Kavanaugh -Kava NOPE?

[Kirkrapine]

Also:

The democrats haven't been this upset since the republicans took their slaves away.

 

[Kirkrapine]

Putting all this in its proper perspective: In hindsight, I hope nobody here seriously believes or would argue that letting Clarence Thomas on the Court was the right thing to do. That was a regrettable decision, and seating Kavanaugh would be even more regrettable.

Nobody disagrees, then?

 

[KeithD]

As I noted in post #11, the last time I mentioned this on the board, there were disagreement posts. Or at least challenges. When I posted the support for the notion, everyone who opposed must have decided they needed to go off and have their nails done.

 

[JackLuis]

CNN’s Jake Tapper panel rails that Kavanaugh’s ‘choir boy’ reputation blew up in his face

"We’ve gone a long way and cultural changes. But the fraternity he was on at Yale — George. W. Bush was also a member of. “[However] Bush can say ‘I was young and irresponsible,’ and he was running on a popular vote, not going for a Supreme court.”

In addition, Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates have spoken out saying that Kavanaugh mischaracterized himself under oath and that they recall him being a heavy drinker in college.

Police questioned Brett Kavanaugh over a bar fight he got into in his Yale years

Brett Kavanaugh is ‘not returning’ to Harvard to teach in the Spring

Yale classmate speaks out about Kavanagh’s drinking: ‘Brett has not told the truth — his lies should have consequences’

“I do not believe that heavy drinking or even loudish behavior of an 18 or even 21-year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so,” Ludington said. “However, I have direct repeated knowledge about Brett’s drinking and his disposition while drunk. If he lied about his past actions on national television and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences.”

He added, “It is the truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon one’s self, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges. I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking and in downplaying the degree and frequency of his drinking —Brett has not told the truth”

“I felt it was my civic duty to tell of my experience while drinking with Brett, and I offer this statement to the press,” Ludington said.

A surly drunk on the bench?

 

[Kirkrapine]

SNL cold open: Kavanaugh hearing.

 

[Kirkrapine]

I can unequivocally say that in denying the possibility that he ever blacked out from drinking . . .

Careful, Brett! That's your defense! It makes it plausible that you don't remember anything about Ford!

 

[AdrianHot]

Do you realize that the only sane argument against Kavanaugh here was an opinion about "his track record is sketchy" (lovecraft68, post 49) - everything else is your childish fantasies and pure hate. It seems that people in power don't share above opinion.

Democrats are beyond evil with false accusation. They knew Kavanaugh is a normal guy, so they started this hate propaganda against him and you, full of hate, leftists just jump this bandwagon. Because "something, something" - Trump is involved - "hate, hate, hate".

I didn't have a shit if Kavanaugh will be in SCOTUS or not, but after Fords and his hearings I think he should be in SCOTUS. And Ford should be in jail for false accusations.

 

[KeithD]

Do you realize that the only sane argument against Kavanaugh here was an opinion about "his track record is sketchy

Um, no. Obviously a whole bunch of posters don't "realize" your fantasy.

 

[JackLuis]

‘We can’t have this on the court’: Jeff Flake condemns Kavanaugh for ‘partisan’ testimony

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on Tuesday suggested that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should not be confirmed if his behavior on the court will reflect his “partisan” testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I was very troubled by the tone of the remarks,” Flake said of Kavanaugh’s testimony. “The initial defense that Judge Kavanaugh gave was something — like I told my wife I hoped I wouldn’t sound that indignant if I felt that I was unjustly maligned.”

“But then it went on,” he pointed out. “And the interaction with the members was sharp and partisan. And that concerns me. And I tell myself you give a little leeway because of what he’s been through.”

Flake added: “On the other hand, we can’t have this on the court. We simply can’t.”

 

[KeithD]

‘We can’t have this on the court’: Jeff Flake condemns Kavanaugh for ‘partisan’ testimony

But I see more than an even chance that Flake will vote for his confirmation--because Flake has been flakey that way. He's been critical of Trump and then voted down the line with him. And it's senseless. He has nothing to lose to vote for common sense. He's a lame duck and one thinking of running for president for the votes of a nation that has already gone thumbs down on this nomination.

 

[JackLuis]

Lindsey Graham condemns ‘perjurer’ judges because ‘you couldn’t send him back in a courtroom’

That was then, now he's fine with perjury.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been an outspoken defender of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but he hasn’t always been as receptive to judges who lie under oath.

In 1999, then-Congressman Graham argued on the House floor that judges who are perjurers deserved to be impeached.
SPONSORED

“I have argued to you that when you found that a judge was a perjurer, you couldn’t in good conscience send him back in a courtroom because everybody that came in that courtroom thereafter would have a real serious doubt,” Graham said at the time.

But Graham has not condemned the alleged lies that Kavanaugh told during his testimony refuting sexual assault charges.

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

‘We can’t have this on the court’: Jeff Flake condemns Kavanaugh for ‘partisan’ testimony

Has there ever been a more aptly named senator than Jeff Flake? He is a man who will never fail to do the wrong thing after suggesting for the longest time he might do the right thing. His sanctimonious hand-wringing is always promptly followed by his total and utter capitulation to whatever crazed idea the Republican leadership has. Mitch McConnell is a cynical, amoral nihilist, but at least you know where you stand. He's a massive cunt, but he makes no pretense that he's anything else. Jeff Flake wants informed opinion to like him, as he does the latest shitty thing he's doing.

I have no doubt he will eventually, with the usual loud declarations of traumatised soul-searching and endless urging that 'we must be better, do better', vote for confirmation.

 

[JackLuis]

NY Times obtained 1983 Brett Kavanaugh letter to his friends: ‘We’re loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers among us’

More contemporaneous evidence.

 

[AdrianHot]

So you still believe in false accusers testimony? Ford is a greedy liar.

 

[Kirkrapine]

So you still believe in false accusers testimony? Ford is a greedy liar.

You have no reason whatsoever to believe any of that; and she certainly didn't come out for money.

 

[AdrianHot]

You have no reason whatsoever to believe any of that; and she certainly didn't come out for money.

She did it mainly because she is a political fanatic - different kind of terrorist than those who shoot or plant bombs, but terrorist. About money: https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford - I didn't heard that false accuser want this money for charity.

 

[gunthernehmen]

You have no reason whatsoever to believe any of that; and she certainly didn't come out for money.

We have no evidence to support either side of the story.

We do have motive for Ford to lie.

We do have motive for Kavanaugh to lie.

None of us know if she did it for the money but the two GoFundMe campaigns brought in something like $700k for her (Ford).

It's he said/she said. Nothing will change that.

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

She did it mainly because she is a political fanatic - different kind of terrorist than those who shoot or plant bombs, but terrorist. About money: https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford - I didn't heard that false accuser want this money for charity.

I thought she first made the claims in 2012? Are you saying she made the accusations up six years before he would potentially be named as a Supreme Court justice?

That's either extraordinary long-term planning to try and bring down Brett Kavanaugh, or you're talking utter bollocks.

 

[AdrianHot]

I thought she first made the claims in 2012? Are you saying she made the accusations up six years before he would potentially be named as a Supreme Court justice?

That's either extraordinary long-term planning to try and bring down Brett Kavanaugh, or you're talking utter bollocks.

Haha, those "mysterious" 2012 notes, which she didn't remember if she had or gave anyone? This is a part of her false testimony. You thought wrong.

 

[LupusDei]

Uterly irrelevant fact

Just having fun with the title of the tread

"Kava" in Latvian stands for "set of playing cards" while in Lithuanian it is "coffee."

 

[Kirkrapine]

Just having fun with the title of the tread

"Kava" in Latvian stands for "set of playing cards" while in Lithuanian it is "coffee."

There! You see?! Kavanaugh spent his HS and college years drinking coffee and playing cards! He really was a virgin!

 

[Kirkrapine]

We do have motive for Ford to lie.

No, we don't.

It's he said/she said.

That is quite enough to disqualify Kavanaugh from consideration for the SCOTUS. He has no rights at stake here.

 

[gunthernehmen]

No, we don't.




That is quite enough to disqualify Kavanaugh from consideration for the SCOTUS. He has no rights at stake here.

$700 k is a pretty good reason.

As for Kavanaugh, I suppose you have a cite for the law that disqualifies a scotus candidate on the basis of an unproven accusation?

 

[KeithD]

As for Kavanaugh, I suppose you have a cite for the law that disqualifies a scotus candidate on the basis of an unproven accusation?

Lying repeatedly under oath--for two jobs requiring impeccable integrity, not just one, is fine. Filter out all of the attempts to distract/deflect, that's what's there.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Lying repeatedly under oath--for two jobs requiring impeccable integrity, not just one, is fine. Filter out all of the attempts to distract/deflect, that's what's there.

You're basing his lying on believing unproven accusations.