« meanwhile, back on planet earth... | Main | How the other half (of the world) lives »

September 29, 2018

Comments

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/thoroughly-decent-honorable-person

The comments to that post are amusing, Count.

What seems almost beyond doubt is that Kavanaugh lied pretty well continuously under oath about the details of his youth. Whether that makes him guilty of sexual assault is debatable, but it certainly doesn’t make him Justice material.
The lie about having no family connection to Yale is pitiful in a way, but since his Yale prowess was his answer to most of the questioning about his drinking....

This is desperate stuff. There is not even the barest pretence that this is about seating a suitable Justice:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/kavanaugh-response-senate-confirmation-854297

This is honest, I guess. Ita laso,massively cynical:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409158-flake-if-i-were-running-for-re-election-not-a-chance-id-call-for-kavanaugh

Looking at the anger, not only of Kavanaugh, but of Graham, all this takes on an appearance of, as jrudkis points out, history, with the younger generation looking to get rid of the older generation and the older generation not wanting to give up power.

lj, I think the anger is more about self-image. If they accept that these sorts of accusations are true, then they aren't the paragons of virtue that they like to see themselves as. The mere prospect is horrifying for them. Not least because the accusations are true, and on some level they know it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/09/29/viral-kavanaugh-cartoon-powerfully-depicts-the-assault-of-lady-justice/

You gotta love that first cartoon!

And for those struggling with the Post's subscription limits
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/

Thanks sapient, and apologies if you were posting that as information, and you probably realize this, but a blue blood and a 1 percenter, while having significant overlap, are not the same. In fact, I see the striving of the father and am not surprised that the son turned out the way he did.

wj, good point. I think that anger is a complex emotion and when you say 'you are angry because of X', it's often a(n over)simplification. However, I'm not sure if Kavanaugh has ever believed that he doesn't measure up and if he did, he shoved that thought far to the back of his mind. Maybe their anger is covering their horror, but usually, when people are horrified at something about themselves, they usually shrink back (think of Flake's demeanor)

Graham's anger of 'I voted for your person, why don't you vote for mine' seems transactional, and he feels probably feels cheated that the Dems don't roll over and vote for his guy. But a lot of the anger is anger at the old order collapsing, and having to deal with this. None of the anger, incidentally, is directed at Trump for choosing this guy or at McConnell for saying in stronger terms that Kavanaugh was not a good choice (though I wonder if he knew about the issues that have come up. The Ford accusations, probably not, but the drinking?) but the anger that Graham demonstrated when he said

What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat, and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that. Not me! You’ve got nothing to apologize for. When you see [Justices] Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello to them, because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy!

Graham's anger only surfaces when it is Kavanaugh, not when Ford is being questioned. If it were calculated, he would have dropped this speech during the time with Ford and then say 'as I said before...' But he didn't cause this anger isn't calculated, it is coming from a very deep place. Graham was a judge advocate in the Air Force, so he must have seen a lot of problematic behavior and cases in his time and he's probably more than aware that it could happen, so maybe that features in the mix.

I feel like the right has often used anger to get its way, but the danger is that at some point, the anger is going to use you. I think that is what has happened and they really only have themselves to blame.

I'd like commentators supporting Kavanaugh here to read the opinions in Saleh v Titan and then tell us why they prefer Kavanaugh to Garland.

Ford was being questioned politely and with great respect,rightfully. Kavanaugh was being asked by the Senzte Democrats stupid wuestions(wlll you sir turn to Don McGahn and ask him..) along with questions about a 36 year old yearbook and completely unsubstantiated charges that were completely inappropriate for any Senate hearing.

There might have been an actual, valid reason beyond some psychoanalytical bs that one might have generated anger and one not.

I suppose that is possible, Marty, but from what I saw, Kavanaugh came in there with an ax to grind, though I did not watch the whole thing and it sounds like you did. But Kavanaugh's opening statement seemed like it was purpose built to throw down a gauntlet, so I don't think he can But the vox chart of all the the questions dodged by Kavanaugh and Ford. And the response to Klobuchar's question, which seemed to be a perfectly valid question, suggests to me that Kavanaugh hasn't come to grips with either his behavior as a young man or his drinking now.

Again, if Kavanaugh has nothing to hide, he has a valid reason to be angry. But given his evasions about drinking and his misrepresentations about it being legal (I won't repost the links here, but several of them are very damning), it seems to me that his anger is more trying to bluff his way out of this situation. And you don't seem to want to address Graham's anger, which is a lot more interesting to me than Kavanaugh's sweaty grimacing performance. Call it bs if you like, but I have a feeling that the FBI, as Comey just pointed out that the FBI's investigation is not going to be as hard as Republicans hope it will be.

Whoops.
so I don't think he can [claim that he was ambushed.]

The scales of justice in that cartoon look almost like a flail/mornnig star to me.
Since it was the first thing to come into view when the image very slowly built up, I at first expected it would show BK using it as such (hmm...maybe an idea for a later cartoon).

but I have a feeling that the FBI, as Comey just pointed out that the FBI's investigation is not going to be as hard as Republicans hope it will be.

If the widespread press reports are to be believed (and the quotes from Graham suggest that they are), then the FBI likely isn't going to be tugging at any of those loose ends.
This sounds very like an investigation designed not to find anything.

We'll see.

lj, ambushed isn't the word I would use. He was asked questions, all of them, that had nothing to do with his fitness to be a Justice or to ascertain any fact. All of them were meant to make him look bad, including Korbuchars.

Some of the questions, Durbins, were simply theater at his expense and I think it set a bad tone. Others were meant to trap him in a lie, or a "see you could have done it" moment. Or just to demean his character to portray him as someone likely to do it.

There were no facts she presented that he could be questioned about. Where were you on x day, can anyone corroborate your story, etc.

So it was simply character assassination of a 17 year old boy,applied to an accomplished jurist, with no point.

From my perspective, it was infuriating and insulting.


Shorter me, they weren't questioning him, they were clearly prosecuting him. Whatever lawyer instincts kicked in to defend himself were reasonable, and called for.

Nothing Comey said had anything to do with establishing the facts of the assault on Blasey-Ford.

We are now prosecuting him for possibly, at some point, blacking out. This is a guy who said under oath, yes sometimes I drank too much. So we're going to try to investigate whether it's really "too much" or I blacked out a few times?

I'm not sure that youthful frat boy drinking is all that relevant in a Senate SCOTUS hearing. I also don't think questions of that kind are all that unusual, whether relevant or not. See also Ginsburg (the other Ginsburg), denied a SCOTUS seat for smoking weed as a college student and young man.

Assault is a different story.

It's a political proceeding. Senators can, and do, ask whatever they want, quite often for purely political reasons.

Because, politics.

Among the things that contribute to the strongly adversarial tone of this particular hearing are the (R)'s insistence that Kavanaugh be seated by the beginning of the session, and the White House's refusal to provide the paper trail for Kavabaugh's time there.

And, of course, Merrick Garland. If McConnell thought there would be no payback for that, he's an idiot.

My take-away on this mess is that Kavanaugh has, consistently, come off like an entitled dick. And not a particularly honest one.

He was a bad choice. And it looks like the (R)'s are gonna stick with it to the bitter end.

Keep digging that hole.

So we're going to try to investigate whether it's really "too much" or I blacked out a few times?

You can persuade me that attending keggers in high school and college is really nobody's business.

Drinking to the point of blacking out, different story.

Also, too: in case you haven't noticed, "infuriating and insulting" is basically the motor the drives the (R) bus nowadays.

If you don't want stuff broken, don't break it.

Cute lines russell, you should trademark them.

Meanwhile, while we're all focused on the Kavanaugh fiasco, this is going on.

this is going on.

Cute lines russell, you should trademark them.

Ha! Great comeback. Guess you showed me.

Your party is breaking the nation.

Looking at the anger, not only of Kavanaugh, but of Graham, all this takes on an appearance of, as jrudkis points out, history, with the younger generation looking to get rid of the older generation and the older generation not wanting to give up power.

there's an election coming up.

that explains the timing and the rush, why the GOP is so committed to K, why Graham threw his tantrum, why K was coached to act like an educated mini-Trump: it's all about stirring up the GOP base ahead of this election.

or, maybe not coached:

Ludington, an associate professor at North Carolina State University, provided a copy of the statement to The Post.

In it, Ludington says in one instance, Kavanaugh initiated a fight that led to the arrest of a mutual friend: “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/thoroughly-decent-honorable-person

the best people. the best.

When someone has made an accusation of assault which pretty well every Republican Senator on the committee characterised as 'credible' (while simultaneously saying it was utterly incredible that the assailant could have been Kavanaugh, owing to his equally 'convincing' testimony), questions about his drinking habits are neither impertinent nor irrelevant.

And it goes to the credibility or otherwise of the second assault allegation. So not just 17... and yes we really ought to know whether he was merely a social as opposed to problem drinker.

And also whether he is a reflexive liar.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/chad-ludington-says-kavanaugh-mischaracterized-drinking-habits-to-lawmakers.html

The witch hunt defence is not exclusive to Republican politicians.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/01/jean-claude-arnault-centre-nobel-scandal-jailed-rape

I love the Ludington prosecution. He was insulted, so instead of defusing the situation he threw his beer in the person's face.

Let's see. He was insulted and drunk, which he never denied, but certainly wasnt blacked out. And the guys friend ended up in jail.

And no, we dont really need to know how much he drank in college, or high school, or now, as there is no Indictation he cant do his job.

I hope I confirmed how pompous and dismissive they read, bumper sticker slogans.

Which I realize is the intent, just letting you know it's working. It used to be after you made what could be a good point. Nows it seems like more of a tic.

How much he drank is relevant only to the extent that, if he drank to the point that he could no longer remember things, his denial of the attack, at least the way he insisted on making it, becomes less credible. It's not like he said "I don't remember anything like that." What he said was "It never happened."

And by all accounts, he did indeed drink to that kind of excess.

there is no Indictation he cant do his job.

I'd say that his denouncing the whole proceeding as an attack by "liberals and Democrats" demonstrates that he will be unable to do his job whenever a case involves a member of either group.

By all accounts? Not even close to all accounts. In fact, a couple of people versus the hundred or so who have offered support.

In fact, even this guy doesn't say he blacked out. By all accounts?

Marty, I assumed that you were suggesting he was ambushed which is why he showed so much anger. But now, it sounds like you think he knew the questions that were coming and behaved that way? Not really a great recommendation for judicial temperament. But maybe he was just mad at the way he was prepared.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6198665/Im-not-going-answer-Kavanaugh-REFUSES-answer-questions-private-life-prep.html

Also, unlike you, I think the Comey remarks are on point.
FBI investigators "know that little lies point to bigger lies," Comey wrote. "They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper."

I assume that Comey is also signalling to FBI agents that they should not bow to political pressure and investigate as they would for anyone else seeking this kind of position or security clearance. Maybe he's doing it because of the way Trump treated him. Karma is a bitch.

Unlike Russell and wj, I think the frat boy antics are an issue because he basically tried to deny them. Especially as testimony like Ludington's comes out. Sorry if this sounds like a bumper sticker, but If you want to hire folks like that with your tax cuts, go for it.

For light relief, more mucking out of the republican stables and milking barns:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/

lj: Unlike Russell and wj, I think the frat boy antics are an issue because he basically tried to deny them.

Actually, I was trying to say exactly that.

Ahh, sorry about that. I misread that.

No worries. Probably me expressing myself poorly.

And no, we dont really need to know how much he drank in college, or high school,

since he's chosen to lie about it, building up more evidence that he's lying is a good way to show to more and more people that he's a liar.

he probably could have avoided all this if he'd chosen not to lie about all kinds of secondary matters. but he chose to lie, and now people are pointing out that he lied.

that's what happens to liars when they lie.

I hope I confirmed how pompous and dismissive they read, bumper sticker slogans.

You don't like my tone?

Maybe address the substance.

Trump lost the popular vote. (R)'s in the Senate represent a total of 44% of the population. Between them they want to ram a Federalist hard liner through a sham of a hearing to secure a majority of Federalist hard liners on the court.

Well, fuck that noise. How's that for a bumper sticker?

Want a real process? Release Kavanaugh's paper trail from his WH days and allow sufficient time for a review.

That won't happen, because the (R)'s know what's in there and they know it won't fly. Most likely they know it will demonstrate that Kavanaugh has been lying his ass off.

He's not a good candidate. Even among the fundamentalist Federalist crew, he's not good. And yet, he's the guy Trump picks, and he's the guy McConnell is going to drag the country through hell to have.

Your party sucks. They are destroying the United States as a functional self-governing Republic. If you don't like my tone, wait until you hear what I sound like when I'm not being polite.

who could have guessed that Devin Nunez' family uses undocumented workers on its dairy farm?

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/

GOP = Sucker Cult

wj: I'd say that his denouncing the whole proceeding as an attack by "liberals and Democrats" demonstrates that he will be unable to do his job whenever a case involves a member of either group.

What job do you think Marty believes He, Trump and Mitch McConnell are hiring Kavanaugh to actually do?

--TP

russell :

No one seems to have followed the link, but if you read the piece at the link in my only other comment in this thread, you'll find what I think is one of the clearest and most eloquent expressions of "your party broke the country" I've seen anywhere.

a couple of people

A cursory search gives that the lie - and I don't have FBI resources:

Lynne Brookes
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/kavanaugh-lied-fox-news-interview-drank-excess-frequently/

Liz Swisher
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-yale-classmate-described-sloppy-drinking-2018-9

Lavan, Roche, Winter
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1046054371543445504

Elizabeth Rasor
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-witnesses.html

versus the hundred or so who have offered support

Some of who are discovering they didn't know Brett at all.

Joel, I bookmarked your link when you posted it, but then let it slip amidst my copious jabberwocky.

Excellent commentary.

Thanks.

No one seems to have followed the link

I read it, and agree with your thoughts about it.

Folks should read it.

Some of who are discovering they didn't know Brett at all.

And/or, are withdrawing their support.

After, for instance, discovering that they had been slut-shamed by Kavanaugh and his pals. Or that they had been named as the "real rapist" by Kavanaugh pal Ed Whelan.

This is a mess, all right, but the fault for that doesn't all go to the (D)'s.

Apologies, russell - that ought to have read 'whom'.

Joel, I too read your link last night, and thought it was good. So many links, so many time to comment on them -- or, on mornings like this, to even read them.

*****

And, of course, Merrick Garland. If McConnell thought there would be no payback for that, he's an idiot.

I suspect his calculation was that if he could just get the court packed in time, the payback would be just more entertainment. Suck on this, libs.

"let it slip amidst my copious jabberwocky"

Seems like there's a lot of that going around. Especially since Sen. Graham did his "mome raths outgrabe" routine in the K hearing.

I read joel's link last night, too. I didn't comment on it. I just nodded to myself.

Except one of the four you listed doesn't even dispute Kavanaughs assertion that yes sometimes he drank too much.

Personally, and as far as I have read she hasn't said it, Mark Judges girlfriend provides the most possible evidence that would impact my thought. But her lawyer didn't say that Kavanaugh did anything. Seems an interesting detail to leave out.

Comey, quoted above: FBI investigators "know that little lies point to bigger lies," Comey wrote. "They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper."

I've characterized the tapestry of lies as typical of adolescents skilled in throwing smoke into their parents eyes. But the more important point is that he's clearly a practiced liar, still.

IOW, the lies come so trippingly off his tongue...

This isn't the most analytical comment on this mess, but the more time that goes by, the nuttier Kavanaugh's testimony seems. In the moment, I don't think I was really appreciating what I was hearing and what it meant within its context.

I know some people (or at least, here, one person) will say it was only because the Democrats were being terribly unfair in their questioning. While I won't deny political grandstanding on their part (not that it was just on their part - not by a long shot), I don't really see, given what they were there to discuss, that Kavanaugh couldn't have defended himself far, far better as a potential SCOTUS justice - both in terms of words and demeanor.

I haven't gone on youtube or anything to see what people might have put together in terms of what I'll call "highlight reels." But I can imagine that people have put some stunning videos together, given the source material they had to work with. It was a bizarre day.

WaPo on Mark Judge's girlfriend:

Rasor recalled that Judge had told her ashamedly of an incident that involved him and other boys taking turns having sex with a drunk woman. Rasor said that Judge seemed to regard it as fully consensual. She said that Judge did not name others involved in the incident, and she has no knowledge that Kavanaugh participated in it.

russell posted a link that I'll repost for people's convenience.

I'm sorry, but we keep hearing that some of the people who support Trump are good people, but people who aren't opposing Trump are letting this go on, and I don't see how this can be squared with "good people". Same as how I don't see how Kavanaugh's lying can square with being a decent judge, much less Supreme Court Justice. I don't understand how limiting an investigation to exclude people who are on the record (in some cases, sworn) as having information on the fitness of Kavanaugh is a fair investigation.

Decent people should not stand for any of this. It's ugly, wrong, and ruining our country. And, yes, the link that joel hanes provided is right on.

I don't see how Kavanaugh's lying can square with being a decent judge, much less Supreme Court Justice

no, me either.

unless i use a meaning of "decent" that's more like "a screaming paranoid Fox News Republican™"

then it makes perfect sense.

hsh, He was aggressive in his opening remarks, probably necessarily so to have any hope of being heard. But the questioning from the Dems was a prosecution that required him to be his own defense lawyer.

It is unfair to treat him like a criminal and then criticize him because he didn't act like a judge. He did have to choose his words, use ones that were best for his defense, carefully not admit to any did you stop beating your wife questions.

So no, he didn't look particularly judge like in that setting. But it is a very unfair bar.

I think its pretty straight forward from a simple confirmation perspective.

1. Some people (Democrats, not Republicans) believe that sexual assault at 17 is at least potentially disqualifying for Supreme Court confirmation.

2. His drinking is relevant to investigation of the sexual assault because it speaks to whether he can actually deny having done something that may have occurred when he was in a blackout drunk state.

3. Literally anything he says in his defense is relevant to the investigation because if its a self serving lie that speaks to the overall credibility of his testimony. AND it is relevant because some people (Democrats, not Republicans) believe that someone who offers self serving lies under oath in their own defense, even against a false charge, shouldn't be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

4. His overall demeanor in responding to these accusations is relevant to whether he has the temperament to handle a difficult and politically and emotionally sensitive job.

5. In his defense he has minimized his drinking and claimed that he remained a virgin until after college. He has also offered a TON of specific claims and assertions about his life in his teens.

6. Evidence and testimony suggest that a huge percentage of these were egregious lies. He apparently had a reputation for drinking to unreasonable excess, doing things when drunk that he wouldn't do when sober, bragging about his sexual conquests, and so forth. Further a lot of his claims about his life in general appear extremely dubious or downright willfully misleading.

7. Also he evidenced a character beneath that of what I expect from a federal judge. There's a wealth of material here but petulantly trying to reverse reasonable and relevant questions on the senators asking them was just pathetic coming from someone who is supposedly professional capable of... managing trials where people cross examine those accused of, and those accusing others of, rape and sexual assault.

8. He shouldn't be confirmed because his willingness to offer self serving lies in his own defense makes his denials less credible, and so on balance we should believe his accuser.

9. He shouldn't be confirmed because his willingness to offer self serving lies in his own defense while under oath is conduct unbefitting a judge or justice.

10. He shouldn't be confirmed because his behavior during his testimony showed that his overall character is not up to the level of what we should expect from a judge or justice.

"It is unfair to treat him like a criminal and then criticize him because he didn't act like a judge."

Yeah, that orange jumpsuit really wasn't his best color, was it? And the leg shackles was a but much, but rules are rules, amirite?

And the questioning was SO unfair! How was he supposed to answer when asked if he has stopped raping underage girls?1??

There is no testimony that he lied once, there is no evidence that he lied.

People say he drank to excess, he said he drank too much sometimes, But he didn't black out.

There aren't ten points worth to make out of the fact he said what they did.

Treating your prosecution as it deserves is not disqualifying.

You don't want him to be confirmed, got it.

There is no testimony that he lied once,

he lied about the meanings of "Devil's Triangle", "boofing" and "ralph".

he lied about "Renate Alumnius".

he lied about his teenage and college drinking.

he lied when he said that four of the people named as being present said the event never happened. K is the only one who said that. everyone else says they don't remember.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UwaX4-0YYQw/W7IDBOIwvCI/AAAAAAAAGaM/NMzIm7zDDtw_XpYiFVQHyOhz12Aj8saKgCLcBGAs/s1600/Capture.JPG

We keep calling the hearings a job interview.

Maybe instead it was an audition for the lead in "The Days of Wine and Roses" or a Eugene O'Neill play.

Maybe the Broadway revival of "Animal House"

If in fact it was a job interview, then all of those "Top Ten Things You Shouldn't Day In A Job Interview" advisories should be revised.

Cry, stomp you feet, grab the pant leg of one of your interlocutors and snivel that you deserve the fucking job .... you when one of the panel asks where you see yourself in five years, scowl at her and hit back: "Making your life miserable and fucking up your company, missy. How bout you?"

Conservative America: so full of pigshit it has nowhere to go but to drain into the oceans.

Arguing with Marty is a waste of pixels. I want to hear from McKinneyTexas on the subject of "treating your prosecution as it deserves".

--TP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ac58705f43e2

"shouldn't SAY in a job interview"

I always ended my job interviews by looking around and asking innocently "Say, when does happy hour start around here?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-xgd_eETE

Inspiring.

Reasons why Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court:

1) Trump should not be allowed to appoint a Justice who will protect him from answering for his (alleged) crimes. Kavanaugh is exactly that Justice - a toadying partisan with, when a Republican is President, an extreme view of executive immunity.

2) The Supreme Court should not become any more partisan than it already is. The US polity needs a moderate judge to replace Kennedy.

3) Kavanaugh is a bad judge. Just one example: he claims to be a textualist, but in the horrible opinion he joined in Saleh v Titan, he ignored the text of the law and the text of the Supreme Court opinion cited. Because his favoured politicians might have been embarrassed by an honest ruling.

4) Kavanaugh lied in his testimony to the Senate (see Cleek above).

5) Kavanaugh has admitted, without showing any remorse, to habitual illegal drinking in his teens. A few youthful indiscretions should not be disqualifying, but habitual disregard for the law, and a continuing sense of entitlement about it should be.

6) Kavanaugh's threatening rant against the Democratic party disqualifies him from hearing any case affecting it.

7) Merrick Garland, give him the seat.

'Dismissive', Marty ?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/will-white-suburban-women-vote-republican-november/571720/
On Thursday, during a break in Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, a woman called out to Senator Lindsey Graham that she had been raped in the past. “I’m so sorry,” Graham responded as he ducked into an elevator. “You needed to tell the cops.”

2) The Supreme Court should not become any more partisan than it already is. The US polity needs a moderate judge to replace Kennedy.

This.

Thank you.

more than half of polled Republicans don't care if the allegations are true.

so, facts aren't going to convince them. they just want their bully boy on the court.

the party of family values, donchaknow

I think it’s very unfair to bring up things like this,” [Clickbait] said of questions about Kavanaugh's drinking in high school and college.

I think it's very unfair to ignore Merrick Garland for a year and then give the seat to someone else.

I think it's very unfair, abominable even, for the Sainted John to say that he would never vote to seat a Hillary nominee even if she were president for eight years.

What goes around comes around.

unless i use a meaning of "decent" that's more like "a screaming paranoid Fox News Republican™"

longer everything i've been saying about this : http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/poll-opposition-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-grows-after-christine-blasey-ford-hearing.html

If Kavanaugh’s goal was to broaden support for his nomination among the general public — and/or, ease the concerns of ambivalent Senate moderates — then his performance made little sense. By portraying himself as an enemy of the “Clintons” and “the left,” Kavanaugh gave institutionalists arationale for rejecting his nomination that didn’t even depend on the credibility of Ford’s claims. And yet, this tactic also gave the Republican base more cause for insisting on his confirmation, as opposed to that of a conservative judge like him. After Kavanaugh’s searing testimony, replacing him with Amy Coney Barrett wouldn’t be a mere inconvenience, but an act of capitulation to Hillary Clinton’s goons.

the GOP is a cult

I read joel's link last night, too. I didn't comment on it. I just nodded to myself.

Me too.

What Patrick said at 11.58 a.m and Pro Bono at 12.46 p.m.

hsh: the more time that goes by, the nuttier Kavanaugh's testimony seems. In the moment, I don't think I was really appreciating what I was hearing and what it meant within its context.

I know some people (or at least, here, one person) will say it was only because the Democrats were being terribly unfair in their questioning. While I2 won't deny political grandstanding on their part (not that it was just on their part - not by a long shot), I don't really see, given what they were there to discuss, that Kavanaugh couldn't have defended himself far, far better as a potential SCOTUS justice - both in terms of words and demeanor.

I completely agree with this. I watched the whole bloody thing, and still much of Kavanaugh's behaviour passed fast enough that it barely left enough of a proper impression on my mind. That's why bobbyp's Current Affairs piece was so excellent: it went into the kind exact, forensic detail that enabled one to remember properly, and say to oneself "Wow, that's actually what he said. Jesus Christ."

I, not 12

before he decided it was better to be a mini-Trumpfor the rubes, K actually said this:

To be a good judge and a good umpire, it’s important to have the proper demeanor. Really important, I think. To walk in the others’ shoes, whether it be the other litigants, the litigants in the case, the other judges. To understand them. To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm. On the bench, to put it in the vernacular, don’t be a jerk. I think that’s important. To be a good umpire and a good judge, don’t be a jerk. In your opinions, to demonstrate civility. I think that’s important as well. To show, to help display, that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately based on the law and not based on your emotions. That we’re not the bigger than the game….There’s a danger of arrogance, as for umpires and referees, but also for judges. And I would say that danger grows the more time you’re on the bench. As one of my colleagues puts it, you become more like yourself—and that can be a problem.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/kavanaugh-in-2015-a-judge-must-keep-emotions-in-check-and-not-be-a-political-partisan/

you become more like yourself—and that can be a problem.

Words to live by.

From a BJ commenter:

In all the talk about “Kavanaugh was justified in flipping out because people were accusing him of awful things!” talk from the Republicans, has anyone pointed out that nobody has accused Kavanaugh, with zero real evidence, of murdering a close friend and conspiring to make it look like a suicide. But Kavanaugh has done that to someone. So it must be OK by his lights.

IOKIYAR. Just like with Merrick Garland.

Daniel Larison:

Almost twenty years ago, the House impeached then-President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice. Republican members emphasized again and again the importance of upholding the rule of law, and they insisted that no one, not even the president, should be above the law. Whatever their reasons for taking that position then, they were correct. Now Kavanaugh has committed the same crime of perjury, and the very least that the Senate can do is refuse to reward him for that crime by giving him a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. If the Senate truly valued the rule of law, Kavanaugh’s nomination would never have made it out of committee. Unless it wants to make a mockery of both the Court and the rule of law, the Senate now has to defeat Kavanaugh’s nomination.

IOKIYAR.

In all the back and forth here with Marty, he has repeatedly claimed Kravenaugh is a capable and serious jurist.

He is not.

Myself and several others have cited some of his terrible decisions on this board. Nobody here has deigned to defend them.

They'd rather argue about blackouts.

From the Washington Post, a headline: "The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too."

Just like Marty.

IOKIYAR.

Interesting poll:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2574

The ‘smear campaign’ line is clearly getting through, which is mildly disquieting.

Interesting.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem's efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.

Ethics complaints have been filed against Kavanaugh in the DC Circuit, including at least one claiming he lied about the sexual assault allegations against him. Ethics experts say there's no precedent for what happens to those complaints if he's elevated to the Supreme Court. For now, they're under the purview of the DC Circuit chief judge — former Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/brett-kavanaugh-democrats-ethics-question-supreme-court

Who is going to volunteer to hold bc back?

Nigel at 637 is pretty damning if true.

lj, what is your 06.49 above linking to? It just seems to go to the beginning of this thread - or have I missed something?

Posted by: bc | September 29, 2018 at 09:17 PM

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2018/09/kavanaugh-where-we-are-now/comments/page/1/#comments

anger is easy, comedy is hard...

He can't help himself. He just lies.

Trump, like some giant, poorly inflated orange blimp, seems to be attempting to float above the fray:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/trump-kavanaugh-drinking-habits-854866
Trump on Kavanaugh: 'I was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer'

I see this as a teaching moment (although some people will never learn).

We've been seeing Kavanaugh promote lies, conspiracy theories, etc., then be elevated (after much protest) to a lifetime position to a very prestigious and powerful federal court. Now he may or may not be promoted to our country's most powerful arbiter of justice.

He's a blatant liar, and most certainly has a history of sexual misconduct, including attempted rape.

[His judicial philosophy is cruel and destructive, but we seem to be stuck with that, since that's who Republicans are.]

I hope his nomination is derailed, of course. But the next best thing (which is not a good thing) is that we all know what we have here, and who here supports what we have here. This latest lie, and the various coverups are just icing on the cake. People who see this happening are complicit if they're not fighting it.

Nice guy, with great judicial temperament!

When you've lost Forbes???

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-the-senate-judiciary-committee-clarifies-the-key-issue/#2835643b89e4

Well, he also lost John Oliver, so anything else is downhill.

nbcnews online has an article entitled, "Fact check: What [Clickbait] got wrong about Brett Kavanaugh," that ends thusly:

Still, [Clickbait] did get one thing right — about his own drinking habits.

“I'm not a drinker. I can honestly say I never had a beer in my life, OK. It's one of my only good traits. I don't drink,” Trump said. “Can you imagine if I had, what a mess I'd be? I would be the world's worst.”

Indeed, there is no evidence that the president has ever indulged in a drink.

It brought back to mind this exchange between Sen. Whitehouse and Kavanaugh from the hearing.

K: Drinking game.
W: How's it played?
K: Three glasses, in a triangle.
W: And...?
K: You ever play quarters?
W: No.
K: Okay, it's a quarters game.

The clip at the link is less than half a minute long...and conveys the tone, of course, in a way the written version can't.

These tidbits, along with the exchange between BK and Klobuchar about blackouts, make an interesting set in terms of the gulf between someone who takes drinking, and drinking games, for granted and other people (perhaps surprisingly to the person in the drinking bubble) who don't. It's interesting which side of this divide the guy in the WH is on. This may be the first time I've ever agreed with him about anything. ("It's one of my only good traits.")

"It's a quarters game" -- as if it goes without saying that everyone knows what *that* is, even if some of us haven't played it.

lj: anger is easy, comedy is hard...

Huh?

There’s an old joke where a famous actor is on his deathbed and his disciple/understudy says, in hushed tones, ‘is dying…difficult?” The actor, (imagine Shakespearian, with incredible gravitas) intones

‘Dying is easy…comedy is hard!’

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/hes-not-man-hes-remorseless-perjury-machine

"It's a quarters game" -- as if it goes without saying that everyone knows what *that* is, even if some of us haven't played it.

I didn't hear that exchange, only read it. The way it came off the page to me was basically:

Feel Whitehouse out to see what he knows about drinking games. Which, apparently, ain't much.

Discovers Whitehouse doesn't know about quarters.

Decides to go with "it's a quarters game", because Whitehouse doesn't know enough to tell if it's BS or not.

Of course, that could all be my vivid imagination. I was just glad he didn't go with "There's these three cups, see, and a little ball... wait, I'll show you - see if you can follow which cup the ball is under...".

From what I know of teenage frat bros, Kavanaugh and his pals were most likely to experience a "Devils Triangle" in the pages of the Penthouse Forum.

But what do I know.

IANAL or even particularly knowledgeable about the courts, but I hope Kavanaugh is not typical of the talent in our Circuit appellate courts.

This is what a "highly qualified" jurist looks like?

Folks, you have to dig deep and directly confront the diabolical nature of the conservative vision. It is everything good people should abhor. It is a conscious and well funded desire (plan?) to return this country to the 1890's. It needs to be resolutely opposed.

Huh?

You can't, as the saying goes, be serious.

Not that we need another goddamned thing to hate these people for.

I wish I believed in hell so I could hope they all burn.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Blog powered by Typepad