And Kennedy decides to fuck us all

[Scooter]

"I had to piece together what happened." - So much for never having drank enough to forget any part of what happened.

[BoSoxGal]

If he's confirmed and sworn in as a SCOTUS associate justice, I'm relinquishing my state and federal bar credentials.

[Scooter]

Take a deep breath before lifechanging decisions based on petty political machinations.

The "100% certain it never happened" would have had more weight if he didn't have to have the words fed to him.

[ex-khobar Andy]

If he's confirmed and sworn in as a SCOTUS associate justice, I'm relinquishing my state and federal bar credentials.

Please don't. We need some integrity in the legal ranks. And among the lawyers I know, there is a lot but we can always use more.

I did find it odd that they chose (if indeed the Democratic senators had organized some sort of response - see Will Rogers) Richard Blumenthal to present the "Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus" argument. Blumnenthal has had his own problems with the truth.

[Joe Guy]

If he's confirmed and sworn in as a SCOTUS associate justice, I'm relinquishing my state and federal bar credentials.

That'll show 'em!!!

[BoSoxGal]

If he's confirmed and sworn in as a SCOTUS associate justice, I'm relinquishing my state and federal bar credentials.

Please don't. We need some integrity in the legal ranks. And among the lawyers I know, there is a lot but we can always use more.

I did find it odd that they chose (if indeed the Democratic senators had organized some sort of response - see Will Rogers) Richard Blumenthal to present the "Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus" argument. Blumnenthal has had his own problems with the truth.

What I found disturbing was Kavanaugh’s inability to immediately translate and respond to that reference - as a federal judge, AND as a former Catholic school student. It’s pretty basic Latin, after all.


I’m going to add to this post by pointing out that before the multiple allegations of sexual offenses against Kavanaugh, and aside from his partisan track record and history of prevarication before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding past political lawyering, I find the man singularly uninspiring in terms of intellect. I recall being enthralled by the scope of John Roberts’s legal scholarship during his confirmation hearings, and this guy was a dullard by comparison. I guess I should read one of his opinions, but since those are largely researched and written by law clerks, it’s not so reflective of his ability to access the law in his own mind on the fly. These should be the smartest legal minds around, which is another reason Thomas has always been an embarrassment to the Court - aside from the stain of his sexual harassment of Anita Hill (and probably others who were too scared to ever come forward).

[ex-khobar Andy]

Yes my Latin is pretty ancient (probably 55 years since I last had a Latin class) and it didn't take me more than a few seconds to translate it. Nor do I play a lawyer on TV.

They just had someone on CNN who said: (paraphrasing) - how come they believe Dr Ford to the extent that they believe that something happened to her but that she's wrong about who it was. I could (but don't) believe that she's lying from start to finish; or that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh in much the way she described; but what I cannot believe is that she was assaulted and she is just wrong about who did it.

[Lord Jim]

They just reported on CNN that Flake, Collins, Murkowski and Red State Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (who's up for re-election and voted for Gorsuch) have just gotten together for a private meeting...

[Scooter]

Yeah, it's not as if she is claiming stranger rape by someone she mistakenly identified in a lineup. The notion that she would mistakenly identify someone she previously knew by name is preposterous.

[Burning Petard]

How do these people get so thin skinned? His life is ruined forever? He still has a job with better pay and benefits than I ever had, and it is his for the rest of his life; they cannot even tell him to retire.

I hung out with lots of drinkers in lots of places. They were my friends and I was a designated driver. I found three types of heavy drinkers: happy drunks (who rarely drank enuff to pass out)who were everybody's buddy. Sad drunks who had to tell everyone how life was oh so terrible, until they passed out and mean drunks who just got nasty to everyone and I just tried to stay out of their attention until they did pass out. Both the second and third types had trouble remembering half the things the did or said the next day.

Kavanaugh sure looks like he was a mean drunk. Funny how I heard nothing today about his activity as a federal employee before he became this paragon of judges.

snailgate

[Scooter]

For him to be showing that much aggression in a setting where he was supposed to be selling himself as someone with the temperament to be a SC justice speaks volumes to me about how he would have acted when drunk and if a girl was resisting his advances. There were times I was thinking I would be afraid to be alone with him.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Kavanaugh was telling us that 'boofing' was a fart joke. Really? Were sophisticated country club 16, 17 year old boys making fart jokes to sneak into their year book in 1983? I was twenty years ahead of him and fart jokes were something we grew out of around 12.

I don't buy that for a second.

[RayThom]

If he's confirmed and sworn in as a SCOTUS associate justice, I'm relinquishing my state and federal bar credentials.

Don't act in haste -- you will regret it. Remember, no one who said they'd move to Canada if Drumpf got elected really made the move.

Kavanaugh's testimony was a big crock of shit... with even bigger crocodile tears. Obviously, I believe Dr. Ford, et.al. Sadly, I feel the Kav is going to get 50 mostly "old white man" votes. It feels inevitable to me.

Worse yet, Lord Dampnut/Pence will probably get two more bites of the SCOTUS apple before their reign of terror is over. Bigly sad.

[BoSoxGal]

This is huge:

American Bar Association tells Senate: Delay Kavanaugh until FBI investigates assault allegations - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN) — The American Bar Association is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to halt the consideration of President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh until an FBI investigation is completed into the sexual assault allegations that have roiled his nomination.

In a strongly worded letter obtained by CNN Thursday, the organization said it is making the extraordinary request "because of the ABA's respect for the rule of law and due process under law," siding with concerns voiced by Senate Democrats since Christine Blasey Ford's decades-old allegations became public.

"The basic principles that underscore the Senate's constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI," said Robert Carlson, president of the organization, in a Thursday night letter addressed to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein.

"Each appointment to our nation's Highest Court (as with all others) is simply too important to rush to a vote," Carlson wrote. "Deciding to proceed without conducting additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate's reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court."

The comments are striking because the organization gave Kavanaugh its highest rating of unanimous, "well-qualified" for the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh himself touted that rating at Thursday's emotionally-charged hearing where he denied Ford's sworn testimony that he attempted to rape her when they were teenagers.

Kavanaugh noted he was "thoroughly vetted" by the ABA.

"For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament," Kavanaugh said Thursday. "That's why I have the unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar Association."

In the letter, the ABA president says the Senate must remain "an institution that will reliably follow the law and not politics," saying a "thorough FBI investigation will demonstrate its commitment to a Supreme Court that is above reproach."

Republicans have rejected Democratic calls for an FBI probe and are planning to hold a committee vote Friday before moving the nomination to the floor this weekend.

[Bicycle Bill]

Just a non-political observation on the state of affairs these days...



-"BB"-

[BoSoxGal]

That is SO fucking inappropriate in this thread, BB. You just shit all over victims of sexual assault, you fucking POS. You are probably too much of a Neanderthal (actually, an insult to Neanderthals) to even ‘get’ why this is SO fucking inappropriate.

Life is short; you’re now on the list (with wesw and Joe) of posters who have nothing to say that is worth my time to read.

[rubato]

Kavenaughs behavior reveals a complete lack of judicial temperament. Emotionally volatile and uncontrolled, angry, accusing, blustering.

He should be disqualified on that alone.

And has Lindsey Graham already forgotten that none of this happened with Neil Gorsuch? Because he did not have this kind of history, eh?


Yrs,
Rubato

[Big RR]

I have to agree; I watched the entire hearing on DVD last night and he came across pretty bad; on top of that, his mouthing of tried and true Trumpisms ("revenge of the Clintons", democrats reacting to Trump's election, etc.) have gotten me to the point where I don't think he should serve on any court. this is not a prp rally and you are not a politician, you are trying to get one of the most respected positions in the US--so you choose to sound like a buffoon? He might be confirmed, but his departures from the republican caucus rooms of the capitol, the white house, and going into the SC chamber will grossly lower the average IQ in each.

[BoSoxGal]

This is from America: a Jesuit Review - which previously enthusiastically endorsed Kavanaugh.

The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn

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.

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 are 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.

[ex-khobar Andy]

There were stories, AFAIK unconfirmed, that Kavanaugh spent the day before this latest hearing holed up at the WH being grilled in a practice session. I have no doubt that his essential tenor (stop just short of actual crying, let us know how your family has been destroyed, make sure everyone knows that the opening speech was written by yourself and no-one else) was a subject of instruction. And of course the yearbook entry came up. "Brett we'd better have some interpretations of Devil's Triangle, FFFFFFFourth of July, WTF is Renate all about, and we need to come up with a new definition of 'boofing.'"

Now I'm nearly 20 years older than Brett, and I've been in some drinking games in my time, but I've never heard of one called that. These things evolve of course.

Conflating the F-word with the Fourth of July? I wonder what Colin Kaepernick would have to say about that. Apparently it was common terminology in the 80s for Find them, finger them, fuck them, forget them. And 'boofing' as a synonym for farting? Has anyone ever heard that?

I have no idea whether they all 'knew' poor Renate. But there is no other interpretation possible of the yearbook entries than a snide implication (almost certainly untrue but these are 17 year old boys) that they had done so. To try to make any other meaning is insulting to all of us.

He was too glib with these things. Clearly rehearsed. There is more to come.