Kavanaugh and debts

by liberal japonicus

This seems interesting

Sheldon Whitehouse Asks Brett Kavanaugh If He Has A Gambling Problem

I usually don't post breaking stuff (I think this is) but Whitehouse was a US attorney and a State Attorney General and the last political thread is quite full. Interesting times...

Comments

[sapient]

Good. Although I would love to know what's in the 90% of the documents related to Kavanaugh's government service, this is also interesting.

Maybe some aspect of karma will provide for someone to dig for the most salacious and embarrassing tidbits from Kavanaugh's life, and highlight them on the front page in as much detail, and for as long, and as loudly, as possible. Not that anything will derail his nomination.

[russell]

In 2016, Kavanaugh reported credit card and personal loan debts of between $60,000 and $200,000. The Trump White House said these debts were the result of Kavanaugh buying baseball tickets for friends who later paid him back

um, what?!?

that's a lotta baseball tickets.

[russell]

Marcy Wheeler on Kavanaugh's money issues.

[wj]

But if he didn't have money issues, where would be the leverage to make sure he votes the "right" way? Trump would definitely want that insurance.

[Girl from the North Country]

Hmm. Very fishy indeed - or maybe that's wishful thinking. But it could be another example of the Trumpistas' incompetence if they've nominated a SCOTUS justice with gambling/debt problems. Here's hoping...

[CharlesWT]

The Carolinas and Virginia have invoked their anti-price gouging laws. So don't look for many people to be in a big hurry to bring in needed supplies and services in the aftermath of the storm.

[CharlesWT]

Hmmm...I should have posted that on the other thread.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

The Trump White House said these debts were the result of Kavanaugh buying baseball tickets for friends who later paid him back

Friends like "Vladimir", frex.

Really, why stop with KOMPROMAT on a Preznit who will likely be out of office/dead in 6 years, when a small investment can pay dividends for DECADES?1??

[Nigel]

No guesses which way Collins might be thinking of voting... and a splendid example of hypocrisy:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/susan-collins-complains-of-bribery-after-nonbillionaires-try-to-influence-her-kavanaugh-vote.html

[wj]

Two choices:
1) Some kind of public funding of campaigning. With attendant challenges deciding who is a serious candidate vs who merely wants a publicly-funded bullhorn.
2) Constant struggles to find the line between campaign contributions and flat out bribes.

At tne moment, we seem mostly on #2, albeit with carefully drawn rules to keep the identity of the "donors" obscured from public view -- it's not like the recipients are in any doubt....

[Girl from the North Country]

Kavanaugh, but not his debts:

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/12/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-dianne-feinstein/

Different sources provided different accounts of the contents of the letter, and some of the sources said they themselves had heard different versions, but the one consistent theme was that it describes an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school. Kept hidden, the letter is beginning to take on a life of its own.

A strange and interesting piece. Hard to know if there's anything to it, and how any evidence could be found of any wrongdoing so long after the fact. However, if enough bad stuff starts coming out about Kavanaugh, I suppose it's possible he could step back.

[sapient]

Although Ugh posted the Serwer piece, it's obviously relevant to the Kavanaugh confirmation, which is (loosely) the subject of this thread.

I would invite bc to discuss the aspect of the Serwer article either on that thread, or over here, that said this:

Like the Supreme Court of that era, the conservatives on the Court today are opposed to discrimination in principle, and indifferent to it in practice. Chief Justice John Roberts’s June 2018 ruling to uphold President Donald Trump’s travel ban targeting a list of majority-Muslim countries, despite the voluminous evidence that it had been conceived in animus, showed that the muddled doctrines of the post-Reconstruction period retain a stubborn appeal.

Again, apologies for my contribution to the confusion, but the question that I have is, how do you explain this, bc?

[wj]

Well, the current social climate being what it is, nobody (outside self-selected scum that know they are on the margins of society) is going to stand up and say that they favor discrimination. Whatever their actual personal preferences. So you have to look at what they do, rather than at what they say.

[Nigel]

More evidence that Kavanaugh has a politician’s, rather than a justice’s, relationship with the truth:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/12/kavanaugh-emails-controversial-nomination-817798

And the argument for his outright perjury strengthens:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html

[Nigel]

Not directly related to Kavanaugh, but it does cover systems of justice going badly awry for very similar reasons....

This is a brilliant and, I think, very important article by Anne Applebaum on the polarisation of Europe:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/poland-polarization/568324/

[Nigel]

There is much in the article which merits quoting, but I though this a notable statement from a self-professsd conservative, who is also an American...

But we should not have been surprised—I should not have been surprised—when the principles of meritocracy and competition were challenged. Democracy and free markets can produce unsatisfying outcomes, after all, especially when badly regulated, or when nobody trusts the regulators, or when people are entering the contest from very different starting points. Sooner or later, the losers of the competition were always going to challenge the value of the competition itself.

More to the point, the principles of competition, even when they encourage talent and create upward mobility, don’t necessarily answer deeper questions about national identity, or satisfy the human desire to belong to a moral community. The authoritarian state, or even the semi-authoritarian state—the one-party state, the illiberal state—offers that promise: that the nation will be ruled by the best people, the deserving people, the members of the party, the believers in the Medium-Size Lie. It may be that democracy has to be bent or business corrupted or court systems wrecked in order to achieve that state. But if you believe that you are one of those deserving people, you will do it....

[wj]

The authoritarian state, or even the semi-authoritarian state—the one-party state, the illiberal state—offers that promise: that the nation will be ruled by the best people, the deserving people, the members of the party, the believers in the Medium-Size Lie. [emphasis added]

And the ideal form of government, it has been said, is a benevolent dictatorship.

If you believe that the best people will wind up ruling, you best have a plausible scheme for how you will identity and recruit them. Somehow, nobody has ever come up with a convincing one. Instead, they somwhow always propose something that will put themselves in charge. Odd that.

[Countme-In]

Someone, on another thread, perhaps Russell, stated fairly, as is Russell's manner, that he couldn't really tell if mp was truly as bad as reported:

https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/a-former-trump-executive-asks-right.html

I'd counter that indeed he has been a bully, a dick, a jagoff, and a corrupt asshole right out of the birth canal. His sons, and others whom he controls around him, emulate this behavior and indeed find it a bracing way of controlling their environment to their advantage.

This sort of behavior, left unchecked throughout a a lifetime and I'm old enough to have encountered it too many times, reaches critical mass and I'm pretty much alone in this conclusion, can only be countered, if walking away is not a viable option, by physically assaulting the mofo who behaves this way, and hurting them, preferably in and around their haughty faces.

No one kicked mp's ass physically when it would have had a humanizing result, though I'll wager his father treated him like a lickspittle to show mp the younger how business is done in price gouging fuck you America.

It's too late.

Now he has Secret Services around him to certify his behavior.

He's emboldened the rest of the shits in the Republican Party and win or lose this November, their behavior will not be chastened or modified but yet again be ratcheted up to some fresh fucking Hell for the country.

Expect gun sales to soar again with the attendant price gouging for ammo and accessories and even more explicit threats of violence from the usual suspects against their list of enemies.

You can see the mp effect in Kavanaugh's arrogant boyish thug mug, because again, no one has unleashed righteous physical fury on that little snipe, whom ideological certainty as transformed into a political Iago, now holding Court over the rest of us.

You know what? Fuck the Courts.

[russell]

Someone, on another thread, perhaps Russell

Nope. I think it was Charles, asserting the likelihood of "Trump is a jerk" false positives.

IMO appearances do not deceive.

[cleek]

If you believe that the best people will wind up ruling, you best have a plausible scheme for how you will identity and recruit them. Somehow, nobody has ever come up with a convincing one.

obviously, once you find a benevolent dictator, it will be deemed that his direct descendants are the only people fit to truly rule.

neat. simple. easy to understand. foolproof.

[wj]

I think it was Charles, asserting the likelihood of "Trump is a jerk" false positives.

IMO appearances do not deceive.

I think it's fair to say that there are probably some false positives. Maybe even 1% -- which, given how frequently he acts like a jerk, could still be a moderately large number. Even though appearances do not deceive.

[Marty]

Just my two cents, I have several friends 4 or 5 who do exactly what Kavanaugh describes with the tickets. Teo of them have bought multiple years. Two of them arent very highly paid but the float on their card let's them collect the money in time to pay it off. Just to say, it is a pretty reasonable explanation.

[Lurker]

Marty,

Your point about the tickets is interesting. However, the increase in the man's personal wealth seems extraordinary when compared with his income. Either he has been engaged in some really lucrative sidelines in ticket-selling or he has a second, well-paying job. Or perhaps wealthy friends who think that buying highly priced baseball tickets from federal judges is a good investment. :-)

[Marty]

I havent seen anything to indicate a significant increase in his personal wealth. In fact I read an article last weekend that indicated he is worth less than a million dollars. Counting my house on worth almost ss much as possible is, and I haven't sold any high priced tickets. But I would, without hesitation.

[Marty]

Ok I hate my phone, I'm worth almost as much as he is, but really, thinking about it, half as much.

[Tony P.]

Any man who claims to be a sober, conscientious, impartial judge and is nevertheless capable of saying to and about He, Trump ...

No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about Supreme Court nomination

... is either a shameless liar or an intemperate bullshitter.

Persons who believe Kavanaugh is neither of those need to explain that statement away before we need to worry about whether he's also a crook.

--TP

[wj]

either a shameless liar or an intemperate bullshitter.

You left out dedicated brown-noser. This is likeli Kavanaugh's only chance to take his partisanship to the Supreme Court. And to get there, he has to keep Trump sweet until the confirmation vote, lest Trump pull the nomination.

[russell]

Starr Report.
Vince Foster.
Florida recount 2000.
White House Staff Secretary for W, during the time when decisions were taken to invade Iraq and institute a formal torture regime.

I don't really care about baseball tickets.

[liberal japonicus]

GftNC posted a note about this, apparently it also is continuing

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/13/brett-kavanaugh-letter-dianne-feinstein-anna-eshoo-fbi/

[byomtov]

Color me dubious about the sexual misconduct business. It does have the feel of straw-grasping. Maybe it's not, but if it's weak there will be backlash that will wipe all of Kavanaugh's other faults away.

I'm still curious about the sudden infusions of cash into his accounts, and that $100K country club membership, and I also think th elying business is real and should be taken seriously.

[sapient]

Color me dubious about the sexual misconduct business. It does have the feel of straw-grasping.

I worry about this too, but I'll remain agnostic. There's plenty of there there in other places, e.g., what russell said.

[Girl from the North Country]

Yes, I agree with you both, and I don't want to get my hopes up. He seems like a pretty unpleasant piece of work, but I fear they'll get away with it. What a colossal drag: quite possibly it will end up being the worst legacy of the trump presidency.

[sapient]

He seems like a pretty unpleasant piece of work, but I fear they'll get away with it.

Pretty much a foregone conclusion, but at least people are trying.

I'm proud of the Judiciary Committee Dems though. They stepped up. I'm in favor of every initiative, every lawsuit, every scandal-monger, every possible true [I do draw the line there] thing to bring these people down. Every possible thing except for lying and fraud, although excluding those things puts us at a distinct practical disadvantage.

[liberal japonicus]

Marty, have a question, and I'm not trying to catch you out here, but since you have friends floating tickets, how does it work? I know that virtually anything can be subject to arbitrage, and Nats tickets are a commodity. But how does Kavanaugh buy tickets on a credit card and then get his friends to pay him back _and_ cover the interest? If he's marking them up, it seems like this is a business model and he's got to pay taxes and if he's buying for rich friends, I don't know how you reach a point where you say 'hey, let me spend my money for you, and you can pay me back so I don't lose any money' (my naiveté probably explains why I'm a teacher and not a businessman) But I'm in the dark about how this would work interpersonally, so since you have friends who do it, maybe you could explain? thx

[jrudkis]

Dubious.

It depends on what it is, though. Since it was from high school, he could have been underage, and a conviction sealed/expunged. If he failed to declare it on security forms, it could be an offense now (the government doesn't play 'sealed/expunged' on clearances). I can't see any other reason to send to federal cops now.

I think anything short of a conviction coming from high school would be unlikely to derail anything.

[sapient]

He seems like a pretty unpleasant piece of work, but I fear they'll get away with it.

High school would have been in the '80's, and he went to a Catholic school (I think that's the story). No way would there have been a conviction for sexual assault unless he held someone at gunpoint.

[Marty]

lj, one guy almost always buys them, that usually gives him first pick of games up to a point. And the points. He usually gets two,three or four other people to take turns picking the games everyone wants and they pay him. He pays the bill. The actuhaul intretreat ohsnt a daunting cost.

In a few cases they all take a few games, in the case of Boston, Yankee games no one can go to,and sell them to the resellers. They do make a little on those.

I do have a friend that buys two seats each year and sells enough at a 25 -50% markup to cover his costs. I dont see Kavanaugh doing that.

My point I hid none of this is nefarious. It's a way for some buddies to get good seats and spread the cost around. Rich people dont need his tickets at a markup.

[liberal japonicus]

Thanks Marty, I've never had the money or time or have been in a place where I would have any experience in this, so I appreciate the explanation.

[sapient]

No way would there have been a conviction for sexual assault unless he held someone at gunpoint.

Actually, answering myself, it wouldn't have been that. There would, according to my recollection of law school, have to have been proof of resistance. Bruises, clawmarks and such.

[jrudkis]

have to have been proof of resistance.

Depends how old she was at the time.

[sapient]

Depends how old she was at the time. True. Not sure of the number of statutory rape prosecutions though when both kids were underaged. I remember none.

[jrudkis]

I represented a kid who was 13 and the girl was 12. He is a lifetime sex offender.

[Girl from the North Country]

If it's sexual assault or rape, I bet she never even went to the police, but is only reporting it now because of #metoo, and maybe politics. Which could explain why he wasn't too worried it might turn up. And if that's right, the only evidence would be contemporaneous discussion with friends. So it might end up like Roy Moore, lots of talk but no chance of being charged or anything. And if any of that's true, Trump would just say "but he denies it", and the Rs would probably go along with it in order to get the court they want. How depressing.

[sapient]

I represented a kid who was 13 and the girl was 12. He is a lifetime sex offender.

When did the crime happen? I was totally shocked, when I went to law school in the '80's that women had to almost kill themselves through a rape situation in order to prove the crime. That was then, and state law.

[sapient]

Statutory rape was different, but people snickered at that with regard to young people of the samish age (which I think was justified - who's going to prosecute a couple of 12 and 13 year olds? I guess people in your neck of the woods - truly creepy).

[jrudkis]

This was NJ. Really sad, two kids in a foster home, both from abusive homes. It was when I learned to hate prosecutorial discretion and mandatory sentencing. Once the prosecutor chose to charge him that way, the judge had no options on the sentence and especially the registration as a sex offender.

[sapient]

That's horrible, jrudkis. I don't know what to say except to rant. A 13-year-old? Jeez.

[CharlesWT]

which I think was justified - who's going to prosecute a couple of 12 and 13 year olds?

In some localities, they can get a pass on having sex, but both of them could go to jail if one of them is caught with a nude selfy that the other texed to them.

[sapient]

CharlesWT, that's completely horrible. Just so you know, my shock and horror has nothing to do with libertarianism or lack thereof.

[CharlesWT]

Just to show that minors being arrested for child pornography aren't isolated incidents. But my impression is that the moral panic surrounding sexting has peaked and there have been fewer cases of actual arrest and prosecution in the last year or so. Whatever happen to being grounded for a month?

Reason Topics: Sexting

[sapient]

I don't know why, CharlesWT, you want to be a spokesperson for Reason magazine.

I don't care all that much about sexting right now. Kids need to cut that shit out, and courts need to quit criminalizing kids' behavior.

[russell]

It's a way for some buddies to get good seats and spread the cost around.

This is still puzzling to me.

Other than the NY Yankees, season tickets for major league teams are $1K up to maybe $2.5K. Or so Google tells me.

At $60K - $200K, he's buying dozens of seats. Maybe a hundred.

Huh?!?

[hairshirthedonist]

If you buy tickets to individual games, rather than getting season tickets, you're going to pay more per game, maybe a lot more, depending on how hot the tickets are. But, if you're going to be spending that kind of money, it would be stupid not to just get a bunch of season tickets, unless they simply weren't available.

I don't know. You might be buying them via StubHub or such at heavily marked-up, high-demand market prices. And maybe he was getting really, really good seats or something. It's still a lot of money.

I'd have to do some research and math to decide how much it stinks, and I don't care enough to do that.

[Marty]

1 season ticket, 82 games, eighth row behind home plate is about 10k at Fenway. Face value. Get 4 tickets its 40k, everyone takes their games, 2 or 4 per game its 10k apiece. Lots of sports fans are willing to spend that. 60-80k for multiple seasons for some number of tickets isn't a stretch for 4 or 5 buddies of reasonable means.

Of all the things that one doesn't stink, except that it's even a thing.

[Marty]

81 games duh, plus first choice on playoff tickets.

[Hartmut]

In the days before sexting there was a case over here in Germany where a girl had sex with a slightly older boy while a pörn video was running. The boy got convicted for making the video available to the girl because she was of legal age for sex* but not watching pörn. Or, as a comedian put it: watching pörn NO, making pörn YES.

*plus the age difference small enough

[cleek]

oh look, more GOP Court shenanigans!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/rick-scott-plans-to-pack-the-florida-supreme-court-after-his-term-ends.html

you fools keep pushing and it's gonna break.

[russell]

I'm happy to defer to Marty on the topic of MLB season tickets. All I have to say is Kavanaugh lives in a different world than I do.

And, what cleek said at 9:09.

[Nigel]

How long might it take to get together a letter signed by 65 (!) of the woman's classmates saying that Kavanaugh was entirely beyond reproach ?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-high-school.html?

[Countme-In]

They won't stop pushing until the Republican Party is broken by savage nationwide violence.

[sapient]

How long might it take to get together a letter signed by 65 (!) of the woman's classmates saying that Kavanaugh was entirely beyond reproach ?

Since he went to an all-boys school, they weren't even actually classmates. Incredible work was done finding these people.

[Tony P.]

Here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker is running for re-election as governor. Baker is the sort of "reasonable Republican" that we often hear about. You would never guess that he IS a Republican from his campaign ads. He seems ashamed of the label.

And yet, poor Charlie can't help himself: he has endorsed the Republican Geoff Diehl, a MAGA Trumpist who is running against Senator Professor Warren for Senator. Baker is explicit as to why: party solidarity.

When I say that voting for ANY Republican, at ANY level, this November, is aiding and abetting He, Trump and his co-conspirators, I mean it.

--TP

[russell]

In other news, Manafort has made a deal. Apparently includes co-operation, Manafort forfeits something like $46M in ill-gotten gains. State charges are still outstanding, so the deal is basically pardon-proof.

The forfeits mean that Mueller's investigation has now paid for itself.

I would not want to play poker with Mueller.

[wj]

Wow, Russell, just wow.

It always seemed likely that Mueller would succeed in flipping Manafort. There were just too many non-Federal charges where Trump couldn't play the pardon card. But it's good to see it actually happening.

And I love the part about it paying for the whole investigation besides.

[Nigel]

LOL...

The president’s legal team put out an initial statement that said: “the President did nothing wrong and Paul Manafort will tell the truth.” Minutes later, they put out a new statement that said simply: “the President did nothing wrong.”

— Eamon Javers (@EamonJavers) September 14, 2018

[Nigel]

Any twitter response from the orange witch himself yet ?

[Girl from the North Country]

I did think twice about posting my 08.31 above, on the basis that it was so speculative as to be unfair. Weirdly, it no longer seems so unfair, or so speculative. The 65 women character witnesses, ready and lined up, does seem very odd, despite what one of them has said about only hearing about it the night before. I also think the other boy involved having "no recollection" of it is odd, surely anybody normal talking about an innocent occasion would be saying "It didn't happen"? However, my essential prediction of how it would play out still seems all too likely, alas.

[byomtov]

The 65 women character witnesses, ready and lined up, does seem very odd, despite what one of them has said about only hearing about it the night before.

Very odd. Surely the Republicans knew about this business a while ago, and were prepared.

Maybe one of them only heard about it the night before. (The night before what? And who signs a letter like that without giving it a bit of thought?)

Regardless, that doesn't mean they weren't ready to go with 50-60 signers, and tried to add a few at the last minute.

[Pro Bono]

65 women who knew him at High School? I'd be surprised if I could find 6 from other schools who knew me. What is this?

[Girl from the North Country]

65 women who knew him at High School? I'd be surprised if I could find 6 from other schools who knew me. What is this?

I completely agree. This sounds exactly as fishy as those two fit, youngish Russian men with sequentially numbered passports who claim they went to Salisbury because of its world-famous cathedral.

[sapient]

There's so much about this that stinks. But what's new?

[Marty]

I guess this may be why people say he is a decent fasmily man, because inevitably the last ditch effort is his personal character.

No one cared if he was a decent guy, remember?

[wj]

Sadly, "decent family man" has become a debased currency.

It may be entirely warranted with respect to Kavanaugh. But consider who else it has been said of, only to have evidence to the contrary surface. Consider the people saying it, and have drastically wrong they have been on occasion.

[Tony P.]

Marty,

I will never stop pointing out that Kavanaugh proved himself a liar, an ass-kisser, and a lying ass-kisser with the the second sentence he spoke, on TV, when accepting the nomination. I hope you understand that:
1) He is therefore NOT a "decent guy"; and
2) I at least do care about that and have said so repeatedly.
The people who actually do not care whether Kavanaugh is a "decent guy" are the Republicans who lust after a 5th vote to overturn Roe. That Kavanaugh will also protect He, Trump's traitorous ass from his perch on SCOTUS is gravy.

--TP

[Girl from the North Country]

I didn't (and don't) care if he's a decent family man. I do care if he held a girl down while he tried to rape her, and got his buddy to turn the music up so nobody outside the room would hear anything. I doubt there's any really good way of knowing for sure what happened, but if any evidence emerges that she spoke to anybody about it at the time, I hope (but have no confidence) his nomination fails. But whatever happens, I'm with Tony P: he's an arselicker, a partisan hack and a prurient, hypocritical creep.

[Marty]

"he's an arselicker, a partisan hack and a prurient, hypocritical creep."

There is literally zero evidence he is anything but an accomplished conservative jurist, conservative being the inflammatory word. The rest is the lefts echo chamber.

[JanieM]

From the article on the test alert, linked in the Count's link:

Users cannot opt out of the WEA test.

This may push me over the edge. The next thing you know my phone will be at the bottom of the sea.

Maybe before they use it to announce the list in the Count's 10:57, they'll test it on John Kerry.

[Tony P.]

Marty, here is the evidence again:

No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.

That's what Kavanaugh said. To He, Trump. About He, Trump. On national TV.

If you care to claim that this was NOT flattery, be my guest. I'd love it if you made such an ass of yourself on the world wide web.

Note that EVEN IF TRUE it was a bit of "arse-licking". You can thank your padrone WITHOUT indulging in flattery -- especially if you want to present yourself as "an accomplished conservative jurist" with the dignity befitting a judge.

But:
1) Do you think what Kavanaugh said is true?
2) Do you think Kavanaugh judiciously weighed some sort of evidence that it is true?
3) Do you think it's possible Kavanaugh said it without caring whether or not it's true?
4) How would YOU establish whether or not He, Trump "consulted more widely" and "talked with more people" about a nomination than any POTUS ever?
5) Even if you established it was true, would YOU say it to He, Trump on TV if you did not INTEND to display your fealty to Dear Leader?

--TP

[Nigel]

Another piece of evidence that Kavanaugh is less tha forthright under oath:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/kavanaugh-kozinski-gag-list-emails-senate-hearings.html

[liberal japonicus]

Marty's trope about being a decent family man really was a revelation to me. The people who have emphasized him being a decent family man (a lot more than him being a keen legal mind) have been those who want him voted in. Emphasizing that rather than any kind of legal intellect or insight means that if you complain about him, the reply is 'are you saying he's not decent?'.

While I think that decency has been (as has been highlighted by the current occupant of the White House) undervalued, it's pretty damn easy to be decent if you have a job that pays well and thus you aren't forced into situations where you have to make hard choices. The whole 'he's a decent family man' is simply a way of avoiding discussion about what kind of judge Kavanaugh would be.

[Marty]

Under all circumstances I would have answered the Kosinski question the same way. Its irrelevant and petty to ask it. I dont remember stops a stupid line of questioning.

As for the widest ranging search who knows, could be true, Kavanaugh is entitled to an opinion as he has actual experience vetting judges. But really, an innocuous and irrelevant statement singled out for no good reason other than it said something good about Trump.

[Marty]

lj, I didn't focus on it. I mentioned it. I was then informed it had nothing to do with whether he would be a good judge. I didn't even quibble much.

Then suddenly his personal character did matter. Because no one could come up with a valid objection based on his judicial credentials.

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, I wasn't implying you focussed on it, it was just you pointing it out and it struck me. I don't think it has anything to do with your argument as such, it is about how the rhetoric works.

[Nigel]

Under all circumstances I would have answered the Kosinski question the same way. Its irrelevant and petty to ask it.

So ‘petty’ questions justify a supreme court nominee lying under oath ?

And the question was far from irrelevant - Kavanaugh has always held up Kosinski as one of his greatest formative influences as a lawyer.

[Pro Bono]

Its irrelevant and petty to ask it

Have I got this wrong? I thought we were talking about the guy who spent years hounding Bill Clinton with irrelevant questions about who put what where.

I have two objections to Kavanaugh. One is the general one that it's wrong for the minority party to secure a long-term partisan majority on the Supreme Court. When Roberts becomes the swing vote, you no longer have a system which looks anything like democracy.

The second is that Kavanaugh is not just partisan, but a partisan hack rather than a principled jurist. I disagreed strongly with Scalia's principles, but at least he had a theory of constitutional law. Whereas with Kavanaugh it will always be partisan ruling first, reasons after.

The USA has a president utterly unsuited to the job, elected with the help of an unfriendly foreign power. Very likely the Supreme Court will be involved in dealing with the consequences: this is the worst possible time to appoint to it a judge whose first thought is to toady to that president.

[Marty]

To be clear Pro Bono If Hilary had gotten a few more electoral votes and was picking the Justice, it would be the minority party picking. She won a plurality of the popular vote by about 2 % but she still didn't get 50%.

The 7 million other voters may not have vopted for her just because SC justice. Which makes Kavsnaugh a majority pick.

The toady crap is just sour grapes, give it a rest.

[Marty]

lj, ok dokey. Thanks for explaining.

[cleek]

Then suddenly his personal character did matter.

which is against what "conservatives" believe these days.

https://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/498890836/poll-white-evangelicals-have-warmed-to-politicians-who-commit-immoral-acts

[Girl from the North Country]

Marty, I don't know whether you can believe this or not, but some of us make a real effort not to be too partisan, at least some of the time and on matters of principle. I am perfectly prepared to agree that there are conservative lawyers and judges of the highest principle, and although I don't know any American ones personally (but McKinney might be one) I have a very long acquaintance with several in other countries, for many of whom I have great respect although our political views differ.

Accusing Kavanaugh of being a toady is not sour grapes, he is condemned out of his own mouth. That he felt the need to say such things about Trump (a man whose manifest unfitness you yourself often accept) is a clear sign that he is a person unworthy of personal respect. Regarding whether he is a "decent family man", I have no idea what that expression even means, and like Pro Bono I can't imagine what relevance it would have whatever it means. But if this woman's accusation is true, it means that he is (or was) a sexual predator, and if that is true it is relevant for several reasons, among them the fact that he will be ruling on matters that affect women for decades. His prurience and hypocrisy, as evidenced in the Starr matter and subsequent arselicking of Trump, are minor (although very distasteful) matters, compared to this.

[Marty]

GFTNC, backwards maybe, the Starr matter was an independent counsel just like Mueller. He was tasked to take the broadest possible view of Clinton's malfeasance. You simply can't reasonably believe Mueller should be charging Manifort and criticize Kavanaugh. In essence, there was nothing more partisan in what he did than in what Mutellers doing.

If 40 years ago he took advantage of a girl as a drunken 16 year old we should condemn even the possibility. Given the complete lack of evidence that it has been a part of his life since then I dont believe it is disqualifying, if it happened that way. At some point an anonymous letter provided at the 11th hour has to be put in context.

As for as toady. Thats just ridiculous. He said Trump did a broad search and he ws pleased to be the candidate. OMG. Should he have started off the hearing saying Trump was an idiot for picking him,?

I cant think of a less pertinent point.

[Girl from the North Country]

You simply can't reasonably believe Mueller should be charging Manifort and criticize Kavanaugh. In essence, there was nothing more partisan in what he did than in what Mutellers doing.

Manafort has been charged with, and has admitted, breaking the law. The detail of what he has done, and what he has been investigated for, cannot in any way be compared to Kavanaugh's pursuit of what portion of Clinton was inserted, and how far, and how often, into Monica Lewinsky, none of which acts, as far as I know, was a crime (only, according to Kavanaugh "revolting behaviour" - you can't help wondering what Trump's self-admitted acts would qualify as if he still had a D after his name). The comparison, in my opinion, is absurd. And I believe you would see that if you could let go for a moment of the belief that my (our) objection to Kavanaugh is solely a partisan one. I don't deny that after the Merrick Garland fiasco in particular I would object to any Republican attempt to load the SCOTUS in their favour, but the choice of someone like Kavanaugh makes it a lot easier to criticise than if Trump's unprecedentedly wide recruitment had come up with a more "decent" candidate.

[russell]

There is literally zero evidence he is anything but an accomplished conservative jurist

Starr report
Vincent Foster
Florida recount
WH staff secretary under W

Not "just a jurist". Not "just a working attorney".

McK is a working attorney. Kavanaugh was a partisan activist. A panty-sniffing, exploit the corpse of a troubled suicidal man, partisan activist.

There actually are jurists that match your description of Kavanaugh. Some of them were even on Trump's short list.

Kavanaugh is not among them.

In essence, there was nothing more partisan in what he did than in what Mutellers doing.

Not even worth a response.

[Tony P.]

Marty: He said Trump did a broad search

No Marty has ever spun more artfully, or done it earlier in the morning.

Lest anyone think I am simply making that up to flatter Marty, let me say in his own immortal words: "who knows, could be true".

--TP

[cleek]

Given the complete lack of evidence that it has been a part of his life since then

that list of 60 women who say he's just the best sure popped up quickly.

i suspect it was enough a part of his life that that list was prepped and ready to go.

[wj]

What GftNC said (at 10:16). Lying about sex between consenting adults, even under oath, simply isn't in the same league as massive tax fraud and being an unregistered agent of a (hostile) foreign power while running a Presidential campaign.

[wj]

that list of 60 women who say he's just the best sure popped up quickly.

i suspect it was enough a part of his life that that list was prepped and ready to go.

At minimum, it would suggest that he was aware of the incident. Otherwise, e.g. if nothing like that ever happened, why prepare for it? I'd be willing to bet that Gorsuch, for example, didn't.

[Marty]

wj, the letter had been available, Feindtein had it, so there could have been time for his friends to collect the signatures.

More important, there is no actionable info available so we're just supposing. Which was the purpose in exposing it at the 11th hour.

[byomtov]

Here is the first thing Kavanaugh said at the time of the announcement:

Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I have witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination. Mr. President, I am grateful to you and I am humbled by your confidence in me. Thank you.

That third sentence sounds pretty toady-like to me, not to mention that he has no idea if it's true or not.

[Countme-a-Demon]

Further, Kavanaugh stated that mp had lined up two dozen Puerto Rican jurists on his list of nominees for the Supreme Court, citing the need for diversity on the Court.

My attorneys will testify that more than 200 young women in my high school graduating class never noticed me nor had any recollection of my existence, chorusing together "Who?!?" at the mention of my name.

Oh, do you mean THAT dweeb, one said, and then recanted when shown a photograph of me today without tape on my glasses and mismatched socks.

No, sorry, that couldn't be him.