Supreme Court Nominee #3

[human]

There's already a bad apple in the barrel. Hopefully she's the next one we replace.

I am confused. I thought for a second you meant the other guy with sexual issues

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

As you probably already know I don't put any weight on anything based on rumors. Not in this case or any other case for that matter.

That is why I don't rely on media articles before a trial has been held due to the possibilities of inaccurate information.

Jmo though

Nobody here is perfect, to be sure.

As you probably already know, you have shared rumors and provably inaccurate information in this very thread, and have been corrected by WS members sharing source documents and other legitimate, verifiable information.

I’m ONLY saying this because we’ve all been wrong before, misinterpreted statements or facts, or whatever, regardless of the source.

And respectfully, I have no intention of attacking anyone, including you.

We’ve all made mistakes.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Sort of typical grassroots organizing, but highly focused on short term goals that don't address long term problems. We deal with this in the women's cancer community all the time, where it took years to convince women that they didn't need to campaign for free mammograms, they needed to campaign for affordable treatment for all women with breast cancer.

If you're not paying attention, these two things can look very similar, but they're not. The advocacy groups bringing women to DC to protest against Kavanaugh will have no use for those women once the campaign is over. They will not care about any other issues women are still facing on a day to day basis, including issues related to the causes they claim to care about - in this case, what? sexual abuse prevention? Next month when some girl gets raped on a college campus and needs help, these advocacy groups won't be there to help her or any local groups struggling to prevent rapes on that campus. Their environment is DC only. It's very similar to "astroturfing" but with real people.

bbm

I’m paying attention. I’m also speaking from experience.

Implying in any way that the tens of thousands protesters using their actions and voices to stand up for their rights today and yesterday and this week — for or against Kavanaugh — are somehow disingenuous or shills is offensive to me. It’s degrading to the women (and men) courageously exercising their First Amendment right.

There is no substantive proof whatsoever that they’re faking it, for any reason.

We’re all in this together.

All of the above is just my opinion, obviously, fwiw

 

[fannneee]

Reading about some of the speechifying, a clear message emerges: men & republicans are the real victims; dems & women are the real enemies; any action taken is justifiable, however corrupt & destabilizating, because Senate republicans are merely acting in self defense, in the name of all male republican victims.

As for the contemptible gaslighting lie that these republicans (and the president) are concerned one whit about due process for anyone other than themselves:

Where was the same outcry about due process & men being falsely accused and victimized when, for example, Al Franken was driven out of the Senate for allegedly putting his hands on womens' backs, and for a single instance of being disrespectful to a woman, before he held elected office?


Every one of his dozens female staffers & other women who had worked with him (perhaps even 65, eh?) signed a letter of support, saying he has never been anything other than supportive, appropriate, and professional with them.

No outcry then. There was, though, just a few days ago, a tweet by the president of the United States actually MOCKING Al Franken for being denied due process.

We get it.

Yes, we get it. This appointment of this right wing idealogue to the Supreme Court will (and was intended to) cement power in the hands of the rich and the corporations who have no other interest than power, themselves and more power and more money. (And we know thier intention because of what they did with Merrick Garland, by any means necessary) The degradation to the environment, workers rights, civil rights, the social safety net, the economy, campaign finance rules, banking rules, that used to be tempered by an idependent judiciary will be complete and not fixable in my life time. It was an abomination already because of what was done to steal an appointment from President Obama (where was the outrage then I want to know????????) but might have been a bit easier to swallow if it was not someone that is a perjurer and that rails about imaginary conspiracies and payback. I am crestfallen that the hard hard work of so many over many generations is and will continue to be destroyed.

 

[human]

Kavanaugh's behavior was interesting to me, he has obviously been gifted with almost everything his entire life. And now, he has worked towards a goal, and for once, it isn't happening on his schedule. The entitlement mentality was apparent.

54 years old, and he gets to learn that life is not fair. He literally displayed a two year old tantrum.

While there is no evidence to support Dr. Ford, I can easily see Kavanaugh in the role she testified about. His entitlement mentality oozes from every single pore.

All of the things that have come out about the parties that were held by these rich boys is so sad. They were born with a silver spoon but their lives are filled with tragedy. So sad reading about Judge’s life, for instance,

 

[Betty P]

So so so many of my friends are ticked off. They protest a lot and have never been offered any money. Is there anyway to find out how to get paid? They are retired and a little extra income would be welcome especially for doing what they believe in for free all of this time[/QUOTE

I don't know of any protestors who are paid. Some may get their travel and lodging expenses reimbused, partially or fully. Best that they organize and raise funds locally, which requires an issue agenda and a 501c3 non-profit. not a bad idea, really.

 

[human]

I don't think one emotional response when any jurist isn't on the bench is relevant to their judicial temperment while on the bench.

His judicial temperment is excellent when both attorneys from each side are before him. No one has said he didn't have the right temperment. In fact those who have been before him have said he is respectful to both sides...unbiased and is calm and patient when listening to each sides argument.

That is what truly matters when selecting a nominee which is what has been their consistent temperment throughout their time as a judge when both sides have been before him.

Jmo

Remember how Howard Dean and Edmund Muskie were deemed unsuitable.? Dean’s whoop hardly on the same level as how K behaved. And the crying? More or less than Muskie?

 

[Gardenista]

I am confused. I thought for a second you meant the other guy with sexual issues

Not sure but we thank you for the new rules on how the nomination process is to be conducted when it's the Ds turn. Hopefully, though we'll get lucky and get to replace her too. And then real progress for the people can happen - not for the rich and powerful like it is now.

 

[human]

Perhaps we need to focus more on Kavanaugh's record of lying to Congress, several times in the past.

From Sen. Bernie Sanders

Sanders Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Lied to Congress

• In his previous testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails had the subject line “spying.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he did not know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by the New York Times. This year an email revealed that while at the White House he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2004 Judge Kavanaugh testified the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit “was not one that I worked on personally.” Documents now contradict that statement. Newly released documents also call into question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles Pickering “was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh testified, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” New evidence released as part of these confirmation hearing contradicts that assertion. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• Kavanaugh testified before the committee that he did not believe polygraphs were reliable. In 2016 he wrote, “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to ‘screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.’ . . . The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” (Sack v. United States Department of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016)) What changed his opinion or was he misleading the committee as to his beliefs about the reliability of polygraph tests?

These are serious breaches, enough to prevent him from being considered as a justice on SCOTUS, or serving on the bench in any capacity.

Lying seems to be totally acceptable by some of the public.

 

[Hope4More]

As you probably already know I don't put any weight on anything based on rumors. Not in this case or any other case for that matter.

That is why I don't rely on media articles before a trial has been held due to the possibilities of inaccurate information.

Jmo though

What's gratifying to me is that the first thing my DS of 16 asked me when I picked him from school today was if I agreed with where he thought the vote stood. That made me happy.

What made me glowing proud was when HE brought up, on his own, that he thought it likely Manchin was going to vote Yes & switch parties.

Dang. That possibility hadn't occurred to me on my own, I read of it. He thought it the most logical & probable scenario for M's vote, which he assumed was yes.

Whatever the reality, hey! That's my boy.

 

[human]

collins confirmed yes

Hm. The anti Collins fund must be going sky high now. Is it true Murkowski is getting flowers?

 

[human]

I understand all of this, and believe it or not, agree with most of it.

Where I and many others part ways isn't because K was angry & expressed that, vehemently. Any one would want to & likely feel the right to, and K is human before he is anything else.

It wasn't his anger, it was his CONSIDERED decision , made the night before at the latest, to inject rank partisanship. To blame democrats. To threaten dems. To insert conspiracy accusations about a former president & sec of state.

He should have written all that out then torn it up. He didn't. That's on him, and it does speak to judicial temperament, and reasonable doubt that he would be unbiased on the SC.

We have seen how two other lawyers acted under the most vile of attacks. They remained calm and went high when their depraved attackers went low. Lynchings? Ape? Death threats. On and on. Calm. Cool. Gracious

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Collins, Manchin back Kavanaugh, paving way for confirmation

Washington – Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine declared Friday she will vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, all but ensuring that a deeply riven Senate will elevate the conservative jurist to the nation’s highest court despite allegations that he sexually assaulted women decades ago...

Moments after Collins finished talking, the only remaining undeclared lawmaker, Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, said he, too, would vote “yes” in the showdown confirmation roll call expected Saturday afternoon. Manchin, the only Democrat supporting Kavanaugh, faces a competitive re-election race next month in a state Trump carried in 2016 by 42 percentage points...

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Nobody here is perfect, to be sure.

As you probably already know, you have shared rumors and provably inaccurate information in this very thread, and have been corrected by WS members sharing source documents and other legitimate, verifiable information.

I’m ONLY saying this because we’ve all been wrong before, misinterpreted statements or facts, or whatever, regardless of the source.

And respectfully, I have no intention of attacking anyone, including you.

We’ve all made mistakes.

If I have done that then I am sincerely sorry. I wasn't aware I posted misinformation that had been proven to be untrue.

I try my best not to do that in any thread but if it has been shown to me to be inaccurate I immediately issue an apology and retraction.

I guess I missed the rebuke.

Imo

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Thanks. By the same token I disagree with those who use identity politics on women's issues with a very narrow focus. I find it a national disgrace that the women's movement today still hasn't bothered to finish the ratification process for the ERA and is failing to ask the hard questions about high poverty rates among elderly women.

OT

Then help make it so, I say. There’s room for it, and it’s an important issue. Like you, I believe everything is correlated, symbiotic.

If we’re fighting for women’s rights, we are fighting for the whole woman, not just bits and pieces. If I’m understanding you correctly, I think we’re both stating that belief very clearly.

I’m just not at all comfortable with delegitimizating women who are activists for specific topics that affect them very strongly. That’s their right and decision, too.

 

[human]

I agree with this. IMO, the Democrats have even less of a grasp on middle America than they had in 2016.

This attempt to eliminate due process is despicable, and IMO, it will backfire.

I am confused. Remind me about Merrick Garland. What was that all about?

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Murkowski to vote no on Kavanaugh

'Not the right man for the court at this time'

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska described President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as "not the right man for the court at this time" and strongly signaled she will vote no in Kavanaugh's final confirmation vote on the US Senate floor.

After opposing a key procedural vote Friday morning on the nomination, Murkowski explained her vote to reporters, calling it "the most difficult evaluation" she has had to make...

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

If I have done that then I am sincerely sorry. I wasn't aware I posted misinformation that had been proven to be untrue.

I try my best not to do that in any thread but if it has been shown to me to be inaccurate I immediately issue an apology and retraction.

I guess I missed the rebuke.

Imo

No problem, really! We’re all here searching for the truth. Sometimes, like in the Kavanaugh case, that objective can be a little slippery. I get ya, and appreciate your posts, @oceanblueeyes!

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I am confused. Remind me about Merrick Garland. What was that all about?

President Obama nominated Garland to fill a vacancy on SCOTUS. Reps were in charge, so the nomination was never considered. SC seat remained vacant for about 8 months. Trump nominated Gorsuch who was confirmed.

 

[Betty P]

I am confused. Remind me about Merrick Garland. What was that all about?

Yes, Merrick Garland was a highly qualified nominee. Not my preference, he was conservative. His nomination was held up by Republicans for nearly a year, after which time it expired. From Wikipedia:

In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]

Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]

 

[human]

It was most certainly affecting his family!

Good grief, there were even cartoonists who were using his daughter to make their rude points about him.

I can fully understand, and accept, Kavanaugh's demeanor during his inquisition. Frankly I'm astounded that he didn't break out in hysterical laughter with some of the idiotic questioning that took place by "esteemed" members of the Senate. They were so obtuse as to assume that some of his classes yearbook notations re gas must have been about something much worse.

Boofing? Devil's Triangle? The Senate, media, and hysterical public did their best to make claims of alcohol and sexual abuse...no truth to that (at least for those terms) according to Kavanaugh's classmates.


When I was in HS, and as a young mother, friend and relatives referred to farting (especially when our kids did it) as "fluffing". There are other usuages for that word, and I'm fairly sure if his yearbook had used "fluffing" instead of "boofing" he would have been accused of making movies.

I do not believe that the current process with the Senate Judiciary Committee will last much longer, Senators (at least this set) are hardly qualified or unbiased enough to handle the task.

They were/are on a witch hunt.

It's one thing to find valid, provable, substantiated and quantifiable issues that would preclude him from this role...issues that are NOT indicative of relatively common/normal, high school/college behavior.

This was/is a witch hunt.

Normal high school behavior. I have to tell that to my grandson and granddaughters that this is acceptable. They can drink to blackout and my granddaughters can be assaulted because that is just high school fun.

And my grandson and his friends can participate in getting so drunk that they cannot remember what they have done.

Not sure my children ( the parents ) will go along with it. But I can remind them that this is normal high school behavior and for them to get off of their judgmental high horse.