The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Sick burn. What about the part about how much of a badass you are? No confirmation there?

You made the comment that you're an idiot first.

[Commando]

You made the comment that you're an idiot first.

No shit?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is a confirmation proceeding, and chances are there is something to Ford's story- so let's hear it; I have no problem with that. There is plenty of precedent- this isn't near as messy as Clarence Thomas and here we are 30 years later with his sleepy ass on the Court, so who knows?

Not according to the three other people she claims were at the party. How did you decide that "chances are there is something to Ford's story." Based off what evidence? Do you have anything from the past 10 years? How about 20? Hell 30?

[Omaha 680]

Wow he stands to lose EVERYTHING! Or... just go back to his regular job? Huh... yeah. The convention of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law has nothing to do with this, on second thought...

You can keep setting up and knocking down those straw men or actually address why the current tactics against BK disturb so many of us who have no love for Trump's administration. The position you are taking is really odd: because this is not a court of law, any accusations no matter how old, far-fetched, or uncorroborated are grounds for disqualification of a nominee.

If these allegations seemed credible (or become more credible through further evidence and testimony) then yeah dismiss the nomination. But do you really not see the permanent damage to the process that giving in to these tactics would cause?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Pelado]

OMG what is so special about Kavanaugh, unless the critics are right about him not being willing to indict a sitting president? Just retract the nomination and pick from one of the 30 other qualified yet non-rapey candidates!

I don't know if there's anything special about BK (the nominee, not the burger joint). But if the allegations are not accurate, then he is one of the "qualified yet non-rapey candidates". And, if BK withdraws from the nomination in spite of the the allegations being inaccurate, what's to stop the opposition from doing the same thing to the next "qualified yet non-rapey" candidate?

[Northwestcoug]

Ronan Farrow addresses the NYT article:

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

You can keep setting up and knocking down those straw men or actually address why the current tactics against BK disturb so many of us who have no love for Trump's administration. The position you are taking is really odd: because this is not a court of law, any accusations no matter how old, far-fetched, or uncorroborated are grounds for disqualification of a nominee.

If these allegations seemed credible (or become more credible through further evidence and testimony) then yeah dismiss the nomination. But do you really not see the permanent damage to the process that giving in to these tactics would cause?

No- your points are well-taken, but where were these 'tactics' the last time around? Do you think this is a new game for Democrats- hiring somebody to commit perjury and become the center of death threats and negative publicity in a long-shot effort to derail nominations? Is this a new strategy or is it the nuclear option that was just reserved for Kavanaugh? Like I said-- he's not so special and is probably a Chester.

[snowcat]

I wouldn't be surprised if BK withdraws from the process following a speech declaring his certainty that he's innocent of the claims being made, while stating that he's doing this for the good of the country. He'd acknowledge the very real problem of sexual harassment and express empathy for its victims, while observing that false accusations take a severe and very unfair toll on the accused. Then Trump will nominate Judge Barrett (Catholic mother of seven with very strong pro-life views), making some of the BK critics bemoan his withdrawal. Just a guess.

I don't think he is backing down:

https://dailycaller.com/wp-content/u...-Judiciary.pdf

These are smears, pure and simple. And they debase our public discourse. But they are also a
threat to any man or woman who wishes to serve our country. Such grotesque and obvious
character assassination—if allowed to succeed—will dissuade competent and good people of all
political persuasions from service.

As I told the Committee during my hearing, a federal judge must be independent, not swayed by
public or political pressure. That is the kind of judge I will always be. I will not be intimidated
into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not
drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. The lastminute
character assassination will not succeed.

I have devoted my career to serving the public and the cause of justice, and particularly to
promoting the equality and dignity of women. Women from every phase of my life have come
forward to attest to my character. I am grateful to them. I owe it to them, and to my family, to
defend my integrity and my name. I look forward to answering questions from the Senate on
Thursday.

[snowcat]

No- your points are well-taken, but where were these 'tactics' the last time around? Do you think this is a new game for Democrats- hiring somebody to commit perjury and become the center of death threats and negative publicity in a long-shot effort to derail nominations? Is this a new strategy or is it the nuclear option that was just reserved for Kavanaugh? Like I said-- he's not so special and is probably a Chester.

This time they hope to delay a vote on a nominee until after the midterms with the hope that they will be able to regain the senate.

[Pelado]

No- your points are well-taken, but where were these 'tactics' the last time around? Do you think this is a new game for Democrats- hiring somebody to commit perjury and become the center of death threats and negative publicity in a long-shot effort to derail nominations? Is this a new strategy or is it the nuclear option that was just reserved for Kavanaugh? Like I said-- he's not so special and is probably a Chester.

A few clips from articles after Kennedy announced his retirement but before BK was nominated:

Democrats have to do everything in their power to stop Trump's pick from being confirmed.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ats/740700002/

Before President Trump has declared a new nominee, Democrats are arguing every person being considered is already disqualified...

In other words, they're saying no to any person Trump nominates who isn't a left wing radical.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-list-n2495401

Pro-abortion Democrats promised to fight against any nominee that President Donald Trump appoints to the U.S. Supreme Court this week after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement...

But pro-abortion Senate Democrats are promising to do everything possible to block Trump’s nominee until after the mid-terms, when they hope to regain the Senate and block all future nominees as well...

The Planned Parenthood abortion chain, a huge donor to Democrats’ political campaigns, sent a letter to Democrat leaders within hours of Kennedy’s announcement, demanding that they reject anyone from Trump’s list of potential nominees, according to The Washington Post.

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/06/28/...court-nominee/

[Goatnapper'96]

A few clips from articles after Kennedy announced his retirement but before BK was nominated:



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ats/740700002/



https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-list-n2495401



https://www.lifenews.com/2018/06/28/...court-nominee/

They feel justified because of the Garland situation. They are responding to what they feel was a win at all costs play by trying to win at any cost. It is not a good situation, but at this point I think the Republicans should just go forward with their hearing on Thursday and then vote.

[falafel]

No- your points are well-taken, but where were these 'tactics' the last time around? Do you think this is a new game for Democrats- hiring somebody to commit perjury and become the center of death threats and negative publicity in a long-shot effort to derail nominations? Is this a new strategy or is it the nuclear option that was just reserved for Kavanaugh? Like I said-- he's not so special and is probably a Chester.

Its not Kavenaugh that is especially special, its the process and the fact that any conservative justice is likely to cause a dramatic and long-term shift in the court. I don't blame the Democrats for realizing that their policies could take a big hit and thinking that they must prevent this nomination at all costs.

[Moliere]

What happened to Avennatis victim? I hope it ends up being stormy Daniels.

[creekster]

When did our mainstream press steal the National Enquirer's market position? I am amazed at how much credibility these last minute accusers are being given. A drunk woman at a party who admits she can't recall parts of the evening because she was so inebriated and who just a few days ago told her acquaintances that she wasn't sure if it was Kavanaugh at all then spends 6 days with her lawyer and thinking about it really hard and decides "Yup! It was him and I am a victim!" This is ridiculous. Truly, it is ridiculous. And Avenatti says he has another person and maybe there is still another one who recently came forward? What a joke. People will do and say just about anything.

Remember the guy that they arrested for killing Jonbenet ramsey? He confessed. He was a child molester and he was living in Bangkok. He checked all the boxes, it seemed. He was arrested there and returned to the states. Then he was released because it turns out he was nowhere near colorado when jonbenet was killed. So don't tell me that people with some prurient or other interest in an issue won't lie to us or themselves or both in order to advance their own agenda, whatever it is.

I want to hear what Ford has to say. But Ramirez and these possible others? I am embarrassed the press is even printing that crap.

[creekster]

Amnesty International weighs in:

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-rel...gh-nomination/

I'm 100% fine with this. I'm surprised that Kavanaugh's role in W's administration wasn't more fully criticized. Booker was too busy saying he was Spartacus I guess. This, along with Kavanaugh working with Ken Starr during the Clinton investigation, was why I thought Kavanaugh was a candidate with some baggage.

But the Democrats instead decided to go with an unverifiable allegation from 36 years ago. They know the media loves sensationalist stories, especially one that attacks a nominee from a party that they loathe.

I am fine with the request that his involvement in torture policy be vetted. But tell me why this letter was just issued now when the refusal of the administration to release all records relating to Kavanaugh's service as associate counsel following 9/11 was known at the beginning of the confirmation hearings? I think the question of his invovlement in torture, and possibly in the legal justification for those policies, is fair, even if it is being wielded at the wrong time here. But because the letter includes a reference to Blasey Ford And Ramirez on an equivalent basis, I think its credibility on the torture issue is very suspect.