« Hurricane? We don't need no stinkin' .... OT | Main | It’s Not Always All About Us »

September 12, 2018

Comments

Morning all, I see the gravitational pull of this is far too much to overcome and we circle the bowl (a mixed metaphor, I suppose) Maybe not all, some are not commenting, and I imagine they are watching this on long range sensors.

Unfortunately, boys will be boys, by which I mean that it seems like it is all men commenting on this rather than giving Kavanaugh and his BFF Judge a pat on the head and sending them on their way.

Anyway, while there are plenty of tone-deaf comments from many of the same people who sat in judgement on Anita Hill, for me, the cluelessness of men is better described by this news item, probably because it doesn't have to contemplate sexual violence.

https://www.france24.com/en/20180923-women-foreign-ministers-summit-canada-freeland-wallstrom

So Freeland (who earlier, when arriving at the airport in DC for NAFTA talks, wore a t-shirt that said on the back “Keep Calm and Negotiate NAFTA” and the front: “Mama ≠ Chopped Liver”) organized a meeting of women foreign minsters.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/21/chrystia-freeland-talks-international-security-gender-based-violence-in-montreal.html

The summit brings together at least half of the 30 women who hold foreign affairs portfolios globally, including ministers from Bulgaria, Kenya, Norway, South Africa and Sweden.

Some 15 special guests, including Japan’s foreign minister, who is male, were also expected to attend some of the discussions.

The western press hasn't noted this, but the Chinese press picked it up
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2165371/when-canada-hosted-first-ever-meeting-women-foreign

Yes, but are the female foreign ministers showing enough leg?

Goodnight, you Princes of Maine, you Kings of New England:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/09/swing-vote-on-kavanaugh-says-hell-be-great-on-abortion-rights/

What is disqualifying? As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues

My take, Marty, is this:

(a.) His record of "pull it out of your ass" judicial reasoning to get to a conservative decision is enough for me. Some of his decisions are simply egregious travesties of legal reasoning. So even if I were to go along with an otherwise conservative judge, Kavanaugh has shown he does not exhibit anything approaching a judicial temperament. Now you may argue there are some conservatives out there who have such a
temperament. I might disagree that by definition there is no such thing, but I believe you could make a reasonable case. K is not one of those. Read his decisions.
(b.) He is a conservative. I know. I know. Humor me. When it comes down to brass tacks, that is why you most likely were opposed to Kagan and Sotomayor. So. Let us be honest about these things.
(c.) He comes from the same Harvard-Yale elite background all too common of SC Justices. Same applies to Dems with these attributes, but whatever.
(d.) He has a background as an uprincipled political hack. Anybody who thought it would be great to push conspiracy theories about Vince Foster should be humiliated at all times when amongst the public. This would be a bit embarrassing for a SC jurist.
(e.) He is almost the comic manifestation of a lickspittle. The GOP should be ashamed. As Tony has pointed out repeatedly, the first words out of this guys mouth were a transparent lie.

States rights, anyone?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/arizona-threatens-revoke-immigrant-children-shelter-licenses

E) Except it wasnt a lie, by any definition
D) I'll just ignore this one, he's an accomplished jurist, Kagan almost never practiced law. He has lots of accomplished legal minds supporting his appoiNJtment. Sorry you disagree.
C) Harvard Yale yeah
B) let's be, I was against both, more Kagan
A) At least you object for a reason I can accept as valid, if wrong.

Kagan almost never practiced law.

?

lj: Unfortunately, boys will be boys, by which I mean that it seems like it is all men commenting on this

For me, a more pointless, mind-numbing, life-wasting exercise than going round and round with Marty for days on a topic where he's not changing his mind and neither is anyone else I cannot imagine. Maybe there are some lurkers who are learning something from it, and/or enjoying the links. But even if not, we all get our kicks in different ways.

If you're all enjoying yourselves, then why not? (I am not being snarky.)

As for me, moveon.org has my email. Collins knows what I think of her and of Kavanaugh. Other than that, I got work to do.

russell, she was never a judge, spent a few years as a policy wonk in Washington, then became an academic until appointed to be solicitor general. More or less. Never appeared in court until 9 months before she was nominated to the Supreme Court.

To add to my 8:44: Besides what feels to me these days like the general futility of going endlessly around on the same hamster wheel, the actual topic being discussed is infuriating on so many levels that, like I think I said a few days ago, I really have no more words.

Kagan almost never practiced law.

And neither did Kavanaugh prior to his ascension via GWB to the Federal Court of Appeals, the court just below the SC.

His whole public life prior to that was one of a hired political gunslinger.

Now being a legal gunslinger is not evil incarnate, but it depends on which side you are on. Kavanaugh is on the wrong side, and his decisions mark him as one of, perhaps the most, conservative federal judge out there.

Sitting on the SC would only accelerate the slide into the abyss.

Where is Merrick Garland?

I went to Catholic school too. We wouldn't have been allowed to put something like "100 kegs or bust" in our yearbook blurbs.

I had a shred of respect left for the Jesuits, but it's unraveling rapidly.

Where is Merrick Garland

Although...I suppose I should be glad the Jesuits were so permissive. Otherwise we wouldn't have had as many clues.

Merrick Garland?

russell, she was never a judge

"practice law" is not the same as "be a judge".

Whole lotta SCOTUS justices were never judges. You can look it up.

Kavanaugh got a hearing. It hasn't gone well. Sucks to be him. Sometimes you don't get the brass ring.

McConnell told Trump he would be a tough sell. McConnell was right.

Better luck next time.

A family member who actually reads the Yale alumni magazine told me that sometime within the last two or three years there was an article that said that year was the first time there were more students in the entering class who were the first in their family to go to college than there were legacies.

Maybe there's hope.

How did Merrick Garland's hearing go?

So I disputed every point you made, pretty even handedly, your reaction is to be dismissive.

Thats when I know you had no good argument left.

Round and round is what you folks do creating your echo chamber and pumping each other up like some jocks before a football game with the latest meme of the day from the left

Close your eyes, cbggange a name here and there and I could be reading Whelan or Alex Jones.

I had a dream...Merrick Garland got a hearing...then I woke up and remembered Mitch McConnell's slow-moving coup.

Where is Merrick Garland?

Thats when I know you had no good argument left.

MERRICK GARLAND

Merrick Garland, I turn my lonely eyes to you....

nothing exposes the fullness and depravity of the GOP's corrupt bullshit on the whole rush-to-seat-Kavanaugh farce like these 14 letters:

M E R R I C K G A R L A N D

the GOP is a cult, top to bottom. there's nothing there but service to and defense of the cult.

Unfortunately, it is a cult that has had the resources and malign cleverness to take over the machinery of power in this country.

Merrick Garland was traded for some tax cuts, and several decades of gerrymandering, and the prolongation (who know for how long?) of the criminal cabal in the White House, and a long list of other abominations.

You can read with your eyes closed? Is there text crawling across the inside of your eyelids?

If we only we had the audience, political cache, and the money-making franchises Jones and Whelan have grifted from the great conservative honeypot.

May I in interest you in some proprietary dietary supplements I concocted after reading the labels at Vitamin Cottage? An exploding MAGA hat?

Individually wrapped Fruit Loops?

I guess I'm going to have to change my name again.

Make sure not to change your name to Merrick Garland, or you'll be ignored and treated like sh!t.

M E R R I C K G A R L A N D

Yep. It was nothing short of a throw down for total political war.

TOTAL IT WILL BE.

"How did Merrick Garland's hearing go?"

It fell on deaf crickets.

It went a little like Lincoln's last night at the theater.

Conservafederates submitted rave reviews, except they resented the lack of live action gunfire at Merrick's hearing, agreeing with Chekhov that if you are going to be staring at guns above the fireplace for the first seven years of the Obama Administration, then for plot consistency alone, it's best to go out with bang in the final act.

The musical score was pedestrian at best, featuring Mitch McConnell and his choir singing that same old tune.

Okay, I lied. I have very few more words.

Two of them are: Merrick Garland.

Ignore this:

As a bookend to lj's observation about all men all the time, let's support mp purely as men:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/24/foreign-mischief-open-thread-lets-support-trump-purely-as-men/

a mp staffer leaked that one thing the man hates about living in the White House is that he can't watch porn, or maybe he said it out loud at one his appearances in front of the big behinds of his base.

I guess he needs to keep checking out Stormy Daniels' "frame of reference".

The current nominee's wife and daughters looked so very happy to be there in that first picture.

Maybe they had a premonition.

Merrick Garland was 63 when he was nominated and had the opportunity to even be considered stolen from him. That's ten years older than the current nominee, i.e. possibly ten years less tenure that Obama was trying to claim for his choice than Clickbait is trying to claim for his.

Garland was also considered to be relatively moderate.

From Wikipedia: In May 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, said he would help Obama if Garland was nominated, calling Garland "a consensus nominee" and predicting that Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support.

WTF happened to Merrick Garland? I mean the other one, not the one commenting on this thread.

Lindsay Graham doesn't know what happened to Merrick Garland.

Graham said today that we are witnessing the "total collapse of the traditional confirmation process for a Supreme Court nominee" and demanded a vote "soon" after next Thursday's hearings.

But not for Merrick Garland, the traditional confirmation process having been collapsed and shat out the ass of the Republican Party about two years ago.

Graham, a history buffer, also noted that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Gettysburg in 1863, a full two years after the previous total collapse of the American Union in his fucking state a full two years before.

2 plus 2 still equals two

Graham said today that we are witnessing the "total collapse of the traditional confirmation process for a Supreme Court nominee" and demanded a vote "soon" after next Thursday's hearings.

Hey, but we're the ones who are in our little made-up-reality/bubble.

Too bad Merrick Garland's hearing went so badly...oh, wait.

Maybe Seb could address this.

Also, before someone once again perpetrates the myth (or should I just say malicious manipulative lie) (talk about people living in a bubble) of the 80-year precedent:

And there’s also 1988, when Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a vote of 97-0. President Ronald Reagan, in his last term, nominated Kennedy in 1987.

Further historical summary at the link.

I was tempted to observe that somehow the Jesuit/Catholic teaching didn't penetrate.

Then I remembered just what the Catholic Church has been revealed as representing. Lies beneath lies beneath more lies.

And then lies about the lies!

Oh, by the way, what about Merrick Garland?

This even handed account strikes me as having a great deal of MERRICK.

Oh, by the way, what about Merrick Garland?

Yes, Marty, I want to see your evenhanded response decimating this question. Go ahead. Give it a try.

bobbyp's link at 11:26 is both hilarious, and depressing beyond measure. cleek's law elaborated and embroidered with gallows humor.

To repeat: And there’s also 1988, when Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a vote of 97-0. President Ronald Reagan, in his last term, nominated Kennedy in 1987.

A confirmation in an election year. Imagine that. And may I just note the irony: it was Kennedy.

Yes, bobbyp, I think that link is a perfect example of minimizing what Clinton did (and totally ignoring Juanita Broaddrick's account.)

Paula Jones while she was an Arkansas state employee, was taken by state troopers to Bill Clinton's hotel room while he was governor. There she says that she was propositioned by Clinton who exposed his genitals to her. She said that she was punished by her supervisors on Clinton's direction which she claimed was in response to her rejection of his advances.

Clinton was asked about Lewinsky and others to show that Clinton had a pattern of seeking out women for sex who were down the chain of command from him. we know NOW that Lewinsky sought after his attention. But at the deposition phase, that was not known. At the deposition phase, in order to investigate whether or not other women were coerced similar to how Jones was coerced involved pinning Clinton down on whether or not he had sex with people down the chain of command from him. He lied about Lewinsky. Later he had his staff (and by some reports Hillary Clinton was in charge of the group) spread rumors to the press that Lewinsky was crazy, and prone to making up lies. He did not suggest that he had a consensual relationship with her until the infamous dress came to light.

Somewhat later we found out about Juanita Broaddrick (completely unmentioned in the article you cite). She told of being asked to Clinton's hotel room in 1978 'to avoid reporters'. Soon after coming into the room he tried to kiss her.

She resisted his advances, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.

A friend found her soon after and saw that she was crying and that her lip was bruised. She told her friend that Clinton had forced himself on her.

Two other friends said that she told them in the next few weeks that Clinton had forced himself on her, and all of them talked about her bruised lip. At least four other people were told soon after.

Paula Jones' lawyers tried to get her to talk about it, but she signed an affidavit saying nothing had happened. After she came forward she said that she was afraid of coming forward so tried to stay out of it all but was trying to correct the record when other rumors were swirling around her.

Contra the Paul Campos, this is very much #metoo relevant. The type of accusations made by Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick are exactly the kind of charges made by other #metoo accusers, with exactly the same type of corroborating evidence available.

Now, I'm perfectly ok saying that Kavanaugh shouldn't skate if you find Ford's account to be likely (which I do). I raise it for a little bit of humility about how tribalism plays out on these things.

Yeah, Seb, it's all tribalism.

Clinton behaved like a rutting pig many times. He, Trump boasted about behaving like a rutting pig too -- but he's a congenital liar, so maybe he was only boasting. Each of them was defended by his "tribe", because everything is tribalism all the way down.

All the way up, also. Mitch McConnell -- Republican, conservative -- stole a SCOTUS seat for his tribe, and is proud of it. He lusts after another one now, like a good tribal chieftain.

I know which tribe I'm with, Seb. I'm with the tribe that DOESN'T want Putin's puppet to "skate". Which tribe are you with?

--TP

Janie, I appreciate you picking up on my point and thanks for commenting. The comment wasn't meant to draw you or anyone else out (people have a right to be both speak and be quiet), but I appreciate you noting it.

I suppose for some, the fascination is watching Marty move from 'he's a decent family man' to 'he, unlike Kagen, practiced law', with barely a blink. He's not going to change his mind but he is going to change where he argues from, which I suppose is the sport.

As for Seb's whatabout-ism, the selective recall is pretty astonishing. I'm sure that Seb believes that Starr and Kavanaugh and the other merry band was just looking out of Lewinsky. The fact that the name Linda Tripp never comes up should tell you something more about tribalism as well.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-kavanaugh-letter-signer-just-learned-he-sexually-demeaned-her-in-yearbook

But, he was just 17! I'm sure he's developed a judicial temperament since then!

If sniveling flattery, citing a doubtful "fact", is evidence of "judicial temperament" then indeed Kavanaugh may have outgrown his alcoholic preppie youth.

--TP

"As for Seb's whatabout-ism, the selective recall is pretty astonishing. I'm sure that Seb believes that Starr and Kavanaugh and the other merry band was just looking out of Lewinsky"

I don't need to reach to what Starr and Kavanaugh were looking out for. I don't even need to figure out what Linda Tripp wanted. You allude but don't state. What do you want out of that allusion?

I believe Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.

Do you?

Do you believe that those who focus on Feinstein's motivations to keep a Republican Justice off the bench have a good point when talking about the Ford allegations? Or should we be talking about the credible allegations Ford is making?

I want to be clear about why I try to come down just as hard on 'my side' as I do on 'the other side'. I think the full scale run to tribalism is destroying this country. We need to stop Trump AND we need to find a way to de-escalate politics if we don't want to end up like Israel and Palestine, because in that case even the victor ends up corrupting themselves.

We can't have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don't like--especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct. We can't do anything about how we treated allegations against Clinton now, except we can admit that we should have taken them seriously. We can say "we're trying to get better on this issue" and get somewhere. We can't say "we don't trust women who come forward if we don't like their politics" and expect that to come out well.

I didn't bring up Starr and Kavanaugh's role, you did, when you claimed that _we_ didn't know that Lewinsky was seeking his attention. This is the difference, Starr (and Kavanaugh) were willing to use a woman who did not want that information to go out to the public while Feinstein tried to not release the information about Ford.

I don't need to reach to what Starr and Kavanaugh were looking out for. I don't even need to figure out what Linda Tripp wanted. You allude but don't state. What do you want out of that allusion?

What do I want out of the allusion? I guess to have you admit that you are being just as tribalistic as anyone else and tut-tutting as if you weren't. Here's what you said

we know NOW that Lewinsky sought after his attention. But at the deposition phase, that was not known.(emph. mine)

That last phrase is the kicker. Your allusion is that Starr (and Kavanaugh) were thinking that Lewinsky didn't seek his attention and only pursued it because they thought that Clinton had forced himself on her. if you believe that, you should say it.

This is why (it seems to me) Linda Tripp's illegally recorded phone recordings that put Starr onto Lewinsky were left out by you and why you ignore the way Starr pressured Lewinsky. And my point (and I'll state it clearly for you) is that you want to present the story as if there were no competing motivations and what was wanted was simply the truth. That's wrong and you should really fess up.

Given this pattern of behavior, it seems that you are invoking Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick not out of any #metoo concerns, but more as a tit for tat. Maybe you believe that you are standing shoulder to shoulder with women and #metoo, but if you do believe, I think you are deceiving yourself. If you don't, then you are not really a person whose opinion I can trust on that matter. Before one talks about burdens of proof for cases, one should talk about being honest about one's motivations for bringing things up. In short, your comments in this thread seem to only make a nod towards how bad the Republicans have behaved, and your concentration is on making everyone else acknowledge Clinton's bad behavior.

As far as Feinstein. I thought this by Josh Marshall summed it up
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-the-democrats-really-ambush-kavanaugh

If this basic reconstruction is right, Feinstein, her Senate colleagues, The Intercept and even the leakers all seem to have been acting reasonably and with reasonable motives, given their different roles in the process. Nothing here suggests some intentional plot to let Kavanaugh get through the hearings proper and then spring this on him at the last moment. Again, whether or not that would be wrong, it simply doesn’t appear to be what happened. (emph. mine)

If other people argue that Feinstein was setting a trap and therefore using Dr. Ford, I would point to that and say, they are wrong. After that, I'm not sure what else there is to say.

At any rate, it would probably be more on point to discuss the problems of Biden's participation in the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill debacle. But if we did that, we would be drawing conclusions about Grassley and the conduct of in regards to Dr. Ford. So I feel that you aim at Clinton to distract rather than to actually make things better.

Finally, this doesn't have anything to do with what you or I 'believe' and the fact that you are making it about my beliefs suggest that all your previous discussion about making alliances is just smoke and mirrors. You aren't really interested in that, you are only interested in trying to gain a rhetorical upper hand and as such, I have better things to do.

We can't have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don't like--especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct...

I completely agree, and I think attempts to defend Bill Clinton futile - if nothing else, the man is a proven perjurer (Clinton v Jones). But that has little to do with whether Kavanaugh is a fit person to serve on the Court.

There are very different standards - and burdens of proof - involved in electing someone to public office, conducting impeachment proceedings, and appointing a Supreme Court Justice.
Conflating those things is just blowing smoke, whether intentionally or not.

Speaking of burdens of proof...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-deborah-ramirez-republican-reaction.html
Retiring Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, ornery and with one foot out the door, came through by saying what his colleagues wouldn’t, calling the allegations “phony.” When asked why he thought that, he elaborated: “Because I know it is, that’s why.”

And this was a man considered twice, apparently, for a place on the Supreme Court.

“That last phrase is the kicker. Your allusion is that Starr (and Kavanaugh) were thinking that Lewinsky didn't seek his attention and only pursued it because they thought that Clinton had forced himself on her. if you believe that, you should say it.”

I’m confused. You’re talking as if the perjury piece happened under Star/Kavanaugh’s questioning. It didn’t. It happened while Paula Jones was trying to show a pattern of behavior regarding the sexual harassment she experienced. That changes the whole tenor of your discussion. Paula Jones was trying to vindicate herself with respect to the abuse she suffered. Clinton lied in the deposition to her case to frustrate her investigation so as not to show a pattern of having sex with women whose jobs he could influence. Starr/Kavanaugh later used those lies in the impeachment. You’re treating it as if it was all one thing, but a sexually harassed woman can try to vindicate her rights even if doing so also has political consequences.

You’re also acting as if I think Kavanaugh is fit to be appointed to the court, when I’m arguing that the situations are parallel THEREFORE he is not fit.

Quoting TPM and then acting like that makes it a fact, well then, there is nothing else to say.

What about Merrick Garland? He didn't get confirmed. Certainly a legitimate argument for disliking Gorsuch. Has nada to do with Kavanaugh. There is no unbiased comparison between the circumstances, and Dems are working really hard so they can be in charge going forward.

The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was the actual count 97-0. Our politics have changed a lot in those years.

The senate GOP was free to have Garland hearings and then vote 'Nay'. That would have been the proper way and we could grumble about it but would not have any right to complain about breach of norms or procedures.
But they choose not to do that because their rabid base (through their non-elected megaphones) told them that even this simply going through the motions would be considered as collaboration with the n-word and the demon rats and punished without mercy.
And McConnell had to show his power because he could. Same with his proclamation that he would do the same to any Clinton nominee and his most recent one that Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what. What use is power, if it cannot be constantly rubbed in?

What about Merrick Garland? He didn't get confirmed.

LOL

he didn't get whatnow?

"What about Merrick Garland? He didn't get confirmed."

No, for crying out loud, that wasn't the "what" about Merrick Garland.

Biased comparisons, therefore, must carry the day.

"Our politics have changed a lot in those years."

Maybe Frank Luntz can convene a focus group and get to the bottom of that mystery. On George Bush Senior's lips would be read a name. Gimme that name, I mean, besides Willie Horton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt

And I DO mean the two-legged animal. For other uses, see "Newt" (disambiguation)

Regarding Clinton: The upshot to the entire mess was he was forced to triangulate on some carefully chosen politically issues (as much as I disagree with the strategy), therefore saving himself. A little give from a major taker.

No such luck now under republican house rules. You want "Give", call the United Way or Goodwill.

Bias. Yeah, I'm biased. Billy Buckner was a great baseball player. All else is a bunch of Mookie.

Who said, on these pages, a couple of years ago. "I have opinions about the facts."



Is this also part of the 'smear campaign' ?

It's a relatively minor matter in the context of everything else that's going on, but it goes directly to the credibility of Kavanaugh's recollections, and the absolute certainty with which he dismisses his accusers as politically motivated liars.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-kavanaugh-letter-signer-just-learned-he-sexually-demeaned-her-in-yearbook
In Georgetown Prep’s 1983 yearbook, Brett Kavanaugh and several other football players listed themselves as “Renate Alumni,” The New York Times reports, in an apparently crude reference to Renate Schroeder Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic high school at the time. Dolphin, one of 64 women who signed a letter this month defending Kavanaugh’s character after he was accused of sexually assault while in high school, told the Times she was stunned by the yearbook references. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through… the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue,” Dolphin said.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/408200-former-friend-of-kavanaugh-slams-hurtful-insinuations-about-her-in-his
A lawyer representing Kavanaugh, Alexandra Walsh, told The Times “Judge Kavanaugh was friends with Renate Dolphin in high school. He admired her very much then, and he admires her to this day."

“Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Dolphin attended one high school event together and shared a brief kiss good night following that event,” Walsh continued. “They had no other such encounter. The language from Judge Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook refers to the fact that he and Ms. Dolphin attended that one high school event together and nothing else.”

However, Dolphin said she never kissed Kavanaugh.

“I think Brett must have me confused with someone else, because I never kissed him," she said…

Kudos to Hartmut for not forgetting about McConnell's (and McCain's and company) pledge to stop all governance under a Democratic President:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court

So here is my bias: Kill all governing institutions with Civil War #2. I don't want those troublesome priests and mechanisms of governance getting in the way and interceding between me and the smoking dead ruins of the fucking Republican/conservative movement.

We can't have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don't like--especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct...

Those Kavanaugh hearings would have gone much smoother with Sen. Franken on the committee.

I completely agree, and I think attempts to defend Bill Clinton futile - if nothing else, the man is a proven perjurer (Clinton v Jones). But that has little to do with whether Kavanaugh is a fit person to serve on the Court

Thank you.

Kindly note: Bill Clinton was investigated, at length, required, as a sitting POTUS, to testify under oath about his relationships with Jones, Broderick, Lewinsky et al, was censured, disbarred, and impeached.

Are we fucking done with Bill Clinton now? He is not a candidate for the SCOTUS.

The only purpose in bringing Bill Clinton up in this context is to imply bad faith on the part of folks who oppose Kavanaugh. It has bugger all to do with Kavanaugh.

It's a shame that we've gotten to the point where we've gone all tribal, but the opportunity to moderate that is sadly long past. And MERRICK GARLAND is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg.

Clean your own house. Then perhaps, and only perhaps, we might be able to talk. Maybe not, there's a lot of bad blood to work through.

Kavanaugh was a crappy choice. He has too much partisan baggage. McConnell told Trump he'd be a hard sell. Trump picked him anyway.

So now it's a mess. You all got what you voted for. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I'm just forced to live in the monkey house.

When conservatives stop behaving like assholes and thugs, perhaps civility will return. Until then, you're gonna have to live in the world you've created.

Speaking as a person with my particular values and social orientation, I'm sick of living with the messes you all have created. As far as I can tell, I owe you nothing.

Upthread from JanieM:

"I was tempted to observe that somehow the Jesuit/Catholic teaching didn't penetrate."

I don't know about the Jesuits, but it seems the problem in the news with Catholic teaching IS in fact that it did "penetrate".

In that vein, some Irish humor:

https://ireland-calling.com/lifestyle/wittiest-irish-quotes/

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/a-history-of-brendan-behan-in-20-quotations-1.2147245

Seb sez: "Somewhat later we found out about Juanita Broaddrick (completely unmentioned in the article you cite)."

Completely not correct. Please do go back and read the article again.

well then, there is nothing else to say.

Then why are you still saying things?

Merrick Garland humorhypocrisy, essence of McConnell.

This is just crap, as it the half justification offered along with the apology:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2018/09/24/newspaper-apologizes-cartoon-that-depicted-christine-blasey-ford-demanding-mms-roses/

Paula Jones was trying to vindicate herself with respect to the abuse she suffered.

Good for her. However, it is important to reiterate that Starr and Kavanaugh could have cared less about vindicating Jones. They were hunting the President.

Just a quicky, and forgive me if I omit too much detailed reference:

1. I agree that it's important that we try to impartially acknowledge faults in our own "side", partly as a matter of fairness, and partly so as to give more force when we identify faults on the other "side".

1.1 I believed Juanita Broadrick, despite an inclination to find Clinton a) attractive b) charismatic and c) on my "side". I do not think his behavior about Monica Lewinsky was even vaguely in the same league, and Kavanaugh's prurient questions were clearly not remotely about proving that he had lied, but were intended to broadcast his "revolting behaviour", behaviour which is practised by most of the American public (with the exception of the use of the cigar).

2. Kavanaugh should not be on the SCOTUS, because he is unfit (partisan hack etc), but also because he is a liar.

3. Merrick Garland Merrick Garland Merrick Garland

The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was the actual count 97-0.

Ding ding, wrong again.

The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was that he got a hearing and a vote in an election year.

The notion of a precedent or custom where a president doesn't get a pick in an year was a complete, bare-faced "I dare you to prove me wrong and if you do my base won't give a fnck anyhow" fabrication, and yet all the bubble-folks in the base believe it, repeat it (even here), and use it to justify their dismantling of America in the name of making it great again for aging misogynistic white men.

Forgot an adjective:

...wealthy aging misogynistic et cetera.

Other things McConnell and company shouldn't do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtnAV528gfY

Stole that from Balloon Juice on another topic.

Another telling thing is that you can move your own goal posts all you want, but you're not moving mine.

My comment was about the abomination of not giving Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote, and then spreading the egregious nonsense about the "custom" in an election year.

Let's not forget the disingenuous invocation of the "Biden Rule."

For the Count, alias Merrick: A history of Ireland in 100 excuses.

This is interesting, says me.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-least-worst-option-is-if-kavanaugh-withdraws-and-soon/

nice shovel. keep digging that hole.

poor Newt Gingrich is only known to history as the guy who broke the House. McConnell is going to be known as the guy who broke the Senate and the Supreme Court!

I don't believe in using violence to resolve conflict, but those are two people I would seriously have to suppress the urge to kick in the teeth were the opportunity to present itself.

This is interesting, says me.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-least-worst-option-is-if-kavanaugh-withdraws-and-soon/

That’s what I argued - and was told I was being unfair to poor innocent Kavanaugh.

poor innocent Kavanaugh.

virginal Kavanaugh!

I think the full scale run to tribalism is destroying this country. We need to stop Trump AND we need to find a way to de-escalate politics

I agree completely. I just wish I saw a path forward that would get our tribalism de-escalated. Alas, I don't.

I knew a couple of Catholic virgins at uni.
Innocent they weren’t.

Nigel, I thought this was among the most interesting bits in that 538 article:

There is one other possibility, which is that McConnell — who reportedly didn’t want Kavanaugh to be chosen in the first place — could be rushing through the process in the hopes that Kavanaugh will be voted down (or forced to withdraw once it becomes clear that McConnell doesn’t have the votes). Back when Ford was Kavanaugh’s only accuser, this had seemed like a fairly likely exit strategy: The hearings would be engineered to allow Kavanaugh to save face, and perhaps to allow Republicans to stoke some grievances with their base. But wavering GOP senators such as Susan Collins and Jeff Flake would find some excuse to oppose his nomination and his nomination would be pulled. This scenario still seems like a distinct possibility
I'm not sure I think McConnell is quite clever enough to be doing something like this. But it would be amusing if he was trying it, and ended up shooting himself in the foot.

On the bright side:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23454924/methane-lakes-arctic-republicans-climate-change/

Tom Delay, that glorified ape who emerged from the primordial soup of mud, fully formed, with no intermediate species to leaven the bad news for the rest of us, may be sucked right back in again.

I would like 'Kavanaugh' to become a verb, similar to what happened to Lewinsky.

Only it would be a verb for weak, drunken sexual assault, rather than consensual behavior.

ie, 'Jim was out of control, and he Kavanaughed some girl. Luckily she kicked his ass.'

It depends on what the meaning of the phrase “to Kavanaugh” is...
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/09/25/brett-kavanaugh-it-depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-the-phrase-sexual-assault-is/

odds are good that certain people will try to make "Kavanaughed" mean something like "Borked"

Snarki: Those Kavanaugh hearings would have gone much smoother with Sen. Franken on the committee.

Bravo, Snarki! Thanks for reminding Seb that one "tribe" has evolved in our lifetimes, and one hasn't.

--TP

I prefer the 'santorum' route over the 'borked' route.

Kavanaugh: to try and take unwanted liberties with an unwilling inebriated victim, and fail.

If I was Senator Murkowski, I'd be watching the fallout back home from this case very very carefully.
http://www.alaskastar.com/2018-09-20/former-eagle-river-man-who-strangled-woman-reaches-plea-deal-prosecutors
Specifically the reaction to the defendant getting a "one pass" for his sexual assault.

Merrick Garland, what's that you say about bubbles?

Kavanaugh is a blip. This stuff is for real.

WJ,

I can't imagine a prosecutor making that deal with a slam dunk case. Maybe the issue is the jury, facts, victim, judge, etc., but a guilty plea for sexual assault is still a win for the government regardless of time spent in jail (apparently 1 year already, plus one suspended).

I am defense oriented, and a defendant taking that plea does not make me confident the State had a strong case. 'time served, or risk 40 years.' Most of us would take the time served over flipping a coin with a jury.

jrudkis -- Murkowski has to worry about the general public, not the much smaller percentage of people who know anything about the inside baseball features of the court system.

I hope she's sweating.

P.S. It may not be fair, but people are on a hair trigger about sexual assault right now. Yes, the broad brush reaction will hurt some individuals unfairly (and I don't mean BK), but even so it will never balance out the injustices and silences of the past.

jrudkis,
Actually, as I understand it, the justification was something along the lines of "He seems to be a good candidate for counseling." And that "this is you one pass" quote was an actual line from the sentencing hearing.

WJ, I get the quote part. That is not sound bite worthy.

I think that is the warning from a prosecutor/judge who wanted a conviction and all the things that come with being a felon, rather than risking a trial where someone the prosecutor/judge believes is guilty walks free.

It is meant as a warning that it won't work again, even though the man was convicted, spent a year in jail, has another year suspended, and has all the weight of a conviction for the rest of his life.

I don't have an opinion on the counseling statement. It seems unlikely to drive a case with slam dunk evidence.

The state agreed to a plea deal with time served. They don't do that when they have confidence in thier case.

'Murkowski has to worry about the general public'

The general public is not paying attention to any of this. Those of us in the whirlwind find it to be fascinating, but as my 12 year old likes to tell me, "more poeple know who live in a pineapple under the sea, than know who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad