The Kavanaugh circus, Ring #2

Dit is een voortzetting van het onderwerp The Kavanaugh circus.

DiscussiePro and Con

Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.

The Kavanaugh circus, Ring #2

1margd
sep 28, 2018, 5:52 pm

How to Impeach a Supreme Court Justice
Beth Skwarecki | Sept 28, 2018

Impeachment isn’t just for presidents. The Constitution allows other officials to be impeached, including Supreme Court justices. No justice of that court has been successfully removed through impeachment—yet.

The process has the same two steps as for presidents. The House of Representatives can vote, with a simple majority, to impeach a justice or other federal official. Then the Senate holds proceedings similar to a trial, then votes on whether to convict. If two-thirds of the Senate vote to convict, the justice is removed from office.

In addition to being impeachable over “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” According to the Brennan Center, 15 federal judges, including justices, have been impeached—some successfully, some not. The most common grounds for impeachment were “false statements, favoritism toward litigants or special appointees, intoxication on the bench, and abuse of the contempt power.”...

https://lifehacker.com/how-to-impeach-a-supreme-court-justice-1829395668

2margd
sep 28, 2018, 5:52 pm

How to Impeach a Supreme Court Justice
Beth Skwarecki | Sept 28, 2018

Impeachment isn’t just for presidents. The Constitution allows other officials to be impeached, including Supreme Court justices. No justice of that court has been successfully removed through impeachment—yet.

The process has the same two steps as for presidents. The House of Representatives can vote, with a simple majority, to impeach a justice or other federal official. Then the Senate holds proceedings similar to a trial, then votes on whether to convict. If two-thirds of the Senate vote to convict, the justice is removed from office.

In addition to being impeachable over “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” According to the Brennan Center, 15 federal judges, including justices, have been impeached—some successfully, some not. The most common grounds for impeachment were “false statements, favoritism toward litigants or special appointees, intoxication on the bench, and abuse of the contempt power.”...

https://lifehacker.com/how-to-impeach-a-supreme-court-justice-1829395668

3morningwalker
Bewerkt: sep 28, 2018, 6:39 pm

The point so many seem to be missing is that this wasn't a case of rape because she escaped. IMO when a drunk man forces himself upon a woman, starts tearing at her clothes, and holds his hand over her mouth to stop her from screaming, his intent is to rape her. He didn't just grope her, he intended to rape her. As for his pathetic attempt to shed tears and quote his 10 year old daughter, please, don't ever expect to get an Oscar for that performance Mr. Kavanaugh.

4barney67
sep 28, 2018, 7:08 pm

All we have is one person's politically motivated accusations. Some of you are so accustomed to pointing the finger that you don't realize that's not how the law works or even how a Senate hearing works. But why let the facts stand in the way or your goodtime bitchfest?

5DrDhillon
sep 28, 2018, 7:29 pm

Deze gebruiker is verwijderd als spam.

6morningwalker
sep 28, 2018, 7:36 pm

>4 barney67: How is she politically motivated?

7morningwalker
sep 28, 2018, 7:45 pm

>5 DrDhillon: Are you also a white privileged male?

8RickHarsch
sep 28, 2018, 8:02 pm

I'm a white privileged male and that woman is clearly telling the truth and Kavanagh comes across as petulant and pathetic to me.

9mikevail
sep 28, 2018, 9:16 pm

>5 DrDhillon:
Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does.

10margd
sep 29, 2018, 6:43 am

In the original thread (#9) I observed in the first hearing that "Kavanaugh sounds like a reasonable Republican nominee when queried by R senators, but wordy and even evasive with D senators, such as Kamala Harris."

Vox analyzed and charted failure to answer questions in Dr Ford and Judge Kavanaugh's testimony. Startling to see the two side-by-side. Dr Ford's credibility came from her responsiveness. People who find Judge Kavanaugh credible must be responding to something else--his emotion?

Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart
Alvin Chang | Sep 28, 2018

There was a striking difference in style — and substance...

See chart at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-questi...

112wonderY
sep 29, 2018, 8:38 am

More Twitter ~

“Now beer has to hold a press conference to distance itself from #Kavanaugh.”

“Open wide and say ‘Kavanaaaaaah’”

12margd
Bewerkt: sep 29, 2018, 9:10 am

Readable article from American Psychological Association on detecting lies:

Deception detection
Researchers have developed new strategies to help police and other investigators catch liars in the act.
Laura Zimmerman | March 2016, Vol 47, No. 3 | Print version: page 46

...It's particularly useful to ask unexpected questions in interviews, (Aldert Vrij, PhD, a professor of applied social psychology at the University of Portsmouth in the United Kingdom) has found. Because liars often prepare their stories, surprise questions can leave them floundering for a response or contradicting themselves (Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2014).

Other avenues of research are examining how liars and nonliars talk. (Judee Burgoon, PhD, a professor of communication at the University of Arizona) studies sentence complexity, phrase redundancy, statement context and other factors that can distinguish truth tellers from liars (Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2006).

"If liars plan what they are going to say, they will have a larger quantity of words. But, if liars have to answer on the spot, they say less relative to truth tellers."

...Compared with truth tellers, when liars tell their story together they tend to not interact with each other and they are less likely to elaborate on each other's responses, he says. "Truthful dyads are much more interactive as they reconstruct a shared event from memory," (psychologist James Driskell, PhD, president of the Florida Maxima Corporation, a company that conducts research in behavioral and social science) says...

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/03/deception.aspx

13barney67
sep 29, 2018, 9:17 am

The Kavanaugh Kangaroo Court is Revictimizing Victims
Partisanship will make those who have suffered from sexual assault less likely to be believed, not more.
By Barbara Boland

Kavanaugh’s accusers not only did not report the assaults, some 35 years later, they are unsure of the dates, times, other people present, and even the locations where it happened. Kavanaugh categorically denies them. And now two other men have stepped forward to say they were the ones who assaulted accuser Christine Blasey-Ford in 1982, not Kavanaugh. That isn’t to say the women’s stories are untrue, but simply that so many decades after the fact and without corroborating witnesses, it is virtually impossible to disprove them.

Yet even before the facts were in, both the right and the left reached for well-worn storylines, seemingly eager to touch off a gender war. As a rumor that someone had accused Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct emerged, some swiftly seized hold of a “boys will be boys” defense for Kavanaugh. Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono, meanwhile, declared that half the human population—men—should “shut up.” Congresswoman Jackie Speier warned Republicans to “beware…the wrath of women scored. It will be your party’s downfall.” To some supporters of the #MeToo movement, casually destroying an innocent man’s life is an acceptable price to pay “in the process of undoing the patriarchy.”

The question of whether the women accusing Kavanaugh should be believed should turn on the credibility of the stories rather than on the gender of the accusers. The hyper-partisan handling of the allegations, starting with Senator Diane Feinstein’s decision to sit on Blasey-Ford’s accusation until the eleventh hour, helped the perception that Democrats would go to any length to torpedo Kavanaugh’s nomination. Citing the obviously advantageous timing, and the fact that Democrats conveniently never believed women when they were Bill Clinton’s accusers, many Republicans quickly called into question the veracity of Blasey-Ford’s and Deborah Ramirez’s accounts.

Almost 30 years since Anita Hill accused now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, it is clear that the victims of sexual assault are seen by the political parties as nothing more than a means to advance the left’s and right’s familiar narratives. Both the ready rape apologists and the myriad misandrists herald a scary new world, one where nearly 30 percent of Americans think Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if Blasey-Ford’s accusations of sexual assault are true.

One wonders how that is possible.

Supposedly, the purpose of the #MeToo movement was to give enhanced visibility and believability to victims of sexual assault. Yet the very opposite is achieved when political parties callously parade alleged victims before the kangaroo court of public opinion as nothing more than a prop to gain political advantage. Throwing reason, logic, and the presumption of innocence out the window can only cause cause a serious backlash against victims—not that the monkeys in the Senate circus care about that.

The partisan political score has gotten pretty off-kilter when CBS News takes to quoting a “moderate Republican living in the Boston suburbs” named Alice Shattuck, a mother of four:

…she’s disturbed by the allegations Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez have made against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and says that if there’s proof the alleged attacks happened, he’s disqualified for the Supreme Court. “I don’t care if he was a teenager or not.”

But ask her what she thinks of the way the Kavanaugh case has been handled: “The Democrats have been terrible. They’re acting like partisan hacks. They want to make him Kavanaugh answer first, and then have the accuser speak afterwards? It’s ridiculous.”

Politico even ran an article admitting that the late Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy’s “illustrious family—let’s be honest—includes men who have done as much damage to women as they have done good for the country, with offenses including serial infidelity, an affair with a babysitter and even deaths, including that of Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned when Kennedy drove a car off a bridge. Kennedy and his pal, Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, were notorious for alcohol-infused misbehavior that, by one account, included a game of ‘waitress toss,’ which is just what it sounds like.”

It’s a belated admission from the media that despite the Democratic decision to embrace the mantle of #MeToo in this particular nomination process, they are not a party that has consistently defended—or believed—women. The reason for that is, of course, partisanship.

Regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh, this massive circus has contributed to the revictimization of victims everywhere. And because the partisanship has become so rank, that’s made victims less likely to be trusted rather than more.

14Dr_Flanders
sep 29, 2018, 12:18 pm

I don't know whether I think Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Mrs. Ford or not. Watching the hearing didn't really change my opinion on that, it mostly just made me sad for how partisan the whole process has been.

I don't think we really have enough information to feel strongly one way or the other, at least with any degree of certainty. I thought Kavanaugh seemed angry, but I think I'd feel angry too if I really felt like I had been wrongfully or erroneously accused of sexual assault. But I thought Mrs. Ford seemed perfectly credible, and I don't see any reason why she would make this whole thing up. I even think it is possible that Kavanaugh did it and was too drunk to actually remember, or that Mrs. Ford is misremembering parts of the incident. I'm not saying either of those things are probable or that I think that is what happened, I am just saying both are a possibility.

I think Democrats in Congress have not handled this well, but I also think that in a fair world, Republicans would have been more open to delaying the process for a few weeks so that we can do our best to investigate it in a timely manner and try to see if anything, or nothing comes of it.

I mostly felt relieved when Senator Flake talked with democrats and suggested a one week FBI probe. I don't know if that is a perfect solution, but it is at least an attempt to do some due diligence here and get the investigation out of the hands of Congress for a bit.

If something comes of it, then we will know.
If nothing comes of it, at least Republicans can say that there was an attempt at an impartial investigation, and vote to confirm.

I realize neither result will make everyone feel better about this whole process, but I think it is at least a sensible attempt at a fact finding effort. And I am a democrat but also a white man, for whatever that is worth, but I don't think it is fair to assume he is guilty or innocent in the absence of more information.

15margd
sep 29, 2018, 12:22 pm

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.
Avi Selk | September 28, 2018

...in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh’s nomination across the finish line (after three years), the ABA downgraded its endorsement (from “well qualified” — the big attorney association’s highest possible endorsement, meaning Kavanaugh had outstanding legal abilities and outstanding judicial temperament.).

The group’s judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about “his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness.”

...The reviews weren’t all bad.

In the end, the ABA committee weighed Kavanaugh’s “solid reputation for integrity, intellectual capacity, and writing and analytical ability” against “concern over whether this nominee is so insulated that he will be unable to judge fairly in the future.” In a split vote, it downgraded the rating of the nominee to simply “qualified” — meaning he met the ABA’s standards to become a judge but was not necessarily an outstanding candidate...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/american-bar-association-had-...

16barney67
sep 29, 2018, 1:23 pm

By now we should all be skeptical of the FBI's ability to find the facts, given how much corruption has been revealed in that organization during the past two years. But our intelligence agencies have always been unpopular. They have always been the butt of jokes.

It's not a certainty that abortion will be come up again in the courts. Or that we know how Kavanaugh will vote. Republicans have nominated judges before whose votes on the court have been a surprise. Democrats, on the other hand, march in step with each other and remain tunnel visioned.

17theoria
sep 29, 2018, 5:36 pm

Kavanaugh may be unfit for the SCOTUS, but he's a hero to incels.

18RickHarsch
sep 29, 2018, 5:37 pm

sorry, but...what's an incel?

19theoria
sep 29, 2018, 5:42 pm

>18 RickHarsch: "Involuntary celibates". It's a thing.

20RickHarsch
sep 29, 2018, 6:21 pm

Yeah, it is. But...well...that scrofulous warthog is not even a hero to scrofulous perfidious warthogs.

21margd
Bewerkt: okt 1, 2018, 6:44 am

ETA:

Here’s a thought: presidential limits on the scope of FBI investigation — if calculated to protect Kavanaugh’s possible perjury from inquiry and thus ensure his place on the Supreme Court to shield POTUS from subpoena & indictment — might be corrupt obstruction of justice.

Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 3:32 AM - 1 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1046709338314878976

______________________________________________________________

Trump: No limits on FBI's investigation into allegations against Brett Kavanaugh
Ken Dilanian, Geoff Bennett and Kristen Welker / Sep.29.2018

...A White House official had confirmed earlier Saturday that (Julie Swetnick, who has accused Kavanaugh of engaging in sexual misconduct at parties while he was a student at Georgetown Preparatory School in the 1980s) claims would not be pursued as part of the reopened background investigation into Kavanaugh. Trump...tweet late Saturday...("NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!")

Trump said the FBI had "free rein" in the investigation. "I want them (FBI) to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. They’re going to do whatever they have to do. Whatever it is they do, they’ll be doing—things that we never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine." (Actually this could be a blessing in disguise, because having the FBI go out, do a thorough investigation, whether its three days or seven days, I think it’s going to be less than a week. But having them do a thorough investigation, I actually think will be a blessing in disguise. It’ll be a good thing."I don't need a backup plan. (Kavanaugh is) going to be fine.")

...Instead of investigating Swetnick's claims, the White House counsel’s office (Don McGahn) has given the FBI a list of witnesses they are permitted to interview...

A White House official did not specifically dispute limitations on the scope of the FBI's investigation but denied the White House was “micromanaging” the inquiry. White House spokesman Raj Shah said that "the scope and duration has been set by the Senate. The White House is letting the FBI agents do what they are trained to do.”

The Senate has only said that supplemental FBI background investigation “be limited to current credible allegations against the nominee and must be completed no later than one week from today.”

...If the FBI learns of others who can corroborate what the existing witnesses are saying, it is not clear whether agents will be able to contact them under the terms laid out by the White House...

Investigators plan to meet with Mark Judge, a high school classmate and friend of Kavanaugh's ...

But as of now, the FBI cannot ask the supermarket that employed Judge for records verifying when he was employed there...

... the FBI will also not be able to examine why Kavanaugh’s account of his drinking at Yale University differs from those of some former classmates, who have said he was known as a heavy drinker.

(Snator) Flake said Friday...“They’ll have to decide — the FBI you know, how far that goes. This is limited in time and scope and I think that it's appropriate when it's a lifetime appointment and allegations this serious and we ought to let people know that we're serious about it.”

An administration official familiar with the process clarified, after the publication of this story, that while investigators may not be interviewing Swetnick herself, that doesn't preclude them from asking other witness about the allegations she has made.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-in...
________________________________________________________________________________

Editorial Cartoon:

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-se...

22proximity1
Bewerkt: sep 30, 2018, 9:29 am

>14 Dr_Flanders:

"And I am a democrat but also a white man, for whatever that is worth, but I don't think it is fair to assume he is guilty or innocent in the absence of more information."

Really?

Then tell me:

why ought there even be a question that someone seriously and credibly alleged to have committed what is unarguably sexual-assault may conceivably be not only nominated as a candidate for the office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States but also examined under oath, according to the terms of the Constitution and supposedly eligible to be found fit for the office--an office to which such appointment is a privilege, a career-capping honor, and certainly not a right?

Can you clearly and honestly answer that question with what does not include lame rationales, pathetic special-pleading and excuse-making which insult the readers' intelligence?

I think you have a burden to carry here and it's one that you do not take up:

Why ought such a nominee enjoy the benefit of a doubt when, clearly, there are others no less qualified for the office who wouldn't fall under any such accusations at all--others about whom, very simply, no one is going to make similarly credible allegations.

We'll wait while you explain that to us.

23barney67
sep 30, 2018, 9:45 am

For Democrats, the Kavanaugh game is 'delay and destroy'
By Trevor Thomas

Counting today (Sunday, Sept. 30) it’s been 84 days since Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Of those on the current Supreme Court, the average time for Senate confirmation was 67 days. From 1967 to 2010, the median time for confirmation was 69 days. Going all the back to the beginning of our nation, the average time for confirmation is 23 days. In spite of what some have implied—hoping to encourage even further investigation of a 36+ year-old supposed assault involving teenagers—there’s been no “rush” to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, it’s been quite the opposite.

All along, the name of the game for Democrats in this whole fiasco has been delay and destroy! Sen. Lindsey Graham was exactly right, the Democrats want to destroy Judge Kavanaugh, hold the seat open, and hope they can fill it in 2020. The Democrats didn’t really want an FBI investigation. If they did, it would’ve happened weeks ago, prior to Judge Kavanaugh’s first appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They didn’t really want one, because almost certainly they knew where it would lead: nowhere.

Again, Democrats want further delays so they can hurl more lies. And an evil and eager media will almost certainly aid and abet. With this extra time that the latest investigation (that makes seven) into his life allows, if liberals continue to assault Judge Kavanaugh and his family with their ugly lies, Sen. Jeff Flake will be an accomplice.

Flake—after a confrontation in an elevator with those who have no qualms about assaulting the unborn, and after a conversation with those bent on destroying a good man in the name of assaulting girls in the womb—decided that we needed to drag the ugly circus that is Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation out even longer.

The elevator confrontation preceded Flake’s conversation with Democrat Sen. Chris Coons, which led to this new “investigation” of Ford’s uncorroborated accusation of a 36+ year-old assault. In the elevator, two women—Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher—screamed at Flake,

Archila screamed, “What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit on the Supreme Court. This is not tolerable. You have children in your family. Think about them. I have two children. I cannot imagine that for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the Supreme Court who has been accused of violating a young girl. What are you doing, sir?”

Gallagher added, “I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me. I didn't tell anyone and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter, that they should just stay quiet because if they tell you what happened to them you are going to ignore them. That’s what happened to me, and that’s what you are telling all women in America, that they don’t matter. They should just keep it to themselves because if they have told the truth you’re just going to help that man to power anyway.”

Flake appeared totally surprised and scared to death, and had no words for the two women whose whole verbal assault was premised on a lie. (Thus, why should we assume either woman was telling the truth about their own lives—falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus—right Senator Blumenthal?) Any conservative politician of Flake’s experience who has no sound answer for such “nasty” attacks should get out of the game (as Flake is doing).

Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence Brett Kavanaugh “violated” or “assaulted” anyone! Thus support of Judge Kavanaugh in no way implies anything untoward about women and sexual assault or any other such wickedness.

Again, this confrontation was little more than a miniature version of a “nasty” woman’s protest. Yet Sen. Flake couldn’t or wouldn’t see it for what is was. Just after Trump’s inauguration, I told the GOP to gird themselves for this fight. It seems Sen. Flake was not ready for what many of us knew was coming.

After President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, in early 2017, Bloomberg reported that there were over 200 liberal groups across the U.S. who were organizing and mobilizing opposition to Gorsuch. Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, said, “We’ll make sure the narrative makes clear he is out of the mainstream, is extreme and in many ways is to the right of Scalia.”

Ahh, again with “the narrative.” As I noted a few years ago, for liberals, it seems it’s always about the narrative. As has been demonstrated for decades now, liberalism is quite adept at creating “narratives,” i.e. making its own “truth,” which can easily change as soon as it’s advantageous. Such skill and flexibility is very necessary when one needs political power to make sure the preferred notion of “truth” rules the day.

This notion of ones’ own “truth” was trumpeted proudly by liberals who hailed Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A smug Sen. Corey Booker told Judge Kavanaugh, “She came forward. She sat here. She told her truth.” A “hyper-partisan” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told MSNBC:

Well, I think Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony was incredible. I thought she was so heartfelt. She spoke her truth so passionately, with such candor; with such emotion, I was really inspired by what she did today.

There is no “her truth” or “his truth” or “your truth” or “my truth.” There is only the truth. Sadly, most liberals today long ago abandoned such a notion, which is why we’ve had to endure this evil circus that is the Senate confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

24margd
Bewerkt: sep 30, 2018, 4:22 pm

Kavanaugh is lying. His upbringing explains why.
Shamus Khan (chair of the sociology department at Columbia University) | September 28, 2018

The elite learn early that they’re special — and that they won’t face consequences.

...(Kavanaugh) informed senators that he hadn’t seen the testimony of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, even though a committee aide told the Wall Street Journal he’d been watching...

...when the poor lie, they’re more likely to do so to help others, according to research by Derek D. Rucker, Adam D. Galinsky and David Dubois, whereas when the rich lie, they’re more likely to do it to help themselves...

...psychologists Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner, elites’ sense of their own exceptionalism helps instill within them a tendency to be less compassionate.

...servant leadership and privilege...Both suggest not a commonality with the ordinary American, but instead a standing above Everyman. Both justify locating power within a small elite because this elite is better equipped to lead. ... Both have at their core not a commitment to shared democracy but a moral imperative to lead because of one’s exceptional qualities. And both allow space for lying in service of the greater good. Privilege means that things like perjury aren’t wrong under one’s own private law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/kavanaugh-is-lying-his-upbringing-explain...

ETA____________________________________________________________

Small lies matter, even about yearbooks. From the standard jury instruction:
“If a witness is shown knowingly to have testified falsely about any material matter,
you have a right to distrust such witness' other testimony and you may reject all the testimony of that witness ...”

— James Comey (@Comey) September 28, 2018

25RickHarsch
Bewerkt: sep 30, 2018, 5:28 pm

There's a shade of difference between me and my friends and Kavanagh. We liked to drink in high school and we liked girls, but the girls had the same freedoms we had. We could express attraction but if it was not reciprocated we just kept drinking and listening to Led Zeppelin. Most girls I liked sooner or later hooked up with someone besides me. Most who liked me found me overly receptive: Me? You like me? Great! And I believe our lawbreaking hijinx like drinking and driving fast, parking in the woods to have sex (was that lawbreaking? Probably because it probably involved driving drunk to get there.), cooperative vandalism, all genders welcome, were what I perceived then and now as normal. I liked girls and I liked being liked by them. That is antithetical to forcing myself upon a girl who did not like me. What fun is there in that? The reason I say all this is that there is nothing to the Kavanagh 'oh those darn boys' defense. Maybe the athletes at my high school behaved that way in varying degrees, but my crowd did not. I will never forget that Jimmy R. had sex with my great love A.J. and I did not. But there was nothing I could do about it except feel a little shitty. And there was nothing I wanted to do except see how she felt in a year or two. (By then she was with Brian F. and I was going to university anyway.) Boy will indeed be boys, but we had a great deal of fun being boys with girls who would be girls and liked doing the same shit we did. It was not, is not, necessary that there be an invisible line between the sexes at that age, and nothing in my culture encouraged me to treat women other than as pals and if things went a certain direction occasionally partners in sex.

26Dr_Flanders
Bewerkt: sep 30, 2018, 6:39 pm

>22 proximity1: Well.

Your question: "why ought there even be a question that someone seriously and credibly alleged to have committed what is unarguably sexual-assault may conceivably be not only nominated as a candidate for the office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States but also examined under oath, according to the terms of the Constitution and supposedly eligible to be found fit for the office--an office to which such appointment is a privilege, a career-capping honor, and certainly not a right?"

I know I am not half the intellect that you are, sir, but let me try to give you my best answer. If you are saying that you think the best thing Republicans could do is simply withdraw the nomination and plug in the next Heritage Foundation approved nominee from the list, then I agree whole-heartedly. I think that would absolutely be the most reasonable thing in the world to do and the fairest thing, to everyone except Kavanaugh if you buy into the idea that he is innocent... and I don't necessarily think he is innocent. Nominating someone else, while they have plenty of time to confirm them before the midterms makes the most sense to me. But just because it is sensible decision doesn't mean that Trump will do it, or that Republican senators will ask him to, or threaten not to confirm him.

All I meant by the sentence you quoted about whether we have enough information is that I don't think it is right to assume that he is innocent or guilty. I never said we should confirm a person who is credibly accused of sexual assault unless we can prove that he did it. I just meant that it worries me when Lindsey Graham assumes he is an innocent victim of a democratic smear and when someone on the democratic side speaks as if he is definitely a sexual predator.

But a confirmation hearing isn't a court of law, and so I don't think senators need to see prove of anything to make a decision. I think the sensible thing would absolutely be to say, we have serious questions about this candidate that we aren't likely to resolve quickly, so let us choose someone who we don't have these questions about. So maybe you and I basically agree on what should happen in a perfect world. The reason I probably didn't bother to mention it earlier was because I don't think Republicans are very likely to do it, unless they really believe that they can't get the votes for Kavanaugh. Which I think is a terrible thing to do, but then again, I think Mitch McConnell is a pretty terrible person, so it goes.

27barney67
okt 1, 2018, 1:10 am

The Democrats Have Always Wanted to Destroy Kavanaugh
By Alexandra DeSanctis

In fact, several Democrats promised earlier this summer to tank anyone President Trump nominated. “Americans should make it clear that they will not tolerate a nominee chosen from President Trump’s pre-ordained list,” Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said on the Senate floor in late June. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut swore the Democrats would “use every tool available” to stop any Supreme Court nominee. Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey Jr., meanwhile, said right before Trump’s announcement that he would “oppose the nomination the President will make tonight because it represents a corrupt bargain with the far Right, big corporations, and Washington special interests.”

As Trump introduced Brett Kavanaugh to the country on July 9 in a 9 p.m. press conference, Senate Democrats immediately began tripping over one another to find the most vehement way to express their revilement, hastily issuing statements crafted long before they even knew the name of the nominee. All they had to do was fill in the blank.

Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono was the first out of the gate, tweeting at 9:06 p.m., “Judge Brett Kavanaugh has not earned the benefit of the doubt. He has the burden of proof to demonstrate his ability to be independent of @realDonaldTrump and exercise unbiased and independent judgment.” (Hirono should at least be praised for her consistency: She told Jake Tapper last weekend that Kavanaugh hasn’t earned the same presumption of innocence as every other American because of the content of his judicial rulings.)

Ten minutes after Trump’s announcement, Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy attacked Kavanaugh as “a true Second Amendment radical,” “an anti-consumer zealot,” and “a critic of abortion rights.” “Not a close call,” he added, promising to vote no on Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

For her part, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) managed to hold out a whole hour before tweeting: “Brett Kavanaugh’s record as a judge and lawyer is clear: hostile to health care for millions, opposed to the CFPB & corporate accountability, thinks Presidents like Trump are above the law — and conservatives are confident that he would overturn Roe v. Wade. I’ll be voting no.”

New York’s Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand participated in a rally the same evening as Trump’s conference, proclaiming, “Stopping this will take all of us, fighting as hard as we can.” Meanwhile, less than half an hour after the conference began, eternal showman Cory Booker tweeted, “The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is alarming & I’m strongly opposed to his confirmation.”

But California senator Kamala Harris — perhaps Booker’s foremost competitor for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination — had him beat by 18 minutes. “Brett Kavanaugh represents a fundamental threat to that promise of equality. I will oppose his nomination to the Supreme Court,” she tweeted at 9:18 p.m.

In the hours after the press conference, the following Democratic senators also either promised to oppose Kavanaugh or expressed grave doubts about how his rulings might affect certain Democratic-favored groups: Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Ben Cardin (Md.), Chris Coons (Del.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Mark Warner (Va.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.). Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats, promised to mobilize the American people to defeat Kavanaugh. A few days after the announcement, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan also said they’d vote no.
Comments

The very next day, the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court to publicly criticize Kavanaugh, focusing especially on the possibility that he might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. These were the very same senators who in this week’s hearing insisted that only an FBI investigation will make them feel comfortable allowing Kavanaugh’s nomination to proceed.

But they never intended to vote for Brett Kavanaugh. They never intended even to listen to him — not in his confirmation hearings and not in his impassioned rebuttal to unsubstantiated allegations of sexual assault. It was never any secret: Senate Democrats have always wanted to destroy him. Unless new evidence comes to light, their latest effort to do so cannot be allowed to succeed.

28proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 1, 2018, 6:38 am

>26 Dr_Flanders:

RE: "If you are saying that you think the best thing Republicans could do is simply withdraw the nomination and plug in the next Heritage Foundation approved nominee from the list, then I agree whole-heartedly."

What I'm saying is clearly set out in my posted comment. Whatever the 'best thing' may be for the Republican members of Congress, no one has so far been able to explain clearly to me why Kavanaugh's accusers' allegations are neither credible nor, on their face, worthy grounds for the Senate to discharge its duty to advise and consent on a presidential nominee's appointment by rejecting the candidate in this case.

Is that "fair" to Kavanaugh?

Of course it's fair. Federal judges are appointed for life "on their good behavior." Here, we--and the members of the U.S. Senate-- have serious grounds to question whether his past behavior even measures up to that in the first place. His accusers aren't flakes and floozies. They're people who give every impression of being straight and honest in their claims.

Kavanaugh is not on trial here. He's being vetted for approval for discretionary appointment to a lifetime office of public trust. It's the Senate's right to determine whether, in the members' opinions, he is worthy of the office and the public trust. They are entirely free to conclude in all fairness that the allegations, being deemed credible, are reason enough to find him disqualified for the position of Associate Justice.

I challenged you to explain to us what about that is either improper or unfair. And I see no explanation of that case--anywhere.

Kavanaugh knows perfectly well that he has no right to any presumption of innocence in the matter of these allegations. The mere fact that credible people have made them is, as I see it, sufficient grounds to conclude that he is not worthy of the honor of the position for which President Trump nominated him--and that is properly the Senate's place to determine at their discretion.


RE: " So maybe you and I basically agree on what should happen in a perfect world."

Never mind a perfect world--we shall never see one. In this immensely imperfect world, Kavanaugh's withdrawal from consideration for the appointment is clearly the best course from numerous points of view. So we are in basic agreement there completely.

RE : "The reason I probably didn't bother to mention it earlier was because I don't think Republicans are very likely to do it, unless they really believe that they can't get the votes for Kavanaugh."

Be that as it may, as commenters ad libitum, we're not bound by that partisan concern about what Republicans are likely to do. Rather, we're giving our views on what it is best for them--and, probably for us--to do in this set of circumstances.

RE: Which I think is a terrible thing to do, but then again, I think Mitch McConnell is a pretty terrible person, so it goes."

More agreement.

_______________________________________________________

>27 barney67:

RE: "The Democrats Have Always Wanted to Destroy Kavanaugh"

Really?

The time for him to have taken that fact into account was back when, at a high-school drink-laden house-party, he and a friend decided to lock themselves in a bedroom alone with a young woman, their peer, and then for Kavanaugh to have proceeded to make sporting fun of assaulting her on the bed, struggling against her efforts to stop him from removing her clothes until the point where his fellow in this "lark" decided enough was enough and intervened at last to prevent it going any further.

With that in his background, off Kavanaugh went to university at Yale and then to Yale Law school. In doing that, I think he had to present himself as--at least implicitly, and falsely--as a person of good moral standing.



(from Yale University's website (Admissions) )

https://admissions.yale.edu/what-yale-looks-for


... former Yale President Kingman Brewster wrote that selecting future Yale students was a combination of looking for those who would make the most of the extraordinary resources assembled here, those with a zest to stretch the limits of their talents, and those with an outstanding public motivation – in other words, applicants with a concern for something larger than themselves. He said, “We have to make the hunchy judgment as to whether or not with Yale’s help the candidate is likely to be a leader in whatever he (or she) ends up doing.” Our goals remain the same today. Decade after decade, Yalies have set out to make our world better. We are looking for students we can help to become the leaders of their generation in whatever they wish to pursue.

As we carefully and respectfully review every application, two questions guide our admissions team: “Who is likely to make the most of Yale’s resources?” and “Who will contribute most significantly to the Yale community?”


____________________________


(from The Atlantic)

"On Thursday, as he testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh responded to more questions about beer than he probably would have liked.

"At one point, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse pursued a line of questioning about the 'Beach Week Ralph Club,' a phrase that appeared in Kavanaugh’s yearbook next to his senior photo. Kavanaugh told Whitehouse that 'Ralph' probably referred to vomiting, something that Kavanaugh attributed to his 'weak stomach, whether it’s with beer or with spicy food or anything.' Whitehouse asked if the 'Ralph Club' reference had to do specifically with alcohol, and Kavanaugh responded:


'Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.'


"It was a deflection, but the particular shield he raised was telling. His response seems to suggest a belief that a prestigious education stands as evidence of moral rightness.

"Kavanaugh’s fate will have a massive ripple effect.

"He offered the same defense when Senator Mazie Hirono brought up the fact that Kavanaugh’s freshman-year roommate recently remembered him as 'a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time.' First, Kavanaugh questioned his former roommate’s motives for saying such a thing. But then he said, 'Senator, you were asking about college. I got into Yale Law School. That’s the number-one law school in the country. I had no connections there. I got there by busting my tail in college.'"

_______________________________
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-yale/57166...



29margd
Bewerkt: okt 1, 2018, 7:56 am

>25 RickHarsch: Except that Kavanaugh may have perjured himself, I don't think concern is over drinking and chasing girls in high school and college. If confirmed as a likely sexual predator, however...

I was dismayed by the number of lies he told--even on minor and easily disproven issues.
ETA: 'falsus in omnibus'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaugh...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/did-brett-kavanaugh-give-fals...

Also Kavanaugh's partisan, aggressive, and entitled demeanor is not desirable in any judge, much less a Supreme Court justice--even if one allows for his 'accused innocent' opening statement as Senator Flake did.

Also problematic for me is that he was nominated by someone who could well benefit from Kavanaugh's agreeable positions on executive power--although as Supreme Court justice, that conflict would persist at most six years.

Kavanaugh might be one of those R nominees who would prove more flexible as time goes by (per conservative analyses), but I think for the good of Court and Country, we'd be better off with a nominee of impeccable character, principle, and experience, preferably one who has the 'smell of the sheep'. Surely there's such a person in R circles?

(Don't quote this back at me! ;-)

31barney67
okt 1, 2018, 8:29 am

A vote against Kavanaugh is a vote for ambush tactics and against due process

By Kimberley A. Strassel, | The Wall Street Journal

The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing consumed most of Thursday, and unsurprisingly we learned nothing from the spectacle. Christine Ford remains unable to marshal any evidence for her claim of a sexual assault. Brett Kavanaugh continues to deny the charge adamantly and categorically, and with persuasive emotion.

Something enormous nonetheless has shifted over the past weeks of political ambushes, ugly threats and gonzo gang-rape claims. In a Monday interview, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted: “We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.” Truer words were never spoken. Republicans are now voting on something very different and monumental—and they need to be clear on the stakes.

To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”

The stakes go beyond Judge Kavanaugh. A “no” vote now equals public approval of every underhanded tactic deployed by the left in recent weeks. It’s a green light to send coat hangers and rape threats to Sen. Susan Collins and her staff. It is a sanction to the mob that drove Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant. It is an endorsement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the charge secret for weeks until she could use it to ambush the nominee with last-minute, unverified claims. It’s approval of the release of confidential committee material (hello, Spartacus), the overthrow of regular Senate order, and Twitterrule. It’s authorization for a now thoroughly unprofessional press corps to continue crafting stories that rest on anonymous accusers and that twist innuendo into gang rapes. A vote against Brett Kavanaugh is a vote for Michael Avenatti. No senator can hide from this reality. There is no muddy middle.

32barney67
okt 1, 2018, 8:33 am

Media Sink To New Lows In Their Anti-Kavanaugh Smear Campaign

By Mollie Hemingway

The media are working overtime not just to prevent the eminently qualified Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the Supreme Court, but to destroy his life as well. One of their avenues is to make it impossible for him to coach girls’ basketball in the future.

USA Today’s Erik Brady wrote:

The U.S. Senate may yet confirm Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, but he should stay off basketball courts for now when kids are around…

The nation is deeply divided. Sometimes it feels like we don’t agree on anything anymore. But credibly accused sex offenders should not coach youth basketball, girls or boys, without deeper investigation. Can’t we all agree on that?

The article, which was illustrated with a picture of Kavanaugh and one of the girls’ basketball teams he coaches, has since been dramatically revised. Apparently editors at USA Today realized that calling a human being a pedophile with precisely zero actual evidence of any sexual impropriety was indefensible.

“This is disgraceful,” wrote Jedediah Bila. “The man was accused of atrocities with no evidence, no corroboration, no proof. He’s undergone 6 FBI investigations in his life. Maybe wait to criminalize someone till you have damn good reason? I’m utterly disgusted.”

But the media and other partisans have been setting out to destroy this aspect of the man’s life for a while.

Time magazine’s Molly Ball wrote what one critic called “possibly the most revolting innuendo yet in the Kavanaugh story, and that’s a high bar.”

Ball claimed the line about “legs bare in their private-school skirts” was not meant to say anything other than “the accusation complicates his aggressively pro-woman presentation. Nothing else was intended.” We should take her at her word, but what does it say that not a single editor or other adult at the publication realized how nightmarishly awful this line would come off?

It is apparently impossible for our media to realize that promulgating nothing more than decades-old hearsay with precisely no corroborating evidence is unbecoming and cruel. At the announcement of his Supreme Court nomination, Kavanaugh emphasized how coaching basketball helped create bonds with his daughters.

It is beyond obvious that the media are willing to throw out any and all standards to defeat Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. It is absolutely soul-crushing and heartbreaking to realize that they are willing to destroy him as a husband and father to achieve that goal. Have they any decency?

33barney67
okt 1, 2018, 8:42 am

Graham said this is all about power and that Democrats want to "destroy this guy's life." He wished them luck in 2020.

"Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham," he said to Democrats.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Are you aware that at 9:23 on the night of July the 9th, the day you were nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, Senator Schumer said 23-minutes after your nomination, "I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination with everything I have, I have a bipartisan -- and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less." Well, if you weren't aware of it, you are now.

Did you meet with Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?

JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein...

GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: ... I did not know that.

GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this -- allegations for over 20 days?

KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.

GRAHAM: If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy's life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You've said that, not me. You've got nothing to apologize for.

When you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you've done to this guy. This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy.

Are you a gang rapist?

KAVANAUGH: No.

GRAHAM: I cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through.

Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham. That you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford; none.

She's as much of a victim as you are. God, I hate to say it because these have been my friends. But let me tell you, when it comes to this, you're looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend. Do you consider this a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: If the advice and consent role is like a job interview.

GRAHAM: Do you consider that you've been through a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: I've been through a process of advice and consent under the Constitution, which...

GRAHAM: Would you say you've been through hell?

KAVANAUGH: I -- I've been through hell and then some.

GRAHAM: This is not a job interview.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

GRAHAM: This is hell.

KAVANAUGH: This -- this...

GRAHAM: This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. Your high school yearbook -- you have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation.

You're supposed to be Bill Cosby when you're a junior and senior in high school. And all of a sudden, you got over it. It's been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don't stop.

Here's my understanding, if you lived a good life people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has, the gold standard. His integrity is absolutely unquestioned. He is the very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no biases or prejudices. He's entirely ethical, is a really decent person. He is warm, friendly, unassuming. He's the nicest person -- the ABA.

The one thing I can tell you should be proud of -- Ashley, you should be proud of this -- that you raised a daughter who had the good character to pray for Dr. Ford.

To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics. You want this seat? I hope you never get it.

I hope you're on the Supreme Court, that's exactly where you should be. And I hope that the American people will see through this charade. And I wish you well. And I intend to vote for you and I hope everybody who's fair-minded will.

34margd
okt 1, 2018, 8:43 am

35proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 1, 2018, 8:58 am

>30 Tid:

RE: Nathan J. Robinson's article --

This does not look good for Judge Kavanaugh, not good at all:

Goodness!, says the judge, he went to Yale! and to Yale law school!

How dare these people--all of them, out to get him--how dare they question him!? How dare they!?

That is the sheer, naked, desperation of a blatantly-guilty conscience.

And, well, there's that, at least, isn't there?

Bless him! He knows enough to be ashamed about--and desperate to deny--the real truth of the matter, which, clearly, his conscience can recall even if his consciousness cannot.

And it's going to take a good deal of anesthetics to put that conscience back to sleep, where, all this time, it has been.

___________________

This is not even "close." The senators are really going to have to strain themselves to pretend not to understand the actual circumstances here. The idea that such people are in some confusion about where the truth lies, the idea that all this places them in some moral quandary where various doubts are contending mightily with various other doubts is simply absurd.

It's very simple: on the matter of the confirmation of the nomination of federal judge Brett Kavanaugh to become Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,

"Nay."

Call the next nominee, please.

And please, if you have in your past or in your present behavior ANY instances in which you committed assault, just do not apply, just please do not allow your nomination to go forward.

Have the friggin' decency to decline the honor which you do not deserve and be a fucking man about it. No crying, and no protests of "How dare they!?"

This is a job-interview, for pity's sake and the job concerned is occupying an office of public trust. that of an associate supreme court justice (for life, if approved).

36Dr_Flanders
Bewerkt: okt 1, 2018, 9:11 am

>28 proximity1: Alright, it looks like we agree on a lot here.

You asked: "I challenged you to explain to us what about that is either improper or unfair. And I see no explanation of that case--anywhere."

Let me try to be clear here... I think the nomination process has been stacked in Kavanaugh's favor. I think the hearing with Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh last week was also constructed by Republicans on the judiciary committee with the intention of creating a situation where nothing could be corroborated or proven. I didn't think the hearing was a legitimate fact finding effort, so much as it was an effort by Republicans to try and appear sensitive to Mrs. Ford and sexual assault victims in general, without actually having to admit that they even accept the possibility that Kavanaugh could have been guilty.

I do think the confirmation process has been fair to Kavanaugh. I actually think the process has been too "fair" to Kavanaugh. I think there is every reason to believe he lied during his initial confirmation hearings, but that is apparently only a problem when the party supporting him doesn't have the votes.

I guess what I am trying to do is speak separately about the confirmation process and about opinions about Kavanaugh's guilt or innocence.

I realize that maybe I wasn't clear about this in my initial post...but the only thing I think is unfair about this whole situation is that I think too many people have dug in and made up their minds on whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Mrs. Ford 35 years ago. And when I say "too many people" I am not just talking about Senators. I am talking about people on television, pundits, podcasters, people on social media, whatever. I am talking about anyone I have run across who thinks Dr. Ford is lying and being paid by democrats, or anyone I know who says that Kavanaugh is definitely 100% a sexual predator. I don't think we have enough information to determine that with any degree of certainty. And I think it is unfair that people already have an opinion on the facts (that probably largely correlates to what their opinion of Kavanaugh was before the most recent allegations).

But I agree completely that the most sensible thing in the world would be to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination and pick someone without these sort of questions. I used the phrase "in a perfect world" earlier, and maybe I should've said "in a reasonable world" instead...but the point is still the same because I think that Republican senators aren't going to be reasonable about this either.

I realize Kavanaugh isn't on trial and that there isn't a burden of proof one way or the other. I don't want Kavanaugh on the court. I also don't want anyone else chosen by the Heritage Foundation on the court. Kavanaugh could always just continue with his current lifetime appointment unless there is more proof that he did something awful, at which point I hope he would be impeached.

I guess, if I am going to pine for a perfect world, Republicans and Democrats would decide that the right thing to do would be to ask the White House to nominate Merrick Garland so that the Senate can help the country heal by un-stealing Mr. Obama's last Supreme Court pick.

37barney67
okt 1, 2018, 10:10 am

"I do think the confirmation process has been fair to Kavanaugh."

Insane bizarro world delusional bullshit.

38proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 2, 2018, 7:55 am

>36 Dr_Flanders:

"I realize that maybe I wasn't clear about this in my initial post...but the only thing I think is unfair about this whole situation is that I think too many people have dug in and made up their minds on whether Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Mrs. Ford 35 years ago. And when I say "too many people" I am not just talking about Senators. I am talking about people on television, pundits, pod-casters, people on social media, whatever. I am talking about anyone I have run across who thinks Dr. Ford is lying and being paid by democrats, or anyone I know who says that Kavanaugh is definitely 100% a sexual predator. I don't think we have enough information to determine that with any degree of certainty. And I think it is unfair that people already have an opinion on the facts (that probably largely correlates to what their opinion of Kavanaugh was before the most recent allegations)."

______________________________

Fortunately, the only people charged with casting a determining vote on the issues are the serving Senators who took an oath to discharge their duties under the Constitution--one of the duties being to vote on presidential nominees to appointive-office.

I don't see their task as being at all difficult here. It's entirely a judgment call they're asked to make. None of them are obliged to even respond to the question: "Are the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh true or not?" The only question they're bound to answer is much simpler:

In their considered opinions, and based on the testimony they've heard at the hearings, do they regard the nominee as properly fit to be confirmed for the office to which he has been nominated --or not fit?

For the rest of us, we're engaging in the everyday back-and-forth of public commentary on the political life of the nation.


=================================

Just to be clear, allow me to stipulate that I don't at all expect men in general, from the time they're adolescents on up in age, to be other than potential practicers of a whole variety of acts which are driven by age-old sexual instinct and are hard to describe as being anything other than aggressive in character and designed and intended--whether wittingly or not-- to sometimes gain quick and easy sexual intimacy with members of the opposite (and, for some others, his own) sex.

In other words, there's nothing surprising in the fact that not only high-school football jocks and other athletes but, indeed, all sorts of high-school aged guys really very much want to "jump young women's bones"--if they could only figure out a way to do this without violating the assault and rape laws in the process. I do not expect young men to shrug off billions of years of animal instinct which runs through myriad species in the evolutionary history that preceded the advent of human-kind. That would be ridiculous. And women, who want to attract men and who find themselves attracted to men, are not to be expected to be little angels of sexless purity either. ("A faint heart never won a fair lady," it's said.)

Though these things certainly bear keeping in mind and though to lose all sight of them only opens the door further to all kinds of idiotic nonsense, these biological and evolutionary facts are, though important, still so much back-ground stuff and all that is in particular ways beside the point here. It may be true that almost every high-school "jock" has at some time or other done things similar to what's alleged of Kavanaugh. It's also virtually certain that high-school-aged young women are faced with the fact that meeting and dealing with their peer members of the opposite sex is inevitably charged with risks to their safety. God knows they must understand that and that this entails a certain amount of genuine and well-founded fear. Just attracting a young man, as many young women want to do, implies behavior which risks genuine potential danger to the young women; and these risks are run even when and where there's no intention of inciting an interest on some particular young man's part. Of course, that's always been true. It's behind the fact that, beyond a certain point, aggressive behavior has had to be made a violation of criminal law and subject to prosecution-- or we forfeit essential aspects of a livable 'civilized' society.

Now, why all the foregoing?

Just because this,

I am talking about anyone I have run across who thinks Dr. Ford is lying and being paid by democrats, or anyone I know who says that Kavanaugh is definitely 100% a sexual predator. I don't think we have enough information to determine that with any degree of certainty.

is so much wasted worry. Oh, in fact, we do.

Kavanaugh, like the vast majority have or at least had in their high-school days, has or had instinctual drives which come from ancient animal-species ancestry who were from time to time partly "100% sexual predator". But the phrase is a piece of confusion about sexual drive. No human being is or ever was "100% sexual predator," because, in that case, he'd
have sexually assaulted virtually every female who came within his reach--and he'd have been quickly killed for doing that-- and it's only in the darkest depths of human tribal-society where there may have been rare cases of these kinds of alpha males who attempted to monopolize all the fertile women in the tribal village.

"100% a sexual predator"? This is not the point. For pity's sake! That simply describes what is frankly a part of the range of behavior which is typical of nearly all young adolescent men--and the heterosexuals among them are going to direct their predatory instinctual drives toward young women they find attractive. Well, society not only has to live with this, we're still very far from having any very widely desired way to live without it. And I don't think that's necessarily an all bad thing.

Unless we're going to allow that it's a virtual given that all adolescent heterosexual men commit sexual assault at some time or other in their youth, then we have a right to hold nominees to the supreme court bench to a standard by which we say: 'that's just not permissible in a candidate for this office.' No matter that a whole hell of a lot of young men have behaved in that way at least once in their youth.

39Dr_Flanders
okt 1, 2018, 10:39 am

>38 proximity1: I agree that the Senate should not vote for a nominee who has been credibly accused of sexual assault, especially considering that there are numerous other people who could quickly be nominated without such concerns. Maybe I should just keep this brief and say that I think that is the bottom line as far as choosing the next Supreme Court Justice goes.

>37 barney67: He lied to the judiciary committee about a number of things before the sexual assault allegations even come up, he refused to answer an awful lot of questions. I seems to have lied about whether he knowingly received stolen information about previous confirmation hearings. And he was one Jeff Flake crisis of conscience away from probably getting confirmed today or tomorrow. I think as far as the confirmation process goes, yeah, the could have been a little harder on him.

40RickHarsch
okt 1, 2018, 12:57 pm

>29 margd: The message persists that much of what Kavanagh denies having done is not all that bad. Just boys having fun in high school. And that message leads to the persistence of a culture that encourages sexual predation.

41barney67
okt 1, 2018, 1:38 pm

>39 Dr_Flanders: He didn't lie. You don't know he lied. You think he did. You want it to be true because you dislike Republicans. I'm glad most Americans don't think like the people in this forum. They are more open minded and not married to the party.

42barney67
okt 1, 2018, 1:39 pm

>40 RickHarsch: I have heard NO ONE say that. Not now. Not ever. It's a convenient straw man so that you can feel outrage.

43RickHarsch
okt 1, 2018, 2:09 pm

>42 barney67: I don't feel outrage, Barn. I feel weary.

As for you, and reading what you write, you should be ashamed of your predictability. Everything you accuse Democrats of in general, that they are in lockstep and so on, is precisely true of you. You could be a robot, you are so predictable. I would not be shocked to find out you were a programmed sockpuppet, a grad school thesis masquerading as a live human on an internet forum.

442wonderY
okt 1, 2018, 2:20 pm

I believe Brett Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh: I believe you.

I believe you when you called yourself the “biggest contributor” to the “Beach Week Ralph Club.”

I believe you thought the term for a sexual encounter involving two men and a woman, “Devil’s Triangle,” is so funny to you and your friends that you included it on your yearbook page.

I believe you thought it was funny when you eagerly joined your classmates in making cruel jokes at your friend Renate Schroeder’s expense.

Most of all, I believe you when you’ve said in at least two speeches in recent years that you and your friends are committed to hiding the details of your behavior. “But fortunately, we had a good saying that we’ve held firm to to this day ... which is: What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep. I think that’s been a good thing for all of us,” you told students at Catholic University in 2015.

You also told Yale Law School students that you and your friends had a motto for the night that ended with you falling out of a party bus onto the law school steps: “What happens on the bus stays on the bus.”

I know you’re committed to these mottos because you haven’t fessed up to any of the obvious behavior you described at the time. You claimed in testimony under oath that “ralphing” at Beach Week refers to your sensitive stomach, not puking after a night of drinking.

You claimed in your Senate hearing that you never drank so much you forgot any details the next day, though you were a member of the “100 keg club.” (Half a dozen of your friends stepped forward afterward to scoff at your claim.)

You told Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that the “Devil’s Triangle” is actually a drinking game, not a sexual scenario, as everyone else thinks. You claim you were acting like a friend to Schroeder, even though she was devastated when she learned about your jokes decades later.

Still, Republicans in Congress don’t believe you. They don’t seem to want to see how much you look just like the kind of man Christine Blasey Ford described in her testimony accusing you of attempted rape. She has said you were so drunk the night of the alleged assault that you “pinballed down the stairs.” She said that you and your friend Mark Judge were both involved in her sexual humiliation, and that you laughed about it.

I’ve written before that men like you aren’t alone. There’s an epidemic in this country of not believing men, or downplaying or reinterpreting what they say. Bill Cosby said he liked to drug and assault women for many years, but no one really took him seriously. Louis C.K. built a career telling creepy masturbation jokes, but no one thought that signaled anything about him.

There’s even President Donald Trump, whom you thanked on Friday for continuing to support your nomination to the Supreme Court. Trump was caught on tape joking with an acquaintance about how he likes to touch women against their will.

“You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them,” Trump says on an Access Hollywood tape. “It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

“Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Trump and his supporters brushed this all off as “locker room talk,” the kind of stuff men and boys say among themselves but don’t really mean.

It’s understandable to see why some people would not think Trump was being honest, that he was just saying stuff. He’s not so great with the truth.

But luckily, there are other people who can back him up. They’ve come forward to support his original version — including more than a dozen women.

There are people who corroborate your original words, too. After you tried to pass yourself off as a virgin choirboy on Fox News, your old friends came out of the woodwork to laugh and set the record straight. That’s not who you were at all, they say.

Judge, who Ford says was in the room with you during her alleged sexual assault, hasn’t said a substantive word to senators. He seems to be holding to the promise to keep what happened at Georgetown Prep inside Georgetown Prep. He’s said won’t cooperate with the FBI — a big test of his resolve.

As the FBI begins its investigation into allegations that you sexually assaulted women as a young man, it’s going to become tougher for you to lie to cover up the truth. You’ve told us who you are, starting in your yearbook in the 1980s, in 2014 and 2015 speeches, and again last week in a congressional hearing.

It’s time we start taking you at your word. I do.

45barney67
okt 1, 2018, 6:54 pm

"There’s an epidemic in this country of not believing men, or downplaying or reinterpreting what they say"

An epidemic? Self-serving, melodramatic bullshit. Comments like that exclude you from serious debate.

46barney67
okt 1, 2018, 6:57 pm

>43 RickHarsch: Except I didn't vote in the last election. You forgot that, didn't you? You're back on Ignore. Should I flag you for insulting me? Not that the truth matters here either. That's all Democrats have. Personal attacks.

47lriley
Bewerkt: okt 1, 2018, 7:14 pm

It's pretty much a given that Kavanaugh has lied about his drinking. There are numerous people from various times and places in his younger years who have come forward to say that he drank often and often to excess. The drinking is more of a minor issue here but the lying about it is not. As regards those who accuse him of sexual misconduct--the three women who have come forward are credible and it certainly casts even more doubt on his character and taken singly or together both are reason to disqualify him.

Kavanaugh IMO damaged his own case even more with his calendar. The calendar IMO doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. His using the calendar as evidence however pretty much gives his yearbook entry (more or less from the same time frame) a lot more credence and at least to me that yearbook entry (in context to his drinking and to those accusing him of sexual misconduct) is very bad news for him.

Here's the thing. A Supreme Court Justice isn't just anyone. He/She's an upholder of the constitution and the law. He/She should be of impeccable character and there's no room for doubt about that and there's plenty doubtful about Kavanaugh right now. At the least he's lied about the drinking on Fox News and to the Senate. He disqualified himself just with that.

48margd
Bewerkt: okt 2, 2018, 3:21 am

Perjury (wedding, 'when he knew')? Witness tampering?

Text messages suggest Kavanaugh wanted to refute accuser's claim before it became public
Heidi Przybyla and Leigh Ann Caldwell / Oct.01.2018

A former classmate of the Supreme Court nominee has reached out to the FBI but hasn't received a response.

...The texts between (Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez) and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

In now-public transcripts from an interview with Republican Judiciary Committee staff on September 25, two days after the Ramirez allegations were reported in the New Yorker, Kavanaugh claimed that it was Ramirez who was “calling around to classmates trying to see if they remembered it,” adding that it “strikes me as, you know, what is going on here? When someone is calling around to try to refresh other people? Is that what’s going on? What’s going on with that? That doesn’t sound — that doesn’t sound — good to me. It doesn’t sound fair. It doesn’t sound proper. It sounds like an orchestrated hit to take me out.”

The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI....

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-a...
________________________________________________________________

Brett Kavanaugh, take a polygraph
Andrew Manuel Crespo (professor at Harvard Law School) | October 1, 2018

Two years ago, a federal court of appeals held that polygraph tests are “an important law enforcement tool” that can help investigators “test the credibility of witnesses” and “screen applicants” for “critical” government positions. The judge who wrote that opinion: Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Kavanaugh whether he would be willing to take a polygraph test regarding the multiple sexual assault allegations he faces as he seeks a seat on the Supreme Court. Considering such a request himself, Kavanaugh departed from his prior judicial opinion and told the Senate that polygraphs are “not reliable.” But still, when pressed by Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) about taking one, Kavanaugh ultimately said, “I’ll do whatever the committee wants.”...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kavanaugh-once-wrote-in-favor-of-polygra...

49margd
Bewerkt: okt 2, 2018, 3:23 am

Kavanaugh Was Questioned by Police After Bar Fight in 1985
Emily Bazelon and Ben Protess | Oct. 1, 2018

...The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

A witness to the fight said that Chris Dudley, a Yale basketball player who is friends with Mr. Kavanaugh, then threw a glass that hit the man in the ear, according to the police report, which was obtained by The New York Times.

The report said that the victim, Dom Cozzolino, “was bleeding from the right ear” and was treated at a hospital...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html

50margd
Bewerkt: okt 2, 2018, 4:11 am

Why coal baron / Trump contributor Murray might like Brett Kavanaugh:

How Our Air and Water Will Grow More Toxic Under Trump
Jeff Goodell | Oct 1, 2018

The White House’s mercury rollback is another reckless giveaway to the coal industry, and it will have major impacts on children’s health

...when the coal industry sued to stop the implementation of the mercury rule in 2014, the case was heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The coal industry lost the case, but the dissenting opinion — which basically argued that the health and welfare of unborn children was not worth the price of a mercury scrubber — was written by none other than Brett Kavanaugh.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-mercury-poison-731648/

_________________________________________________________________

Sea World, too:

Kavanaugh Sided with Seaworld in 'Blackfish' Case
Wes Siler | Sep 27, 2018

...OSHA filed its case against Seaworld after one of the park’s trainers, Dawn Brancheau, was killed during a Shamu Show by an orca named Tilikum.

...OSHA argued that Seaworld should have taken more steps to protect its trainers and it fined the park $70,000. Seaworld appealed, resulting in the court case, which in the end was defeated by a two-to-one vote in the U.S. Court of Appeals. Interestingly, it was President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court Merrick Garland, along with Judith Rogers, who concluded that Seaworld should be held responsible for Brancheau’s death.

Kavanaugh disagreed, writing a 2,900-word dissent that likened Brancheau’s work to other “extremely dangerous” sports like bull riding. “Participants in those activities want to take part, sometimes even to make a career of it, despite and occasionally because of the known risk of serious injury,” Kavanaugh wrote. “To be fearless, courageous, tough—to perform a sport or activity at the highest levels of human capacity, even in the face of known physical risk—is among the greatest forms of personal achievement for many who take part in these activities.” He went on to deny that close contact between whales and trainers is in any way different from “contact between players in the NFL or speeding in NASCAR races.”

The gist of his argument was that workers assume safety risks when they take jobs, writing: “When should we as a society paternalistically decide that employees should be protected from the risk of significant physical injury?”

...Garland and Rogers ruled that whale performances are not a sport and thus do not necessitate undue risk to human life in order to take place. OSHA’s fine was upheld...

https://www.outsideonline.com/2347736/kavanaugh-also-sided-seaworld-blackfish-ca...

____________________________________________________________________

And he apparently lied about these opinions and others (presidential power):

Kavanaugh misrepresented his own opinions to Senate Judiciary Committee
Elliot Mincberg | 09/15/18

...In at least half a dozen cases, Kavanaugh misrepresented or distorted his own opinions on the DC Circuit, either in testimony or in written responses to Committee questions both before and after the hearing...

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/406718-kavanaugh-misrepresented-his-own-op...

51Tid
okt 2, 2018, 6:44 am

>41 barney67:

I'm a Brit so therefore I have no Party agenda in this, Democrat or Republican.

However, having read that exhaustive article, I'm inclined more to believe Ford than Kavanaugh. She at least was honest about things she couldn't remember clearly, though she was clear enough about the one thing she could remember perfectly well.

As for Kavanaugh, we really have to stretch credibility when it comes to his testimony. He denied being a drinker - why? Does anyone think a young male student would not enjoy a beer or three? He even - contradicting his own classmates - went so far as to deny he was in a drinking club where vomiting was an endemic ritual. He would have been a lot more believable if he'd simply owned up to being a normal student. No, he had to hide behind redacted testimony, lies about his own diaries, lies about geographical reality (how close people lived to each other), confused and irrelevant testimony about back yard furniture to avoid answering a question, turning 'righteous' indignation ("HOW DARE YOU") back on his questioners, interrogating his interrogators, resorting to tears... the list is endless when it comes to casting doubt on his evidence.

As a Brit I have no axe to grind, but as a woman I find him typical of a male who has been "caught out" for an act which >38 proximity1: has indicated is fairly standard for the genetic instincts of the male of the species going back 000,000 years. No, I don't think he and his family should be hounded in perpetuity for a student outrage that (unprovably) happened 35 years ago, but I am certain it disqualifies him from holding the highest legal office in your land.

This should be beyond Party politics (except that your C-in-C is also a male who has perpetrated some disgusting acts of his own, and then boasts about them).

I guess it's a case of "Next candidate please. Move along, nothing to see here."

52barney67
okt 2, 2018, 8:37 am

"I find him typical of a male "

Bullshit.

"I'm a Brit"

Nuff said. Nothing to see here.

53barney67
okt 2, 2018, 8:43 am

Women Are Not Too Stupid Or Emotional To Bypass Evidence When Considering Assault Allegations

By Joy Pullmann

I am a woman, and I don’t think with my genitals.

I am a woman, and I don’t vote with my genitals, either.

I am a woman, and I don’t need to declare that fact to validate my ideas.

I am a woman, and I am able to consider evidence and ideas without using my sex as a shield for weak thinking, or an excuse for reprehensible behavior.

I am a woman, and just because I’ll never be able to bench press what just about every man can, doesn’t mean I need to take refuge in magical thinking, lies, smears, and identity politics. Women can think just as smart, fast, and hard as men, and I can do it while nursing and gestating new human beings. That’s a woman’s own unique glory, and I’ll stand it against bench pressing any day of the week.

I don’t need people to tell me that because I am a woman the standards of evidence are lower for my claims.

I don’t need people to tell me that because I am a woman I have an excuse for table-turning temper tantrums when I don’t get what I want out of politics, relationships, or anything else. I can rise to just the same standards men can. I welcome a friendly competition towards the highest bar, not the worst betrayal. Women are better than that. We are not just the survivors, but the invalidators of the left’s bigotry of low expectations.

I can think, I ought to think, and I will think, and nobody can stop me no matter how hard or long they chant brainless, anti-fact, woman-demeaning slogans like “Believe all women” and “I believe her” and “Yes all women.”

I don’t need slogans. I don’t need marches. I don’t need a vulgar pink hat. I don’t need abortion, and I don’t need to wallow in self-pitying victimhood so the great white government can swoop in and rescue poor little helpless me.

I want the truth. I want justice. Getting those requires due process. It means the presumption of innocence, the ability to face one’s accusers in a court of law, the ability to present evidence and speak on one’s own behalf. It means weighing evidence, not “credibility” or “believability” or, heaven save me, “passion.” It means setting aside my biases to weigh claims based on the facts at hand.

I’m not fooled into believing whatever is the social manipulation du jour because people show me images of crying, shouting, emotion-drunk people marching here and there wearing crazy costumes and carrying ridiculous signs. I’m not anti-emotion, because emotions are real and human. I’m anti-hysteria, and of framing women as hysterical. What’s hysteria? Emotions completely out of touch with reality. We shouldn’t validate hysteria, we should tell hysterics to sober up.

Because I think I should earn my credibility, rather than have it handed to me because I fit somebody’s identity politics image slot as a useful idiot, I’ve actually read some books and learned some history. I know what good comes from mobs out for “slitting the throats of their enemies.” That’s not the country I want for myself, for my children, or for anyone.

And I am sick, utterly sick, of people telling me that because I am a woman I get to have whatever I want so long as I cry or scream about it long and loud enough. I am better than that. I am smarter than that. I am wiser than that. All women can be.

Women are not so morally craven that we need to punish some politically convenient scapegoat for the sins of completely different men. That’s not justice. Don’t put that blood on my hands, or on the hands of women as a collective. We want no part in this political lynching of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh — except as the unshakable defenders of truth.

We are not the mob, we are the defenders of truth, justice, and our nation’s integrity. In this effort we gladly take the hands and stand at the sixes of all people, men and women, who will stand up and be our allies, or stand in need of our aid.

We gladly stand up for those denied the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law, and hauled out to prove a negative to a purposefully prejudiced court of public opinion. We gladly stand up to preserve the standards for justice we want used for any allegation that might one day be leveled against our own husbands, brothers, fathers, and sons.

These are women who deserve the name, who represent our sex at its finest, the way we should all want to be known — not as people whose minds are too weak to be used robustly, whose emotions are too strong to be controlled, and who use those who have suffered horrible crimes as human shields for an evil political attack. We are women, not a caricature of women, and we stand with Brett Kavanaugh.

54barney67
okt 2, 2018, 8:43 am

table-turning temper tantrums

55barney67
okt 2, 2018, 8:47 am

http://www.realclearlife.com/sports/17-year-old-female-driver-makes-nascar-histo...

17-Year-Old Female Driver Makes NASCAR History With Win
Hailie Deegan became the first woman to capture a victory at a K&N Pro Series race.

18 hours ago

On Saturday night, Hailie Deegan became the first female driver to win in the K&N Pro Series when she took the checkered flag in the NAPA Auto Parts/Idaho 208 race at Meridian Speedway in Idaho.

And she did it at the age of 17.

In only her 18th career race, Deegan took the lead from Bill McAnally Racing teammate Cole Rouse on the white-flag lap to capture the win.

Earlier in the week, Deegan had tweeted out her goals for the year. As it turns out, it took her less time to complete them than anyone would have thought.

“Oh my god,” Deegan said in Victory Lane. “This has to be the best day of my life right here. It doesn’t get any better than this. People don’t understand how many days, how many hours I’ve put into this. How much work I’ve done to get to this moment. ”

56proximity1
okt 2, 2018, 11:40 am


>44 2wonderY:

Laura McGann writes--and you copy-and-paste--this:



'You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them,' Trump says on an Access Hollywood tape. 'It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. “You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them,” Trump says on an Access Hollywood tape. “It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

“Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”

Trump and his supporters brushed this all off as “locker room talk,” the kind of stuff men and boys say among themselves but don’t really mean."



But calling any of that up and applying it here, in the case of Brett Kavanaugh is a mistake and it shows once more that Trump's critics are confused and just trying out whatever is handy and clunking around in their recent memories.

Brett Kavanaugh, as a federal judge, does not at all qualify as what Trump referred to-- he was clearly referring to people who could be regarded as celebrities: "And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.“

In the first place, Kavanaugh isn't what can be considered (in the context of Trump's comments) "a star". And he certainly didn't qualify as one back when he was a varsity high-school athlete--even if, in his own mind, he thought he was a big-shot. He wasn't the sort of celebrity which Trump was talking about. Moreover, when we come to trump's "they let you do it. You can do anything," we're in a totally alien land to that of the teen-aged group at the house-party, where Kavanaugh, we come to understand, is alleged to have locked a lone young woman from the small group in a bedroom and, with a friend of his looking on, proceeded to try and take her clothes off --against her clear and determined physical and verbal resistance. That's nothing like women "letting (men) do it."

This sort of conflation of very different contexts and intentions doesn't do anything to help so-called liberals make their case against Kavanaugh or Trump, for that matter. Bringing up Trump's imfamous comments here is an "own goal." There's no need nor any good excuse for it.

Kavanaugh's circumstances are very different and there's no need to conflate them with Trump's comments. They aren't comparable or relevant here.

572wonderY
Bewerkt: okt 2, 2018, 6:12 pm

>56 proximity1:. Yes, that is a weak spot in the article. I thought to drop that section as irrelevant, but copied it whole so as not to appear to twist her argument.

From Benjamin Wittes:
“I know Brett Kavanaugh, but I wouldn’t confirm him.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/571936/

582wonderY
okt 2, 2018, 5:41 pm

Judge Napolitano reacts to new report that Kavanaugh asked friends to refute Ramirez ~

“It’s a violation of legal ethics for a sitting federal judge to be asking people for favors.”

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/10/02/judge-napolitano-brett-kavanaugh-texts-ref...

592wonderY
okt 2, 2018, 5:50 pm

Here’s an excellent critique of Rachel Mitchell’s report:

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kavanaugh-hearing-prosecutor-rachel-mitche...

60theoria
okt 2, 2018, 8:17 pm

A description of the young Kavanaugh in the Telegraph adds context to his raging, over-wrought fratboy performance in the Senate last week. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/my-battle-brett-kavanaugh-over-truth-ambrose-ev...

"As soon as the print edition of the Telegraph reached Washington, the Starr investigation issued a subpoena calling Mr Knowlton to the grand jury. He was to face questioning by Brett Kavanaugh.

Mr Kavanaugh was then a cocky 30 year-old from the affluent WASP suburbs of Northwest Washington, very much the country club boy with a high sense of his status, and Georgetown Prep and Yale Law School behind him, though only with a humdrum Cum Laude. If anybody was going to wind up my hard-scrabble, salt-of-America witness, it was this child of privilege."

612wonderY
okt 3, 2018, 2:46 am

500+ law professors rate Kavanaugh as unfit for judgeship based on last Thursday’s performance.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kavanaugh-judicial-temperament-law-professo...

62Tid
okt 3, 2018, 5:06 am

>52 barney67:

"I'm a Brit"

Nuff said. Nothing to see here.


Oh silly me. Of course, being from another country makes me too stupid and unqualified to understand or comment on international issues.

63proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 3, 2018, 6:26 am

Poor Rich Lowry* just doesn't get it.

He tries to argue that in today's intolerant politically-correct world, Atticus FInch, a heroic character in Harper Lee's novel, To Kill A Mockingbird, would be a villain for failing ( à la "BelieveAllWomen") to reflexively take the side of a woman who alleges she was raped.

But Lowry misses the point of Finch's heroic character. Finch is heroic because he stood for courageous, fair and reasoned thinking which challenged the conventional thinking of his time --or, in other words, he remains a heroic model today because we can still take his example and apply it usefully to the importance of challenging the conventional thinking of our day.

Thus, today, this same Atticus Finch would be defending Christine Blasey Ford, not Judge Brett Kavanaugh, against the simplistic thinking which slavishly does the bidding of the traditional power structure. In the American south of the 1930s and 1940s, that power structure placed the fate of black men on criminal trial for their lives in the hands of all-White juries, juries who regarded the black defendants' guilt as a foregone conclusion based on the defendant's skin-color.
(Moreover, in the novel, Tom Robinson was tried in a criminal court on criminal charges and he faced a severe criminal penalty if found guilty by the trial court. None of that is analogous to the circumstances of the Senate's confirmation hearings on a presidential appointment to the Supreme Court. Judge Kavanaugh, at least in this instance, is not facing a criminal charge, nor does he face a jury nor does he risk imprisonment for failing to be confirmed by the Senate. He enjoys no such presumption of innocence because, after all, he is not on trial. If and when that should change, then he'd been entitled to the presumption of innocence--a condition which means simply one very essential thing: it is the accusers, not the accused, who must bear the burdens of proof. And so be it.)
It's that which Finch stood for--the presumption of innocence, which does not apply here in the Senate's hearings--as he tried to defend "a black man named Tom Robinson accused of rape by a young white woman."

_______________________________

* Lowry, (New York Post) : "Do Today's Liberals Think Atticus Finch Was a Villain?"

64margd
okt 3, 2018, 11:23 am

The Anger of Brett Kavanaugh
Charles J. Sykes | Oct 2, 2018

...The problem was not that Judge Kavanaugh was angry; it was the way he chose to vent his anger. There are appropriate and inappropriate ways of expressing anger, even in the Age of Trump. Prudence and restraint are good ideas for all of us in our daily life, but are essential qualities for a jurist. It is one thing for Lindsey Graham to audition for the role of the Senate’s angry Uriah Heep. It is quite another for a Supreme Court nominee to go Full Trump.

...At the heart of judicial conservatism is the belief that rulings should be based on the Constitution and the law, rather than the whims or biases of unelected judges. So it is vitally important that those decisions be seen legitimate by the American people. The legitimacy of the Court is undermined if the public believes that the court’s decisions are arbitrary, partisan rulings by ideologues.

To be fair to Kavanaugh, he did not begin this cycle of partisanship—the court has been divided along partisan and ideological lines for quite some time. Nor would he be likely to be the most partisan justice on the current court. But Kavanaugh went a good way last week to dropping the pretense of fairness.

Because there are no cameras in the Supreme Court, his emotional, angry, partisan testimony is likely to be the last time that millions of Americans get to see Judge Kavanaugh’s demeanor, temperament, fairness, and judgment in action.

The image is likely to be indelible, and as Kavanaugh himself said, the damage will last for decades.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/charles-j-sykes/the-anger-of-brett-kavanaugh

652wonderY
okt 3, 2018, 11:47 am

Brett Kavanaugh and the Information Terrorists Trying to Reshape America

This Wired article covers the whole phenomenon of online radicalization, but here is the Kavanaugh section:

The narratives to defend Kavanaugh were mostly about discrediting Blasey Ford: that she was part of a secret CIA mind-control project (the CIA connection was also alluded to by Kremlin disinformation purveyors); that George Soros was behind her allegations; that her lawyer was linked to Hillary Clinton; that she was motivated by profit; that she did this as revenge for a foreclosure case where Kavanaugh's mother, also a judge, ruled against Blasey Fords's parents (only, she didn't—she ruled in their favor); that she had also made false allegations against Neil Gorsuch; and many more.

What was the payoff for this multifront conspiracy defense? Well, Blasey Ford was asked questions that hinted at some of these conspiracies during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee—who was paying her bills and pulling her strings?—by the prosecutor representing the Republicans. Presumably those questions came from members of the committee.

And then, when it was his turn to testify, Kavanaugh himself deployed this narrative by referencing and implying conspiracies in his red-faced attacks on the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While he would not say directly that Blasey Ford was lying, he alleged the left was "willing to do anything … to blow me up," including "false last-minute smears" "calculated and orchestrated" against him as "revenge on behalf of the Clintons."

In the course of his angry self-defense, Kavanaugh stamped a lot of bingo squares: attempted rape allegations as a political tool, false allegations, Clinton, secret conspiracies. By going out and taking the big swing, he elicited a powerful emotional response in his defense—an activated response from a hardened base. #ConfirmKavanaugh was trending—with support of far-right and Russian-linked accounts—after the hearing.

662wonderY
okt 3, 2018, 12:08 pm

‘Kava-No’: Kavanaugh’s Classmates Rally Against Him Outside Yale Club

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh seemed to puff up with pride when talking about his Yale pedigree during last week’s Senate hearing. But a group of alumni who rallied outside the Ivy League university’s club in Manhattan on Tuesday said the judge has disgraced his degree.

“As long as Yale is being used as any reference for this man, I think those of us who care about Yale, and care about the Supreme Court, and care about the country, need to come out and say this is not what the university stands for,” Jeannine Dominy, a 1985 graduate, told The Daily Beast.
...
They represented just a small fraction of the 4,500 graduates who have called on the nominee to withdraw, amid an allegation that he exposed himself to a Yale classmate in 1983. Kavanaugh denies the accusation.

Richard Ulger, who graduated with Kavanaugh in 1987, said he was surprised to see how many men signed a letter calling for the judge to withdraw—including members of his fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, as well “jocks” he used to hang out with in college.

Ulger attended the rally on Tuesday with his father, Harlow, who graduated Yale in 1953. Both said they were concerned by the allegations against Kavanaugh, but more troubled by how the nominee behaved during the Senate hearing.

68margd
Bewerkt: okt 3, 2018, 1:43 pm

Interesting that the legal types are more offended by Kavanaugh's opening statements than his interaction with senators Klobuchar, etc.:
the statement was written, DELIBERATE partisanship whereas the exchanges with senators were intemperate but excusable given the accusations against him.

I think Senator Flake felt the reverse: statement more acceptable than exchanges.

>67 2wonderY: :-)

702wonderY
okt 4, 2018, 1:43 am

Here’s a summary of classmates who challenge Kavanaugh’s characterization of his college days ~

https://www.thecut.com/2018/10/all-of-kavanaughs-classmates-who-have-called-him-...

712wonderY
okt 4, 2018, 2:08 am

Gamble v US, how it might effect the Mueller probe, and why the rush with this confirmation ~

https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/policy/ethics/brett-kavanaugh-could-limi...

72margd
Bewerkt: okt 4, 2018, 8:21 am

>61 2wonderY: law professors rate Kavanaugh as unfit for judgeship based on last Thursday’s performance

Renato Mariotti (former fed prosecutor, CNN) @renato_mariotti | 3 Oct 2018:

A couple of law professors I know hesitated to sign their names to this* because they were afraid about the consequences to their practice if Kavanaugh was confirmed.

That’s exactly why the letter was necessary. Kavanaugh acted like an angry partisan with an agenda, not a judge.

*650+ law professors (and counting) believe Brett Kavanaugh lacks the judicial temperament to be approved to the Supreme Court. Read their letter explaining why. https://nyti.ms/2O68Can

ETA: 1000 and counting! ________________________________________________________________

The Senate Should Not Confirm Kavanaugh Signed, 1,000+ Law Professors (and Counting)
OCT. 3, 2018

The following letter will be presented to the United States Senate on Oct. 4. It will be updated as more signatures are received.

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-...

73margd
okt 4, 2018, 7:08 am

I Was Brett Kavanaugh’s College Roommate
James Roche | Oct 03, 2018

...he lied under oath. He claimed that he occasionally drank too much but never enough to forget details of the night before, never enough to “black out.” He did, regularly. He said that “boofing” was farting and the “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game. “Boofing” and “Devil’s Triangle” are sexual references. I know this because I heard Brett and his friends using these terms on multiple occasions.

...In this case, the lies are not trivial: His lies about sexual terms and his drinking are directly relevant to the accusations of Christine Blasey Ford and Debbie Ramirez, which both involved sexual behavior and heavy drinking. The truth would make him look bad and would bolster the credibility of both of these women. In this climate, had he simply said “I don’t remember” or even “If I did these things in my youth I am sorry,” he might have sailed through the confirmation process. But he lied, under oath, like it was nothing...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jam...

74barney67
okt 4, 2018, 9:11 am

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/former-aclu-leaders-blast-appalling-anti...

Former ACLU leaders blast 'appalling' anti-Brett Kavanaugh ad campaign

Former American Civil Liberties Union leaders say the group is making a serious mistake in opposing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh with a $1 million ad buy focused on sexual misconduct allegations.

"They are not civil libertarians. They are serving a different master now," said former ACLU vice president Michael Meyers, who served on the group's national board from 1981 to 2005.

Meyers said the TV ad campaign, which compares Kavanaugh to famous sex abusers, violates the civil libertarian principle of presumption of innocence and shows the ACLU is increasingly guided by partisanship over principle.

"It's not ironic, it's tragic," Meyers told the Washington Examiner. "It's hypocrisy. It's bald-face hypocrisy. It's outrageous hypocrisy. It's a violation of everything we believe in as civil libertarians. It's appalling, shocking. It's unacceptable."

Wendy Kaminer, an ACLU national board member from 1999 to 2006, said the ad campaign strays from the ACLU’s core civil liberties mission and could undermine the organization’s work.

“I think the ad is appalling and one more example of progressive political sentiment trumping civil liberty concerns at ACLU,” Kaminer said. “You should ask national legal director David Cole how he feels about arguing a case before a Justice Kavanaugh who the ACLU has labelled a Bill Cosby-like sexual predator."

75barney67
okt 4, 2018, 9:17 am

Trump rips 'despicable Democrats' for their treatment of Kavanaugh

President Trump said Thursday that people can see through the “despicable Democrats” and their treatment of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

“The harsh and unfair treatment of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact on voters. The PEOPLE get it far better than the politicians,” Trump said on Twitter Thursday morning. “Most importantly, this great life cannot be ruined by mean & despicable Democrats and totally uncorroborated allegations!”

Although multiple people have come out in support of Ford, Ramirez, and Swetnick, there have been no eye witnesses so far that have come forward to corroborate the allegations.

Kavanaugh’s high school friends who were identified as being present at the gathering where Ford says she was assaulted deny any knowledge of the incident.

76lriley
okt 4, 2018, 9:22 am

#73--I think Mr. Roche puts it pretty well. Very good article.

77margd
okt 4, 2018, 10:31 am

National Council Of Churches Calls For Brett Kavanaugh’s Withdrawal
Carla Herreria | Oct 3, 2018

The National Council of Churches called for the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination on Wednesday, citing his behavior during last week’s Senate hearing and his “political record.”

“We believe he has disqualified himself from this lifetime appointment and must step aside immediately,” the Washington-based council said in a statement.*

According to its website, the organization represents over 40 million people and 38 Christian denominations.**

During his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the council wrote, “Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation.”

The council also accused Kavanaugh of lying under oath...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/national-council-of-churches-kavanaugh-with...

* https://twitter.com/ncccusa/status/1047616959037296640/photo/1

** Wikipedia: The Council's 38 member communions include Mainline Protestant, Orthodox, African American, Evangelical, Josephite, and historic peace churches. Individual adherents of more than 50 Christian faith groups actively participate in NCC study groups, commissions and ministries. Some of these participants belong to Christian faith groups such as the Catholic Church, fundamentalists groups, Southern Baptists, and Missouri Synod Lutherans, which are not officially a part of the Council's membership. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Council_of_Churches
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Council_of_Churches_members

782wonderY
okt 4, 2018, 11:25 am

>77 margd: I've never seen such a response from all these corners of society. Is this unique or have I just been oblivious?

79margd
Bewerkt: okt 4, 2018, 12:25 pm

>78 2wonderY: If Kavanaugh confirmed in spite of widespread public objection--1700+ law profs have now signed the letter--we may indeed reap the whirlwind, per Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law) and the nominee himself ("what goes around comes around"). Could be sad days ahead, Putin chortles...

Republicans’ misogyny will come back to haunt them
Opinion | Senators, do not settle for a phony FBI investigation
Jennifer Rubin | October 4, 2018

...Republicans...could win this fight for the swing Supreme Court seat, but they cannot bestow legitimacy upon Kavanaugh or erase their record of weaponized misogyny. Progressives will seek his recusal in every case of political significance. Every 5-4 decision in which Kavanaugh is the deciding vote will be denounced as illegitimate, the work of a partisan judge elevated to the court by nefarious means. The decision will be respected legally in the short term, but in the future, it will be argued, the decision should carry zero precedential weight. Those he once accused of participating in a left-wing cabal will seek to vacate cases they lose in which Kavanaugh was the deciding vote. In future cases, they will urge justices and lower court judges to downgrade the importance of these decisions, in effect treating them as unpublished opinions that should not impact future cases.

Democrats will ferret out the witnesses whom the FBI ignored and subpoena FBI officials to testify. They will leak the full FBI report at some point and disclose any communications between the FBI and White House that reveal efforts to curb the FBI investigation. They will seek Kavanaugh’s removal, and maybe even his disbarment.

When a Democratic president eventually wins the White House with a Democratic Senate majority, you can count on a court-packing scheme. Most critically, any decision Kavanaugh renders in Trump’s favor on the Russia probe might ignite a constitutional conflagration in which the majority of the country sees an illegitimate justice protect a president illegitimately elected with the assistance of the United States’ foe, Russia...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/10/04/republicans-misogyny-...

802wonderY
Bewerkt: okt 4, 2018, 12:46 pm

Here's an interesting opinion piece. I too found myself comparing Kavanaugh's performance to my alcoholic father, with his public face and his family face.

Brett Kavanaugh reminds me of my father: Enraged by threats to power and entitlement

"The biggest crimes that set my father off tended to be thought crimes. Insubordination. Attitude problems. Tone of voice. Failure to obey quickly enough. Disrespect. He took these crimes as assaults on his rank, as attempts to take from him his rightful status as father, law-giver, leader and man.
...
There’s a reason we all know the expression “sober as a judge,” not “dry as a judge.” We all — liberal or conservative or anything in between — hope for dispassion, cool-headedness, enough humility to listen, a lack of susceptibility to personal preconceptions, and enough even-handedness to foster a climate of justice.

It was Kavanaugh’s rage that set me and so many others off. And it was his rage that was disqualifying."

also very perceptive and well expressed is this:

"Sadly, the disease is one that does more than just attack your pancreas or your liver. It lodges inside of your personality. It weaves its way into your life and feeds on your weaknesses like the hungriest of parasites. It changes you, and if you spend years battling it, and even if you succeed, you are never again that sweet young guy who tried his first beer. You’ve been weathered and warped by it, and not always in ways that you or anyone who loves you can articulate or accommodate."

81margd
okt 4, 2018, 1:01 pm

The F.B.I. Probe Ignored Testimonies from Former Classmates of Kavanaugh
Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow | October 3, 2018

...Kenneth G. Appold..., who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh (suitemate) and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”

...his graduate-school roommate about the incident in 1989 or 1990. That roommate, Michael Wetstone, who is now an architect, confirmed Appold’s account (neither interviewed by FBI)

...A classmate of Kavanaugh’s at Georgetown Preparatory School, who asked to remain anonymous...recalled, “on multiple occasions, Brett Kavanaugh counting on his fingers, how many kegs they had over the weekend.” The amount that he heard Kavanaugh describe, he said in the statement, “seemed to be an extreme amount of beer drinking for someone to consume at any age, let alone someone in high school.”

...also challenges Kavanaugh’s assertion in last week’s hearing that he never denigrated a female student named Renate Schroeder...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-ka...

822wonderY
okt 4, 2018, 1:19 pm

>72 margd: the signatures on that letter from law professors are up past 1,500 now.

'Unfathomable’: More than 1,500 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation

83margd
okt 4, 2018, 4:18 pm

‘Pay attention’: Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has changed his mind about supporting Brett Kavanaugh
Sarah K. Burris | 04 Oct 2018 at 15:58 ET

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens...once thought Kavanaugh “had the qualifications,” said Stevens, who was appointed by President Gerald Ford. “His performance in the hearings changed my mind.”

The life-long Republican urged Senators to “pay attention” to what happened...

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/pay-attention-retiring-supreme-court-justice-jo...

842wonderY
okt 4, 2018, 5:37 pm

Heitkamp to vote ‘no’ on Kavanaugh

"When I listened to Dr. Ford testify, I heard the voices of women I have known throughout my life who have similar stories of sexual assault and abuse," Heitkamp said, citing her past work with abuse survivors as the attorney general of her state.

"Our actions right now are a poignant signal to young girls and women across our country. I will continue to stand up for them," Heitkamp said.

85sturlington
okt 4, 2018, 5:48 pm

>82 2wonderY: Now more than 2,400 signatures.

How in the world are Senate Republicans going to ignore this unprecedented outcry? They made a huge mistake not getting the nomination pulled when trouble began surfacing. They could have easily gotten their conservative justice if they had picked one with less of a checkered past and a better temperament.

If I didn't think this was so worrying for our democracy, it would be extremely interesting to observe from just a historical vantage point.

86proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 5:33 am

>85 sturlington:

"How in the world are Senate Republicans going to ignore this unprecedented outcry?"

Practice--and emulation.

These people have a lifetime of experience in ignoring others. And some of it was learned from examples of people like you--you, who often refuse to listen, refuse to consider, refuse to hear anything that doesn't suit your hardened dogmas.

So, I suggest you take your question above, go into the bathroom, stand in front of the mirror, repeat the question, and look straight ahead. You'll be staring at an example of the answer.

You've a demonstrated tendency to shut down, shut off and exclude comment and opinion you don't like.



>149 2wonderY: sturlington | Sep 28, 11:30am

"Oh goody here come the defenders of toxic masculinity riding in on their white horses. I don't even have to read their comments--I've heard the arguments a millions times over by now."



So your being ignored now, here, in this case, by people you whose views you won't hear --that is some of what those habits get you.

_______________________________

>149 2wonderY: sturlington | Sep 28, 11:30am

There you have it :

every single Republican senator present and voting--bar one: Murkowski (R) Alaska-- voted in favor of cloture, a vote signaling a readiness to send Kavanaugh's nomination to the Senate floor for a full vote of the chamber to either confirm or reject his nomination.

So, "liberals", you "swung" exactly one Republican-party member to your cause. Meanwhile, you couldn't hold onto to every Democratic-party member's vote, as you failed to persuade Senator Manchin of West Virginia to vote "nay."

It appears likely, then, that Kavanaugh's nomination shall be confirmed on a vote of 51 in favor, 49 opposed.

It's official: there's no inter-party communications or good-faith going on. It's a "dialogue of the deaf", as the French say.

87margd
Bewerkt: okt 5, 2018, 9:07 am

Here’s why confirming Kavanaugh could seriously undermine the Supreme Court’s public standing
Brendan Nyhan | October 5, 2018

...roughly two-thirds of Americans express a favorable view of the court — far more than for Congress or the federal government.

...with many 5-4 decisions likely, Americans will get clearer cues about its partisanship and ideology than they have in the past.

...(see!!!) figure (at website), which illustrates that...since 1981 (only Kavanaugh and Gorsuch)...put forward by a president who lost the popular vote and confirmed by votes from senators representing a minority of the American public...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/10/05/heres-why-confirmi...

ETA_____________________________________________________________

The closest #SCOTUS confirmation vote in history was on March 14, 1881, when the Senate confirmed Justice Stanley Matthews* by a 24-23 vote:
https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm

There’s never been a tie vote (broken by the Vice President) to confirm _any_ federal judge, let alone a Justice.

--Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck (U TX law) | 5:28 AM - 5 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1048188209988096000

........................................................................................................

*Matthews was controversial because he had represented Rutherford Hayes at the tribunal that awarded Hayes all the disputed electoral votes in the deadlocked election of 1876. Too partisan an appointment even for the 19th century

--David Frum @davidfrum | 5:51 AM - 5 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1048194049293864960

882wonderY
okt 5, 2018, 8:53 pm

The American Bar Association re-opens Kavanaugh evaluation

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/american-bar-association-reopens-kavanaugh...

89proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 5:45 am

>87 margd:

"...roughly two-thirds of Americans express a favorable view of the court — far more than for Congress or the federal government."

Just how much do these people expressing a favorable view know about the court? Very likely more than two-thirds of Americans couldn't name even two of the Justices on the court or tell you how many constitute a full complement of members of the court. In other words, the overwhelming majority of Americans simply don't know shit about the Supreme Court, its history or members. That suggests they care little about it unless the click-bait mass-media machine creates an issue to distract them from their usual stupor.

A great many Americans don't even understand that, in Senate confirmation hearings, there is no proper place for a nominee to enjoy or invoke some supposed "presumption of innocence".

Americans--presumed ignorant unless shown evidence to the contrary--this goes for moron "liberals" as much as for moron "conservatives."

_______________________________

>149 2wonderY:

There you have it :

every single Republican senator present and voting--bar one: Murkowski (R) Alaska, voted in favor of cloture, a vote signaling a readiness to send Kavanaugh's nomination to the Senate floor for a full vote of the chamber to either confirm or reject his nomination.

So, "liberals", you "swung" exactly one Republican party member to your cause. Meanwhile, you couldn't hold onto to every Democratic party member's vote, as you failed to persuade Senator Manchin of West Virginia to vote "nay."

It appears likely, then, that Kavanaugh's nomination shall be confirmed on a vote of 51 in favor, 49 opposed.

It's official: there's no inter-party communications or good-faith going on. It's a "dialogue of the deaf", as the French say.

OH, and by the way-- you women who asserted adamantly over decades that, getting women into office would counter the many woefully bad consequences of a nearly-completely male political power structure-- a woman, "0ne of our own"™, voted in favor of Kavanaugh, under the idiotically stupid and patently false reasoning that,


(Ian Schwarts, RealClearPolitics) "now is not the time to abandon due process and the presumption of innocence.

" 'That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness,' she (i.e. Senator Collins) said."


Stupid Americans, stupid, stupid, stupid.

90margd
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 6:46 am

Feeling newfound respect for retired Senator Franken, who accepted responsibility for his actions and the judgment of his peers...with dignity.

Sen. Collins re Judge Kavanaugh:

...In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy.

The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward...

https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senator-collins-announces-she-will-vote-...

ETA: Collins move drew praise from GOP leadership. “I’m proud of Sen. Collins to resist the intimidation,” said Majority Whip Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.).
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/05/kavanaugh-votes-confirmed-872713
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Sen. Collins re Senator Franken:

Sexual harassment and assault have no place in any workplace.
The reports involving Senator Franken are disturbing. His belated apology was certainly warranted.

Sen. Susan Collins @SenatorCollins | 2:26 PM - 16 Nov 2017

________________________________________________________________________________________

Senate Majority and Minority Leaders Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer sent Tweeden's accusations (Franken forcibly kissed her) to the Senate Ethics Committee for review, a decision supported by members of both parties, including Franken himself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Trump: Franken folded ‘like a wet rag’ under sexual misconduct allegations
MATTHEW CHOI | 10/05/2018

President Donald Trump mocked former Sen. Al Franken for folding "up like a wet rag" after allegations of sexual misconduct were leveled against him, ridiculing the former lawmaker as Senate Republicans work to confirm Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women.

"Boy, did he fold up like a wet rag. Man, man, he was gone so fast," Trump said at a rally Thursday night in Franken's home state of Minnesota. "It was like, 'oh, he did something,' 'oh I resign. I quit.'"

...Franken resigned last year after allegations that he inappropriately touched and forcibly kissed multiple women while working as a comedian. Franken was among the numerous powerful men who were accused of sexual misconduct following the bombshell New York Times report on former film mogul Harvey Weinstein, which was released a year ago on Friday.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/05/trump-al-franken-wet-rag-872034

91proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 11:16 am

>90 margd:

Franken v. Kavanaugh : more idiotic conflation!

Franken was elected to office, neither nominated by the president, nor examined under oath for confirmation by the Senate.

There's a reason the Senate committee can, at confirmation hearings, place a nominee under a sworn oath to tell the truth:

the nominee is under the scrutiny of the committee members and is beholden to their judgment and approval for his confirmation. This is as it is supposed to be. The committee members don't have to consent to the appointment. They have both the power and the right to reject the nominee's appointment-- and they may do that for any damned reason or cause they see fit to act on.

That is not the case at criminal trial. Criminal trial defendants are not at the mercy of either the judge or the jury for their right to the presumption of innocence. They get the right to this by law--according the the terms of the Constitution. At trial, they need not show they are innocent, it's for the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty as charged.

Think about it!

Under the presumption of innocence, guilt not only must be proven, it must be proven without compelling the accused to cooperate!

Thus, no one with this right has to respond to questions under oath. And the refusal to respond to them may not (in U.S. law) be the basis of a verdict of guilt or any other sanction or punishment. The criminal trial defendant cannot be called to testify against his will.

A president's appointed nominee has to appear before the Senate's hearing--or he or she can be denied confirmation for that refusal alone. The nominee may refuse to answer a question but he or she may not refuse to answer "on the grounds that the answer may incriminate" him (or her) because, very simply, the committee cannot compel a nominee to reply. However, the nominee obviously knows that, by his (or her) refusing to reply, the committee is completely free to draw conclusions about the refusal--conclusions which lead directly to the nominee's rejection--at a criminal trial, the defendant's refusal to testify may not be used as evidence against him (or her). That's what the 'presumption of innocence' means.

and that is why Kavanaugh, faced with probing questions about his college-career's drinking habits had only the unenviable choice between telling the truth--that he frequently became drunk and disorderly and irresponsible in his actions, when he could remember them--or lying, which he did in some cases, or responding with enormous (and strained) indignation,

"I went to Yale! (and Yale law school!)" ... "worked my butt off!"

Kavanaugh was first appointed to the federal judiciary by a sitting president, then, later, nominated by Trump for appointment as Associate Justice.

These avenues to office are not analogous. But they do have something in common: in one, like the other, both avenues to office are outside the realm of some goddamned "presumption of innocence" when it comes to either the voters' or the Senate's evaluating the candidate's fitness for office. Neither voters nor senators owe such candidates any "presumption of innocence." On the contrary, it's entirely up to them to decide as they see fit, and at their discretion, whether the candidate is worthy of being elected or confirmed in his appointment. This is particularly obvious in the case of a candidate for elective office.

Imagine the fucking nerve of a candidate for elective office asserting that his office's electorate has no business taking into account allegations which, though serious, have not been proven in a court of law! Imagine such a candidate asserting that the voters' taking up such a judgment in the course of their pre-vote considerations is of itself improper and denies the candidate some "due-process"! There's no fucking "due-process" owed the candidate for elective office other than the prospective voters' judgments as to his fitness.

"How dare they judge me! (i.e. 'him'/ or 'her')?" They're your electorate, Moron!, that's 'how'.

Furthermore, Franken did not "accept(...) responsibility for his actions and the judgment of his peers". Rather, he pre-empted that by resigning ahead of any vote by his peers on his fitness to remain in his elected office. Rather than submit to some pronounced finding about whether he'd breached Senate rules on good behavior, he anticipated a negative finding and announced his resignation from office--short-cutting the actual process of making himself accountable to the judgment of his peers.

Nevertheless, at no time was Franken legally entitled to any presumption of innocence, formal or informal. Nor did he wait to find out if any such presumption was going to be afforded him. As it turned out, he wasn't afforded a presumption of innocence. On the contrary, he was presumed guilty as alleged on the basis of (questionably interpreted) photographic evidence alone.

One other aspect is common to the cases of both Franken and Kavanaugh: in both cases, the commenting press and public--not to mention elected officials like Senator Susan Collins of Maine--showed themselves to be fucking useless at logical reasoning and even the most basic understanding of legal and democratic principles of theory and practice.

Franken, lacking the gumption to stand up for and defend himself in the face of a (public) lynch-mob mentality, quit his office, as though he was completely guilty of having been and done all that he was alleged to have been and to have done.

In the case of Kavanaugh, the United States Senate is constitutionally charged with the duty of considering his nomination and, according to the members' judgment, accepting or rejecting that nomination to life-time appointment. This is in no way a lynch-mob scenario! It's the rule of law, for fuck's sake!

Senator Collins: you're a fucking moron and a disgrace to your office with your idiotic prattling about "the presumption of innocence" here. You don't need a 'cover-your-ass' excuse to vote in favor of Kavanaugh's confirmation. You can approve his appointment for no other reason than that, for example, you might happen to think his political views are what the court's newest appointee ought to hold. It's that simple. You don't need a respectable or a politically disinterested motive for supporting his appointment and, certainly, some imagined right of his to a presumption of innocence is anything but a respectable motive for approving his appointment.

Stupid, stupid, stupid, dumb-shit Americans!

92lriley
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 10:09 am

IMO Sen. Collins simply took the easiest avenue for her. She's just another who's backed down when face to face standing up for what was right over party politics. So anyway the bullshit over her being at all independent just got cleared up for anyone who thought that was the case. She believes Kavanaugh on Roe vs. Wade and that's enough for her.

And by the way I wouldn't be surprised if she decides not to run for reelection in 2020.

Manchin as well there is a political calculation--he's fighting for his seat and the Democrats are between a rock and a hard place on that one. He's given himself and them their best chance at keeping that Senate seat by making the decision he has.....so far I don't see much criticism of him but the Democrats willingness to vote in more conservative politicians in more conservative districts and states is part of the issue here and it's precisely this strategy that backfired in his case because he'll fight for his political life--he'll do what it takes.

So in the end if any Senator showed any independence at all it is Murkowski....so kudos to her. The rest did whatever was expected of them by the majority of their constituents and by their affiliated party.

93sturlington
okt 6, 2018, 10:15 am

>92 lriley: I think you could argue that Heitkamp was in the same place as Manchin but chose to vote no. However, she may get more of a pass from her constituents. I'm not sure her state is as diehard Trumpian as West Virginia.

I think the Republicans really missed an opportunity here to try to heal the divide in our country. They could have gotten another conservative justice but instead chose to go to the mat for this poison pill. I'm still not sure why exactly they made this calculation, but I suppose that will become clear eventually. As it is now, they are behaving as if they expect to never be out of power again, so either they're being very shortsighted or we are in a very scary situation here in the US.

94proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 7, 2018, 6:49 am

>93 sturlington:

..."so either they're being very shortsighted or we are in a very scary situation here in the US."

Or maybe both:

they're being very shortsighted and (you) are in a very scary situation (...) in the US. More to the point, Trump's withdrawing his nominee from consideration not only would not, first, in any way " heal the divide in our country," it wouldn't even contribute to any such healing.

That's true for a very simple and indisputable reason:

the Trump-opposition's reaction to Trump's election has made clear beyond any doubt that they had no intention of ever respecting an electoral outcome which was, in the first place, beyond their very capacity to imagine even happening, and, when it did happen, they repudiated the very concept of democratically-based electoral decision-making in which a general electorate's choice is bound to be accepted and respected--unless it's simply a clear case of election-fraud.

And, of course, incapable of imagining their own defeat by other than foul-play, Trump's opposition--in its myriad forms--claimed just that: they'd been "cheated" out of the victory which they'd taken completely for granted.

Now, in such circumstances, if anything is clear, it's that these people have no intention of honoring or respecting electoral politics unless the actual outcomes conform to their desires.

The long and the short of that is simple: you've now entered into your present "take-no-prisoners" politics. And Trump has zero incentive to compromise with an opposition which flagrantly used its influence with the Departments of State and Justice to cook up a thoroughly bogus array of charges against Trump's continued tenure in office: he was alleged to have been

mentally incompetent to hold office, and therefore, disposable,

an accessory before and after the fact to wide-spread collusion with the Russian dictator, Vladimir Putin, in electoral fraud or interference claims--called "collusion" in an attempt to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election or, as Wikipedia pages put it,

"an investigation of any possible links and/or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, "and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." (Wikipedia)

--although there is no actual criminal act specified in any of this. Robert Mueller's task is simply to go out fishing for anything he can find, since any reason, regardless of its character, is good enough to found a vendetta designed to undo Trump's election.

And this, briefly, is why it's just possible that Republicans are being very shortsighted and (you) are in a very scary situation (...)

When electoral results are summarily rejected because the losing party's electorate and its officialdom cannot abide the idea of their loss, then that is the basis for these circumstances being rightly called "scary."

__________________________________________________

You couldn't make this shit up! As a movie plot, no one would believe the irony! :



"After graduating from Yale Law School, he began his career as a law clerk and then a postgraduate fellow working under Judge Ken Starr. After Starr left the D.C. Circuit to take the position as head of the Office of Independent Counsel, Kavanaugh followed him to the OIC and assisted him with various investigations concerning President Bill Clinton, including the drafting of the Starr Report, which urged Clinton's impeachment."
__________________________________________

(from the "Brett Kavanaugh" page at Wikipedia)




So, we have, in this menagerie, a womanizing president (W.J. Clinton) investigated and pursued by Kenneth Starr, a special prosecutor who blazed new trails in running amok, and, helping Starr, the young and up and coming Yale law school grad, also a much practiced drinker and masher of unsuspecting young women, a certain Brett Kavanaugh.

And now, Trump's opponents--with Hillary's "I'm With Her!" band in the lead--having found easy rationales for their own accepting of Hillary's naked political ambition and its concommitant convenience in letting Bill Clinton's "bygones be bygones" ( i.e. sexual escapades)-- now they're on the warpath for Kavanaugh's "scalp". Laugh till you cry.

95Dr_Flanders
okt 6, 2018, 10:26 am

>92 lriley: I read somewhere that Murkowski was under a lot of pressure from voters in her state to vote "No" on Kavanaugh because of some ruling or rulings he made that were seen as harmful to indigenous Alaskans. I honestly can't remember where I read it, but it seemed to indicate that Senate Republicans might give their blessing for her to vote no, if they were confident that they had enough votes, so that she could try to play it safe with her own constituents. I read that earlier in the week, so who knows if that is actually what happened, but it seems possible.

96margd
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 1:19 pm

>95 Dr_Flanders: Also, Alaska has a high rate of sexual assault.

ETA: A Native woman was choked to unconsciousness, attacker masturbating on her, but didn't spend a day in jail, or something like that?

97margd
okt 6, 2018, 10:48 am

A happy day for Putin to see us in such a state...hey what, Prox?

Bitter Tenor of Senate Reflects a Nation at Odds With Itself
Alexander Burns | Oct. 5, 2018
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/country-divided-kavanaugh.html

98lriley
okt 6, 2018, 10:53 am

#95--well you might be right there. I don't know what you read....but Murkowski has also won as a write-in candidate....that's quite a feat.

To go back to Collins she's relying on him on Roe vs. Wade but this guy has shown already that he can be pretty loose with the truth and that he's ambitious enough to say what he needs to to get what he wants. That's the whole point of the last few weeks of this charade. Apparently that went over her head.

99proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 11:14 am

>97 margd:

See >94 proximity1: for your answer.

Or this-- LOL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_JOGmXpe5I

Putin couldn't buy the kind of help that Trump agonistes are giving him! "Fucking physician, heal thyself!"

100margd
okt 6, 2018, 10:59 am

Orin Kerr @OrinKerr (USC Gould Law Prof) | 9:34 PM - 5 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/OrinKerr

With Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation likely tomorrow, here a few thoughts on what this might mean for the next 5-10 years of Supreme Court action.

Most obviously, this will unleash a lot of test cases. Kavanaugh's confirmation will mean that, for the first time in most of our lifetimes, there is a clear majority of conservative Justices. No mushy middles of Powell, O'Connor, Kennedy, but rather five solid conservatives.

Expect a lot of people with conservative causes to push their cases to SCOTUS to see what the new Court will do. These ideological windows may stay open only for a few years; think 1962-68, when there was a strong liberal majority and a whole lot happened..

The common wisdom that Roberts will be a check on this is correct, I think. But note that the conservative 4 of CT, SAA, NMG, and BMK are enough to get cert granted -- and Roberts in most areas has been a reliable conservative.

For lawyers, briefing in Supreme Court cases presumably will aim a lot for the Chief's vote in a lot of big cases, replacing attention to Kennedy's vote. I doubt you'll see a notable change in how much originalist briefing there will be, though.

And it's a good bet that the constitutional theorists in the legal academy will rediscover the values of judicial restraint, stare decisis, and the importance of institutional stability. (Which will be correct, in my view, but for them of course personnel-dependent.)

A justice to watch: Elena Kagan. She's brilliant, and she has some centrist impulses. She'll presumably be looking to create a centrist block with Roberts to push for narrower rulings.

Finally, a big question is how long the 5-Justice conservative majority will last. We don't know, but time matters a lot of course. On one hand, the conservatives have a big age advantage w/ life tenure: The two oldest Justices are on the left, Breyer and Ginsburg (80 and 85).

On the other hand, you never know. If the Senate shifts to D following next month's midterm, that probably means no more vacancies that may arise would be filled until 2021. And who knows what will happen in 2020. As always, stay tuned. /end

101sturlington
okt 6, 2018, 11:39 am

>95 Dr_Flanders: I believe the governor and attorney general of Alaska came out opposing Kavanaugh because of issues relating to Native Alaskan interests, so I'm sure that also influenced her vote.

102margd
okt 6, 2018, 12:04 pm

Brett Kavanaugh Cannot Have It Both Ways
ROBERT POST | October 06, 2018

As the former dean of Yale Law School, I’m shocked by the judge’s partisan turn.

...Judge Kavanaugh cannot have it both ways. He cannot gain confirmation by unleashing partisan fury while simultaneously claiming that he possesses a judicial and impartial temperament. If Kavanaugh really cared about the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, he would even now withdraw from consideration...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/06/kavanaugh-confirmation-temper...

103Dr_Flanders
okt 6, 2018, 12:41 pm

>101 sturlington: Yeah, I think that was basically my read on it. I'd read somewhere that party leadership was looking for a way to allow her to vote no, so long as the numbers were still there for confirmation. That being said, I certainly don't know if she might or might not have voted her conscience anyway.

104DugsBooks
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 12:52 pm

>94 proximity1: “And, of course, incapable of imagining their own defeat by other than foul-play, Trump's opposition--in its myriad forms--claimed just that: they'd been "cheated" out of the victory which they'd taken completely for granted.”

As I remember it the most vocal protestation of the vote was by Trump inc. in trying to explain how he lost the popular vote -“millions of illegal votes”. The Dems were/are just wandering around in a state of denial for a while.

1052wonderY
okt 6, 2018, 1:00 pm

Robert Post, Sterling professor of law at Yale ~

“...his very presence will undermine the court’s claim to legitimacy...”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/06/kavanaugh-confirmation-temper...

106margd
Bewerkt: okt 6, 2018, 4:30 pm

!!!!!

D.C. Circuit sent complaints about Kavanaugh’s testimony to Chief Justice Roberts
Carol D. Leonnig, Ann E. Marimow and Tom Hamburger | October 6 at 2:18 PM

(Karen LeCraft Henderson) A judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit — the court on which Kavanaugh serves — sent a (more than 12) complaints to (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.) starting three weeks ago (but (he) has chosen for the time being not to refer them to a judicial panel for investigation.)

...(She) had dismissed other complaints against Kavanaugh as frivolous, but she concluded that some were substantive enough that they should not be handled by Kavanaugh’s fellow judges in the D.C. Circuit.

...Roberts’s decision not to immediately refer the cases to another appeals court has caused some concern in the legal community. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, legal experts say, the details of the misconduct complaints against him may not become public and instead will be dismissed. Supreme Court justices are not subject to the misconduct rules governing these claims.

...Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, has for many years hired Kavanaugh clerks to work for him at the Supreme Court. Bush credits Kavanaugh in his book with helping him choose Roberts for the high court when Kavanaugh was a White House lawyer.

..Most of these complaints center on Kavanaugh’s answers about his work in the Bush administration... They also accuse Kavanaugh of lacking judicial temperament in his partisan comments about Democrats...

...It is rare for a misconduct complaint against a judge to get as far as the chief justice (or to be made public until resolved). The chief judge of a circuit court normally reviews complaints against judges in their circuit. Most are dismissed because they lack a factual basis to make such a claim or are simply disagreeing with a judge’s decision.

Henderson, who was nominated to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, stepped in to review Kavanaugh’s complaints because Chief Judge Merrick Garland — who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama but was blocked by Senate Republicans — recused himself from the matter.

The way the complaints against Kavanaugh are being dealt with is unusual, because Henderson concluded the D.C. Circuit cannot properly handle the investigation, referring them to the chief justice. This is only done in exceptional circumstances, under the judiciary’s rules on misconduct.

Kavanaugh is a member of the D.C. Circuit’s judicial council, which normally rules on misconduct allegations in that court...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dc-circuit-sent-complaints-about-kavanau...

107proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 7, 2018, 10:30 am

>104 DugsBooks:

Enjoy your conveniently-selective memory and the supreme court that results from an approach to adversarial political affairs which combines hopelessness with uselessness. There's also the pathetic denial that lies behind your comically inadequate comment. Others of us deserve better; people like you are anchors around our necks.

Trump not only got his appointment through the Senate, he got an appointee on the court whose lack of fitness for the office is flagrant. And yet, Trump's critics mock him as a moron, a politically-incompetent fool, a guy who has no idea what he's doing and is just a wreck moving from accident to accident. All the while, Democrats are doubling down on their own now-proven-incredibly-incompetent-leadership, doing nothing serious or effective to change what has reliably produced a spectacular set of serial failures.

At what point are such people actually either ashamed of their incompetence or held to account for it by others?--many, many others, millions of them--who've now been suffering the ill consequences of a phony opposition party for what is going on fifteen years; an opposition which most of the time doesn't even appear serious about challenging the right-wing neo-liberal globalists and essentially just bargains to give these forces most of what they want without any effective fight.

Against Trump's appointee, the Trump opposition fell back on proven losing strategies: hash-tag campaigns of moral indignation, efforts which mainly consisted of helpless complaining about others' moral turpitude while showing their own hypocrisy in the process.

It seems you have no serious ideas at all about how Trump's work can be countered in some actually productive and useful way. No ideas at all. But you have knee-jerk retreats into defensiveness which, multiplied by millions of others who follow something like the same thing, ensures that things are going to remain just as they are.

Trump has succeeded in under two years of his first term in appointing two Supreme Court associate justices; Obama only managed two such appointments in eight years in office. A third vacancy on the court couldn't even be filled, such was the success of Obama's opponents in blocking his appointment of a replacement for Scalia's seat.

What's your plan other than looking on while Trump snookers you?

108DugsBooks
Bewerkt: okt 7, 2018, 12:22 pm

>107 proximity1: as always erudite but {at least this time} with flaws post.

My personal plan was to sign electronic documents protesting Kavanaugh’s appointment and I regret not actually calling my representatives to say I don’t want him to represent me on the Supreme Court.

I am thinking there must be a lot of women, who were woefully underrepresented in the appointment process, who don’t think a participant in a tag team sexual assault on a coed is someone they wanted on the Supreme Court. Mobilizing like minded voters is the only solution for the upcoming elections.

A more direct effort is being organized by Demand Progress who is organizing a legal effort to impeach Kavanaugh from the post. I am not familiar with this process but you can donate online to help.

https://demandprogress.org/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/opinion/kavanaugh-impeachment.html?action=cli...

109DugsBooks
Bewerkt: okt 7, 2018, 12:41 pm

110lriley
okt 7, 2018, 11:15 pm

So Susan Collins thinks Blasey Ford was indeed a victim of sexual assault but she thinks Blasey Ford mistook someone else for Kavanaugh? WTF. Sen. Collins would be better saying nothing at all than saying stupid shit like that.

111proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 8, 2018, 6:41 am

I'm going to borrow something from professional negotiator Chris Voss, a man whose work background and experience is straight out of the nitty-gritty of real-world hostage-negotiations and present it to you below as almost analogous to the failures which are the current Democratic party leadership's:


" Remember, a hostage-negotiator plays a unique role: he has to win. Can he say to the bank robber, "Okay, you've taken four hostages. Let's split the difference --give me two and we'll call it a day' ? " (p. 18)

_________________________

Never Spilt the Difference: Negotiating as if your life depended on it ; by Chris Voss, (with Tahl Raz) | 2016, Random House Business Books


In fact, the analogy is false in that it is simply far too generous to describe the Democrats' record as one where they win the release of half of the hostages--routinely writing off the loss of the other half.

Rather, Democrats leave a scene of unrelieved losses and carnage. They win no one's liberty. The hostage-takers kill all their hostages and make off with ransom or the robbery's haul while the Democrats stand by and complain about how very unfair that is, excusing the disastrous outcome with what, in political affairs, would be the equivalent of the police hostage-negotiators saying to the disappointed public and press:

"They had guns."

______________________________________

"Everything we’ve previously been taught about negotiation is wrong: you are not rational; there is no such thing as ‘fair’; compromise is the worst thing you can do; the real art of negotiation lies in mastering the intricacies of No, not Yes. These surprising tactics—which radically diverge from conventional negotiating strategy—weren’t cooked up in a classroom, but are the field-tested tools FBI agents used to talk criminals and hostage-takers around the world into (or out of) just about any scenario you can imagine."


_________________
© Chris Voss and (2017) The Black Swan Group, Ltd.
____________________________________________________

The Negotiation Edge Blog

112margd
Bewerkt: okt 8, 2018, 8:25 am

Vlad likes to see us at each other's throats:

Trump wants to prosecute witnesses like Julie Swetnick, eggs on Murkowski opponents.

Dems threaten Susan Collins before her vote and impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh now that he's confirmed.
(Though hidden documents, machinations, ignored testimony, and perjury SHOULD be revealed, IMO.
And the rotting head of the fish must be investigated and prosecuted--though Kavanaugh is quite possibly another impediment to justice...)

Meanwhile no action on climate, healthcare, immigration, environment...and our economy trembles on the edge.

113margd
Bewerkt: okt 9, 2018, 4:40 am

AARGH!! Squirm-worthy!! (Even for Kavanaugh, looked like.)

Watch Kavanaugh's full White House swearing-in ceremony (even though already sworn-in)
President Trump presided presided over a ceremonial swearing-in of Brett M. Kavanaugh as Associate Justice for the Supreme Court of the United States at the White House on Oct. 8.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/watch-kavanaughs-full-white-house-...

________________________________________________

At the White House swearing-in, Trump obscenely made the occasion a purely partisan one with his ludicrous claim that Justice Kavanaugh had been “proven innocent” and his misogynistic apology for the Senate’s even having listened to Dr. Blasey Ford.

I pity the Justices who had no realistic option but to attend and serve as props for the partisan display. Only Thomas, clapping with gusto, looked like he was really pleased to be there. The others looked like polite hostages. A grim and tasteless spectacle.

Laurence Tribe tribelaw | 8 Oct 2018

114alco261
okt 9, 2018, 8:37 am

I didn't watch but it crossed my mind some time back that Thomas would be pleased - nothing like working with someone who has the same attitudes concerning half of the US population and the way a person should be allowed to mistreat them.

115margd
okt 9, 2018, 8:44 am

And whose testimony made one look better by comparison...

116DugsBooks
okt 9, 2018, 4:12 pm

>114 alco261: >115 margd: My first thought was that the two would form a team - Kavanaugh & Thomas, similar to the Vegas act Penn & Teller.

Teller and Thomas being the quiet physical comedians & Kavanaugh and Penn being the boisterous "orator and raconteur" part of the act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller

117margd
Bewerkt: okt 11, 2018, 3:17 am

Kavanaugh: patron saint of Animal Houses on every campus? :-(

College Republicans flip out and threaten to sue local bar for refusing to host pro-Kavanaugh kegger
Brad Reed | 08 Oct 2018 at 12:21 ET

The University of Washington’s chapter of the College Republicans has threatened to sue...Seattle bar Shultzy’s Bar and Grill told the College Republicans over the weekend that it would not host their planned “Beers 4 Brett” party on the grounds that it is a sports bar that does not endorse any particular political viewpoint.

A group of 15 of the College Republicans went to the bar anyway to have drinks and were permitted to stay without incident.

Despite this, the chapter is still considering a lawsuit against Shultzy’s for not wanting to serve as the official host of their celebration.

...constitutional law expert Jeffery....so long as Shultzy’s has a blanket policy of refusing to officially host all political events, it’s very likely in the clear...

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/college-republicans-flip-threaten-sue-local-bar...

_________________________________________________________________

Sorry but if your position is that a baker should be able to deny me a cupcake for being queer
it can’t also be that a private business should have to host your rapey kegger

Evan Greer @evan_greer |
4:59 PM - Oct 8, 2018

118proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 11, 2018, 5:29 am

"Sorry but if your position is that a baker should be able to deny me a cupcake for being queer*
it can’t also be that a private business should have to host your rapey kegger"
Evan Greer @evan_greer |
4:59 PM - Oct 8, 2018

________________________

That's quite correct. Here's the embarrassing part;

In adopting such a view, the U. of Washington 'College Republicans' (CRs) are emulating what is now standard wacko pseudo-liberal nonsense. It's not just that the CRs are being absurd, it's that they're absurd in a way that is almost a parody of idiotic pseudo-liberal-think.

So, if I were of the lamentable conventional Left, I wouldn't be making much of this. It simply reminds people of the Left's common-place idiocy.

Try picking something about which the pseudo-Left isn't also as laughably guilty of idiocy.

___________________________

* RE: ..."a baker should be able to deny me a cupcake for being queer" ...

and, by the way, the above cited comment is the bog-standard stupid-liberal's self-serving distortion of the actual facts---

No, it's NOT at all that one is being denied "a cupcake for (the fact of one's) being queer" -- the Queer customer is as welcome in the shop as any other customer. He (or she) is aslo as free as any other customer to buy whatever goods the baker puts on offer. But he (or she) cannot oblige the baker to accept a special-order for a designer-baked-good which the baker is not pleased to produce--any more than any other customer could so impose upon the baker. Suppose the local KKK or Neo-Nazis want a special cake?

The KKK wants its cake decorated to show a Black being lynched; while the Neo-Nazis want a cake with Hitler's portrait in color and a legend reading, "Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum großen Führer" ("Happy Birthday to the Great Leader"). Are the so-called liberals, drenched in their politically-correct intolerance, going to defend these people from being victims of "discrimination"? LOL!

119margd
okt 11, 2018, 5:23 am

#106 contd. Hot potato--10th Circuit Court is third asked to deal with Kavanaugh ethics complaints.

Roberts asks federal judges to handle Kavanaugh complaints
MARK SHERMAN | Oct 10th 2018

Chief Justice John Roberts...received the first three of 15 eventual complaints on Sept. 20, a week before Kavanaugh's angry denial of a sexual assault allegation by Christine Blasey Ford.

...The judiciary's rules allow members of the public to lodge complaints about federal judges. They typically are dealt with by experienced judges in the courthouse or region where a judge serves. Judges who receive complaints have a range of options that include dismissing them out of hand, having local judges investigate them or asking Roberts, in his capacity as head of the federal judiciary, to assign the complaints to judges in a different part of the country.

Roberts assigned the complaints to the ethics council of the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to deal with the complaints...

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/10/10/roberts-asks-federal-judges-to-handl...

120proximity1
okt 13, 2018, 10:37 am




Things we learned from the Brett Kavanaugh Semate hearings on his nomination to a post on the U.S. supreme court ==

1) Americans don't understand the first things about the principle of, the meaning and importance of "the presumption of innocence."


2) Democrats apparently weren't able to alter, amend or correct this sorry state of affairs in all their (often silly and pathetic) palaver.

3) Therefore, the truly important lessons here remain lost, unlearned and we'll keep suffering for that fact.

121DugsBooks
okt 13, 2018, 3:03 pm

>118 proximity1: I was confused by the gay cake etc. thing being an issue after seeing so many penis shaped cakes for women's bachelorette parties {which I found shocking but amusing}

122mamzel
okt 13, 2018, 4:07 pm

>120 proximity1: It was a hearing, not a trial, so I believe the "presumption of innocence" did not apply. Nothing had to be proven. We heard and made up our own minds. Sorry if they didn't coincide with yours.

123lriley
okt 13, 2018, 8:09 pm

As far as a criminal trial--it had gone way past it's sell by date which isn't to say that Blasey Ford's testimony didn't have more the ring of truth than Kavanaugh's denials. So in respect to this was not a real trial I would agree that the presumption of innocence really doesn't apply in this instance and at least for me Kavanaugh seemed to be doing whatever he could to not really speak to Blasey Ford's accusation but to try to distract however he could from it. So coming down to believability Kavanaugh took a fucking serious hit for now and forever how long he lives.

That he was confirmed with all kinds of doubt left about his credibility doesn't really speak very well for our justice system going forward. He should have stepped down and barring that the POTUS should have dropped him like the hot potato he was and found another potato without all the fucking baggage.

....and keeping in mind that it wasn't a real trial--here is the POTUS claiming Kavanaugh was proven innocent (as if he had been on trial). Not the case and just more bullshit.

124RickHarsch
okt 14, 2018, 3:58 am

Presumption of innocence DOES apply, simply because that is how we are taught to view accusations. But Ford was obviously telling the truth, Kavanagh obviously lying, so our careful presumptions rapidly became That fucker is a rapist.

125proximity1
Bewerkt: okt 14, 2018, 8:00 am

>122 mamzel:

FLOL!

"It was a hearing, not a trial, so I believe the "presumption of innocence" did not apply. Nothing had to be proven."

No kidding!? Then why did Kavanaugh's efforts rely essentially, entirely, on



"Where's the proof of these allegations? I'm innocent here unless and until proven otherwise", hmm? He had nothing else. That's why. And it's absurd to suggest that it wasn't his mainstay defense.



Kavanaugh and his "bots" harped incessantly on his supposedly 'violated' 'right to the presumption of innocence' as a defense against those
who, from their own personal experience of him as a high-school and college kid, knew him to be shamelessly lying about his drink-sodden aggressive
weekend habits. People who were there--that is, some of his own fellow drinking buddies--denounced him as a liar in his sworn testimony.

Kavanaugh's defenders implied that his accusers were liars or simply called them liars straight out, and worked on the assumption that Kavanaugh's accusers had no similar right to any 'presumption of innocence' on their part. Instead, they were obliged to prove themselves victims. But we were invited to regard Kavanaugh as a victim of a vendetta on his and his friends' claims alone.

Your 'argument' that the presumption of innocence (Kavanaugh's) did not apply here was indeed my very point. And you missed it, even as you imply that he and his supporters didn't rush to it for their safe harbour from credible accusations. And, thus, your posted comments are laughable nonsense as a suggestion that a wacko unfounded belief in a presumption of innocence in Kavanaugh's favour was not at work.



( "Senator Collins Announces She Will Vote to Confirm Judge Kavanaugh" )

"Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee."

—Senator Susan Collins (R) Maine


fucking bullshit from a moron.


"Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them."

—Senator Susan Collins (R) Maine


fucking bullshit from a moron.


"In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy."

—Senator Susan Collins (R) Maine


fucking bullshit from a moron.


"The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record. I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward."

—Senator Susan Collins (R) Maine


fucking bullshit from a moron. "departs from an otherwise exemplary record"? When wouldn't an accusation "depart from" "a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record"? And where, except by a prior assumption, does one arrive at the conclusion that there even is any such "exemplary record"? What's clear is that Senator Collins has granted this in advance. And, in the face of allegations which obviously place that presumption into question--precisely what the Senate is supposed to undertake in its advice-and-consent function--Collins simply put all her money on "exemplary record" in advance of considering testimony to the contrary, she just leaves it there and rolls the dice.


"Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape. This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness."

—Senator Susan Collins (R) Maine

fucking bullshit from a moron.


126lriley
Bewerkt: okt 14, 2018, 8:22 am

I really don't think Ms. Collins is a moron but in the statements cited above--yes, all her remarks are fucking bullshit. She IMO simply bowed down to politicial pressure which kind of opened a gaping hole into the notion that she's somehow a Senator who can relied on for independent minded positions. Anyone who has ever taken the time to watch debate in either the Senate or the House for any length of time will before very long notice representatives from either repeating verbatim the same talking points over and over. It's basically circle the wagons--the party before country. This is another example here.

I pointed out before that I did not like John McCain but I really wonder how he would have viewed this confirmation process. I'm thinking Kavanaugh would not have gotten his vote and maybe Collins then would have shown more courage than she did but.....I also wonder about Mr. Graham who seems to have been neutered after McCain's death and is adjusting to that operation just fine now just being one of the gang. Make no mistake Donald Trump is very much the leader of the Republican party and apart from Mr. Kasich and Ms. Murkowski everyone knows it. It's almost as if he's taken the measure of the members of the Republican party and bent them to his will.

127proximity1
okt 14, 2018, 10:29 am



Anyone who is really fed up with the now-undisguised incompetence of the geriatric Democratic-party "leadership" (LOL!) should actually be secretly thanking Donald Trump since Trump is--in the mind and view of these same Democratic-party leaders, of course--what they've invested so much effort into depicting as the veritable 'poster-boy' for a boorish, clueless political bumbler who has no idea what the hell he is doing. So it's painfully clear that when Trump leaves them wondering "WTF just happened?!" he puts their incompetence into high relief for all to see--except the hopelessly blind.

And that has to contribute to getting rid of these worthless dumbshits for others who can demonstrate greater ability to get something done in the face of the opposition.

128lriley
Bewerkt: okt 14, 2018, 11:23 am

A case in point that the democratic leadership this week has signed off on 15 federal judicial appointments so that Senators in embattled states can go back to their respective states and campaign. These confirmations probably go through anyway but here it's without any even token resistance.....and to think McConnell and co. have been going on about the Mueller investigation interfering with the November elections at the same time that they get Kavanaugh confirmed along with these other new judicial confirmations. They're not taking any kind of vacation. They're very effectively playing a game that the Senate democrats have been doing their best to ignore. So yeah Schumer and Co. for the most part anyway aren't anything to be really bragging about. Their shot at winning the Senate is about 15%--which isn't good at all. I think I read somewhere recently that since Trump has come into office he and McConnell and co. have appointed 1/6th of the federal judgeships in the country. These are almost to a person conservative people. By the time his first term is over it will be a larger % for sure. They're fortifying their position for the day that the democrats reclaim the House. So the Senate democrats have been very easily outmaneuvered--they have an inherent weakness--always desperately trying to save this individual or that. Schumer should be dumped as Senate leader. His connections to Wall St. are his big thing. Democrat politicians spend too much time on phone to wealthy donors. If they'd only worry about their grass roots as much.

129proximity1
okt 16, 2018, 5:41 am


Wealthy donor:

"I don't think that the Democratic party leaders spend too much time attending to my needs and interests. They're always happy to promptly take my calls."

Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters:

"I put my time and attention where it serves my biggest donors' interests. 'Grass-roots' don't pay for my campaigns, wealthy donors do. Money talks. And I listen to the money."

130margd
okt 18, 2018, 4:33 pm

Senate Republicans are without honor:

Senate Truce Collapses as G.O.P. Rush to Confirm More Judges Begins Anew
Sheryl Gay Stolberg | Oct. 17, 2018

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats struck a deal last week with Republicans that saw the quick confirmation of 15 more conservative judges in exchange for a rapid flight to the campaign trail. Liberal activists were infuriated, but after the brutally divisive fight to confirm Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the agreement held out a promise of peace.

...On Wednesday, at Mr. Grassley’s instruction, the armistice collapsed.

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee convened yet another hearing to consider still more conservative federal court nominees — while the Senate was technically in recess. Incensed Democrats boycotted the proceedings, but their empty chairs did not prevent candidates for the bench, such as Allison Rushing, 36, a social conservative nominated by President Trump to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from taking a crucial step toward confirmation.

...The hearing demonstrated the lengths to which Republicans will go to put conservatives on the federal judiciary, a signature initiative of Mr. Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader. Only a handful of Republicans attended the Wednesday hearing, but it checked a box to move more judges to the floor during the lame-duck session after Election Day.

Ms. Rushing is drawing protests from liberal advocacy groups who say her résumé is too thin for an appeals court nominee. She clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas and Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, before he became a Supreme Court justice, but is only 11 years out of law school and has never been a judge. If confirmed, she would become the youngest nominee to take the federal bench in more than 15 years.

...Ms. Rushing’s conservative credentials are well established. She is a member of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group that has been advising the Trump administration on judicial nominees. She has also worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit whose clients include Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker whose refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple led to a Supreme Court case...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/us/politics/senate-republicans-judges.html

131margd
okt 26, 2018, 3:32 am

Newt Gingrich: 'We'll see whether or not the Kavanaugh fight was worth it'
Washington Post | Oct 25, 2018

During a live interview on Oct. 25 at The Washington Post, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that if Democrats re-take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections and subpoena the president's tax returns, it would likely force a fight in the U.S. Supreme Court. "And," Gingrich said,"we'll see whether or not the Kavanaugh fight was worth it."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/postlive/newt-gingrich-well-see-whether-or-...

1322wonderY
okt 26, 2018, 12:14 pm

Dining club emails reveal Kavanaugh's close ties to Trump's solicitor general and other right wingers.

Eureka Club

While it would not have been improper for Kavanaugh and other like-minded Bush administration officials to regularly meet for dinner and drinks at that time, new revelations about the identity of his circle of professional friends raise questions about how the close-knit relationships Kavanaugh forged with other lawyers might influence his rulings in the future.

Richard Painter, a critic of Donald Trump who served as the Bush administration’s ethics lawyer from 2005-2007, said senators should have sought more information about the Eureka dinners before Kavanaugh’s confirmation, especially if he continued to attend the regular dinners as a judge on the DC circuit court of appeals.

“For a judge to have regular meetings with certain lawyers is very problematic but apparently the question was never asked,” Painter said.

133margd
nov 4, 2018, 3:58 am

Senate Judiciary Report Concludes No Evidence Supports Kavanaugh Misconduct Accusations
Mary Papenfuss | 11/04/2018

Probe of “numerous allegations” wraps up just in time for the midterm elections...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/senate-judiciary-committee-clears-kavanaugh...

134Tid
nov 4, 2018, 8:01 am

One would have to question the impartiality of a Judiciary Report produced by an administration whose members form a majority of the same political party as the 'accused'.

135proximity1
nov 4, 2018, 9:24 am


>134 Tid: "One would have to question the impartiality of a Judiciary Report produced by an administration whose members form a majority of the same political party as the 'accused'."

If that's so, it's only when and where principles are trumped (no pun intended) by partisan bias, leading people to adhere to unprincipled, self-serving rationales which, were the circumstances reversed, it's clear they'd be on the polar opposite position.

And, true, that essentially describes the poisoned political atmosphere in the U.S. both today and for quite some time now. Thus, it would be stunning to see Democrats defending Trump's place as the duly-elected president of the United States merely because he won the election according to the Electoral college terms by which it has been governed for generations. And, similarly, it would be stunning to see Republicans take due account of serious allegations of wrong-doing in the past by one nominated to a seat as associate Justice on the U.S. supreme court. Where the allegations themselves--if deemed credible, as these were--should have sufficed to determine the nominee as not fit for the office, it's impossible to square support for the nominee on other than grounds which amount to partisan bias. Again, had the circumstances been reversed, those who so adamantly asserted a specious claim that Kavanaugh was, on some claim of principle, entitled to the 'benefit of the doubt,' should have certainly seen no need for any such benefit nor for any such doubt.

Viz: Bill Clinton's detractors' views of his culpability in his affairs with other women.

137Carnophile
nov 18, 2018, 11:58 am

Avenatti arrested for felony assault of a woman.

Democrats' "Always believe women!" slogan suddenly allows for a lot more... nuance.

1382wonderY
dec 19, 2018, 10:13 am

Dozens of 'serious' conduct complaints against Justice Brett Kavanaugh are dismissed because he was confirmed to the Supreme Court

Federal judges reviewing complaints lodged against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Tuesday that the allegations against the former federal appeals court judge are "serious" but that they must dismiss them without determining their merits because of Kavanaugh's October confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Timothy Tymkovich, the Chief Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, wrote in an order that "the complaints must be dismissed because an intervening event — Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court — has made the complaints no longer appropriate for consideration under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act."

The decision was widely expected.

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act outlines procedures for filing complaints against federal judges, but the 1980 law does not cover Supreme Court justices.

In the order, Tymkovich said that most of the complaints include allegations of false statements under oath during Kavanaugh's D.C. Circuit confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006 as well as during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings earlier this year. Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump's second nominee to the top court, was accused of sexual misconduct before he was confirmed. He emphatically denied the allegations.

Tymkovich disclosed copies of the complaints with identifying information redacted on the 10th Circuit's website.

139margd
apr 1, 2019, 6:21 am

Andrea Junker @Strandjunker | 2:50 PM - 30 Mar 2019:

I’m sure I have now heard more about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s dress choices than I have heard about who paid off Brett Kavanaugh’s $92,000 country club fees plus his $200,000 credit card debt plus his $1.2 million mortgage, and purchased themselves a SCOTUS seat.

140messpots
jul 31, 2019, 4:34 am

If the subject still interests people, I've posted a brief review of Hemingway & Severino's book on the Kavanaugh confirmation. Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court

141margd
sep 14, 2019, 9:09 am

Wonder how many of the recipients will display award?

Justice Dept. to Honor Team That Worked on Kavanaugh Confirmation Process
Katie Benner | Sept. 13, 2019

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department will present one of its most prestigious awards to the lawyers who worked on the highly contentious Supreme Court nomination process of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Next month, Attorney General William P. Barr will present the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service to those who worked “to support the nomination” of the judge, according to an email reviewed by The New York Times.

...That team being awarded includes prosecutors and lawyers from the department’s tax division, the environment and natural resources division, the civil appellate section and several United States attorneys offices.

Lawyers who worked in the office of legal policy, which carries out significant policy initiatives, and in the federal programs branch, which defends the administration in court, were also part of the team.

...Typically, the distinguished service honor, the department’s second highest, is given to employees who worked on significant prosecutions, rather than on judicial nomination processes.

...Rod J. Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general,...estimated that he would need about 100 lawyers working around the clock to review all of the documents. His broad request for volunteers from United States attorneys offices was seen by some former officials as a reflection of the huge amount of work required by Justice Kavanaugh’s nomination; others saw it as an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-award.html

142margd
sep 15, 2019, 9:33 am

>141 margd: Makes one wonder why DOJ investigators were rewarded...much went uninvestiagted.

Brett Kavanaugh Fit In With the Privileged Kids. She Did Not.
Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly | Sept. 14, 2019

...while we found Dr. Ford’s allegations credible during a 10-month investigation, Ms. Ramirez’s story could be more fully corroborated. During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.

At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge. Two of those people were classmates who learned of it just days after the party occurred, suggesting that it was discussed among students at the time.

We also uncovered a previously unreported story about Mr. Kavanaugh in his freshman year that echoes Ms. Ramirez’s allegation. A classmate, Max Stier, saw Mr. Kavanaugh with his pants down at a different drunken dorm party, where friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student. Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the F.B.I. about this account, but the F.B.I. did not investigate and Mr. Stier has declined to discuss it publicly. (We corroborated the story with two officials who have communicated with Mr. Stier.)...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez...

143lriley
sep 15, 2019, 1:45 pm

Pretty much the fix was always in----they refused to fully investigate.....neglecting to discover even more evidence that Kavanagh is a sexual predator but since he's confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice the 10th court's Chief District Judge is saying there's nothing that can be done about it. So it's not even a question....that he's another one that can get away with murder so to speak.

144margd
sep 15, 2019, 2:42 pm

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump | 9:47 AM · Sep 15, 2019:

Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue.
The lies being told about him are unbelievable. False Accusations without recrimination. When does it stop?
They are trying to influence his opinions. Can’t let that happen!

145messpots
sep 16, 2019, 1:17 am

Books on this subject demand real expertise: expert knowledge of the confirmation process, judicial ethics, FBI protocols, due process, criminal law. That's in addition to journalistic standards. Legal and journalistic standards are especially high because opinions are so strong on both sides. It's very easy to raise everyone's temper. What I've been reading about the standards of Pogrebin and Kelly's book is not favourable. Obviously anyone can believe anything about the underlying facts, but I don't believe this is the book to cite.

146margd
nov 7, 2019, 11:11 am

Andrea Junker @Strandjunker | 4:54 PM · Oct 19, 2019:
Keep up the drum beat:
Why did Justice Kennedy retire so abruptly?
What role did his son at Deutsche Bank play?
Who paid off Brett Kavanaugh’s
$92,000 country club fees plus his
$200,000 credit card debt plus his
$1.2 million mortgage, and
purchased themselves a SCOTUS seat?

147RickHarsch
nov 7, 2019, 12:45 pm

I like beer!

148margd
aug 5, 2022, 1:27 am

FBI Admits It Got 4,500 Tips on Brett Kavanaugh—Then Punted Them to Trump Team
‘A SHAM’
Zoe Richards | Jul. 23, 2021
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-admits-it-got-4500-tips-on-supreme-court-nomin...
___________________________________________________

Wray: Trump WH Directed Kavanaugh Background Probe in 2018
Jordan Liles | 4 August 2022

...The administration of former U.S. President Donald Trump directed the one-week, follow-up background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, according to sworn testimony from U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray. At the time of the probe, Kavanaugh was in the process of being nominated to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The brief background investigation was conducted after allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual assault were brought by Christine Blasey Ford, who testified at the time before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Kavanaugh has also faced other allegations.

In testimony given in front of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Aug. 4, 2022, Wray answered a series of questions about the Kavanaugh investigation that came from U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. During the hearing, which was being held for the purpose of oversight of the FBI, Wray said that Trump‘s White House directed the investigation into Kavanaugh’s past. He also said that this practice was consistent with the way such investigations were held under previous Democratic and Republican administrations....(transcript)...

https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/04/fbi-kavanaugh-wray-whitehouse/

1492wonderY
jul 19, 2023, 7:02 pm

The Supreme Court Has a Clear Intellectual Lightweight

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-intell...

When Kavanaugh comes across an argument he doesn’t want to address, he has a foolproof solution: pretend it doesn’t exist. This approach has sparked increasingly vocal complaints from his colleagues. In his U.S. v. Texas concurrence, Gorsuch pointed out that Kavanaugh was “simply ignoring” several important questions that undermined his logic. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote her own five-page concurrence picking apart Kavanaugh’s majority opinion; the former professor couldn’t help but take a red pen to his deficient submission. (She wasn’t mad, just disappointed.) In truth, though, Gorsuch and Barrett’s objections were misplaced. Kavanaugh’s opinion was not designed to be a coherent piece of legal analysis. It was more akin to a decision memo directed at the lower courts—the kind of thing he drafted during his years as White House staff secretary.
...
Thomas, Barrett, and Gorsuch aren’t the only members of the court who are losing patience with Kavanaugh. Justice Elena Kagan memorably castigated him for treating “judging as scorekeeping,” whining about “how unfair it is” when he loses, and repeating the same bad arguments “at a higher volume.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly accused him of outright dishonesty by misrepresenting precedent and dangling false promises. In a fed-up dissent in just her first term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared a Kavanaugh majority opinion to the children’s book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. Alito’s rebuttal to Kavanaugh’s dissent in Sackett v. EPA consisted of exactly one sentence: Kavanaugh’s argument, Alito wrote, “cannot be taken seriously.”