with quotes from college acquaintances who say they saw the judge drink quite a lot.

This is known in the business as a straw man. Judge Kavanaugh never claimed he always drank in moderation. To the contrary, he admitted, “Sometimes I had too many beers.” If Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents want to claim he lied about his drinking when he was younger, perhaps they should stop lying about what he actually said.

A slightly different straw man concerns Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at the hearing that he never blacked out from drinking. The Times and others have gathered testimonials from classmates who say they heard the judge “slur his words” and saw him “staggering” from alcohol consumption, as if this were proof that he blacked out from drinking. But of course Judge Kavanaugh never denied that he slurred his words or staggered. He said he never blacked out. Even a teetotaling Mormon knows the difference.

What’s going on here is obvious. Having failed to bring down Judge Kavanaugh with unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse, his opponents are now trying to call into question his character in defending himself from those allegations. It’s the ultimate set-up job. If the initial charges don’t work, we’ll destroy him when he defends himself. The good judge is damned no matter what he does.

This is further evidence that this whole sordid saga was never about the truth. It was never about justice for Ms. Ford. It was always and only about defeating Judge Kavanaugh by any means necessary. If the claims about sexual assault—a serious and important topic that deserves respectful consideration, not this farce—fail to stick, we’ll take him down with straw men about drinking and nitpicking about yearbooks.

The latest claim is that Judge Kavanaugh lied when he testified that he first learned about Deborah Ramirez’s allegations of lewd conduct from “the New Yorker story.” NBC News reports he might have discussed the matter with fellow Yale alumni before the story’s publication. In fact, he testified he’d heard “that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered” the events she described. The New Yorker quotes him denying the allegations—so it seems a fair conclusion he learned of the precise claim from the New Yorker story as it was being prepared for publication.

He also reportedly threw ice at someone in a bar in 1985. So there’s that.

I for one have had enough of this charade. Judge Kavanaugh is a good man and a good judge who doesn’t deserve this treatment or anything like it. What he does deserve is confirmation.

Mr. Hatch, a Utah Republican, is president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

 

 

your posts make me sad, because I think you’ve replaced one destructive, soul killing addiction with another.

[David Dennison 18851]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

God damn. Orrin Hatch’s piece that I just posted was fucking beautiful. I have a huge fucking smile right now from reading it. Jeff Flake and the other pathetic RINOs - learn from Sens. Hatch and Graham who have exhibited the courage and conviction to call out our enemies.

Why can't you whip Republican votes for this guy?

[Jack Burton 35]

I don't want this lost in Icons post with his link, but he said Tucker Carlson book is fantastic.

[Js1 85298]

lmao NO ONE, I mean NOBODY, saw Iconotard's 180 back to voting for Ted over Beto happening. NOBODY!

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

8 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Thank you Orrin Hatch for bringing the wood to those who say Judge Kavanaugh doesn’t have “judicial temperament”. I have never been more fired up to vote Republican in the midterm. Sorry Beto, I’d much rather grab a beer with you than Ted and you seem like a good dude, but the Democrats needs to be put in their place. The GOP base is as energized as I have seen it. This is one of the best columns I have read about this farce. The Democrats were going to pull out all of their dirty tricks to stop whichever nominee we chose.
P.S. Tucker Carlson’s new book Ship of Fools has been a fantastic. I have already read half of it and it just came out yesterday.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Righteous Anger

His foes seem to think a good judge would respond like a robot to scurrilous personal attacks.

Orrin Hatch Oct. 2, 2018 6:35 p.m. ET

A notable shift occurred in the left’s anti-Kavanaugh campaign over the weekend. Attention has turned away from Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault—the entire reason for last week’s hearing and the ensuing delay in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote—and toward his behavior at the hearing.

We’re starting to see arguments like the following: Even if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, what he said at the hearing, and how he said it, is disqualifying.

This is rich. The hearing occurred in the first place only because of Democratic duplicity. It occurred only because Senate Democrats sat on Ms. Ford’s allegations for six weeks rather than referring them to committee investigators, as they should have done immediately. It occurred only because Ms. Ford’s lawyers—recommended to Ms. Ford by Senate Democrats—refused to tell their client of our invitation to testify privately in California, as she said she preferred.

That Judge Kavanaugh had the temerity to defend himself vigorously is now being counted as a strike against him. Over and over we hear him described as “angry,” “belligerent” or “partisan,” followed by the claim that his conduct at the hearing shows that he lacks a judicial temperament. Even “Saturday Night Live” got in on the action.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Do the people making this argument really expect a man who until five seconds ago had an unblemished reputation to sit passively while his reputation is viciously and permanently destroyed? While he is accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable? Judge Kavanaugh’s critics seem to be aghast that he is a human being who is unwilling to take slander lying down.

Had Judge Kavanaugh sat dispassionately through Thursday’s hearing and denied the allegations weakly, his critics would have taken his lack of forcefulness as proof of guilt. We all know this. We’re not stupid. Spare us the pearl-clutching.

More to the point, this whole “temperament” argument is a non sequitur. Obviously Judge Kavanaugh would recuse himself if his own case came before the court. We’re told that a man who reacts with understandable indignation when he is falsely accused cannot be a dispassionate arbiter of disputes involving third parties. 

But we don’t need to guess about how Judge Kavanaugh behaves when he’s actually on the bench. He has a 12-year track record. And here’s what the American Bar Association had to say about him after interviewing more than 100 fellow judges and lawyers who know and have appeared before him: “Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly praised Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament.”

Then there’s the matter of Judge Kavanaugh’s alcohol consumption. Not since Prohibition have so many news outlets reported on drinking habits with such interest. 

Countless articles have been written about how Judge Kavanaugh “lied” about his high-school and college drinking at the hearing, thereby calling into question his honesty. These articles claim the judge portrayed himself as a “choirboy” who, in the words of the New York Times, enjoyed “a beer or two as a high school and college student.” Then they hit back with quotes from college acquaintances who say they saw the judge drink quite a lot.

This is known in the business as a straw man. Judge Kavanaugh never claimed he always drank in moderation. To the contrary, he admitted, “Sometimes I had too many beers.” If Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents want to claim he lied about his drinking when he was younger, perhaps they should stop lying about what he actually said.

A slightly different straw man concerns Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at the hearing that he never blacked out from drinking. The Times and others have gathered testimonials from classmates who say they heard the judge “slur his words” and saw him “staggering” from alcohol consumption, as if this were proof that he blacked out from drinking. But of course Judge Kavanaugh never denied that he slurred his words or staggered. He said he never blacked out. Even a teetotaling Mormon knows the difference.

What’s going on here is obvious. Having failed to bring down Judge Kavanaugh with unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse, his opponents are now trying to call into question his character in defending himself from those allegations. It’s the ultimate set-up job. If the initial charges don’t work, we’ll destroy him when he defends himself. The good judge is damned no matter what he does.

This is further evidence that this whole sordid saga was never about the truth. It was never about justice for Ms. Ford. It was always and only about defeating Judge Kavanaugh by any means necessary. If the claims about sexual assault—a serious and important topic that deserves respectful consideration, not this farce—fail to stick, we’ll take him down with straw men about drinking and nitpicking about yearbooks.

The latest claim is that Judge Kavanaugh lied when he testified that he first learned about Deborah Ramirez’s allegations of lewd conduct from “the New Yorker story.” NBC News reports he might have discussed the matter with fellow Yale alumni before the story’s publication. In fact, he testified he’d heard “that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered” the events she described. The New Yorker quotes him denying the allegations—so it seems a fair conclusion he learned of the precise claim from the New Yorker story as it was being prepared for publication.

He also reportedly threw ice at someone in a bar in 1985. So there’s that.

I for one have had enough of this charade. Judge Kavanaugh is a good man and a good judge who doesn’t deserve this treatment or anything like it. What he does deserve is confirmation.

Mr. Hatch, a Utah Republican, is president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

 
 

Read more  

your posts make me sad, because I think you’ve replaced one destructive addiction for another.

I am enjoying seeing Republicans fight back. The transformation of the GOP into a nationalist party is something that I love seeing. I was a Pat Buchanan fan and get yelled at in college when I was taking his campaign materials to my dorm room 20+ years ago. The party has shifted.

[sachick 1189]

 

[Mapache 1117]

I hope Mark Judge spilled the beans on Bart O

[MixtyMotions 102]

18 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

You know what else would save billions?  Slaves.  That's not even a hypothetical.  

You're a god damned piece of shit.  GFY

Your logic skills are pitiful.

[Incredulity 11659]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Any of you Republicans on here want to explain why Mitch McConnell is having such a hard time whipping Republican votes?

Jeff Flake has some fiction built up in his mind that he can get out of this without any consequence.  Murkowski and Collins were happy to play along.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Laughable people think Trump would nominate her to the Supreme Court.  

Expand on this. Why not?  

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 minute ago, Jack Burton said:

I don't want this lost in Icons post with his link, but he said Tucker Carlson book is fantastic.

It is. Have been reading it every chance I get on my Kindle when I have a second. He is an anti-war conservative like myself. Loved him since his Crossfire days.

[Dahobbs 17529]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

14 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Thank you Orrin Hatch for bringing the wood to those who say Judge Kavanaugh doesn’t have “judicial temperament”. I have never been more fired up to vote Republican in the midterm. Sorry Beto, I’d much rather grab a beer with you than Ted and you seem like a good dude, but the Democrats needs to be put in their place. The GOP base is as energized as I have seen it. This is one of the best columns I have read about this farce. The Democrats were going to pull out all of their dirty tricks to stop whichever nominee we chose.
P.S. Tucker Carlson’s new book Ship of Fools has been a fantastic. I have already read half of it and it just came out yesterday.

Brett Kavanaugh’s Righteous Anger

His foes seem to think a good judge would respond like a robot to scurrilous personal attacks.

Orrin Hatch Oct. 2, 2018 6:35 p.m. ET

A notable shift occurred in the left’s anti-Kavanaugh campaign over the weekend. Attention has turned away from Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations of sexual assault—the entire reason for last week’s hearing and the ensuing delay in Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote—and toward his behavior at the hearing.

We’re starting to see arguments like the following: Even if Judge Kavanaugh is innocent, what he said at the hearing, and how he said it, is disqualifying.

This is rich. The hearing occurred in the first place only because of Democratic duplicity. It occurred only because Senate Democrats sat on Ms. Ford’s allegations for six weeks rather than referring them to committee investigators, as they should have done immediately. It occurred only because Ms. Ford’s lawyers—recommended to Ms. Ford by Senate Democrats—refused to tell their client of our invitation to testify privately in California, as she said she preferred.

That Judge Kavanaugh had the temerity to defend himself vigorously is now being counted as a strike against him. Over and over we hear him described as “angry,” “belligerent” or “partisan,” followed by the claim that his conduct at the hearing shows that he lacks a judicial temperament. Even “Saturday Night Live” got in on the action.

You’ve got to be kidding me. Do the people making this argument really expect a man who until five seconds ago had an unblemished reputation to sit passively while his reputation is viciously and permanently destroyed? While he is accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable? Judge Kavanaugh’s critics seem to be aghast that he is a human being who is unwilling to take slander lying down.

Had Judge Kavanaugh sat dispassionately through Thursday’s hearing and denied the allegations weakly, his critics would have taken his lack of forcefulness as proof of guilt. We all know this. We’re not stupid. Spare us the pearl-clutching.

More to the point, this whole “temperament” argument is a non sequitur. Obviously Judge Kavanaugh would recuse himself if his own case came before the court. We’re told that a man who reacts with understandable indignation when he is falsely accused cannot be a dispassionate arbiter of disputes involving third parties. 

But we don’t need to guess about how Judge Kavanaugh behaves when he’s actually on the bench. He has a 12-year track record. And here’s what the American Bar Association had to say about him after interviewing more than 100 fellow judges and lawyers who know and have appeared before him: “Lawyers and judges overwhelmingly praised Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial temperament.”

Then there’s the matter of Judge Kavanaugh’s alcohol consumption. Not since Prohibition have so many news outlets reported on drinking habits with such interest. 

Countless articles have been written about how Judge Kavanaugh “lied” about his high-school and college drinking at the hearing, thereby calling into question his honesty. These articles claim the judge portrayed himself as a “choirboy” who, in the words of the New York Times, enjoyed “a beer or two as a high school and college student.” Then they hit back with quotes from college acquaintances who say they saw the judge drink quite a lot.

This is known in the business as a straw man. Judge Kavanaugh never claimed he always drank in moderation. To the contrary, he admitted, “Sometimes I had too many beers.” If Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents want to claim he lied about his drinking when he was younger, perhaps they should stop lying about what he actually said.

A slightly different straw man concerns Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at the hearing that he never blacked out from drinking. The Times and others have gathered testimonials from classmates who say they heard the judge “slur his words” and saw him “staggering” from alcohol consumption, as if this were proof that he blacked out from drinking. But of course Judge Kavanaugh never denied that he slurred his words or staggered. He said he never blacked out. Even a teetotaling Mormon knows the difference.

What’s going on here is obvious. Having failed to bring down Judge Kavanaugh with unsubstantiated allegations of sexual abuse, his opponents are now trying to call into question his character in defending himself from those allegations. It’s the ultimate set-up job. If the initial charges don’t work, we’ll destroy him when he defends himself. The good judge is damned no matter what he does.

This is further evidence that this whole sordid saga was never about the truth. It was never about justice for Ms. Ford. It was always and only about defeating Judge Kavanaugh by any means necessary. If the claims about sexual assault—a serious and important topic that deserves respectful consideration, not this farce—fail to stick, we’ll take him down with straw men about drinking and nitpicking about yearbooks.

The latest claim is that Judge Kavanaugh lied when he testified that he first learned about Deborah Ramirez’s allegations of lewd conduct from “the New Yorker story.” NBC News reports he might have discussed the matter with fellow Yale alumni before the story’s publication. In fact, he testified he’d heard “that she was calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered” the events she described. The New Yorker quotes him denying the allegations—so it seems a fair conclusion he learned of the precise claim from the New Yorker story as it was being prepared for publication.

He also reportedly threw ice at someone in a bar in 1985. So there’s that.

I for one have had enough of this charade. Judge Kavanaugh is a good man and a good judge who doesn’t deserve this treatment or anything like it. What he does deserve is confirmation.

Mr. Hatch, a Utah Republican, is president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate and a member of the Judiciary Committee.

 
 

Read more  

your posts make me sad, because I think you’ve replaced one destructive addiction for another.

Seriously, this.

[David Dennison 18851]

2 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I am enjoying seeing Republicans fight back. The transformation of the GOP into a nationalist party is something that I love seeing. I was a Pat Buchanan fan and get yelled at in college when I was taking his campaign materials to my dorm room 20+ years ago. The party has shifted.

Republicans aren't fighting back. They're fighting each other.

[Patrick Bateman 3911]

Friday the big day?

 

[David Dennison 18851]

Just now, Patrick Bateman said:

Friday the big day?

 

Only if they have the votes.

If not, they'll keep moving it.

[kevwun 15770]

Why do they even call it an investigation?  They didn't interview either of the principal parties involved.

[Fozzz 152]

Just now, kevwun said:

Why do they even call it an investigation?  They didn't interview either of the principal parties involved.

It wouldn't serve it's intended function as cover if they didn't call it that.

[MixtyMotions 102]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You’re kidding right? Trump is insanely predictable.

You're kind of both right.  Trump doesn't know AND he's predictable.

 

That's because Trump doesn't lead the band; he figures out where it's going and runs to the front.  Want to know where he's going?  Watch the band.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Y’all letting the Kavanaugh discussion get derailed by a disingenuous discussion.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

Are we sure MM is Tahoe?  I remember Tahoe being a racist piece of shit and pedo supporter, but not a complete nut bag like MM is acting.  Did the cognitive dissonance of trying to endlessly defend Trump and the rest of the GOP finally break his sanity? 

[Bat Guano 359]

18 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

God damn. Orrin Hatch’s piece that I just posted was fucking beautiful. I have a huge fucking smile right now from reading it. Jeff Flake and the other pathetic RINOs - learn from Sens. Hatch and Graham who have exhibited the courage and conviction to call out our enemies.

[Patrick Bateman 3911]

Connie Chung coming forward..... not relevant other than showing how this situation has influenced women coming forward, of all ages.  Not Connie!!!

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Why do they even call it an investigation?  They didn't interview either of the principal parties involved.

Am I taking crazy pills?  Last week it was just let the fbi talk to Judge and the other witnesses to corroborate hearing testimony.  What does Ford need to say now?   She just testified under oath.  One where she was allowed to read a statement prepared with assistance of counsel.   Is her memory going to somehow improve?

kavanaugh also testified.  The senate committee investigated.  And is using the fbi to check corroborating witnesses.  Like Judge and Keyser.  

[David Dennison 18851]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Am I taking crazy pills?  Last week it was just let the fbi talk to Judge and the other witnesses to corroborate hearing testimony.  What does Ford need to say now?   She just testified under oath.  One where she was allowed to read a statement prepared with assistance of counsel.   Is her memory going to somehow improve?

kavanaugh also testified.  The senate committee investigated.  And is using the fbi to check corroborating witnesses.  Like Judge and Keyser.  

Will you blame Democrats if that's not enough to unite Republicans?

[Captainant 27641]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Am I taking crazy pills?  Last week it was just let the fbi talk to Judge and the other witnesses to corroborate hearing testimony.  What does Ford need to say now?   She just testified under oath.  One where she was allowed to read a statement prepared with assistance of counsel.   Is her memory going to somehow improve?

kavanaugh also testified.  The senate committee investigated.  And is using the fbi to check corroborating witnesses.  Like Judge and Keyser.  

fact checking is not investigating. An investigator should be able to speak to ALL parties involved in an alleged incident. You're acting like the questions that were asked in that single hearing cover every single facet of the facts. Reality is, the hearing was not about finding the truth for the GOP - they were focused on attacking her credibility and her story. And the dems were more focused on attacking Kavanaugh than effectively cross-examining him and his testimony. 

You're basically making the same argument as that you wouldn't need a lawyer to handle an arrest because you already talked to the cop and that's all the information needed. Unless each party's testimony is FULLY heard and tested BY THE INVESTIGATING BODY, I would argue that calling such a fact-checking effort an investigation is a gross mis-categorization at best, and willful dishonesty (lying) at worst.

[Bozo_Casanova 26438]

24 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I am enjoying seeing Republicans fight back. The transformation of the GOP into a nationalist party is something that I love seeing. I was a Pat Buchanan fan and get yelled at in college when I was taking his campaign materials to my dorm room 20+ years ago. The party has shifted.

Republicans aren't "fighting back", they are surrendering.  What you are cheering for is surrender. Don't kid yourself. 

[sachick 1189]

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Am I taking crazy pills?  Last week it was just let the fbi talk to Judge and the other witnesses to corroborate hearing testimony.  What does Ford need to say now?   She just testified under oath.  One where she was allowed to read a statement prepared with assistance of counsel.   Is her memory going to somehow improve?

kavanaugh also testified.  The senate committee investigated.  And is using the fbi to check corroborating witnesses.  Like Judge and Keyser.  

Well according to her lawyers she has documents and information she would like to give to the FBI. Might be important. They should probably call her back.

[Js1 85298]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Republicans aren't "fighting back", they are surrendering.  What you are cheering for is surrender. Don't kid yourself. 

The guy whose family fled authoritarian rule in the Middle East is cheering for the GOP becoming a nationalist, authoritarian, Christian-sharia-law party.

It's mind boggling if I didn't also know he wears knock off jerseys made in China and tailors them and would crawl through broken glass to suck Tom Herman's dick.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Js1

[David Dennison 18851]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The guy whose family fled authoritarian rule in the Middle East is cheering for the GOP becoming a nationalist, authoritarian, Christian-sharia-law party.

It's mind boggling if I didn't also know he wears knock off jerseys made in China and tailors them and would crawl through broken glass to suck Tom Herman's dick.

Which is why it's so ironic when Republicans talk about freedom.

They want anything but.

[Enchubben 5510]

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Oh, they were every bit as good. The cry on the right after 2008 and 2012 was outstanding. 

 

We should be able to agree that the 2008/2012/2016 reactions were all great.

[David Dennison 18851]

Just now, Enchubben said:

We should be able to agree that the 2008/2012/2016 reactions were all great.

Agreed.

Although Karl Rove's meltdown on Fox in 2012 will always be special.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I’ll take “shit losers say for $100 Alex”

[sachick 1189]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’ll take “shit losers say for $100 Alex”

[SimonBolivar 10957]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’ll take “shit losers say for $100 Alex”

Kennedy's do you believe in God line of questioning to Kav was some eye rolling bullshit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]