All Things SCOTUS

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
From the Wall Street Journal:

"Dr. Ford’s friend Leland Keyser told the FBI she felt pressured by Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged assault by Kavanaugh, which she updated to say she believed but couldn’t corroborate Ford’s account."
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,546
Reaction score
29,009
Quinnipiac has white women from +14 dem in July to +1 now.

Marist had suburban white women +35 dem in SEPTEMBER. Only +14 by October 1st. After this shit i can imagine it dropping further.

This is wild af. Truly a great day. Keg fucking City!

Yeah, the enthusiasm/turnout edge that Democrats had been demonstrating in special elections since Trump was elected appears to have been completely derailed by how they went after Kavanaugh. It's consolidating a lot of people that had been leaning towards voting the other way or just staying home. They assumed it would further invigorate their Dem base... which it ultimately might, especially if Kavanaugh is confirmed over the weekend giving a month for things to change... but if this somehow drags out a couple more weeks all bets are off.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Quinnipiac has white women from +14 dem in July to +1 now.

Marist had suburban white women +35 dem in SEPTEMBER. Only +14 by October 1st. After this shit i can imagine it dropping further.

This is wild af. Truly a great day. Keg fucking City!
Didn't white women overall vote Trump in 2016? I doubt that D +14 was ever real.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Has any nominee for SCOTUS engendered so many law professors and alumni and students from his alma mater or had calls to investigate for perjury with so few Senate votes in favor expected?

Yale Students and Alumni Have New ‘Demand’: Investigate Brett Kavanaugh for Perjury Now (Law & Crime)

While congressional Republicans declared Thursday that “nothing new” was learned from the FBI’s limited scope investigation of Brett Kavanaugh, congressional Democrats lamented that the FBI investigation wasn’t thorough enough. On this same day, near 500 alumni and current students at Kavanaugh’s alma mater of Yale demanded that the U.S. Senate open up a perjury investigation.

The letter was addressed to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (Calif.).

“For centuries the Yale motto ‘Lux et Veritas’ (light and truth) has adorned archways across the New Haven campus. We the undersigned students and graduates of Yale University believe this motto carries with it an important obligation to seek truth at any cost. As the U.S. Senate considers Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation, it must demand that the nominee be truthful about relevant incidents in his past and hold him to account if he’s not,” the letter began. “During the hearings, Judge Kavanaugh attempted to present himself to the Senate and the public as an honorable member of society who has worked hard to gain his elevated status in government and academia.”

“Yet many people have brought forth credible evidence that this portrayal is inaccurate; this evidence includes serious allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, including misconduct against Yale graduate Deborah Ramirez (class of ’87) while she and Kavanaugh attended the university,” they said.

The signees said that Kavanaugh’s lack of a clear answer on whether there should be an FBI investigation, “misrepresentations” of meanings of words in his yearbook and “downplaying” of the “extent and frequency” of his drinking have raised questions about his truthfulness.

They also mentioned the Manny Miranda controversy. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) already grilled Kavanaugh during hearings on the emails stolen from Democrats by Manny Miranda, a former Republican staffer for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy pointed to one particular email that Kavanaugh received while working for the White House Counsel’s office, having to do with information Leahy was interested in regarding a judicial confirmation. Kavanaugh was working on facilitating the confirmation, and Leahy questioned his possession of what he said was a stolen email.

Kavanaugh defended himself by saying none of the emails on that chain were sent by him and maintained that he was not aware when he received that email that it had been stolen.

“These questionable statements follow claims he made in previous confirmation hearings, which based upon information that has become public during the current confirmation process now appear to be false, including: statements that he made about the selection process for controversial candidates for the federal courts made by President George W. Bush; statements about his knowledge of the Bush-era warrantless surveillance program; and his claim that he never received documents stolen by Republican Senate aide Manny Miranda,” the Yale letter continued.

A number of alumni were featured in a press release, arguing that lying under oath should “disqualify” Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court.

“It is appalling that the Supreme Court selection process has become so politicized that senators are willing to overlook the candidate’s untruthfulness during sworn testimony,” alumna Elizabeth Swisher said. “Judge Kavanaugh committed perjury during his testimony before the judiciary committee, lying about his drinking in high school and college as well as in references to his high school yearbook. Perjury is a felony and grounds for disbarment. Kavanaugh’s lying, partisanship and injudicious temperament should disqualify him as judge. The limited FBI investigation did not provide useful information because relevant witnesses were not questioned. Rather, this sham investigation provides cover for senators who want to confirm this candidate. In this case, senators should understand that the end does not justify the means. By confirming Kavanaugh, they erode the integrity of the Supreme Court and subvert the selection process for future candidates.”

The anti-Kavanaugh contingent has been building at Yale. Yale Law School faculty and Yale Law School students began to mobilize against Kavanaugh after Yale alumna Deborah Ramirez alleged in a New Yorker story that Kavanaugh committed sexual misconduct by exposing himself at a dorm room party.

Thirty-one classes were cancelled as a result of that protest.

A number of faculty members (dozens) at Yale Law School, as well, already demanded that the Senate Judiciary Committee wait on confirming Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

They asked the committee to delay the vote on Kavanaugh until Ford is given more than a “partisan hearing.”

“With so much at stake for the Supreme Court and the nation, we are concerned about a rush to judgment that threatens both the integrity of the process and the public’s confidence in the Court,” they wrote. “Where, as here, a sexual assault has been alleged against an individual nominated for a lifetime appointment in a position of public trust, a partisan hearing alone cannot be the forum to determine the truth of the matter.”

“Allegations of sexual assault require a neutral factfinder and an investigation that can ascertain facts fairly. Those at the FBI or others tasked with such an investigation must have adequate time to investigate facts,” they continued. “Fair process requires evidence from all parties with direct knowledge and consultation of experts when evaluating such evidence. In subsequent hearings, all of those who testify, and particularly women testifying about sexual assault, must be treated with respect.”

The FBI investigation has ended and it appears that many are not satisfied with how that unfolded. Neither Kavanaugh nor Dr. Christine Blasey Ford were interviewed and there have been complaints that testimony of willing witnesses was ignored.

You can read the full letter to U.S. senators below.

Yale-Letter Oct 04 2018 by on Scribd

McConnell calls opponents a "mob".
 
Last edited:

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,706
Reaction score
6,014
Has any nominee for SCOTUS engendered so many law professors and alumni and students from his alma mater or had calls to investigate for perjury with so few Senate votes in favor expected?

Yale Students and Alumni Have New ‘Demand’: Investigate Brett Kavanaugh for Perjury Now (Law & Crime)



McConnell calls opponents a "mob".

This has nothing to do with his statements and everything to do with his judicial philosophy.

This guy rules. Love this pick by Don more and more each day.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
This has nothing to do with his statements and everything to do with his judicial philosophy.

This guy rules. Love this pick by Don more and more each day.

Perjury is a crime. This has everything to do with his statements.

From IrishinSyria, Post 472:
Re: certainty, I don't know what happened on July 1, 1982. I think it is likely something happened similar to what Dr. Ford described, but I believe that both parties have genuinely different recollections of the facts and what they mean. Certainly my experience in the Army suggests that traumatic events have ways with screwing with people's memories- very frequently the traumatic moment will be seared into someone's mind but a lot of the details surrounding the trauma blur together. It made it difficult gathering intel from patrols that had been in a firefight.

But I know for certain that Kav is a liar. I know for certain that "devil's triangle" is not a drinking game, that boofing in a yearbook is not farting, that getting into Yale law school doesn't mean shit as evidence of whether or not you partied hard in college, that Renate alumnius means he was bragging about having banged her in high school, that he did watch Dr. Ford's testimony, that he mischaracterized what a supreme court justice does etc...

And I know that he lied about all of those things under oath. Which is a federal felony (18 U.S.C. 1621) on its own.

Ford was honest about the limits of her memory. Kav was indignant that he had to be bothered. He's an entitled lying prick. Conservatives have shelves full of identically qualified jurists-- two of them with solid ties to Notre Dame-- who aren't well documented liars and lifelong creatures of the DC swamp.
 

Irishize

Well-known member
Messages
4,531
Reaction score
461
Perjury is a crime. This has everything to do with his statements.

From IrishinSyria, Post 472:

Didn’t Kavanaugh’s classmates present evidence documenting that “Devil’s Triangle” was, in fact; a drinking game?
 

Sea Turtle

Slow and steady wins the race
Messages
5,645
Reaction score
3,488
Perjury is a crime. This has everything to do with his statements.

From IrishinSyria, Post 472:

Wait until the prom invitations emerge discussing the Cincinnati Steamrollers scribbled on the back.

I'll bet he tries to pass that off as some kind of football play ;)
 
Last edited:

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Perjury is a crime. This has everything to do with his statements.

From IrishinSyria, Post 472:

In response to that post I told him to contact his local FBI office since he KNOWS all of that and that is his proof of perjury. I would suggest that if he didn't come forward with his knowledge (in the face of others coming forward and confirming the references), then the fault lies with IiS and not the investigation.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Christine Blasey Ford’s “beach friend” who used to work in Preet Bharara’s office attempted to suborn perjury and “warned” Leland Keyser to change her statement to Senate investigators after Keyser refused to corroborate Ford’s fabrications. <a href="https://t.co/GPUOHNffqy">https://t.co/GPUOHNffqy</a></p>— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) <a href="https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1048190245483765760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The woman who confronted Flake in the elevator works for the Center for Popular Democracy... <a href="https://t.co/8q0yeUn5di">https://t.co/8q0yeUn5di</a></p>— Amber Athey (@amber_athey) <a href="https://twitter.com/amber_athey/status/1048219351038537728?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 5, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,954
Reaction score
11,239
Wait until the prom invitations emerge discussing the Cincinnati Steamrollers scribbled on the back.

I'll bet he tries to pass that off as some kind of football play ;)

"The Cincinnati Steamrollers were a roller derby team we formed in high school Mr. Senator..."
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,706
Reaction score
6,014
Perjury is a crime. This has everything to do with his statements.

From IrishinSyria, Post 472:

His classmates presented what appears to be pretty compelling evidence that the Devils triangle reference...was in fact...not the modern urban dictionary reference. One of them even claimed credit in the yearbook for being the "founder."

Just because irishinsyria says something, doesnt make it true, or false.
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
Sometimes yearbook references mean what they say, and sometimes kids come up with names that mean something different. The only one I'm sure is correct is ACamp's claim in his that he's Founder and chairman of the "Pound Dudes in the Ass Club." That one does mean what we think it means.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
His classmates presented what appears to be pretty compelling evidence that the Devils triangle reference...was in fact...not the modern urban dictionary reference. One of them even claimed credit in the yearbook for being the "founder."

Just because irishinsyria says something, doesnt make it true, or false.

I don't think Kavanaugh's perjury is dependent upon the "devil's triangle" reference, but as far as Yale classmates' memories of his time there and what his statements that they consider lies:

All of Brett Kavanaugh’s Classmates Who Have Accused Him of Lying

In the face of numerous allegations of sexual assault dating back to his high school and college years, all of which are said to have involved copious alcohol use, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has tried to push back on reports that make it seem as though he and his friends were frequently drunk and belligerent, claiming he was a well-behaved boy who simply liked (and still likes!) beer — a characterization that a mounting number of his classmates are calling inaccurate.

Though he claimed during his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee that one of his female “feminist” friends from college sent him a text telling him that he’s a “good man,” a growing number of his former classmates are recalling harsher images of Kavanaugh: someone who was “belligerent,” “aggressive,” and “often drank to excess.” But many of those latter classmates — who explicitly stated they were willing to cooperate with the FBI — were never contacted by the bureau, bringing into question the scope of the investigation, and whose interests it sought to protect.

Below, a list of every one of Kavanaugh’s former classmates who have called out his lies.

“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.”

In a statement issued to the New York Times, Chad Ludington, a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh’s who claims they frequently drank together, said he is “deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale.”

“When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive,” said Ludington. “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.”

And while Ludington stressed that he doesn’t believe “the loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life,” he does think that “Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter.”

“Loud, obnoxious, frat boy-like drunks.”

Kit Winter lived in the same dorm as Kavanaugh at Yale, where he remembers the SCOTUS nominee and his crowd as “loud, obnoxious, frat boy-like drunks.” He also recalled a shared bathroom that was perpetually covered in vomit.

“I have thought a lot about Kavanaugh’s statement on Fox, that he never drank so much that he didn’t remember what he had done the next morning,” he told the Cut. “And having witnessed the level of drunkenness of Brett and his crew in that dorm, and the vomitous aftermath in the bathroom, I find that very hard to believe.”

“There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember.”

In an interview with CNN, Lynne Brookes — the former roommate of Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her at a Yale party — asserted she was “extremely disappointed” in the judge’s “blatant lying.” She said:

I watched the whole hearing, and a number of my Yale colleagues and I were extremely disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh’s characterization of himself and the way that he evaded his excessive drinking questions. There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember. In fact, I was witness to the night that he got tapped into that fraternity, and he was stumbling drunk in a ridiculous costume saying really dumb things. I can almost guarantee that there’s no way that he remembers that night … There were a lot of emails and a lot of texts flying around about how he was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today.
“It’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”

Liz Swisher, a college friend of Kavanaugh’s, told the Washington Post that, although “there’s no medical way [she] can say that he was blacked out … it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”

“Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him,” she said. “I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling.”

On October 4, Ludington, Brookes, and Swisher co-wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post under the headline, “We were Brett Kavanaugh’s drinking buddies. We don’t think he should be confirmed.”

“All of us went to Yale, whose motto is ‘Lux et Veritas’ (Light and Truth),” the op-ed reads. “Brett also belonged to a Yale senior secret society called Truth and Courage. We believe that Brett neither tells the former nor embodies the latter.”

“Frequently drinking excessively and becoming incoherently drunk.”

Following Ramirez’s accusation against Kavanaugh, his former roommate James Roche spoke out in solidarity with Ramirez, releasing a statement that read, in part: “Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and … he became belligerent and aggressive when he was very drunk.”

“Based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up,” Roche continued. “Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described.”

On October 2, Roche also disputed Kavanaugh’s definition of “boofing,” which the SCOTUS nominee claimed to mean farting (or “flatulence”) during his testimony. Roche offered a different meaning of Twitter:

“‘Boofing’ meant sex. Not sex with a girlfriend. Sex with someone who doesn’t matter. People would say ‘I want to boof her’, not ‘I want to boof with her.’” He then clarified that “boofing” specifically referred to anal sex.

"Boofing" meant sex. Not sex with a girlfriend. Sex with someone who doesn't matter. People would say "I want to boof her", not "I want to boof with her."

— Jamie Roche (@jamie_roche) October 2, 2018

Kavanuagh allegedly texted Yale classmates in an attempt to get ahead of Deborah Ramirez’s allegations.

According to a report by NBC News, Kavanaugh had begun reaching out to former classmates about Deborah Ramirez’s allegation against him well before the September 23 New Yorker article was published. This directly contradicts Kavanaugh’s statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the article was the first time he had heard of Ramirez’s claim.

Text messages between former classmates of Kavanaugh’s, Kerry Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, show that members of Kavanaugh’s legal team and even Kavanaugh himself may have reached out to former classmates in an effort to discredit Ramirez’s claims as early as July, well before the article was published. Berchem told NBC News through her lawyer that she tried multiple times to get the text messages to the FBI.

“I am in receipt of text messages from a mutual friend of both Debbie and mine that raise questions related to the allegations,” said a portion of Berchem’s statement. “I have not drawn any conclusions as to what the texts may mean or may not mean but I do believe they merit investigation by the FBI and the Senate.”

Italicized lines are the article's in larger fonts.
 
Last edited:

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,954
Reaction score
11,239
Sometimes yearbook references mean what they say, and sometimes kids come up with names that mean something different. The only one I'm sure is correct is ACamp's claim in his that he's Founder and chairman of the "Pound Dudes in the Ass Club." That one does mean what we think it means.

"... I'm not only a member, I'm the club's President Mr. Senator..."
 
Last edited:

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Didn&#146;t Kavanaugh&#146;s classmates present evidence documenting that &#147;Devil&#146;s Triangle&#148; was, in fact; a drinking game?
Yes. Multiple classmates have it referenced in their own yearbook captions as a drinking game.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
I don't think Kavanaugh's perjury is dependent upon the "devil's triangle" reference, but as far as Yale classmates' memories of his time there and what his statements that they consider lies:

All of Brett Kavanaugh’s Classmates Who Have Accused Him of Lying



Italicized lines are the article's in larger fonts.
Dipshits don't seem to understand what blacking out means. Drinking a ton and getting super drunk doesn't mean you blacked out. Kav's statement rings true to people because we've experienced it ourselves. I've had too much to drink and gotten loud. I've had too much to drink and vomited through a bag with a giant hole in it in my own car. I've had too much to drink and thrown my roommate into furniture. I've had too much to drink and played Super Smash Brothers in Dillon Hall in my underwear until 4am. I've never blacked out and I've sure as hell never assaulted a woman. Saying "Kav drank a lot so him claiming he's never blacked out is perjury" is completely ignorant as to how drinking works.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn (America: the Jesuit Review)

Editors' note (Oct. 2, 6:00 pm): Our editor in chief, Father Matt Malone, S.J., has responded, in his regular column, to many of our readers’ reactions to and questions about this editorial.

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today clearly demonstrated both the seriousness of her allegation of assault by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the stakes of this question for the whole country. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusation and emphasized in his testimony that the opposition of Democratic senators to his nomination and their consequent willingness to attack him was established long before Dr. Blasey’s allegation was known.

Evaluating the credibility of these competing accounts is a question about which people of good will can and do disagree. The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth. If Dr. Blasey’s allegation is true, the assault and Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of it mean that he should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country. While we previously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh on the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh has become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.

If this were a question of establishing Judge Kavanaugh’s legal or moral responsibility for the assault described by Dr. Blasey, then far more stringent standards of proof would apply. His presumption of innocence might settle the matter in his favor, absent further investigation and new evidence. But the question is not solely about Judge Kavanaugh’s responsibility, nor is it any longer primarily about his qualifications. Rather it is about the prudence of his nomination and potential confirmation. In addition to being a fight over policy issues, which it already was, his nomination has also become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.

Father Matt Malone: Why America magazine called for the withdrawal of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination
Matt Malone, S.J.


Somewhere in the distant past, at least before the word “Borked” was coined to describe a Supreme Court nomination defeated by ideological opposition, Senate confirmation hearings might have focused on evaluating a nominee’s judicial character or qualifications as a legal thinker. But that time is long past. Many cases decided by the Supreme Court itself and thus also presidential nominations to that body (and the Senate hearings that follow) are now thoroughly engaged in deciding “policy by other means.” Neither the country nor the court is well served by this arrangement, but refusing to recognize it does nothing to help reverse it.

When Republican leaders in the Senate refused even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, they were not objecting to his qualifications or character but to the likely outcome of his vote on the court were he to be confirmed. When Senate Democrats were mostly united in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well in advance of any hearings (and before any rumor of Dr. Blasey’s accusation was known), they were using the same calculus. While regrettable in both cases, such results are, as we have said before, the predictable outcome of the fact that “fundamental questions of social policy are increasingly referred to the court for adjudication as constitutional issues.”

What is different this time is that this nomination battle is no longer purely about predicting the likely outcome of Judge Kavanaugh’s vote on the court. It now involves the symbolic meaning of his nomination and confirmation in the #MeToo era. The hearings and the committee’s deliberations are now also a bellwether of the way the country treats women when their reports of harassment, assault and abuse threaten to derail the careers of powerful men.

This nomination battle is no longer purely about predicting the likely outcome of Judge Kavanaugh’s vote on the court.

While nomination hearings are far from the best venue to deal with such issues, the question is sufficiently important that it is prudent to recognize it as determinative at this point. Dr. Blasey's accusations have neither been fully investigated nor been proven to a legal standard, but neither have they been conclusively disproved or shown to be less than credible. Judge Kavanaugh continues to enjoy a legal presumption of innocence, but the standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court is far higher; there is no presumption of confirmability. The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.

If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman’s report of an assault. Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country. Even if one thinks that Dr. Blasey's allegations are not credible, demonstrating them not to be would require further investigations and testimony. This would include calling additional witnesses and assessing further allegations against Judge Kavanaugh from other women, to which Republicans on the committee have been unwilling to commit and which would be divisive in any case.

The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.

There are many good reasons to support the nomination of a qualified judge who is committed to a textualist interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Over time, such an approach may return the question of abortion to the states, where it belongs given the Constitution’s silence on the matter, and where a more just and moral outcome than is currently possible under Roe v. Wade may be achieved. Restoring such a morally complex question to the deliberation of legislators rather than judges may also bring the country closer to a time when confirmation hearings can truly focus on the character and qualifications of the nominee rather than serving as proxy battles over every contentious issue in U.S. politics.

We continue to support the nomination of judges according to such principles—but Judge Kavanaugh is not the only such nominee available. For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson.

Bolded sentences are those of the article. Georgetown Prep is a Jesuit-run school.
 
Last edited:

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
No but Shannon Bream and Martha McDowell are crazy hot for their age.

Bream is not remotely in the same age category as Bream.
Jeanine Pirro is 67 years old. She looks more like 50.
Who is Martha McDowell?

I'll take Dana Perino.

In a heartbeat.

Agree! Sexy ass older woman.

I was floored when I heard her age.

I'm fairly conservative and I'd take a hard pass on that one. She's annoying AF. Overrated.

I'm not saying talk to her.... lol.


Not sure I've seen a 67 year old look better and be in better shape.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
You think the left is mad now? Wait until next spring when Clearance Thomas retires and Trump gets 3 justices in 3 years.

Amy Coney Barrett would look real good up there on that court.

Maybe, if RBG keeps taking her vitamins in an attempt to hold out.

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Dr. Ford’s friend Leland Keyser told the FBI she felt pressured by Ford’s allies to revisit her initial statement that she knew nothing about an alleged assault by Kavanaugh, which she updated to say she believed but couldn’t corroborate Ford’s account."

I hope they really dig into this. I was suspicious of the "beach friends" term as a means to hide identity, and now those Qs about the lie detector test (it was a beach friend she coached), and now that beach friend is trying to puppet others. Not good optics for Ford and team.

Yeah, the enthusiasm/turnout edge that Democrats had been demonstrating in special elections since Trump was elected appears to have been completely derailed by how they went after Kavanaugh. It's consolidating a lot of people that had been leaning towards voting the other way or just staying home. They assumed it would further invigorate their Dem base... which it ultimately might, especially if Kavanaugh is confirmed over the weekend giving a month for things to change... but if this somehow drags out a couple more weeks all bets are off.

All the crazy behavior, sky is falling rhetoric, and plain silliness has to weigh on people... I'm just surprised it's taken the Kav thing to wake folks up.

Has any nominee for SCOTUS engendered so many law professors and alumni and students from his alma mater or had calls to investigate for perjury with so few Senate votes in favor expected?

McConnell calls opponents a "mob".

500 is actually pretty low energy IMO. What percentage of that 500 do you think are libs?

And I could give two shits about what academia thinks or says. Higher educations has become more political indoctrination, than learning and life prep....

Have we ever had a sitting Supreme Court judge who has not been considered "qualified" by the ABA should they reevaluate and lower their rating?

And we all know the ABA is a political group. They've gone full tilt off charter and are active in shaping views. You don't take views on things like same sex marriage, abortion, guns, etc. if you are not a political group.

Again, two shits...
 

Sea Turtle

Slow and steady wins the race
Messages
5,645
Reaction score
3,488
Bream is not remotely in the same age category as Bream.
Jeanine Pirro is 67 years old. She looks more like 50.
Who is Martha McDowell?



In a heartbeat.



I was floored when I heard her age.



I'm not saying talk to her.... lol.



Not sure I've seen a 67 year old look better and be in better shape.

Sorry, I meant Martha McCallum. She is like 52 I think.

Dana Perino is nice too.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,267
This is textbook toxic masculinity.

Michelle Malkin is a little firecracker. She'd be fun.
 

Irish YJ

Southsida
Messages
25,888
Reaction score
1,444
Redundant. Masculinity is toxic by nature.

sissy

This is textbook toxic masculinity.

Michelle Malkin is a little firecracker. She'd be fun.

200.gif


Looks like Murkowski is a no.

Collins is the key
 
Top