Hearing; the aftermath

[John Smith]

Let me see if I've got this right.

Republicans control the Judiciary committee. This hearing was a "he said, she said" sham only because the Republicans refused to subpoena witnesses. Then they point out that she had no corroborating witnesses, and hold that against her.

She and the Democrats want the FBI to re-open the background check. He and the Republicans refuse, and Grassley could have it re-opened via a request to the White House. He could have it re-opened via a request to the White House.

I can only surmise they don't want it re-opened for fear it would end up proving Dr. Ford's accusations.

Graham destroys the reputation of the senate for being a place of civil discussion, and points out the whole thing is a sham, which it is, but only because HIS party refused to subpoena witnesses.

Frankly, I'm embarrassed as an American. If I were innocent, I believe I'd be begging for the White House to ask the FBI to re-open the background check.

Part of his argument was he's had FBI background checks and none of this came up. That's because no accuser came forward, so there would have been nothing to investigate.

NOW THERE IS, AND THEY WON'T.

[CWSmith]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

... but only because HIS party refused to subpoena witnesses.

This runs to the heart of the matter. In his testimony, and his opening remarks especially, he showed himself to be highly partisan. This alone makes him unfit for the bench.

[John Smith]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

This runs to the heart of the matter. In his testimony, and his opening remarks especially, he showed himself to be highly partisan. This alone makes him unfit for the bench.

I think what bothers me is the image of many Americans cheering for the failure to call witnesses.

[birlinn]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

This runs to the heart of the matter. In his testimony, and his opening remarks especially, he showed himself to be highly partisan. This alone makes him unfit for the bench.

Why else would Trump want to appoint him?

[Norman Bernstein]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

Let me see if I've got this right.

Republicans control the Judiciary committee. This hearing was a "he said, she said" sham only because the Republicans refused to subpoena witnesses..

Respectfully, I must disagree. Yes, it's a 'he said, she said'... but no, there would be no investigation that could possibly converge on a truth. It's too long ago, there are too few witnesses or contemporary recollections, etc.

Instead, Kavanaugh doesn't deserve the position, based on OTHER factors, which I referred to in another thread:

1) I believe that he perjured himself at his last confirmation hearing, when he tried to play innocent about the fact that he had read stolen Democratic talking points while he was a political operative (best description I can think of) for the Bush administration. His explanation doesn't pass the smell test.

2) I believe he was entirely disingenuous about his description of his own character, as a young man... he repeatedly talked about his grade point average, his service activities, his sports achievements... but unconvincingly tried to de-emphasize his wilder behavior in prep school and college. We're not idiots, and we KNOW what goes on, at that age... his self-depiction as a choirboy was NOT convincing. We don't judge someone by the mistakes they may have made in youth... as long as they are willing to acknowledge them. Kavanaugh has not done so.

3) His behavior in the hearings demonstrates that, by virtue of temperament, he is unqualified to serve. We all know that Supreme Court nominees are chosen specifically for their political biases, and their usual record of votes on the Court most consistently demonstrate those biases. However, in the hearings, Kavanaugh was unable to hide his severe political bias... the accusation against his critics for supposedly trying to extract 'revenge for the Clintons' is a clear demonstration of extreme (and irrational) partisanship. If he was unable to conduct himself in a dignified manner in the hearing, what does it say about the man's temperament?

I'm inclined to believe Ford... and disbelieve Kavanaugh... based on the ONLY thing I can rely on: my perceptions of credibility.

However, as has been said before, the confirmation hearings are not a trial... they are closest to a job interview. If any of us showed up at a job interview with a combative attitude, we'd be pretty unlikely to get the job.

All of this doesn't matter. Kavanaugh's credentials are ironclad: he's a hard core conservative, and since the Judiciary committee, and the slimmest majority in the Senate, want such a justice, ANY other consideration falls by the wayside. It's no different than evangelicals supporting Trump, a man whose personal ethics and morality are a complete anathema to evangelical Christians... but they don't care.

[elf]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

Boys will be boys. And left to their own devices never grow up.

How many of you have reposted that meme about finally getting to be 50 or 60 and not growing up and planning on never growing up?

[John of Phoenix]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

Republicans control the Judiciary committee. This hearing was a "he said, she said" sham only because the Republicans refused to subpoena witnesses. Then they point out that she had no corroborating witnesses, and hold that against her.

And it's an extremely successful ploy because -

Sweet Mother of God reds are Stupid.

[George Jung]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

Boys will be boys. And left to their own devices never grow up.

How many of you have reposted that meme about finally getting to be 50 or 60 and not growing up and planning on never growing up?

Not too fair, elf - I'd challenge you to quote anyone here who advocates for this sort of misbehavior. 'Never grow up' alludes to a youthful attitude, interests - not sexual assault. I hope you know that.

[Jimmy W]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

+1 George

[LeeG]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

No women Republican on Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ever.

https://www.marketplace.org/2018/09/26/business/brett-kavanaugh-missing-women-senate-judiciary-committee

Did you have any general comments about the Judiciary Committee selection process?

Jessica Levinson: Well, I think that when it comes to the Judiciary Committee, in a lot of ways, it represents not just the Senate, but that’s what a lot of boardrooms look like. That’s what lot of law firms look like. And we know that for plenty of really good reasons, and plenty of good policy reasons, and social science reasons, that it is better to have diversity. It’s better to have ideological diversity. It’s better to have gender diversity. It’s better to have racial diversity. It tends to get us to better outcomes.

And so when you see the Senate Judiciary Committee having no gender diversity on one side, I think that’s how you get statements, for instance, by Sen. Mitch McConnell saying, “We hired a female assistant.” That wording and that phrasing is really, I think, largely out of touch with how most people speak about other lawyers. And particularly about other female lawyers. And so if you had more women on the Judiciary Committee, then I think that you have at the very least more perspectives, more life experiences, and that can lead to changing the way you deal with something that is so fraught.

[Jim Bow]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

crmlu180928.jpg

[PhaseLockedLoop]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

This runs to the heart of the matter. In his testimony, and his opening remarks especially, he showed himself to be highly partisan. This alone makes him unfit for the bench.

I don’t know what country you think you’re living in.

[elf]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

Not too fair, elf - I'd challenge you to quote anyone here who advocates for this sort of misbehavior. 'Never grow up' alludes to a youthful attitude, interests - not sexual assault. I hope you know that.

Not to me - a woman. It refers to just what Kavanaugh represents - a shallow life of drinking and infatuation with sports and objectifying women.

Count the threads about football, racing cars, motorcycles, investments, beer, comparing cruises, pop music, patriotism. All wealthy infatuations, not concerned with family, shared role responsibilites, environmental care. How many men here still smoke? How many still heat with wood? How many still own big trucks? How many refer to their wives as "the wife" or SWMBO?

You don't see it, even you George.

[Art Haberland]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

The ABA is urging a delay on the vote until the FBI vetts Kavanagh. The American Bar Association.. the gold standard of lawyering.

[Ted Hoppe]

Re: Hearing; the aftermath

The ABA is urging a delay on the vote until the FBI vetts Kavanagh. The American Bar Association.. the gold standard of lawyering.

correction. The president of the ABA wrote a letter which he signed.