Kavananananaugh: Does he get confirmed?

[Thud]

If the guy said that he regretfully did some stupid shit to women back when he was a fratboy dickhead and he's devoted himself to making up for it by being a champion of women now (and I would assume both to be accurate representations) we'd all be in a better place right now.

But instead he's using Trumpian logic: lie, deny, accuse, blame, attack = I'll forever be that fratboy dickhead,
putting us all in a far worse place.

It's "Me too" vs "Me And My Bros"

[JimZipCode]

Not over until it is over but pivot from sexual assault to he lied about college drinking tactics is telling.

Doesn't seem like a "pivot" to me, so much as a "and another thing!" as different people focus on different aspects of the lies he's told. The crazy, superfluous lies on easily verifiable matters. You'd think an attorney would be more careful.

I think he'll get confirmed, but the investigations won't stop, they'll just move to the media. He will be the gift that keeps giving to the Dems, as former drinking buddies and party-harders get outed and stories told.

If the Congress flips, he can be impeached for lying (or "misleading statements") to the committee about receiving the stolen emails. I'm not sure if he'll be confirmed or not, but I don't see Kavvy on SCOTUS in 2021. Might not even still be a judge.

[JimZipCode]

If the guy said that he regretfully did some stupid shit to women back when he was a fratboy dickhead and he's devoted himself to making up for it by being a champion of women now (and I would assume both to be accurate representations) we'd all be in a better place right now.

That's what my wife was talking about this weekend. He could have defused all of this shit extremely easily, with a little bit of "Yeah I was a little wild in high school / college, did some things I regret." That pretty much completely inoculates him against all the accusations, without him having to go on the attack and look bad. Instead he got angry and lied. Seems stupid and unnecessary.

[Turdacious]

If the guy said that he regretfully did some stupid shit to women back when he was a fratboy dickhead and he's devoted himself to making up for it by being a champion of women now (and I would assume both to be accurate representations) we'd all be in a better place right now.

That's what my wife was talking about this weekend. He could have defused all of this shit extremely easily, with a little bit of "Yeah I was a little wild in high school / college, did some things I regret." That pretty much completely inoculates him against all the accusations, without him having to go on the attack and look bad. Instead he got angry and lied. Seems stupid and unnecessary.

Kavanaugh's probably enough of a historian to know the guy he's nominated to replace got on the court because Robert Bork got borked by a guy who's drunken behavior actually got a chick killed.

[Grandpa's Spells]

If the guy said that he regretfully did some stupid shit to women back when he was a fratboy dickhead and he's devoted himself to making up for it by being a champion of women now (and I would assume both to be accurate representations) we'd all be in a better place right now.

That's what my wife was talking about this weekend. He could have defused all of this shit extremely easily, with a little bit of "Yeah I was a little wild in high school / college, did some things I regret." That pretty much completely inoculates him against all the accusations, without him having to go on the attack and look bad. Instead he got angry and lied. Seems stupid and unnecessary.

Kavanaugh's probably enough of a historian to know the guy he's nominated to replace got on the court because Robert Bork got borked by a guy who's drunken behavior actually got a chick killed.

Which... justifies perjury?

For your consideration:

[Fat Cat]

If the guy said that he regretfully did some stupid shit to women back when he was a fratboy dickhead and he's devoted himself to making up for it by being a champion of women now (and I would assume both to be accurate representations) we'd all be in a better place right now.

That's what my wife was talking about this weekend. He could have defused all of this shit extremely easily, with a little bit of "Yeah I was a little wild in high school / college, did some things I regret." That pretty much completely inoculates him against all the accusations, without him having to go on the attack and look bad. Instead he got angry and lied. Seems stupid and unnecessary.

I think you misread the currents of our time if you think that he would ever again be allowed in public life, in any form, if he had admitted to Ford's allegations. He would have been branded with a scarlet letter and permanently ostracized, not just from the SCOTUS, but from the legal profession.

[Fat Cat]

If the guy said that he regretfully did some stupid shit to women back when he was a fratboy dickhead and he's devoted himself to making up for it by being a champion of women now (and I would assume both to be accurate representations) we'd all be in a better place right now.

That's what my wife was talking about this weekend. He could have defused all of this shit extremely easily, with a little bit of "Yeah I was a little wild in high school / college, did some things I regret." That pretty much completely inoculates him against all the accusations, without him having to go on the attack and look bad. Instead he got angry and lied. Seems stupid and unnecessary.

Kavanaugh's probably enough of a historian to know the guy he's nominated to replace got on the court because Robert Bork got borked by a guy who's drunken behavior actually got a chick killed.

Which... justifies perjury?

For your consideration:

Renate was obviously a whore in HS, why should he fall on his sword because he (and apparently a bunch of other guys) knew it?

[nafod]

He is going to get confirmed, but this isn’t going to go away. There’s too much “there” there. That’s my prediction.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... smates/amp

Frustrated potential witnesses who have been unable to speak with the F.B.I agents conducting the investigation into sexual-assault allegations against Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, have been resorting to sending statements, unsolicited, to the Bureau and to senators, in hopes that they would be seen before the inquiry conclude

Kavanaugh said that the reference was an endearment, saying, “she was a great friend of ours. We—a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group.” He said that a “media circus that has been generated by this, though, and reported that it referred to sex. It did not.”

But the classmate who submitted the statement said that he heard Kavanaugh “talk about Renate many times,” and that “the impression I formed at the time from listening to these conversations where Brett Kavanaugh was present was that Renate was the girl that everyone passed around for sex.” The classmate said that “Brett Kavanaugh had made up a rhyme using the REE NATE pronunciation of Renate’s name” and sang it in the hallways on the way to class. He recalled the rhyme going, “REE NATE, REE NATE, if you want a date, can’t get one until late, and you wanna get laid, you can make it with REE NATE.” He said that, while he might not be remembering the rhyme word-for-word, “the substance is 100 percent accurate.” He added, “I thought that this was sickening at the time I heard it, and it left an indelible mark in my memory.”

Reached for comment, Dolphin noted that she had asked for her name to be removed from a statement signed by female supporters of Kavanaugh’s nomination. “If this report is true, I am profoundly hurt,” she said, of the account in the affidavit. “I did nothing to deserve this. There is nothing affectionate or respectful in bragging about making sexual conquests that never happened. I am not a political person, but my reputation matters to me and to my family. I would not have signed the letter if I had known about the yearbook references and this affidavit. It is heartbreaking if these guys who acted like my friends in high school were saying these nasty, false things about me behind my back.”

[JimZipCode]

I think you misread the currents of our time if you think that he would ever again be allowed in public life, in any form, if he had admitted to Ford's allegations. He would have been branded with a scarlet letter and permanently ostracized, not just from the SCOTUS, but from the legal profession.

Not what I'm saying. Just the merest nod of sympathy in her direction, and a general statement that he did some things when he was younger that he wouldn't endorse today, though he doesn't remember this specific incident. Not admitting to her allegations at all, but not attacking them either. Liberals would have wrung their hands, senators would have speechified – and it would have blown over.

[JimZipCode]

... because Robert Bork got borked ...

Can we dispense with the notion that Robert Bork somehow "deserved" a SCOTUS seat but got borked out of it? He agreed to be Nixon's hatchet man in exchange for a promised seat on the Court; Reagan was keeping the quid-pro-quo 15 years later. He was a sharp critic of the precedents involving a right to privacy (a long line of them), and he seems to have been a critic of the 14th amendment, denying Congress's power to outlaw poll taxes and literacy tests for voting. Any one of those things could be seen as disqualifying. The Saturday Night Massacre thing all by itself is evidence of a lack of integrity. Six Republican senators voted no on Bork.

Bork was opposed because he deserved to be. Frankly he shouldn't have been nominated.

[JimZipCode]

Renate was obviously a whore in HS, why should he fall on his sword because he (and apparently a bunch of other guys) knew it?

Because he's a judge, and he isn't supposed to lie in a hearing?

[Fat Cat]

Renate was obviously a whore in HS, why should he fall on his sword because he (and apparently a bunch of other guys) knew it?

Because he's a judge, and he isn't supposed to lie in a hearing?

No he's not supposed to lie. In that we are in agreement. But that's not what I was saying, was it? BTW, what was his lie exactly?

[Grandpa's Spells]

Renate was obviously a whore in HS, why should he fall on his sword because he (and apparently a bunch of other guys) knew it?

Because he's a judge, and he isn't supposed to lie in a hearing?

No he's not supposed to lie. In that we are in agreement. But that's not what I was saying, was it? BTW, what was his lie exactly?

Devil's Triangle isn't a drinking game. His comments on Renate were not camaraderie. He's passed out and forgotten shit before. All of these things are difficult prove as perjury, and it's possible he even thinks some of these statements may be true, but a series of very unlikely events combine to a certainty that dude lied under oath. He also spouted conspiracy theories about Clinton vengeance that were nutty.

It may or may not be important that you put naked partisans who lie under oath on the Supreme Court. This is certainly new, though.

[Fat Cat]

Renate was obviously a whore in HS, why should he fall on his sword because he (and apparently a bunch of other guys) knew it?

Because he's a judge, and he isn't supposed to lie in a hearing?

No he's not supposed to lie. In that we are in agreement. But that's not what I was saying, was it? BTW, what was his lie exactly?

Devil's Triangle isn't a drinking game. His comments on Renate were not camaraderie. He's passed out and forgotten shit before. All of these things are difficult prove as perjury, and it's possible he even thinks some of these statements may be true, but a series of very unlikely events combine to a certainty that dude lied under oath. He also spouted conspiracy theories about Clinton vengeance that were nutty.

It may or may not be important that you put naked partisans who lie under oath on the Supreme Court. This is certainly new, though.

I have zero doubt that he's a fratboy Chad, precisely the kind of person I can't stand. I'm not defending the guy. But if you think he should have been, "oh that? Well, you see, Renate has seen more cocks than a poultry farm and me and the guys were just having a fond laugh about her burnt out husk of a vagina" then I respectfully disagree. That's good manners, not lying.

As far as the "naked partizans" part, I'm afraid that's too puerile for me. If you think anyone has ever made it to the SCOTUS without playing to their party I think that a level of naivete that makes me fear for your physical safety.

None of the beer drinking or the comments about girls make him an attempted rapist, they are just canards that are being used to assail his nomination. It's pure politics, just like his nomination was, and just like all SCOTUS nominations are. Failure to acknowledge that is admitting that you're playing for a team, not the nation.

[Thud]

1700+ (and counting) law professors have signed this letter:

Judicial temperament is one of the most important qualities of a judge. As the Congressional Research Service explains, a judge requires “a personality that is even-handed, unbiased, impartial, courteous yet firm, and dedicated to a process, not a result.” The concern for judicial temperament dates back to our founding; in Federalist 78, titled “Judges as Guardians of the Constitution,” Alexander Hamilton expressed the need for “the integrity and moderation of the judiciary.”

We are law professors who teach, research and write about the judicial institutions of this country. Many of us appear in state and federal court, and our work means that we will continue to do so, including before the United States Supreme Court. We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings on Sept. 27, Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land.

The question at issue was of course painful for anyone. But Judge Kavanaugh exhibited a lack of commitment to judicious inquiry. Instead of being open to the necessary search for accuracy, Judge Kavanaugh was repeatedly aggressive with questioners. Even in his prepared remarks, Judge Kavanaugh described the hearing as partisan, referring to it as “a calculated and orchestrated political hit,” rather than acknowledging the need for the Senate, faced with new information, to try to understand what had transpired. Instead of trying to sort out with reason and care the allegations that were raised, Judge Kavanaugh responded in an intemperate, inflammatory and partial manner, as he interrupted and, at times, was discourteous to senators.

As you know, under two statutes governing bias and recusal, judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. As Congress has previously put it, a judge or justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” These statutes are part of a myriad of legal commitments to the impartiality of the judiciary, which is the cornerstone of the courts.

We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... e=Homepage

[Fat Cat]

What is the right way to respond to a false allegation of sex assault, Thud? Do you have any experience in the matter?

[Thud]

What is the right way to respond to a false allegation of sex assault, Thud? Do you have any experience in the matter?

In front of a senate inquiry? Respectfully.

[nafod]

What is the right way to respond to a false allegation of sex assault...

Not the way he did. He is going to be a justice. From the bench, do you expect him to rule in favor of plaintiffs who can yell the loudest and show the most emotion? Or the ones that bring logical arguments to the table?

He basically acted like who he is accused of being, but in this case beer not required.

He’s definitely going to be effective at fluffing his base, though.

[Fat Cat]

What is the right way to respond to a false allegation of sex assault, Thud? Do you have any experience in the matter?

In front of a senate inquiry? Respectfully.

I don't disagree. But, do you think that an enhanced tone of respect would change any of the 49 democratic "no" votes?

[JimZipCode]

BTW, what was his lie exactly?

He lied about receiving the stolen emails, which is arguably more consequential than the HS/college stuff as it's behavior from his mature professional years.

Lied about Dr Ford "not moving in the same social circles" as him; about whether his calendar provides exculpatory evidence; at least "misrepresented" that one lady's testimony which he also described as exculpatory. I'm leaving out some stuff: there's a fairly long list.

I read something the other day about a standard for credibility that Judge Kavvy wrote years ago; he breaks that standard by a country mile, if applying Judge Kavvy's old written instructions to his own current testimony, he would have to be found "un-credible".

As far as the "naked partizans" part, I'm afraid that's too puerile for me. If you think anyone has ever made it to the SCOTUS without playing to their party I think that a level of naivete that makes me fear for your physical safety.

Depends on how you mean that, doesn't it? SCOTUS nominees have not typically been partisan operatives, though some have. There's a little bit of playing to the base during the nomination/confirmation process, but I don't think their careers have usually included deep involvement with partisan politics.

(Although I went and did a Wikipedia spot-check of the current roster, and I was surprised how many of them had at some point served in the White House counsel's office as young attorneys, or assisted the Watergate prosecutors, etc etc. Not all of them, but many.)

[JimZipCode]

do you think that an enhanced tone of respect would change any of the 49 democratic "no" votes?

His "tone", along with Dr Ford's testimony, was bad enough to change a few automatic "yes" votes to "we need to have the FBI investigate these claims."

[Fat Cat]

I respect your opinion, but that's all any of that is Jim.

[Thud]

What is the right way to respond to a false allegation of sex assault, Thud? Do you have any experience in the matter?

In front of a senate inquiry? Respectfully.

I don't disagree. But, do you think that an enhanced tone of respect would change any of the 49 democratic "no" votes?

3 Dems voted for Gorsuch, so expecting no Dem votes for Kav is on him.

Law professors across the United States have signed an open letter urging the Senate to reject Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination ahead of the historic vote.

More than 1,700 law professors of various backgrounds and political ideologies co-signed the letter, published Wednesday in the New York Times, which read, "We regret that we feel compelled to write to you, our Senators, to provide our views that at the Senate hearings … Judge Brett Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for elevation to the highest court of this land."

The Independent interviewed numerous law professors who signed onto the letter Thursday, at least seven of whom agreed to speak on-the-record about the embattled Supreme Court nominee.

Several professors provided support for Christine Blasey Ford, the first woman to accuse Mr Kavanaugh of sexual assault, while others cast doubt on her story and resulting allegations brought on by additional accusers, including Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick.

Still, the professors expressed deep concerns for Mr Kavanaugh’s "explicit adoption of a partisan political identity" and his apparent inability to remain neutral in the face of tough questioning during last week’s televised hearings.

The majority of professors pointed to a tense exchange between Mr Kavanaugh and Amy Kobluchar, a Minnesota Democrat who attempted to ask the federal judge about his drinking habits before he spun the line of questioning back onto her.

Cynthia Grant Bowman, a law professor at Cornell University, said the exchange displayed Mr Kavanaugh’s "obvious and deep anger at being challenged at all, especially by a woman."

She added, "If he can’t treat members of a co-equal branch of government well, how must he treat litigants?"

Martin Guggenheim, law professor at New York University, said the exchange "displayed a shocking lack of decorum" on the part of Mr Kavanaugh, while describing the moment as "unacceptable".

"Justices of the Supreme Court are the most important legal officers in the country," he added. "We ought to hold them to a standard of public behaviour that is consistent with that high office."

That sentiment was echoed by Joshua Mitts, an associate professor of law at Columbia University, who said the exchange between Mr Kavanaugh and Ms Kobluchar stood out as one of the most troubling moments from the hearings.

"Many of my colleagues have said that if he had responded with contrition and said he didn't remember anything but asked for forgiveness, we would have been in a different place," he said. "I was put off by his tone, which is when his true colours were revealed."

None of the professors whom The Independent interviewed said Mr Kavanaugh’s conservative track record on the bench was a cause for their signing the letter. In fact, at least two said that a judge’s supposed political agenda wouldn't necessarily be a disqualifying factor for a Supreme Court nominee.

Sylvia Law, a professor at New York University and co-director of the Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties program, has studied Mr Kavanaugh’s opinions from his tenure as a federal judge. He "has an obvious agenda," Ms Law said, "which is not disqualifying in and of itself, but the thing that’s disturbing in his opinions is the way he miscategorises facts when they’re not good for the gander."

"I do believe Dr Ford’s allegations, but I can understand someone saying, 'We don’t know this happened beyond a reasonable doubt.' I understand someone saying they don’t believe her," she continued. "But what I found most disturbing was the way Brett Kavanaugh lies. I wouldn't say that as confidently about the sexual assault accusations."

While the law professors varied in their belief of Dr Ford’s sexual assault allegations, several said the claims should be adequately reviewed by the FBI.

David Garland, a law professor at NYU, said he believed Dr Ford’s "allegations are sufficiently credible to warrant a proper investigation." He added that Mr Kavanaugh’s "explicit adoption of a partisan political identity" was among the most worrying aspects of the judge’s testimony.

The open letter arrived just days before a vote on the Supreme Court nomination, which Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had promised to hold on Friday, after the FBI conducted a probe into Mr Kavanaugh and the sexual assault allegations against him.

Democratic lawmakers have slammed Donald Trump and the White House for allegedly limiting the scope of the background investigation, with Dianne Feinstein calling the probe "incomplete." Neither Dr Ford nor Mr Kavanaugh were reportedly interviewed by the federal agency as part of the latest investigation.

Whether or not it’s true that Mr Kavanaugh assaulted Dr Ford, the law professors seemed to be in unanimous agreement about the treatment the embattled nominee expressed towards the few women seated in front of him during his hearings.

"In his demeanour and his responses to specific questions from the senators, Judge Kavanaugh displayed contempt for the notion that due process should include a thorough and respectful investigation of Dr Blasey Ford’s allegations," said Anne Coughlin, professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. "It was horrifying to see him participate in a campaign to discredit women who come forward to complain about sexual assault."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 69291.html

[Fat Cat]

There's no question that he's far more divisive a personality than Gorsuch. So what is your bet? Does he get confirmed?

[Thud]

There's no question that he's far more divisive a personality than Gorsuch. So what is your bet? Does he get confirmed?

Yup. Repugs are savages.