Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

You think that is a 'hit piece'??? It reads to me like a discussion of the issue that Kavanaugh himself raised, and seems to me just an attempt to discuss what could or could not prevent him from coaching. Where is the 'hit' that I missed?

Is there actually evidence of Soros paying any of them? Or is this hyperbole?

Wow, you don't have much imagination.

Here, you are just being partisan, same as him. Yeah, he thinks they are pieces of shit, because he's hyper partisan. Trouble is, judges aren't supposed to be partisan.

barfo

 

You have misread me. Which is odd, since I'm pretty open in my positions and voting record, aside from not talking about the President.

 

C'mon man....is that my MO?

The Flake confronter is co-executive director of a community advocacy group that is Soros-backed. No judgement there, people can accept money from whoever they want to, but it's kind of a fact.

a) I don't think they're pieces of shit because they're Democrats or progressives or Honey Nut Cheerio lovers, but because they've done things I think are shitty things to do. I'm not even talking about this case.
b) At the risk of bringing up hypotheticals, he didn't rail against the Democrats out of partisanship, but because they were the ones that launched (what he considers to be) an attack on him. I would submit that if Flake and Collins did and said what Feinstein and Booker did and said, he would've called them out with similar vehemence. So that's not partisan, either.
c) As far as partisanship goes, I'm in full agreement that he should recuse himself from any cases in which a 35y/o sexual harassment charge is levied against him. He's totally biased when it comes to defending himself.
d) As far as cases of other partisanship go, the judge has a relatively lengthy record of case law and decisions built up. Not being a lawyer, I don't know how good he was at it, but I'd imagine that if he was a bad jurist he wouldn't be here, though Sotomayor had some pretty interesting interpretations and still got confirmed, so...

 

Fair enough. As I said, I have no idea what happened on a yet-to-be-determined night in 1982. If he raped her, he deserves to burn. If he didn't, his life is being torn to shit for political reasons by people who have no compunction lying. I'd have gone even further in calling out Feinstein and others in my responses. I probably wouldn't have said "I like beer" as much, but in terms of bringing up how he's been affected instead of the weeks of just being a nominee under questioning was apropro, in my eyes. But I can see how someone might not want an angry white man as a judge.

 

Says you. To each his own. As I've asked before, how would you have wanted him to respond, in order for you to believe him? My hypothesis is that there isn't a way, but I won't try to speak for you.

 

This is interesting, and I missed what he said about the Clintons. (And I don't know how you feel about the Clintons ) But he was part of Bill's Lewinsky deposition team, iirc. I'd submit he probably knows more than most about them, especially about stuff R's would've tried to dig up in the 90's. From my very limited experience with the former SecState (and my father's and friend's experience with her), I'm biased against her as well. But that's just me.

I think (maybe naively) that there is a difference between bias in self-defense and court decisions. In terms of being a lawyer and judge and Law Professor the guys credentials seem pretty impeccable...I don't think ("think" being the operative word) that his bias (if any) has been borne out in the decade of case law and decisions in some pretty high court cases. Then again, I don't know that for sure.

I don't know about that. Up until now, has there been anyone on the R side who's tried to "search and destroy" a candidate? Sure, Garland never got a vote (thanks, Biden), but I don't remember anyone saying "Garland's not getting a vote b/c he's a liberal piece of shit rapist". They just said "let the election matter". Kagan was, to my knowledge, a very tame confirmation (Graham was one who crossed the aisle)--the filibuster was to see if they could just not get Obama's candidate that wasn't 2nd Amendment-friendly to be someone else. Even Sotomayor's apology for her "wise Latina better than white man" remarks helped get the votes needed.

 

As I've said, that's fair. But do you think that his "clear political bias" (I mean, dude worked personally for W and investigated the Clintons) has been unrevealed until now? How did it affect his other case law? How did Kagan's clerkship for Marshall (known to be both partisan and activist) affect her confirmation or rulings?

If you think his anger disqualifies him, that's fine. If you think calling out people who (if he's right) made shit up out of thin air to destroy his life for the sake of not getting a 5th conservative seat on the Court is inappropriate, then I disagree but understand.