Supreme Court Nominee #2

[Inthedetails]

You would think so. But most of the people that hate him now, hated him before, because he's conservative.

I am not really following this conversation but wanted to jump in.

Speaking for myself only, I don't hate anyone. Have people here been using that word? I haven't noticed it (though I wasn't looking for it either).

I certainly don't dislike or disapprove of someone simply because s/he is conservative. If that were the case, I wouldn't like most of my family members! (I love all of 'em.)

I am fully aware that a Republican president is going to nominate a conservative candidate for the SC. I have stated several times on this thread - Is this the best candidate that can be found? Surely there can be someone better? I ask that question fully expecting this president will nominate a conservative. I can respect and trust a SC justice from another party (and still be concerned about how they would decide cases).

I never "hated" him before and I don't "hate" him now. I don't think he's SC worthy, which is not the same as hate.

jmopinion

 

[EastCoast]

case closed.. we are all done here folks. move on. nothing else to see here

 

[simba16]

He was not qualified for a Supreme Court appointment before the sexual assault allegations. I do not have the time or energy to aggregate the links from all the posts on this thread but if you have been reading along there is plenty of evidence of his unfitness here. Google "Kavanaugh lies" for a start. then "Kavanaugh torture" then "Kavenaugh Arkansas project" then "Kavenaugh downgrade"

He's a partisan hack. Gorsuch did not have all these issues.

 

[CARIIS]

Avenatti said there are witnesses to back her up so his credibility is on the line. Story needs to come out.

his track record comes in at what -- oh 100%!

 

[fannneee]

You would think so. But most of the people that hate him now, hated him before, because he's conservative.

Thank you for supporting one of my points. A supreme Court Justice is supposed to be idealogically non partisan. It is widely acknowledged that he is not.

 

[MyBelle]

You would think so. But most of the people that hate him now, hated him before, because he's conservative.

They hate him because he wrote the Ken Starr report. It is dirty political games, imo. They exploited CF's emotional trauma in order to exact revenge and destroy the man's entire career and his life.

 

[CARIIS]

Julie Swetnick's ex reveals he filed a restraining order against her | Daily Mail Online


The ex-boyfriend of the woman who accused Brett Kavanaugh of drugging girls in order to gang rape them at high school parties claims she is 'not credible' at all.

Richard Vinneccy said that he does not believe Julie Swetnick, who said she was assaulted at one such party attended by Kavanaugh, is telling the truth at all.

'I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she's saying is not true at all,' Vinneccy told Politico on Wednesday.

But Vinneccy refused to disclose any such evidence, instead saying he 'would rather' speak to his attorney first before saying more.

from link

• The restraining order was dismissed just 13 days later by the Miami-Dade court

 

[Inthedetails]

They hate him because he wrote the Ken Starr report. It is dirty political games, imo. They exploited CF's emotional trauma in order to exact revenge and destroy the man's entire career and his life.

I'm assuming by "they," you mean Democrats??

If what you say is true, why was he nominated in the first place? If what you say is true, seems like he was set up by his own party to fall.

Another conservative candidate for the job could have been found.

jmo

 

[EastCoast]

He certainly has a right to defend his integrity and go for the position he is seeking Lets give him that chance

 

[Mica]

from link

• The restraining order was dismissed just 13 days later by the Miami-Dade court

Yes because neither party showed for the hearing. Maybe they reconciled.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

And the author of Ken Starr's report was BK and the
dems all know it.

Correlation doesn't imply causation, as we know.

Brett Kavanaugh's Role In the Starr Investigation And How It Shaped Him

TAMARA KEITH: That year, Kavanaugh wrote key portions of the independent counsel's report to Congress. Starr says Kavanaugh wrote the section of the report making the legal case for impeachment.

KEN STARR: And I think it is important for the record to show that he did not author the narrative section or the facts section of the report.

KEITH: Starr makes that point because the narrative section became a flashpoint in the political fight over the investigation because it was so sexually explicit. Even though Kavanaugh pushed to ask those questions, when it came time to send the report to Congress, he urged caution in internal deliberations and a cover letter he helped draft.​

 

[Fairy1]

Yes, doesn't mean a crime hasn't been commited. But I am big believer in the American justice system And my whole ideal with joining here is lets not sleuth victims or accuse without proof. I thought this particular forum was to get to the truth. I am a big advocate in womens rights and victims rights. So I will respectfully not post here because I feel my thoughts are not being respectfully listened to. The majority here seems to not want to allow BK to have his rights heard.
Have fun go for it

Well, you also need to have a bit of a thick skin here sometimes. We don't know who the victim is here yet, do we? WE cannot get to the truth, but we can hope the FBI will. And meanwhile, we can share our opinions.

How lovely to know you're a big believer in the American justice system. I am, too. But I know it fails frequently. That's just the reality.

I will say that 100% of the criminals we see on WS will never be nominated for the Supreme Court.

 

[Inthedetails]

He certainly has a right to defend his integrity and go for the position he is seeking Lets give him that chance

He has not been denied a chance.

jmo

 

[mickey2942]

The "victim" is always the one who makes the accusations? Yes. That has pretty much been my experience.

The "perpetrator", has to listen to the accusations, and respond with no anger, frustration or any other emotion. Just sit there, and eat it with a spoon. You are accused, therefore, you have done something wrong. Yes, that has also been my experience.

I ended up quitting a very well paying position, because fighting bullies is just too much energy. They usually win, because they will not stop at anything. Sure, eventually, it was acknowledged that they had lied. Didn't matter, the damage had been done.

My own personal experience with being accused of actions I never did. And yes, it was "mobbing", more than one person accused me.

Just another perspective.

 

[MyBelle]

I'm assuming by "they," you mean Democrats??

If what you say is true, why was he nominated in the first place? If what you say is true, seems like he was set up by his own party to fall.

Another conservative candidate for the job could have been found.

jmo

I'm a democrat and I've never supported the exploitation of anyone purely for revenge. CF asked for confidentiality and her own attorneys ignored her request.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Is anyone else here watching this Kavanaugh opener on SNL?

It's too real. ... I can't decide yet if it's funny. OK. The part about drinking so much he passed out, and then boofed so loud he woke himself up is funny.

ETA:

"I WENT TO YALE!"

 

[EastCoast]

Well, you also need to have a bit of a thick skin here sometimes. We don't know who the victim is here yet, do we? WE cannot get to the truth, but we can hope the FBI will. And meanwhile, we can share our opinions.

How lovely to know you're a big believer in the American justice system. I am, too. But I know it fails frequently. That's just the reality.

I will say that 100% of the criminals we see on WS will never be nominated for the Supreme Court.

I have a very thick skin thank you and anyone who is qualified should run if they want. Power of the voters.

 

[Inthedetails]

Well, you also need to have a bit of a thick skin here sometimes.

Snipped.

True. Also, the ability to not take it too personally. Many of us disagreeing on this particular thread are quite friendly to each other on threads we follow! WS is not like other places on the web with arguments and insults. Speaking for myself, I see differing opinions here but also respect (and sometimes some hugs, laughs, high-fives, etc).

Oh, scrolling-and-rolling skills are good to have too. Just saying.

jmo

 

[EastCoast]

Snipped.

True. Also, the ability to not take it too personally. Many of us Thank you for that. Perfectly said. I have admired all the posters who have worked on so may cases.

 

[borndem]

But, he didn't answer about his drinking. He avoided direct yes or no answers. He has not done everything requested---- he had a lot of non-answers.

And since when has it been de rigueur to ask questions of the Senate Judiciary Committee? "Have you ever passed out due to drinking?" or something like that. "Do you like beer? What do you like to drink?"