Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, lemonlime said:

Heidkamp's a no.

Good.  Helps knock her out.  

[AtticusFinch 155]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The evidence is in their testimony. His testimony leads me to believe he is lying about this an a whole lot of other 

She has many more holes in her testimony than he does.  No respectable law enforcement official other than someone like Mike Nifong would bring a case against Kavanah 

[David Dennison 19542]

I hope Mike Pence has to cast the winning vote.

 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, AtticusFinch said:

She has many more holes in her testimony than he does.  No respectable law enforcement official other than someone like Mike Nifong would bring a case against Kavanah 

So what?

[Chuckie Finster 23079]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Heidkamp's a no.

Morally, I love it.  Politically, this is probably very dumb and unnecessary.

[hayden_horn 11402]

Just now, tantric superman said:

I believe that too, but barely.  If he had been just a tad more credible in his testimony, her long delay in coming forward and the presumption against innocence would have weighed it in his favor. 

@OatmealRaisinCookie as well.

this is the bottom line for me. 

he didn't have to come to congress with a VERY ANGRY LETTER. he could come, explain that he would never do such a thing, and not attack the democrats on the committee. there's a way to do that without running every emotion through your playbook. the anger, the crying, the petty partisan attacks - none of that is necessary, nor does it seem very stately, which is something i would expect from a SC justice. he could explain away his high school shenanigans as just that - "we were stupid kids, and high school kids do and say immature stupid things." he didn't have to lie about all that. 

he is a fucking LIAR. period. he lied to the committee. he acted like a petulant brat. 

and i guess that's okay,  because UNCORROBORATED. 

despite multiple sources coming out describing that he lied about the sexual innuendo, that he lied about his drinking, and that he was a general fuckstick.

but that's okay.

team won.

[AtticusFinch 155]

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Would it make more of a difference now or after he becomes a Supreme Court Justice?

Seems like she’s been begging for the FBI to investigate but they aren’t interviewing her.

That's bs.  They dont have to interview her.  They have her conflicting written statements and testimony before Congress.  Politically, they dont want to touch her and be reported as being hard on her by her attorney.   They dont want that can of worms.  If she wants more she can bring a criminal complaint 

[Anastasis 23720]

So can we talk about recusals for a minute? What are the past precedents related to individual SCOTUS recusals, and what if any implications are there based on the political tirade that Kavanaugh dove into during his testimony last week?

[lemonlime 5503]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

Morally, I love it.  Politically, this is probably very dumb and unnecessary.

Eh, I think it might make sense politically too.  The people who will be upset by this probably weren't going to vote for her anyway.  If she voted yes, she risked alienating  the people she needs for GOTV efforts and also to vote for her, particularly women.   

[hayden_horn 11402]

2 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

For me it goes back to something I read when researching detectives after listening to serial. When people are accused/arrested/whatever detectives inherently know that they are going to deal with liars. Humans lie to minimize things, to make accidental/coincidental things seem like they didn't happen even when innocent, etc. (not to mention all the lies told by those who are guilty to be fair and to your point). If your point here is I don't want a supreme court justice who will lie, even ever so slightly, during their confirmation hearing I hear you. But if it's merely about decorum, which is what I thought I read you wrote, then I think you are wrong to hang that on him (unless you believe him to be a rapist, which I admittedly don't).

it was also about decorum. he flat out filibustered and avoided some of those questions directly.

you're innocent, man! 

right?

answer the fucking questions.

you think as a judge he would have allowed a witness to behave like he did?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Morally, I love it.  Politically, this is probably very dumb and unnecessary.

Would have been dumber to sign your name onto a credibly accused sex offender and partisan hack. 

She had no choice but to vote no and she made the right decision. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, lemonlime said:

Eh, I think it might make sense politically too.  The people who will be upset by this probably weren't going to vote for her anyway.  If she voted yes, she risked alienating  the people she needs for GOTV efforts and also to vote for her, particularly women.   

This. She knows her internals. A "yes" is obviously worse for her.

[hayden_horn 11402]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So can we talk about recusals for a minute? What are the past precedents related to individual SCOTUS recusals, and what if any implications are there based on the political tirade that Kavanaugh dove into during his testimony last week?

and, there's also this for @OatmealRaisinCookie - that unhinged political rant is not what i expect out of a SC judge.

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I don't believe he did. I think this obviously is a flimsy political play to try and use his teenage years as a privileged asshole kid (which he probably lied to minimize) to trump something up.

So therein we have the philosophical break, our little exchange here is a microcosm I think of what we see on the big stage and why there is a divide.

There is a divide because white men are losing power and they are doing whatever they can to hold on to it.

But it won't last. America is moving on.

[AtticusFinch 155]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So can we talk about recusals for a minute? What are the past precedents related to individual SCOTUS recusals, and what if any implications are there based on the political tirade that Kavanaugh dove into during his testimony last week?

Who cares, when someone tries to destroy you, you fight back.  Statesmanship goes out the window when someone is trying to destroy you.  I don't think he was angry enough.  He was also accused of participating in a gang rape for God's sake.  Give me a break..

[Lagunamadre 1975]

18 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

So here is, what is to me, a compelling argument for those like Hayden who are Anti-Kavanaugh because of Decorum:

Start first with whether you instinctively believe in the brand of sex assault/rape that Kav was accused with, if you tend to think in terms of "probably didn't happen that way, no proof and 'not buying it'", then you look at it in the following light:

• Kav was falsely accused of something horrendous. It's one of the worst things a man can be falsely accused of. There is probably a bit of subconscious sympathy built in right there.
• Kav responded in a very emotional way; the way a man would if he was being railroaded and falsely accused of rape/sexual assault
• Kav has had like a decade or longer as a Federal Judge. There is plenty of film on him as a judge that his judicial decorum can be extrapolated from and can tell the real tale of the tape as far as if he's fit or unfit demeanor-wise.
• This is as opposed to trying to say, "See! He freaked out after being accused of something horrible that could ruin his life so he won't continue to be a great judge!"

Now, if you believe he did sexually assualt this woman, then the calculus changes. Which is why I think the lynchpin is on the issue of, do you think Kavanaugh did this or not. Which to further drill down is basically, do you believe in the modality of Guilty until proven Innocent (at least in this case) or the Innocent until proven Guilty?

Assuming he never did any of the things he was accused of (possibly, but unlikely), then it would be understandable for him to become emotional and a bit angry in his testimony while defending his honor. What is not acceptable for a person in his position is to bring up that Libs are made because of the Trump election and this is revenge for the Clintons. That is hyper-partisan for a Judge and disqualifying (along with his other lies). You can raise you voice, just don't let your voice utter the work Clinton, lest the world knows your a hack. 

[horncyclist 1391]

Heitkamp's a no. Good for her.

[Anastasis 23720]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

and, there's also this for @OatmealRaisinCookie - that unhinged political rant is not what i expect out of a SC judge.

I said it at the time. It was disqualifying.  I mean, I get it.  I would be pissed under similar circumstances, but it left no doubt that Kavanaugh could operate as an "apolitical" SCOTUS justice. 

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

So can we talk about recusals for a minute? What are the past precedents related to individual SCOTUS recusals, and what if any implications are there based on the political tirade that Kavanaugh dove into during his testimony last week?

Past precedent is they should recuse themselves, but there's no one to stop Kavanaugh from hearing whatever cases he wants to (other than impeaching him which won't happen).  Scalia heard cases involving Cheney weeks after going duck hunting with him.  

[AtticusFinch 155]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There is a divide because white men are losing power and they are doing whatever they can to hold on to it.

But it won't last. America is moving on.

White men are evil.  Kill the white man.

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, AtticusFinch said:

Who cares, when someone tries to destroy you, you fight back.  Statesmanship goes out the window when someone is trying to destroy you.  I don't think he was angry enough.  He was also accused of participating in a gang rape for God's sake.  Give me a break..

User name does not check out.

[Anastasis 23720]

Just now, AtticusFinch said:

Who cares, when someone tries to destroy you, you fight back.  Statesmanship goes out the window when someone is trying to destroy you.  I don't think he was angry enough.  He was also accused of participating in a gang rape for God's sake.  Give me a break..

I understand his response.  But it also should disqualify him. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, AtticusFinch said:

Who cares, when someone tries to destroy you, you fight back.  Statesmanship goes out the window when someone is trying to destroy you.  I don't think he was angry enough.  He was also accused of participating in a gang rape for God's sake.  Give me a break..

There are ways innocent people behave and ways guilty people behave when they’re being accused of something.

Kavanaugh went out of his way to act like someone that is not innocent.

[Js1 87185]

I fucking love Heidi 

[AtticusFinch 155]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The evidence is in their testimony. His testimony leads me to believe he is lying about this an a whole lot of other things.

It's odd you dont see a problem with the fact she cant recall any key details about the event or her corroborating witnesses said it never happened

[Nivek 17415]

I like Beto. Seems like a good guy. Too bad for him the Democrats pulled this shit because he had a shot at getting voters like me. No more.

You realize the democrats have zero power to do anything right? They didn’t stop it, they didn’t delay it, hey have zero power. Most of the gop is willing to believe it is raining when the president and his boys are pissing on you.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I think you might be on to something here, though I think it's probably a bit more nuanced and subtle than your outlay here (as most things are versus what you post, no offense).

But if modern history tells us anything, don't count us white, cisgendered, patriarchal, judeo-christian heteronormative men out just yet  

Well, they do have a long history of villainy. 

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, AtticusFinch said:

It's odd you dont see a problem with the fact she cant recall any key details about the event or her corroborating witnesses said it never happened

You mean other than it was Brett Kavanaugh?

[horncyclist 1391]

It's odd you dont see a problem with the fact she cant recall any key details about the event or her corroborating witnesses said it never happened

Your first thing has been explained 50 times in this thread. Your second is an outright lie. A lie Kavanaugh also told coincidentally.

[AtticusFinch 155]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There are ways innocent people behave and ways guilty people behave when they’re being accused of something.

Kavanaugh went out of his way to act like someone that is not innocent.

How does an innocent man act when being personally destroyed?

Edited October 4, 2018 by AtticusFinch

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, AtticusFinch said:

How does an innocent man act?  

Like he has facts on his side. 

[horncyclist 1391]

Now, imagine s/he's a Republican/Democrat.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, AtticusFinch said:

How does an innocent man act?  

Usually calling for an exhaustive investigation to clear his name is number 1.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Sure you do.  I'm confident she'd give you the deep-dicking that you crave.

I'm not judging -- fly your freak flag, man.  Everyone should be comfortable being themselves in the bedroom.

Lot of homophobic comments directed my way. I don’t think that it makes a very conducive place for discussion for our LGBT members 

[Patrick Bateman 3980]

3 minutes ago, AtticusFinch said:

It's odd you dont see a problem with the fact she cant recall any key details about the event or her corroborating witnesses said it never happened

It’s odd you don’t see that the second half of your post is an outright lie.  Be better.

[golfclap 6903]

2 minutes ago, AtticusFinch said:

Who cares, when someone tries to destroy you, you fight back.  Statesmanship goes out the window when someone is trying to destroy you.  I don't think he was angry enough.  He was also accused of participating in a gang rape for God's sake.  Give me a break..

Have you actually read To Kill a Mockingbird? I feel very much like you need to read it. 

 

 

 

[horncyclist 1391]

Law Prof letter at 1700 signatures and counting.

[AtticusFinch 155]

2 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

4 minutes ago, AtticusFinch said:

It's odd you dont see a problem with the fact she cant recall any key details about the event or her corroborating witnesses said it never happened

Your first thing has been explained 50 times in this thread. Your second is an outright lie. A lie Kavanaugh also told coincidentally.

Who at the party corroborated her story? That has nothing to do with anything kavanah said

[hayden_horn 11402]

7 minutes ago, AtticusFinch said:

Who cares, when someone tries to destroy you, you fight back.  Statesmanship goes out the window when someone is trying to destroy you.  I don't think he was angry enough.  He was also accused of participating in a gang rape for God's sake.  Give me a break..

you just hold your head high and keep those fists down. no matter what anybody says to you, don’t you let ‘em get your goat. try fighting with your head for a change.

or something something

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Usually calling for an exhaustive investigation to clear his name is number 1.

Kavanaugh should have at least done this even if he knew the investigation would be rigged in his favor. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, AtticusFinch said:

Who at the party corroborated her story? That has nothing to do with anything kavanah said

You said they denied it happened.

That's not what they said. They all said they couldn't remember.

[RomaVicta 30591]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's also wise to remember that all of our representatives in Washington are neo-liberal capitalists, even Bernie Sanders. They are all on the same team. The differences really are minor when you put it in the context of political economy.

Our representatives are there to protect capital at all costs.

Good point. A few decades ago, my father and brother locked horns. Dad was Dem; Bro was a contrarian/libertarian.

Dad made an observation that the US political system was better than the Soviets. Contrarian Bro thinks for a second, and says that there is little difference between the two. I sit up and wonder where he's going with this.

Dad: What do you mean? In Russia you can only vote for one party.

Bro: It's the same way here.

Dad: In Russia you can only vote for the Communist Party. Here we have a choice.

Bro: No we don't. We only have one party here.

Dad: One party?

Bro: The Capitalist Party!

I was impressed. Still am.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

We are a wicked people, human beings. It's why we should spend time in prayer and meditation and gratitude. This thread is taking me from that right now, so I should take a cue from Anastasis and recuse myself for a bit

Ah, the old human nature get out of jail free pass. 

[AtticusFinch 155]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Usually calling for an exhaustive investigation to clear his name is number 1.

He can't.   Any lawyer knows this.  There is no evidence to disprove her statements.   Regardless, you have made up your mind and wouldnt believe otherwise unless she recanted her story.  Same goes for all the idealogues out there

[JimmyJames 12271]

8 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I understand his response.  But it also should disqualify him. 

Yep. His lying unhinged rant in front of the entire country disqualified him for the court, not the assault allegation which likely can never be proved. 

[AtticusFinch 155]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You said they denied it happened.

That's not what they said. They all said they couldn't remember.

Factually, it's the same thing

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, AtticusFinch said:

He can't.   Any lawyer knows this.  There is no evidence to disprove her statements.   Regardless, you have made up your mind and wouldnt believe otherwise unless she recanted her story.  Same goes for all the idealogues out there

That’s complete bullshit.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[hayden_horn 11402]

1 minute ago, AtticusFinch said:

He can't.   Any lawyer knows this.  There is no evidence to disprove her statements.   Regardless, you have made up your mind and wouldnt believe otherwise unless she recanted her story.  Same goes for all the idealogues out there

the one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience