2,150 thoughts on “Kavanaugh and debts”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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…

  10. 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…

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  15. 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??

  16. 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??

  19. 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….

  20. 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….

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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?

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  31. 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….

  32. 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….

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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. 🙂

  46. 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. 🙂

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  51. 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

  52. 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

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. 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.

  59. 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.

  60. 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.

  61. 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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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

  68. 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

  69. 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.

  70. 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.

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

  77. 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.

  78. 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.

  81. 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.

  82. 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.

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

  88. 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.

  89. 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).

  90. 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).

  91. 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.

  92. 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.

  95. 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.

  96. 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.

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

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

  99. 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

  100. 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

  101. 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.

  102. 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.

  103. 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?!?

  104. 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?!?

  105. 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.

  106. 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.

  107. 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.

  108. 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.

  111. 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

  112. 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

  115. 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.

  116. 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.

  121. 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.

  122. 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.

  123. 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

  124. 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

  125. 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.

  126. 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.

  127. 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.

  128. 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.

  129. LOL…

  130. LOL…

  133. 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.

  134. 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.

  135. 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.

  136. 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.

  137. 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?

  138. 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?

  139. 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.

  140. 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.

  143. 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?

  144. 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?

  145. 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.

  146. 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.

  147. 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

  148. 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

  149. 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.

  150. 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.

  151. So the announcement that Mueller and company have been fired and being held incommunicado and the Clintons and Obama are under arrest and undergoing rendition to Moscow will come directly from mp to my cellphone:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/test-president-alert-system
    We’re giving this lout, who defines a national emergency as any time his personal ketchup bottle is a little slow with the pour, and with the non-stop twittering thumbs, access to everyone’s phone?
    Maybe the folks who maintain the nuclear doomsday clock should begin a weekly updating of the America is full of effing pigshit doomsday clock.

  152. So the announcement that Mueller and company have been fired and being held incommunicado and the Clintons and Obama are under arrest and undergoing rendition to Moscow will come directly from mp to my cellphone:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/test-president-alert-system
    We’re giving this lout, who defines a national emergency as any time his personal ketchup bottle is a little slow with the pour, and with the non-stop twittering thumbs, access to everyone’s phone?
    Maybe the folks who maintain the nuclear doomsday clock should begin a weekly updating of the America is full of effing pigshit doomsday clock.

  153. “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.

  154. “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.

  155. 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.

  156. 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.

  157. 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

  158. 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

  161. 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.

  162. 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.

  163. 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.

  164. 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.

  165. 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.

  166. 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.

  167. 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.

  168. 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.

  169. 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.

  170. 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.

  171. 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.

  172. 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.

  173. 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.

  174. 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.

  179. 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.

  180. 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.

  181. 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.

  182. 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.

  183. 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.

  184. 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.

  185. 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.

  186. 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.

  187. 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

  188. 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

  189. 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.

  190. 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.

  191. 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.

  192. 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.

  193. 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.

  194. 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.

  195. 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.

  196. 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.

  197. 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.

  198. 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.

  199. 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.

  200. 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.

  201. 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%.
    If the candidate who got 3 million more votes than her opponents had won the election, as in a proper democracy she would have done, then she would by now have nominated two Justices. But several Republican senators had promised to block the confirmation of any Justice not on the far right.
    However, if the party which got 20 million more votes than the second party in the relevant elections actually had a majority in the Senate, as in a proper democracy it would, Hillary’s nominations would presumably have been confirmed. In that case, the most popular party would have a majority of 5-4 in the Supreme Court over the second most popular party. In a country with a politicised Supreme Court, that’s the best you can do.
    In view of the narrowness of her win, it would have been fitting for Hillary to nominate moderate justices. Merrick Garland for example. Unlike the far-right Neil Gorsuch or the highly partisan Brett Kavanaugh. The Republican Party, however, has no shame in exploiting the flaws in the US electoral system to maximum partisan advantage. A person capable of non-partisan judgement, even if in favour of the Party’s economically illiterate tax cuts, would be strongly opposed to this travesty.

  202. 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%.
    If the candidate who got 3 million more votes than her opponents had won the election, as in a proper democracy she would have done, then she would by now have nominated two Justices. But several Republican senators had promised to block the confirmation of any Justice not on the far right.
    However, if the party which got 20 million more votes than the second party in the relevant elections actually had a majority in the Senate, as in a proper democracy it would, Hillary’s nominations would presumably have been confirmed. In that case, the most popular party would have a majority of 5-4 in the Supreme Court over the second most popular party. In a country with a politicised Supreme Court, that’s the best you can do.
    In view of the narrowness of her win, it would have been fitting for Hillary to nominate moderate justices. Merrick Garland for example. Unlike the far-right Neil Gorsuch or the highly partisan Brett Kavanaugh. The Republican Party, however, has no shame in exploiting the flaws in the US electoral system to maximum partisan advantage. A person capable of non-partisan judgement, even if in favour of the Party’s economically illiterate tax cuts, would be strongly opposed to this travesty.

  203. If the candidate who got 3 million more votes than her opponents had won the election, as in a proper democracy she would have done, then she would by now have nominated two Justices. But several Republican senators had promised to block the confirmation of any Justice not on the far right.
    But much as they hate on her, at least she isn’t black. So they might have (grudgingly!) allowed her nominations to come to a vote.

  204. If the candidate who got 3 million more votes than her opponents had won the election, as in a proper democracy she would have done, then she would by now have nominated two Justices. But several Republican senators had promised to block the confirmation of any Justice not on the far right.
    But much as they hate on her, at least she isn’t black. So they might have (grudgingly!) allowed her nominations to come to a vote.

  205. wj’s comment reminds me of a joke I like
    Two guys from a fraternity die in a car crash on a prototypical frat roadtrip and all the shenanigans that would entail, and they go up to heaven to meet their maker. The first guy goes in and is in there for a long time and he comes out, looking shell-shocked. The second guy, waiting his turn, asks nervously, ‘well, what is God like?’ And the first guy, searching for words, says ‘well…first thing is… she’s black…’

  206. wj’s comment reminds me of a joke I like
    Two guys from a fraternity die in a car crash on a prototypical frat roadtrip and all the shenanigans that would entail, and they go up to heaven to meet their maker. The first guy goes in and is in there for a long time and he comes out, looking shell-shocked. The second guy, waiting his turn, asks nervously, ‘well, what is God like?’ And the first guy, searching for words, says ‘well…first thing is… she’s black…’

  207. Fallows has an excellent article on the unedifying rush to confirm Kavanaugh:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2018/09/midterm-time-capsule-52-days-to-go-rush-to-judgment-on-kavanaugh/570391/
    ***
    Suppose Brett Kavanaugh ended up with exactly 51 bloc-GOP votes on his side. Have you perhaps wondered how many votes the eight current Justices received? Wonder no more. The talley also heightens the similarity in the Thomas and Kavanaugh cases:
    Clarence Thomas, 52 votes
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 96 votes
    Stephen Breyer, 87 votes
    John Roberts 78 votes
    Samuel Alito, 58 votes
    Sonia Sotomayor, 68 votes
    Elaina Kagan, 61 votes
    Neil Gorsuch, 54 votes

  208. Fallows has an excellent article on the unedifying rush to confirm Kavanaugh:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2018/09/midterm-time-capsule-52-days-to-go-rush-to-judgment-on-kavanaugh/570391/
    ***
    Suppose Brett Kavanaugh ended up with exactly 51 bloc-GOP votes on his side. Have you perhaps wondered how many votes the eight current Justices received? Wonder no more. The talley also heightens the similarity in the Thomas and Kavanaugh cases:
    Clarence Thomas, 52 votes
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 96 votes
    Stephen Breyer, 87 votes
    John Roberts 78 votes
    Samuel Alito, 58 votes
    Sonia Sotomayor, 68 votes
    Elaina Kagan, 61 votes
    Neil Gorsuch, 54 votes

  209. Yep, every nominee by a Dem was vetted fairly by the GOP, even Kagan who was a clear partisan got GOP support. No conservative justice except Robert’s got 60 votes.
    Those numbers say more about Dems than the nominees.

  210. Yep, every nominee by a Dem was vetted fairly by the GOP, even Kagan who was a clear partisan got GOP support. No conservative justice except Robert’s got 60 votes.
    Those numbers say more about Dems than the nominees.

  211. Those numbers say more about Dems than the nominees.
    In your alternate universe, sure.
    The numbers are in the context of the article; I find Fallows analysis a little more convincing than your one liner.

  212. Those numbers say more about Dems than the nominees.
    In your alternate universe, sure.
    The numbers are in the context of the article; I find Fallows analysis a little more convincing than your one liner.

  213. Except Fallows writes a column called Trump time which doesn’t come close to being unbiased. There is nothing about those numbers in the article to speak of except about Thomss, and the comparison is a ridiculous reach by a partisan objector.
    My one liner summarizes the historical reality.
    The Senators voting to filibuster Alito, for example, included Clinton, Obama , Reid, Schumer, Durbin…
    They just cant get their heads around a conservative justice.

  214. Except Fallows writes a column called Trump time which doesn’t come close to being unbiased. There is nothing about those numbers in the article to speak of except about Thomss, and the comparison is a ridiculous reach by a partisan objector.
    My one liner summarizes the historical reality.
    The Senators voting to filibuster Alito, for example, included Clinton, Obama , Reid, Schumer, Durbin…
    They just cant get their heads around a conservative justice.

  217. Scalia – 98-0
    Roberts – 78-22, 22 (D) voting aye
    Thomas was close, 52-48, but 11 (D) ayes. And Thomas, by any measure, is not a “mainstream” justice. Not mainstream conservative, not mainstream anything.
    Alito, not so much. Maybe the problem was Alito.
    Kagan’s “GOP support” was 5 votes.

  218. Scalia – 98-0
    Roberts – 78-22, 22 (D) voting aye
    Thomas was close, 52-48, but 11 (D) ayes. And Thomas, by any measure, is not a “mainstream” justice. Not mainstream conservative, not mainstream anything.
    Alito, not so much. Maybe the problem was Alito.
    Kagan’s “GOP support” was 5 votes.

  219. “Partisan objector” is also the perfect description of Kavanaugh’s hack career, now to be practiced from the Supreme Court bench.
    “Columnists” by definition are biased. Their job is to opine.
    “They just can’t get their heads around a conservative justice.”
    Sure they can. They’d have voted for Merrick Garland given the chance.
    Fuck the Courts and every other institution conservatives infest.

  220. “Partisan objector” is also the perfect description of Kavanaugh’s hack career, now to be practiced from the Supreme Court bench.
    “Columnists” by definition are biased. Their job is to opine.
    “They just can’t get their heads around a conservative justice.”
    Sure they can. They’d have voted for Merrick Garland given the chance.
    Fuck the Courts and every other institution conservatives infest.

  221. Clarence Thomas
    say, someone remind me which party was in the Senate majority when Justice Sexual Assault was given his up or down vote.

  222. Clarence Thomas
    say, someone remind me which party was in the Senate majority when Justice Sexual Assault was given his up or down vote.

  227. Scalia 98-0 as were most SC votes prior to Bork. Alito wasnt the problem. Tbye Senate was the problem.
    My point in listing the people willing to filibuster Alito is that they were the liberal wing of the party at the time. Somehow they became the mainstream. The Democratic party has become more radicalized and further left than they were even in 2006.
    So the radicalization of the GOP is mirrored pretty much, making the Senate less a deliberative body all the time.

  228. Scalia 98-0 as were most SC votes prior to Bork. Alito wasnt the problem. Tbye Senate was the problem.
    My point in listing the people willing to filibuster Alito is that they were the liberal wing of the party at the time. Somehow they became the mainstream. The Democratic party has become more radicalized and further left than they were even in 2006.
    So the radicalization of the GOP is mirrored pretty much, making the Senate less a deliberative body all the time.

  229. Those numbers say more about Dems than the nominees.
    Wrong. They are yet another reflection of the increasing ideological sorting that is going on in the political arena.
    Given my age, I most likely will not witness it, but I suspect there will come a time when a Democratically controlled Senate will ram a 30 year old black female lesbian socialist right down the GOP’s throat, and laugh.
    I see cleek is surviving the storm in fine mettle.

  230. Those numbers say more about Dems than the nominees.
    Wrong. They are yet another reflection of the increasing ideological sorting that is going on in the political arena.
    Given my age, I most likely will not witness it, but I suspect there will come a time when a Democratically controlled Senate will ram a 30 year old black female lesbian socialist right down the GOP’s throat, and laugh.
    I see cleek is surviving the storm in fine mettle.

  231. The Democratic party has become more radicalized and further left than they were even in 2006.
    what was the vote of Garland?

  232. The Democratic party has become more radicalized and further left than they were even in 2006.
    what was the vote of Garland?

  235. say… which party was it that got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, thus abolishing the need that candidates should appeal to at least some Senators from both parties ? and was that before or after Garland got his vote?

  236. say… which party was it that got rid of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, thus abolishing the need that candidates should appeal to at least some Senators from both parties ? and was that before or after Garland got his vote?

  239. Tit tat. Not so much deliberation. You note I didnt say the right hadn’t moved right.
    However, there was nothing mainstream about Sotomayor or Kagan so 5 was pretty good out of what 40? It was interesting to me that Lindsey Graham voted for both of them.

  240. Tit tat. Not so much deliberation. You note I didnt say the right hadn’t moved right.
    However, there was nothing mainstream about Sotomayor or Kagan so 5 was pretty good out of what 40? It was interesting to me that Lindsey Graham voted for both of them.

  243. I suspect there will come a time when a Democratically controlled Senate will ram a 30 year old black female lesbian socialist right down the GOP’s throat, and laugh.
    i suspect you’re right. and i can’t wait to see it.

  244. I suspect there will come a time when a Democratically controlled Senate will ram a 30 year old black female lesbian socialist right down the GOP’s throat, and laugh.
    i suspect you’re right. and i can’t wait to see it.

  247. Kavanaugh vigorously patted himself on the back for taking affirmative action to hire women law clerks. He touted his role as a girls’ softball coach. In high school he knew 65 women so well that they are willing to vouch for his sterling character 35 years later. Brett Kavanaugh is a true feminist, ain’t he?
    BTW, it seems statistically unlikely that 65 women of an age with Kavanaugh all went through life without having any abortions. Make what you will of that.
    –TP

  248. Kavanaugh vigorously patted himself on the back for taking affirmative action to hire women law clerks. He touted his role as a girls’ softball coach. In high school he knew 65 women so well that they are willing to vouch for his sterling character 35 years later. Brett Kavanaugh is a true feminist, ain’t he?
    BTW, it seems statistically unlikely that 65 women of an age with Kavanaugh all went through life without having any abortions. Make what you will of that.
    –TP

  249. Yep, every nominee by a Dem was vetted fairly by the GOP
    Let us allow a moment of silence in which to ponder this statement.
    Clinton, Obama , Reid, Schumer, Durbin
    I give you the American “radicalized left”.
    The “big sorting” everyone is talking about is that the (R)’s have become reactionary, while the (D)’s have become Dwight David Eisenhower. Or, actually, somewhat to the right of Eisenhower.
    Americans wouldn’t know a “radicalized lefty” if one bit them on the keister.
    I don’t mind talking about this stuff, but we need to at least have reference to the same reality.
    Kavanaugh spent the first half of his career as a partisan legal hatchet man. He has no business on the SCOTUS, regardless of his legal brilliance or lack thereof.

  250. Yep, every nominee by a Dem was vetted fairly by the GOP
    Let us allow a moment of silence in which to ponder this statement.
    Clinton, Obama , Reid, Schumer, Durbin
    I give you the American “radicalized left”.
    The “big sorting” everyone is talking about is that the (R)’s have become reactionary, while the (D)’s have become Dwight David Eisenhower. Or, actually, somewhat to the right of Eisenhower.
    Americans wouldn’t know a “radicalized lefty” if one bit them on the keister.
    I don’t mind talking about this stuff, but we need to at least have reference to the same reality.
    Kavanaugh spent the first half of his career as a partisan legal hatchet man. He has no business on the SCOTUS, regardless of his legal brilliance or lack thereof.

  251. He has no business on the SCOTUS, regardless of his legal brilliance or lack thereof.
    Well, that puts him pretty good company.

  252. He has no business on the SCOTUS, regardless of his legal brilliance or lack thereof.
    Well, that puts him pretty good company.

  255. Clinton has never been radical left in her life. She’s a Third Way centrist.
    Someone’s view of the political center has been red-shifted by the speed at which the RW media has been hauling that Overton window rightward.

  256. Clinton has never been radical left in her life. She’s a Third Way centrist.
    Someone’s view of the political center has been red-shifted by the speed at which the RW media has been hauling that Overton window rightward.

  259. “We are standing with Judge Kavanaugh’s denial,” White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah said in a statement to Fox News on Sunday.
    Well, that’s unexpected.
    Now, for corroberation I had hoped for discussions with her friends in the immediate aftermath of the alleged assault, but it seems there are notes from a therapy session in 2012, the release of which Christine Blasey Ford has authorised. What a very interesting situation, not that there’s much doubt, I don’t expect, of how this will end up given the Rs’ need to get him confirmed before the midterms.

  260. “We are standing with Judge Kavanaugh’s denial,” White House principal deputy press secretary Raj Shah said in a statement to Fox News on Sunday.
    Well, that’s unexpected.
    Now, for corroberation I had hoped for discussions with her friends in the immediate aftermath of the alleged assault, but it seems there are notes from a therapy session in 2012, the release of which Christine Blasey Ford has authorised. What a very interesting situation, not that there’s much doubt, I don’t expect, of how this will end up given the Rs’ need to get him confirmed before the midterms.

  265. I figure that the odds of Kavanaugh not being confirmed are only about 1 in 60. On the other hand, consider this.
    The number of women in Congress has been rising steadily. At this rate, how long will it be before the number exceeds what would be necessary to pass (with, one hopes, some men supporting) an impeachment and removal of a Supreme Court Justice? For lying during his confirmation hearings — of which there isn’t a whole lot of doubt.
    Sure, it’s never happened before. But if he does the expected and votes to repeal Roe, after saying it was “settled law”, it wouldn’t be amazing.
    Just a thought.

  266. I figure that the odds of Kavanaugh not being confirmed are only about 1 in 60. On the other hand, consider this.
    The number of women in Congress has been rising steadily. At this rate, how long will it be before the number exceeds what would be necessary to pass (with, one hopes, some men supporting) an impeachment and removal of a Supreme Court Justice? For lying during his confirmation hearings — of which there isn’t a whole lot of doubt.
    Sure, it’s never happened before. But if he does the expected and votes to repeal Roe, after saying it was “settled law”, it wouldn’t be amazing.
    Just a thought.

  267. I thought a justice had been impeached once before, in the 1800s ?
    And there’s pretty damning evidence against Thomas, too….

  268. I thought a justice had been impeached once before, in the 1800s ?
    And there’s pretty damning evidence against Thomas, too….

  269. One Supreme Court Justice was impeached (Samuel Chase). Interestingly, for letting his partisan leanings impact his rulings. (Why does that sound familiar…?)
    However Chase was acquitted by the Senate. What hasn’t happened is impeachment and removal.

  270. One Supreme Court Justice was impeached (Samuel Chase). Interestingly, for letting his partisan leanings impact his rulings. (Why does that sound familiar…?)
    However Chase was acquitted by the Senate. What hasn’t happened is impeachment and removal.

  273. The Democratic party has become more radicalized and further left than they were even in 2006.
    Another manifestation of the Great Sorting. Of course determining the “center” is a bit of a problem as nobody is quite sure where that was, or is.
    I would say a complacently corrupt Democratic Party Rhode Island state legislator is pretty much “in the middle”, but opinions vary.
    However, there was nothing mainstream about Sotomayor or Kagan
    I am a stone partisan. Absent anything approaching substantive evidence, I would ignore this as pure bullshit.
    And I shall.
    Thank you.

  274. The Democratic party has become more radicalized and further left than they were even in 2006.
    Another manifestation of the Great Sorting. Of course determining the “center” is a bit of a problem as nobody is quite sure where that was, or is.
    I would say a complacently corrupt Democratic Party Rhode Island state legislator is pretty much “in the middle”, but opinions vary.
    However, there was nothing mainstream about Sotomayor or Kagan
    I am a stone partisan. Absent anything approaching substantive evidence, I would ignore this as pure bullshit.
    And I shall.
    Thank you.

  275. What bobby said.
    Though I’d also note that the only things not mainstream about the former Dean of Harvard Law School, and a Justice originally raised to the federal bench by Bush the elder, are their sex and ethnicity.

  276. What bobby said.
    Though I’d also note that the only things not mainstream about the former Dean of Harvard Law School, and a Justice originally raised to the federal bench by Bush the elder, are their sex and ethnicity.

  277. the only things not mainstream about the former Dean of Harvard Law School, and a Justice originally raised to the federal bench by Bush the elder, are their sex and ethnicity.
    And if you are looking at the whole population (rather than just the graduates of Ivy League law schools), their gender is pretty mainstream, too. Just sayin’

  278. the only things not mainstream about the former Dean of Harvard Law School, and a Justice originally raised to the federal bench by Bush the elder, are their sex and ethnicity.
    And if you are looking at the whole population (rather than just the graduates of Ivy League law schools), their gender is pretty mainstream, too. Just sayin’

  279. The Republican Party is a cult with a rape camp sidecar:
    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/suffer-annihilation-not-going-matter
    Rape be fine; aborting the humpbacked, hairlipped republican product not permitted.
    Kavanaugh let slip that birth control, in his randy mind, is an abortifacient method.
    His teenaged rapey self probably believed the same of condoms during his misadventure, given that it would dull the sensitivity of his dick, the most sensitive organ on a pigfucking republican.

  280. The Republican Party is a cult with a rape camp sidecar:
    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/suffer-annihilation-not-going-matter
    Rape be fine; aborting the humpbacked, hairlipped republican product not permitted.
    Kavanaugh let slip that birth control, in his randy mind, is an abortifacient method.
    His teenaged rapey self probably believed the same of condoms during his misadventure, given that it would dull the sensitivity of his dick, the most sensitive organ on a pigfucking republican.

  281. Just watched the CNN video of Collins’ response to the allegations. She seemed pretty shaken and unsure of herself.
    I have no idea what to make of that, but maybe it’s a good sign.

  282. Just watched the CNN video of Collins’ response to the allegations. She seemed pretty shaken and unsure of herself.
    I have no idea what to make of that, but maybe it’s a good sign.

  283. And Senator Flake has said flat out that the Judiciary Committee vote (scheduled for Thursday) should not happen until the charges have been properly investigated. Which is likewise a step in the right directing.

  284. And Senator Flake has said flat out that the Judiciary Committee vote (scheduled for Thursday) should not happen until the charges have been properly investigated. Which is likewise a step in the right directing.

  285. I’m willing to bet that Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and every other “reasonable Republican” Senator will vote to confirm Kavanaugh. That he demonstrated his sniveling fealty to He, Trump 3 months ago will not dissuade them any more than a 30-year-old “boyish indiscretion” will.
    Any takers?
    –TP

  286. I’m willing to bet that Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and every other “reasonable Republican” Senator will vote to confirm Kavanaugh. That he demonstrated his sniveling fealty to He, Trump 3 months ago will not dissuade them any more than a 30-year-old “boyish indiscretion” will.
    Any takers?
    –TP

  293. Note that Cruz’ mailer violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) — according to the Texas legislator who wrote it. Also, by apparently getting the government postage rate for his fundraiser, Cruz runs into Federal law as well. Perhaps the US Postal Inspector will act, too.

  294. Note that Cruz’ mailer violates the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) — according to the Texas legislator who wrote it. Also, by apparently getting the government postage rate for his fundraiser, Cruz runs into Federal law as well. Perhaps the US Postal Inspector will act, too.

  295. Why not?
    Here’s why. They are members of the GOP. For the most part, they have surrendered their conscience to their party. Their voting record affirms this.
    The possibility of losing the Senate puts more pressure on these so-called ‘moderates’ to toe the line. What do you want, 30 more years of conservative domination of the SC, or a substantial shot at not getting the brass ring?
    If they punt hoping that ASP (Authoritarian Shithole President) will nominate a more reasonable GOP hack, they risk the possibility (however remote) that they may never get another chance.
    Barring any big verified “moral” scandal, I would expect they will knuckle under.

  296. Why not?
    Here’s why. They are members of the GOP. For the most part, they have surrendered their conscience to their party. Their voting record affirms this.
    The possibility of losing the Senate puts more pressure on these so-called ‘moderates’ to toe the line. What do you want, 30 more years of conservative domination of the SC, or a substantial shot at not getting the brass ring?
    If they punt hoping that ASP (Authoritarian Shithole President) will nominate a more reasonable GOP hack, they risk the possibility (however remote) that they may never get another chance.
    Barring any big verified “moral” scandal, I would expect they will knuckle under.

  297. This should be entertaining. A new standard of having a fine tooth comb applied to every would-be politician’s and jurist’s Blunder Years.

  298. This should be entertaining. A new standard of having a fine tooth comb applied to every would-be politician’s and jurist’s Blunder Years.

  299. It is no doubt a reflection of my own history as a hyper-introverted teen. But I am repeatedly astonished at the kind of behavior that public figures, and their partisans, seem to consider normal in Charles’ “Blunder Years.” Amazing as you will doubtless find this, a lot of us managed to get thru high school and college without binge drinking, wild parties, or running riot.
    But perhaps being massively irresponsible, immature even, at that age is considered a requirement for high office? Charles?

  300. It is no doubt a reflection of my own history as a hyper-introverted teen. But I am repeatedly astonished at the kind of behavior that public figures, and their partisans, seem to consider normal in Charles’ “Blunder Years.” Amazing as you will doubtless find this, a lot of us managed to get thru high school and college without binge drinking, wild parties, or running riot.
    But perhaps being massively irresponsible, immature even, at that age is considered a requirement for high office? Charles?

  301. And if you are looking at the whole population (rather than just the graduates of Ivy League law schools), their gender is pretty mainstream, too. Just sayin’
    Indeed…. but I was considering the two appointed to the Court in its entire history, prior to Kagan and Sotomayor.

  302. And if you are looking at the whole population (rather than just the graduates of Ivy League law schools), their gender is pretty mainstream, too. Just sayin’
    Indeed…. but I was considering the two appointed to the Court in its entire history, prior to Kagan and Sotomayor.

  303. But perhaps being massively irresponsible, immature even, at that age is considered a requirement for high office? Charles?
    Well, if the requirement is for sociopaths.
    I was an introverted showoff. I would do things to get attention. And then cringe when I got it.

  304. But perhaps being massively irresponsible, immature even, at that age is considered a requirement for high office? Charles?
    Well, if the requirement is for sociopaths.
    I was an introverted showoff. I would do things to get attention. And then cringe when I got it.

  305. As one might expect, I like this article
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-supreme-court-ford-sexual-assault-219983
    So here was Kavaunagh—who spent his early thirties as a Ken Starr warrior pursuing Bill Clinton for the political and legal implications of his most intimate moral failings—now in his early fifties facing a political crisis over disturbingly vivid, passionately contested, decades-old allegations about Kavanaugh’s own possible moral failings.
    Few prosecutors, it seems likely, would ever open an assault case—36 years later—on the basis of Christine Blasey Ford’s account of being pinned down on a bed by a drunken Kavanaugh, then 17, and being aggressively groped until a friend of his forcibly intervened.
    But few prosecutors in the 1990s would have pursued an extensive criminal investigation over perjury into a middle-aged man’s lies about adultery if that person had not been President Clinton. In his zeal at the time, Kavanaugh, like Starr, may have worked himself into a belief that this was about sacred principles of law, but to many others—and ultimately to a clear majority of the country—it was obvious that the case was fundamentally about political power.
    Kavanaugh’s fate, too, now depends on precisely the same thing: Do the allegations change the calculation for the perhaps half-a-dozen senators—including Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—whose minds were not already made up by earlier political calculations?
    With the benefit of hindsight, Kavanaugh later concluded presidents should be shielded from criminal investigations of the sort he helped wage against Clinton. At the time, however, he was filled with righteous indignation. “It is our job,” he wrote colleagues in Starr’s office in an email, “to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear—piece by painful piece.”
    Can Kavanaugh and his supporters really be surprised that opponents of his nomination will feel similarly righteous in wanting to examine allegations against him piece by piece?

  306. As one might expect, I like this article
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-supreme-court-ford-sexual-assault-219983
    So here was Kavaunagh—who spent his early thirties as a Ken Starr warrior pursuing Bill Clinton for the political and legal implications of his most intimate moral failings—now in his early fifties facing a political crisis over disturbingly vivid, passionately contested, decades-old allegations about Kavanaugh’s own possible moral failings.
    Few prosecutors, it seems likely, would ever open an assault case—36 years later—on the basis of Christine Blasey Ford’s account of being pinned down on a bed by a drunken Kavanaugh, then 17, and being aggressively groped until a friend of his forcibly intervened.
    But few prosecutors in the 1990s would have pursued an extensive criminal investigation over perjury into a middle-aged man’s lies about adultery if that person had not been President Clinton. In his zeal at the time, Kavanaugh, like Starr, may have worked himself into a belief that this was about sacred principles of law, but to many others—and ultimately to a clear majority of the country—it was obvious that the case was fundamentally about political power.
    Kavanaugh’s fate, too, now depends on precisely the same thing: Do the allegations change the calculation for the perhaps half-a-dozen senators—including Republicans Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—whose minds were not already made up by earlier political calculations?
    With the benefit of hindsight, Kavanaugh later concluded presidents should be shielded from criminal investigations of the sort he helped wage against Clinton. At the time, however, he was filled with righteous indignation. “It is our job,” he wrote colleagues in Starr’s office in an email, “to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear—piece by painful piece.”
    Can Kavanaugh and his supporters really be surprised that opponents of his nomination will feel similarly righteous in wanting to examine allegations against him piece by piece?

  307. And probably no surprise that I liked this one.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh/570406/
    In lobbying Trump to nominate Kavanaugh, his defenders had initially insisted that he was reliably anti-choice. “On the vital issues of protecting religious liberty and enforcing restrictions on abortion,” one former clerk reassured fellow conservatives in National Review, “no court-of-appeals judge in the nation has a stronger, more consistent record than Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”
    Once Kavanaugh was trotted out, however, the discourse became very odd indeed. It reminded me of Thomas Pynchon’s parody of Jacobean revenge drama in The Crying of Lot 49:
    “a gentle chill, an ambiguity, begins to creep in among the words. Heretofore the naming of names has gone on either literally or as metaphor. But now … a new mode of expression takes over. Certain things, it is made clear, will not be spoken aloud; certain things will not be show onstage; though it is difficult to imagine, given the excess of the preceding acts, what these things could possibly be.’
    His defenders smoothly pivoted to insisting that the judge’s mind was completely open on these very issues. Kavanaugh had no pre-conceived ideas, they claimed with near-straight faces, about precedents that guarantee a woman’s “liberty interest” to choose abortion before the viability of a fetus….

  308. And probably no surprise that I liked this one.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh/570406/
    In lobbying Trump to nominate Kavanaugh, his defenders had initially insisted that he was reliably anti-choice. “On the vital issues of protecting religious liberty and enforcing restrictions on abortion,” one former clerk reassured fellow conservatives in National Review, “no court-of-appeals judge in the nation has a stronger, more consistent record than Judge Brett Kavanaugh.”
    Once Kavanaugh was trotted out, however, the discourse became very odd indeed. It reminded me of Thomas Pynchon’s parody of Jacobean revenge drama in The Crying of Lot 49:
    “a gentle chill, an ambiguity, begins to creep in among the words. Heretofore the naming of names has gone on either literally or as metaphor. But now … a new mode of expression takes over. Certain things, it is made clear, will not be spoken aloud; certain things will not be show onstage; though it is difficult to imagine, given the excess of the preceding acts, what these things could possibly be.’
    His defenders smoothly pivoted to insisting that the judge’s mind was completely open on these very issues. Kavanaugh had no pre-conceived ideas, they claimed with near-straight faces, about precedents that guarantee a woman’s “liberty interest” to choose abortion before the viability of a fetus….

  309. it’s been bugging me, but I just realised who Kavanaugh reminds me of – the late great John Ritter in one of his sleazy bad guy roles.

  310. it’s been bugging me, but I just realised who Kavanaugh reminds me of – the late great John Ritter in one of his sleazy bad guy roles.

  311. From Nigel’s article
    But Trump’s promise came to the fore this year, with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy’s single vote kept abortion rights alive for a quarter century. Trump’s chosen replacement, Brett Kavanaugh, had referred in a published opinion to “abortion on demand” and, referring only to “existing Supreme Court precedent,” refused even to cite the precedential cases by name.
    I wonder if Kennedy even gave any thought about his position in that balance when he was apparently recommending Kavanaugh to Trump.
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-justice-anthony-kennedy-retirement
    https://newrepublic.com/minutes/149750/anthony-kennedy-make-deal-trump

  312. From Nigel’s article
    But Trump’s promise came to the fore this year, with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy’s single vote kept abortion rights alive for a quarter century. Trump’s chosen replacement, Brett Kavanaugh, had referred in a published opinion to “abortion on demand” and, referring only to “existing Supreme Court precedent,” refused even to cite the precedential cases by name.
    I wonder if Kennedy even gave any thought about his position in that balance when he was apparently recommending Kavanaugh to Trump.
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/donald-trump-justice-anthony-kennedy-retirement
    https://newrepublic.com/minutes/149750/anthony-kennedy-make-deal-trump

  319. I posted this on the wrong thread, so reposting here….
    What on earth can this mean other than teenage boys should get a pass on this kind of behaviour ?
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/16/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-response-826069
    One outside Trump adviser was quick to suggest an effort to have Ford testify publicly amid the ongoing #MeToo wave would backfire on Democrats. “They’re playing a high-stakes game right now,” this adviser said. “You know there are a lot of people in this country who are parents of high school boys. This is not Anita Hill….
    I do note, however, that Kellyanne Conway has shown a flash of decency and said she should be heard.

  320. I posted this on the wrong thread, so reposting here….
    What on earth can this mean other than teenage boys should get a pass on this kind of behaviour ?
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/16/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-response-826069
    One outside Trump adviser was quick to suggest an effort to have Ford testify publicly amid the ongoing #MeToo wave would backfire on Democrats. “They’re playing a high-stakes game right now,” this adviser said. “You know there are a lot of people in this country who are parents of high school boys. This is not Anita Hill….
    I do note, however, that Kellyanne Conway has shown a flash of decency and said she should be heard.

  321. to many others—and ultimately to a clear majority of the country—it was obvious that the case was fundamentally about political power.
    Per the discussion about whether we’re going to dig into everyone’s “Blunder Years” before we let them hold office — ISTM that there’s an unsurprising and not tiny intersection between the set of people who crave political power and the set of people who crave the type of power over other people that ends in sexual coercion.
    Implications left for later, I’m still traveling.

  322. to many others—and ultimately to a clear majority of the country—it was obvious that the case was fundamentally about political power.
    Per the discussion about whether we’re going to dig into everyone’s “Blunder Years” before we let them hold office — ISTM that there’s an unsurprising and not tiny intersection between the set of people who crave political power and the set of people who crave the type of power over other people that ends in sexual coercion.
    Implications left for later, I’m still traveling.

  323. “This is not Anita Hill.”
    And if it was, one can imagine the “narrative” against her constructed by said outside mp advisor.
    Is he outside the country, by any chance?
    “A flash of decency”
    Sunspots can cause illusions like that ….. and global warming.

  324. “This is not Anita Hill.”
    And if it was, one can imagine the “narrative” against her constructed by said outside mp advisor.
    Is he outside the country, by any chance?
    “A flash of decency”
    Sunspots can cause illusions like that ….. and global warming.

  327. whether we’re going to dig into everyone’s “Blunder Years” before we let them hold office …
    Well certainly, if they deny under oath a credible allegation.

  328. whether we’re going to dig into everyone’s “Blunder Years” before we let them hold office …
    Well certainly, if they deny under oath a credible allegation.

  329. Count, you’ve got to admit that blowing up the use of the dollar in international trade would be a great step forward for someone who is, apparently, a devote isolationist. Besides, it would cut down international trade. Win-win!

  330. Count, you’ve got to admit that blowing up the use of the dollar in international trade would be a great step forward for someone who is, apparently, a devote isolationist. Besides, it would cut down international trade. Win-win!

  333. The letter exchange goes on…
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/406993-alumnae-of-kavanaugh-accusers-high-school-send-letter-defending-her
    Alumnae of Christine Blasey Ford’s high school are circulating a letter to show their support for her, after Ford came forward with sexual misconduct accusations against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
    “We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story,” a draft letter from alumnae of Holton-Arms, a private girls school in Bethesda, Md., reads, as first reported by Huffington Post.
    “It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.”
    The letter, which says it’s from more than 200 alumnae from classes 1967 through 2018, added that Ford’s allegations about Kavanaugh are “all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton.”…

  334. The letter exchange goes on…
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/406993-alumnae-of-kavanaugh-accusers-high-school-send-letter-defending-her
    Alumnae of Christine Blasey Ford’s high school are circulating a letter to show their support for her, after Ford came forward with sexual misconduct accusations against President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh.
    “We believe Dr. Blasey Ford and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story,” a draft letter from alumnae of Holton-Arms, a private girls school in Bethesda, Md., reads, as first reported by Huffington Post.
    “It demands a thorough and independent investigation before the Senate can reasonably vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to a lifetime seat on the nation’s highest court.”
    The letter, which says it’s from more than 200 alumnae from classes 1967 through 2018, added that Ford’s allegations about Kavanaugh are “all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton.”…

  335. Difficult to argue with the thrust of this article:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-revealing-logic-of-boys-will-be-boys/570415/
    And so, this weekend, within the space of a few hours, something remarkable happened. The salient question about Ford’s allegations became, in some quarters, not whether they are true, but rather whether they count as allegations at all. The cruelties she describes—the alleged acts of dehumanization that left her traumatized, she says, as a 15-year-old and, still, as an adult—might be “terrible,” yes, but they are also … simply part of the natural order of things. Boys, figuring out how to be men. Locker-room talk, made manifest. “Drunk teenagers playing seven minutes of heaven.” Who wouldn’t be implicated in that?

  336. Difficult to argue with the thrust of this article:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-revealing-logic-of-boys-will-be-boys/570415/
    And so, this weekend, within the space of a few hours, something remarkable happened. The salient question about Ford’s allegations became, in some quarters, not whether they are true, but rather whether they count as allegations at all. The cruelties she describes—the alleged acts of dehumanization that left her traumatized, she says, as a 15-year-old and, still, as an adult—might be “terrible,” yes, but they are also … simply part of the natural order of things. Boys, figuring out how to be men. Locker-room talk, made manifest. “Drunk teenagers playing seven minutes of heaven.” Who wouldn’t be implicated in that?

  337. Upon the even of my Supreme Court nomination my highschool classmates will be canvased for dozens of people willing to sign a letter saying that they always expected me to grow up to be a serial killer, are kind of let down that I didn’t, but maybe I’d make a good judge or something or maybe not, they don’t really know because we weren’t close.
    As for Kavanaugh himself I’m obviously against, because he wouldn’t be on the Federalist Society shortlist if he was a good judge.
    But the way this story has come out has been the absolute worst for coherent discourse. Something will be reported, people will react, then something new will be reported that completely changes everything. But people mostly won’t change their takes, nor will other people allow them to change their takes.
    One moment its “Feinstein is trash for hiding this, has she learned nothing about feminism??” And then its “oh, wait, the woman in question specifically asked Feinstein not to say anything, and has written in support of Feinstein on this specific issue.” But in the minds of some, Feinstein is already trash, no take backs.
    Or its “The Democrats hid this until the last second! Perfidy!” But then it turns out that this wasn’t supposed to come out at all and there was no malevolent intent in waiting.
    Or its “Actually, its perfectly reasonable to not instantly discard a candidate because of an anonymous accusation. We live in a country with hundreds of millions of people, and even if the vast, vast majority of them are rational and truthful, it only takes one to lie, or shoot up a baseball game. So lets not go too nuts when it happens- frankly, doing that is downright dangerous and its appropriate of men or whichever group is being targeted at the moment to find it a bit scary when it happens.” Which is completely reasonable! But then oh wait, no, twelve hours have passed and now the accuser isn’t anonymous and has supporting documentation tending to show that this wasn’t fabricated for the purposes of derailing a Supreme Court nomination.
    This has been the absolute worst media cycle. If I built a controversy in a lab for the purposes of driving people towards radicalization, this is how I would do it.

  338. Upon the even of my Supreme Court nomination my highschool classmates will be canvased for dozens of people willing to sign a letter saying that they always expected me to grow up to be a serial killer, are kind of let down that I didn’t, but maybe I’d make a good judge or something or maybe not, they don’t really know because we weren’t close.
    As for Kavanaugh himself I’m obviously against, because he wouldn’t be on the Federalist Society shortlist if he was a good judge.
    But the way this story has come out has been the absolute worst for coherent discourse. Something will be reported, people will react, then something new will be reported that completely changes everything. But people mostly won’t change their takes, nor will other people allow them to change their takes.
    One moment its “Feinstein is trash for hiding this, has she learned nothing about feminism??” And then its “oh, wait, the woman in question specifically asked Feinstein not to say anything, and has written in support of Feinstein on this specific issue.” But in the minds of some, Feinstein is already trash, no take backs.
    Or its “The Democrats hid this until the last second! Perfidy!” But then it turns out that this wasn’t supposed to come out at all and there was no malevolent intent in waiting.
    Or its “Actually, its perfectly reasonable to not instantly discard a candidate because of an anonymous accusation. We live in a country with hundreds of millions of people, and even if the vast, vast majority of them are rational and truthful, it only takes one to lie, or shoot up a baseball game. So lets not go too nuts when it happens- frankly, doing that is downright dangerous and its appropriate of men or whichever group is being targeted at the moment to find it a bit scary when it happens.” Which is completely reasonable! But then oh wait, no, twelve hours have passed and now the accuser isn’t anonymous and has supporting documentation tending to show that this wasn’t fabricated for the purposes of derailing a Supreme Court nomination.
    This has been the absolute worst media cycle. If I built a controversy in a lab for the purposes of driving people towards radicalization, this is how I would do it.

  343. Trump is a terrible president, Kavanaugh would be a very poor Justice, but.
    Putting a charge to someone 36 years after the alleged wrongdoing is not something we should be doing. How could an innocent person possibly defend themself?
    It seems to me very unlikely that any hearing of the allegation will reveal anything significant. It’s just an excuse for fainthearted senators to delay the confirmation, without declaring outright opposition to the nominee.
    However, if anyone in the world deserves this, it’s Kavanaugh. Marty thinks Bill Clinton was obliged to answer impertinent questions frankly, or else rightly be impeached, whereas Kavanaugh should be free to lie through his teeth. I think the question should not arise, because the Constitution is a mistake, the Supreme Court is a mistake, Trump is a huge mistake, Garland should have been confirmed, Kavanaugh should not have been nominated, and any politically extreme hack nominated should be rejected out of hand. But since we are where we are, pretty well any means are justified to try to save the Supreme Court from having Kavanaugh on it for decades. Once we’ve avoided that we can worry about reforming the whole nomination process.

  344. Trump is a terrible president, Kavanaugh would be a very poor Justice, but.
    Putting a charge to someone 36 years after the alleged wrongdoing is not something we should be doing. How could an innocent person possibly defend themself?
    It seems to me very unlikely that any hearing of the allegation will reveal anything significant. It’s just an excuse for fainthearted senators to delay the confirmation, without declaring outright opposition to the nominee.
    However, if anyone in the world deserves this, it’s Kavanaugh. Marty thinks Bill Clinton was obliged to answer impertinent questions frankly, or else rightly be impeached, whereas Kavanaugh should be free to lie through his teeth. I think the question should not arise, because the Constitution is a mistake, the Supreme Court is a mistake, Trump is a huge mistake, Garland should have been confirmed, Kavanaugh should not have been nominated, and any politically extreme hack nominated should be rejected out of hand. But since we are where we are, pretty well any means are justified to try to save the Supreme Court from having Kavanaugh on it for decades. Once we’ve avoided that we can worry about reforming the whole nomination process.

  345. It seems to me very unlikely that any hearing of the allegation will reveal anything significant.
    But then, that’s part of why you have hearings: to see if anything significant is revealed or not.

  346. It seems to me very unlikely that any hearing of the allegation will reveal anything significant.
    But then, that’s part of why you have hearings: to see if anything significant is revealed or not.

  349. Putting a charge to someone 36 years after the alleged wrongdoing is not something we should be doing. How could an innocent person possibly defend themself?
    It’s a fair question, and not one I could easily answer.
    What strikes me, though, is Kavanaugh’s declared certainty that this did not occur. Not that ‘I might have been drunk’, or this was 36 years ago, and recollections not only differ, but are mutable and unreliable. But that she is lying.
    Which is possible, I suppose.
    But there is reportedly a third witness, who should also be heard.
    And I have a problem equally with the idea that a story should be ignored simply because it is three decades old.
    One only has to look at what is happening with the Catholic Church, or various English public schools, to know that is plain wrong.

  350. Putting a charge to someone 36 years after the alleged wrongdoing is not something we should be doing. How could an innocent person possibly defend themself?
    It’s a fair question, and not one I could easily answer.
    What strikes me, though, is Kavanaugh’s declared certainty that this did not occur. Not that ‘I might have been drunk’, or this was 36 years ago, and recollections not only differ, but are mutable and unreliable. But that she is lying.
    Which is possible, I suppose.
    But there is reportedly a third witness, who should also be heard.
    And I have a problem equally with the idea that a story should be ignored simply because it is three decades old.
    One only has to look at what is happening with the Catholic Church, or various English public schools, to know that is plain wrong.

  353. “it continues to amaze me how bad the GOP is at handling these kinds of issues.”
    Considering how much intimate personal experience they all have on “these kind” of issues.
    Information from Kavanaugh’s H.S. buddy indicates that, back in the day, they were butt-chugging.
    GOP Magic-8 Ball says “seems plausible”.

  354. “it continues to amaze me how bad the GOP is at handling these kinds of issues.”
    Considering how much intimate personal experience they all have on “these kind” of issues.
    Information from Kavanaugh’s H.S. buddy indicates that, back in the day, they were butt-chugging.
    GOP Magic-8 Ball says “seems plausible”.

  357. A couple of interesting things.Unfortunately, some of the discussion is in the other thread
    the quote from Nigel’s link
    This is not Anita Hill….
    That is a really interesting aside, because it seems to grant that Anita Hill was right.
    About 30 years. Yeah, I’m uncomfortable, but chickens coming home to roost. I don’t recall anyone talking about the length of time when accusations against Clinton came up.
    JanieM’s observation about intersections is also worth noting.
    lastly, there was this about Mark Judge
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-mark-judge-high-school-drunk-allegation-alcohol/
    I have a half finished novel. I gave it up, not because it’s sappy and derivative (though it is), but because I found myself recycling actual events and people. That was the raw material, and after a certain point, I felt I was ransacking my memories to get that raw material.
    The link excerpts this from Judge’s book where a guy named Bart O’Kavanaugh, makes an appearance. He just pukes and passes out in a car. The book doesn’t even have the excuse of fiction, as it was published as a memoir. And his opinion output seems to have the same pov
    https://nordic.businessinsider.com/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school-friend-christine-ford-2018-9/
    I wonder if everyone who dismissed Taibibi earlier (yeah, I remember) are going to express their outrage about the comedy stylings of Judge.
    Rather than thinking that Feinstein held this accusation to the last minute and then released it, I think it was Patrick’s scenario, when he wrote
    If I built a controversy in a lab for the purposes of driving people towards radicalization, this is how I would do it.
    I realize that the more historically minded will start with Bork, or Clarence Thomas, but when you think about the steps, Merrick Garland, Clickbait’s constant assaults on whatever, Grassley’s running of the committee, it seems to me (as one might expect) that the drive towards radicalization has been pretty one-sided, so you can’t be surprised by this. I imagine the reason that Feinstein didn’t release the letter (images of Zeus and the Kraken) is that she was hoping for some face saving solution. That was never going to come.

  358. A couple of interesting things.Unfortunately, some of the discussion is in the other thread
    the quote from Nigel’s link
    This is not Anita Hill….
    That is a really interesting aside, because it seems to grant that Anita Hill was right.
    About 30 years. Yeah, I’m uncomfortable, but chickens coming home to roost. I don’t recall anyone talking about the length of time when accusations against Clinton came up.
    JanieM’s observation about intersections is also worth noting.
    lastly, there was this about Mark Judge
    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-mark-judge-high-school-drunk-allegation-alcohol/
    I have a half finished novel. I gave it up, not because it’s sappy and derivative (though it is), but because I found myself recycling actual events and people. That was the raw material, and after a certain point, I felt I was ransacking my memories to get that raw material.
    The link excerpts this from Judge’s book where a guy named Bart O’Kavanaugh, makes an appearance. He just pukes and passes out in a car. The book doesn’t even have the excuse of fiction, as it was published as a memoir. And his opinion output seems to have the same pov
    https://nordic.businessinsider.com/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school-friend-christine-ford-2018-9/
    I wonder if everyone who dismissed Taibibi earlier (yeah, I remember) are going to express their outrage about the comedy stylings of Judge.
    Rather than thinking that Feinstein held this accusation to the last minute and then released it, I think it was Patrick’s scenario, when he wrote
    If I built a controversy in a lab for the purposes of driving people towards radicalization, this is how I would do it.
    I realize that the more historically minded will start with Bork, or Clarence Thomas, but when you think about the steps, Merrick Garland, Clickbait’s constant assaults on whatever, Grassley’s running of the committee, it seems to me (as one might expect) that the drive towards radicalization has been pretty one-sided, so you can’t be surprised by this. I imagine the reason that Feinstein didn’t release the letter (images of Zeus and the Kraken) is that she was hoping for some face saving solution. That was never going to come.

  365. By the way, I am not in favor of some less rapey version of Kavanaugh. Republican policies are, currently, deliberate cruelty. They aren’t some calculation of free market trickle down that happens to be wrong. They’re about cruelty to immigrant children, even deliberate abuse. They are about indefinitely incarcerating families in private prisons in order to enrich the owners of those industries. They’re about creating an Erik Prince driven mercenary army that skates across any possible accountability to anyone. They’re about influence peddling to a white supremicist, authoritarian foreign government in exchange for enriching wealthy people. They’re about money laundering through the NRA to empower white American oligarchs.
    I don’t accept that there is any untainted nominee, although Kavanaugh is probably worse than most.

  366. By the way, I am not in favor of some less rapey version of Kavanaugh. Republican policies are, currently, deliberate cruelty. They aren’t some calculation of free market trickle down that happens to be wrong. They’re about cruelty to immigrant children, even deliberate abuse. They are about indefinitely incarcerating families in private prisons in order to enrich the owners of those industries. They’re about creating an Erik Prince driven mercenary army that skates across any possible accountability to anyone. They’re about influence peddling to a white supremicist, authoritarian foreign government in exchange for enriching wealthy people. They’re about money laundering through the NRA to empower white American oligarchs.
    I don’t accept that there is any untainted nominee, although Kavanaugh is probably worse than most.

  367. Oh, I almost forgot: they’re about destroying the environment to enrich some of the richest of them.
    They’re horrible people, every single one of them.

  368. Oh, I almost forgot: they’re about destroying the environment to enrich some of the richest of them.
    They’re horrible people, every single one of them.

  369. It is amazing–did Trump somehow pick the one currently sitting judicial candidate who would have any trouble whatsoever getting confirmed? Can we be that lucky? Probably not.
    The whole thing makes me sick.
    On the one hand, I believe that if it could proved, an attempted rape would certainly be disqualifying. (There might be edge cases where it wouldn’t be, but unrepentant isn’t one of them).
    On the same hand, I can’t imagine why someone would come forward and almost certainly get crucified by a huge portion of the right-wing press, if it weren’t true.
    But on the other hand, you can’t possibly look into a he said/she said attempt crime of almost 40 years and hope to get to useful clarity. She doesn’t even have contemporaneous reportsto friends or the like (unlike Juanita Broadrrick with very similar allegations against Bill Clinton–though that allegation was rape, not attempted rape).
    I don’t have any idea what the FBI is supposed to do with the Feinstien referral.
    I don’t have any idea what a hearing is supposed to do. You don’t even need to see/hear the testimony to predict that Democrats are going to find her believable and him unbelievable with Republicans asserting the converse, literally no matter what it looks like because it is going to be a partisan game playing hearing, not a fact finding hearing.
    I guess the only thing would be if the other male friend is willing to testify that he thought there was a rape attempt? But if we don’t see exactly that, I can’t picture a good outcome for the country here. (And I mean that completely independent of the result of Kavanaugh being confirmed, which is its own problem).
    So far, I believe her. I believed Juanita Broadrrick. But I don’t know what to do about it with accusations that old that seem resistant to investigation just by the passing of time. (Maybe that will cease to be as big a problem as we get to a more highly documented society).

  370. It is amazing–did Trump somehow pick the one currently sitting judicial candidate who would have any trouble whatsoever getting confirmed? Can we be that lucky? Probably not.
    The whole thing makes me sick.
    On the one hand, I believe that if it could proved, an attempted rape would certainly be disqualifying. (There might be edge cases where it wouldn’t be, but unrepentant isn’t one of them).
    On the same hand, I can’t imagine why someone would come forward and almost certainly get crucified by a huge portion of the right-wing press, if it weren’t true.
    But on the other hand, you can’t possibly look into a he said/she said attempt crime of almost 40 years and hope to get to useful clarity. She doesn’t even have contemporaneous reportsto friends or the like (unlike Juanita Broadrrick with very similar allegations against Bill Clinton–though that allegation was rape, not attempted rape).
    I don’t have any idea what the FBI is supposed to do with the Feinstien referral.
    I don’t have any idea what a hearing is supposed to do. You don’t even need to see/hear the testimony to predict that Democrats are going to find her believable and him unbelievable with Republicans asserting the converse, literally no matter what it looks like because it is going to be a partisan game playing hearing, not a fact finding hearing.
    I guess the only thing would be if the other male friend is willing to testify that he thought there was a rape attempt? But if we don’t see exactly that, I can’t picture a good outcome for the country here. (And I mean that completely independent of the result of Kavanaugh being confirmed, which is its own problem).
    So far, I believe her. I believed Juanita Broadrrick. But I don’t know what to do about it with accusations that old that seem resistant to investigation just by the passing of time. (Maybe that will cease to be as big a problem as we get to a more highly documented society).

  371. McConnell apparently tried to warn Trump.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html
    I wonder if there is or will be a phone call between Trump and McConnell that goes like the Bernstein call. ‘hey, no one told me that there would be any problems, Kellyanne, did Mitch talk to you?’
    I guess the only thing would be if the other male friend is willing to testify that he thought there was a rape attempt?
    If the other male friend goes up, it would be hard to imagine that Mark Judge wouldn’t be put up. I put some links earlier about him. This is from the WaPo piece
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/09/17/what-the-man-accused-of-helping-kavanaugh-assault-a-woman-wrote-about-female-sexuality/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5beab8f36e3d
    A quote from a playwright runs alongside the family photos on Mark Judge’s page in his high school yearbook: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”
    Judge’s yearbook entry appears one page before the bio of his classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, federal judge and Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983 — a year after they allegedly locked a girl inside a bedroom at a house party, where she says a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to strip her while a similarly drunken Judge watched and laughed.
    I really can’t imagine what it would be like if he were called on to testify. Would Grassley keep ruling questions about Judge’s experiences around the time of the incident out of line? The mind boggles.

  372. McConnell apparently tried to warn Trump.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/trump-mcconnell-supreme-court.html
    I wonder if there is or will be a phone call between Trump and McConnell that goes like the Bernstein call. ‘hey, no one told me that there would be any problems, Kellyanne, did Mitch talk to you?’
    I guess the only thing would be if the other male friend is willing to testify that he thought there was a rape attempt?
    If the other male friend goes up, it would be hard to imagine that Mark Judge wouldn’t be put up. I put some links earlier about him. This is from the WaPo piece
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/09/17/what-the-man-accused-of-helping-kavanaugh-assault-a-woman-wrote-about-female-sexuality/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5beab8f36e3d
    A quote from a playwright runs alongside the family photos on Mark Judge’s page in his high school yearbook: “Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs.”
    Judge’s yearbook entry appears one page before the bio of his classmate at Georgetown Preparatory School, federal judge and Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh. Both men graduated in 1983 — a year after they allegedly locked a girl inside a bedroom at a house party, where she says a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and tried to strip her while a similarly drunken Judge watched and laughed.
    I really can’t imagine what it would be like if he were called on to testify. Would Grassley keep ruling questions about Judge’s experiences around the time of the incident out of line? The mind boggles.

  373. I don’t have any idea what the FBI is supposed to do with the Feinstien referral.
    Nothing. For the simple reason that, given the position and the timing, the FBI can’t investigate until and unless the White House tells them to. Which, so far, it has not.
    If aand when it is told to, they could start by talking to others in that social circle at the time. Maybe find out who all was at that party. Who knows, there might be established reputations (at the time) — for either of the parties, and positive or negative. Would they find anything useful? No way to know without looking.
    As for what the testimony is supposed to do, that would be the same array as the original testimony:
    1) give Senators on both sides a chance to posture,
    2) make both parties answer under oath. (Some people actually worry about perjury. Those who can tell the difference between truth and lies.)
    3) give some chance to evaluate the credibility, and willingness to answer forthrightly, of both witnesses,
    4) maybe actually gain some new and relevant facts,
    5) always, provide opportunities for posturing.
    1 & 5 being of particular interest with elections coming up soon.

  374. I don’t have any idea what the FBI is supposed to do with the Feinstien referral.
    Nothing. For the simple reason that, given the position and the timing, the FBI can’t investigate until and unless the White House tells them to. Which, so far, it has not.
    If aand when it is told to, they could start by talking to others in that social circle at the time. Maybe find out who all was at that party. Who knows, there might be established reputations (at the time) — for either of the parties, and positive or negative. Would they find anything useful? No way to know without looking.
    As for what the testimony is supposed to do, that would be the same array as the original testimony:
    1) give Senators on both sides a chance to posture,
    2) make both parties answer under oath. (Some people actually worry about perjury. Those who can tell the difference between truth and lies.)
    3) give some chance to evaluate the credibility, and willingness to answer forthrightly, of both witnesses,
    4) maybe actually gain some new and relevant facts,
    5) always, provide opportunities for posturing.
    1 & 5 being of particular interest with elections coming up soon.

  377. Posted without comment.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kavanaugh-s-accuser-should-unfortunately-expect-anita-hill-treatment-republicans-ncna910226
    …In defending Thomas to the hilt, I used Wright’s FBI file, which had been illegally leaked to me by Republican Senate staff, to depict Wright as both emotionally unstable and sexually promiscuous.
    Two years later, in 1994, I was asked to review Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer’s book, “Strange Justice,” which reported additional credible evidence for Hill’s allegations. Then on the Supreme Court, an angry and vindictive Justice Thomas leaked to me private details from a divorce proceeding of yet another accuser, Kaye Savage, to help me discredit the book.
    Yet after reading the convincing account of “Strange Justice,” once-stalwart defenders of Thomas who had been the trusted sources for “The Real Anita Hill” admitted to me that they always knew Thomas was guilty as charged, and that the attacks on Hill were pure naked politics.
    I then realized that I had been complicit in a campaign of character assassination — and I understood that Clarence Thomas almost certainly perjured himself to gain his seat. (Years later, I wrote a private memo to Sen. Hillary Clinton laying out all this and more in a case for Thomas’s impeachment)….

  378. Posted without comment.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kavanaugh-s-accuser-should-unfortunately-expect-anita-hill-treatment-republicans-ncna910226
    …In defending Thomas to the hilt, I used Wright’s FBI file, which had been illegally leaked to me by Republican Senate staff, to depict Wright as both emotionally unstable and sexually promiscuous.
    Two years later, in 1994, I was asked to review Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer’s book, “Strange Justice,” which reported additional credible evidence for Hill’s allegations. Then on the Supreme Court, an angry and vindictive Justice Thomas leaked to me private details from a divorce proceeding of yet another accuser, Kaye Savage, to help me discredit the book.
    Yet after reading the convincing account of “Strange Justice,” once-stalwart defenders of Thomas who had been the trusted sources for “The Real Anita Hill” admitted to me that they always knew Thomas was guilty as charged, and that the attacks on Hill were pure naked politics.
    I then realized that I had been complicit in a campaign of character assassination — and I understood that Clarence Thomas almost certainly perjured himself to gain his seat. (Years later, I wrote a private memo to Sen. Hillary Clinton laying out all this and more in a case for Thomas’s impeachment)….

  379. did Trump somehow pick the one currently sitting judicial candidate who would have any trouble whatsoever getting confirmed
    I would find it utterly surprising if he did so, and did so intentionally.
    And David Brock can take his remorse and go piss up a rope.

  380. did Trump somehow pick the one currently sitting judicial candidate who would have any trouble whatsoever getting confirmed
    I would find it utterly surprising if he did so, and did so intentionally.
    And David Brock can take his remorse and go piss up a rope.

  383. Not looking to pick a fight about it, but Brock’s admission is not breaking news.
    The graceful, sensible, politically expedient thing for Trump to do is to withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate someone else.
    For all of those reasons, it will not be what he does.

  384. Not looking to pick a fight about it, but Brock’s admission is not breaking news.
    The graceful, sensible, politically expedient thing for Trump to do is to withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate someone else.
    For all of those reasons, it will not be what he does.

  385. Fair enough, and I wasn’t intending to suggest it was. It is a timely reminder, though, to the handful of Republican Senators amenable in some way to argument, of what they might be participating in.
    FWIW, I’d put the odds on Kavanaugh’s confirmation not greatly better than evens now.
    I might be an optimist.

  386. Fair enough, and I wasn’t intending to suggest it was. It is a timely reminder, though, to the handful of Republican Senators amenable in some way to argument, of what they might be participating in.
    FWIW, I’d put the odds on Kavanaugh’s confirmation not greatly better than evens now.
    I might be an optimist.

  387. No worries Nigel, and actually it is a worthwhile and timely reminder.
    Apologies for my tone, I’ve just had my fill of former (R) jerks who want to come in from out of the cold, now that they’ve “seen the light”.
    Brock was well paid for his work, in the Anita Hill case and otherwise, and it formed no small part of the basis for his “brilliant career”. Regrets at this point cost him little, so I in turn hold them at little value.
    But your citation was worthwhile and timely.

  388. No worries Nigel, and actually it is a worthwhile and timely reminder.
    Apologies for my tone, I’ve just had my fill of former (R) jerks who want to come in from out of the cold, now that they’ve “seen the light”.
    Brock was well paid for his work, in the Anita Hill case and otherwise, and it formed no small part of the basis for his “brilliant career”. Regrets at this point cost him little, so I in turn hold them at little value.
    But your citation was worthwhile and timely.

  389. I’ve just had my fill of former (R) jerks who want to come in from out of the cold, now that they’ve “seen the light”…
    An entirely understandable reaction – and don’t forget I’m seeing it from a rather detached perspective compared to yours.
    A few Senators coming in from the cold would be useful, though. Whatever their motivations.

  390. I’ve just had my fill of former (R) jerks who want to come in from out of the cold, now that they’ve “seen the light”…
    An entirely understandable reaction – and don’t forget I’m seeing it from a rather detached perspective compared to yours.
    A few Senators coming in from the cold would be useful, though. Whatever their motivations.

  391. I’ve just had my fill of former (R) jerks who want to come in from out of the cold, now that they’ve “seen the light”…
    I, too, understand. On the other hand, I have a far higher opinion of them than of those who refuse, in the face of massive evidence, to “see the light.” For the latter, only utter contempt is appropriate.

  392. I’ve just had my fill of former (R) jerks who want to come in from out of the cold, now that they’ve “seen the light”…
    I, too, understand. On the other hand, I have a far higher opinion of them than of those who refuse, in the face of massive evidence, to “see the light.” For the latter, only utter contempt is appropriate.

  393. The graceful, expedient thing to do would be to quit rooting around in people’s childhood to delay the confirmation. Next we will find he played with matches in middle school.
    I haIe gtreat sympathy for thed young lady, if being grilled by a Senate committee helps her gain closure I am all for it.
    Having thought about it overnight I’m pretty sure she was promised they would only use her story ss a last resort to block Kavanaugh. Thus the last minute leak. So she gets used for politics. That makes the Dems suck.

  394. The graceful, expedient thing to do would be to quit rooting around in people’s childhood to delay the confirmation. Next we will find he played with matches in middle school.
    I haIe gtreat sympathy for thed young lady, if being grilled by a Senate committee helps her gain closure I am all for it.
    Having thought about it overnight I’m pretty sure she was promised they would only use her story ss a last resort to block Kavanaugh. Thus the last minute leak. So she gets used for politics. That makes the Dems suck.

  395. I’ve just had my fill of former (R) jerks who want to come in from out of the cold, now that they’ve “seen the light”.
    I welcome them, although trusting them takes awhile.
    The graceful, expedient thing to do would be to quit rooting around in people’s childhood to delay the confirmation.
    Even more graceful would be to delay the confirmation on the grounds that 90% of the documents pertaining to the nominee have not been made available.

  396. I’ve just had my fill of former (R) jerks who want to come in from out of the cold, now that they’ve “seen the light”.
    I welcome them, although trusting them takes awhile.
    The graceful, expedient thing to do would be to quit rooting around in people’s childhood to delay the confirmation.
    Even more graceful would be to delay the confirmation on the grounds that 90% of the documents pertaining to the nominee have not been made available.

  397. The Supreme Court currently consists of four far-right Justices, formerly active in the Federalist Society, nominated by Republican presidents, and four moderate or slightly left Justices, nominated by Democratic presidents.
    In a country where the Republican party seldom wins a plurality of the vote, the graceful thing to do would be to nominate a moderate Justice acceptable to reasonable people on both sides. In so far as such reasonable people can be found.

  398. The Supreme Court currently consists of four far-right Justices, formerly active in the Federalist Society, nominated by Republican presidents, and four moderate or slightly left Justices, nominated by Democratic presidents.
    In a country where the Republican party seldom wins a plurality of the vote, the graceful thing to do would be to nominate a moderate Justice acceptable to reasonable people on both sides. In so far as such reasonable people can be found.

  399. I came across this interesting (at least to me) analysis of Ms Ford’s report from a former sex-crimes prosecutor.
    https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/09/18/a-former-sex-crimes-prosecutor-analyzed-fords-allegations-against-kavanaugh-heres-her-take/
    She notes that they deal with this sort of situation (years later, etc.) all the time. And have experience at sorting through what actually happened. The most interesting bit:

    Prosecutors do that regularly, in large part, by parsing what’s reasonable and what’s believable through corroboration, details that have the ring of truth, and inconvenient facts that are subtle signs of credibility. [emphasis added]

    As an example to the latter, she points out that the vast majority of sex crimes there is no third party present.

    She put a third person in the room. If you were making something up, why would you do that?

    It would indeed seem like an incredibly stupid thing to do if one was inventing a story.

  400. I came across this interesting (at least to me) analysis of Ms Ford’s report from a former sex-crimes prosecutor.
    https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/09/18/a-former-sex-crimes-prosecutor-analyzed-fords-allegations-against-kavanaugh-heres-her-take/
    She notes that they deal with this sort of situation (years later, etc.) all the time. And have experience at sorting through what actually happened. The most interesting bit:

    Prosecutors do that regularly, in large part, by parsing what’s reasonable and what’s believable through corroboration, details that have the ring of truth, and inconvenient facts that are subtle signs of credibility. [emphasis added]

    As an example to the latter, she points out that the vast majority of sex crimes there is no third party present.

    She put a third person in the room. If you were making something up, why would you do that?

    It would indeed seem like an incredibly stupid thing to do if one was inventing a story.

  401. So she gets used for politics.
    Once again, I am struck by the irony of this complaint, given who were are talking about.

  402. So she gets used for politics.
    Once again, I am struck by the irony of this complaint, given who were are talking about.

  403. In a country where the Republican party seldom wins a plurality of the vote, the graceful thing to do would be to nominate a moderate Justice acceptable to reasonable people on both sides. In so far as such reasonable people can be found.
    But that’s so graceful that the Republican Party would turn into the Democratic Party.

  404. In a country where the Republican party seldom wins a plurality of the vote, the graceful thing to do would be to nominate a moderate Justice acceptable to reasonable people on both sides. In so far as such reasonable people can be found.
    But that’s so graceful that the Republican Party would turn into the Democratic Party.

  405. Only Democrats are required to be graceful. Republicans can be the heart of darkness but IOKIYAR.
    I got up this morning suspecting that Kavanaugh is also being used for politics. Now that would be irony for you, and a good dose of what goes around comes around.
    IOW, the mess that was his nomination was generated on purpose so that the tiny fraction of the public that pays attention would then say, when the next guy is trotted out, “Sure, let’s get this over with by any sleazy means possible. It’s just not right to have such a circus with a SCOTUS nomination.”

  406. Only Democrats are required to be graceful. Republicans can be the heart of darkness but IOKIYAR.
    I got up this morning suspecting that Kavanaugh is also being used for politics. Now that would be irony for you, and a good dose of what goes around comes around.
    IOW, the mess that was his nomination was generated on purpose so that the tiny fraction of the public that pays attention would then say, when the next guy is trotted out, “Sure, let’s get this over with by any sleazy means possible. It’s just not right to have such a circus with a SCOTUS nomination.”

  407. The graceful, expedient thing to do would be to quit rooting around in people’s childhood to delay the confirmation.
    she came forward with this info. it wasn’t discovered by rooting around.
    Next we will find he played with matches in middle school.
    sexual assault, matches, meh.
    Having thought about it overnight I’m pretty sure she was promised they would only use her story ss a last resort to block Kavanaugh.
    that doesn’t really fit the timeline.

    By late August, Ford had decided not to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably would not affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?” she said.
    Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, the Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues.
    Feinstein soon released a statement: “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” she wrote. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
    The FBI redacted Ford’s name and sent the letter to the White House to be included in Kavanaugh’s background file, according to a Judiciary Committee aide. The White House sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, making it available to all senators.
    As pressure grew, the New York Times reported that the incident involved “possible sexual misconduct.”
    By then, Ford had begun to fear she would be exposed. People were clearly learning her identity: A BuzzFeed reporter visited her at her home and tried to speak to her as she was leaving a classroom where she teaches graduate students. Another reporter called her colleagues to ask about her.

    the timing is entirely due to The Intercept.

  408. The graceful, expedient thing to do would be to quit rooting around in people’s childhood to delay the confirmation.
    she came forward with this info. it wasn’t discovered by rooting around.
    Next we will find he played with matches in middle school.
    sexual assault, matches, meh.
    Having thought about it overnight I’m pretty sure she was promised they would only use her story ss a last resort to block Kavanaugh.
    that doesn’t really fit the timeline.

    By late August, Ford had decided not to come forward, calculating that doing so would upend her life and probably would not affect Kavanaugh’s confirmation. “Why suffer through the annihilation if it’s not going to matter?” she said.
    Her story leaked anyway. On Wednesday, the Intercept reported that Feinstein had a letter describing an incident involving Kavanaugh and a woman while they were in high school and that Feinstein was refusing to share it with her Democratic colleagues.
    Feinstein soon released a statement: “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” she wrote. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”
    The FBI redacted Ford’s name and sent the letter to the White House to be included in Kavanaugh’s background file, according to a Judiciary Committee aide. The White House sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee, making it available to all senators.
    As pressure grew, the New York Times reported that the incident involved “possible sexual misconduct.”
    By then, Ford had begun to fear she would be exposed. People were clearly learning her identity: A BuzzFeed reporter visited her at her home and tried to speak to her as she was leaving a classroom where she teaches graduate students. Another reporter called her colleagues to ask about her.

    the timing is entirely due to The Intercept.

  409. wj: 5) always, provide opportunities for posturing.
    And who is it that gets to posture most extensively in pursuit of his ambition? Why, the nominee of course.
    He gets to posture as a fair, sober, high-minded jurist who has never made up his mind about anything important.
    This posturing impresses the kind of people who lust after a sure vote to overturn Roe, because they see right through it and are comforted.
    –TP

  410. wj: 5) always, provide opportunities for posturing.
    And who is it that gets to posture most extensively in pursuit of his ambition? Why, the nominee of course.
    He gets to posture as a fair, sober, high-minded jurist who has never made up his mind about anything important.
    This posturing impresses the kind of people who lust after a sure vote to overturn Roe, because they see right through it and are comforted.
    –TP

  411. Kavanaugh is also being used for politics.
    McConnell apparently tried to steer Trump in the direction of either Kethledge or Hardiman. Both strong conservatives. McConnell felt that Kavanaugh’s paper trail would be an impediment to his confirmation.
    Trump wanted Kavanaugh, and responded by imposing executive privilege claims over 90% of Kavanaugh’s paper trail.
    FWIW, I don’t like any of these guys as SCOTUS justices, because IMO the Federalist “balls and strikes” stuff is BS. These people are very clear about what they want, and it ain’t what I want.
    But putting Kavanaugh forward was a clear and deliberate choice, by Trump and/or whoever had his ear.
    It’s going to be a freaking mess. Whether that is seen as desirable or not by the folks in the White House, I have no idea, but I could believe either “yes” or “no” equally easily.

  412. Kavanaugh is also being used for politics.
    McConnell apparently tried to steer Trump in the direction of either Kethledge or Hardiman. Both strong conservatives. McConnell felt that Kavanaugh’s paper trail would be an impediment to his confirmation.
    Trump wanted Kavanaugh, and responded by imposing executive privilege claims over 90% of Kavanaugh’s paper trail.
    FWIW, I don’t like any of these guys as SCOTUS justices, because IMO the Federalist “balls and strikes” stuff is BS. These people are very clear about what they want, and it ain’t what I want.
    But putting Kavanaugh forward was a clear and deliberate choice, by Trump and/or whoever had his ear.
    It’s going to be a freaking mess. Whether that is seen as desirable or not by the folks in the White House, I have no idea, but I could believe either “yes” or “no” equally easily.

  417. And I’m sorry, but I find Marty’s attitude on this akin to those ‘I just don’t get it’ Senators all those decades ago.
    I find it worse than that, and I’m not sorry at all.

  418. And I’m sorry, but I find Marty’s attitude on this akin to those ‘I just don’t get it’ Senators all those decades ago.
    I find it worse than that, and I’m not sorry at all.

  419. I see many repubs are lock stepping into “She should be heard.”
    They will take care of the “women should be obscene” part of the joke so that she is “not heard” above the heavy breathing.
    I’ve no doubt Grassley is having what he claims is her discarded hymen carbon dated.
    A desperate Ted Cruz is studying a Christian biology textbook to bone up on body part names and is going to be snapping on plastic medical gloves to dramatize his palpating of the lady’s personal past.
    If Anita Hill had used her Second Amendment Rights to the full extent of their intent when Thomas was messing about with her soft drinks at the Department of Education, we could have avoided much of this crapola.

  420. I see many repubs are lock stepping into “She should be heard.”
    They will take care of the “women should be obscene” part of the joke so that she is “not heard” above the heavy breathing.
    I’ve no doubt Grassley is having what he claims is her discarded hymen carbon dated.
    A desperate Ted Cruz is studying a Christian biology textbook to bone up on body part names and is going to be snapping on plastic medical gloves to dramatize his palpating of the lady’s personal past.
    If Anita Hill had used her Second Amendment Rights to the full extent of their intent when Thomas was messing about with her soft drinks at the Department of Education, we could have avoided much of this crapola.

  421. It will be more difficult to dismiss her – even if she quite understandably declines to submit to a Senate grilling – as she comes fro the same social milieu as her alleged assailant.
    I had not realised until today that she was 15 at the time ( Kavanaugh a 17 year old athlete ).

  422. It will be more difficult to dismiss her – even if she quite understandably declines to submit to a Senate grilling – as she comes fro the same social milieu as her alleged assailant.
    I had not realised until today that she was 15 at the time ( Kavanaugh a 17 year old athlete ).

  423. I want someone to ask Kavanaugh what HE would do to a boy that tried to rape one of his daughters: shoot or bludgeon?

  424. I want someone to ask Kavanaugh what HE would do to a boy that tried to rape one of his daughters: shoot or bludgeon?

  425. It’s also a social milieu that will still have access to relatively safe abortion services should Kavanaugh’s fellow court kangaroos do away with Roe v Wade, because rape for republicans is death do us part love only for those beneath their ample resources.

  426. It’s also a social milieu that will still have access to relatively safe abortion services should Kavanaugh’s fellow court kangaroos do away with Roe v Wade, because rape for republicans is death do us part love only for those beneath their ample resources.

  427. I want someone to ask Kavanaugh what HE would do to a boy that tried to rape one of his daughters
    This whole adventure is going to suck, mightily, for Kavanaugh’s family.

  428. I want someone to ask Kavanaugh what HE would do to a boy that tried to rape one of his daughters
    This whole adventure is going to suck, mightily, for Kavanaugh’s family.

  429. “I had not realised until today that she was 15 at the time ( Kavanaugh a 17 year old athlete”
    There are a million reports, so I may have missed something. But didn’t she say that she wasn’t really sure what year it was? So she was in the 15-17 range? And because of his age it would have had to have been in the 15-16 range because otherwise he would have been out of high school?

  430. “I had not realised until today that she was 15 at the time ( Kavanaugh a 17 year old athlete”
    There are a million reports, so I may have missed something. But didn’t she say that she wasn’t really sure what year it was? So she was in the 15-17 range? And because of his age it would have had to have been in the 15-16 range because otherwise he would have been out of high school?

  433. I want someone to ask Kavanaugh what HE would do to a boy that tried to rape one of his daughters: shoot or bludgeon?
    “i can’t answer a hypothetical.”

  434. I want someone to ask Kavanaugh what HE would do to a boy that tried to rape one of his daughters: shoot or bludgeon?
    “i can’t answer a hypothetical.”

  435. Well, I just really struggle with going back 35 years to hold people accountable for stupid things they did.
    I guess no one here ever had a friend do something in high school that they wouldnt want to be brought up now. I had lots of friends that did. Some not so bad, some pretty bad. None that define who they are now.

  436. Well, I just really struggle with going back 35 years to hold people accountable for stupid things they did.
    I guess no one here ever had a friend do something in high school that they wouldnt want to be brought up now. I had lots of friends that did. Some not so bad, some pretty bad. None that define who they are now.

  437. The bar gets raised when you’ve been nominated to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. Try to keep that in mind. The “accountability” involves not being placed on the Supreme Court. These aren’t hearings for dog catcher.

  438. The bar gets raised when you’ve been nominated to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. Try to keep that in mind. The “accountability” involves not being placed on the Supreme Court. These aren’t hearings for dog catcher.

  441. So does that mean that someone who was convicted of being a drug dealer as a teen, because he had a few ounces of pot, shouldn’t be serving a 50 year sentence? Because, after all, that doesn’t define who he is now.
    Or is the relevant difference whether he managed to get away with what he did several decades ago?

  442. So does that mean that someone who was convicted of being a drug dealer as a teen, because he had a few ounces of pot, shouldn’t be serving a 50 year sentence? Because, after all, that doesn’t define who he is now.
    Or is the relevant difference whether he managed to get away with what he did several decades ago?

  445. Senator, CEO?
    I don’t care where folks land on the whole “how far back should we go?” thing, but CEO and Senator are not comparable jobs.
    Goverment is not business. Business is not government. There is some overlap in skill set, but it is not, and ought not be, very large.
    Rightly or wrongly, people who seek positions of public responsibility are going to have their lives gone over with a fine-toothed comb. What Kavanaugh is going through is not really much different than what folks who, for example, seek security clearances go through, he’s just going through it in public.
    Sexual assault and/or attempted rape of a minor, which is what we are talking about, is not a youthful misadventure. I have a very long list of youthful misadventures I could cop to, and if you want to extend that to my crew from high school days, we could be here for days.
    Neither I, or anyone I know, held a girl down on the bed, covered her mouth so no-one could hear her scream, and tried to rip her clothes off.

  446. Senator, CEO?
    I don’t care where folks land on the whole “how far back should we go?” thing, but CEO and Senator are not comparable jobs.
    Goverment is not business. Business is not government. There is some overlap in skill set, but it is not, and ought not be, very large.
    Rightly or wrongly, people who seek positions of public responsibility are going to have their lives gone over with a fine-toothed comb. What Kavanaugh is going through is not really much different than what folks who, for example, seek security clearances go through, he’s just going through it in public.
    Sexual assault and/or attempted rape of a minor, which is what we are talking about, is not a youthful misadventure. I have a very long list of youthful misadventures I could cop to, and if you want to extend that to my crew from high school days, we could be here for days.
    Neither I, or anyone I know, held a girl down on the bed, covered her mouth so no-one could hear her scream, and tried to rip her clothes off.

  447. Well, I just really struggle with going back 35 years to hold people accountable for stupid things they did.
    From a writer whose work I rarely agree with.
    If someone has done something seriously wrong to someone else, it helps if there’s remorse, and a sincere apology. Apparently, either there was no remorse, or the behavior was considered not a big deal.

  448. Well, I just really struggle with going back 35 years to hold people accountable for stupid things they did.
    From a writer whose work I rarely agree with.
    If someone has done something seriously wrong to someone else, it helps if there’s remorse, and a sincere apology. Apparently, either there was no remorse, or the behavior was considered not a big deal.

  449. There are two important points, Marty:
    1. Did he do it.
    2. If so, he is now lying about it.
    Whatever you want to say about number 1, and the fact that 17 year olds are held accountable for lots of things they do (particularly if they are black, or poor), number 2 is the thing that’s the real kicker, particularly when there are questions about his truthfulness already. And if the senate stops any other witnesses being heard (therapist she apparently told about it in 2012, Judge, experts in determining the likely truth or not of historical sex abuse allegations etc), they are making it almost impossible to discover the truth of 1.
    Well, I just really struggle with going back 35 years to hold people accountable for stupid things they did.
    What defines peoples’ character, when they did stupid things as teenagers, is how they deal with the aftermath when they’re grown up.

  450. There are two important points, Marty:
    1. Did he do it.
    2. If so, he is now lying about it.
    Whatever you want to say about number 1, and the fact that 17 year olds are held accountable for lots of things they do (particularly if they are black, or poor), number 2 is the thing that’s the real kicker, particularly when there are questions about his truthfulness already. And if the senate stops any other witnesses being heard (therapist she apparently told about it in 2012, Judge, experts in determining the likely truth or not of historical sex abuse allegations etc), they are making it almost impossible to discover the truth of 1.
    Well, I just really struggle with going back 35 years to hold people accountable for stupid things they did.
    What defines peoples’ character, when they did stupid things as teenagers, is how they deal with the aftermath when they’re grown up.

  451. the timing is entirely due to The Intercept
    Really? I say Feinstein. And the leaker. but the leaker and Feinstein are probably one and the same.
    And I’m sorry, but I find Marty’s attitude on this akin to those ‘I just don’t get it’ Senators all those decades ago.
    …
    Anita Hill weighs in, persuasively.
    And that is EXACTLY what the minority is hoping for. It worked for Anita Hill, so let’s try this again. Last minute release, try shifting the burden because, well, #meetoo. And if you doubt the timing one bit, well, that makes you just like those senators going after Anita Hill.
    I mean, if he did what was alleged, that is terrible. And I am very empathetic with the difficulty in coming forward. Who isn’t? But does that mean you have to accept the testimony of an accuser at face value under these circumstances?
    I have a friend that was wrongfully accused of sexual assault (school teacher). Talk about ruining his life for several months. This truly crushed him and his family (several daughters, none of them believed it, but still). The accuser was sure it was him. Identified him. The accusation came over ten years after the alleged assault. Thankfully records showed he wasn’t there at the time alleged or anywhere close. The true perpetrator was later identified by the accuser. Sexual assault DID occur, but memory can be a tricky thing, especially when it involves trauma.
    So if I am looking at it from an objective standpoint (and I’m not, but I’m trying really hard), and using my trial attorney glasses, I see a lot of problems with the accusations in terms of timing. It is really, really stale information. And while I think the attempted rape of someone in high school does disqualify you for SCOTUS (duh!), I don’t know how we are ever going to know whether that occurred here.
    I’m not paying the WaPo, so I haven’t read the article. But the retention of counsel, the fact Ms. Ford is a professor (of psychology no less), the apparent naivete that once you come forward it will be kept quiet, why she didn’t speak up in 2012 when she feared he would eventually be nominated, etc. all comes into play even if at the same time one recognizes the difficulty in coming forward in the first place. Do you ignore those facts? Do you really?
    But in the end I blame Feinstein for the timing. Even if you don’t believe her, you say something in private to the committee. You don’t sit on it.
    Shoot, even the even the sf chronicle takes issue with the timing.
    This whole adventure is going to suck, mightily, for Kavanaugh’s family.
    russell, I’m thinking present tense here. And suck for everyone. This is what Feinstein has wrought.
    The treatment of Garland is tame by comparison. Not bringing someone to a vote? At least that doesn’t expose them to this.
    So when I read this:
    Only Democrats are required to be graceful. Republicans can be the heart of darkness but IOKIYAR.
    I think: You call this graceful?

  452. the timing is entirely due to The Intercept
    Really? I say Feinstein. And the leaker. but the leaker and Feinstein are probably one and the same.
    And I’m sorry, but I find Marty’s attitude on this akin to those ‘I just don’t get it’ Senators all those decades ago.
    …
    Anita Hill weighs in, persuasively.
    And that is EXACTLY what the minority is hoping for. It worked for Anita Hill, so let’s try this again. Last minute release, try shifting the burden because, well, #meetoo. And if you doubt the timing one bit, well, that makes you just like those senators going after Anita Hill.
    I mean, if he did what was alleged, that is terrible. And I am very empathetic with the difficulty in coming forward. Who isn’t? But does that mean you have to accept the testimony of an accuser at face value under these circumstances?
    I have a friend that was wrongfully accused of sexual assault (school teacher). Talk about ruining his life for several months. This truly crushed him and his family (several daughters, none of them believed it, but still). The accuser was sure it was him. Identified him. The accusation came over ten years after the alleged assault. Thankfully records showed he wasn’t there at the time alleged or anywhere close. The true perpetrator was later identified by the accuser. Sexual assault DID occur, but memory can be a tricky thing, especially when it involves trauma.
    So if I am looking at it from an objective standpoint (and I’m not, but I’m trying really hard), and using my trial attorney glasses, I see a lot of problems with the accusations in terms of timing. It is really, really stale information. And while I think the attempted rape of someone in high school does disqualify you for SCOTUS (duh!), I don’t know how we are ever going to know whether that occurred here.
    I’m not paying the WaPo, so I haven’t read the article. But the retention of counsel, the fact Ms. Ford is a professor (of psychology no less), the apparent naivete that once you come forward it will be kept quiet, why she didn’t speak up in 2012 when she feared he would eventually be nominated, etc. all comes into play even if at the same time one recognizes the difficulty in coming forward in the first place. Do you ignore those facts? Do you really?
    But in the end I blame Feinstein for the timing. Even if you don’t believe her, you say something in private to the committee. You don’t sit on it.
    Shoot, even the even the sf chronicle takes issue with the timing.
    This whole adventure is going to suck, mightily, for Kavanaugh’s family.
    russell, I’m thinking present tense here. And suck for everyone. This is what Feinstein has wrought.
    The treatment of Garland is tame by comparison. Not bringing someone to a vote? At least that doesn’t expose them to this.
    So when I read this:
    Only Democrats are required to be graceful. Republicans can be the heart of darkness but IOKIYAR.
    I think: You call this graceful?

  453. That’s a good piece, sapient. I don’t know Caitlin Flanagan, but that short piece seems absolutely right to me, and shows how somebody of real character deals with the fact he did something like this when he was at high school.

  454. That’s a good piece, sapient. I don’t know Caitlin Flanagan, but that short piece seems absolutely right to me, and shows how somebody of real character deals with the fact he did something like this when he was at high school.

  459. Maybe he meant that it worked on Anita Hill. Whose testimony, we discovered after Thomas was confirmed, was accurate. And the Senators who sat there and badgered her knew it.

  460. Maybe he meant that it worked on Anita Hill. Whose testimony, we discovered after Thomas was confirmed, was accurate. And the Senators who sat there and badgered her knew it.

  463. issue with the timing.
    Timing? The hurry here is the bad timing.
    The treatment of Garland is tame by comparison. Not bringing someone to a vote? At least that doesn’t expose them to this.
    Ummm, Merrick Garland’s high school reputation seems quite different from Kavanaugh’s:
    “When we were seniors in high school, there were several foreign exchange students from South America who lived in our community and went to Niles West, and Merrick and I and Earl knew they didn’t have dates for senior prom, so we took them to prom so that they would have that experience,” Rosen said. “There were three of us and three of them and I drove . . . Merrick thought that it would be a nice thing to do.”

  464. issue with the timing.
    Timing? The hurry here is the bad timing.
    The treatment of Garland is tame by comparison. Not bringing someone to a vote? At least that doesn’t expose them to this.
    Ummm, Merrick Garland’s high school reputation seems quite different from Kavanaugh’s:
    “When we were seniors in high school, there were several foreign exchange students from South America who lived in our community and went to Niles West, and Merrick and I and Earl knew they didn’t have dates for senior prom, so we took them to prom so that they would have that experience,” Rosen said. “There were three of us and three of them and I drove . . . Merrick thought that it would be a nice thing to do.”

  465. And suck for everyone.
    Yup.
    This is what Feinstein has wrought.
    The freaking trainwreck that is Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the SCOTUS can hardly be laid at the feet of Diane Feinstein.
    Kavanaugh was not a good pick.
    The treatment of Garland is tame by comparison.
    The treatment of Garland was unconstitutional, was an act of raw will to power on the part of McConnell and company, and utterly pissed on the will of all of the people who voted for Barack Obama. It was a f***king outrage. The (R)’s are lucky that People Like Me don’t drink the “2nd Amendment Solution” KoolAid.
    You may make your own judgement about which treatment is better or worse.

  466. And suck for everyone.
    Yup.
    This is what Feinstein has wrought.
    The freaking trainwreck that is Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the SCOTUS can hardly be laid at the feet of Diane Feinstein.
    Kavanaugh was not a good pick.
    The treatment of Garland is tame by comparison.
    The treatment of Garland was unconstitutional, was an act of raw will to power on the part of McConnell and company, and utterly pissed on the will of all of the people who voted for Barack Obama. It was a f***king outrage. The (R)’s are lucky that People Like Me don’t drink the “2nd Amendment Solution” KoolAid.
    You may make your own judgement about which treatment is better or worse.

  467. I can name any number of hell raisers from my past who are now retiring from long fantastically remunerative careers in surgery, law, and investment management.
    At the time I knew them, their only qualifications for their later success would seemed to have been a noted talent for steering the rest of us to a cornucopia of illicit pharmaceutical miscalculations and sexual escapades, suspended driver’s licenses, and hard drinking, including in one case I’m thinking of, a nasal septum on the brink of being eaten through.
    They are now wonderful, upstanding citizens and community members and great Dads with septums fully intact.
    But say they were Merrick Garland. Not a good example because we were denied a constitutional opportunity to air his life out, though I suspect his youthful crimes were limited to adventures with chewing gum.
    Or say Hillary Clinton was President today, and not yet another assassination casualty, and say she had nominated one of my friends to be a Supreme Court Justice, or Surgeon General, or any other high post in what asshole republicans refer to as “gummint”.
    The likes of Kavanaugh, the juggernaut of conservative reptiles unleashed every time a liberal takes a deep breath over the past 40 years, would be just now beavering away feverishly and ruthlessly to besmirch their reputations with stupid irrelevancies from the deep past, which like the deep state, is just another bullshit piece of nonsense republicans use to halt and sabotage all governing by anything but their absolute certain fucking corrupt selves.
    Fun, ain’t It?
    We can take this as far as the Republican Party wants to take it.
    Into the street is good by me.

  468. I can name any number of hell raisers from my past who are now retiring from long fantastically remunerative careers in surgery, law, and investment management.
    At the time I knew them, their only qualifications for their later success would seemed to have been a noted talent for steering the rest of us to a cornucopia of illicit pharmaceutical miscalculations and sexual escapades, suspended driver’s licenses, and hard drinking, including in one case I’m thinking of, a nasal septum on the brink of being eaten through.
    They are now wonderful, upstanding citizens and community members and great Dads with septums fully intact.
    But say they were Merrick Garland. Not a good example because we were denied a constitutional opportunity to air his life out, though I suspect his youthful crimes were limited to adventures with chewing gum.
    Or say Hillary Clinton was President today, and not yet another assassination casualty, and say she had nominated one of my friends to be a Supreme Court Justice, or Surgeon General, or any other high post in what asshole republicans refer to as “gummint”.
    The likes of Kavanaugh, the juggernaut of conservative reptiles unleashed every time a liberal takes a deep breath over the past 40 years, would be just now beavering away feverishly and ruthlessly to besmirch their reputations with stupid irrelevancies from the deep past, which like the deep state, is just another bullshit piece of nonsense republicans use to halt and sabotage all governing by anything but their absolute certain fucking corrupt selves.
    Fun, ain’t It?
    We can take this as far as the Republican Party wants to take it.
    Into the street is good by me.

  469. Yes, GftNC, I thought Caitlin Flannigan’s piece was very moving. Not everyone would have been as forgiving as she was, or could have moved past it. I was very glad that she could do that, but the fact that the person who assaulted her took the risk, and made the effort is really important.
    People are affected in various ways by things that happen to them. Some people are more traumatized than others. It reminds me of when this happened. It wasn’t forgiven.

  470. Yes, GftNC, I thought Caitlin Flannigan’s piece was very moving. Not everyone would have been as forgiving as she was, or could have moved past it. I was very glad that she could do that, but the fact that the person who assaulted her took the risk, and made the effort is really important.
    People are affected in various ways by things that happen to them. Some people are more traumatized than others. It reminds me of when this happened. It wasn’t forgiven.

  471. Maybe he meant that it worked on Anita Hill.
    wj, you may be joking, but just in case you aren’t: bc didn’t mean that because s/he actually said And that is EXACTLY what the minority is hoping for. It worked for Anita Hill, so let’s try this again. Janie’s right, as so often. God knows I believe in engagement, but whats the point of talking to someone who says something like that? Bah!

  472. Maybe he meant that it worked on Anita Hill.
    wj, you may be joking, but just in case you aren’t: bc didn’t mean that because s/he actually said And that is EXACTLY what the minority is hoping for. It worked for Anita Hill, so let’s try this again. Janie’s right, as so often. God knows I believe in engagement, but whats the point of talking to someone who says something like that? Bah!

  473. We can take this as far as the Republican Party wants to take it.
    Into the street is good by me.
    Pretty much where I’m at nowadays.

  474. We can take this as far as the Republican Party wants to take it.
    Into the street is good by me.
    Pretty much where I’m at nowadays.

  475. So they were being nice to Garland by not even holding hearings? News flash: If Kavanaugh didn’t want to go through this, he could have turned down the nomination. Or the Trump administration could have done a better job vetting him, possibly deciding to nominate someone else with a cleaner past. No one forced Trump to nominate him (certainly no Democrats), and no one forced Kavanaugh to accept the nomination. Give me a f**king break.

  476. So they were being nice to Garland by not even holding hearings? News flash: If Kavanaugh didn’t want to go through this, he could have turned down the nomination. Or the Trump administration could have done a better job vetting him, possibly deciding to nominate someone else with a cleaner past. No one forced Trump to nominate him (certainly no Democrats), and no one forced Kavanaugh to accept the nomination. Give me a f**king break.

  477. Kavanaugh was not a good pick.
    Honestly, I think that is going to be said about any conservative nominee unless the nominee is a woman. And that would be fine by me (women nominees).
    The treatment of Garland was unconstitutional, was an act of raw will to power on the part of McConnell and company, and utterly pissed on the will of all of the people who voted for Barack Obama.
    I agree with all of this with the exception of the word “unconstitutional.” Are you saying the 2001-2003 D-controlled judiciary committee was acting unconstitutionally? Is/was the filibuster unconstitutional? Is there anything in Article II that supports that position?
    Raw power? Yep. Both sides have utilized that. Politically unwise, perhaps. I get the frustration and outrage over Garland, I do. I’d probably feel the same if the roles were reversed.

  478. Kavanaugh was not a good pick.
    Honestly, I think that is going to be said about any conservative nominee unless the nominee is a woman. And that would be fine by me (women nominees).
    The treatment of Garland was unconstitutional, was an act of raw will to power on the part of McConnell and company, and utterly pissed on the will of all of the people who voted for Barack Obama.
    I agree with all of this with the exception of the word “unconstitutional.” Are you saying the 2001-2003 D-controlled judiciary committee was acting unconstitutionally? Is/was the filibuster unconstitutional? Is there anything in Article II that supports that position?
    Raw power? Yep. Both sides have utilized that. Politically unwise, perhaps. I get the frustration and outrage over Garland, I do. I’d probably feel the same if the roles were reversed.

  479. And with that, I am done with you
    It was a question. With a bit of snark, yes. But just a question. I didn’t mean to offend, but continue the discussion. Sorry.

  480. And with that, I am done with you
    It was a question. With a bit of snark, yes. But just a question. I didn’t mean to offend, but continue the discussion. Sorry.

  481. “conservative shit cannon” are the words I would have stolen from Eschaton had I read it before my 5:58 pm:
    https://www.eschatonblog.com/2018/09/it-was-only-horseplay-that-did-not.html
    Kavanaugh was nominated by mp to protect mp from being held accountable for his own sexual assault charges and moreover his traitorous behavior with the Putin axis during the coming constitutional crisis.
    And Roe versus Wade.
    Kavanaugh is perfect for the job, gotta say.

  482. “conservative shit cannon” are the words I would have stolen from Eschaton had I read it before my 5:58 pm:
    https://www.eschatonblog.com/2018/09/it-was-only-horseplay-that-did-not.html
    Kavanaugh was nominated by mp to protect mp from being held accountable for his own sexual assault charges and moreover his traitorous behavior with the Putin axis during the coming constitutional crisis.
    And Roe versus Wade.
    Kavanaugh is perfect for the job, gotta say.

  483. Are you saying the 2001-2003 D-controlled judiciary committee was acting unconstitutionally
    I’m saying the refusal to grant a hearing to the POTUS’ nominee to the SCOTUS, for 11 months, was a deliberate dereliction of the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate.
    I get the frustration and outrage over Garland
    Maybe so.
    In any case, the (R)’s and the people who support them have no standing to complain about, basically, any procedural maneuver that is not their advantage, for at least the next generation.
    It might not have been a move you approved of, but you all own it now.
    Don’t like it, quit electing people like McConnell.

  484. Are you saying the 2001-2003 D-controlled judiciary committee was acting unconstitutionally
    I’m saying the refusal to grant a hearing to the POTUS’ nominee to the SCOTUS, for 11 months, was a deliberate dereliction of the constitutional responsibilities of the Senate.
    I get the frustration and outrage over Garland
    Maybe so.
    In any case, the (R)’s and the people who support them have no standing to complain about, basically, any procedural maneuver that is not their advantage, for at least the next generation.
    It might not have been a move you approved of, but you all own it now.
    Don’t like it, quit electing people like McConnell.

  487. Longer term, he will be invaluable in declaring Social Security and Medicare unconstitutional, two goals of his clubhouse the Federalist Society openly listed on the latter’s web page.
    Come to think of it, I hope there is a dead boy in a bed somewhere about to appear in Kavanaugh’s past.
    “The treatment of Garland was tame by comparison.”
    Alexander Dubchek, Pete Best, and Prince Sihanouk got off easy too.

  488. Longer term, he will be invaluable in declaring Social Security and Medicare unconstitutional, two goals of his clubhouse the Federalist Society openly listed on the latter’s web page.
    Come to think of it, I hope there is a dead boy in a bed somewhere about to appear in Kavanaugh’s past.
    “The treatment of Garland was tame by comparison.”
    Alexander Dubchek, Pete Best, and Prince Sihanouk got off easy too.

  489. I should have said “with” Anita Hill more than “for.” Regardless of truth, rolling out such accusations at the last minute is a strategic decision, IMHO, to delay a vote and discredit the nominee. We are still having the conversation about Hill and Thomas. So it did work with Anita Hill.
    And “success” isn’t so measured in completely derailing the nomination, although I’m sure that is much desired, but in discrediting the nominee. Many of you think that happened long before this. But that apparently was not enough.
    At the same time, if some incontrovertible proof comes out that he did this, then no time is too late. But if you lack that, bring this out early. Don’t sit on it.

  490. I should have said “with” Anita Hill more than “for.” Regardless of truth, rolling out such accusations at the last minute is a strategic decision, IMHO, to delay a vote and discredit the nominee. We are still having the conversation about Hill and Thomas. So it did work with Anita Hill.
    And “success” isn’t so measured in completely derailing the nomination, although I’m sure that is much desired, but in discrediting the nominee. Many of you think that happened long before this. But that apparently was not enough.
    At the same time, if some incontrovertible proof comes out that he did this, then no time is too late. But if you lack that, bring this out early. Don’t sit on it.

  491. evidence?
    Don’t have any. I just suspect that. The whole way she handled this (that we know about) seems out of character for her, though. I’m frankly surprised.

  492. evidence?
    Don’t have any. I just suspect that. The whole way she handled this (that we know about) seems out of character for her, though. I’m frankly surprised.

  493. bc: Raw power? Yep. Both sides have utilized that.
    Not yet. Let McConnell install He, Trump’s sniveling toady as the sure 5th vote to overturn Roe and protect the Great Orange Tax-Cutter from treason charges, and you’ll get to see what “raw power” really looks like.
    You can interpret the above either way you prefer.
    –TP

  494. bc: Raw power? Yep. Both sides have utilized that.
    Not yet. Let McConnell install He, Trump’s sniveling toady as the sure 5th vote to overturn Roe and protect the Great Orange Tax-Cutter from treason charges, and you’ll get to see what “raw power” really looks like.
    You can interpret the above either way you prefer.
    –TP

  495. This is not, and is not going to be a criminal trial. (Note that the alleged witness is now refusing to be questioned by the Senate, and it’s also possible that neither will the victim.)
    Nor is it about whether Kavanaugh has the ‘right’ to be confirmed to a lifetime position on the Court. It is solely about whether he should be. He is not entitled to any benefit of reasonable doubt.
    The burden of proof is on those who would appoint him.
    This hardly increases confidence that he is a fit appointment:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-what-happens-geogetown-prep-828420
    Why would one say that ?

  496. This is not, and is not going to be a criminal trial. (Note that the alleged witness is now refusing to be questioned by the Senate, and it’s also possible that neither will the victim.)
    Nor is it about whether Kavanaugh has the ‘right’ to be confirmed to a lifetime position on the Court. It is solely about whether he should be. He is not entitled to any benefit of reasonable doubt.
    The burden of proof is on those who would appoint him.
    This hardly increases confidence that he is a fit appointment:
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/18/kavanaugh-what-happens-geogetown-prep-828420
    Why would one say that ?

  497. I guess no one here ever had a friend do something in high school that they wouldnt want to be brought up now.
    Marty, I had a bunch of friends like that. I would not want them on the Supreme Court. Would you?
    bc opines
    But in the end I blame Feinstein for the timing. Even if you don’t believe her, you say something in private to the committee. You don’t sit on it.
    Shoot, even the even the sf chronicle takes issue with the timing.
    I’d observe that when you hear someone on the right say ‘even…’, hold on to your rhetorical hats, and here, bc uses it twice! oh, my kingdom for keystroke capture spyware! At any rate, I find Josh Marshall at TPM better on this.
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-the-democrats-really-ambush-kavanaugh
    If this basic reconstruction is right, Feinstein, her Senate colleagues, The Intercept and even the leakers all seem to have been acting reasonably and with reasonable motives, given their different roles in the process. Nothing here suggests some intentional plot to let Kavanaugh get through the hearings proper and then spring this on him at the last moment. Again, whether or not that would be wrong, it simply doesn’t appear to be what happened.
    This brings me to final but I think pretty important point: there’s nothing magical about the designated hearing schedule. There’s some idea here that Kavanaugh is somehow fatally wrongfooted by having this come up after the formal hearing process. That doesn’t make sense. These are explosive charges. They would have been a big deal whenever they came up. Perhaps if they came the day before the final vote there’d be some argument, though even then rescheduling the vote wouldn’t be that hard. This isn’t like we’re holding a trial and the evidence phase is over. There’s no statute of limitations or formal process like that. The truth is the hearings really just ended. So scheduling some more hearings just isn’t a big deal. The charges are a big deal. Making some minor tweaks to the schedule to allow some more hearings is not.
    And I can’t shake the feeling that, with the call of executive privilege on 90% of the documents of Kavanaugh’s work product (remember when Trey Gowdy wanted to go over the entire documentation of Obama’s handling of Libya in the Benghazi probe and sued to overturn executive privilege? Yeah, I didn’t think so) and the 65 women lined up and the emphasis of Kavanaugh as a ‘decent family man’, it sure looks to me like the fix was already in. You guys built a pretty big roost, and the chickens coming home are ginormous…

  498. I guess no one here ever had a friend do something in high school that they wouldnt want to be brought up now.
    Marty, I had a bunch of friends like that. I would not want them on the Supreme Court. Would you?
    bc opines
    But in the end I blame Feinstein for the timing. Even if you don’t believe her, you say something in private to the committee. You don’t sit on it.
    Shoot, even the even the sf chronicle takes issue with the timing.
    I’d observe that when you hear someone on the right say ‘even…’, hold on to your rhetorical hats, and here, bc uses it twice! oh, my kingdom for keystroke capture spyware! At any rate, I find Josh Marshall at TPM better on this.
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-the-democrats-really-ambush-kavanaugh
    If this basic reconstruction is right, Feinstein, her Senate colleagues, The Intercept and even the leakers all seem to have been acting reasonably and with reasonable motives, given their different roles in the process. Nothing here suggests some intentional plot to let Kavanaugh get through the hearings proper and then spring this on him at the last moment. Again, whether or not that would be wrong, it simply doesn’t appear to be what happened.
    This brings me to final but I think pretty important point: there’s nothing magical about the designated hearing schedule. There’s some idea here that Kavanaugh is somehow fatally wrongfooted by having this come up after the formal hearing process. That doesn’t make sense. These are explosive charges. They would have been a big deal whenever they came up. Perhaps if they came the day before the final vote there’d be some argument, though even then rescheduling the vote wouldn’t be that hard. This isn’t like we’re holding a trial and the evidence phase is over. There’s no statute of limitations or formal process like that. The truth is the hearings really just ended. So scheduling some more hearings just isn’t a big deal. The charges are a big deal. Making some minor tweaks to the schedule to allow some more hearings is not.
    And I can’t shake the feeling that, with the call of executive privilege on 90% of the documents of Kavanaugh’s work product (remember when Trey Gowdy wanted to go over the entire documentation of Obama’s handling of Libya in the Benghazi probe and sued to overturn executive privilege? Yeah, I didn’t think so) and the 65 women lined up and the emphasis of Kavanaugh as a ‘decent family man’, it sure looks to me like the fix was already in. You guys built a pretty big roost, and the chickens coming home are ginormous…

  499. So it did work with Anita Hill.
    If I’m not mistaken, Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the SCOTUS.
    The issue raised with Thomas was that, as director of the EEOC, he was a serial sexual harasser. That seems, to me, like a reasonable issue to raise in a SCOTUS appointment.
    Do you disagree?
    If not, then was Hill’s testimony some kind of sneaky (D) tactic, or was it the raising of a legitimate concern about Thomas?

  500. So it did work with Anita Hill.
    If I’m not mistaken, Clarence Thomas is an associate justice of the SCOTUS.
    The issue raised with Thomas was that, as director of the EEOC, he was a serial sexual harasser. That seems, to me, like a reasonable issue to raise in a SCOTUS appointment.
    Do you disagree?
    If not, then was Hill’s testimony some kind of sneaky (D) tactic, or was it the raising of a legitimate concern about Thomas?

  507. So it did work with Anita Hill.
    I don’t understand what that means, either.
    The events back then are worth revisiting (and it’s perfectly possible to read a Washington Post article without paying them. They specifically allow you to do so.)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/anita-hill-and-her-1991-congressional-defenders-to-joe-biden-you-were-part-of-the-problem/2017/11/21/2303ba8a-ce69-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html
    As an aside, I think this will probably doom Biden’s last effort to get the Democratic nomination.

  508. So it did work with Anita Hill.
    I don’t understand what that means, either.
    The events back then are worth revisiting (and it’s perfectly possible to read a Washington Post article without paying them. They specifically allow you to do so.)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/anita-hill-and-her-1991-congressional-defenders-to-joe-biden-you-were-part-of-the-problem/2017/11/21/2303ba8a-ce69-11e7-a1a3-0d1e45a6de3d_story.html
    As an aside, I think this will probably doom Biden’s last effort to get the Democratic nomination.

  509. wj, you may be joking, but just in case you aren’t: bc didn’t mean that because s/he actually said
    GftNC, once again I am reminded that I should put in /sarcasm tags at the end of some of my posts. Sorry.

  510. wj, you may be joking, but just in case you aren’t: bc didn’t mean that because s/he actually said
    GftNC, once again I am reminded that I should put in /sarcasm tags at the end of some of my posts. Sorry.

  511. I can name any number of hell raisers from my past who are now retiring from long fantastically remunerative careers in surgery, law, and investment management.**
    I just missed so MUCH in my high school experience. The hell raisers around me did things like under-age drinking . . . leading to nothing worse than hangovers.
    The one big scandal was the guy who (consensually!) got his girl friend pregnant (contraception not being available to us in them days). After which he married her, dropped out (although they let him come pack for a few days at the end of the semester so he could get his diploma) and got a job to support his new family. Scandal!
    I just feel like I was living in an alternate universe of something.
    ** Yeah, I know it’s the Count and so (perhaps!) over-the-top sarcasm. But it appears, from the comments, to be reality as some here perceive it.

  512. I can name any number of hell raisers from my past who are now retiring from long fantastically remunerative careers in surgery, law, and investment management.**
    I just missed so MUCH in my high school experience. The hell raisers around me did things like under-age drinking . . . leading to nothing worse than hangovers.
    The one big scandal was the guy who (consensually!) got his girl friend pregnant (contraception not being available to us in them days). After which he married her, dropped out (although they let him come pack for a few days at the end of the semester so he could get his diploma) and got a job to support his new family. Scandal!
    I just feel like I was living in an alternate universe of something.
    ** Yeah, I know it’s the Count and so (perhaps!) over-the-top sarcasm. But it appears, from the comments, to be reality as some here perceive it.

  515. Somehow, this didn’t happen to Gorsuch. Why not? Were things so different then?
    Absolutely things are different. Whatever one thinks of Gorsuch, and whatever one thinks of the machinations which allowed his nomination, he isn’t the kind of blatantly partisan scum that Kavanaugh is. That’s what is different.

  516. Somehow, this didn’t happen to Gorsuch. Why not? Were things so different then?
    Absolutely things are different. Whatever one thinks of Gorsuch, and whatever one thinks of the machinations which allowed his nomination, he isn’t the kind of blatantly partisan scum that Kavanaugh is. That’s what is different.

  517. Exactly. The partisanship of Democrats doesn’t conjure this stuff up. But when I asked if thing’s were so different, I meant as concerns the general political environment. The Democrats were no happier with Trump or with Republicans, but there was no sexual-predation scandal during the Gorsuch hearings, despite that supposedly being part of the Democratic playbook. The reason things don’t go swimmingly for the Trump/Republican agenda is always because Democrats are being mean.

  518. Exactly. The partisanship of Democrats doesn’t conjure this stuff up. But when I asked if thing’s were so different, I meant as concerns the general political environment. The Democrats were no happier with Trump or with Republicans, but there was no sexual-predation scandal during the Gorsuch hearings, despite that supposedly being part of the Democratic playbook. The reason things don’t go swimmingly for the Trump/Republican agenda is always because Democrats are being mean.

  521. Marty: Kavanaugh changes the status quo
    What??? An impartial judge who testified under oath that he has never made up his mind about anything important will “change the status quo”? How do you know this, Marty?
    –TP

  522. Marty: Kavanaugh changes the status quo
    What??? An impartial judge who testified under oath that he has never made up his mind about anything important will “change the status quo”? How do you know this, Marty?
    –TP

  525. That seems, to me, like a reasonable issue to raise in a SCOTUS appointment.
    Do you disagree?
    I do not disagree. It was absolutely a reasonable issue. It was the timing that was suspect.

  526. That seems, to me, like a reasonable issue to raise in a SCOTUS appointment.
    Do you disagree?
    I do not disagree. It was absolutely a reasonable issue. It was the timing that was suspect.

  527. Even if “changing the status quo” were a valid distinction in Kavanaugh’s case, how does that lead to an accusation of sexual assault? Are you suggesting that Democrats just tried much harder to get Kavanaugh because of some perceived threat to the status quo? How did they compel Ford to write the letter?

  528. Even if “changing the status quo” were a valid distinction in Kavanaugh’s case, how does that lead to an accusation of sexual assault? Are you suggesting that Democrats just tried much harder to get Kavanaugh because of some perceived threat to the status quo? How did they compel Ford to write the letter?

  529. It was the timing that was suspect.
    Which implies that there was some other timing that would not have been suspect. Do you think Ford kept this to herself for years so she could wait for Kavanaugh to be nominated to the supreme court, or do you think his nomination was too troubling for her to remain silent? Which makes more sense?

  530. It was the timing that was suspect.
    Which implies that there was some other timing that would not have been suspect. Do you think Ford kept this to herself for years so she could wait for Kavanaugh to be nominated to the supreme court, or do you think his nomination was too troubling for her to remain silent? Which makes more sense?

  531. It was the timing that was suspect.
    Why have you not addressed the “timing”, i.e., the timeline that McConnell imposed on the Garland nomination, and also the Kavanaugh nomination?
    Timing? I think that you, like all Republicans, are extremely disingenuous, and that you don’t even recognize your bad faith.

  532. It was the timing that was suspect.
    Why have you not addressed the “timing”, i.e., the timeline that McConnell imposed on the Garland nomination, and also the Kavanaugh nomination?
    Timing? I think that you, like all Republicans, are extremely disingenuous, and that you don’t even recognize your bad faith.

  533. Not to jump in, but I think that the letter was written with the agreement it wouldnt be used except as s last resort. The timing was predetermined, the intent was to ensure Kavanaugh wasn’t seated.
    And yes, the Democrats are much more vigorous in their tone and tactics due to the stakes. Understandably imo.

  534. Not to jump in, but I think that the letter was written with the agreement it wouldnt be used except as s last resort. The timing was predetermined, the intent was to ensure Kavanaugh wasn’t seated.
    And yes, the Democrats are much more vigorous in their tone and tactics due to the stakes. Understandably imo.

  535. Marty: I’m psychic.
    I believe you. It makes Kavanaugh’s testimony a lie and the GOP’s high-fallutin rhetoric a farce, but I do believe you.
    –TP

  536. Marty: I’m psychic.
    I believe you. It makes Kavanaugh’s testimony a lie and the GOP’s high-fallutin rhetoric a farce, but I do believe you.
    –TP

  537. The real culprit to this whole show was Justice Kennedy, who chose to retire this summer, with the current POTUS and Senate, fully aware that the minority party no longer has a meaningful vote.
    Just hoping that when the history is written, it is not lost that he was aware of the damage to the Court and country he was causing.

  538. The real culprit to this whole show was Justice Kennedy, who chose to retire this summer, with the current POTUS and Senate, fully aware that the minority party no longer has a meaningful vote.
    Just hoping that when the history is written, it is not lost that he was aware of the damage to the Court and country he was causing.

  539. hsh: I don’t know. And I wouldn’t limit myself to just those two choices. She could have kept it to herself because it is simply so hard to talk about. Maybe it didn’t matter to her as much as she says it did (something happened but not as bad as she alleges) and she is out to prove a political point and being opportunistic. She said she worried about him being nominated in 2012. She could have spoken then. She’s a democrat and maybe she dislikes Trump more than even those at ObWi. And yes, I have considered why someone would subject themselves to the scrutiny. All that said, the timing is “convenient” if you don’t like the word suspect. And not convenient at all for her if she really is doing her civic duty and it is all true. She did apparently report it right when Kavanaugh’s nomination was official.
    But her timing is one thing and Feinstein’s timing is another thing. It makes me think that Feinstein didn’t believe it at first or she would have raised it almost immediately. Said something at least in confidence to the other committee members. I wonder if she didn’t believe it at first and then thought she would be considered “soft” like Biden was after the Thomas hearings and reconsidered. I don’t know.
    Ford could be completely well-intentioned and mistaken. She doesn’t say whether she was drinking too, and that seems odd to me. But we know there were two other people there other than Kavanaugh and his alleged sidekick. What do they say? And I think that is the point of the late revelation: delay while the FBI investigates.I note that reports are coming out that Ford herself wants the FBI to investigate first before she testifies. That cuts against her, IMHO.
    I do think her story seems mostly credible in the abstract. But there are just so few facts out there. To her credit, she has classmates supporting her integrity. Kavanaugh similarly has others vouching for his gentlemanly behavior.
    At this point, I like Collin’s proposal to have them both questioned by the other side’s attorney before any senators ask questions. Go for it.
    But IMHO Feinstein’s timing is meant to either delay or derail completely. At least that is the most likely explanation to me at this point.
    And sapient, I’m in bad faith? Please explain.

  540. hsh: I don’t know. And I wouldn’t limit myself to just those two choices. She could have kept it to herself because it is simply so hard to talk about. Maybe it didn’t matter to her as much as she says it did (something happened but not as bad as she alleges) and she is out to prove a political point and being opportunistic. She said she worried about him being nominated in 2012. She could have spoken then. She’s a democrat and maybe she dislikes Trump more than even those at ObWi. And yes, I have considered why someone would subject themselves to the scrutiny. All that said, the timing is “convenient” if you don’t like the word suspect. And not convenient at all for her if she really is doing her civic duty and it is all true. She did apparently report it right when Kavanaugh’s nomination was official.
    But her timing is one thing and Feinstein’s timing is another thing. It makes me think that Feinstein didn’t believe it at first or she would have raised it almost immediately. Said something at least in confidence to the other committee members. I wonder if she didn’t believe it at first and then thought she would be considered “soft” like Biden was after the Thomas hearings and reconsidered. I don’t know.
    Ford could be completely well-intentioned and mistaken. She doesn’t say whether she was drinking too, and that seems odd to me. But we know there were two other people there other than Kavanaugh and his alleged sidekick. What do they say? And I think that is the point of the late revelation: delay while the FBI investigates.I note that reports are coming out that Ford herself wants the FBI to investigate first before she testifies. That cuts against her, IMHO.
    I do think her story seems mostly credible in the abstract. But there are just so few facts out there. To her credit, she has classmates supporting her integrity. Kavanaugh similarly has others vouching for his gentlemanly behavior.
    At this point, I like Collin’s proposal to have them both questioned by the other side’s attorney before any senators ask questions. Go for it.
    But IMHO Feinstein’s timing is meant to either delay or derail completely. At least that is the most likely explanation to me at this point.
    And sapient, I’m in bad faith? Please explain.

  541. And sapient, I’m in bad faith? Please explain.
    I thought I already did. Why are you so obsessed with “timing”? What about Republican “timing”/”timeline”? What about Garland “timing”? What about this rushed, lack of vetting “timing”? Timing? You have to be kidding me.
    She doesn’t say whether she was drinking too, and that seems odd to me.
    “She thought everybody had had one beer, except she thought Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were quite inebriated.”
    She was drinking too. One beer.
    You really should read up before judging.

  542. And sapient, I’m in bad faith? Please explain.
    I thought I already did. Why are you so obsessed with “timing”? What about Republican “timing”/”timeline”? What about Garland “timing”? What about this rushed, lack of vetting “timing”? Timing? You have to be kidding me.
    She doesn’t say whether she was drinking too, and that seems odd to me.
    “She thought everybody had had one beer, except she thought Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge were quite inebriated.”
    She was drinking too. One beer.
    You really should read up before judging.

  543. I note that reports are coming out that Ford herself wants the FBI to investigate first before she testifies. That cuts against her, IMHO.
    I have no strong opinion about what the truth is here. Because I do not have the information I would need to have an opinion.
    But it strikes me that wanting the FBI to investigate a claim about possible criminal behavior would be evidence of credibility, rather than the opposite.

  544. I note that reports are coming out that Ford herself wants the FBI to investigate first before she testifies. That cuts against her, IMHO.
    I have no strong opinion about what the truth is here. Because I do not have the information I would need to have an opinion.
    But it strikes me that wanting the FBI to investigate a claim about possible criminal behavior would be evidence of credibility, rather than the opposite.

  545. But it strikes me that wanting the FBI to investigate a claim about possible criminal behavior would be evidence of credibility, rather than the opposite.
    Especially since that’s what’s done. Or was done back when we had a functional democracy,.

  546. But it strikes me that wanting the FBI to investigate a claim about possible criminal behavior would be evidence of credibility, rather than the opposite.
    Especially since that’s what’s done. Or was done back when we had a functional democracy,.

  547. What could the FBI find if allowed to investigate?
    How about the exact date of the party, the location of the party, the identities of everyone at the party … hmmm. Everyone at the party … Including maybe the person who denies being there?
    It might be hard, of course. They might need help from a psychic.
    –TP

  548. What could the FBI find if allowed to investigate?
    How about the exact date of the party, the location of the party, the identities of everyone at the party … hmmm. Everyone at the party … Including maybe the person who denies being there?
    It might be hard, of course. They might need help from a psychic.
    –TP

  549. The real culprit to this whole show was Justice Kennedy,
    My guess is that there’s a lot to learn about Justice Kennedy’s son and Trump. With timing and all, I’m not sure I’ll be alive when that happens.

  550. The real culprit to this whole show was Justice Kennedy,
    My guess is that there’s a lot to learn about Justice Kennedy’s son and Trump. With timing and all, I’m not sure I’ll be alive when that happens.

  551. Everyone at the party … Including maybe the person who denies being there?
    Including the third person in the room who tumbled on top of the scene of the crime? What could that testimony, under oath, tell us?

  552. Everyone at the party … Including maybe the person who denies being there?
    Including the third person in the room who tumbled on top of the scene of the crime? What could that testimony, under oath, tell us?

  553. I will say the “everyone had one beer” line is pretty sketchy. She doesn’t remember exactly where,when, who was there, who threw the party, how she got there or home but she remembers everyone had one beer.
    That’s her pre answering the question as to whether she was drunk. That’s sketchy but probably u derstandable.

  554. I will say the “everyone had one beer” line is pretty sketchy. She doesn’t remember exactly where,when, who was there, who threw the party, how she got there or home but she remembers everyone had one beer.
    That’s her pre answering the question as to whether she was drunk. That’s sketchy but probably u derstandable.

  555. I will say the “everyone had one beer” line is pretty sketchy.
    You’re welcome to believe it, and believe her, or not. She was 15. I was 15 once too, and went to parties, and sipped beer without drinking much, because it was cool, but didn’t taste very good.
    bc says she never addressed the issue. bc doesn’t post links. bc is not interested in the truth. I doubt that you are either, Marty, but that’s perhaps my bad.

  556. I will say the “everyone had one beer” line is pretty sketchy.
    You’re welcome to believe it, and believe her, or not. She was 15. I was 15 once too, and went to parties, and sipped beer without drinking much, because it was cool, but didn’t taste very good.
    bc says she never addressed the issue. bc doesn’t post links. bc is not interested in the truth. I doubt that you are either, Marty, but that’s perhaps my bad.

  557. What could the FBI find if allowed to investigate?
    How about the exact date of the party, the location of the party, the identities of everyone at the party … hmmm. Everyone at the party … Including maybe the person who denies being there?
    It might be hard, of course. They might need help from a psychic.
    Not sure why they’d need a psychic. It’s the sort of thing they do all the time as part of security background checks. “Tedious” is probably closer than “hard”.

  558. What could the FBI find if allowed to investigate?
    How about the exact date of the party, the location of the party, the identities of everyone at the party … hmmm. Everyone at the party … Including maybe the person who denies being there?
    It might be hard, of course. They might need help from a psychic.
    Not sure why they’d need a psychic. It’s the sort of thing they do all the time as part of security background checks. “Tedious” is probably closer than “hard”.

  559. russell:
    Given the leaks that have occurred to date in a number of different matters, any investigation will tip her off and Kavanaugh off as to what others and each other are going to say. Put it all out there first. To me it’s like kicking anyone who is going to testify out of the courtroom so they can’t hear what the other witnesses say.
    sapient: I haven’t judged yet. Preliminary thoughts is all. I can be convinced either way.

  560. russell:
    Given the leaks that have occurred to date in a number of different matters, any investigation will tip her off and Kavanaugh off as to what others and each other are going to say. Put it all out there first. To me it’s like kicking anyone who is going to testify out of the courtroom so they can’t hear what the other witnesses say.
    sapient: I haven’t judged yet. Preliminary thoughts is all. I can be convinced either way.

  563. I haven’t judged yet. Preliminary thoughts is all. I can be convinced either way.
    Cool. Keep an open mind, and read a lot of the links that have showed up in this thread.

  564. I haven’t judged yet. Preliminary thoughts is all. I can be convinced either way.
    Cool. Keep an open mind, and read a lot of the links that have showed up in this thread.

  573. And since we are talking about timing, I’m also concerned about shutting down the “atomic clock radio stations.”
    Any other timing situations you want to talk about? Daylight savings time? Term limits?

  574. And since we are talking about timing, I’m also concerned about shutting down the “atomic clock radio stations.”
    Any other timing situations you want to talk about? Daylight savings time? Term limits?

  579. McConnell was right. Kavanaugh has too much baggage. Trump should have picked someone else.
    Maybe Trump will figure that out, or maybe Kavanaugh will decide the prize just ain’t worth it, and one way or another someone else will be put forward.
    Or, we’re in for a nasty freaking mess.
    Sapient, my understanding is that Kennedy’s kid was not directly involved with Deutsch Bank’s deals with Trump.
    Marty and bc, lotta tea leaf reading going on.
    And anyone who doesn’t think “entitlement reform” is right at the top of the agenda if the (R)’s hold Congress is dreaming.

  580. McConnell was right. Kavanaugh has too much baggage. Trump should have picked someone else.
    Maybe Trump will figure that out, or maybe Kavanaugh will decide the prize just ain’t worth it, and one way or another someone else will be put forward.
    Or, we’re in for a nasty freaking mess.
    Sapient, my understanding is that Kennedy’s kid was not directly involved with Deutsch Bank’s deals with Trump.
    Marty and bc, lotta tea leaf reading going on.
    And anyone who doesn’t think “entitlement reform” is right at the top of the agenda if the (R)’s hold Congress is dreaming.

  587. Hey, boys will be boys, (wink wink). But of course, we should always be evenhanded (towards people in our socio economic class, you know)

  588. Hey, boys will be boys, (wink wink). But of course, we should always be evenhanded (towards people in our socio economic class, you know)

  589. Not to jump in, but I think that the letter was written with the agreement it wouldnt be used except as s last resort. The timing was predetermined,
    yes, The Intercept is now part of the great Democratic Machine.
    ominous times.

  590. Not to jump in, but I think that the letter was written with the agreement it wouldnt be used except as s last resort. The timing was predetermined,
    yes, The Intercept is now part of the great Democratic Machine.
    ominous times.

  593. and in totally-predictable events:

    In the letter to the Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey’s lawyers said that she has been the target of “vicious harassment and even death threats” since her name was made public on Sunday in an interview published in The Washington Post. Her email has been hacked, she has been impersonated online and she and her family have been forced to relocate out of their home, according to the lawyers

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/reticent-coming-forward

  594. and in totally-predictable events:

    In the letter to the Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey’s lawyers said that she has been the target of “vicious harassment and even death threats” since her name was made public on Sunday in an interview published in The Washington Post. Her email has been hacked, she has been impersonated online and she and her family have been forced to relocate out of their home, according to the lawyers

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/reticent-coming-forward

  603. If we can speak of upsides – every second that this fiasco drags on, another 100 women who were just not that interested in the mid-terms decide that maybe they’ll show up and vote after all. Hell of a lot of women have their own drunk-entitled-jerk-at-a-party story.
    The (R)’s once again show their skill in reaching out beyond their core demographic of old white dudes.
    Please proceed, Senators.

  604. If we can speak of upsides – every second that this fiasco drags on, another 100 women who were just not that interested in the mid-terms decide that maybe they’ll show up and vote after all. Hell of a lot of women have their own drunk-entitled-jerk-at-a-party story.
    The (R)’s once again show their skill in reaching out beyond their core demographic of old white dudes.
    Please proceed, Senators.

  605. i’ve been amazed by how terrible they are at it, too.
    but maybe it’s too much to expect them to be good at marketing to people for whom they are also terrible at legislating.

  606. i’ve been amazed by how terrible they are at it, too.
    but maybe it’s too much to expect them to be good at marketing to people for whom they are also terrible at legislating.

  607. “The (R)’s once again show their skill in reaching out beyond their core demographic of old white dudes.”
    OF COURSE they’re skilled at it.
    They haven’t been slaughtered yet, have they? A fate that they have most assuredly earned, over many years.
    Count is still on his leash, that has to count for something.

  608. “The (R)’s once again show their skill in reaching out beyond their core demographic of old white dudes.”
    OF COURSE they’re skilled at it.
    They haven’t been slaughtered yet, have they? A fate that they have most assuredly earned, over many years.
    Count is still on his leash, that has to count for something.

  613. russell, regarding the Justin Kennedy connection, the “conspiracy theory” has been dismissed by some people (including the Washington Post’s Pinocchio column). However, it seems to me to bear more scrutiny than people have given it.
    For example:

    “The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.”

    And from the Post’s Pinocchio article:

    “In 2005, Deutsche Bank and others loaned the future president $640 million to build the Trump International Hotel and Tower, which is now the second-tallest building in Chicago. This appears to be the only Deutsche Bank loan to Trump that involved the younger Kennedy.
    “From his perch on the trading desk, Kennedy had an important role in the loan-approval process. “What the trading desk does is they price the loan … and then once the loan is originated, they figure out what to do with it: sell, syndicate, securitize in a trust,” Offit said. In other words, Kennedy’s job was to figure out how to manage Deutsche Bank’s risk in loaning Trump the money to build his Chicago tower, and to securitize or sell off parts of the loan as needed.
    “The extent to which Kennedy worked with Trump on this loan, or possibly on other Deutsche Bank matters, is unclear. “In that role, as the trader, he would have no contact with Trump … unless Eric [Schwartz] was trying to get Justin in front of Trump for schmoozing reasons,” Offit said, adding that he had recently spoken with former colleagues at the bank about Kennedy’s work.
    “The Financial Times reported that, as Deutsche Bank was building its commercial real estate team in the late 1990s, “some of the appointments gave Deutsche more clout in boardrooms and on the party circuit.” The newspaper mentioned Tobin “Toby” Cobb, a banker who was the son of two U.S. ambassadors. “Justin Kennedy, a trader who arrived from Goldman to become one of Mr Trump’s most trusted associates over a 12-year spell at Deutsche, is the son of a Supreme Court justice,” the Financial Times reported.
    “The Chicago deal ended up somewhat acrimoniously for Deutsche Bank and Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported that Deutsche Bank syndicated the loan, eventually reducing its exposure to less than $50 million.
    “In 2008, Trump failed to pay $334 million on the Chicago loan and sued Deutsche Bank, arguing that the global financial crisis was an unforeseeable event akin to a natural disaster. He also sought $3 billion, reasoning that Deutsche Bank’s practices helped trigger the financial crisis. Trump’s lawsuit alleged that Deutsche Bank compromised the Chicago loan by selling off pieces to “so many institutions, banks, junk bond firms, and virtually anybody that seemed to come along,” the Wall Street Journal reported.
    “That last part is interesting, since the people we spoke to familiar with Justin Kennedy’s thinking said it was his handiwork to syndicate the Chicago loan. Deutsche Bank and Trump settled out of court in 2009, and the commercial mortgage unit hasn’t done business with Trump again.”

    We don’t have enough information to conclude that there was anything amiss, and perhaps it is just the swamp, as this writer surmises. But part of the problem with Trump’s hidden financial affairs is that there is something off about this, and instead of leaving it to speculation, it should be transparent. No, there’s no proof of criminality here, but I’m tired of insisting on indictments before we are justified in pointing out that something smells bad and should be investigated.
    In other words, it would be irresponsible not to speculate! And with these characters, that’s actually true.

  614. russell, regarding the Justin Kennedy connection, the “conspiracy theory” has been dismissed by some people (including the Washington Post’s Pinocchio column). However, it seems to me to bear more scrutiny than people have given it.
    For example:

    “The younger Mr. Kennedy spent more than a decade at Deutsche Bank, eventually rising to become the bank’s global head of real estate capital markets, and he worked closely with Mr. Trump when he was a real estate developer, according to two people with knowledge of his role.”

    And from the Post’s Pinocchio article:

    “In 2005, Deutsche Bank and others loaned the future president $640 million to build the Trump International Hotel and Tower, which is now the second-tallest building in Chicago. This appears to be the only Deutsche Bank loan to Trump that involved the younger Kennedy.
    “From his perch on the trading desk, Kennedy had an important role in the loan-approval process. “What the trading desk does is they price the loan … and then once the loan is originated, they figure out what to do with it: sell, syndicate, securitize in a trust,” Offit said. In other words, Kennedy’s job was to figure out how to manage Deutsche Bank’s risk in loaning Trump the money to build his Chicago tower, and to securitize or sell off parts of the loan as needed.
    “The extent to which Kennedy worked with Trump on this loan, or possibly on other Deutsche Bank matters, is unclear. “In that role, as the trader, he would have no contact with Trump … unless Eric [Schwartz] was trying to get Justin in front of Trump for schmoozing reasons,” Offit said, adding that he had recently spoken with former colleagues at the bank about Kennedy’s work.
    “The Financial Times reported that, as Deutsche Bank was building its commercial real estate team in the late 1990s, “some of the appointments gave Deutsche more clout in boardrooms and on the party circuit.” The newspaper mentioned Tobin “Toby” Cobb, a banker who was the son of two U.S. ambassadors. “Justin Kennedy, a trader who arrived from Goldman to become one of Mr Trump’s most trusted associates over a 12-year spell at Deutsche, is the son of a Supreme Court justice,” the Financial Times reported.
    “The Chicago deal ended up somewhat acrimoniously for Deutsche Bank and Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported that Deutsche Bank syndicated the loan, eventually reducing its exposure to less than $50 million.
    “In 2008, Trump failed to pay $334 million on the Chicago loan and sued Deutsche Bank, arguing that the global financial crisis was an unforeseeable event akin to a natural disaster. He also sought $3 billion, reasoning that Deutsche Bank’s practices helped trigger the financial crisis. Trump’s lawsuit alleged that Deutsche Bank compromised the Chicago loan by selling off pieces to “so many institutions, banks, junk bond firms, and virtually anybody that seemed to come along,” the Wall Street Journal reported.
    “That last part is interesting, since the people we spoke to familiar with Justin Kennedy’s thinking said it was his handiwork to syndicate the Chicago loan. Deutsche Bank and Trump settled out of court in 2009, and the commercial mortgage unit hasn’t done business with Trump again.”

    We don’t have enough information to conclude that there was anything amiss, and perhaps it is just the swamp, as this writer surmises. But part of the problem with Trump’s hidden financial affairs is that there is something off about this, and instead of leaving it to speculation, it should be transparent. No, there’s no proof of criminality here, but I’m tired of insisting on indictments before we are justified in pointing out that something smells bad and should be investigated.
    In other words, it would be irresponsible not to speculate! And with these characters, that’s actually true.

  615. The Dumbass Lout Whisperer:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in-secret-calls-putin-cultivated-trumps-anger-at-the-deep-state
    The next Democratic or Independent President of the United States is going to have to be an Abraham Lincoln in stature and character, but not necessarily gender, to save the country:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_6871907034&feature=iv&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqpy2mDvUsRkxEnyxNp97Cva&src_vid=r_Bdli4c8TA&v=sNi3hwriXyE

  616. The Dumbass Lout Whisperer:
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/in-secret-calls-putin-cultivated-trumps-anger-at-the-deep-state
    The next Democratic or Independent President of the United States is going to have to be an Abraham Lincoln in stature and character, but not necessarily gender, to save the country:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_6871907034&feature=iv&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqpy2mDvUsRkxEnyxNp97Cva&src_vid=r_Bdli4c8TA&v=sNi3hwriXyE

  617. lj: Hey, boys will be boys, (wink wink). But of course, we should always be evenhanded (towards people in our socio economic class, you know)
    But only imagine the reaction had the boys been black (and the girl white). Even upper class black.
    (Probably a lot of ranting about the evils of affirmative action as well, had they also been students at Georgetown.)

  618. lj: Hey, boys will be boys, (wink wink). But of course, we should always be evenhanded (towards people in our socio economic class, you know)
    But only imagine the reaction had the boys been black (and the girl white). Even upper class black.
    (Probably a lot of ranting about the evils of affirmative action as well, had they also been students at Georgetown.)

  619. My current thoughts about the Supreme Court: term of appointment too long; court too small.
    A bigger court with long-ish, but staggered terms of appointment would take political pressure off of the nomination process while still giving the court the sort of long-term perspective that we need it to have.
    What’s absolutely clear, though, is that what we have is not working well and is subject to all manner of gamesmanship.

  620. My current thoughts about the Supreme Court: term of appointment too long; court too small.
    A bigger court with long-ish, but staggered terms of appointment would take political pressure off of the nomination process while still giving the court the sort of long-term perspective that we need it to have.
    What’s absolutely clear, though, is that what we have is not working well and is subject to all manner of gamesmanship.

  621. Nous — A court with long-ish but staggered terms is an appealing idea, and maybe bigger (if not too much bigger) would be better. But not much is working well right now, and I’m not sure how much worse the mess is around the Supreme Court than around anything else. When gamesmanship is the order of the day and the top dog is an idiot savant crook, swinging his … club … in all directions indiscriminately to feed his own narcissism, we’re in surreal territory.
    It’s tempting to think there’s something wrong with the system that we could fix to avoid this kind of mess in the future, but I doubt any system is proof against this kind of assault. You can’t lock a system down so tightly that there’s no flexibility and adaptiveness, but … we’ve gone far beyond that.
    That’s not to say that we couldn’t reform ourselves to good effect. The Supreme Court and the electoral college would be good starting places. I’m not optimistic.

  622. Nous — A court with long-ish but staggered terms is an appealing idea, and maybe bigger (if not too much bigger) would be better. But not much is working well right now, and I’m not sure how much worse the mess is around the Supreme Court than around anything else. When gamesmanship is the order of the day and the top dog is an idiot savant crook, swinging his … club … in all directions indiscriminately to feed his own narcissism, we’re in surreal territory.
    It’s tempting to think there’s something wrong with the system that we could fix to avoid this kind of mess in the future, but I doubt any system is proof against this kind of assault. You can’t lock a system down so tightly that there’s no flexibility and adaptiveness, but … we’ve gone far beyond that.
    That’s not to say that we couldn’t reform ourselves to good effect. The Supreme Court and the electoral college would be good starting places. I’m not optimistic.

  623. Neither am I, JanieM. One of the reasons I am thinking about this is the very real possibility that the current state of affairs finally causes the sort of collapse that was narrowly avoided in 1860 and in 1932.
    Constitution 2.0 for whatever institutions arise our of a potential collapse will need to have better rules.

  624. Neither am I, JanieM. One of the reasons I am thinking about this is the very real possibility that the current state of affairs finally causes the sort of collapse that was narrowly avoided in 1860 and in 1932.
    Constitution 2.0 for whatever institutions arise our of a potential collapse will need to have better rules.

  625. A jury has a maximum of 12 members, which is generally the number of jurors on a major trial. That sounds like a good number for the Supreme Court. If they deadlock 6 to 6, the lower court’s ruling stands. Justices seem to be appointed around the age of 50 these days. A 25-year term should give just about anyone enough time to round out a very nice career, and it’s not like there wouldn’t be plenty of money to be make after the end of a 25-year term on the Supreme Court – so no political pressure to speak of.
    Pie in the sky, yes. But still an interesting proposal.

  626. A jury has a maximum of 12 members, which is generally the number of jurors on a major trial. That sounds like a good number for the Supreme Court. If they deadlock 6 to 6, the lower court’s ruling stands. Justices seem to be appointed around the age of 50 these days. A 25-year term should give just about anyone enough time to round out a very nice career, and it’s not like there wouldn’t be plenty of money to be make after the end of a 25-year term on the Supreme Court – so no political pressure to speak of.
    Pie in the sky, yes. But still an interesting proposal.

  627. do away with the permanent SCOTUS altogether. periodically randomly pick some set of members from the various federal courts to look at cases that SCOTUS would handle.

  628. do away with the permanent SCOTUS altogether. periodically randomly pick some set of members from the various federal courts to look at cases that SCOTUS would handle.

  629. Finland has a court of at minimum 15 justices (18 at the moment), usually working in 5-judge panels. I could see something like that, with the panels having to clear their judgments with the majority of the court before a decision could be used for precedent.

  630. Finland has a court of at minimum 15 justices (18 at the moment), usually working in 5-judge panels. I could see something like that, with the panels having to clear their judgments with the majority of the court before a decision could be used for precedent.

  631. I am always leery of attempts to solve current major problems with big changes. Yes, sometimes that is what is actually needed. But at least as often, we end up creating more, and worse, problems even as we are addressing the old ones.
    In the case of the current Supreme Court, I could see something like an automatic removal of any Justice found to have lied during his/her confirmation hearings — about facts, not so much about what their views on the law are. Rough on Justice Thomas, of course. But it might discourage a bit of the gamesmanship we have seen.

  632. I am always leery of attempts to solve current major problems with big changes. Yes, sometimes that is what is actually needed. But at least as often, we end up creating more, and worse, problems even as we are addressing the old ones.
    In the case of the current Supreme Court, I could see something like an automatic removal of any Justice found to have lied during his/her confirmation hearings — about facts, not so much about what their views on the law are. Rough on Justice Thomas, of course. But it might discourage a bit of the gamesmanship we have seen.

  633. I am always leery of attempts to solve current major problems with big changes.
    Kind of like generals fighting the last war….

  634. I am always leery of attempts to solve current major problems with big changes.
    Kind of like generals fighting the last war….

  635. The German Supreme Court equivalent has two ‘senates’ each about as strong as SCOTUS. The justices have a fixed term (too lazy to check, iirc 10 years) and have to retire if they reach 67 before that term is over. Although it is not law, it is understood that a former justice may not become a lobbyist, politician etc. but has either to retire, or go into academia (or something similar). The only public office (s)he may have after being on the court is president (an office that has about as much power as Her Majesty the Queen of England just with fewer perks and the same obligation to stay out of party politics).
    The last major debate over a nominee I remember was about his area of expertise (which was already overrepresented while the alternative was a specialist in an area the court lacked at that time).
    My proposal for the US (stated here repeatedly) is 12 to 16 justices on the Supreme Court. Each year the longest serving one gets replaced. If (more than) one leaves the court out of term the replacement will require a higher confirmation margin or serve only as a placeholder. If the senate tries stalling, a nominee will be considered as approved after a reasonable period (e.g. 3 months) as at least placeholder. A nominee that fails to gain 40% of the vote cannot be renominated by the same president.
    Main purpose: a single president could not fundamentally change the court by stacking it with young hacks. It would require at least two two-termers.
    There would also be clear rules about when a justice has to recuse him/herself.
    Not foolproof but better than what we have now.

  636. The German Supreme Court equivalent has two ‘senates’ each about as strong as SCOTUS. The justices have a fixed term (too lazy to check, iirc 10 years) and have to retire if they reach 67 before that term is over. Although it is not law, it is understood that a former justice may not become a lobbyist, politician etc. but has either to retire, or go into academia (or something similar). The only public office (s)he may have after being on the court is president (an office that has about as much power as Her Majesty the Queen of England just with fewer perks and the same obligation to stay out of party politics).
    The last major debate over a nominee I remember was about his area of expertise (which was already overrepresented while the alternative was a specialist in an area the court lacked at that time).
    My proposal for the US (stated here repeatedly) is 12 to 16 justices on the Supreme Court. Each year the longest serving one gets replaced. If (more than) one leaves the court out of term the replacement will require a higher confirmation margin or serve only as a placeholder. If the senate tries stalling, a nominee will be considered as approved after a reasonable period (e.g. 3 months) as at least placeholder. A nominee that fails to gain 40% of the vote cannot be renominated by the same president.
    Main purpose: a single president could not fundamentally change the court by stacking it with young hacks. It would require at least two two-termers.
    There would also be clear rules about when a justice has to recuse him/herself.
    Not foolproof but better than what we have now.

  637. UK Supreme Court has 12 Justices. (FWIW)
    The one thing which seems unquestionable sensible is term limits.
    No judge is uniquely good, or indispensable – and if they are, they are really not acting as everyone says (or gives lip service to) how judges should operate.

  638. UK Supreme Court has 12 Justices. (FWIW)
    The one thing which seems unquestionable sensible is term limits.
    No judge is uniquely good, or indispensable – and if they are, they are really not acting as everyone says (or gives lip service to) how judges should operate.

  639. If the senate tries stalling, a nominee will be considered as approved after a reasonable period (e.g. 3 months) as at least placeholder.
    Your idea seems reasonable, but I don’t think any reform should include a default if the Senate doesn’t vote for some period. There are lots of ways to stall the Senate and win that way what can’t be won by a vote.
    A better solution, IMO, is to say that after a certain period, ninety days or so, any Senator can call for a vote, and the Senate must stay in session and can conduct no business at all until it is held.
    Voting on things is a Senator’s job. Make them do it.

  640. If the senate tries stalling, a nominee will be considered as approved after a reasonable period (e.g. 3 months) as at least placeholder.
    Your idea seems reasonable, but I don’t think any reform should include a default if the Senate doesn’t vote for some period. There are lots of ways to stall the Senate and win that way what can’t be won by a vote.
    A better solution, IMO, is to say that after a certain period, ninety days or so, any Senator can call for a vote, and the Senate must stay in session and can conduct no business at all until it is held.
    Voting on things is a Senator’s job. Make them do it.

  643. Great quote for today, from Senator Graham:

    It is imperative the Judiciary committee move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination and a committee vote be taken ASAP.

    Riiiight. Imperative why, exactly?
    Yes, *I* know why. And you know why. But the question is, what reason can the Senator give?
    After all, the Court managed for over a year without giving Judge Garland a vote. But admitting that the only rush is because they might otherwise a) find evidence which would preclude confirmation and/or b) the Democrats might (only 1 chance in 3, last I looked, but still) get control of the Senate in the election, which would mean no ideologues confirmed for the next couple of years? Admitting to that would be rough.

  644. Great quote for today, from Senator Graham:

    It is imperative the Judiciary committee move forward on the Kavanaugh nomination and a committee vote be taken ASAP.

    Riiiight. Imperative why, exactly?
    Yes, *I* know why. And you know why. But the question is, what reason can the Senator give?
    After all, the Court managed for over a year without giving Judge Garland a vote. But admitting that the only rush is because they might otherwise a) find evidence which would preclude confirmation and/or b) the Democrats might (only 1 chance in 3, last I looked, but still) get control of the Senate in the election, which would mean no ideologues confirmed for the next couple of years? Admitting to that would be rough.

  647. The fundamental problem is that a Constitution written over 200 years ago is deemed to be the governing document for what the federal executive and legislature can and cannot do today. Of course the Constitution has nothing to say about automatic weapons, joint-stock corporations, or same-sex marriage. So Justices have to apply bizarre theories of interpretation to find something which isn’t there. Inevitably, the answers they find depend on their political leanings, not the Constitution itself. So the appoint of Justices becomes a political issue.
    The whole thing’s broken. And there’s no way to fix it while keeping the United States united.

  648. The fundamental problem is that a Constitution written over 200 years ago is deemed to be the governing document for what the federal executive and legislature can and cannot do today. Of course the Constitution has nothing to say about automatic weapons, joint-stock corporations, or same-sex marriage. So Justices have to apply bizarre theories of interpretation to find something which isn’t there. Inevitably, the answers they find depend on their political leanings, not the Constitution itself. So the appoint of Justices becomes a political issue.
    The whole thing’s broken. And there’s no way to fix it while keeping the United States united.

  649. “The whole thing’s broken. And there’s no way to fix it while keeping the United States united.”
    There will never be a system of government that is without politics. Politics is just another name for human interaction.

  650. “The whole thing’s broken. And there’s no way to fix it while keeping the United States united.”
    There will never be a system of government that is without politics. Politics is just another name for human interaction.

  651. There will never be a system of government that is without politics. Politics is just another name for human interaction.
    This.
    There are some problems with the Constitution. The electoral college being one of them. But no system of laws will save a country where a substantial number of people don’t buy into the concept of law over power. Those “norms” everyone was talking about are what hold countries together.
    The Democratic Party has a diversity of people and a spectrum of views on various issues, although we tend to agree in our belief in government policy as a mechanism to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
    Republicans reject government, and increasingly use it to enrich people who are already wealthy. Currently, wealthy Republicans are pillaging the United States, its treasury, its natural resources. No amendment to the Constitution will cure that. The people have to recognize what’s happening and reject it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of marks out there being conned.

  652. There will never be a system of government that is without politics. Politics is just another name for human interaction.
    This.
    There are some problems with the Constitution. The electoral college being one of them. But no system of laws will save a country where a substantial number of people don’t buy into the concept of law over power. Those “norms” everyone was talking about are what hold countries together.
    The Democratic Party has a diversity of people and a spectrum of views on various issues, although we tend to agree in our belief in government policy as a mechanism to provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
    Republicans reject government, and increasingly use it to enrich people who are already wealthy. Currently, wealthy Republicans are pillaging the United States, its treasury, its natural resources. No amendment to the Constitution will cure that. The people have to recognize what’s happening and reject it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of marks out there being conned.

  653. The whole thing’s broken. And there’s no way to fix it while keeping the United States united.
    Of course there is. And it’s built in. Amend the document to deal with new challenges.
    It’s admittedly not a trivial effort. But there’s no reason why it cannot be done — after all, we’ve done it a couple dozen times already.
    Or are you suggesting that the level of divergence in opinions is so much greater than ever before (good luck supporting that!) that we can’t reach agreement on anything? And never will be able to in the future….

  654. The whole thing’s broken. And there’s no way to fix it while keeping the United States united.
    Of course there is. And it’s built in. Amend the document to deal with new challenges.
    It’s admittedly not a trivial effort. But there’s no reason why it cannot be done — after all, we’ve done it a couple dozen times already.
    Or are you suggesting that the level of divergence in opinions is so much greater than ever before (good luck supporting that!) that we can’t reach agreement on anything? And never will be able to in the future….

  655. Republicans reject government
    Actually no. Libertarians, who are often numbered among Republicans, do so. On the other hand, the religious right has absolutely no problem with government — they just object when it isn’t forcing the rest of the world to follow their own particular views. Ditto the racist right.
    Both of the latter reject government as it has been for the last century or so. But only because they feel that they haven’t been in control.

  656. Republicans reject government
    Actually no. Libertarians, who are often numbered among Republicans, do so. On the other hand, the religious right has absolutely no problem with government — they just object when it isn’t forcing the rest of the world to follow their own particular views. Ditto the racist right.
    Both of the latter reject government as it has been for the last century or so. But only because they feel that they haven’t been in control.

  657. are you suggesting that the level of divergence in opinions is so much greater than ever before
    I think it is no more divergent than 1860, so definitely not greater than ever.
    Libertarians also only reject the government they don’t agree with.

  658. are you suggesting that the level of divergence in opinions is so much greater than ever before
    I think it is no more divergent than 1860, so definitely not greater than ever.
    Libertarians also only reject the government they don’t agree with.

  659. “Libertarians also only reject the government they don’t agree with.”
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/19/every-man-his-own-master-open-thread-crypto-anarcy-now/
    I got nothing.
    A libertarian is a guy who builds/downloads his own 3D sex robot and when she shows a trace of human agency by declining his more exotic demands while also demanding a robot abortion, he downloads a 3D gun and shoots her because his constitutional principles have been violated.
    Then someone hears the shots and the government he doesn’t agree with takes my money to clean up his fucking mess.
    Then Charles WT reads this scenario and asks, “Who exactly was hurt that the government needs to step in?”
    Then young teenaged male conservatives adopt this line of reasoning and stock up on sex robots and 3D weapons to avoid Kavanaugh’s dilemma should they one day be up for nomination to the Supreme Court.
    Then, in protest, Ted Cruz’s polls surge favorably in his direction and we call THAT fucking monstrosity gummint.
    Then Putin nukes the shit out of us, thus saving us from yet again trying to grow the hair back that we once again were about to tear out and jump up and down on.
    America: never quite full of shit enough to be satisfied that we don’t need to stop being full of shit.
    Nothing is what I got.

  660. “Libertarians also only reject the government they don’t agree with.”
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/19/every-man-his-own-master-open-thread-crypto-anarcy-now/
    I got nothing.
    A libertarian is a guy who builds/downloads his own 3D sex robot and when she shows a trace of human agency by declining his more exotic demands while also demanding a robot abortion, he downloads a 3D gun and shoots her because his constitutional principles have been violated.
    Then someone hears the shots and the government he doesn’t agree with takes my money to clean up his fucking mess.
    Then Charles WT reads this scenario and asks, “Who exactly was hurt that the government needs to step in?”
    Then young teenaged male conservatives adopt this line of reasoning and stock up on sex robots and 3D weapons to avoid Kavanaugh’s dilemma should they one day be up for nomination to the Supreme Court.
    Then, in protest, Ted Cruz’s polls surge favorably in his direction and we call THAT fucking monstrosity gummint.
    Then Putin nukes the shit out of us, thus saving us from yet again trying to grow the hair back that we once again were about to tear out and jump up and down on.
    America: never quite full of shit enough to be satisfied that we don’t need to stop being full of shit.
    Nothing is what I got.

  661. Here’s a simple fix:
    Don’t vote for (R)’s.
    Yup. If we had a solid majority in Congress (both houses) and a president, none of this would matter.
    No need to change the Constitution. But if we were to tweak it, I’d recommend the following:
    1. Fixed terms for Supreme’s
    2. Abolish the Senate
    3. Abolish the Electoral College
    I got nothing, too.

  662. Here’s a simple fix:
    Don’t vote for (R)’s.
    Yup. If we had a solid majority in Congress (both houses) and a president, none of this would matter.
    No need to change the Constitution. But if we were to tweak it, I’d recommend the following:
    1. Fixed terms for Supreme’s
    2. Abolish the Senate
    3. Abolish the Electoral College
    I got nothing, too.

  663. Republicans reject government. Actually no. Libertarians, who are often numbered among Republicans, do so.
    Disagree. Libertarians believe in a strong government that enforces their particular authoritarian theories.
    Libertarians believe that the more things, ideas, and states of being you can arbitrarily define as “property” the better off we are. This is tyranny.
    Libertarians believe the government should essentially be an arm of the propertied class and dedicated to enhancing their interests. Enforcing a strong version of property rights is no ‘small thing’ to be accomplished by a “watchman” regime. It takes a lot of effort, and overwhelming force.
    When it comes to discussions of political economy, libertarians should be utterly shunned.

  664. Republicans reject government. Actually no. Libertarians, who are often numbered among Republicans, do so.
    Disagree. Libertarians believe in a strong government that enforces their particular authoritarian theories.
    Libertarians believe that the more things, ideas, and states of being you can arbitrarily define as “property” the better off we are. This is tyranny.
    Libertarians believe the government should essentially be an arm of the propertied class and dedicated to enhancing their interests. Enforcing a strong version of property rights is no ‘small thing’ to be accomplished by a “watchman” regime. It takes a lot of effort, and overwhelming force.
    When it comes to discussions of political economy, libertarians should be utterly shunned.

  665. Abolish state legislative control of redistricting.
    Have one senator per 1% of national population, not state (the Dakota’s and montana get 1).

  666. Abolish state legislative control of redistricting.
    Have one senator per 1% of national population, not state (the Dakota’s and montana get 1).

  667. 2. Abolish the Senate
    A great example of trying to deal with a very narrow problem of the moment. Or, as Janie put it, fighting the last war. I’m guessing you are too young to remember when the Senate was all that kept the temporary emthusiasms of the House from screwing up the country. May be hard to imagine watching today’s disgusting short-termism behavior, but it did used to be the norm.
    To put it another way, what is your alternate solution for restraining the House. If you don’t think that’s ever going to be necessary, consider how much more the “Freedom Caucus” could have done, if Ryan wasn’t able to tell them that some of their dreams just wouldn’t get past the Senate. (And, occasionally, show them, when the Senate version excluded something that they had muscled thru.)

  668. 2. Abolish the Senate
    A great example of trying to deal with a very narrow problem of the moment. Or, as Janie put it, fighting the last war. I’m guessing you are too young to remember when the Senate was all that kept the temporary emthusiasms of the House from screwing up the country. May be hard to imagine watching today’s disgusting short-termism behavior, but it did used to be the norm.
    To put it another way, what is your alternate solution for restraining the House. If you don’t think that’s ever going to be necessary, consider how much more the “Freedom Caucus” could have done, if Ryan wasn’t able to tell them that some of their dreams just wouldn’t get past the Senate. (And, occasionally, show them, when the Senate version excluded something that they had muscled thru.)

  669. I’m guessing you are too young to remember..
    I’ll be 70 in a little less than 3 months.
    …when the Senate was all that kept the temporary emthusiasms of the House from screwing up the country.
    Examples would be instructive. Alternatively, there is a good deal of good legislation that passed the House only to go on and die in the Senate.
    I’d love to stack those two piles up and see which one is highest.
    To put it another way, what is your alternate solution for restraining the House.
    Elections.
    consider how much more the “Freedom Caucus” could have done
    That group is not even a majority of the majority. They use their leadership’s blind allegiance to the Hastert rule and its unwillingness to put matters to a vote of the entire House as leverage.
    A lot of those dreams would not have gotten past Obama, either.

  670. I’m guessing you are too young to remember..
    I’ll be 70 in a little less than 3 months.
    …when the Senate was all that kept the temporary emthusiasms of the House from screwing up the country.
    Examples would be instructive. Alternatively, there is a good deal of good legislation that passed the House only to go on and die in the Senate.
    I’d love to stack those two piles up and see which one is highest.
    To put it another way, what is your alternate solution for restraining the House.
    Elections.
    consider how much more the “Freedom Caucus” could have done
    That group is not even a majority of the majority. They use their leadership’s blind allegiance to the Hastert rule and its unwillingness to put matters to a vote of the entire House as leverage.
    A lot of those dreams would not have gotten past Obama, either.

  673. Once you turn 70, you may be too OLD to remember.
    I suspect the Freedom Caucus members are going to run for Senate seats.

  674. Once you turn 70, you may be too OLD to remember.
    I suspect the Freedom Caucus members are going to run for Senate seats.

  675. I suspect the Freedom Caucus members are going to run for Senate seats.
    From your lips (keyboard) to God’s (or at least their) ears.
    The more of them running for Senate seats the better. Some lose primaries — maybe from trying to primaries sitting Republican Senators for being too maderate. That gets them out of the legislature. Others win primaries, and thus massively increase the odds of the Democrats taking the seat. They may not be Roy Moore or Todd Aiken, but mostly sufficient to the task.

  676. I suspect the Freedom Caucus members are going to run for Senate seats.
    From your lips (keyboard) to God’s (or at least their) ears.
    The more of them running for Senate seats the better. Some lose primaries — maybe from trying to primaries sitting Republican Senators for being too maderate. That gets them out of the legislature. Others win primaries, and thus massively increase the odds of the Democrats taking the seat. They may not be Roy Moore or Todd Aiken, but mostly sufficient to the task.

  681. As an aside, I don’t really like ‘The Hill’ as it tends to report uncritically the party talking points, particularly Republican ones – but it is also for that reason a useful reference.

  682. As an aside, I don’t really like ‘The Hill’ as it tends to report uncritically the party talking points, particularly Republican ones – but it is also for that reason a useful reference.

  683. Just an observation
    I’m guessing that wj’s comment about the Senate being a firewall for the House is related to the Clinton impeachment, where the Senate basically stopped that in its tracks. Which is true, but if you view the radicalization as a virus, one can say it jumped from the House to the Senate since that time. So one might say we have to destroy the Senate to save it…

  684. Just an observation
    I’m guessing that wj’s comment about the Senate being a firewall for the House is related to the Clinton impeachment, where the Senate basically stopped that in its tracks. Which is true, but if you view the radicalization as a virus, one can say it jumped from the House to the Senate since that time. So one might say we have to destroy the Senate to save it…

  685. I’m guessing that wj’s comment about the Senate being a firewall for the House is related to the Clinton impeachment
    It’s an idea much older than that, as the introduction of Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate argues (albeit somewhat romantically).

  686. I’m guessing that wj’s comment about the Senate being a firewall for the House is related to the Clinton impeachment
    It’s an idea much older than that, as the introduction of Robert Caro’s Master of the Senate argues (albeit somewhat romantically).

  687. Well, wj can tell us what he’s thinking about, and certainly, with the 6 year term limit, the offsetting terms so only 1/3 are up every two years, along with the clubby institution lends itself to that idea, but it seems like any institution that has this kind of institutional history is going to be/should be viewed with a lot of suspicion in terms of sexism. One only has to go back to Joe Biden dealing with Anita Hill
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/24/rewatching-joe-bidens-disastrous-anita-hill-hearing-a-sexual-harassment-inquistion/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.02bd208c4865
    to see an institution that is not going to deal well with the changes that #metoo portends.

  688. Well, wj can tell us what he’s thinking about, and certainly, with the 6 year term limit, the offsetting terms so only 1/3 are up every two years, along with the clubby institution lends itself to that idea, but it seems like any institution that has this kind of institutional history is going to be/should be viewed with a lot of suspicion in terms of sexism. One only has to go back to Joe Biden dealing with Anita Hill
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/24/rewatching-joe-bidens-disastrous-anita-hill-hearing-a-sexual-harassment-inquistion/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.02bd208c4865
    to see an institution that is not going to deal well with the changes that #metoo portends.

  689. Nigel,
    That’s a great book. I’m not old enough to remember the Senate of Henry Cabot Lodge (the elder), but it was the place where good legislation went to die. It still serves that function, the operational arm of the rich and powerful.
    Wild eyed radicalism would not necessarily arise in its absence. There are still many other institutional constraints.
    But one can hope.

  690. Nigel,
    That’s a great book. I’m not old enough to remember the Senate of Henry Cabot Lodge (the elder), but it was the place where good legislation went to die. It still serves that function, the operational arm of the rich and powerful.
    Wild eyed radicalism would not necessarily arise in its absence. There are still many other institutional constraints.
    But one can hope.

  691. It’s admittedly not a trivial effort. But there’s no reason why it cannot be done — after all, we’ve done it a couple dozen times already.
    We really haven’t amended the Constitution a couple dozen times, it just looks that way. Ten amendments were effectively part of the original deal, and three others took a civil war to pass. Three of the remaining ones, 12, 20, and 25, were purely procedural.
    Only four, direct election of Senators, the Presidential term limit, DC electoral vote, income tax, changed the underlying structure
    Abolish the Senate
    I would abolish the Senate as it exists.
    There is value in having a second house of Congress, though. Leave it at staggered six-year terms, but make representation proportional to state population, for Pete’s sake. The two per state system is insane.
    Also, stop the BS – by which I mean the various ways that they avoid ultimately having to vote on things.

  692. It’s admittedly not a trivial effort. But there’s no reason why it cannot be done — after all, we’ve done it a couple dozen times already.
    We really haven’t amended the Constitution a couple dozen times, it just looks that way. Ten amendments were effectively part of the original deal, and three others took a civil war to pass. Three of the remaining ones, 12, 20, and 25, were purely procedural.
    Only four, direct election of Senators, the Presidential term limit, DC electoral vote, income tax, changed the underlying structure
    Abolish the Senate
    I would abolish the Senate as it exists.
    There is value in having a second house of Congress, though. Leave it at staggered six-year terms, but make representation proportional to state population, for Pete’s sake. The two per state system is insane.
    Also, stop the BS – by which I mean the various ways that they avoid ultimately having to vote on things.

  693. The fundamental problem is that a Constitution written over 200 years ago is deemed to be the governing document for what the federal executive and legislature can and cannot do today.
    On reflection that’s wrong, the problem is more with individual rights. Currently Justices are obliged to pretend to find dicta in the Constitution about many things which plainly were not considered when it was written: they respond by making something up which suits their political views – they make a political decision.
    This is a mistake. Elected politicians should make political decisions.
    A new Constitution should have a clear and brief bill of individual rights which government cannot breach, confining itself to commonly agreed rights which can readily pass the hurdles for amending the Constitution.
    Any other would-be rights, the Constitution should confine itself to saying whether decisions can be made by the federal government which are binding on the States.
    (We have a Supreme Court in the UK, much less powerful than SCOTUS. Hardly anyone knows or cares who’s on it, or how they’ve been chosen.)

  694. The fundamental problem is that a Constitution written over 200 years ago is deemed to be the governing document for what the federal executive and legislature can and cannot do today.
    On reflection that’s wrong, the problem is more with individual rights. Currently Justices are obliged to pretend to find dicta in the Constitution about many things which plainly were not considered when it was written: they respond by making something up which suits their political views – they make a political decision.
    This is a mistake. Elected politicians should make political decisions.
    A new Constitution should have a clear and brief bill of individual rights which government cannot breach, confining itself to commonly agreed rights which can readily pass the hurdles for amending the Constitution.
    Any other would-be rights, the Constitution should confine itself to saying whether decisions can be made by the federal government which are binding on the States.
    (We have a Supreme Court in the UK, much less powerful than SCOTUS. Hardly anyone knows or cares who’s on it, or how they’ve been chosen.)

  695. The US Constitution includes institutions that are, by intent, anti-democratic.
    The Electoral College is one. The Senate is another.
    The Senate was, more or less, intended to represent states per se, as opposed to the House, which was intended to directly represent people. This reflects the suspicion of a strong central government that was common at the time the Constitution was drafted.
    The first attempt was the Articles of Confederation, which was a failure. The second attempt was what we have now. States were willing to concede ultimate sovereignty to the federal government, but only in a limited way.
    This was mitigated somewhat by the 17th A, which changed the process of electing Senators to one in which they are elected directly by the people in a state. But it still leaves us with a profoundly undemocratic institution.
    At the time the Constitution was written, the most populous state was VA, with about 750K people, and the least was DE, with not quite 60K. That’s a ratio of about 12.5 to 1.
    Right now, the most populous state is CA, at about 39.5M, and the least is VT, at about 625K. That’s a ratio of 63+ to 1.
    The difference in the economic texture of life in the various states was also much less different then, than now. Agriculture, artisanal craft, a merchant class, and a professional class was generally the mix. There were cities, but they were not that large, and their residents not such a large percentage of the population.
    Today, a different story.
    What we have now, in the Senate, is a body by which a really small percentage of the population is able to be not just a tempering influence on popular will, but an utter obstruction.
    There is a limit to how much of that the nation can absorb and still remain functional.
    Personally, I think it’s time for us to start thinking of ourselves less as a federation of states, and more as a people. And, adjust our institutions accordingly. The occasions for insisting on “state’s rights” generally seem opportunistic to me, anyway.
    But whatever we do, it is not going to be sustainable for the representatives of such a small minority of the population to be able to thwart the will of such a disproportionately large number of their political opposites.
    As far as the Electoral College, IMO the POTUS is inherently a national, not a state-wide, office. Presidents should be elected by popular vote, period. The Electoral College has, twice in the last 20 years, resulted in Presidents achieving office who lost the popular vote, and who turned out and are turning out to be poor executives. To put it mildly.
    Get rid of the EC, and modify the prerogatives of the Senate so that the representatives of states per se are not able to override the will and interests of the people at large.
    But in the meantime, don’t vote for (R)’s.

  696. The US Constitution includes institutions that are, by intent, anti-democratic.
    The Electoral College is one. The Senate is another.
    The Senate was, more or less, intended to represent states per se, as opposed to the House, which was intended to directly represent people. This reflects the suspicion of a strong central government that was common at the time the Constitution was drafted.
    The first attempt was the Articles of Confederation, which was a failure. The second attempt was what we have now. States were willing to concede ultimate sovereignty to the federal government, but only in a limited way.
    This was mitigated somewhat by the 17th A, which changed the process of electing Senators to one in which they are elected directly by the people in a state. But it still leaves us with a profoundly undemocratic institution.
    At the time the Constitution was written, the most populous state was VA, with about 750K people, and the least was DE, with not quite 60K. That’s a ratio of about 12.5 to 1.
    Right now, the most populous state is CA, at about 39.5M, and the least is VT, at about 625K. That’s a ratio of 63+ to 1.
    The difference in the economic texture of life in the various states was also much less different then, than now. Agriculture, artisanal craft, a merchant class, and a professional class was generally the mix. There were cities, but they were not that large, and their residents not such a large percentage of the population.
    Today, a different story.
    What we have now, in the Senate, is a body by which a really small percentage of the population is able to be not just a tempering influence on popular will, but an utter obstruction.
    There is a limit to how much of that the nation can absorb and still remain functional.
    Personally, I think it’s time for us to start thinking of ourselves less as a federation of states, and more as a people. And, adjust our institutions accordingly. The occasions for insisting on “state’s rights” generally seem opportunistic to me, anyway.
    But whatever we do, it is not going to be sustainable for the representatives of such a small minority of the population to be able to thwart the will of such a disproportionately large number of their political opposites.
    As far as the Electoral College, IMO the POTUS is inherently a national, not a state-wide, office. Presidents should be elected by popular vote, period. The Electoral College has, twice in the last 20 years, resulted in Presidents achieving office who lost the popular vote, and who turned out and are turning out to be poor executives. To put it mildly.
    Get rid of the EC, and modify the prerogatives of the Senate so that the representatives of states per se are not able to override the will and interests of the people at large.
    But in the meantime, don’t vote for (R)’s.

  697. E.g. – Mitch McConnell, Senator from KY, a state with a population of 4+ million, the largest metropolitan area of which numbers a little over 600K people, was able to prevent Barack Obama, POTUS of the US, elected with very robust popular and electoral majorities, from filling a vacant seat on the SCOTUS.
    That is outrageous, and if patterns like that continue, the nation will break. Because people will not put up with it.
    I think it’s highly likely that the (R)’s will find a way to get Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. If they do, they are going to regret it. Just another nail in their coffin as a constructive presence, or ultimately a presence at all, in the nation.
    If so, so be it.
    “Stand athwart history and yell stop”. Not a great plan. Nevertheless, please proceed, (R)’s.

  698. E.g. – Mitch McConnell, Senator from KY, a state with a population of 4+ million, the largest metropolitan area of which numbers a little over 600K people, was able to prevent Barack Obama, POTUS of the US, elected with very robust popular and electoral majorities, from filling a vacant seat on the SCOTUS.
    That is outrageous, and if patterns like that continue, the nation will break. Because people will not put up with it.
    I think it’s highly likely that the (R)’s will find a way to get Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS. If they do, they are going to regret it. Just another nail in their coffin as a constructive presence, or ultimately a presence at all, in the nation.
    If so, so be it.
    “Stand athwart history and yell stop”. Not a great plan. Nevertheless, please proceed, (R)’s.

  699. I think it’s highly likely that the (R)’s will find a way to get Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS.
    well, all they have to do is have the vote. the fact that they’re putting even this much effort into trying to look concerned is surprising to me.

  700. I think it’s highly likely that the (R)’s will find a way to get Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS.
    well, all they have to do is have the vote. the fact that they’re putting even this much effort into trying to look concerned is surprising to me.

  701. (We have a Supreme Court in the UK, much less powerful than SCOTUS. Hardly anyone knows or cares who’s on it, or how they’ve been chosen.)
    Some people suddenly started to care very much, when the case regarding the exercising of Article 50 (by which the UK is withdrawing from the EU) came before it.
    As for its powers, they are gradually accreting, partly thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights (though of course in this respect its judgments are to some extent subsidiary to the European Court of Human Rights…. not to be confused with the European Court of Justice which deals with matters that fall under EU jurisdiction).
    I’d agree though that it’s pretty hard to envision quite the same level of US political struggles any time soon.
    Not least because guns and abortion aren’t matters of political identity, and the principle (if not the detail of implementation) of universal healthcare is a long settled consensus.

  702. (We have a Supreme Court in the UK, much less powerful than SCOTUS. Hardly anyone knows or cares who’s on it, or how they’ve been chosen.)
    Some people suddenly started to care very much, when the case regarding the exercising of Article 50 (by which the UK is withdrawing from the EU) came before it.
    As for its powers, they are gradually accreting, partly thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights (though of course in this respect its judgments are to some extent subsidiary to the European Court of Human Rights…. not to be confused with the European Court of Justice which deals with matters that fall under EU jurisdiction).
    I’d agree though that it’s pretty hard to envision quite the same level of US political struggles any time soon.
    Not least because guns and abortion aren’t matters of political identity, and the principle (if not the detail of implementation) of universal healthcare is a long settled consensus.

  707. The longer the Kavanaugh fiasco drags on, the more the Rs in congress expose themselves as ethically bankrupt shills. That won’t move the forty percenters though, since they also have a problem with ethical deficits in the political aspects of their lives.
    None of this would be happening if Kavanaugh has simply saind, “Yes, I did a terrible thing and I should have apologized years and years ago. I was a spoiled brat and I attended a school where entitled drunken frat boy behavior was the norm and I did abuse a young lady. In fact I abused her twice–once during the incident and a second time by failing to apologize. But I will not abuse her for a third time by failing to apologize now. I hope she will understand that I was ashamed of myself thirty years ago and I have made a serious effort to change my attitude toward women and girls and have never since that terrible day been abusive. Please forgive me.
    But he is still the entitled abusive asshole now that he was then. He’s just entitled and abusive in the way that is socially acceptable because it comes under the label “conservative philosophy’ and manifests in terms of policy.

  708. The longer the Kavanaugh fiasco drags on, the more the Rs in congress expose themselves as ethically bankrupt shills. That won’t move the forty percenters though, since they also have a problem with ethical deficits in the political aspects of their lives.
    None of this would be happening if Kavanaugh has simply saind, “Yes, I did a terrible thing and I should have apologized years and years ago. I was a spoiled brat and I attended a school where entitled drunken frat boy behavior was the norm and I did abuse a young lady. In fact I abused her twice–once during the incident and a second time by failing to apologize. But I will not abuse her for a third time by failing to apologize now. I hope she will understand that I was ashamed of myself thirty years ago and I have made a serious effort to change my attitude toward women and girls and have never since that terrible day been abusive. Please forgive me.
    But he is still the entitled abusive asshole now that he was then. He’s just entitled and abusive in the way that is socially acceptable because it comes under the label “conservative philosophy’ and manifests in terms of policy.

  711. russell:
    Solve the California problem by breaking up California. Not a novel idea, that. Almost made the ballot here. But Republicans would hate having six senators from here and Democrats would hate having those electoral college votes divvied up. Some might be tempted to think that allowing a pre-election writ of mandamus vs. a full hearing on the merits after the election (if necessary) was the deep state in California protecting itself . . .
    And I think that “suspicion of a strong central government” is very much alive today.
    Your point of view is undoubtedly valid. It was valid at the time of the founding. It is valid today. But just as valid is the countervailing viewpoint of representative democracy, equal footing amongst the states, and so forth. “We the People” voted on the Constitution and we could do so again by amending it if desired.
    I have lived in one of the least populated states in the country and the most populous state in the country. You happen to be in the majority of a populous state. I am in the minority. I feel more disenfranchised now, obviously. My state is silly, IMHO, focused on plastic straws when it cannot educate its children (don’t get me going on that one). I have little to no say in what happens at the state level.
    There is a good argument we are too centralized as a country. I have no idea what is good for Massachusetts on many issues just as you probably have no idea what is good for Alaska on many issues. Actually, you probably have a better idea than me on most issues because you tend to get less frustrated and actually listen. But I digress.
    We lay issues at the feet of SCOTUS and let 9 people decide them for us all. Most of the time it makes sense. But sometimes we see overreaching, stretching the commerce clause to see if it will break, etc. The battle over SCOTUS, arguments over the electoral college and the popular vote, the proper objects of executive orders, conversations about the “deep state” etc. are collectively symbolic of too much centralization, IMHO. Ideas that might not divide us as a country do divide us if they are elevated to the national level and imposed on the country as a whole. There is too much at stake.
    It troubles me that “small state” viewpoints are seen as not worthy of some sort of respect simply because the populations are small. I get that you are pointing to some extreme examples and I do see and acknowledge your point. But I’m not sure scrapping the senate as we know it and going pure popular vote would unite us. We haven’t put as much thought into it as the founders did. Despite the changes in society, economy and population, we owe it to ourselves to have a proper debate before doing anything rash given the almost unmitigated success of the American Experiment. And, thankfully, absent actual revolt that is what has to happen.
    Maybe a constitutional convention would be a good idea, to air out all the frustration and spend some time seeing how we can improve the amazing country we already have. I’d much rather see that than seeing the nation break.

  712. russell:
    Solve the California problem by breaking up California. Not a novel idea, that. Almost made the ballot here. But Republicans would hate having six senators from here and Democrats would hate having those electoral college votes divvied up. Some might be tempted to think that allowing a pre-election writ of mandamus vs. a full hearing on the merits after the election (if necessary) was the deep state in California protecting itself . . .
    And I think that “suspicion of a strong central government” is very much alive today.
    Your point of view is undoubtedly valid. It was valid at the time of the founding. It is valid today. But just as valid is the countervailing viewpoint of representative democracy, equal footing amongst the states, and so forth. “We the People” voted on the Constitution and we could do so again by amending it if desired.
    I have lived in one of the least populated states in the country and the most populous state in the country. You happen to be in the majority of a populous state. I am in the minority. I feel more disenfranchised now, obviously. My state is silly, IMHO, focused on plastic straws when it cannot educate its children (don’t get me going on that one). I have little to no say in what happens at the state level.
    There is a good argument we are too centralized as a country. I have no idea what is good for Massachusetts on many issues just as you probably have no idea what is good for Alaska on many issues. Actually, you probably have a better idea than me on most issues because you tend to get less frustrated and actually listen. But I digress.
    We lay issues at the feet of SCOTUS and let 9 people decide them for us all. Most of the time it makes sense. But sometimes we see overreaching, stretching the commerce clause to see if it will break, etc. The battle over SCOTUS, arguments over the electoral college and the popular vote, the proper objects of executive orders, conversations about the “deep state” etc. are collectively symbolic of too much centralization, IMHO. Ideas that might not divide us as a country do divide us if they are elevated to the national level and imposed on the country as a whole. There is too much at stake.
    It troubles me that “small state” viewpoints are seen as not worthy of some sort of respect simply because the populations are small. I get that you are pointing to some extreme examples and I do see and acknowledge your point. But I’m not sure scrapping the senate as we know it and going pure popular vote would unite us. We haven’t put as much thought into it as the founders did. Despite the changes in society, economy and population, we owe it to ourselves to have a proper debate before doing anything rash given the almost unmitigated success of the American Experiment. And, thankfully, absent actual revolt that is what has to happen.
    Maybe a constitutional convention would be a good idea, to air out all the frustration and spend some time seeing how we can improve the amazing country we already have. I’d much rather see that than seeing the nation break.

  715. “a certain look” … across a crowded courtroom.
    In reforming the Court, I think we need to dispense with the robes, because as with kilts, conservatives are curious about what originalist underpinnings are implied beneath:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-UN467Q80
    When a conservative stands athwart history and yells “Stop!”, history needs to insert a knee into the conservative’s bulbous crotch region:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1-gI4G8S8Q
    That’s the funny one.
    Not so funny ….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Qsl_6muRY
    …. but effective

  716. “a certain look” … across a crowded courtroom.
    In reforming the Court, I think we need to dispense with the robes, because as with kilts, conservatives are curious about what originalist underpinnings are implied beneath:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-UN467Q80
    When a conservative stands athwart history and yells “Stop!”, history needs to insert a knee into the conservative’s bulbous crotch region:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1-gI4G8S8Q
    That’s the funny one.
    Not so funny ….
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Qsl_6muRY
    …. but effective

  721. There is a good argument we are too centralized as a country
    There is a good argument that we ought not be one country.

  722. There is a good argument we are too centralized as a country
    There is a good argument that we ought not be one country.

  723. Maybe a constitutional convention would be a good idea
    IMO if it comes to a constitutional convention, it will be game over.
    We can barely find basic points of agreement when we are constrained by the current Constitution. Open that for review and we will end up going our own ways.
    For good or ill.
    I personally would not welcome the US breaking up, I think a lot would be lost. Not just for us.
    But I am by god sick of arguing about the BS that we end up arguing about. And I don’t see the point of trying to function as a nation if we can’t come to a functional agreement about the most basic things.

  724. Maybe a constitutional convention would be a good idea
    IMO if it comes to a constitutional convention, it will be game over.
    We can barely find basic points of agreement when we are constrained by the current Constitution. Open that for review and we will end up going our own ways.
    For good or ill.
    I personally would not welcome the US breaking up, I think a lot would be lost. Not just for us.
    But I am by god sick of arguing about the BS that we end up arguing about. And I don’t see the point of trying to function as a nation if we can’t come to a functional agreement about the most basic things.

  725. bc – Solve the California problem by breaking up California.
    And Texas. And Florida. And New York.
    Or consolidate WY/MT/ID.
    Indiana contains 1/50 the population of the US. Scale the rest accordingly?
    All my math nerds would love this. It’s also why we don’t let math nerds run things.

  726. bc – Solve the California problem by breaking up California.
    And Texas. And Florida. And New York.
    Or consolidate WY/MT/ID.
    Indiana contains 1/50 the population of the US. Scale the rest accordingly?
    All my math nerds would love this. It’s also why we don’t let math nerds run things.

  729. If it comes to a constitutional convention, the first issue will be who are the delegates? How are they selected? By whom, and based on X delegates per state, or per NN population (with district lines established how?) or what? (Of course, we could just let the Congress reconstitute itself, with current members, as a constitutional convention….)
    I’d say we have a far better chance of putting through even a bunch of amendments than of even holding a constitutional convention. Let alone having one come to anything resembling agreement.

  730. If it comes to a constitutional convention, the first issue will be who are the delegates? How are they selected? By whom, and based on X delegates per state, or per NN population (with district lines established how?) or what? (Of course, we could just let the Congress reconstitute itself, with current members, as a constitutional convention….)
    I’d say we have a far better chance of putting through even a bunch of amendments than of even holding a constitutional convention. Let alone having one come to anything resembling agreement.

  731. I’d say we have a far better chance of putting through even a bunch of amendments than of even holding a constitutional convention.
    We’d probably have to pass a bunch of amendments to answer all the questions you posed about how to hold a constitutional convention before we could have a constitutional convention.

  732. I’d say we have a far better chance of putting through even a bunch of amendments than of even holding a constitutional convention.
    We’d probably have to pass a bunch of amendments to answer all the questions you posed about how to hold a constitutional convention before we could have a constitutional convention.

  733. I’d say we have a better chance of going all Yugoslavia on ourselves than we do of putting together a productive constitutional convention.

  734. I’d say we have a better chance of going all Yugoslavia on ourselves than we do of putting together a productive constitutional convention.

  737. If it comes to a constitutional convention, the first issue will be who are the delegates? How are they selected?
    they will have been selected by brute force, being the strongest, wealthiest and most-clever person in their little chunk of irradiated Old Yooessay.

  738. If it comes to a constitutional convention, the first issue will be who are the delegates? How are they selected?
    they will have been selected by brute force, being the strongest, wealthiest and most-clever person in their little chunk of irradiated Old Yooessay.

  739. they will have been selected by brute force, being the strongest, wealthiest and most-clever person in their little chunk of irradiated Old Yooessay.
    Thus was it ever.
    IOW, this is how the world works and how it has mostly always worked, with our naive, hopeful little attempts at fairness and equality just chipping away at the monolith, for longer or shorter periods of time.
    *****
    Also, a big problem with the notion of the country breaking up, or some scheme of breaking up or consolidating states, is that our severe, perhaps fatal ideological divisions are not *really* coterminous with geography.

  740. they will have been selected by brute force, being the strongest, wealthiest and most-clever person in their little chunk of irradiated Old Yooessay.
    Thus was it ever.
    IOW, this is how the world works and how it has mostly always worked, with our naive, hopeful little attempts at fairness and equality just chipping away at the monolith, for longer or shorter periods of time.
    *****
    Also, a big problem with the notion of the country breaking up, or some scheme of breaking up or consolidating states, is that our severe, perhaps fatal ideological divisions are not *really* coterminous with geography.

  741. via LGM:
    https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-alex-kozinski-sexual-harassment.html
    Aren’t the repubs just a couple of states away from the number required to convene a constitutional convention, at which, they have stated plainly many times, especially at the Federalist Society, that they plan to strip the federal government of all the powers it holds to pay out SS benefits and administer Medicare, and that’s just for the amuse bouche.
    As things stand now, Democrats might be permitted to man a blow job booth at the convention and propose amendments from their knees.
    Probably half a dozen of the current 25 amendments would be stripped from the Constitution, and they won’t be ones discussed in this thread, except maybe getting rid of the Senate.
    The 25th would be reworded to promote insanity, malfeasance, and the seven deadlies in all future republican Presidents.

  742. via LGM:
    https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-alex-kozinski-sexual-harassment.html
    Aren’t the repubs just a couple of states away from the number required to convene a constitutional convention, at which, they have stated plainly many times, especially at the Federalist Society, that they plan to strip the federal government of all the powers it holds to pay out SS benefits and administer Medicare, and that’s just for the amuse bouche.
    As things stand now, Democrats might be permitted to man a blow job booth at the convention and propose amendments from their knees.
    Probably half a dozen of the current 25 amendments would be stripped from the Constitution, and they won’t be ones discussed in this thread, except maybe getting rid of the Senate.
    The 25th would be reworded to promote insanity, malfeasance, and the seven deadlies in all future republican Presidents.

  743. Me, a few minutes ago: our severe, perhaps fatal ideological divisions are not *really* coterminous with geography.
    Every time this question comes up, images from the movie “Gandhi” float through my mind. Google “The Partition” and that’s the topic you get; you don’t even have to specify which one. Ours could be…worse.
    But that’s enough gloom and pessimism for one day.

  744. Me, a few minutes ago: our severe, perhaps fatal ideological divisions are not *really* coterminous with geography.
    Every time this question comes up, images from the movie “Gandhi” float through my mind. Google “The Partition” and that’s the topic you get; you don’t even have to specify which one. Ours could be…worse.
    But that’s enough gloom and pessimism for one day.

  749. Party of Trump…
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/ralph-norman-jokes-about-sexual-assault-833194
    Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Thursday mocked the sexual assault allegation a California woman made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, joking that the latest update had brought new allegations against Abraham Lincoln.
    “Did y’all hear the latest, late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings?” Norman said, joking that was the reason he was running late for a candidates’ debate. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln.”…

  750. Party of Trump…
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/ralph-norman-jokes-about-sexual-assault-833194
    Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Thursday mocked the sexual assault allegation a California woman made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, joking that the latest update had brought new allegations against Abraham Lincoln.
    “Did y’all hear the latest, late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings?” Norman said, joking that was the reason he was running late for a candidates’ debate. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln.”…

  753. So it’s the CONSENSUAL part of sex between two or more people that conservatives object to and have all my life.
    For them, it’s either forced groping/penetration/sexy office banter OR forced abstinence that lights their wicks and then forced pregnancy with no exceptions, with maybe a little more groping and gettin all up in there even during the forced abstinence for the other person.
    They’ll do fine in prison.

  754. So it’s the CONSENSUAL part of sex between two or more people that conservatives object to and have all my life.
    For them, it’s either forced groping/penetration/sexy office banter OR forced abstinence that lights their wicks and then forced pregnancy with no exceptions, with maybe a little more groping and gettin all up in there even during the forced abstinence for the other person.
    They’ll do fine in prison.

  755. “Did y’all hear the latest, late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings?”
    Another 1000 women decide they will make time to show up at the polls in November. Many of them also get their checkbooks out.
    Another handful decide they may just run for office next time around.
    Hell, even some of the guys get with the program.
    Please proceed, (R)’s.

  756. “Did y’all hear the latest, late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings?”
    Another 1000 women decide they will make time to show up at the polls in November. Many of them also get their checkbooks out.
    Another handful decide they may just run for office next time around.
    Hell, even some of the guys get with the program.
    Please proceed, (R)’s.

  757. Laura Koerber,
    Yes to all that you said.
    bc,
    You make two arguments more or less in defense of the Senate:
    I have no idea what is good for Massachusetts on many issues just as you probably have no idea what is good for Alaska on many issues.
    This is a defense of letting states decide matters that can be handled at the state level. It makes perfect sense. (You might note a pet peeve of mine is that the staunchest advocates for this are all for letting state governments overrule city ordinances, but never mind that.)
    The trouble is that the Senate votes on national issues. The budget, national defense, SCOTUS nominees, war and peace. It alo votes on issues that cross state lines – environmental matters – interstate commerce in general, etc.
    These are not matters suitable for dealing with at the state level. They have to be handled by a national government, like it or not.
    It troubles me that “small state” viewpoints are seen as not worthy of some sort of respect simply because the populations are small.
    On the kinds of things I mentioned any “state viewpoints” are silly, because the states qua states should not have a viewpoint. Their residents should. So it’s not that I, for example, don’t want to hear
    the opinions of people in Wyoming, it’s that I see no reason why the opinion of any individual resident of Wyoming should carry more weight than the opinion of any single Californian.
    Talking about the viewpoints of states in this context is nonsense. States are geographical areas, not sentient beings. What we are interested in is the viewpoints of people.

  758. Laura Koerber,
    Yes to all that you said.
    bc,
    You make two arguments more or less in defense of the Senate:
    I have no idea what is good for Massachusetts on many issues just as you probably have no idea what is good for Alaska on many issues.
    This is a defense of letting states decide matters that can be handled at the state level. It makes perfect sense. (You might note a pet peeve of mine is that the staunchest advocates for this are all for letting state governments overrule city ordinances, but never mind that.)
    The trouble is that the Senate votes on national issues. The budget, national defense, SCOTUS nominees, war and peace. It alo votes on issues that cross state lines – environmental matters – interstate commerce in general, etc.
    These are not matters suitable for dealing with at the state level. They have to be handled by a national government, like it or not.
    It troubles me that “small state” viewpoints are seen as not worthy of some sort of respect simply because the populations are small.
    On the kinds of things I mentioned any “state viewpoints” are silly, because the states qua states should not have a viewpoint. Their residents should. So it’s not that I, for example, don’t want to hear
    the opinions of people in Wyoming, it’s that I see no reason why the opinion of any individual resident of Wyoming should carry more weight than the opinion of any single Californian.
    Talking about the viewpoints of states in this context is nonsense. States are geographical areas, not sentient beings. What we are interested in is the viewpoints of people.

  759. byomtov, if the Senate would stay out of things best left to the states I would agree. Completely. But they havent and wont, proven over and over. So the founders were prescient.

  760. byomtov, if the Senate would stay out of things best left to the states I would agree. Completely. But they havent and wont, proven over and over. So the founders were prescient.

  763. “So the founders were prescient.”
    I don’t know. If they rose from the dead and looked around today, I suspect many of them would declare “Well, I didn’t see THAT coming!” about a lot of issues.

  764. “So the founders were prescient.”
    I don’t know. If they rose from the dead and looked around today, I suspect many of them would declare “Well, I didn’t see THAT coming!” about a lot of issues.

  765. byomtov:
    What Marty said. I don’t have a problem with the senate limiting itself to what you said. That was the plan in the beginning, with the exception of environmental matters.
    I get what you are saying. I am assuming you weren’t being didactic for my benefit and that I simply didn’t communicate my point effectively. My point is that we are using (have been using) the Constitution’s reservation of power over “national” issues to centralize gov’t and take over issues traditionally left to the states (um, healthcare anyone?).
    Plus, almost 50% of the land is owned by the Feds (ok, “us”) in the West. Alaska is over 60%. Even California pushes close to 50 (a lot of mountain ranges, forests, and wilderness, though). In Alaska, the impact of national lands coupled with the heavy military presence creates a lot of “national” issues becoming “local.”
    And while you call the structure of the Constitution “silly,” some might beg to differ. Even on the issues such as war and peace. Remember, Palin could see Russia from her front porch. Trade deals affect ports more, environmental issues impact manufacturing and mining more, etc. etc. etc. The states didn’t have to agree to a union, but they did and the compromise is enshrined.
    And I don’t think the “city ordinance/state law” is necessarily a good analogy, depending on the state constitution at issue. Could be similar, many times it is not, I think.
    But he is still the entitled abusive asshole now that he was then. He’s just entitled and abusive in the way that is socially acceptable because it comes under the label “conservative philosophy’ and manifests in terms of policy
    Just when I thought the #metoo movement had us all on the same page . . .

  766. byomtov:
    What Marty said. I don’t have a problem with the senate limiting itself to what you said. That was the plan in the beginning, with the exception of environmental matters.
    I get what you are saying. I am assuming you weren’t being didactic for my benefit and that I simply didn’t communicate my point effectively. My point is that we are using (have been using) the Constitution’s reservation of power over “national” issues to centralize gov’t and take over issues traditionally left to the states (um, healthcare anyone?).
    Plus, almost 50% of the land is owned by the Feds (ok, “us”) in the West. Alaska is over 60%. Even California pushes close to 50 (a lot of mountain ranges, forests, and wilderness, though). In Alaska, the impact of national lands coupled with the heavy military presence creates a lot of “national” issues becoming “local.”
    And while you call the structure of the Constitution “silly,” some might beg to differ. Even on the issues such as war and peace. Remember, Palin could see Russia from her front porch. Trade deals affect ports more, environmental issues impact manufacturing and mining more, etc. etc. etc. The states didn’t have to agree to a union, but they did and the compromise is enshrined.
    And I don’t think the “city ordinance/state law” is necessarily a good analogy, depending on the state constitution at issue. Could be similar, many times it is not, I think.
    But he is still the entitled abusive asshole now that he was then. He’s just entitled and abusive in the way that is socially acceptable because it comes under the label “conservative philosophy’ and manifests in terms of policy
    Just when I thought the #metoo movement had us all on the same page . . .

  767. I am assuming you weren’t being didactic for my benefit and that I simply didn’t communicate my point effectively. My point is that we are using (have been using) the Constitution’s reservation of power over “national” issues to centralize gov’t and take over issues traditionally left to the states (um, healthcare anyone?).
    Did someone mention being didactic? Napoleon demonstrated the superiority of national based levies and nationalism as a motivational factor. Everything in the modern world has moved towards centralization because of economies of scale. Internet anyone? Alternatively, the Civil War pushed that ball down the hill, with the Northern states using *national* policies to defeat the Confederacy. Maybe it might have been better if folks could have compromised a bit more in the run up to that tete a tete…
    You mentioned healthcare. Why is it that every OECD country but the US has a relatively workable healthcare system that provides a decent level of care without threatening bankruptcy? Isn’t it not because we centralize, but because by only sticking one foot in the pool, actors with motivations that go against centralization (or worse, hijack centralization as a way of creating a monopoly) hijack these urges to carve out their own niches. Maybe the states can deal with climate change…
    ‘We’ are using the constitution to centralize and expand because everyone else is. You may not like it, you may point out that causes a lot of problems. But don’t pretend that it is some sort of Democrat plot, it’s the way the world is being pushed.

  768. I am assuming you weren’t being didactic for my benefit and that I simply didn’t communicate my point effectively. My point is that we are using (have been using) the Constitution’s reservation of power over “national” issues to centralize gov’t and take over issues traditionally left to the states (um, healthcare anyone?).
    Did someone mention being didactic? Napoleon demonstrated the superiority of national based levies and nationalism as a motivational factor. Everything in the modern world has moved towards centralization because of economies of scale. Internet anyone? Alternatively, the Civil War pushed that ball down the hill, with the Northern states using *national* policies to defeat the Confederacy. Maybe it might have been better if folks could have compromised a bit more in the run up to that tete a tete…
    You mentioned healthcare. Why is it that every OECD country but the US has a relatively workable healthcare system that provides a decent level of care without threatening bankruptcy? Isn’t it not because we centralize, but because by only sticking one foot in the pool, actors with motivations that go against centralization (or worse, hijack centralization as a way of creating a monopoly) hijack these urges to carve out their own niches. Maybe the states can deal with climate change…
    ‘We’ are using the constitution to centralize and expand because everyone else is. You may not like it, you may point out that causes a lot of problems. But don’t pretend that it is some sort of Democrat plot, it’s the way the world is being pushed.

  769. bc,
    Even on the issues such as war and peace. Remember, Palin could see Russia from her front porch.
    I’m not getting your point here. Do you think war and peace should be dealt with on a state level?
    Trade deals affect ports more, .
    Trade deals affect the whole country, mining, manufacturing, software, etc. Ports, and there are ports in a lot of states, shouldn’t have any extra degree of control over them just because the goods come in at ports. And how do you make trade deals at the state level anyway?
    environmental issues impact manufacturing and mining more, etc. etc. etc.
    Like ports, only more so, manufacturing is spread out around the country. Where is the state interest? How should it be represented? By the portion of state GDP that depends on manufacturing? And of course that ignores the huge issues of clean air and water, climate change, and so on. These are national issues. Even if some are more regional, they are certainly not state-level issues, because air and water emissions are not respecters of state boundaries.
    The states didn’t have to agree to a union, but they did and the compromise is enshrined.
    Well, thirteen did. But for most of the rest the states are creations of the federal government, rather than the federal government being a creation of the states, only a couple of which had any meaningful sovereignty before joining the union.
    And I don’t think the “city ordinance/state law” is necessarily a good analogy, depending on the state constitution at issue. Could be similar, many times it is not, I think.
    I’m not talking about Constitutional issues but practical ones. My point was that the strongest advocates of doing things at the state level “to let people make their own decisions” or whatnot” are often happy to override the decisions made by city-dwellers about their own situation. They want decentralization to the exact level of government where their policy preferences can be enacted. No lower, no higher.

  770. bc,
    Even on the issues such as war and peace. Remember, Palin could see Russia from her front porch.
    I’m not getting your point here. Do you think war and peace should be dealt with on a state level?
    Trade deals affect ports more, .
    Trade deals affect the whole country, mining, manufacturing, software, etc. Ports, and there are ports in a lot of states, shouldn’t have any extra degree of control over them just because the goods come in at ports. And how do you make trade deals at the state level anyway?
    environmental issues impact manufacturing and mining more, etc. etc. etc.
    Like ports, only more so, manufacturing is spread out around the country. Where is the state interest? How should it be represented? By the portion of state GDP that depends on manufacturing? And of course that ignores the huge issues of clean air and water, climate change, and so on. These are national issues. Even if some are more regional, they are certainly not state-level issues, because air and water emissions are not respecters of state boundaries.
    The states didn’t have to agree to a union, but they did and the compromise is enshrined.
    Well, thirteen did. But for most of the rest the states are creations of the federal government, rather than the federal government being a creation of the states, only a couple of which had any meaningful sovereignty before joining the union.
    And I don’t think the “city ordinance/state law” is necessarily a good analogy, depending on the state constitution at issue. Could be similar, many times it is not, I think.
    I’m not talking about Constitutional issues but practical ones. My point was that the strongest advocates of doing things at the state level “to let people make their own decisions” or whatnot” are often happy to override the decisions made by city-dwellers about their own situation. They want decentralization to the exact level of government where their policy preferences can be enacted. No lower, no higher.

  771. lj: Did I say it was a democratic plot? I don’t think that. I think the R’s are easily as responsible.
    And I completely agree with you on only sticking one foot in the pool. I didn’t read the article yet, but “only one foot in” is exactly how it feels and matters are much, much worse for me at least. My exchange rate for what used to be an ok plan is over $4k. So I’m going COBRA baby for as long as I can (can you believe COBRA is half the cost of the exchange for me???).
    And I’m not necessarily opposed to a national approach to healthcare. I’m simply commenting on structure here. And since you asked . . .
    mandate coupled with catastrophic and HSA’s for everyone, fund HSA’s and assist on premiums for the poor (giving an incentive for those on public assistance to manage their own health care) or something like that would appeal to me if we could overcome the constitutional issues. I am not there yet, and I’m sure many could poke a lot of holes in that idea, but doesn’t Singapore do something like that? I remember reading back in the days before Obamacare about Singapore’s approach and it was something like that. But the current situation is not working for the self-employed middle class.

  772. lj: Did I say it was a democratic plot? I don’t think that. I think the R’s are easily as responsible.
    And I completely agree with you on only sticking one foot in the pool. I didn’t read the article yet, but “only one foot in” is exactly how it feels and matters are much, much worse for me at least. My exchange rate for what used to be an ok plan is over $4k. So I’m going COBRA baby for as long as I can (can you believe COBRA is half the cost of the exchange for me???).
    And I’m not necessarily opposed to a national approach to healthcare. I’m simply commenting on structure here. And since you asked . . .
    mandate coupled with catastrophic and HSA’s for everyone, fund HSA’s and assist on premiums for the poor (giving an incentive for those on public assistance to manage their own health care) or something like that would appeal to me if we could overcome the constitutional issues. I am not there yet, and I’m sure many could poke a lot of holes in that idea, but doesn’t Singapore do something like that? I remember reading back in the days before Obamacare about Singapore’s approach and it was something like that. But the current situation is not working for the self-employed middle class.

  773. They want decentralization to the exact level of government where their policy preferences can be enacted. No lower, no higher.
    Thank you.
    Let’s be honest: we all want our policy preferences. Republicans have no overarching philosophy for that other than “what we can get away with.” It’s their “deficits don’t/do matter” philosophy; their “family values/put them in cages” philosophy, and countless other examples.
    wrs about “Don’t vote for Republicans.” To be more specific and positive (and constructive: “Vote a straight Democratic ticket.”

  774. They want decentralization to the exact level of government where their policy preferences can be enacted. No lower, no higher.
    Thank you.
    Let’s be honest: we all want our policy preferences. Republicans have no overarching philosophy for that other than “what we can get away with.” It’s their “deficits don’t/do matter” philosophy; their “family values/put them in cages” philosophy, and countless other examples.
    wrs about “Don’t vote for Republicans.” To be more specific and positive (and constructive: “Vote a straight Democratic ticket.”

  775. Did I say it was a democratic plot? I don’t think that. I think the R’s are easily as responsible.
    My point is that it is something a lot larger than party politics, so if you drop into talking about it as if it were, you are mistaken.
    And why, for god’s sake, is healthcare a ‘constitutional issue’. Because one party has made it a constitutional issue, that’s why. If you think about it, the ‘constitutionality’ of healthcare is basically a red flag, and I don’t know of any other country has invoked the constitution as guidance for their healthcare system. But in the US, it is.
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-1993-kristol-memo-on-defeating-health-care-reform
    But the Clinton proposal is also a serious political threat to the Republican Party. Republicans must therefore clearly understand the political strategy implicit in the Clinton plan–and then adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal and defeat its partisan purpose.
    partisan purpose = getting more people insured. This is not to say that you agree with that, but when you frame it as a Dem v. Repub. question, you are falling into the rut that Bill Kristol started digging 25 years ago.

  776. Did I say it was a democratic plot? I don’t think that. I think the R’s are easily as responsible.
    My point is that it is something a lot larger than party politics, so if you drop into talking about it as if it were, you are mistaken.
    And why, for god’s sake, is healthcare a ‘constitutional issue’. Because one party has made it a constitutional issue, that’s why. If you think about it, the ‘constitutionality’ of healthcare is basically a red flag, and I don’t know of any other country has invoked the constitution as guidance for their healthcare system. But in the US, it is.
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-1993-kristol-memo-on-defeating-health-care-reform
    But the Clinton proposal is also a serious political threat to the Republican Party. Republicans must therefore clearly understand the political strategy implicit in the Clinton plan–and then adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal and defeat its partisan purpose.
    partisan purpose = getting more people insured. This is not to say that you agree with that, but when you frame it as a Dem v. Repub. question, you are falling into the rut that Bill Kristol started digging 25 years ago.

  777. yes, do go read about how lightweight and unintrusive Singapore’s healthcare system is!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore

    Singapore’s healthcare system uses a mixed financing system that includes nationalised life insurance schemes and deductions from the compulsory savings plan, or the Central Provident Fund (CPF), for working Singaporeans and permanent residents

    of course Singapore has 5M people in 280 square miles. which means it’s smaller in population and area than NYC.

  778. yes, do go read about how lightweight and unintrusive Singapore’s healthcare system is!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore

    Singapore’s healthcare system uses a mixed financing system that includes nationalised life insurance schemes and deductions from the compulsory savings plan, or the Central Provident Fund (CPF), for working Singaporeans and permanent residents

    of course Singapore has 5M people in 280 square miles. which means it’s smaller in population and area than NYC.

  779. …doesn’t Singapore do something like that?
    Is a city state the best model for how to do healthcare in a country ten thousand times bigger? Could there be a reason why its healthcare system is an outlier?
    The answers are no and yes. Singapore has a huge number of migrant workers – about 30% of the population. So it has a much lower proportion of old people and infants. And hence much less healthcare demand relative to the size of its economy.

  780. …doesn’t Singapore do something like that?
    Is a city state the best model for how to do healthcare in a country ten thousand times bigger? Could there be a reason why its healthcare system is an outlier?
    The answers are no and yes. Singapore has a huge number of migrant workers – about 30% of the population. So it has a much lower proportion of old people and infants. And hence much less healthcare demand relative to the size of its economy.

  781. We lay issues at the feet of SCOTUS and let 9 people decide them for us all.
    This is a simple reflection of the political reality that such issues, under the current rules and the actually existing political division of power, are not ‘decided’ to finality.
    Our national politicians have every incentive to punt a lot of divisive issues to the Supreme Court. Then they fight like dogs over the political makeup of the Court.
    And then we blame them for doing so, and act surprised.
    stretching the commerce clause to see if it will break
    This old cannard is, thankfully, nearing the end of its shameful political life. I’d wager you couldn’t find a million voters who gave a rats ass about the commerce clause.
    It troubles me that “small state” viewpoints are seen as not worthy of some sort of respect
    It troubles me that so many reprehensible political preferences drape their underlying aims under the cloak of “small state viewpoints”.
    simply because the populations are small.
    NAME ONE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY HAS SAID THIS.
    But I’m not sure scrapping the senate as we know it and going pure popular vote would unite us.
    Please do explain to the peanut gallery how one or two of those public policies that you support will “unite us.”

  782. We lay issues at the feet of SCOTUS and let 9 people decide them for us all.
    This is a simple reflection of the political reality that such issues, under the current rules and the actually existing political division of power, are not ‘decided’ to finality.
    Our national politicians have every incentive to punt a lot of divisive issues to the Supreme Court. Then they fight like dogs over the political makeup of the Court.
    And then we blame them for doing so, and act surprised.
    stretching the commerce clause to see if it will break
    This old cannard is, thankfully, nearing the end of its shameful political life. I’d wager you couldn’t find a million voters who gave a rats ass about the commerce clause.
    It troubles me that “small state” viewpoints are seen as not worthy of some sort of respect
    It troubles me that so many reprehensible political preferences drape their underlying aims under the cloak of “small state viewpoints”.
    simply because the populations are small.
    NAME ONE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY HAS SAID THIS.
    But I’m not sure scrapping the senate as we know it and going pure popular vote would unite us.
    Please do explain to the peanut gallery how one or two of those public policies that you support will “unite us.”

  785. I get really impatient when the conversation moves to fantasy, but that’s my character flaw.:
    In real life: Ed Whelan (the guy who outed ObWi’s publius) has now blamed some third party middle school teacher for the incident. Ford refutes the account.

  786. I get really impatient when the conversation moves to fantasy, but that’s my character flaw.:
    In real life: Ed Whelan (the guy who outed ObWi’s publius) has now blamed some third party middle school teacher for the incident. Ford refutes the account.

  787. Ed Whelan, a former clerk to the late justice Antonin Scalia and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, pointed to floor plans, online photographs and other information to suggest a location for the house party in suburban Maryland that Ford described. He also named and posted photographs of the classmate he suggested could be responsible.
    Well, at least you can see that his outing of publius wasn’t a one time thing. I hope some of the people he posted photos of sue his ass.
    For those of you who are interested, but might be low on google-fu, here you go
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/stay-classy-ed-whelan.html
    He apologized
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/moving-on.html
    but he clearly feels that information is for him to post. What a jerk.

  788. Ed Whelan, a former clerk to the late justice Antonin Scalia and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, pointed to floor plans, online photographs and other information to suggest a location for the house party in suburban Maryland that Ford described. He also named and posted photographs of the classmate he suggested could be responsible.
    Well, at least you can see that his outing of publius wasn’t a one time thing. I hope some of the people he posted photos of sue his ass.
    For those of you who are interested, but might be low on google-fu, here you go
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/stay-classy-ed-whelan.html
    He apologized
    http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/moving-on.html
    but he clearly feels that information is for him to post. What a jerk.

  791. As Fallows points out in the Atlantic:
    Whelan is the director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center; a one-time Supreme Court clerk for Antonin Scalia; reportedly a friend of Kavanaugh’s; and overall a significant figure within the conservative establishment. None of the members of that establishment, by the way, stepped up this evening to defend Whelan’s version of events. Which leads to…
    Why this might matter for Brett Kavanaugh. As many commentators pointed out this evening, a natural question for (Democratic) senators to ask, when Kavanaugh comes back before them, is: Did you know about any of this?

  792. As Fallows points out in the Atlantic:
    Whelan is the director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center; a one-time Supreme Court clerk for Antonin Scalia; reportedly a friend of Kavanaugh’s; and overall a significant figure within the conservative establishment. None of the members of that establishment, by the way, stepped up this evening to defend Whelan’s version of events. Which leads to…
    Why this might matter for Brett Kavanaugh. As many commentators pointed out this evening, a natural question for (Democratic) senators to ask, when Kavanaugh comes back before them, is: Did you know about any of this?

  793. And apparently the guy he slimed was one of the signatories of the ‘Kavanaugh is of unimpeachable character’ letter !

  794. And apparently the guy he slimed was one of the signatories of the ‘Kavanaugh is of unimpeachable character’ letter !

  799. It would rather follow the Trump White House pattern for something to go off the rails due to a combination of lies, libel, and failure to learn from experience. In this case the experience which teachs (the teachable) that the misddeds are far less of a problem than the cover-up.
    Had Kavanaugh merely said something like this, when the allefgation first surfaced:

    I ran a bit wild in my youth. Including, I am ashamed to say, sometimes drinking to the point of having no memory of my actions. So I cannot say with any certainty that this did not happen at some point. If it did, I deeply regret it, and the pain that it has clearly caused Ms Ford.

    If he’d done that, there would have been a flurry of recriminations. But the nomination would have been safe. Now? Perhaps not.

  800. It would rather follow the Trump White House pattern for something to go off the rails due to a combination of lies, libel, and failure to learn from experience. In this case the experience which teachs (the teachable) that the misddeds are far less of a problem than the cover-up.
    Had Kavanaugh merely said something like this, when the allefgation first surfaced:

    I ran a bit wild in my youth. Including, I am ashamed to say, sometimes drinking to the point of having no memory of my actions. So I cannot say with any certainty that this did not happen at some point. If it did, I deeply regret it, and the pain that it has clearly caused Ms Ford.

    If he’d done that, there would have been a flurry of recriminations. But the nomination would have been safe. Now? Perhaps not.

  803. As a pessimist and cynic I do believe that this will be handled as ‘a matter of principle’, i.e. the R leadership will be even more determined to confirm Kavanaugh. To do otherwise would be ‘weakness’ and ‘set a bad precedent’. From their POV the mere fact that there is a second coming of Anita Hill is proof that they were too soft then and should not repeat that error. It’s not the hill to die but to kill on.
    Not to forget that they are likely to keep the senate and thus have a fair chance to get another go (RBG could die of natural causes any day).
    It’s also necessary to keep control of any even merely potential conscientious objectors in the ranks (Collins, Murkowski), a loyalty test.

  804. As a pessimist and cynic I do believe that this will be handled as ‘a matter of principle’, i.e. the R leadership will be even more determined to confirm Kavanaugh. To do otherwise would be ‘weakness’ and ‘set a bad precedent’. From their POV the mere fact that there is a second coming of Anita Hill is proof that they were too soft then and should not repeat that error. It’s not the hill to die but to kill on.
    Not to forget that they are likely to keep the senate and thus have a fair chance to get another go (RBG could die of natural causes any day).
    It’s also necessary to keep control of any even merely potential conscientious objectors in the ranks (Collins, Murkowski), a loyalty test.

  805. Had Kavanaugh merely said something like this, when the allegation first surfaced:
    He couldn’t because they led with ‘he’s a decent family man’ and ‘carpool dad’ and they played that lede hard from the very beginning. He can’t come back now and say something like that. Maybe they went with that not because they knew that this was in the background (thought the 65 women lined up as supporters makes one wonder) but because they wanted to take the focus off of Kavanaugh’s work product. Whatever the reason, they have made it virtually impossible for Kavanaugh to withdraw.

  806. Had Kavanaugh merely said something like this, when the allegation first surfaced:
    He couldn’t because they led with ‘he’s a decent family man’ and ‘carpool dad’ and they played that lede hard from the very beginning. He can’t come back now and say something like that. Maybe they went with that not because they knew that this was in the background (thought the 65 women lined up as supporters makes one wonder) but because they wanted to take the focus off of Kavanaugh’s work product. Whatever the reason, they have made it virtually impossible for Kavanaugh to withdraw.

  807. Had Kavanaugh merely said something like this, when the allegation first surfaced:
    He couldn’t because…
    He couldn’t because the next ten thousand articles would have been about his drinking problem to go with his gambling problem, all tied to the fact that he is lying about not remembering and since he admitted raping someone how can an admitted rapist be allowed on the SC. Then followed by another ten thousand articles on how anyone who could do this at 17 is still a rapist and would likely use his SC seat to protect himself from all those other charges that are surely coming.
    The idea that if he had just “come clean and admitted it might have been him and apologized” then all would have been well is naïve bullshit.
    The right answer from his perspective was I didn’t do it. See, if he doesn’t remember doing it that still isn’t a lie and is much more effective than gosh I just cant remember, which would be translated as a confession.

  808. Had Kavanaugh merely said something like this, when the allegation first surfaced:
    He couldn’t because…
    He couldn’t because the next ten thousand articles would have been about his drinking problem to go with his gambling problem, all tied to the fact that he is lying about not remembering and since he admitted raping someone how can an admitted rapist be allowed on the SC. Then followed by another ten thousand articles on how anyone who could do this at 17 is still a rapist and would likely use his SC seat to protect himself from all those other charges that are surely coming.
    The idea that if he had just “come clean and admitted it might have been him and apologized” then all would have been well is naïve bullshit.
    The right answer from his perspective was I didn’t do it. See, if he doesn’t remember doing it that still isn’t a lie and is much more effective than gosh I just cant remember, which would be translated as a confession.

  809. If he’d done that, there would have been a flurry of recriminations. But the nomination would have been safe.
    Yep.
    For “flurry of recriminations”, read Marty’s “ten thousand articles”. And then, it would be done, there would be nothing in it anymore to hold over his head.
    Now it’s all or nothing.
    I’ll also say that, assuming there is something to Ford’s story, the decent thing to do as a human being and responsible adult is to say something along the lines of what wj outlined and take your lumps, whatever they may be.
    I have no opinion about whether Kavanaugh did, or did not, assault Ford. I have no opinion because I don’t have the information needed to have an opinion. All of that said, Ford’s story is credible. The (R)’s are not going to be able to simply dismiss this.
    Short of Ford turning out to be either (a) insane or (b) demonstrably a (D) plant, I don’t see any way for Kavanaugh to come out of this undamaged.
    And Whelan may find himself in jail.
    Welcome to the Thunderdome.

  810. If he’d done that, there would have been a flurry of recriminations. But the nomination would have been safe.
    Yep.
    For “flurry of recriminations”, read Marty’s “ten thousand articles”. And then, it would be done, there would be nothing in it anymore to hold over his head.
    Now it’s all or nothing.
    I’ll also say that, assuming there is something to Ford’s story, the decent thing to do as a human being and responsible adult is to say something along the lines of what wj outlined and take your lumps, whatever they may be.
    I have no opinion about whether Kavanaugh did, or did not, assault Ford. I have no opinion because I don’t have the information needed to have an opinion. All of that said, Ford’s story is credible. The (R)’s are not going to be able to simply dismiss this.
    Short of Ford turning out to be either (a) insane or (b) demonstrably a (D) plant, I don’t see any way for Kavanaugh to come out of this undamaged.
    And Whelan may find himself in jail.
    Welcome to the Thunderdome.

  811. The other thing I’ll say is that the (R) response to all of this is doing Kavanaugh no favors.
    He looks worse every single day, and it’s not just because of Ford.

  812. The other thing I’ll say is that the (R) response to all of this is doing Kavanaugh no favors.
    He looks worse every single day, and it’s not just because of Ford.

  813. and somehow Gorsuch wasn’t buried under ten thousand unfair slanderous articles.
    since Gorsuch and Kanvanaugh are the same exact person, with the same exact history, the difference must be … The Democrats’ fault.
    always is.

  814. and somehow Gorsuch wasn’t buried under ten thousand unfair slanderous articles.
    since Gorsuch and Kanvanaugh are the same exact person, with the same exact history, the difference must be … The Democrats’ fault.
    always is.

  815. The right answer from his perspective was I didn’t do it.
    Not because it is ‘right’, but because it preserves his chances. That’s not how people really should behave is my feeling, but Marty obviously feels differently. Marty, have you boofed yet?

  816. The right answer from his perspective was I didn’t do it.
    Not because it is ‘right’, but because it preserves his chances. That’s not how people really should behave is my feeling, but Marty obviously feels differently. Marty, have you boofed yet?

  827. lj and russell: I read what Whelan wrote before lj commented about it and simply couldn’t believe anyone would ever tweet/post/write about something like that naming names and expose someone without any proof other than pure speculation. And that was after I had already thought that mistaken identity was a possibility. But then I forgot it was he who exposed publius, so thanks for that reminder, l.j.
    It would only be a sane act if one knew it were true (and his own words belied that fact as does his apology now).

  828. lj and russell: I read what Whelan wrote before lj commented about it and simply couldn’t believe anyone would ever tweet/post/write about something like that naming names and expose someone without any proof other than pure speculation. And that was after I had already thought that mistaken identity was a possibility. But then I forgot it was he who exposed publius, so thanks for that reminder, l.j.
    It would only be a sane act if one knew it were true (and his own words belied that fact as does his apology now).

  831. Nobody on this thread knows the facts about what happened.
    Ford has made an accusation. She appears to be a credible person, and her story is plausible.
    Kavanaugh categorically denies it.
    So, we are now in he said/she said territory. The only other witness is Judge, and he is… not so credible, and also doesn’t appear to want to get into it.
    Some clarity might be gained by a clean, professional third party investigation, e.g. by the FBI. They don’t appear to be eager to get involved, and nobody in a position to require them to do so appears interested in making that request.
    Trump could say that the whole situation has simply become too fraught to continue, withdraw Kavanaugh, and nominate one of the other eleventy-million Federalist justices waiting in line. But he’s not likely to do that, because he’s Trump, and chaos is mother’s milk to him.
    So, we wait. We wait for somebody to screw up, which may already have happened if Kavanaugh had anything whatsoever to do with Whelan’s opus, or we wait until the Senators and Ford’s attorneys do their dance about whether and when and under what conditions Ford will talk. Or we wait for Grassley et al to just say screw it, we’re voting.
    And it will all land someplace, but as far as I can tell that could be anywhere.
    I don’t think Feinstein owes the rest of the world Ford’s unredacted letter, and if the whole timing thing is just partisan ju-jitsu, I don’t see that the (R)’s have any standing whatsoever to complain.
    What goes around etc.
    It is, basically, a dysfunctional freaking mess. A partisan knife fight. That is what governance is at the moment in the US.
    I don’t mind that the (D)’s are throwing every wrench they can lay their hands on in the gears, because that tells me they’re finally getting a realistic understanding of the lay of the land.
    But I’d really rather have a functioning government.
    Want a conservative court? Withdraw Kavanaugh. He is now officially radioactive. Put up somebody else. The (D)’s will squawk, but you’ll get your vote, and you’ll get your conservative SCOTUS majority for the next 20 years at least. And you’ll probably get it before the mid-terms.
    Want to make some big point about whose is bigger? Want to own some libs? Carry on, (R)’s, just the way you are.
    That’s a mighty fine shovel you got there, just keep on digging that hole. Let us know when you get to the bottom.

  832. Nobody on this thread knows the facts about what happened.
    Ford has made an accusation. She appears to be a credible person, and her story is plausible.
    Kavanaugh categorically denies it.
    So, we are now in he said/she said territory. The only other witness is Judge, and he is… not so credible, and also doesn’t appear to want to get into it.
    Some clarity might be gained by a clean, professional third party investigation, e.g. by the FBI. They don’t appear to be eager to get involved, and nobody in a position to require them to do so appears interested in making that request.
    Trump could say that the whole situation has simply become too fraught to continue, withdraw Kavanaugh, and nominate one of the other eleventy-million Federalist justices waiting in line. But he’s not likely to do that, because he’s Trump, and chaos is mother’s milk to him.
    So, we wait. We wait for somebody to screw up, which may already have happened if Kavanaugh had anything whatsoever to do with Whelan’s opus, or we wait until the Senators and Ford’s attorneys do their dance about whether and when and under what conditions Ford will talk. Or we wait for Grassley et al to just say screw it, we’re voting.
    And it will all land someplace, but as far as I can tell that could be anywhere.
    I don’t think Feinstein owes the rest of the world Ford’s unredacted letter, and if the whole timing thing is just partisan ju-jitsu, I don’t see that the (R)’s have any standing whatsoever to complain.
    What goes around etc.
    It is, basically, a dysfunctional freaking mess. A partisan knife fight. That is what governance is at the moment in the US.
    I don’t mind that the (D)’s are throwing every wrench they can lay their hands on in the gears, because that tells me they’re finally getting a realistic understanding of the lay of the land.
    But I’d really rather have a functioning government.
    Want a conservative court? Withdraw Kavanaugh. He is now officially radioactive. Put up somebody else. The (D)’s will squawk, but you’ll get your vote, and you’ll get your conservative SCOTUS majority for the next 20 years at least. And you’ll probably get it before the mid-terms.
    Want to make some big point about whose is bigger? Want to own some libs? Carry on, (R)’s, just the way you are.
    That’s a mighty fine shovel you got there, just keep on digging that hole. Let us know when you get to the bottom.

  835. Trump displaying his characteristic charm:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/trump-hannity-interview-brett-kavanaugh-accusations.html
    According to Politico:
    ..a Republican close to the confirmation process described Trump’s comments as a necessary shift of tone to put the White House back on offense for Kavanaugh: “This is getting ridiculous. The president had to step in.”
    The party of open misogyny.
    Biden at least regrets his role in the Hill debacle.
    https://thinkprogress.org/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-anita-hill-clarence-thomas-orrin-hatch-mitch-mcconnell-chuck-grassley-d2b3cbfa14ef/
    Only four Senators who supported Thomas remain in office: Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Richard Shelby…
    The rest of them ?

  836. Trump displaying his characteristic charm:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/trump-hannity-interview-brett-kavanaugh-accusations.html
    According to Politico:
    ..a Republican close to the confirmation process described Trump’s comments as a necessary shift of tone to put the White House back on offense for Kavanaugh: “This is getting ridiculous. The president had to step in.”
    The party of open misogyny.
    Biden at least regrets his role in the Hill debacle.
    https://thinkprogress.org/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-anita-hill-clarence-thomas-orrin-hatch-mitch-mcconnell-chuck-grassley-d2b3cbfa14ef/
    Only four Senators who supported Thomas remain in office: Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Richard Shelby…
    The rest of them ?

  837. That’s a mighty fine shovel you got there . . .
    But it’s easy to see what it may do come November.
    Could be right. Maybe not. Time will tell. If Ford refuses to testify, or continues to insist on parameters that are plainly unreasonable (in terms of process), then I can see this going the other way. I can already see it going the other way without that, in fact. Of course, if something comes up definitive all bets are off either way, but russell is right I think. We are likely not going to learn anything definitive about what did or did not happen.

  838. That’s a mighty fine shovel you got there . . .
    But it’s easy to see what it may do come November.
    Could be right. Maybe not. Time will tell. If Ford refuses to testify, or continues to insist on parameters that are plainly unreasonable (in terms of process), then I can see this going the other way. I can already see it going the other way without that, in fact. Of course, if something comes up definitive all bets are off either way, but russell is right I think. We are likely not going to learn anything definitive about what did or did not happen.

  839. that are plainly unreasonable (in terms of process)
    FFS, the Senate is entirely in charge of its own process. if they actually gave a shit about the issue at hand, they’d make the necessary arrangements. they made some f’ing unreasonable process choices when it came to Garland, for example.

  840. that are plainly unreasonable (in terms of process)
    FFS, the Senate is entirely in charge of its own process. if they actually gave a shit about the issue at hand, they’d make the necessary arrangements. they made some f’ing unreasonable process choices when it came to Garland, for example.

  843. A truly great quote:

    “If he had been in a drunken accident and left someone crippled,” she added, “he would have to take responsibility for his actions. Why is this any different?”

    Not sure there’s a good answer to that one.

  844. A truly great quote:

    “If he had been in a drunken accident and left someone crippled,” she added, “he would have to take responsibility for his actions. Why is this any different?”

    Not sure there’s a good answer to that one.

  845. good question about Whelan’s nonsense:
    his whole theory about walking distance proving the doppelganger etc is based on knowing the location of the house where the alleged assault happened.
    how did he know that?
    it’s not in Ford’s letter.

  846. good question about Whelan’s nonsense:
    his whole theory about walking distance proving the doppelganger etc is based on knowing the location of the house where the alleged assault happened.
    how did he know that?
    it’s not in Ford’s letter.

  849. If Kavanaugh did it he should own up and withdraw, if he doesn’t know whether he did it or not he should say so and withdraw, if he knows he didn’t do it, as I would, he should say that, as he has done.
    Given his history with Bill Clinton, I have no sympathy for Kavanaugh. But I still don’t like this process – if this nomination can be derailed by a single unfalsifiable accusation from decades ago, then any nomination can be derailed. Ford seems honest to me, but that doesn’t mean that all accusers will be.
    However, I see nothing unreasonable in Ford’s declining to co-operate with the Senate Republicans’ rush to get Kavanaugh confirmed before the mid-term elections. There’s no non-partisan reason why this should be done so quickly. If the allegation is to be heard, then the background facts – where and when was the party, and who attended it – should in so far as possible be established first.
    And it remains outrageous that a party which almost never wins a plurality of the popular vote should seize control of the Supreme Court for decades.

  850. If Kavanaugh did it he should own up and withdraw, if he doesn’t know whether he did it or not he should say so and withdraw, if he knows he didn’t do it, as I would, he should say that, as he has done.
    Given his history with Bill Clinton, I have no sympathy for Kavanaugh. But I still don’t like this process – if this nomination can be derailed by a single unfalsifiable accusation from decades ago, then any nomination can be derailed. Ford seems honest to me, but that doesn’t mean that all accusers will be.
    However, I see nothing unreasonable in Ford’s declining to co-operate with the Senate Republicans’ rush to get Kavanaugh confirmed before the mid-term elections. There’s no non-partisan reason why this should be done so quickly. If the allegation is to be heard, then the background facts – where and when was the party, and who attended it – should in so far as possible be established first.
    And it remains outrageous that a party which almost never wins a plurality of the popular vote should seize control of the Supreme Court for decades.

  851. Ford seems honest to me, but that doesn’t mean that all accusers will be.
    That is why we’d normally expect a relatively neutral party to investigate it.

  852. Ford seems honest to me, but that doesn’t mean that all accusers will be.
    That is why we’d normally expect a relatively neutral party to investigate it.

  857. Pity that Senator Grassley has not figured out, in the decades since his trashing of Anita Hill (he was a member of the Judiciary Committee for those hearings), how to defend himself against this kind of attack. Poor boy!

  858. Pity that Senator Grassley has not figured out, in the decades since his trashing of Anita Hill (he was a member of the Judiciary Committee for those hearings), how to defend himself against this kind of attack. Poor boy!

  865. If he was there, why not do the right thing (for his cause) and announce that it was actually him? Maybe not as committed to the cause as he pretends….
    Of course, someone might go back and check the facts to prove that he wasn’t there. But since when do facts matter?

  866. If he was there, why not do the right thing (for his cause) and announce that it was actually him? Maybe not as committed to the cause as he pretends….
    Of course, someone might go back and check the facts to prove that he wasn’t there. But since when do facts matter?

  867. But I still don’t like this process – if this nomination can be derailed by a single unfalsifiable accusation from decades ago, then any nomination can be derailed.
    An investigation would either exonerate him, further implicate him, or yield nothing. If it exonerated him, he would be good to go. If it were indeterminate, there would be a cloud, but R’s could still vote for him based on whatever. Obviously, it could further implicate him, which is what it seems that they’re afraid of by refusing it. R’s prefer to confirm him under a cloud than testing the truth. To me, it doesn’t seem that “any nomination can be derailed.” This nominee hasn’t been vetted. Not for this, and not for anything else that the hidden documents would disclose.

  868. But I still don’t like this process – if this nomination can be derailed by a single unfalsifiable accusation from decades ago, then any nomination can be derailed.
    An investigation would either exonerate him, further implicate him, or yield nothing. If it exonerated him, he would be good to go. If it were indeterminate, there would be a cloud, but R’s could still vote for him based on whatever. Obviously, it could further implicate him, which is what it seems that they’re afraid of by refusing it. R’s prefer to confirm him under a cloud than testing the truth. To me, it doesn’t seem that “any nomination can be derailed.” This nominee hasn’t been vetted. Not for this, and not for anything else that the hidden documents would disclose.

  869. Sapient, I agree. I don’t see how any investigation is likely to get anything useful out of an incident that Ford says she never reported to anyone for 20 years, and then to her therapist. This seems like less corroboration is likely than for Juanita Broadrrick’s claim of Bill Clinton’s completed rape of her (she told friends contemporaneously and had a bruise from it at the time).
    But if that’s it for corroboration, and if there is no pattern (Bill Cosby’s victims gained corroboration credibiltiy from each other)
    So I’m not holding up much hope that an investigation gets anything. And we probably can’t have a good talk about how to deal with old/uncorroborated accusations with everyone so invested in the outcome.

  870. Sapient, I agree. I don’t see how any investigation is likely to get anything useful out of an incident that Ford says she never reported to anyone for 20 years, and then to her therapist. This seems like less corroboration is likely than for Juanita Broadrrick’s claim of Bill Clinton’s completed rape of her (she told friends contemporaneously and had a bruise from it at the time).
    But if that’s it for corroboration, and if there is no pattern (Bill Cosby’s victims gained corroboration credibiltiy from each other)
    So I’m not holding up much hope that an investigation gets anything. And we probably can’t have a good talk about how to deal with old/uncorroborated accusations with everyone so invested in the outcome.

  871. Slightly different topic—I’ll be livid with the NYT if they precipitate a constitutional crisis where a Trump freaks out about Rosenstein because they can’t report the difference between sarcastic and non sarcastic things along the lines of what are you going to do, secretly tape him?

  872. Slightly different topic—I’ll be livid with the NYT if they precipitate a constitutional crisis where a Trump freaks out about Rosenstein because they can’t report the difference between sarcastic and non sarcastic things along the lines of what are you going to do, secretly tape him?

  881. she never reported to anyone for 20 years, and then to her therapist.
    The most believable thing to me in all of this is the idea that Ford would not have reported the assault to the cops at the time. Or, to her folks, or to anyone except possibly a personal confidant.
    Especially considering that she was 15 at the time.

  882. she never reported to anyone for 20 years, and then to her therapist.
    The most believable thing to me in all of this is the idea that Ford would not have reported the assault to the cops at the time. Or, to her folks, or to anyone except possibly a personal confidant.
    Especially considering that she was 15 at the time.

  883. As an almost 62-year-old woman, this stuff is very hard to discuss. It has a lot to do with our own self-image. People might glom onto stuff, but women my age all have stories.

  884. As an almost 62-year-old woman, this stuff is very hard to discuss. It has a lot to do with our own self-image. People might glom onto stuff, but women my age all have stories.

  885. she never reported to anyone for 20 years, and then to her therapist.
    My rejoinder is going to sound dismissive and sarcastic, and to a certain extent it is, but I hope you can ignore that and attend to the core of what I’m pointing out. First of all, we don’t know if she didn’t tell _anyone_, but even if that was the case, I’d suggest you find some people who were in the closet in the mid 70’s and ask them why they didn’t come forward. You may even find some who waited 20 years…

  886. she never reported to anyone for 20 years, and then to her therapist.
    My rejoinder is going to sound dismissive and sarcastic, and to a certain extent it is, but I hope you can ignore that and attend to the core of what I’m pointing out. First of all, we don’t know if she didn’t tell _anyone_, but even if that was the case, I’d suggest you find some people who were in the closet in the mid 70’s and ask them why they didn’t come forward. You may even find some who waited 20 years…

  887. “First of all, we don’t know if she didn’t tell _anyone_”
    Well she claims that she didn’t tell anyone until she told her therapist. I don’t find that unbelievable at all. It just doesn’t help.

  888. “First of all, we don’t know if she didn’t tell _anyone_”
    Well she claims that she didn’t tell anyone until she told her therapist. I don’t find that unbelievable at all. It just doesn’t help.

  891. She may not have told anyone, but I bet the two bozos did.
    Probably. IF they weren’t so drunk that they couldn’t remember. Which, according to Mr Judge’s writings, was common. (Which in turn makes one wonder how Kavanaugh can be so certain it never happened.)

  892. She may not have told anyone, but I bet the two bozos did.
    Probably. IF they weren’t so drunk that they couldn’t remember. Which, according to Mr Judge’s writings, was common. (Which in turn makes one wonder how Kavanaugh can be so certain it never happened.)

  893. Seb, sorry, I misread what you said and thought you were doubting the claim because she hadn’t reported it. I’m not sure if I agree with the idea that there is nothing that can be done to investigate the claim (especially since it speaks to a pattern of behavior and there is plenty of evidence for a range of problematic activities at Georgetown Prep
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/politics/ct-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep-parties-20180920-story.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLmpwLw%3D%3D&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=15
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/georgetown-prep-student-party-culture-kavanaugh_us_5ba28cf7e4b07c23ef37a06c
    but by invoking the ‘she didn’t say anything for 20 years, that seems to license things like Donald Trump’s tweet
    http://time.com/5403230/donald-trump-tweets-sexual-assault-reporting/

  894. Seb, sorry, I misread what you said and thought you were doubting the claim because she hadn’t reported it. I’m not sure if I agree with the idea that there is nothing that can be done to investigate the claim (especially since it speaks to a pattern of behavior and there is plenty of evidence for a range of problematic activities at Georgetown Prep
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/g00/news/nationworld/politics/ct-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep-parties-20180920-story.html?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLmpwLw%3D%3D&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=15
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/georgetown-prep-student-party-culture-kavanaugh_us_5ba28cf7e4b07c23ef37a06c
    but by invoking the ‘she didn’t say anything for 20 years, that seems to license things like Donald Trump’s tweet
    http://time.com/5403230/donald-trump-tweets-sexual-assault-reporting/

  895. lj: I’m not sure if I agree with the idea that there is nothing that can be done to investigate the claim
    Well, I’m sure: OF COURSE it’s possible to investigate.
    What do the Republicons want? Videotape?
    Grassley, Hatch, and company (not to mention Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and all other “reasonable Republicans”) are even more subservient to He, Trump than the lickspittle who said

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

    Mitch McConnell, it goes without saying, is simply a professional asshole. If our resident “conservatives” want to make excuses for him, who am I to stop them from abasing themselves?
    –TP

  896. lj: I’m not sure if I agree with the idea that there is nothing that can be done to investigate the claim
    Well, I’m sure: OF COURSE it’s possible to investigate.
    What do the Republicons want? Videotape?
    Grassley, Hatch, and company (not to mention Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and all other “reasonable Republicans”) are even more subservient to He, Trump than the lickspittle who said

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

    Mitch McConnell, it goes without saying, is simply a professional asshole. If our resident “conservatives” want to make excuses for him, who am I to stop them from abasing themselves?
    –TP

  897. Seb, sorry, I misread what you said and thought you were doubting the claim because she hadn’t reported it.
    I made the same error.
    Yes, it makes it more difficult to figure out who is telling the truth.
    Seriously, if Trump had any sense at all – or frankly if Kavanaugh had any sense at all – they would withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination and pick somebody else.
    They’d get their vote, they’d get their conservative majority, and Kavanaugh would have to settle for merely being a DC Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals justice, for the rest of his life.
    And in a year “Brett Kavanaugh” would be the answer to a trivia question. 99% of people’s memories are just not that long, because they’re just not that into political inside baseball.
    Whether being denied a SCOTUS seat is fair or not is almost beside the point. Life has been more than fair enough to Brett Kavanaugh.
    I actually hope his name isn’t withdrawn, because every day this circus continues, the (R)’s lose another couple of thousand women voters. Lotta men, too.
    But it would be nice to have this bullshit over and done.

  898. Seb, sorry, I misread what you said and thought you were doubting the claim because she hadn’t reported it.
    I made the same error.
    Yes, it makes it more difficult to figure out who is telling the truth.
    Seriously, if Trump had any sense at all – or frankly if Kavanaugh had any sense at all – they would withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination and pick somebody else.
    They’d get their vote, they’d get their conservative majority, and Kavanaugh would have to settle for merely being a DC Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals justice, for the rest of his life.
    And in a year “Brett Kavanaugh” would be the answer to a trivia question. 99% of people’s memories are just not that long, because they’re just not that into political inside baseball.
    Whether being denied a SCOTUS seat is fair or not is almost beside the point. Life has been more than fair enough to Brett Kavanaugh.
    I actually hope his name isn’t withdrawn, because every day this circus continues, the (R)’s lose another couple of thousand women voters. Lotta men, too.
    But it would be nice to have this bullshit over and done.

  901. I’m not invoking Trump. I’m saying that waiting 20 years makes it very difficult to investigate. I totally get why a 15 or 16 year old girl (she isn’t certain which year) wouldn’t want to tell anyone. I’m not blaming her for not telling. I’m just stating the fact that 20 years before she tells anyone and 30 years before going public makes it super hard to investigate. So if the FBI doesn’t turn up anything useful, it won’t be shocking. It isn’t strictly impossible that we could find out more. But it seems super likely that we may already have all the useful information we are going to get.

  902. I’m not invoking Trump. I’m saying that waiting 20 years makes it very difficult to investigate. I totally get why a 15 or 16 year old girl (she isn’t certain which year) wouldn’t want to tell anyone. I’m not blaming her for not telling. I’m just stating the fact that 20 years before she tells anyone and 30 years before going public makes it super hard to investigate. So if the FBI doesn’t turn up anything useful, it won’t be shocking. It isn’t strictly impossible that we could find out more. But it seems super likely that we may already have all the useful information we are going to get.

  903. I’m not sure if I agree with the idea that there is nothing that can be done to investigate the claim..
    Of course it is possible to investigate.
    At the most basic level, Kavanaugh denies even being at the party.
    Properly checking that claim is something that would be relatively simple, and take maybe a week or two.
    It’s possible that no one remembers, and there is no real evidence either way, but finding out would be absolutely standard procedure for the FBi background checkers.
    Framing this as a criminal investigation that shouldn’t be held because it’s decades too late is simply misdirection by the Senate Republicans.

  904. I’m not sure if I agree with the idea that there is nothing that can be done to investigate the claim..
    Of course it is possible to investigate.
    At the most basic level, Kavanaugh denies even being at the party.
    Properly checking that claim is something that would be relatively simple, and take maybe a week or two.
    It’s possible that no one remembers, and there is no real evidence either way, but finding out would be absolutely standard procedure for the FBi background checkers.
    Framing this as a criminal investigation that shouldn’t be held because it’s decades too late is simply misdirection by the Senate Republicans.

  907. I do not often agree wholewheartedly with Benjamin Wittes, but his Atlantic article on Kavanaugh seems entirely persuasive.
    In fact the only thing which worries me about it is that were Republicans to follow his advice, they would find it far easier to ensure a right wing Court.
    The whole article should be read, as it sets out very clearly and persuasively how we should think of burden of proof in relation to the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, but this gives a flavour:
    Putting it all together, Kavanaugh’s task strikes me as an unenviable one. He needs to prove a negative about events long ago with sufficient persuasiveness that a reasonable person will regard his service as untainted by the allegations against him, and he needs to do so using only arguments that don’t themselves taint him.
    If Kavanaugh believes he can do this, he should certainly try. In fairness to both Ford and to him, I will reserve judgment on the merits of the matter until I hear a full account of both sides of it. I urge others to do the same. I can imagine, in theory, defenses that would meet the high bar I think Kavanaugh needs to clear.
    But if Kavanaugh cannot present such a defense—even if he truly believes himself innocent, even if he is innocent—the better part of valor is to get out now…

  908. I do not often agree wholewheartedly with Benjamin Wittes, but his Atlantic article on Kavanaugh seems entirely persuasive.
    In fact the only thing which worries me about it is that were Republicans to follow his advice, they would find it far easier to ensure a right wing Court.
    The whole article should be read, as it sets out very clearly and persuasively how we should think of burden of proof in relation to the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice, but this gives a flavour:
    Putting it all together, Kavanaugh’s task strikes me as an unenviable one. He needs to prove a negative about events long ago with sufficient persuasiveness that a reasonable person will regard his service as untainted by the allegations against him, and he needs to do so using only arguments that don’t themselves taint him.
    If Kavanaugh believes he can do this, he should certainly try. In fairness to both Ford and to him, I will reserve judgment on the merits of the matter until I hear a full account of both sides of it. I urge others to do the same. I can imagine, in theory, defenses that would meet the high bar I think Kavanaugh needs to clear.
    But if Kavanaugh cannot present such a defense—even if he truly believes himself innocent, even if he is innocent—the better part of valor is to get out now…

  911. “Properly checking that claim is something that would be relatively simple, and take maybe a week or two.”
    She doesn’t know which year it was in. How are you going to check a claim like ‘there was a party of two maybe three other people sometime in about an 18 month span in and around Georgetown Prep.’?
    Again, I’m not saying that she unbelievable, in fact I believe her, but that isn’t the kind of claim that is “relatively simple” to check.

  912. “Properly checking that claim is something that would be relatively simple, and take maybe a week or two.”
    She doesn’t know which year it was in. How are you going to check a claim like ‘there was a party of two maybe three other people sometime in about an 18 month span in and around Georgetown Prep.’?
    Again, I’m not saying that she unbelievable, in fact I believe her, but that isn’t the kind of claim that is “relatively simple” to check.

  917. I would disagree on at least one point: if Kavanaugh withdraws his nomination, this will be interpreted as admission of guilt independent of the truth of the allegation.
    The behaviour of his proponents in the whole process assures that.
    And his service will be tainted by the mere fact of him being nominated and confirmed by the current bunch in WH and Senate. If anyone there believed him to be an impartial non-hack, he would never have been considered in the first place. The only way to ‘un-taint’ for him would be to join the ‘liberal’ side of the court in some cases of importance and high publicity. But that would mark him as a ‘traitor’ to the cause.
    I assume this will go the ‘natural’ way. He will get confirmed (maybe with Pence breaking the tie should Murkowski be allowed to say nay in order to save her seat) and then behave exactly as expected. And I am enough of a cynic that him being tainted by suspicion of having commited impeachable acts (perjury topmost) could serve as a safeguard for his masters to keep him in line (‘be our guy or WE will come after you, and WE know exactly where the corpses are buried’).

  918. I would disagree on at least one point: if Kavanaugh withdraws his nomination, this will be interpreted as admission of guilt independent of the truth of the allegation.
    The behaviour of his proponents in the whole process assures that.
    And his service will be tainted by the mere fact of him being nominated and confirmed by the current bunch in WH and Senate. If anyone there believed him to be an impartial non-hack, he would never have been considered in the first place. The only way to ‘un-taint’ for him would be to join the ‘liberal’ side of the court in some cases of importance and high publicity. But that would mark him as a ‘traitor’ to the cause.
    I assume this will go the ‘natural’ way. He will get confirmed (maybe with Pence breaking the tie should Murkowski be allowed to say nay in order to save her seat) and then behave exactly as expected. And I am enough of a cynic that him being tainted by suspicion of having commited impeachable acts (perjury topmost) could serve as a safeguard for his masters to keep him in line (‘be our guy or WE will come after you, and WE know exactly where the corpses are buried’).

  919. To play devil’s advocate: Since the FBI is the constant target of The Donald’s ire, it can’t be used as an impartial investigator. If they find credible evidence, it’s just to get back at The Donald; if they find none, it’s just to improve their standing with him. So, nothing they could do would find acceptance.

  920. To play devil’s advocate: Since the FBI is the constant target of The Donald’s ire, it can’t be used as an impartial investigator. If they find credible evidence, it’s just to get back at The Donald; if they find none, it’s just to improve their standing with him. So, nothing they could do would find acceptance.

  921. I’m not invoking Trump. I’m saying that waiting 20 years makes it very difficult to investigate.
    Just to be clear, I wasn’t accusing you of invoking Trump, I was just pointing out that precisely the same argument is being used by some as a way of trying to dismiss the question and as such, I would be hesitant to invoke it. To draw a parallel, if I believe that genetic factors play into intelligence, I would nonetheless be very hesitant to argue that given that the argument is used in a way that I think is purposefully in bad faith.
    Also, this via Deadspin (via LGM) is precisely correct.
    It has to be this guy. It has to be this guy now more than ever. It has to be this guy, now, because he has been accused, credibly, of attempting to rape a 15-year-old girl in 1982—moreover because people believe this should be considered a disqualifying blight on his record. The thing that must happen is that those people must be defeated. That is the whole point.

    When the opinion is presented that somehow, the left is intransigent, this moment, regardless of the outcome, should be remembered.

  922. I’m not invoking Trump. I’m saying that waiting 20 years makes it very difficult to investigate.
    Just to be clear, I wasn’t accusing you of invoking Trump, I was just pointing out that precisely the same argument is being used by some as a way of trying to dismiss the question and as such, I would be hesitant to invoke it. To draw a parallel, if I believe that genetic factors play into intelligence, I would nonetheless be very hesitant to argue that given that the argument is used in a way that I think is purposefully in bad faith.
    Also, this via Deadspin (via LGM) is precisely correct.
    It has to be this guy. It has to be this guy now more than ever. It has to be this guy, now, because he has been accused, credibly, of attempting to rape a 15-year-old girl in 1982—moreover because people believe this should be considered a disqualifying blight on his record. The thing that must happen is that those people must be defeated. That is the whole point.

    When the opinion is presented that somehow, the left is intransigent, this moment, regardless of the outcome, should be remembered.

  923. “Whether being denied a SCOTUS seat is fair or not is almost beside the point. Life has been more than fair enough to Brett Kavanaugh.”
    The right isn’t interested in discussing Kavanaugh becsuse this is the level of argument from the left. Hes a white make so it is not required to treat him fairly.

  924. “Whether being denied a SCOTUS seat is fair or not is almost beside the point. Life has been more than fair enough to Brett Kavanaugh.”
    The right isn’t interested in discussing Kavanaugh becsuse this is the level of argument from the left. Hes a white make so it is not required to treat him fairly.

  925. The right isn’t interested in discussing Kavanaugh becsuse this is the level of argument from the left. Hes a white make so it is not required to treat him fairly.
    Did you read the Wittes article ?
    He is, by any measure, of the right. He has not, however, abandoned principle, or argument from good faith.

  926. The right isn’t interested in discussing Kavanaugh becsuse this is the level of argument from the left. Hes a white make so it is not required to treat him fairly.
    Did you read the Wittes article ?
    He is, by any measure, of the right. He has not, however, abandoned principle, or argument from good faith.

  927. Hes a white make so it is not required to treat him fairly
    You’re making some very large assumptions here.
    As always, maybe address things I actually say, rather than what you think I say.
    There are millions and millions of white men who have not been treated particularly fairly by life. Brett Kavanaugh is not one of them.
    I don’t speak for “the left”. According to some here, “the left” includes everyone from Che Guevara to Elizabeth Warren, so I don’t even know what “the left” means.

  928. Hes a white make so it is not required to treat him fairly
    You’re making some very large assumptions here.
    As always, maybe address things I actually say, rather than what you think I say.
    There are millions and millions of white men who have not been treated particularly fairly by life. Brett Kavanaugh is not one of them.
    I don’t speak for “the left”. According to some here, “the left” includes everyone from Che Guevara to Elizabeth Warren, so I don’t even know what “the left” means.

  929. Elizabeth Warren? I think “the left” goes as far as just about anyone with “D” after her name. Hillary Clinton, pro-business and hawkish DLC type that she is, is considered a leftist by a good number of people. The American political frame of reference is way, way out of kilter.

  930. Elizabeth Warren? I think “the left” goes as far as just about anyone with “D” after her name. Hillary Clinton, pro-business and hawkish DLC type that she is, is considered a leftist by a good number of people. The American political frame of reference is way, way out of kilter.

  931. Wittes is very much an outlier on the right; this is the more common approach where good faith argument is concerned –
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/gop-disavows-ed-whelans-kavanaugh-conspiracy-thread.html
    ”Ed Whelan is the model of careful, discerning legal analysis and commentary. It’s why all of us who know him take everything he says and writes so seriously,” said Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, where Whelan writes on judicial issues…

  932. Wittes is very much an outlier on the right; this is the more common approach where good faith argument is concerned –
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/gop-disavows-ed-whelans-kavanaugh-conspiracy-thread.html
    ”Ed Whelan is the model of careful, discerning legal analysis and commentary. It’s why all of us who know him take everything he says and writes so seriously,” said Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, where Whelan writes on judicial issues…

  933. if Kavanaugh withdraws his nomination, this will be interpreted as admission of guilt independent of the truth of the allegation.
    Most folks will have no strong opinion or interest in his guilt or innocence. It’s just more Washington BS.
    Most folks that will have an opinion already have it. If it were possible for the FBI or whoever to conduct a truly conclusive investigation, different story, but as Sebastian points out, that is probably not on offer.
    If he withdraws, he’ll be under a cloud. If he doesn’t withdraw and is confirmed, he’ll be under a cloud.
    The advantage of withdrawing is that it avoids dragging himself, his family, Ford and her family, the SCOTUS, the Senate, and the nation, through an ugly freaking mess. Or I should say, further into that mess, and perhaps never through.
    How bad do the principals want this? Is it worth it?
    I’d say no, but I’m not them.

  934. if Kavanaugh withdraws his nomination, this will be interpreted as admission of guilt independent of the truth of the allegation.
    Most folks will have no strong opinion or interest in his guilt or innocence. It’s just more Washington BS.
    Most folks that will have an opinion already have it. If it were possible for the FBI or whoever to conduct a truly conclusive investigation, different story, but as Sebastian points out, that is probably not on offer.
    If he withdraws, he’ll be under a cloud. If he doesn’t withdraw and is confirmed, he’ll be under a cloud.
    The advantage of withdrawing is that it avoids dragging himself, his family, Ford and her family, the SCOTUS, the Senate, and the nation, through an ugly freaking mess. Or I should say, further into that mess, and perhaps never through.
    How bad do the principals want this? Is it worth it?
    I’d say no, but I’m not them.

  935. Talking of being ‘under clouds’…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/christine-blasey-ford-wanted-to-flee-the-us-to-avoid-brett-kavanaugh-now-she-may-testify-against-him/2018/09/22/db942340-bdb1-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.de06ae6e9b7f
    Russell struggled to explain it to his children. “I said that Mommy had a story about a Supreme Court nominee, and now it’s broken into the news, and we can’t stay in the house anymore,” he recalled. The family was separated for days, with the boys staying with friends and their parents living at a hotel. They’ve looked into a security service to escort their children to school.
    While Ford met the FBI on Friday to discuss her safety, critics continued questioning her motives and memory. Why, they ask, did she wait decades to come forward? Trump joined the chorus on Twitter, declaring, “I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents.”…

  936. Talking of being ‘under clouds’…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/christine-blasey-ford-wanted-to-flee-the-us-to-avoid-brett-kavanaugh-now-she-may-testify-against-him/2018/09/22/db942340-bdb1-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.de06ae6e9b7f
    Russell struggled to explain it to his children. “I said that Mommy had a story about a Supreme Court nominee, and now it’s broken into the news, and we can’t stay in the house anymore,” he recalled. The family was separated for days, with the boys staying with friends and their parents living at a hotel. They’ve looked into a security service to escort their children to school.
    While Ford met the FBI on Friday to discuss her safety, critics continued questioning her motives and memory. Why, they ask, did she wait decades to come forward? Trump joined the chorus on Twitter, declaring, “I have no doubt that, if the attack on Dr. Ford was as bad as she says, charges would have been immediately filed with local Law Enforcement Authorities by either her or her loving parents.”…

  937. if he withdraws, the Republican base will be very upset and will wail and cry that their Leaders caved in to the perfidious Dems. and that will not do, so close to an election.

  938. if he withdraws, the Republican base will be very upset and will wail and cry that their Leaders caved in to the perfidious Dems. and that will not do, so close to an election.

  939. russell: If it were possible for the FBI or whoever to conduct a truly conclusive investigation, different story
    Oh come on. Kavanaugh asserts the party never happened and anyway he wasn’t there. An FBI investigation MIGHT prove or disprove those assertions — if it is conducted.
    The one and only sure thing is that if the FBI does NOT investigate, then the FBI cannot prove or disprove Kavanaugh’s assertions.
    –TP

  940. russell: If it were possible for the FBI or whoever to conduct a truly conclusive investigation, different story
    Oh come on. Kavanaugh asserts the party never happened and anyway he wasn’t there. An FBI investigation MIGHT prove or disprove those assertions — if it is conducted.
    The one and only sure thing is that if the FBI does NOT investigate, then the FBI cannot prove or disprove Kavanaugh’s assertions.
    –TP

  941. The advantage of withdrawing is that it avoids dragging himself, his family, Ford and her family, the SCOTUS, the Senate, and the nation, through an ugly freaking mess.
    It would in fact be an act of great decency to withdraw for the purpose of sparing all these people, especially Ford and her family, the trouble this is causing them.
    He could even continue to maintain his innocence, or hedge somehow:
    “I drank a lot in high school (hardly a secret at this point) so maybe I just forgot.”
    Is doing that conceivable? I doubt it.

  942. The advantage of withdrawing is that it avoids dragging himself, his family, Ford and her family, the SCOTUS, the Senate, and the nation, through an ugly freaking mess.
    It would in fact be an act of great decency to withdraw for the purpose of sparing all these people, especially Ford and her family, the trouble this is causing them.
    He could even continue to maintain his innocence, or hedge somehow:
    “I drank a lot in high school (hardly a secret at this point) so maybe I just forgot.”
    Is doing that conceivable? I doubt it.

  943. I don’t speak for the Left in America because I haven’t known what it is ever since the conservative movement named Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and Abraham Lincoln as honorary members in good standing of the Left for THEIR crimes against the hurt butts of whining contemporary conservatives.
    But I will say this regarding the decades-long culture war against all things supposedly Left, like the so-called sexual revolution, yet another fucking conservative movement shibboleth.
    Whatever the Left is, the conservative movement owes us a truckload of gratitude .. we’ll skip the apologies, shove those …. for making available to you and allowing you randy, alcoholic horn dogs the opportunity to partake, indeed, far surpass in the sheer abundance, like unfriendly friends with benefits, all of the strange fruits of the so-called loosening of the country’s moral fiber supposedly perpetrated by the Woodstock Left … the fucking and the sucking and the boozing and the pharmaceutical miscalculations … and then you rat fuckers turn around and proclaim yourselves not only above it all, but virtuous religious zealots to boot and then demonize us, your benefactors of the sinful fun you have so enjoyed during your lives and THEN, re-jigger the laws to punish said behavior and to boot the contraception that makes the fun you take for yourselves safe, and, yet another boot, you don’t want to pay your fucking taxes.
    You do realize that Kavanaugh and company, should they admit any culpability about this case at all, are going to swiftly go all Phyllis Schafly/Jimmy Swaggart and turn around and cast the blame for their robust rowdy behavior (at least we lefties, for the most part, ask permission first, on the sexual revolution and do the dirty right in town unlike all of the conservative big-haired grifting preachers, renting a room at the motel on the edge of town under an assumed name and then call the woman who showed up for the assignation a whore and a hussy, you fucks.
    Rape. We have a lout who stole a Presidential election while all ten of his stubby fingers were inserted in beauty queens AND because he said the (all, not a few) Hispanics entering the country are RAPISTS.
    Well, I’d say the Republican Party supplies all of the rapists America needs at the moment, so why import more of them, Hanh?
    And if they don’t supply them, they make up a bunch of shit about Emmett Till.
    I suspect one of mp’s piercing questions, reaching deep down into his single legal brain cell, for Kavanaugh during the “exhaustive” search for the next Supreme Court Justice to replace Merrick Garland was something along the lines of:
    “So, Brett, Georgetown Prep, huh? (Wink) I’ve heard things. Very, very good things.
    You know, at the New York Military Academy, we had few chances to get our wicks wet, I mean, without going into town and paying for it, which I hate by the way, why should you and I have to pay what is for the taking and the branding? So, let me ask you, the poontang there, how was it? Plenty of it for the taking, I expect. Your background should help me, and by me, I mean ME, when I need to finally fuck all of the pigs.

  944. I don’t speak for the Left in America because I haven’t known what it is ever since the conservative movement named Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and Abraham Lincoln as honorary members in good standing of the Left for THEIR crimes against the hurt butts of whining contemporary conservatives.
    But I will say this regarding the decades-long culture war against all things supposedly Left, like the so-called sexual revolution, yet another fucking conservative movement shibboleth.
    Whatever the Left is, the conservative movement owes us a truckload of gratitude .. we’ll skip the apologies, shove those …. for making available to you and allowing you randy, alcoholic horn dogs the opportunity to partake, indeed, far surpass in the sheer abundance, like unfriendly friends with benefits, all of the strange fruits of the so-called loosening of the country’s moral fiber supposedly perpetrated by the Woodstock Left … the fucking and the sucking and the boozing and the pharmaceutical miscalculations … and then you rat fuckers turn around and proclaim yourselves not only above it all, but virtuous religious zealots to boot and then demonize us, your benefactors of the sinful fun you have so enjoyed during your lives and THEN, re-jigger the laws to punish said behavior and to boot the contraception that makes the fun you take for yourselves safe, and, yet another boot, you don’t want to pay your fucking taxes.
    You do realize that Kavanaugh and company, should they admit any culpability about this case at all, are going to swiftly go all Phyllis Schafly/Jimmy Swaggart and turn around and cast the blame for their robust rowdy behavior (at least we lefties, for the most part, ask permission first, on the sexual revolution and do the dirty right in town unlike all of the conservative big-haired grifting preachers, renting a room at the motel on the edge of town under an assumed name and then call the woman who showed up for the assignation a whore and a hussy, you fucks.
    Rape. We have a lout who stole a Presidential election while all ten of his stubby fingers were inserted in beauty queens AND because he said the (all, not a few) Hispanics entering the country are RAPISTS.
    Well, I’d say the Republican Party supplies all of the rapists America needs at the moment, so why import more of them, Hanh?
    And if they don’t supply them, they make up a bunch of shit about Emmett Till.
    I suspect one of mp’s piercing questions, reaching deep down into his single legal brain cell, for Kavanaugh during the “exhaustive” search for the next Supreme Court Justice to replace Merrick Garland was something along the lines of:
    “So, Brett, Georgetown Prep, huh? (Wink) I’ve heard things. Very, very good things.
    You know, at the New York Military Academy, we had few chances to get our wicks wet, I mean, without going into town and paying for it, which I hate by the way, why should you and I have to pay what is for the taking and the branding? So, let me ask you, the poontang there, how was it? Plenty of it for the taking, I expect. Your background should help me, and by me, I mean ME, when I need to finally fuck all of the pigs.

  945. Because, of course, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were already in such a strong position:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/grassley-adviser-resigns-after-sexual-harassment-accusation/2018/09/22/f8f93fb6-be73-11e8-be70-52bd11fe18af_story.html
    Well, I suppose there’s a reason why Kavanaugh’s supporters worry that, if we pay attention to plausible charges of sexual harassment “no man is safe” — in their social circles, that may be true.

  946. Because, of course, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were already in such a strong position:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/grassley-adviser-resigns-after-sexual-harassment-accusation/2018/09/22/f8f93fb6-be73-11e8-be70-52bd11fe18af_story.html
    Well, I suppose there’s a reason why Kavanaugh’s supporters worry that, if we pay attention to plausible charges of sexual harassment “no man is safe” — in their social circles, that may be true.

  951. At least Mr. Ventry, in wj’s link, decided to take his lumps and move on for the sake of whatever bigger-than-him mission Grassley and his crew think they are on.
    An odd sort of unselfish self-immolation, at least, apparently unavailable to Kavanaugh’s ethic.

  952. At least Mr. Ventry, in wj’s link, decided to take his lumps and move on for the sake of whatever bigger-than-him mission Grassley and his crew think they are on.
    An odd sort of unselfish self-immolation, at least, apparently unavailable to Kavanaugh’s ethic.

  953. cleek, that sounds like the republican version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Just Take It”
    That smoothie mentioned in the link is a good metaphor for the entire grifting conservative machine.
    Here, drink this. We’re pro-whatever-suits-me and anti-choice-whatever-the-choice in this grifting outfit.
    When abortion is outlawed, only republican outlaws will be handing out smoothies.
    Elections for republicans: What flavor Smoothie would you like?
    Sir, are you a friend and associate of mp?
    Well, I’m an adjacency is what I’d call it.

  954. cleek, that sounds like the republican version of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Just Take It”
    That smoothie mentioned in the link is a good metaphor for the entire grifting conservative machine.
    Here, drink this. We’re pro-whatever-suits-me and anti-choice-whatever-the-choice in this grifting outfit.
    When abortion is outlawed, only republican outlaws will be handing out smoothies.
    Elections for republicans: What flavor Smoothie would you like?
    Sir, are you a friend and associate of mp?
    Well, I’m an adjacency is what I’d call it.

  955. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win. Just like the right believes that it would be decent if people didn’t make 35 year old allegations that are insubstantiable.
    The decent thing is to have some empathy for both of the people involved and respect what they decide to do.

  956. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win. Just like the right believes that it would be decent if people didn’t make 35 year old allegations that are insubstantiable.
    The decent thing is to have some empathy for both of the people involved and respect what they decide to do.

  961. Marty: 35 year old allegations that are insubstantiable
    Without any investigation, of course they’re “insubstantiable”.
    Without any investigation, Bratt Kavanaugh’s present-day assertions that there was no party and anyway he wasn’t there are ALSO “insubstantiable”.
    A real investigation could very conceivably prove that Kavanaugh’s assertions are true. But it could also prove they’re false. So we must not have one, lest Mitch McConnell’s promise to “values voters” go unfulfilled.
    –TP

  962. Marty: 35 year old allegations that are insubstantiable
    Without any investigation, of course they’re “insubstantiable”.
    Without any investigation, Bratt Kavanaugh’s present-day assertions that there was no party and anyway he wasn’t there are ALSO “insubstantiable”.
    A real investigation could very conceivably prove that Kavanaugh’s assertions are true. But it could also prove they’re false. So we must not have one, lest Mitch McConnell’s promise to “values voters” go unfulfilled.
    –TP

  963. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win
    How is it a win for the left? The decent thing to do would be to appoint a moderate Justice. That would be a win for the centre. In practice, if Kavanaugh withdraws, any replacement nominated by Trump will move the Court to the right. The only faction which can win with this unspeakable President and Senate is the far-right minority.
    The swing vote on the Court used to be Anthony Kennedy, a right-wing Justice with libertarian leanings, nominated by Ronald Reagan. When Trump gets his choice confirmed, whoever it eventually is, the swing vote will be John Roberts, a very right-wing Justice nominated by George W Bush.
    The Republican party, by good luck, procedural trickery, and highly partisan nominations, has long since stolen the Supreme Court. Why on earth should any fair-minded person, of whatever allegiance, be concerned that further theft is being slowed down a little?

  964. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win
    How is it a win for the left? The decent thing to do would be to appoint a moderate Justice. That would be a win for the centre. In practice, if Kavanaugh withdraws, any replacement nominated by Trump will move the Court to the right. The only faction which can win with this unspeakable President and Senate is the far-right minority.
    The swing vote on the Court used to be Anthony Kennedy, a right-wing Justice with libertarian leanings, nominated by Ronald Reagan. When Trump gets his choice confirmed, whoever it eventually is, the swing vote will be John Roberts, a very right-wing Justice nominated by George W Bush.
    The Republican party, by good luck, procedural trickery, and highly partisan nominations, has long since stolen the Supreme Court. Why on earth should any fair-minded person, of whatever allegiance, be concerned that further theft is being slowed down a little?

  965. Just like the right believes that it would be decent if people didn’t make 35 year old allegations that are insubstantiable.
    the right believes Trump can do no wrong and they are therefore obligated to defend him tooth and nail in all things.
    see you in November, cultists.

  966. Just like the right believes that it would be decent if people didn’t make 35 year old allegations that are insubstantiable.
    the right believes Trump can do no wrong and they are therefore obligated to defend him tooth and nail in all things.
    see you in November, cultists.

  967. Just like the right believes that it would be decent if people didn’t make 35 year old allegations that are insubstantiable.
    your stupid party elected a guy whose first political foray was as a fucking BIRTHER.

  968. Just like the right believes that it would be decent if people didn’t make 35 year old allegations that are insubstantiable.
    your stupid party elected a guy whose first political foray was as a fucking BIRTHER.

  969. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win.
    Perhaps I’m missing something. But it looks to me like what withdrawing does is let the right win.
    They can get another conservative Justice (there’s no shortage of possibilities) appointed. And the left won’t have the current circus, and blatant display of clueless sexism, to motivate their base and suck in independent, and even Republican, women.

  970. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win.
    Perhaps I’m missing something. But it looks to me like what withdrawing does is let the right win.
    They can get another conservative Justice (there’s no shortage of possibilities) appointed. And the left won’t have the current circus, and blatant display of clueless sexism, to motivate their base and suck in independent, and even Republican, women.

  971. Of course what it doesn’t do is let Trump win. But what honest conservative sees Trump as anything but a “useful idiot”?

  972. Of course what it doesn’t do is let Trump win. But what honest conservative sees Trump as anything but a “useful idiot”?

  973. Wow, “blatant display of clueless sexism”
    That’s an echo chamber statement if I ever heard one. In what fucking way is anything going on here blatant sexism?
    Completely unsubstantiated last minute accusation, complete lack of anyone to corroborate, denial by accused, negotiations on testimony by both parties, daily new conditions by accuser, no one in authority denying accuser the platform.
    Other than a ridiculous demand for withdrawal and a pretty seemingly useless “investigation” it’s been pretty even handed everywhere but the internet.

  974. Wow, “blatant display of clueless sexism”
    That’s an echo chamber statement if I ever heard one. In what fucking way is anything going on here blatant sexism?
    Completely unsubstantiated last minute accusation, complete lack of anyone to corroborate, denial by accused, negotiations on testimony by both parties, daily new conditions by accuser, no one in authority denying accuser the platform.
    Other than a ridiculous demand for withdrawal and a pretty seemingly useless “investigation” it’s been pretty even handed everywhere but the internet.

  975. remember, it’s of the utmost importance that Kavanaugh be seated IMMEDIATELY. any delay is an affront to all that is right.
    nevermind that the guy who appointed him is the subject of at several ongoing criminal investigations, not the least of which is possible collusion with a foreign government in order to influence the Presidential Election of 2016 – the one that put him in office so he can nominate Kavanaugh in the first place.
    say, what was the momentous reason MERRICK GARLAND never got a vote?
    why that needed to sit for a year, but this appointment, made by a known criminal, is so motherf’ing urgent that your stupid party can’t even STFU and just make sure that you haven’t nominated a RAPIST ?
    what’s the rush?
    or, just admit it’s all about getting what you want, all the f’ing time, no matter what bullshit excuses you can think of. at least be honest.

  976. remember, it’s of the utmost importance that Kavanaugh be seated IMMEDIATELY. any delay is an affront to all that is right.
    nevermind that the guy who appointed him is the subject of at several ongoing criminal investigations, not the least of which is possible collusion with a foreign government in order to influence the Presidential Election of 2016 – the one that put him in office so he can nominate Kavanaugh in the first place.
    say, what was the momentous reason MERRICK GARLAND never got a vote?
    why that needed to sit for a year, but this appointment, made by a known criminal, is so motherf’ing urgent that your stupid party can’t even STFU and just make sure that you haven’t nominated a RAPIST ?
    what’s the rush?
    or, just admit it’s all about getting what you want, all the f’ing time, no matter what bullshit excuses you can think of. at least be honest.

  977. or, just admit it’s all about getting what you want, all the f’ing time, no matter what bullshit excuses you can think of. at least be honest.
    Be honest? Republicans are incapable of it. They steal [emails], cheat [elections], and lie [about all of it] constantly.
    Asking an R to be honest does not compute.

  978. or, just admit it’s all about getting what you want, all the f’ing time, no matter what bullshit excuses you can think of. at least be honest.
    Be honest? Republicans are incapable of it. They steal [emails], cheat [elections], and lie [about all of it] constantly.
    Asking an R to be honest does not compute.

  979. Blatant display of clueless sexism could well refer to the ongoing circus tent of GOP mockery and dismissal of the issue as “35 years ago and shouldn’t matter.”
    Kavanaugh and Ford we can continue to do our best to presume innocence *for both parties,.* not just for the accused. But I don’t see any grounds on which one can look at the response from the right and not see the picture of society that it paints for others who have been sexually assaulted and wonder if they should come forward, or to 17 year old boys who are trying to understand issues of consent and masculinity.

  980. Blatant display of clueless sexism could well refer to the ongoing circus tent of GOP mockery and dismissal of the issue as “35 years ago and shouldn’t matter.”
    Kavanaugh and Ford we can continue to do our best to presume innocence *for both parties,.* not just for the accused. But I don’t see any grounds on which one can look at the response from the right and not see the picture of society that it paints for others who have been sexually assaulted and wonder if they should come forward, or to 17 year old boys who are trying to understand issues of consent and masculinity.

  981. In 1988, I spent part of a winter in Senegal, staying at a school for missionary kids while building a school. None of us working on the project had any idea that the children in the school were being abused by the dorm parents, but the people in charge of the school did, and they covered it up for years because they were convinced that if they revealed the truth, the parents of the children would leave the missions field and the native tribes they were ministering to would go to hell.
    I see that same mindset currently steering the politics of the religious right. They are so sure that they know the mind of God that they are willing to excuse all manner of iniquity in order to push through the appointments of a couple of human judges.

  982. In 1988, I spent part of a winter in Senegal, staying at a school for missionary kids while building a school. None of us working on the project had any idea that the children in the school were being abused by the dorm parents, but the people in charge of the school did, and they covered it up for years because they were convinced that if they revealed the truth, the parents of the children would leave the missions field and the native tribes they were ministering to would go to hell.
    I see that same mindset currently steering the politics of the religious right. They are so sure that they know the mind of God that they are willing to excuse all manner of iniquity in order to push through the appointments of a couple of human judges.

  983. Wow, “blatant display of clueless sexism”
    That’s an echo chamber statement if I ever heard one. In what fucking way is anything going on here blatant sexism?
    *****
    CRTV’s Steven Crowder: Christine Blasey Ford is a “lying whore”
    Crowder: “I know you’re saying … I labeled her a lying whore without proof, granted — she did the same, but with attempted rape” against Brett Kavanaugh

  984. Wow, “blatant display of clueless sexism”
    That’s an echo chamber statement if I ever heard one. In what fucking way is anything going on here blatant sexism?
    *****
    CRTV’s Steven Crowder: Christine Blasey Ford is a “lying whore”
    Crowder: “I know you’re saying … I labeled her a lying whore without proof, granted — she did the same, but with attempted rape” against Brett Kavanaugh

  985. to 17 year old boys who are trying to understand issues of consent and masculinity.
    this is truly the craziest part of it, though one that doesn’t get mentioned as much as it should.
    the GOP is effectively telling teenage boys everywhere that it’s OK to sexually assault girls while it’s simultaneously telling teenage girls that it doesn’t give a shit about them.
    it’s like they’re going out of their way to alienate a whole generation of young women, while exacerbating the problems that #metoo is fighting, and which has lead to historic numbers of women running for office.
    from President Pussy Grabber, to Justice Statutory Rape, the stupid party has put the very worst of its members in charge. i hope they choke on the results.

  986. to 17 year old boys who are trying to understand issues of consent and masculinity.
    this is truly the craziest part of it, though one that doesn’t get mentioned as much as it should.
    the GOP is effectively telling teenage boys everywhere that it’s OK to sexually assault girls while it’s simultaneously telling teenage girls that it doesn’t give a shit about them.
    it’s like they’re going out of their way to alienate a whole generation of young women, while exacerbating the problems that #metoo is fighting, and which has lead to historic numbers of women running for office.
    from President Pussy Grabber, to Justice Statutory Rape, the stupid party has put the very worst of its members in charge. i hope they choke on the results.

  987. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win.
    If Kavanaugh withdraws, or is withdrawn, a doctrinaire federalist will be in kennedy’s seat before the mid-terms.
    That would be a win for many people, not one of whom would be on the left.

  988. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win.
    If Kavanaugh withdraws, or is withdrawn, a doctrinaire federalist will be in kennedy’s seat before the mid-terms.
    That would be a win for many people, not one of whom would be on the left.

  989. That’s an echo chamber statement if I ever heard one. In what fucking way is anything going on here blatant sexism?
    Have you listened to the comments, not from various conservative writers but just from Republican Senators and their staffs? (No need to even mention Trump and his “If it was really so bad, she would have gone to the FBI years ago.”) Clueless? Check. Sexist? Check.
    Not even the ridiculous nonsense about scheduling, or the excuses not to have the FBI do an entirely routine investigation. Just the comments on the character of Ms Ford, or any woman who might report harassment. Just the suggestions that any complaint must be bogus; and that “no man wil be safe.” It goes on and on.

  990. That’s an echo chamber statement if I ever heard one. In what fucking way is anything going on here blatant sexism?
    Have you listened to the comments, not from various conservative writers but just from Republican Senators and their staffs? (No need to even mention Trump and his “If it was really so bad, she would have gone to the FBI years ago.”) Clueless? Check. Sexist? Check.
    Not even the ridiculous nonsense about scheduling, or the excuses not to have the FBI do an entirely routine investigation. Just the comments on the character of Ms Ford, or any woman who might report harassment. Just the suggestions that any complaint must be bogus; and that “no man wil be safe.” It goes on and on.

  991. I’ve expressed discomfort with the age of the allegation, and the (understandable) vagueness of it which makes it almost unfalsifiable. So I must say clearly that these excuses about “it was a long time ago, and he was only 17”, or “boys will be boys”, do not and should not wash.
    Having done what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done should disqualify anyone from being any sort of judge. That applies just the same if in his drunken assault he never had rape in mind. I’d like to hear Kavanaugh and his supporters acknowledge that.

  992. I’ve expressed discomfort with the age of the allegation, and the (understandable) vagueness of it which makes it almost unfalsifiable. So I must say clearly that these excuses about “it was a long time ago, and he was only 17”, or “boys will be boys”, do not and should not wash.
    Having done what Kavanaugh is alleged to have done should disqualify anyone from being any sort of judge. That applies just the same if in his drunken assault he never had rape in mind. I’d like to hear Kavanaugh and his supporters acknowledge that.

  993. I won’t stop saying it: what’s “falsifiable” by a serious investigation is Kavanaugh’s current assertion that there was no party and anyway he wasn’t there. That’s why his padrone will never authorize one, and why his fanboys are so desperate to peddle the notion that no investigation could possibly establish any facts.
    BTW, the FBI can investigate faster than reporters can, but reporters can keep investigating even after McConnell fulfills his promise to the “values voters”.
    –TP

  994. I won’t stop saying it: what’s “falsifiable” by a serious investigation is Kavanaugh’s current assertion that there was no party and anyway he wasn’t there. That’s why his padrone will never authorize one, and why his fanboys are so desperate to peddle the notion that no investigation could possibly establish any facts.
    BTW, the FBI can investigate faster than reporters can, but reporters can keep investigating even after McConnell fulfills his promise to the “values voters”.
    –TP

  995. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win.
    Marty illustrates perfectly the link and excerpt I posted at 5:04. Strangely enough, I cut down the excerpt cause I thought it might be unfair to the conservatives here.
    What the American right wants, what it’s after, isn’t some abstract pluralist success, like the smooth functioning of government and/or the material improvement of American life. It wants, only and entirely, to defeat its opponents. Those aren’t quite the same thing. The Republican party would not choose the former if it could be accomplished without the latter.
    …
    The important thing to note is: Nobody, nobody, believes a single one of these defenses, most likely not even the people offering them. Believing any of them would defeat the point of the exercise, which is to demonstrate that it doesn’t matter, to put this son of a bitch across with a completely unhidden sneer, to say all but explicitly We know he did this, you know he did this, everyone knows he did this, and you couldn’t stop us anyway. The wild variety and complete inconsistency of all these defenses aren’t bugs; they’re features.
    …
    Once upon a time, yeah, some American president might have performed the empty noblesse oblige–ass theater of withdrawing a judicial nominee who’d become as toxic and controversial as Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination had turned into a referendum on the political parties’ respective views on something as grave and awful as sexual assault. So it’s fine to point out that things are different, now, if only on their surface; it’s fine to chart out, if you wish, the moral and intellectual decay whereby the American right eventually dropped all its pretenses and became, straight out, the Neener Neener Neener You Can’t Stop Us movement; it’s fine to observe that this happening subsequent to America’s first non-white president and first non-male major-party presidential nominee is no coincidence at all, but very specifically a vengeful tantrum by a shrinking class of wounded bullies eager to reassert by force and at all costs their hold on society’s controls.
    But first, the thing to do is to describe it accurately. When they eventually ram Kavanaugh through, and they will, it won’t be despite all of this. It will be because of it.
    I suppose this is the didactic nature of the left: When I use 4 paragraphs of quotes, Marty is able to sum it up in 5 words. That’s concision, folks.

  996. Withdrawing is only an act of great decency because it let’s the left win.
    Marty illustrates perfectly the link and excerpt I posted at 5:04. Strangely enough, I cut down the excerpt cause I thought it might be unfair to the conservatives here.
    What the American right wants, what it’s after, isn’t some abstract pluralist success, like the smooth functioning of government and/or the material improvement of American life. It wants, only and entirely, to defeat its opponents. Those aren’t quite the same thing. The Republican party would not choose the former if it could be accomplished without the latter.
    …
    The important thing to note is: Nobody, nobody, believes a single one of these defenses, most likely not even the people offering them. Believing any of them would defeat the point of the exercise, which is to demonstrate that it doesn’t matter, to put this son of a bitch across with a completely unhidden sneer, to say all but explicitly We know he did this, you know he did this, everyone knows he did this, and you couldn’t stop us anyway. The wild variety and complete inconsistency of all these defenses aren’t bugs; they’re features.
    …
    Once upon a time, yeah, some American president might have performed the empty noblesse oblige–ass theater of withdrawing a judicial nominee who’d become as toxic and controversial as Brett Kavanaugh, whose nomination had turned into a referendum on the political parties’ respective views on something as grave and awful as sexual assault. So it’s fine to point out that things are different, now, if only on their surface; it’s fine to chart out, if you wish, the moral and intellectual decay whereby the American right eventually dropped all its pretenses and became, straight out, the Neener Neener Neener You Can’t Stop Us movement; it’s fine to observe that this happening subsequent to America’s first non-white president and first non-male major-party presidential nominee is no coincidence at all, but very specifically a vengeful tantrum by a shrinking class of wounded bullies eager to reassert by force and at all costs their hold on society’s controls.
    But first, the thing to do is to describe it accurately. When they eventually ram Kavanaugh through, and they will, it won’t be despite all of this. It will be because of it.
    I suppose this is the didactic nature of the left: When I use 4 paragraphs of quotes, Marty is able to sum it up in 5 words. That’s concision, folks.

  997. Kavanaugh’s current assertion that there was no party and anyway he wasn’t there.
    Is it? I saw a report that Hatch said that Kavanaugh told him something like that on the phone. But so far as I know Kavanaugh hasn’t said it in public.
    Meanwhile, I’m trying to remember what parties I went to 36 years ago, and who was at them. The FBI would have a hard time getting any reliable information about that out of me.

  998. Kavanaugh’s current assertion that there was no party and anyway he wasn’t there.
    Is it? I saw a report that Hatch said that Kavanaugh told him something like that on the phone. But so far as I know Kavanaugh hasn’t said it in public.
    Meanwhile, I’m trying to remember what parties I went to 36 years ago, and who was at them. The FBI would have a hard time getting any reliable information about that out of me.

  999. Some (D)’s in Congress have already promised to continue investigating Kavanaugh if they flip either house in November.
    I’m not sure that depends on him being approved for the SCOTUS.
    So, gloves are off.

  1000. Some (D)’s in Congress have already promised to continue investigating Kavanaugh if they flip either house in November.
    I’m not sure that depends on him being approved for the SCOTUS.
    So, gloves are off.

  1003. Some (D)’s in Congress have already promised to continue investigating Kavanaugh if they flip either house in November.
    I’m not sure that depends on him being approved for the SCOTUS.
    If they can demonstrate that he lied in his confirmation hearings (either set), his position on the Federal bench is at risk, regardless of whether he is on the SCOTUS. I’m skeptical that they can, but if….

  1004. Some (D)’s in Congress have already promised to continue investigating Kavanaugh if they flip either house in November.
    I’m not sure that depends on him being approved for the SCOTUS.
    If they can demonstrate that he lied in his confirmation hearings (either set), his position on the Federal bench is at risk, regardless of whether he is on the SCOTUS. I’m skeptical that they can, but if….

  1007. ….and a pretty seemingly useless “investigation”
    Whitewater
    Vince Foster
    Travel Office
    Benghazi
    Hillary Clinton emails
    …and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the Army McCarthy hearings…might be before wj’s time 🙂

  1008. ….and a pretty seemingly useless “investigation”
    Whitewater
    Vince Foster
    Travel Office
    Benghazi
    Hillary Clinton emails
    …and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the Army McCarthy hearings…might be before wj’s time 🙂

  1009. and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the Army McCarthy hearings…might be before wj’s time 🙂
    Well, as a 7 year old I wasn’t exactly paying a lot of attention. 😉

  1010. and of course, the granddaddy of them all, the Army McCarthy hearings…might be before wj’s time 🙂
    Well, as a 7 year old I wasn’t exactly paying a lot of attention. 😉

  1011. Conservative apostate Bruce Bartlett, who so-called conservatives tried to shut up years ago by clamping their hands over HIS mouth, advises Dr. Blasey-Ford on the considerable upside for her, and her family, and the Left during the hearing.
    There will so much winning for her that she’ll get tired of winning. Thoroughly exhausted by it, the sheer surfeit of it, like the rest of us these past 23-plus months.
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/22/psa-debunking-social-media-rumors-about-christine-blasey-ford-open-thread/

  1012. Conservative apostate Bruce Bartlett, who so-called conservatives tried to shut up years ago by clamping their hands over HIS mouth, advises Dr. Blasey-Ford on the considerable upside for her, and her family, and the Left during the hearing.
    There will so much winning for her that she’ll get tired of winning. Thoroughly exhausted by it, the sheer surfeit of it, like the rest of us these past 23-plus months.
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/22/psa-debunking-social-media-rumors-about-christine-blasey-ford-open-thread/

  1013. And with every insulting or dimissive comment, another 10,000 women will vow to vote their sorry @sses out of office.
    Probably a couple of hundred guys, too.

  1014. And with every insulting or dimissive comment, another 10,000 women will vow to vote their sorry @sses out of office.
    Probably a couple of hundred guys, too.

  1017. Georgetown Prep : $60K+ a year for residential tuition. That’s more than the median household income in the US. For tuition, to a prep school.
    Then Yale and Yale Law. Not unusual for folks in his circle. Most people are not in that circle.
    Kavanaugh was treasurer of the “100 kegs or bust” club. The other guy at the party is somewhat famously a former black-out drunk with… issues with women.
    Career before being appointed to the DC Circuit court was as a partisan political hatchet man.
    His testimony under oath during the hearings was notable for its general dodgeyness.
    Refused to shake the hand of a guy whose kid was shot and killed. Looked like he thought the guy had some kind of cooties.
    If you went to central casting and asked for a guy who oozed entitlement, privilege, and general lack of broad personal appeal, they’d send you Kavanaugh. Probably played by Charlie Sheen.
    The part that Kavanaugh is ending up playing in this particular drama is entitled frat boy who acted like a dick and has always skated on it.
    Fair? Unfair? What goes around, comes around. And Kavanaugh is well past the point where “they’re not being fair to me” is going to have any traction with anybody other than (a) folks in his circle, and (b) folks who just want to win this to stick it to the libs.
    Keep digging that hole.

  1018. Georgetown Prep : $60K+ a year for residential tuition. That’s more than the median household income in the US. For tuition, to a prep school.
    Then Yale and Yale Law. Not unusual for folks in his circle. Most people are not in that circle.
    Kavanaugh was treasurer of the “100 kegs or bust” club. The other guy at the party is somewhat famously a former black-out drunk with… issues with women.
    Career before being appointed to the DC Circuit court was as a partisan political hatchet man.
    His testimony under oath during the hearings was notable for its general dodgeyness.
    Refused to shake the hand of a guy whose kid was shot and killed. Looked like he thought the guy had some kind of cooties.
    If you went to central casting and asked for a guy who oozed entitlement, privilege, and general lack of broad personal appeal, they’d send you Kavanaugh. Probably played by Charlie Sheen.
    The part that Kavanaugh is ending up playing in this particular drama is entitled frat boy who acted like a dick and has always skated on it.
    Fair? Unfair? What goes around, comes around. And Kavanaugh is well past the point where “they’re not being fair to me” is going to have any traction with anybody other than (a) folks in his circle, and (b) folks who just want to win this to stick it to the libs.
    Keep digging that hole.

  1025. Graham is a bit of an oddball when it comes to SCOTUS nominees. he pretty much always votes to confirm whoever gets a vote (AHEM!). he even votes for people nominated by Democrats.

  1026. Graham is a bit of an oddball when it comes to SCOTUS nominees. he pretty much always votes to confirm whoever gets a vote (AHEM!). he even votes for people nominated by Democrats.

  1027. And now we read that Ford will testify on Thursday. That is, what she was asking for before all Grassley’s artificial deadline, ultimatums, etc. Could it be they are beginning to get a glimmer that they aren’t holding a royal flush here?

  1028. And now we read that Ford will testify on Thursday. That is, what she was asking for before all Grassley’s artificial deadline, ultimatums, etc. Could it be they are beginning to get a glimmer that they aren’t holding a royal flush here?

  1029. he even votes for people nominated by Democrats…
    And also, pre-emptively, commits to voting for those who might be someone who shouldn’t be on the acourt, irrespective of their politics.

  1030. he even votes for people nominated by Democrats…
    And also, pre-emptively, commits to voting for those who might be someone who shouldn’t be on the acourt, irrespective of their politics.

  1033. I am briefly back in the land of the living, and just want to add (to Janie’s posting of the questions Kavanaugh wanted Bill Clinton asked) the full text of the memo which contained that list. I know I posted this some days ago, but it bears repetition (and reading, for anyone who missed it first time around).
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/read-the-memo-from-brett-kavanaugh-to-judge-starr/2322/?tid=a_inl_manual
    I think, as well as the list of questions, in the context of considering the nature of the President who has nominated him to the SCOTUS, one should pay particular attention to Kavanaugh saying:
    it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behaviour clear – piece by painful piece
    and:
    Aren’t we failing to fulfill our duty to the American people if we willingly “conspire” with the President in an effort to conceal the true nature of his acts?

  1034. I am briefly back in the land of the living, and just want to add (to Janie’s posting of the questions Kavanaugh wanted Bill Clinton asked) the full text of the memo which contained that list. I know I posted this some days ago, but it bears repetition (and reading, for anyone who missed it first time around).
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/read-the-memo-from-brett-kavanaugh-to-judge-starr/2322/?tid=a_inl_manual
    I think, as well as the list of questions, in the context of considering the nature of the President who has nominated him to the SCOTUS, one should pay particular attention to Kavanaugh saying:
    it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behaviour clear – piece by painful piece
    and:
    Aren’t we failing to fulfill our duty to the American people if we willingly “conspire” with the President in an effort to conceal the true nature of his acts?

  1035. From the bj link, the hoarse whisperer notes the following:
    There are a whole lotta Republicans who are suddenly going to start asking why they’re setting themselves on fire for Brett F*cking Kavanaugh.
    I assume when this happens, we on the left are going to be told that we need to be nice to these erstwhile allies because we have to make alliances and we are the ones who should move.

  1036. From the bj link, the hoarse whisperer notes the following:
    There are a whole lotta Republicans who are suddenly going to start asking why they’re setting themselves on fire for Brett F*cking Kavanaugh.
    I assume when this happens, we on the left are going to be told that we need to be nice to these erstwhile allies because we have to make alliances and we are the ones who should move.

  1037. This juxtaposition is interesting from
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-response-grassley-committee-deadline.html
    and
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/grassley-to-blasey-ford-witnesses-and-who-will-question-them-are-non-negotiable
    from the first
    Ford requests denied by GOP:
    -Kavanaugh testify first
    -Hearing be Thursday (offering Wed)
    -Only senators do Qs (Rs want option of female staff lawyers for questioners)
    -Subpoena Mark Judge
    -Call more witnesses requested by Ford
    but the second
    Grassley aide tells Ford camp that panel “cannot hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses. The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them. These are non-negotiable”
    It sounds like Grassley wanted female lawyers to substitute so as not to make it look like ‘manel’ was questioning Ford, but then, in response to her requests, they invoke the sacred ‘constitutional duties’. Telling that…

  1038. This juxtaposition is interesting from
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-response-grassley-committee-deadline.html
    and
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/grassley-to-blasey-ford-witnesses-and-who-will-question-them-are-non-negotiable
    from the first
    Ford requests denied by GOP:
    -Kavanaugh testify first
    -Hearing be Thursday (offering Wed)
    -Only senators do Qs (Rs want option of female staff lawyers for questioners)
    -Subpoena Mark Judge
    -Call more witnesses requested by Ford
    but the second
    Grassley aide tells Ford camp that panel “cannot hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses. The Committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them. These are non-negotiable”
    It sounds like Grassley wanted female lawyers to substitute so as not to make it look like ‘manel’ was questioning Ford, but then, in response to her requests, they invoke the sacred ‘constitutional duties’. Telling that…

  1039. where there’s smoke. there’s Ronan Farrow

    As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

    better rush to get him in! no time wait! The Base will be angry if they don’t get this one particular guy who they never heard of until last month ito SCOTUS as fast as possible!
    though for some reason it was OK to leave a seat open for months and months and months and months when the nominee was … MERRICK GARLAND
    fuck the GOP

  1040. where there’s smoke. there’s Ronan Farrow

    As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

    better rush to get him in! no time wait! The Base will be angry if they don’t get this one particular guy who they never heard of until last month ito SCOTUS as fast as possible!
    though for some reason it was OK to leave a seat open for months and months and months and months when the nominee was … MERRICK GARLAND
    fuck the GOP

  1041. I have to wonder what the hell those staffers were thinking. Ram the confirmation thru knowing that more allegations are coming — and that others know that they knew? Are they trying to guarantee losing the Senate as well as the House? It’s either that or totally lost to both reality and basic thinking skills.

  1042. I have to wonder what the hell those staffers were thinking. Ram the confirmation thru knowing that more allegations are coming — and that others know that they knew? Are they trying to guarantee losing the Senate as well as the House? It’s either that or totally lost to both reality and basic thinking skills.

  1043. Perhaps they want a compromised Supreme Court Justice ?
    If you can get away with that, what cannot you get away with ?
    It seems strange, but what about the Trump administration is not strange ?

  1044. Perhaps they want a compromised Supreme Court Justice ?
    If you can get away with that, what cannot you get away with ?
    It seems strange, but what about the Trump administration is not strange ?

  1045. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote….
    Whatever one might think of the truth of these allegations, surely this destroys any idea of the possibility of good faith on the side of those attempting to confirm Kavanaugh ?
    Marty ?

  1046. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote….
    Whatever one might think of the truth of these allegations, surely this destroys any idea of the possibility of good faith on the side of those attempting to confirm Kavanaugh ?
    Marty ?

  1049. Are they trying to guarantee losing the Senate
    thing is… if they push K through now, they risk losing the Senate from backlash, so they have to push him through now, which guarantees backlash. or, they can no push him through now, which guarantees backlash from their own base, which also risks losing the Senate.

  1050. Are they trying to guarantee losing the Senate
    thing is… if they push K through now, they risk losing the Senate from backlash, so they have to push him through now, which guarantees backlash. or, they can no push him through now, which guarantees backlash from their own base, which also risks losing the Senate.

  1051. I cant think of anything less convincing than Ronan Farrow and Avenetti suddenly coming up with women willing to make vague claims, I dont remember much about it I think was a quote. Read enough to know this makes Swift Boating look like an endorsement.
    When this is a sorted out it may guarantee a Republican president and Senate for another few terms. It runs the risk of reelecting dumbass. It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.
    But Kavanaugh is toast.

  1052. I cant think of anything less convincing than Ronan Farrow and Avenetti suddenly coming up with women willing to make vague claims, I dont remember much about it I think was a quote. Read enough to know this makes Swift Boating look like an endorsement.
    When this is a sorted out it may guarantee a Republican president and Senate for another few terms. It runs the risk of reelecting dumbass. It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.
    But Kavanaugh is toast.

  1055. I cant think of anything less convincing than Ronan Farrow and Avenetti suddenly coming up with women willing to make vague claims
    did you read the article?

  1056. I cant think of anything less convincing than Ronan Farrow and Avenetti suddenly coming up with women willing to make vague claims
    did you read the article?

  1057. When this is a sorted out it may guarantee a Republican president and Senate for another few terms.
    over here, in the real world:

    The poll found that Democrats are benefiting from a strong showing of support among women. By 3 percentage points, men want Republicans rather than Democrats to control Congress, 47% to 44%. Women, by contrast, favor Democratic control by 25 percentage points—58% to 33%.

    the stupid party is too stupid to realize that the country has more people in it than just white men.

  1058. When this is a sorted out it may guarantee a Republican president and Senate for another few terms.
    over here, in the real world:

    The poll found that Democrats are benefiting from a strong showing of support among women. By 3 percentage points, men want Republicans rather than Democrats to control Congress, 47% to 44%. Women, by contrast, favor Democratic control by 25 percentage points—58% to 33%.

    the stupid party is too stupid to realize that the country has more people in it than just white men.

  1061. Wait, did somebody mention a cigar?
    Or a birth certificate?
    It should concern everyone that this much unsupported BS is now deemed acceptable.

  1062. Wait, did somebody mention a cigar?
    Or a birth certificate?
    It should concern everyone that this much unsupported BS is now deemed acceptable.

  1065. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-kavanaugh-i-am-with-him-all-the-way
    Tomorrow a third alleged victim will surface:
    mp will rally the base with this: “This dude is a player! Once he’s on the Court, I’m going to ask him to get ME some of that. He’s very, very good. Very. Did I say very? And his wing man, this guy Judge … it’s gonna be great when liberal vermin are addressing HIM as Judge Judge when I nominate that champion pussy hunter to replace the 60-pound dead weight when she kicks, Ruth what’shervodkaburg.”

  1066. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-kavanaugh-i-am-with-him-all-the-way
    Tomorrow a third alleged victim will surface:
    mp will rally the base with this: “This dude is a player! Once he’s on the Court, I’m going to ask him to get ME some of that. He’s very, very good. Very. Did I say very? And his wing man, this guy Judge … it’s gonna be great when liberal vermin are addressing HIM as Judge Judge when I nominate that champion pussy hunter to replace the 60-pound dead weight when she kicks, Ruth what’shervodkaburg.”

  1067. “It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.”
    This reminds me of a guy I knew in junior high and high school. When graduation time came around, he was 21 years old, having been held back numerous times for chronic attendance deficits, among his no less blatant failings. He was a funny guy. Why I haven’t seen him doing stand up on Netflix, I don’t know, but I’m sure his antics found their way on to his “permanent record”, as my mother would term Kavanaugh’s problem.
    At the assembly roast for my graduating high school senior class, among whom, finally, my classmate was included, our principal, a ex-Marine, one Dr. Tranquil, yes, one of the great names in school administration, he had a funny bone too, but he had spent years of his lafe and career tracking down my “classmate” for non-attendance. It was a little Roadrunner versus Coyote or maybe Bugs Bunny having it over on Elmer Fudd.
    Anyway, Dr. Tranquil told this story to we assembled graduates that Spring.
    One day, during senior year, school was canceled because of a couple feet of snow fell overnight. Around 10:00 am that morning, having heard the dreadful cancellation news on a local news program, my reprobate classmate rang up Dr. Tranquil at his home and, in this squirrelly, nasally, pedantic voice the former affected to great aplomb over the years and said to the latter: “Doctor Tranquil, I’m deeply concerned about this latest cancellation of classes today. I want to express how unacceptable and frankly, unsupportable, I find your decision to deprive myself and my esteemed fellow classmates of our district’s rich educational experience because of a mere 22 inches of snow. I’m very disappointed in you.”
    That’s a true story. Marty may rest assured though that truth, as Mayor Guiliani would say, isn’t truth, so on we go, on our merry way down the tubes.

  1068. “It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.”
    This reminds me of a guy I knew in junior high and high school. When graduation time came around, he was 21 years old, having been held back numerous times for chronic attendance deficits, among his no less blatant failings. He was a funny guy. Why I haven’t seen him doing stand up on Netflix, I don’t know, but I’m sure his antics found their way on to his “permanent record”, as my mother would term Kavanaugh’s problem.
    At the assembly roast for my graduating high school senior class, among whom, finally, my classmate was included, our principal, a ex-Marine, one Dr. Tranquil, yes, one of the great names in school administration, he had a funny bone too, but he had spent years of his lafe and career tracking down my “classmate” for non-attendance. It was a little Roadrunner versus Coyote or maybe Bugs Bunny having it over on Elmer Fudd.
    Anyway, Dr. Tranquil told this story to we assembled graduates that Spring.
    One day, during senior year, school was canceled because of a couple feet of snow fell overnight. Around 10:00 am that morning, having heard the dreadful cancellation news on a local news program, my reprobate classmate rang up Dr. Tranquil at his home and, in this squirrelly, nasally, pedantic voice the former affected to great aplomb over the years and said to the latter: “Doctor Tranquil, I’m deeply concerned about this latest cancellation of classes today. I want to express how unacceptable and frankly, unsupportable, I find your decision to deprive myself and my esteemed fellow classmates of our district’s rich educational experience because of a mere 22 inches of snow. I’m very disappointed in you.”
    That’s a true story. Marty may rest assured though that truth, as Mayor Guiliani would say, isn’t truth, so on we go, on our merry way down the tubes.

  1073. While I’m unhappy that these women went through bad experiences, I’m glad for the nation if there is more than one who have soecific instances to speak up against Kauvanaugh. Having it all turn on a single he said/she said interest would have been much worse.

  1074. While I’m unhappy that these women went through bad experiences, I’m glad for the nation if there is more than one who have soecific instances to speak up against Kauvanaugh. Having it all turn on a single he said/she said interest would have been much worse.

  1075. It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.
    Certainly that is a concern. But I note without comment which people are OK with, indeed asking for, investigation into the accuracy of the claims. Vs which people are insisting on not investigating. Extremely strange behavior is those making the allegations are the ones lying.

  1076. It should concern everyone that this much unsupported bs is now deemed acceptable.
    Certainly that is a concern. But I note without comment which people are OK with, indeed asking for, investigation into the accuracy of the claims. Vs which people are insisting on not investigating. Extremely strange behavior is those making the allegations are the ones lying.

  1077. We may have much worse things going on. Apparently triggered by the NYT being unable to report sarcasm as sarcastic, it looks like Rosenstein may be out!

  1078. We may have much worse things going on. Apparently triggered by the NYT being unable to report sarcasm as sarcastic, it looks like Rosenstein may be out!

  1079. Over here, in the real world, one of two things happens. Kavanaugh is outed as a lifetime reprobate serial rapist or Avenneti and his cohorts are outed for getting women to stretch the truth for political purposes.
    The first is unlikely but the damage is already done, the second would create a backlash the fury of which is barely imaginable.
    Even as a staunch conservative, I’m hoping for the first alternative. The damage to our ability to maintain democratic institutions of the second would be almost unsurvivable from the second.
    But anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.

  1080. Over here, in the real world, one of two things happens. Kavanaugh is outed as a lifetime reprobate serial rapist or Avenneti and his cohorts are outed for getting women to stretch the truth for political purposes.
    The first is unlikely but the damage is already done, the second would create a backlash the fury of which is barely imaginable.
    Even as a staunch conservative, I’m hoping for the first alternative. The damage to our ability to maintain democratic institutions of the second would be almost unsurvivable from the second.
    But anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.

  1081. And I did read the article, there is nothing that can proven or disprodisproved in any of the claims. Almost as if they were carefully constructed that way. Oddly, within hours one of the womens bf at the time came out and said there’s no way it could have happened and me not know about it, and I didnt.

  1082. And I did read the article, there is nothing that can proven or disprodisproved in any of the claims. Almost as if they were carefully constructed that way. Oddly, within hours one of the womens bf at the time came out and said there’s no way it could have happened and me not know about it, and I didnt.

  1083. anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.
    I suppose that included the Pulitzer committee, who awarded a Pulitzer to the New Yorker for his stuff ?
    And Jane Mayer is an exceptional journalist.
    Who do you think you are kidding, Marty ?

  1084. anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.
    I suppose that included the Pulitzer committee, who awarded a Pulitzer to the New Yorker for his stuff ?
    And Jane Mayer is an exceptional journalist.
    Who do you think you are kidding, Marty ?

  1085. What, if anything, do we know about Solicitor General Noel Francisco (who is next in line after Rosenstein, his deputy having already gone) ?

  1086. What, if anything, do we know about Solicitor General Noel Francisco (who is next in line after Rosenstein, his deputy having already gone) ?

  1087. But anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.
    Avenetti strikes me as an opportunist, but that’s just my opinion based on limited information. I have no opinion either way on whether Farrow is an opportunist. The only remotely relevant thing I know is that he broke the Weinstein story, which turned out to be at least generally true.
    What any of that has to do with the truth of Ford’s allegations, I have no idea. Perhaps it bears on the credibility on this latest allegation. In any case, opportunists are just as capable (after the fact) of riding a true scandal as they are of riding a fabricated one.

  1088. But anyone who believes Ronan and Avenetti are anything but opportunists are kidding themselves.
    Avenetti strikes me as an opportunist, but that’s just my opinion based on limited information. I have no opinion either way on whether Farrow is an opportunist. The only remotely relevant thing I know is that he broke the Weinstein story, which turned out to be at least generally true.
    What any of that has to do with the truth of Ford’s allegations, I have no idea. Perhaps it bears on the credibility on this latest allegation. In any case, opportunists are just as capable (after the fact) of riding a true scandal as they are of riding a fabricated one.

  1095. Will Trump fire Rosenstein based on the same kind of unsupported (and denied) allegations that he decries with respect to Kavanaugh…?

  1096. Will Trump fire Rosenstein based on the same kind of unsupported (and denied) allegations that he decries with respect to Kavanaugh…?

  1097. …the second would create a backlash the fury of which is barely imaginable.
    I remember the backlash when Trump’s birtherism was decisively proved to be a pack of lies. It made his party unelectable for a generation. Er, if you’re a housefly, but let’s not ask too much of his supporters.

  1098. …the second would create a backlash the fury of which is barely imaginable.
    I remember the backlash when Trump’s birtherism was decisively proved to be a pack of lies. It made his party unelectable for a generation. Er, if you’re a housefly, but let’s not ask too much of his supporters.

  1099. Over here, in the real world
    your real world and mine, they are not the same.
    in any case, your deep concern over the negative effects of government by rat-f*cking are duly noted.
    what strikes me in all of this is the irony of a guy who made his political bones by, among other things, relentlessly digging into and publicizing other people’s private sexual behavior, being undone by allegations about his own.
    karma is a thing.
    you can’t piss on the institutions, protocols, and habitual practices that help people iron out their differences, and then object when some of that same piss rains on your own head.
    you can’t deliberately, for years, break stuff, and then complain when it’s broken.

  1100. Over here, in the real world
    your real world and mine, they are not the same.
    in any case, your deep concern over the negative effects of government by rat-f*cking are duly noted.
    what strikes me in all of this is the irony of a guy who made his political bones by, among other things, relentlessly digging into and publicizing other people’s private sexual behavior, being undone by allegations about his own.
    karma is a thing.
    you can’t piss on the institutions, protocols, and habitual practices that help people iron out their differences, and then object when some of that same piss rains on your own head.
    you can’t deliberately, for years, break stuff, and then complain when it’s broken.

  1101. “Even as a staunch conservative ….”
    The staunchness of one’s conservatism among conservatives is judged only by the staunchest of conservatives these a days, and I think you’d fail that test in their eyes, which their single non-myopic one can spot a RINO and insufficient conservative quisling staunchicity at a distance of some light years.
    Stauncher conservatives than you, now in the apostate stocks dodging republican cabbages, would vote for George McGovern in 2020 if he ran, and he might.
    In some ways, perhaps in foreign policy, Hillary Clinton might be more conservative than you are.
    This must make me a staunch left of center moderate when it really comes down to it, but since the Overton Window itself has been defenestrated, I’m now a staunch a little to the left of whoopy Bolshevik Maoist.

  1102. “Even as a staunch conservative ….”
    The staunchness of one’s conservatism among conservatives is judged only by the staunchest of conservatives these a days, and I think you’d fail that test in their eyes, which their single non-myopic one can spot a RINO and insufficient conservative quisling staunchicity at a distance of some light years.
    Stauncher conservatives than you, now in the apostate stocks dodging republican cabbages, would vote for George McGovern in 2020 if he ran, and he might.
    In some ways, perhaps in foreign policy, Hillary Clinton might be more conservative than you are.
    This must make me a staunch left of center moderate when it really comes down to it, but since the Overton Window itself has been defenestrated, I’m now a staunch a little to the left of whoopy Bolshevik Maoist.

  1103. “what strikes me in all of this is the irony of a guy who made his political bones by, among other things, relentlessly digging into and publicizing other people’s private sexual behavior, being undone by allegations about his own.”
    This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated. He was investigating the, at least, inappropriate acts of a sitting President, not what the President did 35 years ago as a 17 year old. This equivalence is ridiculous and accentuates the lack of good faith in any of these arguments.

  1104. “what strikes me in all of this is the irony of a guy who made his political bones by, among other things, relentlessly digging into and publicizing other people’s private sexual behavior, being undone by allegations about his own.”
    This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated. He was investigating the, at least, inappropriate acts of a sitting President, not what the President did 35 years ago as a 17 year old. This equivalence is ridiculous and accentuates the lack of good faith in any of these arguments.

  1105. “I remember the backlash when Trump’s birtherism”
    Very few people actually believed that crap, and the ones that really did don’t believe it was proved to be a pack of lies.

  1106. “I remember the backlash when Trump’s birtherism”
    Very few people actually believed that crap, and the ones that really did don’t believe it was proved to be a pack of lies.

  1107. This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated. He was investigating the, at least, inappropriate acts of a sitting President, not what the President did 35 years ago as a 17 year old.
    Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults. Not acts which are crimes under Maryland law . . . and for which, be it noted, there is no statute of limitations.
    Now it may well be that there isn’t sufficient proof for a criminal prosecution. But then, we aren’t in the midst of a trial (in which, be it noted, the defense couldn’t refuse to have a law enforcement investigation of the charges), but a job interview. I don’t know about anyone else’s experience, but in mine the standard of “proof” required to have the employer decide not to hire you is pretty darn low. Lower even than the preponderance of the evidence standard for civil trials.

  1108. This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated. He was investigating the, at least, inappropriate acts of a sitting President, not what the President did 35 years ago as a 17 year old.
    Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults. Not acts which are crimes under Maryland law . . . and for which, be it noted, there is no statute of limitations.
    Now it may well be that there isn’t sufficient proof for a criminal prosecution. But then, we aren’t in the midst of a trial (in which, be it noted, the defense couldn’t refuse to have a law enforcement investigation of the charges), but a job interview. I don’t know about anyone else’s experience, but in mine the standard of “proof” required to have the employer decide not to hire you is pretty darn low. Lower even than the preponderance of the evidence standard for civil trials.

  1109. This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated.
    Consensual affair between two adults. Inappropriate, because one party worked for the other.
    Drunken teenage assault on a 15 year old, complete with wing man to assist.
    The equivalence is ridiculous.
    My argument throughout about Kavanaugh is that he has no business on the court, because:
    * Starr Report
    * Vince Foster
    * Florida 2000
    I merely find the fact that what might deny him the SCOTUS seat is sexual misbehavior – criminal behavior if true – to be… ironic. In the full Greek tragedy “Nemesis is gonna bite you on the @ss” sense.
    Hoist by his own petard, as it were.
    You’re entitled to your own reading of the situation.
    the ones that really did don’t believe it was proved to be a pack of lies.
    More fools, them.

  1110. This is most abhorrent claim that keeps being repeated.
    Consensual affair between two adults. Inappropriate, because one party worked for the other.
    Drunken teenage assault on a 15 year old, complete with wing man to assist.
    The equivalence is ridiculous.
    My argument throughout about Kavanaugh is that he has no business on the court, because:
    * Starr Report
    * Vince Foster
    * Florida 2000
    I merely find the fact that what might deny him the SCOTUS seat is sexual misbehavior – criminal behavior if true – to be… ironic. In the full Greek tragedy “Nemesis is gonna bite you on the @ss” sense.
    Hoist by his own petard, as it were.
    You’re entitled to your own reading of the situation.
    the ones that really did don’t believe it was proved to be a pack of lies.
    More fools, them.

  1111. “Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults. Not acts which are crimes under Maryland law . . . and for which, be it noted, there is no statute of limitations.”
    I’m not a fan of whitewashing Clinton. He was being investigated for lying during a lawsuit for sexual harassment. Which Jones only lost because the judge said she couldn’t prove damages (a relatively ridiculous interpretation at summary judgment which Clinton settled to avoid an appeal on).
    If Democrats want to say that they’ve evolved on sexual harassment/rape we should admit that Bill Clinton fits the profile to a T, and that Paula Jones made a credible case of sexual harassment, and Juanita Broadrrick made a credible case of rape.
    At some point we probably need to figure out what kind of evidence counts and what doesn’t, and what kind of penalties last for how long. But treating similar cases differently based on which political side they are on isn’t a good start. We can’t change the past, but we can be honest about it. Bill Clinton wouldn’t survive the metoo era IF we apply the idea symmetrically to people we do and do not otherwise politically support. (I’m not convinced that will actually happen, we will see in a case where Al Franken like behavior takes place with a senator who has a Republican governor replacing him).

  1112. “Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults. Not acts which are crimes under Maryland law . . . and for which, be it noted, there is no statute of limitations.”
    I’m not a fan of whitewashing Clinton. He was being investigated for lying during a lawsuit for sexual harassment. Which Jones only lost because the judge said she couldn’t prove damages (a relatively ridiculous interpretation at summary judgment which Clinton settled to avoid an appeal on).
    If Democrats want to say that they’ve evolved on sexual harassment/rape we should admit that Bill Clinton fits the profile to a T, and that Paula Jones made a credible case of sexual harassment, and Juanita Broadrrick made a credible case of rape.
    At some point we probably need to figure out what kind of evidence counts and what doesn’t, and what kind of penalties last for how long. But treating similar cases differently based on which political side they are on isn’t a good start. We can’t change the past, but we can be honest about it. Bill Clinton wouldn’t survive the metoo era IF we apply the idea symmetrically to people we do and do not otherwise politically support. (I’m not convinced that will actually happen, we will see in a case where Al Franken like behavior takes place with a senator who has a Republican governor replacing him).

  1115. The claim is “abhorrent” because of an “equivalence” that is “ridiculous.” Or it’s ridiculous to assume that the claim rests at all on an equivalence, making the characterization that it is abhorrent ridiculous as well. Forget that the claim has virtue of being demonstrably true.

  1116. The claim is “abhorrent” because of an “equivalence” that is “ridiculous.” Or it’s ridiculous to assume that the claim rests at all on an equivalence, making the characterization that it is abhorrent ridiculous as well. Forget that the claim has virtue of being demonstrably true.

  1119. I’m not a fan of whitewashing Clinton.
    Who’s whitewashing Clinton?
    He used his office to get laid. He arguably preyed on women. All of that is reprehensible.
    He deserved to have his behavior investigated, and he deserved to be accountable to the law for his actions.
    And, for his actions, he was investigated, for years, was censured, impeached, and disbarred.
    Next topic please.

  1120. I’m not a fan of whitewashing Clinton.
    Who’s whitewashing Clinton?
    He used his office to get laid. He arguably preyed on women. All of that is reprehensible.
    He deserved to have his behavior investigated, and he deserved to be accountable to the law for his actions.
    And, for his actions, he was investigated, for years, was censured, impeached, and disbarred.
    Next topic please.

  1123. Marty: Very few people actually believed that crap …
    Even fewer Republican pols or pundits called it crap. Because they feared their moron “base”, perhaps.
    I’m too busy to search through the ObWi archives to find out whether Marty ever explicitly called birtherism crap back during the Obama years, or whether he ever denounced the Republican demands for Obama’s birth certificate. I’d hate to think Marty never did either of those things at the time.
    –TP

  1124. Marty: Very few people actually believed that crap …
    Even fewer Republican pols or pundits called it crap. Because they feared their moron “base”, perhaps.
    I’m too busy to search through the ObWi archives to find out whether Marty ever explicitly called birtherism crap back during the Obama years, or whether he ever denounced the Republican demands for Obama’s birth certificate. I’d hate to think Marty never did either of those things at the time.
    –TP

  1125. I was responding to “Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults.” Which definitely whitewashes the sexual harassment.

  1126. I was responding to “Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults.” Which definitely whitewashes the sexual harassment.

  1127. I was responding to “Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults.”
    Noted.
    The salacious details that Kavanaugh insisted Clinton speak about under oath, and which were described in detail in the Starr Report, and which Marty believes – likely correctly – were included to provoke a reaction making impeachment more likely, were between Clinton and Lewinsky.
    Consenting adults.
    What goes around, comes around. It’s a pretty basic concept.
    You don’t get to break stuff and then complain when it’s broken.

  1128. I was responding to “Kavanaugh was investigating acts between consenting adults.”
    Noted.
    The salacious details that Kavanaugh insisted Clinton speak about under oath, and which were described in detail in the Starr Report, and which Marty believes – likely correctly – were included to provoke a reaction making impeachment more likely, were between Clinton and Lewinsky.
    Consenting adults.
    What goes around, comes around. It’s a pretty basic concept.
    You don’t get to break stuff and then complain when it’s broken.

  1129. Another fun bit of coincidence was that Bobby Kennedy worked for Joe McCarthy for seven months during the commie witch hunt and John Kennedy was the only Democrat who voted against McCarthy’s later censure, though both later agreed the man far overstepped American values.
    But the most coincidental part is that only when the brothers were labeled pinko liberals and possibly commies themselves by the far right wing movement, just then nascently insinuating itself into mainstream republican politics, were they both shot in the head.
    There is only one kind of political extremism, even fake and insinuated, that gets you murdered in America and it ain’t being a goddamned conservative.

  1130. Another fun bit of coincidence was that Bobby Kennedy worked for Joe McCarthy for seven months during the commie witch hunt and John Kennedy was the only Democrat who voted against McCarthy’s later censure, though both later agreed the man far overstepped American values.
    But the most coincidental part is that only when the brothers were labeled pinko liberals and possibly commies themselves by the far right wing movement, just then nascently insinuating itself into mainstream republican politics, were they both shot in the head.
    There is only one kind of political extremism, even fake and insinuated, that gets you murdered in America and it ain’t being a goddamned conservative.

  1131. Sebastian, I certainly didn’t intend to whitewash sexual harassment. Just to point out that, while Clinton’s behavior was IMO reprehensible, it was not (so far as I know) illegal. Whereas the behavior alleged for Kavanaugh definitely was, and is, illegal. And thus they are by no means comparable.

  1132. Sebastian, I certainly didn’t intend to whitewash sexual harassment. Just to point out that, while Clinton’s behavior was IMO reprehensible, it was not (so far as I know) illegal. Whereas the behavior alleged for Kavanaugh definitely was, and is, illegal. And thus they are by no means comparable.

  1135. Ok. Well in any case, I agree that there is a certain irony in Kavanaugh’s position. For me it is more a “the investigator seems too interested” situation like homophobes who turn out gay.

  1136. Ok. Well in any case, I agree that there is a certain irony in Kavanaugh’s position. For me it is more a “the investigator seems too interested” situation like homophobes who turn out gay.

  1139. Clinton is not my favorite guy, mostly because he took what were enormous gifts, and squandered them on pleasing himself.
    Much more could have been accomplished, if he had had a basic sense of self-discipline and restraint. The kind we expect of any adult.
    We all have feet of clay, but when the stakes are high, the damage is greater.

  1140. Clinton is not my favorite guy, mostly because he took what were enormous gifts, and squandered them on pleasing himself.
    Much more could have been accomplished, if he had had a basic sense of self-discipline and restraint. The kind we expect of any adult.
    We all have feet of clay, but when the stakes are high, the damage is greater.

  1141. but in mine the standard of “proof” required to have the employer decide not to hire you is pretty darn low…
    And it’s not as though firing a justice is quite as easy as it is for most jobs in the US….

  1142. but in mine the standard of “proof” required to have the employer decide not to hire you is pretty darn low…
    And it’s not as though firing a justice is quite as easy as it is for most jobs in the US….

  1145. it would take an impeachment to get K out of his current job. and that ain’t happening.
    On the other hand, I believe he could be disbarred for lying under oath during his confirmation hearings. Or possibly for other reasons — IANAL. Which might have some interesting implications for any cases on which he sat.

  1146. it would take an impeachment to get K out of his current job. and that ain’t happening.
    On the other hand, I believe he could be disbarred for lying under oath during his confirmation hearings. Or possibly for other reasons — IANAL. Which might have some interesting implications for any cases on which he sat.

  1149. Bill Clinton wouldn’t survive the metoo era IF we apply the idea symmetrically to people we do and do not otherwise politically support.
    Ya’ know, that’s most likely true. He wouldn’t. So why should Kavanaugh?

  1150. Bill Clinton wouldn’t survive the metoo era IF we apply the idea symmetrically to people we do and do not otherwise politically support.
    Ya’ know, that’s most likely true. He wouldn’t. So why should Kavanaugh?

  1155. Since we’re playing time machine, I’d guess that Clinton would have dropped out of the presidential race had a tape of him bragging about grabbing women by the p**sy surfaced, even back then.

  1156. Since we’re playing time machine, I’d guess that Clinton would have dropped out of the presidential race had a tape of him bragging about grabbing women by the p**sy surfaced, even back then.

  1157. There is only one kind of political extremism, even fake and insinuated, that gets you murdered in America and it ain’t being a goddamned conservative.
    Could be our assassins are simply inept…cf Scalise, Wallace.
    Here’s another interesting little nugget from our past.
    Good times.

  1158. There is only one kind of political extremism, even fake and insinuated, that gets you murdered in America and it ain’t being a goddamned conservative.
    Could be our assassins are simply inept…cf Scalise, Wallace.
    Here’s another interesting little nugget from our past.
    Good times.

  1159. “My argument throughout about Kavanaugh is that he has no business on the court, because:
    * Starr Report
    * Vince Foster
    * Florida 2000
    Yes standard list one more time of an attorney doing what he was hired to do. Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.
    I don’t like my guys being investigated so that guy that did it is bad, and I really don’t like that he worked hard to get the side he was hired by to win in 2000.

  1160. “My argument throughout about Kavanaugh is that he has no business on the court, because:
    * Starr Report
    * Vince Foster
    * Florida 2000
    Yes standard list one more time of an attorney doing what he was hired to do. Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.
    I don’t like my guys being investigated so that guy that did it is bad, and I really don’t like that he worked hard to get the side he was hired by to win in 2000.

  1163. “Juanita Broadrrick made a credible case of rape.”
    She didn’t call it rape until her check cleared.

  1164. “Juanita Broadrrick made a credible case of rape.”
    She didn’t call it rape until her check cleared.

  1165. Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.
    What is disqualifying, and for what, and in what sense? I don’t think russell is making a legal argument so much as expressing his opinion about a standard that would exclude such a blatantly partisan nominee. I would guess that russell would prefer that someone with Kavanaugh’s resume not be nominated in the first place for the SCOTUS, so we wouldn’t have to be having this discussion at all.
    Given the previous exposition on this point, it shouldn’t need to be explained yet again.

  1166. Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.
    What is disqualifying, and for what, and in what sense? I don’t think russell is making a legal argument so much as expressing his opinion about a standard that would exclude such a blatantly partisan nominee. I would guess that russell would prefer that someone with Kavanaugh’s resume not be nominated in the first place for the SCOTUS, so we wouldn’t have to be having this discussion at all.
    Given the previous exposition on this point, it shouldn’t need to be explained yet again.

  1167. Very few people actually believed that crap
    Ah, I see. So your issue with the allegations against Kavanaugh is that they might be true.

  1168. Very few people actually believed that crap
    Ah, I see. So your issue with the allegations against Kavanaugh is that they might be true.

  1169. I don’t think russell is making a legal argument so much as expressing his opinion about a standard that would exclude such a blatantly partisan nominee.
    Thank you.
    Imagine, if you will, SCOTUS Associate Justice Rahm Emanuel.
    I would oppose him. Too partisan.
    To my eye, the person on this board with the most partisan, “as long as my side wins I’m OK with it” attitude is Marty.
    Of course, that’s because I’m just a hard-core partisan myself.

  1170. I don’t think russell is making a legal argument so much as expressing his opinion about a standard that would exclude such a blatantly partisan nominee.
    Thank you.
    Imagine, if you will, SCOTUS Associate Justice Rahm Emanuel.
    I would oppose him. Too partisan.
    To my eye, the person on this board with the most partisan, “as long as my side wins I’m OK with it” attitude is Marty.
    Of course, that’s because I’m just a hard-core partisan myself.

  1171. “Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.
    We should look into that:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaughs-ken-starr-work-he-violated-justice-department-policies.html
    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22638554/brett-kavanaugh-vince-foster-investigation/
    That and the unethical treatment of cantaloupes plus the Brooks Brothers Riot, which Kavanaugh surely had a hand in encouraging and organizing.
    And, by the way, when those dozen or so rioters trampled people in 2000 in Broward County over the hanging chads, they should have been shot dead by riot police like so many inner city blacks would have been had they rioted in the building on behalf of Al Gore.
    The law is Kavanaugh’s day job. By night, he’s nothing more than a hack political arsonist.

  1172. “Nothing on that list is even unethical much less disqualifying.
    We should look into that:
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaughs-ken-starr-work-he-violated-justice-department-policies.html
    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22638554/brett-kavanaugh-vince-foster-investigation/
    That and the unethical treatment of cantaloupes plus the Brooks Brothers Riot, which Kavanaugh surely had a hand in encouraging and organizing.
    And, by the way, when those dozen or so rioters trampled people in 2000 in Broward County over the hanging chads, they should have been shot dead by riot police like so many inner city blacks would have been had they rioted in the building on behalf of Al Gore.
    The law is Kavanaugh’s day job. By night, he’s nothing more than a hack political arsonist.

  1173. I’m for Rod Rosenstein, even though he’s doing what he was hired to do AND, on his own time, attended the Kavanaugh hearings in person these last few weeks to support the nominee.
    He’s a Republican and a conservative member of the Federalist Society.
    But I’ll hold my nose. mp won’t.
    And yes, Mueller is still a republican as much as that fact is unbelievable.

  1174. I’m for Rod Rosenstein, even though he’s doing what he was hired to do AND, on his own time, attended the Kavanaugh hearings in person these last few weeks to support the nominee.
    He’s a Republican and a conservative member of the Federalist Society.
    But I’ll hold my nose. mp won’t.
    And yes, Mueller is still a republican as much as that fact is unbelievable.

  1177. Yes standard list one more time of an attorney doing what he was hired to do.
    We need a public policy such that attorneys pursuing frivolous claims are punished severely.
    Just sayin’

  1178. Yes standard list one more time of an attorney doing what he was hired to do.
    We need a public policy such that attorneys pursuing frivolous claims are punished severely.
    Just sayin’

  1181. What’s your plan when Mueller is fired?

    And in cities across the country, rallies would be hastily scheduled for 5 p.m., if Mueller is fired before 2 p.m. on any given day. If he’s fired in the late afternoon or evening, the protests would be set for noon the following day.

    I’m on the alert list for that. Everyone should be.
    Somewhere between 3 and 5 million people hit the streets the day after Trump’s inauguration. Over half a million just in DC.
    Go ahead and pull the plug on Mueller.
    So no. Thanks.
    Yeah, not for me, either.

  1182. What’s your plan when Mueller is fired?

    And in cities across the country, rallies would be hastily scheduled for 5 p.m., if Mueller is fired before 2 p.m. on any given day. If he’s fired in the late afternoon or evening, the protests would be set for noon the following day.

    I’m on the alert list for that. Everyone should be.
    Somewhere between 3 and 5 million people hit the streets the day after Trump’s inauguration. Over half a million just in DC.
    Go ahead and pull the plug on Mueller.
    So no. Thanks.
    Yeah, not for me, either.

  1183. “I see a David Souter in reverse.”
    What of the goats and the children in the reverse of Erick Erickson’s judgement of Souter.

  1184. “I see a David Souter in reverse.”
    What of the goats and the children in the reverse of Erick Erickson’s judgement of Souter.

  1193. What is disqualifying? As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues
    from 1995–1996, when her mentor Judge Mikva served as White House Counsel. Kagan worked on controversial issues that plagued the Clinton White House such as the Whitewater controversy, White House travel office controversy, and Clinton v. Jones. [34] 

  1194. What is disqualifying? As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues
    from 1995–1996, when her mentor Judge Mikva served as White House Counsel. Kagan worked on controversial issues that plagued the Clinton White House such as the Whitewater controversy, White House travel office controversy, and Clinton v. Jones. [34] 

  1195. As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues
    If memory serves, pretty much all of the documents concerning her service in the White House were made available to the Senate. So they could judge based on facts just what she had said and done in that position. But somehow the same information on Kavanaugh has been deemed off limits.

  1196. As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues
    If memory serves, pretty much all of the documents concerning her service in the White House were made available to the Senate. So they could judge based on facts just what she had said and done in that position. But somehow the same information on Kavanaugh has been deemed off limits.

  1201. Morning all, I see the gravitational pull of this is far too much to overcome and we circle the bowl (a mixed metaphor, I suppose) Maybe not all, some are not commenting, and I imagine they are watching this on long range sensors.
    Unfortunately, boys will be boys, by which I mean that it seems like it is all men commenting on this rather than giving Kavanaugh and his BFF Judge a pat on the head and sending them on their way.
    Anyway, while there are plenty of tone-deaf comments from many of the same people who sat in judgement on Anita Hill, for me, the cluelessness of men is better described by this news item, probably because it doesn’t have to contemplate sexual violence.
    https://www.france24.com/en/20180923-women-foreign-ministers-summit-canada-freeland-wallstrom
    So Freeland (who earlier, when arriving at the airport in DC for NAFTA talks, wore a t-shirt that said on the back “Keep Calm and Negotiate NAFTA” and the front: “Mama ≠ Chopped Liver”) organized a meeting of women foreign minsters.
    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/21/chrystia-freeland-talks-international-security-gender-based-violence-in-montreal.html
    The summit brings together at least half of the 30 women who hold foreign affairs portfolios globally, including ministers from Bulgaria, Kenya, Norway, South Africa and Sweden.
    Some 15 special guests, including Japan’s foreign minister, who is male, were also expected to attend some of the discussions.
    The western press hasn’t noted this, but the Chinese press picked it up
    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2165371/when-canada-hosted-first-ever-meeting-women-foreign

  1202. Morning all, I see the gravitational pull of this is far too much to overcome and we circle the bowl (a mixed metaphor, I suppose) Maybe not all, some are not commenting, and I imagine they are watching this on long range sensors.
    Unfortunately, boys will be boys, by which I mean that it seems like it is all men commenting on this rather than giving Kavanaugh and his BFF Judge a pat on the head and sending them on their way.
    Anyway, while there are plenty of tone-deaf comments from many of the same people who sat in judgement on Anita Hill, for me, the cluelessness of men is better described by this news item, probably because it doesn’t have to contemplate sexual violence.
    https://www.france24.com/en/20180923-women-foreign-ministers-summit-canada-freeland-wallstrom
    So Freeland (who earlier, when arriving at the airport in DC for NAFTA talks, wore a t-shirt that said on the back “Keep Calm and Negotiate NAFTA” and the front: “Mama ≠ Chopped Liver”) organized a meeting of women foreign minsters.
    https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/09/21/chrystia-freeland-talks-international-security-gender-based-violence-in-montreal.html
    The summit brings together at least half of the 30 women who hold foreign affairs portfolios globally, including ministers from Bulgaria, Kenya, Norway, South Africa and Sweden.
    Some 15 special guests, including Japan’s foreign minister, who is male, were also expected to attend some of the discussions.
    The western press hasn’t noted this, but the Chinese press picked it up
    https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2165371/when-canada-hosted-first-ever-meeting-women-foreign

  1205. What is disqualifying? As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues
    My take, Marty, is this:
    (a.) His record of “pull it out of your ass” judicial reasoning to get to a conservative decision is enough for me. Some of his decisions are simply egregious travesties of legal reasoning. So even if I were to go along with an otherwise conservative judge, Kavanaugh has shown he does not exhibit anything approaching a judicial temperament. Now you may argue there are some conservatives out there who have such a
    temperament. I might disagree that by definition there is no such thing, but I believe you could make a reasonable case. K is not one of those. Read his decisions.
    (b.) He is a conservative. I know. I know. Humor me. When it comes down to brass tacks, that is why you most likely were opposed to Kagan and Sotomayor. So. Let us be honest about these things.
    (c.) He comes from the same Harvard-Yale elite background all too common of SC Justices. Same applies to Dems with these attributes, but whatever.
    (d.) He has a background as an uprincipled political hack. Anybody who thought it would be great to push conspiracy theories about Vince Foster should be humiliated at all times when amongst the public. This would be a bit embarrassing for a SC jurist.
    (e.) He is almost the comic manifestation of a lickspittle. The GOP should be ashamed. As Tony has pointed out repeatedly, the first words out of this guys mouth were a transparent lie.

  1206. What is disqualifying? As Assistant Whit House council Justice Kagan worked on the other side of some of those same issues
    My take, Marty, is this:
    (a.) His record of “pull it out of your ass” judicial reasoning to get to a conservative decision is enough for me. Some of his decisions are simply egregious travesties of legal reasoning. So even if I were to go along with an otherwise conservative judge, Kavanaugh has shown he does not exhibit anything approaching a judicial temperament. Now you may argue there are some conservatives out there who have such a
    temperament. I might disagree that by definition there is no such thing, but I believe you could make a reasonable case. K is not one of those. Read his decisions.
    (b.) He is a conservative. I know. I know. Humor me. When it comes down to brass tacks, that is why you most likely were opposed to Kagan and Sotomayor. So. Let us be honest about these things.
    (c.) He comes from the same Harvard-Yale elite background all too common of SC Justices. Same applies to Dems with these attributes, but whatever.
    (d.) He has a background as an uprincipled political hack. Anybody who thought it would be great to push conspiracy theories about Vince Foster should be humiliated at all times when amongst the public. This would be a bit embarrassing for a SC jurist.
    (e.) He is almost the comic manifestation of a lickspittle. The GOP should be ashamed. As Tony has pointed out repeatedly, the first words out of this guys mouth were a transparent lie.

  1209. E) Except it wasnt a lie, by any definition
    D) I’ll just ignore this one, he’s an accomplished jurist, Kagan almost never practiced law. He has lots of accomplished legal minds supporting his appoiNJtment. Sorry you disagree.
    C) Harvard Yale yeah
    B) let’s be, I was against both, more Kagan
    A) At least you object for a reason I can accept as valid, if wrong.

  1210. E) Except it wasnt a lie, by any definition
    D) I’ll just ignore this one, he’s an accomplished jurist, Kagan almost never practiced law. He has lots of accomplished legal minds supporting his appoiNJtment. Sorry you disagree.
    C) Harvard Yale yeah
    B) let’s be, I was against both, more Kagan
    A) At least you object for a reason I can accept as valid, if wrong.

  1213. lj: Unfortunately, boys will be boys, by which I mean that it seems like it is all men commenting on this
    For me, a more pointless, mind-numbing, life-wasting exercise than going round and round with Marty for days on a topic where he’s not changing his mind and neither is anyone else I cannot imagine. Maybe there are some lurkers who are learning something from it, and/or enjoying the links. But even if not, we all get our kicks in different ways.
    If you’re all enjoying yourselves, then why not? (I am not being snarky.)
    As for me, moveon.org has my email. Collins knows what I think of her and of Kavanaugh. Other than that, I got work to do.

  1214. lj: Unfortunately, boys will be boys, by which I mean that it seems like it is all men commenting on this
    For me, a more pointless, mind-numbing, life-wasting exercise than going round and round with Marty for days on a topic where he’s not changing his mind and neither is anyone else I cannot imagine. Maybe there are some lurkers who are learning something from it, and/or enjoying the links. But even if not, we all get our kicks in different ways.
    If you’re all enjoying yourselves, then why not? (I am not being snarky.)
    As for me, moveon.org has my email. Collins knows what I think of her and of Kavanaugh. Other than that, I got work to do.

  1215. russell, she was never a judge, spent a few years as a policy wonk in Washington, then became an academic until appointed to be solicitor general. More or less. Never appeared in court until 9 months before she was nominated to the Supreme Court.

  1216. russell, she was never a judge, spent a few years as a policy wonk in Washington, then became an academic until appointed to be solicitor general. More or less. Never appeared in court until 9 months before she was nominated to the Supreme Court.

  1217. To add to my 8:44: Besides what feels to me these days like the general futility of going endlessly around on the same hamster wheel, the actual topic being discussed is infuriating on so many levels that, like I think I said a few days ago, I really have no more words.

  1218. To add to my 8:44: Besides what feels to me these days like the general futility of going endlessly around on the same hamster wheel, the actual topic being discussed is infuriating on so many levels that, like I think I said a few days ago, I really have no more words.

  1219. Kagan almost never practiced law.
    And neither did Kavanaugh prior to his ascension via GWB to the Federal Court of Appeals, the court just below the SC.
    His whole public life prior to that was one of a hired political gunslinger.
    Now being a legal gunslinger is not evil incarnate, but it depends on which side you are on. Kavanaugh is on the wrong side, and his decisions mark him as one of, perhaps the most, conservative federal judge out there.
    Sitting on the SC would only accelerate the slide into the abyss.

  1220. Kagan almost never practiced law.
    And neither did Kavanaugh prior to his ascension via GWB to the Federal Court of Appeals, the court just below the SC.
    His whole public life prior to that was one of a hired political gunslinger.
    Now being a legal gunslinger is not evil incarnate, but it depends on which side you are on. Kavanaugh is on the wrong side, and his decisions mark him as one of, perhaps the most, conservative federal judge out there.
    Sitting on the SC would only accelerate the slide into the abyss.

  1223. I went to Catholic school too. We wouldn’t have been allowed to put something like “100 kegs or bust” in our yearbook blurbs.
    I had a shred of respect left for the Jesuits, but it’s unraveling rapidly.

  1224. I went to Catholic school too. We wouldn’t have been allowed to put something like “100 kegs or bust” in our yearbook blurbs.
    I had a shred of respect left for the Jesuits, but it’s unraveling rapidly.

  1227. Although…I suppose I should be glad the Jesuits were so permissive. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had as many clues.

  1228. Although…I suppose I should be glad the Jesuits were so permissive. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had as many clues.

  1231. russell, she was never a judge
    “practice law” is not the same as “be a judge”.
    Whole lotta SCOTUS justices were never judges. You can look it up.
    Kavanaugh got a hearing. It hasn’t gone well. Sucks to be him. Sometimes you don’t get the brass ring.
    McConnell told Trump he would be a tough sell. McConnell was right.
    Better luck next time.

  1232. russell, she was never a judge
    “practice law” is not the same as “be a judge”.
    Whole lotta SCOTUS justices were never judges. You can look it up.
    Kavanaugh got a hearing. It hasn’t gone well. Sucks to be him. Sometimes you don’t get the brass ring.
    McConnell told Trump he would be a tough sell. McConnell was right.
    Better luck next time.

  1233. A family member who actually reads the Yale alumni magazine told me that sometime within the last two or three years there was an article that said that year was the first time there were more students in the entering class who were the first in their family to go to college than there were legacies.
    Maybe there’s hope.

  1234. A family member who actually reads the Yale alumni magazine told me that sometime within the last two or three years there was an article that said that year was the first time there were more students in the entering class who were the first in their family to go to college than there were legacies.
    Maybe there’s hope.

  1237. So I disputed every point you made, pretty even handedly, your reaction is to be dismissive.
    Thats when I know you had no good argument left.
    Round and round is what you folks do creating your echo chamber and pumping each other up like some jocks before a football game with the latest meme of the day from the left
    Close your eyes, cbggange a name here and there and I could be reading Whelan or Alex Jones.

  1238. So I disputed every point you made, pretty even handedly, your reaction is to be dismissive.
    Thats when I know you had no good argument left.
    Round and round is what you folks do creating your echo chamber and pumping each other up like some jocks before a football game with the latest meme of the day from the left
    Close your eyes, cbggange a name here and there and I could be reading Whelan or Alex Jones.

  1239. I had a dream…Merrick Garland got a hearing…then I woke up and remembered Mitch McConnell’s slow-moving coup.
    Where is Merrick Garland?

  1240. I had a dream…Merrick Garland got a hearing…then I woke up and remembered Mitch McConnell’s slow-moving coup.
    Where is Merrick Garland?

  1245. nothing exposes the fullness and depravity of the GOP’s corrupt bullshit on the whole rush-to-seat-Kavanaugh farce like these 14 letters:
    M E R R I C K G A R L A N D
    the GOP is a cult, top to bottom. there’s nothing there but service to and defense of the cult.

  1246. nothing exposes the fullness and depravity of the GOP’s corrupt bullshit on the whole rush-to-seat-Kavanaugh farce like these 14 letters:
    M E R R I C K G A R L A N D
    the GOP is a cult, top to bottom. there’s nothing there but service to and defense of the cult.

  1247. Unfortunately, it is a cult that has had the resources and malign cleverness to take over the machinery of power in this country.
    Merrick Garland was traded for some tax cuts, and several decades of gerrymandering, and the prolongation (who know for how long?) of the criminal cabal in the White House, and a long list of other abominations.

  1248. Unfortunately, it is a cult that has had the resources and malign cleverness to take over the machinery of power in this country.
    Merrick Garland was traded for some tax cuts, and several decades of gerrymandering, and the prolongation (who know for how long?) of the criminal cabal in the White House, and a long list of other abominations.

  1249. You can read with your eyes closed? Is there text crawling across the inside of your eyelids?
    If we only we had the audience, political cache, and the money-making franchises Jones and Whelan have grifted from the great conservative honeypot.
    May I in interest you in some proprietary dietary supplements I concocted after reading the labels at Vitamin Cottage? An exploding MAGA hat?
    Individually wrapped Fruit Loops?
    I guess I’m going to have to change my name again.

  1250. You can read with your eyes closed? Is there text crawling across the inside of your eyelids?
    If we only we had the audience, political cache, and the money-making franchises Jones and Whelan have grifted from the great conservative honeypot.
    May I in interest you in some proprietary dietary supplements I concocted after reading the labels at Vitamin Cottage? An exploding MAGA hat?
    Individually wrapped Fruit Loops?
    I guess I’m going to have to change my name again.

  1255. “How did Merrick Garland’s hearing go?”
    It fell on deaf crickets.
    It went a little like Lincoln’s last night at the theater.
    Conservafederates submitted rave reviews, except they resented the lack of live action gunfire at Merrick’s hearing, agreeing with Chekhov that if you are going to be staring at guns above the fireplace for the first seven years of the Obama Administration, then for plot consistency alone, it’s best to go out with bang in the final act.
    The musical score was pedestrian at best, featuring Mitch McConnell and his choir singing that same old tune.

  1256. “How did Merrick Garland’s hearing go?”
    It fell on deaf crickets.
    It went a little like Lincoln’s last night at the theater.
    Conservafederates submitted rave reviews, except they resented the lack of live action gunfire at Merrick’s hearing, agreeing with Chekhov that if you are going to be staring at guns above the fireplace for the first seven years of the Obama Administration, then for plot consistency alone, it’s best to go out with bang in the final act.
    The musical score was pedestrian at best, featuring Mitch McConnell and his choir singing that same old tune.

  1259. Ignore this:
    As a bookend to lj’s observation about all men all the time, let’s support mp purely as men:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/24/foreign-mischief-open-thread-lets-support-trump-purely-as-men/
    a mp staffer leaked that one thing the man hates about living in the White House is that he can’t watch porn, or maybe he said it out loud at one his appearances in front of the big behinds of his base.
    I guess he needs to keep checking out Stormy Daniels’ “frame of reference”.

  1260. Ignore this:
    As a bookend to lj’s observation about all men all the time, let’s support mp purely as men:
    https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/09/24/foreign-mischief-open-thread-lets-support-trump-purely-as-men/
    a mp staffer leaked that one thing the man hates about living in the White House is that he can’t watch porn, or maybe he said it out loud at one his appearances in front of the big behinds of his base.
    I guess he needs to keep checking out Stormy Daniels’ “frame of reference”.

  1263. Merrick Garland was 63 when he was nominated and had the opportunity to even be considered stolen from him. That’s ten years older than the current nominee, i.e. possibly ten years less tenure that Obama was trying to claim for his choice than Clickbait is trying to claim for his.
    Garland was also considered to be relatively moderate.
    From Wikipedia: In May 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, said he would help Obama if Garland was nominated, calling Garland “a consensus nominee” and predicting that Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support.
    WTF happened to Merrick Garland? I mean the other one, not the one commenting on this thread.

  1264. Merrick Garland was 63 when he was nominated and had the opportunity to even be considered stolen from him. That’s ten years older than the current nominee, i.e. possibly ten years less tenure that Obama was trying to claim for his choice than Clickbait is trying to claim for his.
    Garland was also considered to be relatively moderate.
    From Wikipedia: In May 2010, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, said he would help Obama if Garland was nominated, calling Garland “a consensus nominee” and predicting that Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support.
    WTF happened to Merrick Garland? I mean the other one, not the one commenting on this thread.

  1265. Lindsay Graham doesn’t know what happened to Merrick Garland.
    Graham said today that we are witnessing the “total collapse of the traditional confirmation process for a Supreme Court nominee” and demanded a vote “soon” after next Thursday’s hearings.
    But not for Merrick Garland, the traditional confirmation process having been collapsed and shat out the ass of the Republican Party about two years ago.
    Graham, a history buffer, also noted that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Gettysburg in 1863, a full two years after the previous total collapse of the American Union in his fucking state a full two years before.

  1266. Lindsay Graham doesn’t know what happened to Merrick Garland.
    Graham said today that we are witnessing the “total collapse of the traditional confirmation process for a Supreme Court nominee” and demanded a vote “soon” after next Thursday’s hearings.
    But not for Merrick Garland, the traditional confirmation process having been collapsed and shat out the ass of the Republican Party about two years ago.
    Graham, a history buffer, also noted that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Gettysburg in 1863, a full two years after the previous total collapse of the American Union in his fucking state a full two years before.

  1269. Graham said today that we are witnessing the “total collapse of the traditional confirmation process for a Supreme Court nominee” and demanded a vote “soon” after next Thursday’s hearings.
    Hey, but we’re the ones who are in our little made-up-reality/bubble.
    Too bad Merrick Garland’s hearing went so badly…oh, wait.

  1270. Graham said today that we are witnessing the “total collapse of the traditional confirmation process for a Supreme Court nominee” and demanded a vote “soon” after next Thursday’s hearings.
    Hey, but we’re the ones who are in our little made-up-reality/bubble.
    Too bad Merrick Garland’s hearing went so badly…oh, wait.

  1283. Oh, by the way, what about Merrick Garland?
    Yes, Marty, I want to see your evenhanded response decimating this question. Go ahead. Give it a try.

  1284. Oh, by the way, what about Merrick Garland?
    Yes, Marty, I want to see your evenhanded response decimating this question. Go ahead. Give it a try.

  1285. bobbyp’s link at 11:26 is both hilarious, and depressing beyond measure. cleek’s law elaborated and embroidered with gallows humor.

  1286. bobbyp’s link at 11:26 is both hilarious, and depressing beyond measure. cleek’s law elaborated and embroidered with gallows humor.

  1287. To repeat: And there’s also 1988, when Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a vote of 97-0. President Ronald Reagan, in his last term, nominated Kennedy in 1987.
    A confirmation in an election year. Imagine that. And may I just note the irony: it was Kennedy.

  1288. To repeat: And there’s also 1988, when Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed by a vote of 97-0. President Ronald Reagan, in his last term, nominated Kennedy in 1987.
    A confirmation in an election year. Imagine that. And may I just note the irony: it was Kennedy.

  1289. Yes, bobbyp, I think that link is a perfect example of minimizing what Clinton did (and totally ignoring Juanita Broaddrick’s account.)
    Paula Jones while she was an Arkansas state employee, was taken by state troopers to Bill Clinton’s hotel room while he was governor. There she says that she was propositioned by Clinton who exposed his genitals to her. She said that she was punished by her supervisors on Clinton’s direction which she claimed was in response to her rejection of his advances.
    Clinton was asked about Lewinsky and others to show that Clinton had a pattern of seeking out women for sex who were down the chain of command from him. we know NOW that Lewinsky sought after his attention. But at the deposition phase, that was not known. At the deposition phase, in order to investigate whether or not other women were coerced similar to how Jones was coerced involved pinning Clinton down on whether or not he had sex with people down the chain of command from him. He lied about Lewinsky. Later he had his staff (and by some reports Hillary Clinton was in charge of the group) spread rumors to the press that Lewinsky was crazy, and prone to making up lies. He did not suggest that he had a consensual relationship with her until the infamous dress came to light.
    Somewhat later we found out about Juanita Broaddrick (completely unmentioned in the article you cite). She told of being asked to Clinton’s hotel room in 1978 ‘to avoid reporters’. Soon after coming into the room he tried to kiss her.
    She resisted his advances, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.
    A friend found her soon after and saw that she was crying and that her lip was bruised. She told her friend that Clinton had forced himself on her.
    Two other friends said that she told them in the next few weeks that Clinton had forced himself on her, and all of them talked about her bruised lip. At least four other people were told soon after.
    Paula Jones’ lawyers tried to get her to talk about it, but she signed an affidavit saying nothing had happened. After she came forward she said that she was afraid of coming forward so tried to stay out of it all but was trying to correct the record when other rumors were swirling around her.
    Contra the Paul Campos, this is very much #metoo relevant. The type of accusations made by Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick are exactly the kind of charges made by other #metoo accusers, with exactly the same type of corroborating evidence available.
    Now, I’m perfectly ok saying that Kavanaugh shouldn’t skate if you find Ford’s account to be likely (which I do). I raise it for a little bit of humility about how tribalism plays out on these things.

  1290. Yes, bobbyp, I think that link is a perfect example of minimizing what Clinton did (and totally ignoring Juanita Broaddrick’s account.)
    Paula Jones while she was an Arkansas state employee, was taken by state troopers to Bill Clinton’s hotel room while he was governor. There she says that she was propositioned by Clinton who exposed his genitals to her. She said that she was punished by her supervisors on Clinton’s direction which she claimed was in response to her rejection of his advances.
    Clinton was asked about Lewinsky and others to show that Clinton had a pattern of seeking out women for sex who were down the chain of command from him. we know NOW that Lewinsky sought after his attention. But at the deposition phase, that was not known. At the deposition phase, in order to investigate whether or not other women were coerced similar to how Jones was coerced involved pinning Clinton down on whether or not he had sex with people down the chain of command from him. He lied about Lewinsky. Later he had his staff (and by some reports Hillary Clinton was in charge of the group) spread rumors to the press that Lewinsky was crazy, and prone to making up lies. He did not suggest that he had a consensual relationship with her until the infamous dress came to light.
    Somewhat later we found out about Juanita Broaddrick (completely unmentioned in the article you cite). She told of being asked to Clinton’s hotel room in 1978 ‘to avoid reporters’. Soon after coming into the room he tried to kiss her.
    She resisted his advances, but soon he pulled her back onto the bed and forcibly had sex with her. She said she did not scream because everything happened so quickly. Her upper lip was bruised and swollen after the encounter because, she said, he had grabbed onto it with his mouth.
    A friend found her soon after and saw that she was crying and that her lip was bruised. She told her friend that Clinton had forced himself on her.
    Two other friends said that she told them in the next few weeks that Clinton had forced himself on her, and all of them talked about her bruised lip. At least four other people were told soon after.
    Paula Jones’ lawyers tried to get her to talk about it, but she signed an affidavit saying nothing had happened. After she came forward she said that she was afraid of coming forward so tried to stay out of it all but was trying to correct the record when other rumors were swirling around her.
    Contra the Paul Campos, this is very much #metoo relevant. The type of accusations made by Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick are exactly the kind of charges made by other #metoo accusers, with exactly the same type of corroborating evidence available.
    Now, I’m perfectly ok saying that Kavanaugh shouldn’t skate if you find Ford’s account to be likely (which I do). I raise it for a little bit of humility about how tribalism plays out on these things.

  1291. Yeah, Seb, it’s all tribalism.
    Clinton behaved like a rutting pig many times. He, Trump boasted about behaving like a rutting pig too — but he’s a congenital liar, so maybe he was only boasting. Each of them was defended by his “tribe”, because everything is tribalism all the way down.
    All the way up, also. Mitch McConnell — Republican, conservative — stole a SCOTUS seat for his tribe, and is proud of it. He lusts after another one now, like a good tribal chieftain.
    I know which tribe I’m with, Seb. I’m with the tribe that DOESN’T want Putin’s puppet to “skate”. Which tribe are you with?
    –TP

  1292. Yeah, Seb, it’s all tribalism.
    Clinton behaved like a rutting pig many times. He, Trump boasted about behaving like a rutting pig too — but he’s a congenital liar, so maybe he was only boasting. Each of them was defended by his “tribe”, because everything is tribalism all the way down.
    All the way up, also. Mitch McConnell — Republican, conservative — stole a SCOTUS seat for his tribe, and is proud of it. He lusts after another one now, like a good tribal chieftain.
    I know which tribe I’m with, Seb. I’m with the tribe that DOESN’T want Putin’s puppet to “skate”. Which tribe are you with?
    –TP

  1293. Janie, I appreciate you picking up on my point and thanks for commenting. The comment wasn’t meant to draw you or anyone else out (people have a right to be both speak and be quiet), but I appreciate you noting it.
    I suppose for some, the fascination is watching Marty move from ‘he’s a decent family man’ to ‘he, unlike Kagen, practiced law’, with barely a blink. He’s not going to change his mind but he is going to change where he argues from, which I suppose is the sport.
    As for Seb’s whatabout-ism, the selective recall is pretty astonishing. I’m sure that Seb believes that Starr and Kavanaugh and the other merry band was just looking out of Lewinsky. The fact that the name Linda Tripp never comes up should tell you something more about tribalism as well.

  1294. Janie, I appreciate you picking up on my point and thanks for commenting. The comment wasn’t meant to draw you or anyone else out (people have a right to be both speak and be quiet), but I appreciate you noting it.
    I suppose for some, the fascination is watching Marty move from ‘he’s a decent family man’ to ‘he, unlike Kagen, practiced law’, with barely a blink. He’s not going to change his mind but he is going to change where he argues from, which I suppose is the sport.
    As for Seb’s whatabout-ism, the selective recall is pretty astonishing. I’m sure that Seb believes that Starr and Kavanaugh and the other merry band was just looking out of Lewinsky. The fact that the name Linda Tripp never comes up should tell you something more about tribalism as well.

  1297. If sniveling flattery, citing a doubtful “fact”, is evidence of “judicial temperament” then indeed Kavanaugh may have outgrown his alcoholic preppie youth.
    –TP

  1298. If sniveling flattery, citing a doubtful “fact”, is evidence of “judicial temperament” then indeed Kavanaugh may have outgrown his alcoholic preppie youth.
    –TP

  1299. “As for Seb’s whatabout-ism, the selective recall is pretty astonishing. I’m sure that Seb believes that Starr and Kavanaugh and the other merry band was just looking out of Lewinsky”
    I don’t need to reach to what Starr and Kavanaugh were looking out for. I don’t even need to figure out what Linda Tripp wanted. You allude but don’t state. What do you want out of that allusion?
    I believe Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.
    Do you?
    Do you believe that those who focus on Feinstein’s motivations to keep a Republican Justice off the bench have a good point when talking about the Ford allegations? Or should we be talking about the credible allegations Ford is making?

  1300. “As for Seb’s whatabout-ism, the selective recall is pretty astonishing. I’m sure that Seb believes that Starr and Kavanaugh and the other merry band was just looking out of Lewinsky”
    I don’t need to reach to what Starr and Kavanaugh were looking out for. I don’t even need to figure out what Linda Tripp wanted. You allude but don’t state. What do you want out of that allusion?
    I believe Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.
    Do you?
    Do you believe that those who focus on Feinstein’s motivations to keep a Republican Justice off the bench have a good point when talking about the Ford allegations? Or should we be talking about the credible allegations Ford is making?

  1301. I want to be clear about why I try to come down just as hard on ‘my side’ as I do on ‘the other side’. I think the full scale run to tribalism is destroying this country. We need to stop Trump AND we need to find a way to de-escalate politics if we don’t want to end up like Israel and Palestine, because in that case even the victor ends up corrupting themselves.
    We can’t have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don’t like–especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct. We can’t do anything about how we treated allegations against Clinton now, except we can admit that we should have taken them seriously. We can say “we’re trying to get better on this issue” and get somewhere. We can’t say “we don’t trust women who come forward if we don’t like their politics” and expect that to come out well.

  1302. I want to be clear about why I try to come down just as hard on ‘my side’ as I do on ‘the other side’. I think the full scale run to tribalism is destroying this country. We need to stop Trump AND we need to find a way to de-escalate politics if we don’t want to end up like Israel and Palestine, because in that case even the victor ends up corrupting themselves.
    We can’t have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don’t like–especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct. We can’t do anything about how we treated allegations against Clinton now, except we can admit that we should have taken them seriously. We can say “we’re trying to get better on this issue” and get somewhere. We can’t say “we don’t trust women who come forward if we don’t like their politics” and expect that to come out well.

  1303. I didn’t bring up Starr and Kavanaugh’s role, you did, when you claimed that _we_ didn’t know that Lewinsky was seeking his attention. This is the difference, Starr (and Kavanaugh) were willing to use a woman who did not want that information to go out to the public while Feinstein tried to not release the information about Ford.
    I don’t need to reach to what Starr and Kavanaugh were looking out for. I don’t even need to figure out what Linda Tripp wanted. You allude but don’t state. What do you want out of that allusion?

    What do I want out of the allusion? I guess to have you admit that you are being just as tribalistic as anyone else and tut-tutting as if you weren’t. Here’s what you said
    we know NOW that Lewinsky sought after his attention. But at the deposition phase, that was not known.(emph. mine)
    That last phrase is the kicker. Your allusion is that Starr (and Kavanaugh) were thinking that Lewinsky didn’t seek his attention and only pursued it because they thought that Clinton had forced himself on her. if you believe that, you should say it.
    This is why (it seems to me) Linda Tripp’s illegally recorded phone recordings that put Starr onto Lewinsky were left out by you and why you ignore the way Starr pressured Lewinsky. And my point (and I’ll state it clearly for you) is that you want to present the story as if there were no competing motivations and what was wanted was simply the truth. That’s wrong and you should really fess up.
    Given this pattern of behavior, it seems that you are invoking Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick not out of any #metoo concerns, but more as a tit for tat. Maybe you believe that you are standing shoulder to shoulder with women and #metoo, but if you do believe, I think you are deceiving yourself. If you don’t, then you are not really a person whose opinion I can trust on that matter. Before one talks about burdens of proof for cases, one should talk about being honest about one’s motivations for bringing things up. In short, your comments in this thread seem to only make a nod towards how bad the Republicans have behaved, and your concentration is on making everyone else acknowledge Clinton’s bad behavior.
    As far as Feinstein. I thought this by Josh Marshall summed it up
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-the-democrats-really-ambush-kavanaugh
    If this basic reconstruction is right, Feinstein, her Senate colleagues, The Intercept and even the leakers all seem to have been acting reasonably and with reasonable motives, given their different roles in the process. Nothing here suggests some intentional plot to let Kavanaugh get through the hearings proper and then spring this on him at the last moment. Again, whether or not that would be wrong, it simply doesn’t appear to be what happened. (emph. mine)
    If other people argue that Feinstein was setting a trap and therefore using Dr. Ford, I would point to that and say, they are wrong. After that, I’m not sure what else there is to say.
    At any rate, it would probably be more on point to discuss the problems of Biden’s participation in the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill debacle. But if we did that, we would be drawing conclusions about Grassley and the conduct of in regards to Dr. Ford. So I feel that you aim at Clinton to distract rather than to actually make things better.
    Finally, this doesn’t have anything to do with what you or I ‘believe’ and the fact that you are making it about my beliefs suggest that all your previous discussion about making alliances is just smoke and mirrors. You aren’t really interested in that, you are only interested in trying to gain a rhetorical upper hand and as such, I have better things to do.

  1304. I didn’t bring up Starr and Kavanaugh’s role, you did, when you claimed that _we_ didn’t know that Lewinsky was seeking his attention. This is the difference, Starr (and Kavanaugh) were willing to use a woman who did not want that information to go out to the public while Feinstein tried to not release the information about Ford.
    I don’t need to reach to what Starr and Kavanaugh were looking out for. I don’t even need to figure out what Linda Tripp wanted. You allude but don’t state. What do you want out of that allusion?

    What do I want out of the allusion? I guess to have you admit that you are being just as tribalistic as anyone else and tut-tutting as if you weren’t. Here’s what you said
    we know NOW that Lewinsky sought after his attention. But at the deposition phase, that was not known.(emph. mine)
    That last phrase is the kicker. Your allusion is that Starr (and Kavanaugh) were thinking that Lewinsky didn’t seek his attention and only pursued it because they thought that Clinton had forced himself on her. if you believe that, you should say it.
    This is why (it seems to me) Linda Tripp’s illegally recorded phone recordings that put Starr onto Lewinsky were left out by you and why you ignore the way Starr pressured Lewinsky. And my point (and I’ll state it clearly for you) is that you want to present the story as if there were no competing motivations and what was wanted was simply the truth. That’s wrong and you should really fess up.
    Given this pattern of behavior, it seems that you are invoking Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick not out of any #metoo concerns, but more as a tit for tat. Maybe you believe that you are standing shoulder to shoulder with women and #metoo, but if you do believe, I think you are deceiving yourself. If you don’t, then you are not really a person whose opinion I can trust on that matter. Before one talks about burdens of proof for cases, one should talk about being honest about one’s motivations for bringing things up. In short, your comments in this thread seem to only make a nod towards how bad the Republicans have behaved, and your concentration is on making everyone else acknowledge Clinton’s bad behavior.
    As far as Feinstein. I thought this by Josh Marshall summed it up
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-the-democrats-really-ambush-kavanaugh
    If this basic reconstruction is right, Feinstein, her Senate colleagues, The Intercept and even the leakers all seem to have been acting reasonably and with reasonable motives, given their different roles in the process. Nothing here suggests some intentional plot to let Kavanaugh get through the hearings proper and then spring this on him at the last moment. Again, whether or not that would be wrong, it simply doesn’t appear to be what happened. (emph. mine)
    If other people argue that Feinstein was setting a trap and therefore using Dr. Ford, I would point to that and say, they are wrong. After that, I’m not sure what else there is to say.
    At any rate, it would probably be more on point to discuss the problems of Biden’s participation in the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill debacle. But if we did that, we would be drawing conclusions about Grassley and the conduct of in regards to Dr. Ford. So I feel that you aim at Clinton to distract rather than to actually make things better.
    Finally, this doesn’t have anything to do with what you or I ‘believe’ and the fact that you are making it about my beliefs suggest that all your previous discussion about making alliances is just smoke and mirrors. You aren’t really interested in that, you are only interested in trying to gain a rhetorical upper hand and as such, I have better things to do.

  1305. We can’t have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don’t like–especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct…
    I completely agree, and I think attempts to defend Bill Clinton futile – if nothing else, the man is a proven perjurer (Clinton v Jones). But that has little to do with whether Kavanaugh is a fit person to serve on the Court.
    There are very different standards – and burdens of proof – involved in electing someone to public office, conducting impeachment proceedings, and appointing a Supreme Court Justice.
    Conflating those things is just blowing smoke, whether intentionally or not.

  1306. We can’t have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don’t like–especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct…
    I completely agree, and I think attempts to defend Bill Clinton futile – if nothing else, the man is a proven perjurer (Clinton v Jones). But that has little to do with whether Kavanaugh is a fit person to serve on the Court.
    There are very different standards – and burdens of proof – involved in electing someone to public office, conducting impeachment proceedings, and appointing a Supreme Court Justice.
    Conflating those things is just blowing smoke, whether intentionally or not.

  1307. Speaking of burdens of proof…
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-deborah-ramirez-republican-reaction.html
    Retiring Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, ornery and with one foot out the door, came through by saying what his colleagues wouldn’t, calling the allegations “phony.” When asked why he thought that, he elaborated: “Because I know it is, that’s why.”
    And this was a man considered twice, apparently, for a place on the Supreme Court.

  1308. Speaking of burdens of proof…
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-deborah-ramirez-republican-reaction.html
    Retiring Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, ornery and with one foot out the door, came through by saying what his colleagues wouldn’t, calling the allegations “phony.” When asked why he thought that, he elaborated: “Because I know it is, that’s why.”
    And this was a man considered twice, apparently, for a place on the Supreme Court.

  1309. “That last phrase is the kicker. Your allusion is that Starr (and Kavanaugh) were thinking that Lewinsky didn’t seek his attention and only pursued it because they thought that Clinton had forced himself on her. if you believe that, you should say it.”
    I’m confused. You’re talking as if the perjury piece happened under Star/Kavanaugh’s questioning. It didn’t. It happened while Paula Jones was trying to show a pattern of behavior regarding the sexual harassment she experienced. That changes the whole tenor of your discussion. Paula Jones was trying to vindicate herself with respect to the abuse she suffered. Clinton lied in the deposition to her case to frustrate her investigation so as not to show a pattern of having sex with women whose jobs he could influence. Starr/Kavanaugh later used those lies in the impeachment. You’re treating it as if it was all one thing, but a sexually harassed woman can try to vindicate her rights even if doing so also has political consequences.
    You’re also acting as if I think Kavanaugh is fit to be appointed to the court, when I’m arguing that the situations are parallel THEREFORE he is not fit.

  1310. “That last phrase is the kicker. Your allusion is that Starr (and Kavanaugh) were thinking that Lewinsky didn’t seek his attention and only pursued it because they thought that Clinton had forced himself on her. if you believe that, you should say it.”
    I’m confused. You’re talking as if the perjury piece happened under Star/Kavanaugh’s questioning. It didn’t. It happened while Paula Jones was trying to show a pattern of behavior regarding the sexual harassment she experienced. That changes the whole tenor of your discussion. Paula Jones was trying to vindicate herself with respect to the abuse she suffered. Clinton lied in the deposition to her case to frustrate her investigation so as not to show a pattern of having sex with women whose jobs he could influence. Starr/Kavanaugh later used those lies in the impeachment. You’re treating it as if it was all one thing, but a sexually harassed woman can try to vindicate her rights even if doing so also has political consequences.
    You’re also acting as if I think Kavanaugh is fit to be appointed to the court, when I’m arguing that the situations are parallel THEREFORE he is not fit.

  1313. What about Merrick Garland? He didn’t get confirmed. Certainly a legitimate argument for disliking Gorsuch. Has nada to do with Kavanaugh. There is no unbiased comparison between the circumstances, and Dems are working really hard so they can be in charge going forward.
    The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was the actual count 97-0. Our politics have changed a lot in those years.

  1314. What about Merrick Garland? He didn’t get confirmed. Certainly a legitimate argument for disliking Gorsuch. Has nada to do with Kavanaugh. There is no unbiased comparison between the circumstances, and Dems are working really hard so they can be in charge going forward.
    The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was the actual count 97-0. Our politics have changed a lot in those years.

  1315. The senate GOP was free to have Garland hearings and then vote ‘Nay’. That would have been the proper way and we could grumble about it but would not have any right to complain about breach of norms or procedures.
    But they choose not to do that because their rabid base (through their non-elected megaphones) told them that even this simply going through the motions would be considered as collaboration with the n-word and the demon rats and punished without mercy.
    And McConnell had to show his power because he could. Same with his proclamation that he would do the same to any Clinton nominee and his most recent one that Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what. What use is power, if it cannot be constantly rubbed in?

  1316. The senate GOP was free to have Garland hearings and then vote ‘Nay’. That would have been the proper way and we could grumble about it but would not have any right to complain about breach of norms or procedures.
    But they choose not to do that because their rabid base (through their non-elected megaphones) told them that even this simply going through the motions would be considered as collaboration with the n-word and the demon rats and punished without mercy.
    And McConnell had to show his power because he could. Same with his proclamation that he would do the same to any Clinton nominee and his most recent one that Kavanaugh will be confirmed no matter what. What use is power, if it cannot be constantly rubbed in?

  1319. “What about Merrick Garland? He didn’t get confirmed.”
    No, for crying out loud, that wasn’t the “what” about Merrick Garland.
    Biased comparisons, therefore, must carry the day.
    “Our politics have changed a lot in those years.”
    Maybe Frank Luntz can convene a focus group and get to the bottom of that mystery. On George Bush Senior’s lips would be read a name. Gimme that name, I mean, besides Willie Horton.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt
    And I DO mean the two-legged animal. For other uses, see “Newt” (disambiguation)
    Regarding Clinton: The upshot to the entire mess was he was forced to triangulate on some carefully chosen politically issues (as much as I disagree with the strategy), therefore saving himself. A little give from a major taker.
    No such luck now under republican house rules. You want “Give”, call the United Way or Goodwill.
    Bias. Yeah, I’m biased. Billy Buckner was a great baseball player. All else is a bunch of Mookie.
    Who said, on these pages, a couple of years ago. “I have opinions about the facts.”

  1320. “What about Merrick Garland? He didn’t get confirmed.”
    No, for crying out loud, that wasn’t the “what” about Merrick Garland.
    Biased comparisons, therefore, must carry the day.
    “Our politics have changed a lot in those years.”
    Maybe Frank Luntz can convene a focus group and get to the bottom of that mystery. On George Bush Senior’s lips would be read a name. Gimme that name, I mean, besides Willie Horton.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt
    And I DO mean the two-legged animal. For other uses, see “Newt” (disambiguation)
    Regarding Clinton: The upshot to the entire mess was he was forced to triangulate on some carefully chosen politically issues (as much as I disagree with the strategy), therefore saving himself. A little give from a major taker.
    No such luck now under republican house rules. You want “Give”, call the United Way or Goodwill.
    Bias. Yeah, I’m biased. Billy Buckner was a great baseball player. All else is a bunch of Mookie.
    Who said, on these pages, a couple of years ago. “I have opinions about the facts.”

  1321. Is this also part of the ‘smear campaign’ ?
    It’s a relatively minor matter in the context of everything else that’s going on, but it goes directly to the credibility of Kavanaugh’s recollections, and the absolute certainty with which he dismisses his accusers as politically motivated liars.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-kavanaugh-letter-signer-just-learned-he-sexually-demeaned-her-in-yearbook
    In Georgetown Prep’s 1983 yearbook, Brett Kavanaugh and several other football players listed themselves as “Renate Alumni,” The New York Times reports, in an apparently crude reference to Renate Schroeder Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic high school at the time. Dolphin, one of 64 women who signed a letter this month defending Kavanaugh’s character after he was accused of sexually assault while in high school, told the Times she was stunned by the yearbook references. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through… the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue,” Dolphin said.
    https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/408200-former-friend-of-kavanaugh-slams-hurtful-insinuations-about-her-in-his
    A lawyer representing Kavanaugh, Alexandra Walsh, told The Times “Judge Kavanaugh was friends with Renate Dolphin in high school. He admired her very much then, and he admires her to this day.”
    “Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Dolphin attended one high school event together and shared a brief kiss good night following that event,” Walsh continued. “They had no other such encounter. The language from Judge Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook refers to the fact that he and Ms. Dolphin attended that one high school event together and nothing else.”
    However, Dolphin said she never kissed Kavanaugh.
    “I think Brett must have me confused with someone else, because I never kissed him,” she said…

  1322. Is this also part of the ‘smear campaign’ ?
    It’s a relatively minor matter in the context of everything else that’s going on, but it goes directly to the credibility of Kavanaugh’s recollections, and the absolute certainty with which he dismisses his accusers as politically motivated liars.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-kavanaugh-letter-signer-just-learned-he-sexually-demeaned-her-in-yearbook
    In Georgetown Prep’s 1983 yearbook, Brett Kavanaugh and several other football players listed themselves as “Renate Alumni,” The New York Times reports, in an apparently crude reference to Renate Schroeder Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic high school at the time. Dolphin, one of 64 women who signed a letter this month defending Kavanaugh’s character after he was accused of sexually assault while in high school, told the Times she was stunned by the yearbook references. “I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through… the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful, and simply untrue,” Dolphin said.
    https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/408200-former-friend-of-kavanaugh-slams-hurtful-insinuations-about-her-in-his
    A lawyer representing Kavanaugh, Alexandra Walsh, told The Times “Judge Kavanaugh was friends with Renate Dolphin in high school. He admired her very much then, and he admires her to this day.”
    “Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Dolphin attended one high school event together and shared a brief kiss good night following that event,” Walsh continued. “They had no other such encounter. The language from Judge Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook refers to the fact that he and Ms. Dolphin attended that one high school event together and nothing else.”
    However, Dolphin said she never kissed Kavanaugh.
    “I think Brett must have me confused with someone else, because I never kissed him,” she said…

  1323. Kudos to Hartmut for not forgetting about McConnell’s (and McCain’s and company) pledge to stop all governance under a Democratic President:
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court
    So here is my bias: Kill all governing institutions with Civil War #2. I don’t want those troublesome priests and mechanisms of governance getting in the way and interceding between me and the smoking dead ruins of the fucking Republican/conservative movement.

  1324. Kudos to Hartmut for not forgetting about McConnell’s (and McCain’s and company) pledge to stop all governance under a Democratic President:
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/clinton-wins-gop-say-no-9-supreme-court
    So here is my bias: Kill all governing institutions with Civil War #2. I don’t want those troublesome priests and mechanisms of governance getting in the way and interceding between me and the smoking dead ruins of the fucking Republican/conservative movement.

  1325. We can’t have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don’t like–especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct…
    Those Kavanaugh hearings would have gone much smoother with Sen. Franken on the committee.

  1326. We can’t have one burden of proof for people we like and another burden of proof for people we don’t like–especially when it comes to hard to prove misconduct…
    Those Kavanaugh hearings would have gone much smoother with Sen. Franken on the committee.

  1327. I completely agree, and I think attempts to defend Bill Clinton futile – if nothing else, the man is a proven perjurer (Clinton v Jones). But that has little to do with whether Kavanaugh is a fit person to serve on the Court
    Thank you.
    Kindly note: Bill Clinton was investigated, at length, required, as a sitting POTUS, to testify under oath about his relationships with Jones, Broderick, Lewinsky et al, was censured, disbarred, and impeached.
    Are we fucking done with Bill Clinton now? He is not a candidate for the SCOTUS.
    The only purpose in bringing Bill Clinton up in this context is to imply bad faith on the part of folks who oppose Kavanaugh. It has bugger all to do with Kavanaugh.
    It’s a shame that we’ve gotten to the point where we’ve gone all tribal, but the opportunity to moderate that is sadly long past. And MERRICK GARLAND is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg.
    Clean your own house. Then perhaps, and only perhaps, we might be able to talk. Maybe not, there’s a lot of bad blood to work through.
    Kavanaugh was a crappy choice. He has too much partisan baggage. McConnell told Trump he’d be a hard sell. Trump picked him anyway.
    So now it’s a mess. You all got what you voted for. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I’m just forced to live in the monkey house.
    When conservatives stop behaving like assholes and thugs, perhaps civility will return. Until then, you’re gonna have to live in the world you’ve created.
    Speaking as a person with my particular values and social orientation, I’m sick of living with the messes you all have created. As far as I can tell, I owe you nothing.

  1328. I completely agree, and I think attempts to defend Bill Clinton futile – if nothing else, the man is a proven perjurer (Clinton v Jones). But that has little to do with whether Kavanaugh is a fit person to serve on the Court
    Thank you.
    Kindly note: Bill Clinton was investigated, at length, required, as a sitting POTUS, to testify under oath about his relationships with Jones, Broderick, Lewinsky et al, was censured, disbarred, and impeached.
    Are we fucking done with Bill Clinton now? He is not a candidate for the SCOTUS.
    The only purpose in bringing Bill Clinton up in this context is to imply bad faith on the part of folks who oppose Kavanaugh. It has bugger all to do with Kavanaugh.
    It’s a shame that we’ve gotten to the point where we’ve gone all tribal, but the opportunity to moderate that is sadly long past. And MERRICK GARLAND is just the tiniest tip of the iceberg.
    Clean your own house. Then perhaps, and only perhaps, we might be able to talk. Maybe not, there’s a lot of bad blood to work through.
    Kavanaugh was a crappy choice. He has too much partisan baggage. McConnell told Trump he’d be a hard sell. Trump picked him anyway.
    So now it’s a mess. You all got what you voted for. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I’m just forced to live in the monkey house.
    When conservatives stop behaving like assholes and thugs, perhaps civility will return. Until then, you’re gonna have to live in the world you’ve created.
    Speaking as a person with my particular values and social orientation, I’m sick of living with the messes you all have created. As far as I can tell, I owe you nothing.

  1331. Seb sez: “Somewhat later we found out about Juanita Broaddrick (completely unmentioned in the article you cite).”
    Completely not correct. Please do go back and read the article again.

  1332. Seb sez: “Somewhat later we found out about Juanita Broaddrick (completely unmentioned in the article you cite).”
    Completely not correct. Please do go back and read the article again.

  1339. Paula Jones was trying to vindicate herself with respect to the abuse she suffered.
    Good for her. However, it is important to reiterate that Starr and Kavanaugh could have cared less about vindicating Jones. They were hunting the President.

  1340. Paula Jones was trying to vindicate herself with respect to the abuse she suffered.
    Good for her. However, it is important to reiterate that Starr and Kavanaugh could have cared less about vindicating Jones. They were hunting the President.

  1341. Just a quicky, and forgive me if I omit too much detailed reference:
    1. I agree that it’s important that we try to impartially acknowledge faults in our own “side”, partly as a matter of fairness, and partly so as to give more force when we identify faults on the other “side”.
    1.1 I believed Juanita Broadrick, despite an inclination to find Clinton a) attractive b) charismatic and c) on my “side”. I do not think his behavior about Monica Lewinsky was even vaguely in the same league, and Kavanaugh’s prurient questions were clearly not remotely about proving that he had lied, but were intended to broadcast his “revolting behaviour”, behaviour which is practised by most of the American public (with the exception of the use of the cigar).
    2. Kavanaugh should not be on the SCOTUS, because he is unfit (partisan hack etc), but also because he is a liar.
    3. Merrick Garland Merrick Garland Merrick Garland

  1342. Just a quicky, and forgive me if I omit too much detailed reference:
    1. I agree that it’s important that we try to impartially acknowledge faults in our own “side”, partly as a matter of fairness, and partly so as to give more force when we identify faults on the other “side”.
    1.1 I believed Juanita Broadrick, despite an inclination to find Clinton a) attractive b) charismatic and c) on my “side”. I do not think his behavior about Monica Lewinsky was even vaguely in the same league, and Kavanaugh’s prurient questions were clearly not remotely about proving that he had lied, but were intended to broadcast his “revolting behaviour”, behaviour which is practised by most of the American public (with the exception of the use of the cigar).
    2. Kavanaugh should not be on the SCOTUS, because he is unfit (partisan hack etc), but also because he is a liar.
    3. Merrick Garland Merrick Garland Merrick Garland

  1343. The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was the actual count 97-0.
    Ding ding, wrong again.
    The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was that he got a hearing and a vote in an election year.
    The notion of a precedent or custom where a president doesn’t get a pick in an year was a complete, bare-faced “I dare you to prove me wrong and if you do my base won’t give a fnck anyhow” fabrication, and yet all the bubble-folks in the base believe it, repeat it (even here), and use it to justify their dismantling of America in the name of making it great again for aging misogynistic white men.

  1344. The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was the actual count 97-0.
    Ding ding, wrong again.
    The telling thing about the Kennedy confirmation was that he got a hearing and a vote in an election year.
    The notion of a precedent or custom where a president doesn’t get a pick in an year was a complete, bare-faced “I dare you to prove me wrong and if you do my base won’t give a fnck anyhow” fabrication, and yet all the bubble-folks in the base believe it, repeat it (even here), and use it to justify their dismantling of America in the name of making it great again for aging misogynistic white men.

  1349. Another telling thing is that you can move your own goal posts all you want, but you’re not moving mine.
    My comment was about the abomination of not giving Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote, and then spreading the egregious nonsense about the “custom” in an election year.

  1350. Another telling thing is that you can move your own goal posts all you want, but you’re not moving mine.
    My comment was about the abomination of not giving Merrick Garland a hearing or a vote, and then spreading the egregious nonsense about the “custom” in an election year.

  1359. poor Newt Gingrich is only known to history as the guy who broke the House. McConnell is going to be known as the guy who broke the Senate and the Supreme Court!

  1360. poor Newt Gingrich is only known to history as the guy who broke the House. McConnell is going to be known as the guy who broke the Senate and the Supreme Court!

  1361. I don’t believe in using violence to resolve conflict, but those are two people I would seriously have to suppress the urge to kick in the teeth were the opportunity to present itself.

  1362. I don’t believe in using violence to resolve conflict, but those are two people I would seriously have to suppress the urge to kick in the teeth were the opportunity to present itself.

  1367. I think the full scale run to tribalism is destroying this country. We need to stop Trump AND we need to find a way to de-escalate politics
    I agree completely. I just wish I saw a path forward that would get our tribalism de-escalated. Alas, I don’t.

  1368. I think the full scale run to tribalism is destroying this country. We need to stop Trump AND we need to find a way to de-escalate politics
    I agree completely. I just wish I saw a path forward that would get our tribalism de-escalated. Alas, I don’t.

  1371. Nigel, I thought this was among the most interesting bits in that 538 article:

    There is one other possibility, which is that McConnell — who reportedly didn’t want Kavanaugh to be chosen in the first place — could be rushing through the process in the hopes that Kavanaugh will be voted down (or forced to withdraw once it becomes clear that McConnell doesn’t have the votes). Back when Ford was Kavanaugh’s only accuser, this had seemed like a fairly likely exit strategy: The hearings would be engineered to allow Kavanaugh to save face, and perhaps to allow Republicans to stoke some grievances with their base. But wavering GOP senators such as Susan Collins and Jeff Flake would find some excuse to oppose his nomination and his nomination would be pulled. This scenario still seems like a distinct possibility

    I’m not sure I think McConnell is quite clever enough to be doing something like this. But it would be amusing if he was trying it, and ended up shooting himself in the foot.

  1372. Nigel, I thought this was among the most interesting bits in that 538 article:

    There is one other possibility, which is that McConnell — who reportedly didn’t want Kavanaugh to be chosen in the first place — could be rushing through the process in the hopes that Kavanaugh will be voted down (or forced to withdraw once it becomes clear that McConnell doesn’t have the votes). Back when Ford was Kavanaugh’s only accuser, this had seemed like a fairly likely exit strategy: The hearings would be engineered to allow Kavanaugh to save face, and perhaps to allow Republicans to stoke some grievances with their base. But wavering GOP senators such as Susan Collins and Jeff Flake would find some excuse to oppose his nomination and his nomination would be pulled. This scenario still seems like a distinct possibility

    I’m not sure I think McConnell is quite clever enough to be doing something like this. But it would be amusing if he was trying it, and ended up shooting himself in the foot.

  1375. I would like ‘Kavanaugh’ to become a verb, similar to what happened to Lewinsky.
    Only it would be a verb for weak, drunken sexual assault, rather than consensual behavior.
    ie, ‘Jim was out of control, and he Kavanaughed some girl. Luckily she kicked his ass.’

  1376. I would like ‘Kavanaugh’ to become a verb, similar to what happened to Lewinsky.
    Only it would be a verb for weak, drunken sexual assault, rather than consensual behavior.
    ie, ‘Jim was out of control, and he Kavanaughed some girl. Luckily she kicked his ass.’

  1381. Snarki: Those Kavanaugh hearings would have gone much smoother with Sen. Franken on the committee.
    Bravo, Snarki! Thanks for reminding Seb that one “tribe” has evolved in our lifetimes, and one hasn’t.
    –TP

  1382. Snarki: Those Kavanaugh hearings would have gone much smoother with Sen. Franken on the committee.
    Bravo, Snarki! Thanks for reminding Seb that one “tribe” has evolved in our lifetimes, and one hasn’t.
    –TP

  1383. I prefer the ‘santorum’ route over the ‘borked’ route.
    Kavanaugh: to try and take unwanted liberties with an unwilling inebriated victim, and fail.

  1384. I prefer the ‘santorum’ route over the ‘borked’ route.
    Kavanaugh: to try and take unwanted liberties with an unwilling inebriated victim, and fail.

  1389. WJ,
    I can’t imagine a prosecutor making that deal with a slam dunk case. Maybe the issue is the jury, facts, victim, judge, etc., but a guilty plea for sexual assault is still a win for the government regardless of time spent in jail (apparently 1 year already, plus one suspended).
    I am defense oriented, and a defendant taking that plea does not make me confident the State had a strong case. ‘time served, or risk 40 years.’ Most of us would take the time served over flipping a coin with a jury.

  1390. WJ,
    I can’t imagine a prosecutor making that deal with a slam dunk case. Maybe the issue is the jury, facts, victim, judge, etc., but a guilty plea for sexual assault is still a win for the government regardless of time spent in jail (apparently 1 year already, plus one suspended).
    I am defense oriented, and a defendant taking that plea does not make me confident the State had a strong case. ‘time served, or risk 40 years.’ Most of us would take the time served over flipping a coin with a jury.

  1391. jrudkis — Murkowski has to worry about the general public, not the much smaller percentage of people who know anything about the inside baseball features of the court system.
    I hope she’s sweating.

  1392. jrudkis — Murkowski has to worry about the general public, not the much smaller percentage of people who know anything about the inside baseball features of the court system.
    I hope she’s sweating.

  1393. P.S. It may not be fair, but people are on a hair trigger about sexual assault right now. Yes, the broad brush reaction will hurt some individuals unfairly (and I don’t mean BK), but even so it will never balance out the injustices and silences of the past.

  1394. P.S. It may not be fair, but people are on a hair trigger about sexual assault right now. Yes, the broad brush reaction will hurt some individuals unfairly (and I don’t mean BK), but even so it will never balance out the injustices and silences of the past.

  1395. jrudkis,
    Actually, as I understand it, the justification was something along the lines of “He seems to be a good candidate for counseling.” And that “this is you one pass” quote was an actual line from the sentencing hearing.

  1396. jrudkis,
    Actually, as I understand it, the justification was something along the lines of “He seems to be a good candidate for counseling.” And that “this is you one pass” quote was an actual line from the sentencing hearing.

  1397. WJ, I get the quote part. That is not sound bite worthy.
    I think that is the warning from a prosecutor/judge who wanted a conviction and all the things that come with being a felon, rather than risking a trial where someone the prosecutor/judge believes is guilty walks free.
    It is meant as a warning that it won’t work again, even though the man was convicted, spent a year in jail, has another year suspended, and has all the weight of a conviction for the rest of his life.
    I don’t have an opinion on the counseling statement. It seems unlikely to drive a case with slam dunk evidence.
    The state agreed to a plea deal with time served. They don’t do that when they have confidence in thier case.

  1398. WJ, I get the quote part. That is not sound bite worthy.
    I think that is the warning from a prosecutor/judge who wanted a conviction and all the things that come with being a felon, rather than risking a trial where someone the prosecutor/judge believes is guilty walks free.
    It is meant as a warning that it won’t work again, even though the man was convicted, spent a year in jail, has another year suspended, and has all the weight of a conviction for the rest of his life.
    I don’t have an opinion on the counseling statement. It seems unlikely to drive a case with slam dunk evidence.
    The state agreed to a plea deal with time served. They don’t do that when they have confidence in thier case.

  1399. ‘Murkowski has to worry about the general public’
    The general public is not paying attention to any of this. Those of us in the whirlwind find it to be fascinating, but as my 12 year old likes to tell me, “more poeple know who live in a pineapple under the sea, than know who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  1400. ‘Murkowski has to worry about the general public’
    The general public is not paying attention to any of this. Those of us in the whirlwind find it to be fascinating, but as my 12 year old likes to tell me, “more poeple know who live in a pineapple under the sea, than know who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  1401. The general public is not paying attention to any of this.
    I don’t have time to search for the link right now, but I read last night that the general public in Alaska is paying plenty of attention to this.
    Or maybe we should just say female voters are paying plenty of attention to this, the ones that might or might not vote for Murkowski next time.

  1402. The general public is not paying attention to any of this.
    I don’t have time to search for the link right now, but I read last night that the general public in Alaska is paying plenty of attention to this.
    Or maybe we should just say female voters are paying plenty of attention to this, the ones that might or might not vote for Murkowski next time.

  1403. A couple of guys appear to have gone some way to corroborate De oran Ramirez’ account:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/us/politics/lisa-murkowski-brett-kavanaugh.html
    Late Monday night, a freshman roommate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale, James Roche, released a statement in support of another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who told The New Yorker that a drunken Judge Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her their freshman year and maneuvered to have her touch his genitals.
    “Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time,” Mr. Roche wrote, adding, “he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk.”
    Another Yale schoolmate, Steve Kantrowitz, took to Twitter Tuesday to contradict the assertion Judge Kavanaugh made on Fox News Monday night that he was a virgin in high school and “for many years thereafter“…
    Perhaps now Cornyn et al will be a little less contemptuous of her story, perhaps not….
    Assholes.

  1404. A couple of guys appear to have gone some way to corroborate De oran Ramirez’ account:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/us/politics/lisa-murkowski-brett-kavanaugh.html
    Late Monday night, a freshman roommate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale, James Roche, released a statement in support of another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who told The New Yorker that a drunken Judge Kavanaugh had exposed himself to her their freshman year and maneuvered to have her touch his genitals.
    “Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time,” Mr. Roche wrote, adding, “he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk.”
    Another Yale schoolmate, Steve Kantrowitz, took to Twitter Tuesday to contradict the assertion Judge Kavanaugh made on Fox News Monday night that he was a virgin in high school and “for many years thereafter“…
    Perhaps now Cornyn et al will be a little less contemptuous of her story, perhaps not….
    Assholes.

  1405. JanieM and Russell,
    I hope you are right, but they call it the October Surprise for a reason. September SCOTUS battles are not driving discussion.
    No one in my soccer team group talks politics at all, at games.
    The people I know who would be allies are generally against Trump, but not driven as a democrat vs. republican.
    I think most people do hear the complaints (so far) against Kavanaugh as either something they did, or thier kid did, or happened to them and they prefer the predator with the anti-abortion vote over the candidate who likely also was a predator (no evidence needed) who is pro abortion.
    I just don’t see this confirmation hearing driving voting for those not already committed. POTUS drives voting, and that seems to be swinging in the way I approve.

  1406. JanieM and Russell,
    I hope you are right, but they call it the October Surprise for a reason. September SCOTUS battles are not driving discussion.
    No one in my soccer team group talks politics at all, at games.
    The people I know who would be allies are generally against Trump, but not driven as a democrat vs. republican.
    I think most people do hear the complaints (so far) against Kavanaugh as either something they did, or thier kid did, or happened to them and they prefer the predator with the anti-abortion vote over the candidate who likely also was a predator (no evidence needed) who is pro abortion.
    I just don’t see this confirmation hearing driving voting for those not already committed. POTUS drives voting, and that seems to be swinging in the way I approve.

  1407. the assertion Judge Kavanaugh made on Fox News Monday night that he was a virgin in high school and “for many years thereafter“…
    this is all getting too weird for words.

  1408. the assertion Judge Kavanaugh made on Fox News Monday night that he was a virgin in high school and “for many years thereafter“…
    this is all getting too weird for words.

  1409. Even I wasn’t a virgin “for many years thereafter….”
    All aside from everything else, why say something so unutterably stupid?

  1410. Even I wasn’t a virgin “for many years thereafter….”
    All aside from everything else, why say something so unutterably stupid?

  1411. why say something so unutterably stupid?
    Because if you are associated with this administration, saying unutterable stupid stuff is a thing? Maybe even an MJR* — so as not to upstage the boss, perhaps
    * Minimum Job Requirement

  1412. why say something so unutterably stupid?
    Because if you are associated with this administration, saying unutterable stupid stuff is a thing? Maybe even an MJR* — so as not to upstage the boss, perhaps
    * Minimum Job Requirement

  1413. How “many years thereafter” did BK get married?
    Is he dumb enough to believe “values voters” care?
    And how does he figure Many Years A Virgin will play with his padrone?
    Not that any of it matters, of course. It’s just fun to ridicule pompous pricks.
    –TP

  1414. How “many years thereafter” did BK get married?
    Is he dumb enough to believe “values voters” care?
    And how does he figure Many Years A Virgin will play with his padrone?
    Not that any of it matters, of course. It’s just fun to ridicule pompous pricks.
    –TP

  1415. Maybe he told his wife he was a virgin when they got married. But that wasn’t until 2004, when he would have been 41.
    Well, that’s “many years thereafter,” for sure.
    Those Catholic boys, I dunno.

  1416. Maybe he told his wife he was a virgin when they got married. But that wasn’t until 2004, when he would have been 41.
    Well, that’s “many years thereafter,” for sure.
    Those Catholic boys, I dunno.

  1417. Hey, Merrick! That article on the methane lakes was chilling. Some people (fnking idiots) ask the lunatic environmental community this question all the time: “What? You want to lower our standard of living?”
    Damned right I do. Because if we keep traveling down this road, it will be lowered for us.
    JFC

  1418. Hey, Merrick! That article on the methane lakes was chilling. Some people (fnking idiots) ask the lunatic environmental community this question all the time: “What? You want to lower our standard of living?”
    Damned right I do. Because if we keep traveling down this road, it will be lowered for us.
    JFC

  1419. The really funny thing about Kavanaugh’s virginity claim is that he appears to think most people will agree that it supports his assertion that he didn’t commit sexual assault! I find that astonishing and bizarre. It would be interesting to know what the definition of sexual assault in the US is – apparently, in the Fox interview, he rather strangely used almost exactly the same words 7 or 8 times about never having committed sexual assault in high school or since, as if he had carefully memorised a particular form of words that wouldn’t come back to bite him.
    By the way, to clarify an earlier remark of mine, I realised afterward that my comments about Bill Clinton were ambiguous. I did not mean to suggest that I had ever thought that attractive, charismatic men were incapable of sexual misbehaviour. At the time of the impeachment, I thought the Monica Lewinsky affair was more or less a storm in a teacup over a consensual affair in which a married man had lied about his involvement – no great sin in my opinion although regrettable behaviour from his wife’s point of view. The disparity in power etc only really became a concern to me later, partly because for personal historical reasons I was sympathetic to such an age difference.
    I found out about the Juanita Broadrick allegations after the whole Monica Lewinsky thing, and to my horror found them convincing, and I think I only really focussed on the Paula Jones stuff at the same time. In the #metoo era, Clinton (if he behaved the same way) would clearly have been (and should have been) dealt with completely differently. I agree with russell too, a terrible waste of prodigious gifts.

  1420. The really funny thing about Kavanaugh’s virginity claim is that he appears to think most people will agree that it supports his assertion that he didn’t commit sexual assault! I find that astonishing and bizarre. It would be interesting to know what the definition of sexual assault in the US is – apparently, in the Fox interview, he rather strangely used almost exactly the same words 7 or 8 times about never having committed sexual assault in high school or since, as if he had carefully memorised a particular form of words that wouldn’t come back to bite him.
    By the way, to clarify an earlier remark of mine, I realised afterward that my comments about Bill Clinton were ambiguous. I did not mean to suggest that I had ever thought that attractive, charismatic men were incapable of sexual misbehaviour. At the time of the impeachment, I thought the Monica Lewinsky affair was more or less a storm in a teacup over a consensual affair in which a married man had lied about his involvement – no great sin in my opinion although regrettable behaviour from his wife’s point of view. The disparity in power etc only really became a concern to me later, partly because for personal historical reasons I was sympathetic to such an age difference.
    I found out about the Juanita Broadrick allegations after the whole Monica Lewinsky thing, and to my horror found them convincing, and I think I only really focussed on the Paula Jones stuff at the same time. In the #metoo era, Clinton (if he behaved the same way) would clearly have been (and should have been) dealt with completely differently. I agree with russell too, a terrible waste of prodigious gifts.

  1421. Everyone with gifts has flaws…whether they’re fatal or not is another question.
    Maybe it’s worth also saying that everyone with flaws has gifts.
    Well, almost everyone.

  1422. Everyone with gifts has flaws…whether they’re fatal or not is another question.
    Maybe it’s worth also saying that everyone with flaws has gifts.
    Well, almost everyone.

  1423. re: Clinton I felt that a man who cheats on his wife is simply untrustworthy to not cheat anyone else. I still feel that way.
    In my own anecdotal life, I think that holds up: people who cheat on thier spouse are generally untrustworthy.
    I would not go into business with someone who I knew cheated on their spouse, I would not vote for one, I would not hire one.
    It is selfish, risky, untrustworthy behavior that I think is likely to mean the person is selfish, risky, and untrustworthy.

  1424. re: Clinton I felt that a man who cheats on his wife is simply untrustworthy to not cheat anyone else. I still feel that way.
    In my own anecdotal life, I think that holds up: people who cheat on thier spouse are generally untrustworthy.
    I would not go into business with someone who I knew cheated on their spouse, I would not vote for one, I would not hire one.
    It is selfish, risky, untrustworthy behavior that I think is likely to mean the person is selfish, risky, and untrustworthy.

  1425. jrudkis, if they have an open relationship, is it cheating?
    I think a lot of problems the US has is because we are built on a foundation of Puritanism+Victorianism, which requires 1)rejecting any physical pleasures 2)has the woman act as the guardian, while the man can control everything except his physical impulses. This plays out with the boys will be boys line. Unfortunately, it is a recipe for hypocrisy, but hey, it’s what made America great.

  1426. jrudkis, if they have an open relationship, is it cheating?
    I think a lot of problems the US has is because we are built on a foundation of Puritanism+Victorianism, which requires 1)rejecting any physical pleasures 2)has the woman act as the guardian, while the man can control everything except his physical impulses. This plays out with the boys will be boys line. Unfortunately, it is a recipe for hypocrisy, but hey, it’s what made America great.

  1427. No one in my soccer team group talks politics at all, at games.
    It has been my experience that unless surrounded by other members of your tribe or hangers on that nobody discusses politics.
    This leads to rather embarrassing silent moments at family reunions, for example.
    This is the world we have made.

  1428. No one in my soccer team group talks politics at all, at games.
    It has been my experience that unless surrounded by other members of your tribe or hangers on that nobody discusses politics.
    This leads to rather embarrassing silent moments at family reunions, for example.
    This is the world we have made.

  1429. An open relationship is not cheating. But an open relationship implies that it is open, not one where they claim to be monogamous.
    I support open relationships, and any other kind of consensual relationship. They would not work for me, but I know people who live that way in free and fair terms.
    Are you saying Clinton had an open relationship? I imagine had Hillary said ‘I am good with this’ the issue might have died.

  1430. An open relationship is not cheating. But an open relationship implies that it is open, not one where they claim to be monogamous.
    I support open relationships, and any other kind of consensual relationship. They would not work for me, but I know people who live that way in free and fair terms.
    Are you saying Clinton had an open relationship? I imagine had Hillary said ‘I am good with this’ the issue might have died.

  1431. Most guys, the young ones, I suspect, lie about the timeline of their misplaced virginity, but they move it in the OTHER, earlier direction.
    So, I guess Steve Carell gets to play Kavanaugh in the Netflix series.
    I don’t trust Bill Clinton either … major face man with a light touch on the shoulder … but I suspect we have unwittingly gone into business, voted for, and hired men and women who cheat in their marriages.
    Was Eisenhower trustworthy?
    mp may claim he has accomplished more in his first two years than “almost any other President in history” (William Henry Harrison), but he is certainly not the first adulterer by a long shot.
    I don’t discuss politics in my personal life much, unless someone wants to get in my face regarding mp.
    I have one buddy, at heart right of center, who is open minded enough to have discussions with while dropping the Countme persona, which is getting harder to do.
    But he despises mp, so no sweat.

  1432. Most guys, the young ones, I suspect, lie about the timeline of their misplaced virginity, but they move it in the OTHER, earlier direction.
    So, I guess Steve Carell gets to play Kavanaugh in the Netflix series.
    I don’t trust Bill Clinton either … major face man with a light touch on the shoulder … but I suspect we have unwittingly gone into business, voted for, and hired men and women who cheat in their marriages.
    Was Eisenhower trustworthy?
    mp may claim he has accomplished more in his first two years than “almost any other President in history” (William Henry Harrison), but he is certainly not the first adulterer by a long shot.
    I don’t discuss politics in my personal life much, unless someone wants to get in my face regarding mp.
    I have one buddy, at heart right of center, who is open minded enough to have discussions with while dropping the Countme persona, which is getting harder to do.
    But he despises mp, so no sweat.

  1433. I imagine had Hillary said ‘I am good with this’ the issue might have died.
    I’d think an open relationship would have had Hilary saying “I enjoyed my affairs, so why shouldn’t Bill enjoy his?” Imagine how that would have played when 2016 rolled around!

  1434. I imagine had Hillary said ‘I am good with this’ the issue might have died.
    I’d think an open relationship would have had Hilary saying “I enjoyed my affairs, so why shouldn’t Bill enjoy his?” Imagine how that would have played when 2016 rolled around!

  1435. Someone living openly in an open relationship would have less of a chance of getting elected in this country than an out atheist. And that’s saying something.

  1436. Someone living openly in an open relationship would have less of a chance of getting elected in this country than an out atheist. And that’s saying something.

  1439. My paternal grandparents and extended family discussed politics with great gusto and florid faces at the dinner table.
    I’ve mentioned before that my paternal grandmother, when I was just a kid, a dear woman not given to many outbursts otherwise, would fairly lean to the side and hawk a bolus of venom on to the plush carpet, it seemed, if the name Franklin Delano Roosevelt was invoked.
    This was 20 years after the man died.
    My grandfather, who agreed with her mostly, would cease his chewing at the other end of the table, put his elbows on the table, fork and knife aloft, cut his eyes quickly to the grand kids alongside, and register a cautionary “Nomi!”, short for Naomi, in her direction.
    I’d keep my head down and study the soup in front of me.

  1440. My paternal grandparents and extended family discussed politics with great gusto and florid faces at the dinner table.
    I’ve mentioned before that my paternal grandmother, when I was just a kid, a dear woman not given to many outbursts otherwise, would fairly lean to the side and hawk a bolus of venom on to the plush carpet, it seemed, if the name Franklin Delano Roosevelt was invoked.
    This was 20 years after the man died.
    My grandfather, who agreed with her mostly, would cease his chewing at the other end of the table, put his elbows on the table, fork and knife aloft, cut his eyes quickly to the grand kids alongside, and register a cautionary “Nomi!”, short for Naomi, in her direction.
    I’d keep my head down and study the soup in front of me.

  1441. We’re supposed to follow the Lady Britomart approach, where hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue:
    I really cannot bear an immoral man. I am not a Pharisee, I hope; and I shouldnt have minded his merely doing wrong things: we are none of us perfect. But your father didnt exactly do wrong things: he said them and thought them: that was what was so dreadful. He really had a sort of religion of wrongness. Just as one doesnt mind men practising immorality so long as they own that they are wrong by preaching morality; so I couldn’t forgive Andrew for preaching immorality while he practised morality.
    — GBS, Man and Superman

  1442. We’re supposed to follow the Lady Britomart approach, where hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue:
    I really cannot bear an immoral man. I am not a Pharisee, I hope; and I shouldnt have minded his merely doing wrong things: we are none of us perfect. But your father didnt exactly do wrong things: he said them and thought them: that was what was so dreadful. He really had a sort of religion of wrongness. Just as one doesnt mind men practising immorality so long as they own that they are wrong by preaching morality; so I couldn’t forgive Andrew for preaching immorality while he practised morality.
    — GBS, Man and Superman

  1445. I don’t know that marital infidelity necessarily translates to being untrustworthy in other areas. Some people are driven by sex to lengths they otherwise wouldn’t go to. I also think people who have political aspirations strong enough to reach the likes of the presidency are more likely to be in marriages that are political partnerships as much as they are anything else.
    That said, my initial impression of Bill Clinton, when he first came on the national scene as a candidate and before any of his sexual misdeeds came to light, was that he was a very slick conman and not to be trusted. He proceeded to win me over as the campaign went on, with the help of Republicans.
    (Not that any of this is particularly relevant to Kavanaugh…)

  1446. I don’t know that marital infidelity necessarily translates to being untrustworthy in other areas. Some people are driven by sex to lengths they otherwise wouldn’t go to. I also think people who have political aspirations strong enough to reach the likes of the presidency are more likely to be in marriages that are political partnerships as much as they are anything else.
    That said, my initial impression of Bill Clinton, when he first came on the national scene as a candidate and before any of his sexual misdeeds came to light, was that he was a very slick conman and not to be trusted. He proceeded to win me over as the campaign went on, with the help of Republicans.
    (Not that any of this is particularly relevant to Kavanaugh…)

  1447. Are you saying Clinton had an open relationship? I imagine had Hillary said ‘I am good with this’ the issue might have died.
    No, I’m not, which is why I wrote about Puritanism+Victorianism. I’d also note that Hillary (and Michele Obama) were often posited to be lesbians in fringe right wing circles, so it’s hard to imagine that a ‘well Bill will be Bill’ from HRC would have had the issue die.
    I might be drawing too much from the situation here in Japan, but there are a lot of marriages that are sexless.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/14/record-numbers-of-couples-living-in-sexless-marriages-in-japan-says-report
    The article points to this one, which suggests that Japan isn’t the strange place where people aren’t interested in doing it.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/japan-poll-linking-sexless-singles-to-low-birth-rate-causes-stir
    and has this
    “I think it’s likely that people don’t talk honestly about their sex lives,” said Yamaguchi. “I wonder if people are really willing to discuss their use of services provided by sex workers, especially in a survey administered by a government body. The same could be said about sexual minorities, and heterosexual women and men who may not be willing to openly discuss their sex lives.”
    My point is that it is sometimes very difficult to understand what ‘cheating’ is unless you have an complete knowledge of the understandings and dynamics of a couple, so I wonder if your blanket condemnation of cheating has taken that into account. Speaking for myself, I’m a lot more comfortable with the view that what goes on between a couple is between that couple and really none of my business. While I can draw some inferences about how trustworthy a person is by the way that person behaves to their spouse, it is, as I mentioned, overlaid with a view of gender roles that is going to be problematic when considering these things in the real world.

  1448. Are you saying Clinton had an open relationship? I imagine had Hillary said ‘I am good with this’ the issue might have died.
    No, I’m not, which is why I wrote about Puritanism+Victorianism. I’d also note that Hillary (and Michele Obama) were often posited to be lesbians in fringe right wing circles, so it’s hard to imagine that a ‘well Bill will be Bill’ from HRC would have had the issue die.
    I might be drawing too much from the situation here in Japan, but there are a lot of marriages that are sexless.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/14/record-numbers-of-couples-living-in-sexless-marriages-in-japan-says-report
    The article points to this one, which suggests that Japan isn’t the strange place where people aren’t interested in doing it.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/28/japan-poll-linking-sexless-singles-to-low-birth-rate-causes-stir
    and has this
    “I think it’s likely that people don’t talk honestly about their sex lives,” said Yamaguchi. “I wonder if people are really willing to discuss their use of services provided by sex workers, especially in a survey administered by a government body. The same could be said about sexual minorities, and heterosexual women and men who may not be willing to openly discuss their sex lives.”
    My point is that it is sometimes very difficult to understand what ‘cheating’ is unless you have an complete knowledge of the understandings and dynamics of a couple, so I wonder if your blanket condemnation of cheating has taken that into account. Speaking for myself, I’m a lot more comfortable with the view that what goes on between a couple is between that couple and really none of my business. While I can draw some inferences about how trustworthy a person is by the way that person behaves to their spouse, it is, as I mentioned, overlaid with a view of gender roles that is going to be problematic when considering these things in the real world.

  1449. So it is okay to lie about your open relationship to get elected? At the price of the other woman who was consensual with the man, but was treated as a home breaker?
    How about now? Couldn’t Hillary clear it up when neither have a risk of further elected office?
    I don’t think there is any way to portray it other than a lie to the public, which again is untrustworthy.
    Th hyprocricy of conservatives who turn out to be gay or push for abortions is an issue because they are untrustworthy. Presumably they hid that about themselves to get elected. I don’t see this as different.

  1450. So it is okay to lie about your open relationship to get elected? At the price of the other woman who was consensual with the man, but was treated as a home breaker?
    How about now? Couldn’t Hillary clear it up when neither have a risk of further elected office?
    I don’t think there is any way to portray it other than a lie to the public, which again is untrustworthy.
    Th hyprocricy of conservatives who turn out to be gay or push for abortions is an issue because they are untrustworthy. Presumably they hid that about themselves to get elected. I don’t see this as different.

  1451. I had written this, before I saw all the other developments since jrudkis’s original comment about it:

    jrudkis, with the greatest respect for you and your opinions (which I have almost always felt), your 05.33 could probably only have been written by an American. I do not mean by this that I regard unfaithfulness to a spouse as in any way morally neutral, let alone positive, but that I believe human nature is frail and that sexual behaviour is often driven by very deep and strange parts of the psyche, often unrelated to other more conscious, controlled parts which deal with rational matters. I do not mean by this that people should be excused their sexual misbehaviour, particularly in the case of criminal acts like rape for example. And as it happens, and FWIW, I myself regard my word as my bond and have never been unfaithful, but I do not necessarily expect that everybody can follow this path, and in particular I do not necessarily connect sexual faithlessless with other kinds, let alone think it bears any relation whatsoever with desirable or undesirable political values and skills. This is generally considered a rather european view of sexual morality, and europeans often sneer at what they consider naive American attitudes to these things. I am definitely not sneering, but I do think that lj is right about the puritanical roots of some of these views.

    And I would just add after reading the later comments that I agree that the hypocrisy is indeed very distasteful. But on the other hand, it is the requirement that the American public places on these aspiring politicians that they must be “decent family men” (sic) that makes the hypocrisy inevitable, and in my view it is more the fault of the public than the erring pols.

  1452. I had written this, before I saw all the other developments since jrudkis’s original comment about it:

    jrudkis, with the greatest respect for you and your opinions (which I have almost always felt), your 05.33 could probably only have been written by an American. I do not mean by this that I regard unfaithfulness to a spouse as in any way morally neutral, let alone positive, but that I believe human nature is frail and that sexual behaviour is often driven by very deep and strange parts of the psyche, often unrelated to other more conscious, controlled parts which deal with rational matters. I do not mean by this that people should be excused their sexual misbehaviour, particularly in the case of criminal acts like rape for example. And as it happens, and FWIW, I myself regard my word as my bond and have never been unfaithful, but I do not necessarily expect that everybody can follow this path, and in particular I do not necessarily connect sexual faithlessless with other kinds, let alone think it bears any relation whatsoever with desirable or undesirable political values and skills. This is generally considered a rather european view of sexual morality, and europeans often sneer at what they consider naive American attitudes to these things. I am definitely not sneering, but I do think that lj is right about the puritanical roots of some of these views.

    And I would just add after reading the later comments that I agree that the hypocrisy is indeed very distasteful. But on the other hand, it is the requirement that the American public places on these aspiring politicians that they must be “decent family men” (sic) that makes the hypocrisy inevitable, and in my view it is more the fault of the public than the erring pols.

  1455. LJ,
    I agree I don’t know what happens in a relationship, unless it is broadcast to those around them. Having it broadcast is typically how you know, when there is a divorce, or your spouse is counseling a friend after infidelity, or your friend confides in you.
    I suppose the term ‘cheating’ means it was not within ther terms of the agreement: otherwise it is not cheating. When it is not cheating, we don’t generally learn about them.
    If for whatever reason a couple determined it is better for other’s to think infidelity rather than ‘open relationship,’ I guess they have that choice.

  1456. LJ,
    I agree I don’t know what happens in a relationship, unless it is broadcast to those around them. Having it broadcast is typically how you know, when there is a divorce, or your spouse is counseling a friend after infidelity, or your friend confides in you.
    I suppose the term ‘cheating’ means it was not within ther terms of the agreement: otherwise it is not cheating. When it is not cheating, we don’t generally learn about them.
    If for whatever reason a couple determined it is better for other’s to think infidelity rather than ‘open relationship,’ I guess they have that choice.

  1461. Girl from the North Country,
    Thanks for the thoughful reply.
    I guess I don’t really see it as being puritan, in that sex is the issue. It is the damage to the family relationship, one in which there are often children, and at least a spouse.
    I think of marriage as ‘me and you against the world.’ Sickness and health, rich for poorer, that kind of thing. So to me, anyone who risks that bond is simply not trustworthy.
    And I have been divorced, so it is not like I see it as a sacred religious bond, but it is the most basic unit of trust you can have. Risking it for short term sexual release is not responsible, or honorable.

  1462. Girl from the North Country,
    Thanks for the thoughful reply.
    I guess I don’t really see it as being puritan, in that sex is the issue. It is the damage to the family relationship, one in which there are often children, and at least a spouse.
    I think of marriage as ‘me and you against the world.’ Sickness and health, rich for poorer, that kind of thing. So to me, anyone who risks that bond is simply not trustworthy.
    And I have been divorced, so it is not like I see it as a sacred religious bond, but it is the most basic unit of trust you can have. Risking it for short term sexual release is not responsible, or honorable.

  1463. GftNC, I didn’t realize you had already made the very same point I just tried to make. You use gooder words, too.

  1464. GftNC, I didn’t realize you had already made the very same point I just tried to make. You use gooder words, too.

  1465. Someone living openly in an open relationship would have less of a chance of getting elected in this country than an out atheist. And that’s saying something.
    I assumed that this comment was defending lying about being in an open relationship. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  1466. Someone living openly in an open relationship would have less of a chance of getting elected in this country than an out atheist. And that’s saying something.
    I assumed that this comment was defending lying about being in an open relationship. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

  1469. hsh: I’d written those gooder words, but not yet posted them when you wrote yours! But alas, neither of us has all the best words – we know to whom belongs that honour…

  1470. hsh: I’d written those gooder words, but not yet posted them when you wrote yours! But alas, neither of us has all the best words – we know to whom belongs that honour…

  1471. This was written after jrudkis 6:19, so it doesn’t take into account the other comments.
    So it is okay to lie about your open relationship to get elected? At the price of the other woman who was consensual with the man, but was treated as a home breaker?
    Are we talking about Clinton or open relationships in general? I’m not posing any hypotheticals and if you want to analyze what happened with the Clintons, go for it, but I won’t be participating. I’d just say that the timeline makes your certainty a bit off and if you imagine that Hilary saying ‘well, Bill and I have an understanding’ would have made it all go away, you have a lot better imagination than me.
    About open relationships in general, and their relation to hypocrisy, one of the problems is that conservatives who are closeted are often the ones who are most vocal about treating homosexuality as a crime/sin. When someone like Mark Foley or Dennis Hastert ‘turn out’ to be gay, it usually comes with a record of anti gay rhetoric and legislation. When Democratic are revealed to have cheated on their spouses, I don’t think you have the record of them creating an equivalent legislative record. That’s why there is the debate about ‘outing’, where it is viewed conditionally wrong, in that if the person is closeted and doesn’t make his agenda (and I use the male pronoun here because it is better representative of how things have worked out) an anti-gay one, he is generally left alone, but if he is a conservative, he is not. This is why I see it as different.
    I understand your viewpoint and I held a view similar to that for quite a while. But getting older, I’ve seen couples have various break ups and accommodations and I’ve realized that I can’t really judge things before they happen, it is necessary to know the context and circumstances. There is enough of a gap between everyday agreements that when someone says ‘we both knew that’, I tend to raise an eyebrow. And when it gets mixed up with sexual mores and gender roles, it has me looking at my previous certainty and shaking my head.

  1472. This was written after jrudkis 6:19, so it doesn’t take into account the other comments.
    So it is okay to lie about your open relationship to get elected? At the price of the other woman who was consensual with the man, but was treated as a home breaker?
    Are we talking about Clinton or open relationships in general? I’m not posing any hypotheticals and if you want to analyze what happened with the Clintons, go for it, but I won’t be participating. I’d just say that the timeline makes your certainty a bit off and if you imagine that Hilary saying ‘well, Bill and I have an understanding’ would have made it all go away, you have a lot better imagination than me.
    About open relationships in general, and their relation to hypocrisy, one of the problems is that conservatives who are closeted are often the ones who are most vocal about treating homosexuality as a crime/sin. When someone like Mark Foley or Dennis Hastert ‘turn out’ to be gay, it usually comes with a record of anti gay rhetoric and legislation. When Democratic are revealed to have cheated on their spouses, I don’t think you have the record of them creating an equivalent legislative record. That’s why there is the debate about ‘outing’, where it is viewed conditionally wrong, in that if the person is closeted and doesn’t make his agenda (and I use the male pronoun here because it is better representative of how things have worked out) an anti-gay one, he is generally left alone, but if he is a conservative, he is not. This is why I see it as different.
    I understand your viewpoint and I held a view similar to that for quite a while. But getting older, I’ve seen couples have various break ups and accommodations and I’ve realized that I can’t really judge things before they happen, it is necessary to know the context and circumstances. There is enough of a gap between everyday agreements that when someone says ‘we both knew that’, I tend to raise an eyebrow. And when it gets mixed up with sexual mores and gender roles, it has me looking at my previous certainty and shaking my head.

  1473. jrudkis, thanks. It was really a reaction to the notion that if Hillary had say hey, it’s fine with me, the issue might have died. It’s hard to imagine how the right wing scandal machine could have found an even higher gear in relation to the Clintons, but I think it would have.
    Beyond that I’ll leave the complexities to others, because I just can’t face tackling them right now. If ever.

  1474. jrudkis, thanks. It was really a reaction to the notion that if Hillary had say hey, it’s fine with me, the issue might have died. It’s hard to imagine how the right wing scandal machine could have found an even higher gear in relation to the Clintons, but I think it would have.
    Beyond that I’ll leave the complexities to others, because I just can’t face tackling them right now. If ever.

  1475. I believe Mike Pence when he claims to have never been unfaithful to his wife, though I find it a might bit creepy that he must have her in the room if there is anyone of the opposite, contradictory gender present.
    But, otherwise, I find him a smug, slippery, unctuous and completely untrustworthy public servant.
    My bottom line is this: It’s nobody’s business what happens in a marriage, unless its violence, including chronic verbal abuse. It’s nobody’s business if a candidate is gay or straight and it’s nobody’s business if a woman has undergone an abortion.
    Sexual harassment on the job, including against women who make it their business to sell their bodies, or any time, properly investigated, is our business in the public realm, as it is on the job in the private sector.
    I think Jerry Seinfeld said it best, re Bill Clinton: “Lying about sex? C’mon, there wouldn’t BE any sex without lying!”
    That said, Seinfeld has been rather cavalier at times since then about sexual harassment in his business.
    But the proverbial cat is out of the bag. The unspoken norm that infidelity, a subject that has no clear, unfraught lines and goes to the heart of human frailty is out of bounds, is not to be material for political leverage is fully and forever broken, like so many other norms.
    And we are now ruing the day.
    The semen on the blue dress was bad enough.
    The Republican Party and the press gleefully sniffing at it over and over was perversion morphed into the madness of crowds.
    Kellyanne Conway’s husband, not a criminal investigator, collecting alleged Clinton dic pics in his sock drawer is downright peculiar behavior and as George W. Bush might say “some kind of weird shit”.
    Regarding the subject of hypocrisy, some of the worst tyrants in history were straight shooters. That they probably also don’t get much in the way of icky sex, adjusting for age, is a red flag signaling deeper sociopathies.
    Show me a person who exhibits no signs of hypocrisy and I’m wondering, well, WHAT they have been doing up to now? How do they keep busy if hypocrisy is off the table?
    That said, how anyone with a tawdry/corrupt past/present can run for office in the glare of the national security society and expect to keep the awful details hidden and survive the attendant stress is beyond my comprehension.
    But then I have no intention of running for office, do I?

  1476. I believe Mike Pence when he claims to have never been unfaithful to his wife, though I find it a might bit creepy that he must have her in the room if there is anyone of the opposite, contradictory gender present.
    But, otherwise, I find him a smug, slippery, unctuous and completely untrustworthy public servant.
    My bottom line is this: It’s nobody’s business what happens in a marriage, unless its violence, including chronic verbal abuse. It’s nobody’s business if a candidate is gay or straight and it’s nobody’s business if a woman has undergone an abortion.
    Sexual harassment on the job, including against women who make it their business to sell their bodies, or any time, properly investigated, is our business in the public realm, as it is on the job in the private sector.
    I think Jerry Seinfeld said it best, re Bill Clinton: “Lying about sex? C’mon, there wouldn’t BE any sex without lying!”
    That said, Seinfeld has been rather cavalier at times since then about sexual harassment in his business.
    But the proverbial cat is out of the bag. The unspoken norm that infidelity, a subject that has no clear, unfraught lines and goes to the heart of human frailty is out of bounds, is not to be material for political leverage is fully and forever broken, like so many other norms.
    And we are now ruing the day.
    The semen on the blue dress was bad enough.
    The Republican Party and the press gleefully sniffing at it over and over was perversion morphed into the madness of crowds.
    Kellyanne Conway’s husband, not a criminal investigator, collecting alleged Clinton dic pics in his sock drawer is downright peculiar behavior and as George W. Bush might say “some kind of weird shit”.
    Regarding the subject of hypocrisy, some of the worst tyrants in history were straight shooters. That they probably also don’t get much in the way of icky sex, adjusting for age, is a red flag signaling deeper sociopathies.
    Show me a person who exhibits no signs of hypocrisy and I’m wondering, well, WHAT they have been doing up to now? How do they keep busy if hypocrisy is off the table?
    That said, how anyone with a tawdry/corrupt past/present can run for office in the glare of the national security society and expect to keep the awful details hidden and survive the attendant stress is beyond my comprehension.
    But then I have no intention of running for office, do I?

  1477. I think that people are complicated.
    I know people who are extremely trustworthy and responsible in many areas of life, but who are not sexually faithful to their spouses or partners. I know more than few people who are faithful to their spouses or partners, but who I would trust with anything important to me.
    We have really weird mythologies about what we expect from politicians. Consequently, lots of people who run for public office are less than candid about areas of their life that are otherwise irrelevant to the job they seek.
    I just call all of that human nature.

  1478. I think that people are complicated.
    I know people who are extremely trustworthy and responsible in many areas of life, but who are not sexually faithful to their spouses or partners. I know more than few people who are faithful to their spouses or partners, but who I would trust with anything important to me.
    We have really weird mythologies about what we expect from politicians. Consequently, lots of people who run for public office are less than candid about areas of their life that are otherwise irrelevant to the job they seek.
    I just call all of that human nature.

  1479. As someone who dislikes Mke Pence a lot, I think he got a lot of grief for fidelity rules.
    Advice I was given as a young man was ‘the difference between someone who cheats and someone who doesn’t is not putting yourself in a position where you might.’
    Some men have a more delicate ‘might’ than others. I find being grumpy all the time eliminates possibilities.

  1480. As someone who dislikes Mke Pence a lot, I think he got a lot of grief for fidelity rules.
    Advice I was given as a young man was ‘the difference between someone who cheats and someone who doesn’t is not putting yourself in a position where you might.’
    Some men have a more delicate ‘might’ than others. I find being grumpy all the time eliminates possibilities.

  1481. Hillary could have confirmed the rumors, published by a Regnery ex-CIA official, no less, that the Clinton White House Christmas tree was festooned with dildos and butt plugs too, and quieted absolutely nothing.
    That so many family values long term crypto-religious conservative virgins didn’t raise their hands and ask “What is a butt plug, anyway?” was a bit of a tell.

  1482. Hillary could have confirmed the rumors, published by a Regnery ex-CIA official, no less, that the Clinton White House Christmas tree was festooned with dildos and butt plugs too, and quieted absolutely nothing.
    That so many family values long term crypto-religious conservative virgins didn’t raise their hands and ask “What is a butt plug, anyway?” was a bit of a tell.

  1485. Risking it for short term sexual release is not responsible, or honorable.
    I don’t think anyone was disputing this. It’s a question of whether such behavior implies a general lack of responsibility, affecting other areas of one’s life. The point is not that cheating is okay.

  1486. Risking it for short term sexual release is not responsible, or honorable.
    I don’t think anyone was disputing this. It’s a question of whether such behavior implies a general lack of responsibility, affecting other areas of one’s life. The point is not that cheating is okay.

  1489. HSH,
    I agree that is the issue. For me, risking the fundamental responsibility as a husband/father implies a general lack of trustworthiness.
    And in my anecdotal experience, it has borne out: those are the slicky salesmen guys who leave you with the bag, as they move on to seduce a new customer/partner.

  1490. HSH,
    I agree that is the issue. For me, risking the fundamental responsibility as a husband/father implies a general lack of trustworthiness.
    And in my anecdotal experience, it has borne out: those are the slicky salesmen guys who leave you with the bag, as they move on to seduce a new customer/partner.

  1493. I know people who are extremely trustworthy and responsible in many areas of life, but who are not sexually faithful to their spouses or partners. I know more than few people who are faithful to their spouses or partners, but who I would not trust with anything important to me. [Would I have that insertion right?]
    I personally would suggest a three-fold distinction. There are those who are faithful to their spouse (“faithful” being a matter of their own definition) — what I would consider “good people”. There are those who are trustworthy in business and other dealings. There are those who one can count on to do a good job at whatever they have engaged to do. Those are three, barely correlated, areas.
    For example, I’d give Bill Clinton a downcheck on the first, a maybe on the second, but a plus on the third. As opposed to Trump, who gets a downcheck across the board. Or Bush I, who gets pluses across the board (unless someone knows something about his personal behavior that I do not).

  1494. I know people who are extremely trustworthy and responsible in many areas of life, but who are not sexually faithful to their spouses or partners. I know more than few people who are faithful to their spouses or partners, but who I would not trust with anything important to me. [Would I have that insertion right?]
    I personally would suggest a three-fold distinction. There are those who are faithful to their spouse (“faithful” being a matter of their own definition) — what I would consider “good people”. There are those who are trustworthy in business and other dealings. There are those who one can count on to do a good job at whatever they have engaged to do. Those are three, barely correlated, areas.
    For example, I’d give Bill Clinton a downcheck on the first, a maybe on the second, but a plus on the third. As opposed to Trump, who gets a downcheck across the board. Or Bush I, who gets pluses across the board (unless someone knows something about his personal behavior that I do not).

  1495. One other point. I can see a lot of flexibility in who a marriage works. But once kids get involved, things get more complex rapidly.
    I know, from personal observation, that it is possible to have what I regard as really odd behavior going on, but the kids getting successfully read in and being OK with it. (“I’ve got two fathers. OK.” This from a kid whose nominal/legal father was actually a closeted gay man. Such things happened in the 60s and 70s.)
    But it seems much more common that the kids get blindsided far more than the spouse. With far less help available for dealing with the situation, even as they need it more. And that’s just not acceptable IMO.

  1496. One other point. I can see a lot of flexibility in who a marriage works. But once kids get involved, things get more complex rapidly.
    I know, from personal observation, that it is possible to have what I regard as really odd behavior going on, but the kids getting successfully read in and being OK with it. (“I’ve got two fathers. OK.” This from a kid whose nominal/legal father was actually a closeted gay man. Such things happened in the 60s and 70s.)
    But it seems much more common that the kids get blindsided far more than the spouse. With far less help available for dealing with the situation, even as they need it more. And that’s just not acceptable IMO.

  1497. hsh: I don’t think anyone was disputing this. It’s a question of whether such behavior implies a general lack of responsibility, affecting other areas of one’s life.
    I just spend five minutes looking for a letter in which GBS says something to the effect that homosexuality (“the best inverts never tell” was part of the letter) does not imply anything whatsoever about the conduct of the rest of the person’s life. Assume this was roughly 1900, at a guess.
    hsh again (we think as one tonight, as so often ;-): I’d love to know how many politicians have lied about their religious views (i.e. closet atheists).
    I was going to ask jrudkis something along these lines. That is, if it’s wrong to lie about being in an open relationship when you run for office (knowing that in this culture you might as well not bother to run if you say that out loud), does the same go for atheists and (let’s say 50 years ago) gay people?
    I don’t think there are easy answers to these questions, and again, they’re too big for blog comments in general and me at the moment. I’m not asking them to set a trap, just curious to see if keeping an open relationship secret (I’m not going to say “lying about it”) is a different thing from keeping one’s religious beliefs private, or one’s sexual preference back in the day when it mattered more than it does now.

  1498. hsh: I don’t think anyone was disputing this. It’s a question of whether such behavior implies a general lack of responsibility, affecting other areas of one’s life.
    I just spend five minutes looking for a letter in which GBS says something to the effect that homosexuality (“the best inverts never tell” was part of the letter) does not imply anything whatsoever about the conduct of the rest of the person’s life. Assume this was roughly 1900, at a guess.
    hsh again (we think as one tonight, as so often ;-): I’d love to know how many politicians have lied about their religious views (i.e. closet atheists).
    I was going to ask jrudkis something along these lines. That is, if it’s wrong to lie about being in an open relationship when you run for office (knowing that in this culture you might as well not bother to run if you say that out loud), does the same go for atheists and (let’s say 50 years ago) gay people?
    I don’t think there are easy answers to these questions, and again, they’re too big for blog comments in general and me at the moment. I’m not asking them to set a trap, just curious to see if keeping an open relationship secret (I’m not going to say “lying about it”) is a different thing from keeping one’s religious beliefs private, or one’s sexual preference back in the day when it mattered more than it does now.

  1499. Speaking of closet atheists, I once spent the night in the guest room of a Jesuit residence near Harvard Square, where a friend of mine was staying while he studied for a Ph.D.
    At breakfast the next morning I said how evocative the place was, almost making me wonder if I should reconsider my spiritual allegiance in order to “belong” somewhere again — like the Society of Jesus.
    Me: “But I know you could never get around the problem of my belief system.”
    My friend: “Oh, I think we could deal with your belief system [agnostic at best LOL – ed.], it’s your gender we can’t deal with.”
    What that implies about the belief systems of Jesuits I leave as an exercise for the reader.

  1500. Speaking of closet atheists, I once spent the night in the guest room of a Jesuit residence near Harvard Square, where a friend of mine was staying while he studied for a Ph.D.
    At breakfast the next morning I said how evocative the place was, almost making me wonder if I should reconsider my spiritual allegiance in order to “belong” somewhere again — like the Society of Jesus.
    Me: “But I know you could never get around the problem of my belief system.”
    My friend: “Oh, I think we could deal with your belief system [agnostic at best LOL – ed.], it’s your gender we can’t deal with.”
    What that implies about the belief systems of Jesuits I leave as an exercise for the reader.

  1501. John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic President, the only other Catholic nominee in American history being Al Smith.
    All of the other closeted Catholic Presidents lied about it.
    I think George Washington, or his hagiographers, lied about the cherry tree, but his crossing of the Delaware seems to be on the up and up, so we’ll let it go.

  1502. John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic President, the only other Catholic nominee in American history being Al Smith.
    All of the other closeted Catholic Presidents lied about it.
    I think George Washington, or his hagiographers, lied about the cherry tree, but his crossing of the Delaware seems to be on the up and up, so we’ll let it go.

  1503. But it seems much more common that the kids get blindsided far more than the spouse. With far less help available for dealing with the situation, even as they need it more. And that’s just not acceptable IMO.
    In the situations that had me question my do not pass go, do not collect $200 view on adultery, kids were involved. In some of the situations, things got broke in a way that they could never be repaired, in others, an accommodation was reached, in others, things just weren’t talked about, so it was never clear how much was known and accepted. I personally think that kids can handle a lot more truth than we are prepared to dish out and a lot of our problems is not that our kids can’t handle it, it is that we don’t want to know that our kids can handle that much truth.

  1504. But it seems much more common that the kids get blindsided far more than the spouse. With far less help available for dealing with the situation, even as they need it more. And that’s just not acceptable IMO.
    In the situations that had me question my do not pass go, do not collect $200 view on adultery, kids were involved. In some of the situations, things got broke in a way that they could never be repaired, in others, an accommodation was reached, in others, things just weren’t talked about, so it was never clear how much was known and accepted. I personally think that kids can handle a lot more truth than we are prepared to dish out and a lot of our problems is not that our kids can’t handle it, it is that we don’t want to know that our kids can handle that much truth.

  1505. if it’s wrong to lie about being in an open relationship when you run for office (knowing that in this culture you might as well not bother to run if you say that out loud), does the same go for atheists and (let’s say 50 years ago) gay people?
    I’d say, I have some reservations about lying. But so long as nobody is getting harmed by the lies — and being an atheist definitely qualifies — I’m willing to cut the individual a little slack. UNLESS he is using his position to denounce others for it. At that point I’d say it’s beyond minor hypocrisy and he gets taken down hard.

  1506. if it’s wrong to lie about being in an open relationship when you run for office (knowing that in this culture you might as well not bother to run if you say that out loud), does the same go for atheists and (let’s say 50 years ago) gay people?
    I’d say, I have some reservations about lying. But so long as nobody is getting harmed by the lies — and being an atheist definitely qualifies — I’m willing to cut the individual a little slack. UNLESS he is using his position to denounce others for it. At that point I’d say it’s beyond minor hypocrisy and he gets taken down hard.

  1507. Jimmy Carter admitted he was guilty of committing adultery in his heart many times.
    How did honesty that go over?
    They say, there are no atheists in foxholes. Does that make them hypocrites?
    Speaking of Merrick Garland, since he never was afforded the constitutional right to a hearing as the nominee for the Supreme Court, he’s probably thinking “And to think of the temptations I could have fallen to and the fun I deprived myself of during my life to reach this point .. well, Hell.”

  1508. Jimmy Carter admitted he was guilty of committing adultery in his heart many times.
    How did honesty that go over?
    They say, there are no atheists in foxholes. Does that make them hypocrites?
    Speaking of Merrick Garland, since he never was afforded the constitutional right to a hearing as the nominee for the Supreme Court, he’s probably thinking “And to think of the temptations I could have fallen to and the fun I deprived myself of during my life to reach this point .. well, Hell.”

  1509. So wj, should someone in an open relationship pretending to be in a regular marriage (maybe not lying overtly about it, but not telling anyone), or a closet atheist, or formerly a closet gay person – are they lying, in ways that trouble you?
    Would you trust the younger closeted gay — me 0 — to write a decent computer program, or manage a flock of programmers, or handle a confidential client database, even though I wasn’t telling the truth (in effect) about my private life? (Gay, atheist, we will pass by the relationship question in silence, there is such a thing as pleading the Fifth).

  1510. So wj, should someone in an open relationship pretending to be in a regular marriage (maybe not lying overtly about it, but not telling anyone), or a closet atheist, or formerly a closet gay person – are they lying, in ways that trouble you?
    Would you trust the younger closeted gay — me 0 — to write a decent computer program, or manage a flock of programmers, or handle a confidential client database, even though I wasn’t telling the truth (in effect) about my private life? (Gay, atheist, we will pass by the relationship question in silence, there is such a thing as pleading the Fifth).

  1511. If I were to run, I would be a Lutheran. I raised my kids in the church for cultural reasons, but so far they have joined me as agnosticish. I see it as a liability for either major party, and will be unlikely to try because of that.
    I don’t think I would sprout a bible and miss football just to win.

  1512. If I were to run, I would be a Lutheran. I raised my kids in the church for cultural reasons, but so far they have joined me as agnosticish. I see it as a liability for either major party, and will be unlikely to try because of that.
    I don’t think I would sprout a bible and miss football just to win.

  1513. So wj, should someone in an open relationship pretending to be in a regular marriage (maybe not lying overtly about it, but not telling anyone), or a closet atheist, or formerly a closet gay person – are they lying, in ways that trouble you?
    Not really. As I said, as long as they aren’t hurting others thereby, I’m basically indifferent. Certainly I can understand why they wouldn’t be issuing press releases on the subject.
    There are areas where I would consider dishonesty something which would carry over. But sexual orientation and religion have externalities in our society which I think put them in a special category.

  1514. So wj, should someone in an open relationship pretending to be in a regular marriage (maybe not lying overtly about it, but not telling anyone), or a closet atheist, or formerly a closet gay person – are they lying, in ways that trouble you?
    Not really. As I said, as long as they aren’t hurting others thereby, I’m basically indifferent. Certainly I can understand why they wouldn’t be issuing press releases on the subject.
    There are areas where I would consider dishonesty something which would carry over. But sexual orientation and religion have externalities in our society which I think put them in a special category.

  1515. Most of us probably know people, or have had issues ourselves, that have caused us to question conventional wisdom regarding sexual relationships, marriage, fidelity, partnerships, love (of various kinds), and betrayal. I had a lot of experience with the fall-out of love gone bad when I was a divorce attorney, many years ago. It completely put me off of the idea of formalizing “marriage” or encouraging some pre-packaged system of mutual promises for a couple to take on. I saw too many examples of a partner “betraying” another in order to take refuge against a different kind of betrayal that was happening, or a mental health issue, or a relationship that couldn’t be escaped, or more.
    It would be nice if we could live our lives freely, never hurting anyone else and never being hurt. We have to do the best we can with this, because it’s not possible to be selfless. To me, the law must protect people from having assault or battery (nonconsensual threats or touching) perpetrated on them. If the law is insufficient, public opprobrium is the next best thing.
    Where we draw the line (with regard to consensual relationships) in what should be absolutely private, what should be between people, and what should not be a secret – all of that is too complicated for simple rules. We have to do the best we can to be good to the people we love, to whom we have made commitments, to whom we owe care, and to other members of society. These are the issues that make us human, for better and for worse. People can be difficult, and sometimes loving them and caring for them is a struggle that can last our whole lives.

  1516. Most of us probably know people, or have had issues ourselves, that have caused us to question conventional wisdom regarding sexual relationships, marriage, fidelity, partnerships, love (of various kinds), and betrayal. I had a lot of experience with the fall-out of love gone bad when I was a divorce attorney, many years ago. It completely put me off of the idea of formalizing “marriage” or encouraging some pre-packaged system of mutual promises for a couple to take on. I saw too many examples of a partner “betraying” another in order to take refuge against a different kind of betrayal that was happening, or a mental health issue, or a relationship that couldn’t be escaped, or more.
    It would be nice if we could live our lives freely, never hurting anyone else and never being hurt. We have to do the best we can with this, because it’s not possible to be selfless. To me, the law must protect people from having assault or battery (nonconsensual threats or touching) perpetrated on them. If the law is insufficient, public opprobrium is the next best thing.
    Where we draw the line (with regard to consensual relationships) in what should be absolutely private, what should be between people, and what should not be a secret – all of that is too complicated for simple rules. We have to do the best we can to be good to the people we love, to whom we have made commitments, to whom we owe care, and to other members of society. These are the issues that make us human, for better and for worse. People can be difficult, and sometimes loving them and caring for them is a struggle that can last our whole lives.

  1517. A quite common arrangement in marriages in Britain is that discreet infidelity is to be tolerated. Getting intimate with an intern would be just about acceptable: having the intern blab about it would not.

  1518. A quite common arrangement in marriages in Britain is that discreet infidelity is to be tolerated. Getting intimate with an intern would be just about acceptable: having the intern blab about it would not.

  1519. I think the old tolerance of infidelity in men was based on unequal partners. If the man still provided for his wife and kids, extra curricular activities were no big deal. In a more equal society, between equal partners, I think it is less tolerable (not that it has ever been tolerable for a woman.)
    Equality makes open relationships possible. And equality means women have to choose between feeding the kids or kicking the bum out less often.
    I recently was approached for a land deal from a guy with a reputation for cheating his partners (business). I said no because he is demonstrably untrustworthy. I equate the behaviors because I generally have little data to go on, and they seem to correlate.

  1520. I think the old tolerance of infidelity in men was based on unequal partners. If the man still provided for his wife and kids, extra curricular activities were no big deal. In a more equal society, between equal partners, I think it is less tolerable (not that it has ever been tolerable for a woman.)
    Equality makes open relationships possible. And equality means women have to choose between feeding the kids or kicking the bum out less often.
    I recently was approached for a land deal from a guy with a reputation for cheating his partners (business). I said no because he is demonstrably untrustworthy. I equate the behaviors because I generally have little data to go on, and they seem to correlate.

  1521. In a more equal society, between equal partners, I think it is less tolerable (not that it has ever been tolerable for a woman.)
    Equality makes open relationships possible.
    Not picking a argument here, but if open relationships are more possible in a more equal society, one would imagine the act would be more common, and therefore ‘more’ tolerable. If there was equality and people didn’t make a big deal of sex, you’d probably have the situation that pro bono suggests, where infidelity is not considered a deal breaker. An impression I get here in Japan is that a lot of women tolerate their men stepping out on them, what is not acceptable is if the man falls in love with someone else.
    I’m reading an interesting book, The Women of Suye Mura. The back story of the book is pretty interesting, the female author of the book, Ella Lury Wiswell, was the wife of John Embree and they went to Japan to do ethnographic research in the mid-30’s and Embree published an ethnographic study (the village is actually about an hour drive from me, which was published as Suye Mura: A Japanese Village. His study set the template for a range of other asian ethnographic studies. He and his daughter sadly were killed in a car crash in 1950. The wife kept extensive field notes about the women of the village and these were written up with a younger author in 1983. He has an article here
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/132203?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    and here’s a quick quote
    To a degree that no literature I now would lead us to expect, Suye women divorced their husbands. Or, more precisely, they terminated marriages of their own accord, and very often for reasons having nothing to do with the class male concerns of household continuity and the rest…
    Marriage was a subject much on the minds of the women and men of Suye. So were divorce and adulterous affairs carried on by both wives and husbands.
    A discussion of how love works is later and it is quite different from what westerners would think.

  1522. In a more equal society, between equal partners, I think it is less tolerable (not that it has ever been tolerable for a woman.)
    Equality makes open relationships possible.
    Not picking a argument here, but if open relationships are more possible in a more equal society, one would imagine the act would be more common, and therefore ‘more’ tolerable. If there was equality and people didn’t make a big deal of sex, you’d probably have the situation that pro bono suggests, where infidelity is not considered a deal breaker. An impression I get here in Japan is that a lot of women tolerate their men stepping out on them, what is not acceptable is if the man falls in love with someone else.
    I’m reading an interesting book, The Women of Suye Mura. The back story of the book is pretty interesting, the female author of the book, Ella Lury Wiswell, was the wife of John Embree and they went to Japan to do ethnographic research in the mid-30’s and Embree published an ethnographic study (the village is actually about an hour drive from me, which was published as Suye Mura: A Japanese Village. His study set the template for a range of other asian ethnographic studies. He and his daughter sadly were killed in a car crash in 1950. The wife kept extensive field notes about the women of the village and these were written up with a younger author in 1983. He has an article here
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/132203?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    and here’s a quick quote
    To a degree that no literature I now would lead us to expect, Suye women divorced their husbands. Or, more precisely, they terminated marriages of their own accord, and very often for reasons having nothing to do with the class male concerns of household continuity and the rest…
    Marriage was a subject much on the minds of the women and men of Suye. So were divorce and adulterous affairs carried on by both wives and husbands.
    A discussion of how love works is later and it is quite different from what westerners would think.

  1523. The viability of an open relationship depends enormously on the specific personalities of the people involved. This truth is buried very deeply under the religious fervor with which some people preach the gospel(s) of various approaches to non-monogamy.
    Cultural factors are one thing, but sapient’s 8:57 is apt as well.
    Also, it’s possible that my impressions are rooted in a different era; certainly my experience is. I don’t know whether the fact that I rarely hear that gospel being preached these days is because times have changed, or because I just don’t hang around in the right places nowadays.
    Bottom line: I would hesitate to generalize in any direction about this topic.

  1524. The viability of an open relationship depends enormously on the specific personalities of the people involved. This truth is buried very deeply under the religious fervor with which some people preach the gospel(s) of various approaches to non-monogamy.
    Cultural factors are one thing, but sapient’s 8:57 is apt as well.
    Also, it’s possible that my impressions are rooted in a different era; certainly my experience is. I don’t know whether the fact that I rarely hear that gospel being preached these days is because times have changed, or because I just don’t hang around in the right places nowadays.
    Bottom line: I would hesitate to generalize in any direction about this topic.

  1525. This part of the Democratic plot, too ?
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/408434-yale-law-school-students-who-endorsed-him-call-for-sexual
    Several of Brett Kavanaugh’s Yale Law School classmates who endorsed his Supreme Court nomination are now calling for an investigation into sexual assault accusations against him.
    “The confirmation process should be conducted in a way that fosters trust in the process and the Supreme Court, and that seriously considers allegations of sexual violence,” Kent Sinclair and Douglas Rutzen said to The Washington Post, adding that the latest sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh warrants “a fair and credible investigation.”
    Mark Osler, a third Yale Law School alum, told The Post that “corroborating evidence” is necessary to support the claims of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.
    “The focus can’t just be on the accusers and trying to bring their veracity into question. The circumstances need to be probed,” Osler added.
    Sinclair, a political independent who practices law; Rutzen, a lawyer in Washington; and Osler, an ex-federal prosecutor, were among Kavanaugh’s former Yale Law School classmate to endorse the nominee. …

  1526. This part of the Democratic plot, too ?
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/408434-yale-law-school-students-who-endorsed-him-call-for-sexual
    Several of Brett Kavanaugh’s Yale Law School classmates who endorsed his Supreme Court nomination are now calling for an investigation into sexual assault accusations against him.
    “The confirmation process should be conducted in a way that fosters trust in the process and the Supreme Court, and that seriously considers allegations of sexual violence,” Kent Sinclair and Douglas Rutzen said to The Washington Post, adding that the latest sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh warrants “a fair and credible investigation.”
    Mark Osler, a third Yale Law School alum, told The Post that “corroborating evidence” is necessary to support the claims of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.
    “The focus can’t just be on the accusers and trying to bring their veracity into question. The circumstances need to be probed,” Osler added.
    Sinclair, a political independent who practices law; Rutzen, a lawyer in Washington; and Osler, an ex-federal prosecutor, were among Kavanaugh’s former Yale Law School classmate to endorse the nominee. …

  1527. And about that interview…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2018/09/25/ea5e50d4-c0eb-11e8-9005-5104e9616c21_story.html
    “He’s trying to paint himself as some kind of choir boy,” said Brookes, a Republican and former pharmaceutical executive who recalled an encounter with a drunken Kavanaugh at a fraternity event. “You can’t lie your way onto the Supreme Court, and with that statement out, he’s gone too far. It’s about the integrity of that institution.”…

  1528. And about that interview…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2018/09/25/ea5e50d4-c0eb-11e8-9005-5104e9616c21_story.html
    “He’s trying to paint himself as some kind of choir boy,” said Brookes, a Republican and former pharmaceutical executive who recalled an encounter with a drunken Kavanaugh at a fraternity event. “You can’t lie your way onto the Supreme Court, and with that statement out, he’s gone too far. It’s about the integrity of that institution.”…

  1531. Nigel’s article traces Kavanaugh’s behavior and his interview on Fox to ‘homosocialization’. I think that’s giving him too much credit. I think he went on Fox because that is what the base watches. He (and his handlers) don’t give a shit what anyone other than the base thinks.

  1532. Nigel’s article traces Kavanaugh’s behavior and his interview on Fox to ‘homosocialization’. I think that’s giving him too much credit. I think he went on Fox because that is what the base watches. He (and his handlers) don’t give a shit what anyone other than the base thinks.

  1533. I would hesitate to generalize in any direction about this topic.
    Seconded. Including, as a nod to jrudkis and a recognition of the legitimacy of his perspective, a hesitation to generalize about whether other folks ought to generalize.
    This ocean is too big for my little boat.
    sapient’s 8:57 is apt as well.
    Seconded as well.

  1534. I would hesitate to generalize in any direction about this topic.
    Seconded. Including, as a nod to jrudkis and a recognition of the legitimacy of his perspective, a hesitation to generalize about whether other folks ought to generalize.
    This ocean is too big for my little boat.
    sapient’s 8:57 is apt as well.
    Seconded as well.

  1545. I’m really not sure what to think about this
    On one hand, I’d say having Avenatti as her attorney is a significant negative. On the other hand, I’d say that her statement fits with a) other accounts of Kavanaugh’s behavior, and b) my own observations (some years before that) of the way frat boys behave in general and towards women in particular.
    Overall, I’d say less credible than Dr Ford, and even a bit less credible than Ms Ramirez. But definitely not totally unbelievable.

  1546. I’m really not sure what to think about this
    On one hand, I’d say having Avenatti as her attorney is a significant negative. On the other hand, I’d say that her statement fits with a) other accounts of Kavanaugh’s behavior, and b) my own observations (some years before that) of the way frat boys behave in general and towards women in particular.
    Overall, I’d say less credible than Dr Ford, and even a bit less credible than Ms Ramirez. But definitely not totally unbelievable.

  1547. On one hand, I’d say having Avenatti as her attorney is a significant negative.
    because he has a history of being wrong when it comes to women who had sexual encounters with powerful men?

  1548. On one hand, I’d say having Avenatti as her attorney is a significant negative.
    because he has a history of being wrong when it comes to women who had sexual encounters with powerful men?

  1549. because he has a history of being wrong when it comes to women who had sexual encounters with powerful men?
    No. Because he has a history of being more about self-promotion than anything else. But it must be admitted that, on occasion, even some of his more unbelievable claims have turned out to be accurate. Which is why he’s a negative, rather than being disqualifying.

  1550. because he has a history of being wrong when it comes to women who had sexual encounters with powerful men?
    No. Because he has a history of being more about self-promotion than anything else. But it must be admitted that, on occasion, even some of his more unbelievable claims have turned out to be accurate. Which is why he’s a negative, rather than being disqualifying.

  1551. I find her credible in concert with the other two. Though her declaration is cagey about whether or not she is accusing Kavanaugh himself which I find frustrating. (As a lawyer I’m leery of statements like I saw X and Y doing A, B and C because the easy walk back is that at least one of them was doing each thing). Her comments in the form of “I saw Kavanaugh do X” are much more limited. But again with the other two it makes it pretty clear that Kavanaugh was engaged in an aggressive frat boy culture that lends weight to the other two more specific allegations.
    I have a process question. It’s super narrow, and I only thought of it because I see a bunch of people saying that she opens herself up to perjury prosecutions (Ha in general) by having a sworn statement. She clearly opens herself up to libel if these statements are proveably untrue (though the standard is super high so good luck even if they were lies). But is there any more liability for “sworn statement” or “sworn declaration” when there isn’t an underlying case or formal investigation to which she has been asked to respond to? My familiarity with declarations is that they are declarations in support of some court motion. In other cases there is a sworn statement in response to a legally sanctioned investigation like an insurance investigation.
    But here she isn’t responding to a court or Congressional subpoena. She isn’t filing it in support of a court document. I think this is the DC version of the underlying law. https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-2402.html
    Number 1 is the normal case. Number 3 is what would apply. “In any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement made under penalty of perjury in the form specified in § 16-5306 or 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), the person willfully states or subscribes as true any material matter that the person does not believe to be true and that in fact is not true.”. But “material matter” makes me pause. Usually that is something material TO something else. I don’t think it can mean “stuff in the statement” because that would be just anything. It would normally mean something like “material to the ongoing investigation” or “material to the requested documentation”. It’s more obviously intended to cover things like insurance investigations or home sale disclosure forms. Does it cover press releases?

  1552. I find her credible in concert with the other two. Though her declaration is cagey about whether or not she is accusing Kavanaugh himself which I find frustrating. (As a lawyer I’m leery of statements like I saw X and Y doing A, B and C because the easy walk back is that at least one of them was doing each thing). Her comments in the form of “I saw Kavanaugh do X” are much more limited. But again with the other two it makes it pretty clear that Kavanaugh was engaged in an aggressive frat boy culture that lends weight to the other two more specific allegations.
    I have a process question. It’s super narrow, and I only thought of it because I see a bunch of people saying that she opens herself up to perjury prosecutions (Ha in general) by having a sworn statement. She clearly opens herself up to libel if these statements are proveably untrue (though the standard is super high so good luck even if they were lies). But is there any more liability for “sworn statement” or “sworn declaration” when there isn’t an underlying case or formal investigation to which she has been asked to respond to? My familiarity with declarations is that they are declarations in support of some court motion. In other cases there is a sworn statement in response to a legally sanctioned investigation like an insurance investigation.
    But here she isn’t responding to a court or Congressional subpoena. She isn’t filing it in support of a court document. I think this is the DC version of the underlying law. https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-2402.html
    Number 1 is the normal case. Number 3 is what would apply. “In any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement made under penalty of perjury in the form specified in § 16-5306 or 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2), the person willfully states or subscribes as true any material matter that the person does not believe to be true and that in fact is not true.”. But “material matter” makes me pause. Usually that is something material TO something else. I don’t think it can mean “stuff in the statement” because that would be just anything. It would normally mean something like “material to the ongoing investigation” or “material to the requested documentation”. It’s more obviously intended to cover things like insurance investigations or home sale disclosure forms. Does it cover press releases?

  1557. I have to say that I find the Senate Republicans’ choice of Rachael Mitchell, the chief of the special victims division of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, to question Dr Ford . . . interesting. Here is a lady who made her name initially prosecuting decades old instances of sex abuse (by Catholic priests). Senator Grassley says that they want to “de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding…” Senator McConnell says “We want this hearing to be handled very professionally, not a political sideshow.” It that were true, this might be a good more.
    In fact, with any other group, this might seem like a brilliant tactical move. But with these guys, I think it’s at least as probable that they have just contrived to shoot themselves in the foot. Yet again. Guess we’ll see tomorrow.

  1558. I have to say that I find the Senate Republicans’ choice of Rachael Mitchell, the chief of the special victims division of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, to question Dr Ford . . . interesting. Here is a lady who made her name initially prosecuting decades old instances of sex abuse (by Catholic priests). Senator Grassley says that they want to “de-politicize the process and get to the truth, instead of grandstanding…” Senator McConnell says “We want this hearing to be handled very professionally, not a political sideshow.” It that were true, this might be a good more.
    In fact, with any other group, this might seem like a brilliant tactical move. But with these guys, I think it’s at least as probable that they have just contrived to shoot themselves in the foot. Yet again. Guess we’ll see tomorrow.

  1559. On one hand, I’d say having Avenatti as her attorney is a significant negative.
    Avenatti takes a lot of the heat from his clients. If I had a claim like this, I would want an attorney that was the focal point, rather than me.
    What cases are you pointing to where Avenatti was proven wrong with a similar client?
    I am not aware of any.

  1560. On one hand, I’d say having Avenatti as her attorney is a significant negative.
    Avenatti takes a lot of the heat from his clients. If I had a claim like this, I would want an attorney that was the focal point, rather than me.
    What cases are you pointing to where Avenatti was proven wrong with a similar client?
    I am not aware of any.

  1563. If I had a claim like this, I would want an attorney that was the focal point, rather than me.
    I would too, and I’d want someone who is as assertive and loyal as he is.

  1564. If I had a claim like this, I would want an attorney that was the focal point, rather than me.
    I would too, and I’d want someone who is as assertive and loyal as he is.

  1571. I do not him anywhere near the 2020 primaries. sic
    me either. He is a visible plaintiff attorney. He may be someone with legislative experience and a decade of fighting can be a leader.
    On the otherhand, I would take him over the current situation.

  1572. I do not him anywhere near the 2020 primaries. sic
    me either. He is a visible plaintiff attorney. He may be someone with legislative experience and a decade of fighting can be a leader.
    On the otherhand, I would take him over the current situation.

  1575. What cases are you pointing to where Avenatti was proven wrong with a similar client?
    I am not aware of any.
    Note that I did NOT say that he was proven wrong. Indeed, I noted that he had sometimes been proven right — even on what appeared, initially, to be wild accusations.
    What I said was that he had a “history of being more about self-promotion than anything else.” And I would say that his behavior with Ms Swetnick supports that. In her position, I would expect my lawyer to help me draft my statement, and perhaps to help me put it out. (IANAL, so perhaps my expectations are misplaced.) What I would NOT expect is for him to tease it for a couple of days before putting it out. That does nothing for me as a client, but does raise his profile in the whole thing.

  1576. What cases are you pointing to where Avenatti was proven wrong with a similar client?
    I am not aware of any.
    Note that I did NOT say that he was proven wrong. Indeed, I noted that he had sometimes been proven right — even on what appeared, initially, to be wild accusations.
    What I said was that he had a “history of being more about self-promotion than anything else.” And I would say that his behavior with Ms Swetnick supports that. In her position, I would expect my lawyer to help me draft my statement, and perhaps to help me put it out. (IANAL, so perhaps my expectations are misplaced.) What I would NOT expect is for him to tease it for a couple of days before putting it out. That does nothing for me as a client, but does raise his profile in the whole thing.

  1577. What I would NOT expect is for him to tease it for a couple of days before putting it out. That does nothing for me as a client, but does raise his profile in the whole thing.
    I assume that part of the reason she put out the statement is that she would not like to see Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. The teasing and timing was an effort to bring enough loud attention to it so that it wouldn’t be ignored. She was brave to do this, but this was the only strategy that had a chance of being effective.

  1578. What I would NOT expect is for him to tease it for a couple of days before putting it out. That does nothing for me as a client, but does raise his profile in the whole thing.
    I assume that part of the reason she put out the statement is that she would not like to see Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. The teasing and timing was an effort to bring enough loud attention to it so that it wouldn’t be ignored. She was brave to do this, but this was the only strategy that had a chance of being effective.

  1579. IAAL, and I have been the guy who the reporters had to talk to (once).
    Publicity is shitty. No one wants to make their history and family news. Choosing an attorney who has a history of taking the heat makes sense to me.
    In my case, a locally famous newsreporter said to me ‘I am just doing my job.’ I replied ‘me too.’
    Not that I was ever like Avenatti, but mostly because I did not want to expose my family to that.

  1580. IAAL, and I have been the guy who the reporters had to talk to (once).
    Publicity is shitty. No one wants to make their history and family news. Choosing an attorney who has a history of taking the heat makes sense to me.
    In my case, a locally famous newsreporter said to me ‘I am just doing my job.’ I replied ‘me too.’
    Not that I was ever like Avenatti, but mostly because I did not want to expose my family to that.

  1581. I’ve got no problem with a lawyer being the one to stand before the press in order to shield his client. It’s the teasing the lady’s statement for a couple of days before putting it out that bothers me.
    And I don’t think I’m buying sapient’s theory that doing so was the only way to assure it would get attention. In the current circus, there was no way it would fail to get attention. (Now if hers had been the first allegations to surface, that would have been a very different situation.)

  1582. I’ve got no problem with a lawyer being the one to stand before the press in order to shield his client. It’s the teasing the lady’s statement for a couple of days before putting it out that bothers me.
    And I don’t think I’m buying sapient’s theory that doing so was the only way to assure it would get attention. In the current circus, there was no way it would fail to get attention. (Now if hers had been the first allegations to surface, that would have been a very different situation.)

  1583. I’ve got no problem with Avenatti as a lawyer. I’ll remain agnostic on anything else he does. He’s definitely a self-promoter, but as long as that’s working to his clients’ advantage, I have no problem with that at all.

  1584. I’ve got no problem with Avenatti as a lawyer. I’ll remain agnostic on anything else he does. He’s definitely a self-promoter, but as long as that’s working to his clients’ advantage, I have no problem with that at all.

  1585. WJ, Sure, Avenatti may have required license for how and when the news was released. It doesn’t make it less true.
    In my case I was representing a client who was victimized by a subject of police brutality. We were not arguing the police were not brutal. We were arguing my client had a claim against him for the crime against my client prior to that, which was not financially viable without a win against the city.
    My job was to simply escort her to the court, and then respond to the reporters for her. I think I did my job when XXX was exasperated and said ‘I am just trying to do my job.’
    The cops were brutal, and my client was a victim of the criminal. At 70 something, she needed someone to be the focus.

  1586. WJ, Sure, Avenatti may have required license for how and when the news was released. It doesn’t make it less true.
    In my case I was representing a client who was victimized by a subject of police brutality. We were not arguing the police were not brutal. We were arguing my client had a claim against him for the crime against my client prior to that, which was not financially viable without a win against the city.
    My job was to simply escort her to the court, and then respond to the reporters for her. I think I did my job when XXX was exasperated and said ‘I am just trying to do my job.’
    The cops were brutal, and my client was a victim of the criminal. At 70 something, she needed someone to be the focus.

  1589. I agree that the issue of Kavanaugh’s rutting-pig behavior in his youth is a sideshow. With all respect to women and feminists, there are even weightier grounds for rejecting him. Being a liar and a lickspittle, recently and on camera, for instance. To focus on Kavanaugh’s youthful drinking and sexual bullying is to let the likes of Grassley, McConnell, and He, Trump off the hook for their unabashed power-grab. In that respect, Avenatti may be doing the country a disservice.
    OTOH, and YHIHF, if Justice Kavanaugh ends up being the first Justice to get impeached and removed from the SCOTUS, Avenatti may well prove to be his chief nemesis.
    –TP

  1590. I agree that the issue of Kavanaugh’s rutting-pig behavior in his youth is a sideshow. With all respect to women and feminists, there are even weightier grounds for rejecting him. Being a liar and a lickspittle, recently and on camera, for instance. To focus on Kavanaugh’s youthful drinking and sexual bullying is to let the likes of Grassley, McConnell, and He, Trump off the hook for their unabashed power-grab. In that respect, Avenatti may be doing the country a disservice.
    OTOH, and YHIHF, if Justice Kavanaugh ends up being the first Justice to get impeached and removed from the SCOTUS, Avenatti may well prove to be his chief nemesis.
    –TP

  1591. Kavanaugh’s rutting-pig behavior in his youth is a sideshow.
    It is the only thing that may prevent his appointment. Lying and being wrong is not enough. Sideshows may, especially as they are becoming an avalanche.

  1592. Kavanaugh’s rutting-pig behavior in his youth is a sideshow.
    It is the only thing that may prevent his appointment. Lying and being wrong is not enough. Sideshows may, especially as they are becoming an avalanche.

  1593. When you are trying to get people, in this case Senators, to vote for (or against) something, you have to recognize that what will motivate them may not be the reasons that you care about. And if you focus on your reasons, you may lose — whereas if you pay attention to what they do care about, you could win.
    So the question is, do you care about results? Or is ideological purity more important to you? It’s the same question with this nomination as it is when deciding who to nominate in a swing district.

  1594. When you are trying to get people, in this case Senators, to vote for (or against) something, you have to recognize that what will motivate them may not be the reasons that you care about. And if you focus on your reasons, you may lose — whereas if you pay attention to what they do care about, you could win.
    So the question is, do you care about results? Or is ideological purity more important to you? It’s the same question with this nomination as it is when deciding who to nominate in a swing district.

  1599. jrudkis: Lying and being wrong is not enough.
    No doubt about that. To Republican Senators, and maybe even Republican Americans, a sure vote against Roe seems worth any number of lies.
    wj: … if you pay attention to what they do care about, you could win.
    If I thought GOP Senators cared whether Kavanaugh is a liar, I would think better of GOP Senators. You imply that they don’t — a charge I am not concerned to dispute.
    As for “results”, I’ll take a Kavanaugh-free judiciary any way I can get it. I’d love to see him go the way of Dr. Admiral Ronny Jackson. If “reasonable” GOP Senators need to make a pretense of caring about abused women in his past any more than they care about his present-day lies in order to vote him down, it’s entirely OK by me.
    –TP

  1600. jrudkis: Lying and being wrong is not enough.
    No doubt about that. To Republican Senators, and maybe even Republican Americans, a sure vote against Roe seems worth any number of lies.
    wj: … if you pay attention to what they do care about, you could win.
    If I thought GOP Senators cared whether Kavanaugh is a liar, I would think better of GOP Senators. You imply that they don’t — a charge I am not concerned to dispute.
    As for “results”, I’ll take a Kavanaugh-free judiciary any way I can get it. I’d love to see him go the way of Dr. Admiral Ronny Jackson. If “reasonable” GOP Senators need to make a pretense of caring about abused women in his past any more than they care about his present-day lies in order to vote him down, it’s entirely OK by me.
    –TP

  1601. I realise the caravan has moved on, but I’ve been out all day and wanted to get this down before the whole question is too old even to discuss.
    On the issue we previously discussed about marital infidelity, I just wanted to say that jrudkis’s comments about the betrayal of trust (and putting the family at risk) resonated powerfully with me, and were one of the reasons I said he was a good and honourable man. But my point really is that sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity are two different things. Many wives (or husbands) might forgive a purely sexual fling, whereas emotional involvement would be the unforgiveable betrayal. I do see that this could open the way for much jesuitical hair-splitting (and Janie I loved your SJ story – he was being amazingly witty and honest with you), but nonetheless, I think that in many marriages, for all the reasons we’ve mentioned, the sexual bond becomes much less important than the emotional commitment.
    Sorry again for backtracking in this way, but I’m very tired and wanted to say this while I remembered. I’ll have to catch up on all the Kavanaugh stuff properly tomorrow.

  1602. I realise the caravan has moved on, but I’ve been out all day and wanted to get this down before the whole question is too old even to discuss.
    On the issue we previously discussed about marital infidelity, I just wanted to say that jrudkis’s comments about the betrayal of trust (and putting the family at risk) resonated powerfully with me, and were one of the reasons I said he was a good and honourable man. But my point really is that sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity are two different things. Many wives (or husbands) might forgive a purely sexual fling, whereas emotional involvement would be the unforgiveable betrayal. I do see that this could open the way for much jesuitical hair-splitting (and Janie I loved your SJ story – he was being amazingly witty and honest with you), but nonetheless, I think that in many marriages, for all the reasons we’ve mentioned, the sexual bond becomes much less important than the emotional commitment.
    Sorry again for backtracking in this way, but I’m very tired and wanted to say this while I remembered. I’ll have to catch up on all the Kavanaugh stuff properly tomorrow.

  1603. I realise the caravan has moved on, but I’ve been out all day and wanted to get this down before the whole question is too old even to discuss.
    On the issue we previously discussed about marital infidelity, I just wanted to say that jrudkis’s comments about the betrayal of trust (and putting the family at risk) resonated powerfully with me, and were one of the reasons I said he was a good and honourable man. But my point really is that sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity are two different things. Many wives (or husbands) might forgive a purely sexual fling, whereas emotional involvement would be the unforgiveable betrayal. I do see that this could open the way for much jesuitical hair-splitting (and Janie I loved your SJ story – he was being amazingly witty and honest with you), but nonetheless, I think that in many marriages, for all the reasons we’ve mentioned, the sexual bond becomes much less important than the emotional commitment.
    Sorry again for backtracking in this way, but I’m very tired and wanted to say this while I remembered. I’ll have to catch up on all the Kavanaugh stuff properly tomorrow.

  1604. I realise the caravan has moved on, but I’ve been out all day and wanted to get this down before the whole question is too old even to discuss.
    On the issue we previously discussed about marital infidelity, I just wanted to say that jrudkis’s comments about the betrayal of trust (and putting the family at risk) resonated powerfully with me, and were one of the reasons I said he was a good and honourable man. But my point really is that sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity are two different things. Many wives (or husbands) might forgive a purely sexual fling, whereas emotional involvement would be the unforgiveable betrayal. I do see that this could open the way for much jesuitical hair-splitting (and Janie I loved your SJ story – he was being amazingly witty and honest with you), but nonetheless, I think that in many marriages, for all the reasons we’ve mentioned, the sexual bond becomes much less important than the emotional commitment.
    Sorry again for backtracking in this way, but I’m very tired and wanted to say this while I remembered. I’ll have to catch up on all the Kavanaugh stuff properly tomorrow.

  1605. If I thought GOP Senators cared whether Kavanaugh is a liar, I would think better of GOP Senators. You imply that they don’t — a charge I am not concerned to dispute.
    Indeed. What they care about primarily, most of them anyway, is getting enough votes to get re-elected down the road. For some, their states are red enough that it isn’t an issue. They hope. But as a secondary consideration they want to continue to control the Senate (because being in the minority just isn’t as satisfying) — which means also caring, at least a little, about what could cost colleagues in more marginal states an election.
    That’s where the sexual assault allegations play in. They figure, probably correctly, that lying won’t be an issue. Sex assault? Much more likely to resonate with the voters that they will need in the future. And confirming someone who is shown, down the line, to have lied under oath? Voters may just shrug when a politician lies on the stump. But they can relate to what should, and would, happen to someone like them if they committed perjury.

  1606. If I thought GOP Senators cared whether Kavanaugh is a liar, I would think better of GOP Senators. You imply that they don’t — a charge I am not concerned to dispute.
    Indeed. What they care about primarily, most of them anyway, is getting enough votes to get re-elected down the road. For some, their states are red enough that it isn’t an issue. They hope. But as a secondary consideration they want to continue to control the Senate (because being in the minority just isn’t as satisfying) — which means also caring, at least a little, about what could cost colleagues in more marginal states an election.
    That’s where the sexual assault allegations play in. They figure, probably correctly, that lying won’t be an issue. Sex assault? Much more likely to resonate with the voters that they will need in the future. And confirming someone who is shown, down the line, to have lied under oath? Voters may just shrug when a politician lies on the stump. But they can relate to what should, and would, happen to someone like them if they committed perjury.

  1607. GftNC, no worries. I’m still thinking about all this so it’s nice that you came back to write about it, no apologies needed.

  1608. GftNC, no worries. I’m still thinking about all this so it’s nice that you came back to write about it, no apologies needed.

  1609. TP,
    I agree with you on both what should be the substance, and what should be the result.
    I think I have tipped my hat about what I think about men who cheat, but I think those are often the same men who ‘take’ or ‘took.’
    I also think the whole species is fluid so sexuality is also vast, so I recognize Russell and others that there are many people who live in a different expectation of loving.
    I don’t think the men we are talking about are ‘fluid’. I think they are generally ‘takers.’ The people willing to describe Kavanaugh show a ‘taker.’
    Maybe he was only a taker from 16-24ish and then became a man.
    I have known many takers who became men. But I also know many who remain takers.
    Girl from the North Country,
    Again thanks for a thoughtful reply. I think you are mistaken about men forgiving a physical fling. I think men are far more forgiving about an emotional one.
    I was one who was willing to forgive a physical relationship to keep my family together when there was a rift, but for me there was nothing emotional left: I would cross lava to keep my kids safe, and therefore was willing to have an alternative relationship. My ex-spouse was less so, so we did not cross that boundary. subset of one.
    I miss Jesuitical hair splitting.

  1610. TP,
    I agree with you on both what should be the substance, and what should be the result.
    I think I have tipped my hat about what I think about men who cheat, but I think those are often the same men who ‘take’ or ‘took.’
    I also think the whole species is fluid so sexuality is also vast, so I recognize Russell and others that there are many people who live in a different expectation of loving.
    I don’t think the men we are talking about are ‘fluid’. I think they are generally ‘takers.’ The people willing to describe Kavanaugh show a ‘taker.’
    Maybe he was only a taker from 16-24ish and then became a man.
    I have known many takers who became men. But I also know many who remain takers.
    Girl from the North Country,
    Again thanks for a thoughtful reply. I think you are mistaken about men forgiving a physical fling. I think men are far more forgiving about an emotional one.
    I was one who was willing to forgive a physical relationship to keep my family together when there was a rift, but for me there was nothing emotional left: I would cross lava to keep my kids safe, and therefore was willing to have an alternative relationship. My ex-spouse was less so, so we did not cross that boundary. subset of one.
    I miss Jesuitical hair splitting.

  1611. At the risk of derailing our discussion of Kavanaugh (as if!), I think that forgiveness for an emotional vs. a physical relationship is intimately bound to the cultural expectations we have, which is why GftNC suggested that your viewpoint may be peculiarly American. Like her, I don’t hold that against you and I don’t point it out suggesting that you are wrong, though again, I think it is wrapped up in a perspective where men can control everything except their own sexual desires and women are supposed to be the guardians of their virtue. We are seeing that play out constantly in the comments about Kavanaugh, Ford and others and I think it is important to understand it in order to figure out why, for example, Kavanaugh lying on other occasions does not trip him up, but for this, it does, as well as to understand this historical moment.

  1612. At the risk of derailing our discussion of Kavanaugh (as if!), I think that forgiveness for an emotional vs. a physical relationship is intimately bound to the cultural expectations we have, which is why GftNC suggested that your viewpoint may be peculiarly American. Like her, I don’t hold that against you and I don’t point it out suggesting that you are wrong, though again, I think it is wrapped up in a perspective where men can control everything except their own sexual desires and women are supposed to be the guardians of their virtue. We are seeing that play out constantly in the comments about Kavanaugh, Ford and others and I think it is important to understand it in order to figure out why, for example, Kavanaugh lying on other occasions does not trip him up, but for this, it does, as well as to understand this historical moment.

  1613. in the comments about Kavanaugh, Ford and others
    I should point out that I mean comments _outside_ of here. Not saying that we all are unaffected, but it’s a lot easier when the object of one’s examination is something outside rather than inside.

  1614. in the comments about Kavanaugh, Ford and others
    I should point out that I mean comments _outside_ of here. Not saying that we all are unaffected, but it’s a lot easier when the object of one’s examination is something outside rather than inside.

  1615. Maybe he was only a taker from 16-24ish and then became a man.
    Maybe, but that isn’t really consistent with his absolute denial of such.
    Again thanks for a thoughtful reply. I think you are mistaken about men forgiving a physical fling. I think men are far more forgiving about an emotional one.
    I’m not sure you can generalise either by sex or culture, however much it is a truism that men value the physical over the notional. In any event, the two tend to be rather strongly bound up.
    Coincidentally, I have been watching the Korean ‘This Week my Wife is Having an Affair’, which is simultaneously amusing and rather painful. It is rather good, though the wife’s part is a bit underwritten. As with most Korean drama,
    It is striking how much more men express their emotions than is usual in the west (while still sharing many western sexual stereotypes).

  1616. Maybe he was only a taker from 16-24ish and then became a man.
    Maybe, but that isn’t really consistent with his absolute denial of such.
    Again thanks for a thoughtful reply. I think you are mistaken about men forgiving a physical fling. I think men are far more forgiving about an emotional one.
    I’m not sure you can generalise either by sex or culture, however much it is a truism that men value the physical over the notional. In any event, the two tend to be rather strongly bound up.
    Coincidentally, I have been watching the Korean ‘This Week my Wife is Having an Affair’, which is simultaneously amusing and rather painful. It is rather good, though the wife’s part is a bit underwritten. As with most Korean drama,
    It is striking how much more men express their emotions than is usual in the west (while still sharing many western sexual stereotypes).

  1617. LJ, Nigel. And others,
    We are talking about an American perspective. This is a discussion about a A USSC justice. I understand there are more cultures out there.
    I may be wrong. Hopefully good people agree with you.

  1618. LJ, Nigel. And others,
    We are talking about an American perspective. This is a discussion about a A USSC justice. I understand there are more cultures out there.
    I may be wrong. Hopefully good people agree with you.

  1619. lj noted way back when that some are lurking on this issue. I have been.
    In response to the recent comments re “side show”, IMHO, “ram the vote at all costs” and “push the sideshow/Garland Garland Garland/resist” are in a feedback loop. And hence the noise getting louder and louder.
    The more reasoned russell, bobbyp and Tony P. arguments against Kavanaugh (e.g. “lick spittle”) resonate with me. Don’t get me wrong-I’d be plenty pissed if the reverse were true and Gorsuch had been “Garlanded”. But the “Garland” payback is when the situation is truly reversed, not this. If “this” is what this is.
    I wanted a woman nominee instead of Gorsuch anyway. And again instead of Kavanaugh. I feel just a wee bit more that way now. And on top of that, why not a non-attorney?
    I don’t disbelieve Ford per se. On paper without looking at the allegations themselves she seems credible, her history and support and the “who would want this attention” argument and all. Her story, not so much, discrepancies and all. I’m leaning towards alternate explanations (e.g. problems with eye witness testimony ). None of my conservative friends immediately branded her a liar, fwiw. Most question the timing of Feinstein, not so much Ford. I wonder why her own family has not spoken up.
    Kavanaugh’s yearbook is embarrassing. I can’t believe we are reading it and that such comments are allowed by the school. I assume he wrote it. I think he demeaned Renate (I can imagine alternate explanations), but we’ll know tomorrow.
    Ramirez is not credible. Swetnick even less. She witnesses multiple gang rapes at parties and still goes back to said high school parties as a college kid? Both reflect negatively on Ford’s allegations and feed the “timing” argument.
    But that is today. See ya tomorrow.

  1620. lj noted way back when that some are lurking on this issue. I have been.
    In response to the recent comments re “side show”, IMHO, “ram the vote at all costs” and “push the sideshow/Garland Garland Garland/resist” are in a feedback loop. And hence the noise getting louder and louder.
    The more reasoned russell, bobbyp and Tony P. arguments against Kavanaugh (e.g. “lick spittle”) resonate with me. Don’t get me wrong-I’d be plenty pissed if the reverse were true and Gorsuch had been “Garlanded”. But the “Garland” payback is when the situation is truly reversed, not this. If “this” is what this is.
    I wanted a woman nominee instead of Gorsuch anyway. And again instead of Kavanaugh. I feel just a wee bit more that way now. And on top of that, why not a non-attorney?
    I don’t disbelieve Ford per se. On paper without looking at the allegations themselves she seems credible, her history and support and the “who would want this attention” argument and all. Her story, not so much, discrepancies and all. I’m leaning towards alternate explanations (e.g. problems with eye witness testimony ). None of my conservative friends immediately branded her a liar, fwiw. Most question the timing of Feinstein, not so much Ford. I wonder why her own family has not spoken up.
    Kavanaugh’s yearbook is embarrassing. I can’t believe we are reading it and that such comments are allowed by the school. I assume he wrote it. I think he demeaned Renate (I can imagine alternate explanations), but we’ll know tomorrow.
    Ramirez is not credible. Swetnick even less. She witnesses multiple gang rapes at parties and still goes back to said high school parties as a college kid? Both reflect negatively on Ford’s allegations and feed the “timing” argument.
    But that is today. See ya tomorrow.

  1623. She witnesses multiple gang rapes at parties and still goes back to said high school parties as a college kid?
    Without making any comment on the persuasiveness or otherwise of her testimony – I haven’t heard it – such a thing is entirely possible, and quite consistent with documented cases.
    And it’s probable that someone in such a position would not have called it, or though of it as, gang rape at the time.
    I know, many years ago, at my own school I witnessed grooming (though nothing beyond that), and was shocked a decade or so later when teachers were jailed for abuse including rape.
    The analogy is not exact, but I did not then have either the vocabulary for, or understanding of the concept of grooming.
    And I’m of the same era as Kavanaugh and his contemporaries.

  1624. She witnesses multiple gang rapes at parties and still goes back to said high school parties as a college kid?
    Without making any comment on the persuasiveness or otherwise of her testimony – I haven’t heard it – such a thing is entirely possible, and quite consistent with documented cases.
    And it’s probable that someone in such a position would not have called it, or though of it as, gang rape at the time.
    I know, many years ago, at my own school I witnessed grooming (though nothing beyond that), and was shocked a decade or so later when teachers were jailed for abuse including rape.
    The analogy is not exact, but I did not then have either the vocabulary for, or understanding of the concept of grooming.
    And I’m of the same era as Kavanaugh and his contemporaries.

  1629. I’m looking forward to this whole soap opera being over.
    Unless you mean the Trump presidency, I have to disagree.
    When this is over – and consider the unjustifiable haste with which this is being forced to a vote, without investigation, and absent the examination of multiple witnesses – we can all go back to pretending it didn’t happen.
    As has pretty well been the case with Clarence Thomas for the last quarter century.
    This is your President.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/trump-press-conference-kavanaugh-sex-assault-accusations-different-perspective.html
    Until he is gone, wishing it away is understandable, but wrong, IMO.

  1630. I’m looking forward to this whole soap opera being over.
    Unless you mean the Trump presidency, I have to disagree.
    When this is over – and consider the unjustifiable haste with which this is being forced to a vote, without investigation, and absent the examination of multiple witnesses – we can all go back to pretending it didn’t happen.
    As has pretty well been the case with Clarence Thomas for the last quarter century.
    This is your President.
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/trump-press-conference-kavanaugh-sex-assault-accusations-different-perspective.html
    Until he is gone, wishing it away is understandable, but wrong, IMO.

  1631. Unless you mean the Trump presidency, I have to disagree.
    I mean so much more than the Trump presidency.
    And “looking forward to it being over” is not about forgetting. I can promise you that I personally will not be forgetting this particular misadventure when it’s resolved, whatever the resolution.

  1632. Unless you mean the Trump presidency, I have to disagree.
    I mean so much more than the Trump presidency.
    And “looking forward to it being over” is not about forgetting. I can promise you that I personally will not be forgetting this particular misadventure when it’s resolved, whatever the resolution.

  1633. russell, last night: This ocean is too big for my little boat.
    Me too, for the most part (and especially on a blog), but just to round out a set, I would add to GftNC’s mention of sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity: decision-making fidelity or, as I called it long ago, monogamy of decision-making.
    *****
    Also: Merrick Garland.

  1634. russell, last night: This ocean is too big for my little boat.
    Me too, for the most part (and especially on a blog), but just to round out a set, I would add to GftNC’s mention of sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity: decision-making fidelity or, as I called it long ago, monogamy of decision-making.
    *****
    Also: Merrick Garland.

  1635. Ramirez, NYT reported she told classmates when she called around she wasn’t sure it was Kavanaugh. Nuff said.
    Swetnick, just wow. She isn’t alleging an isolated incident but a systematized, pre-meditated rape culture. It beggars belief. Could it be true? I guess it’s possible. But logic dictates otherwise at this point.
    Plus her allegations lack specificity. I get that she might not remember her own alleged rape, but she doesn’t name a single person outside of Kavanaugh and Judge, provide a single location, etc. etc. Her only credibility rests on her security credentials (and I’m curious why those weren’t yanked due to her tax problems; I have had two clients that lost clearance due to foreclosures and I would think tax liens would be treated similarly, but I could be wrong).
    To say, Nigel, that someone of that era wouldn’t have identified it as gang rape? Are you kidding me? I graduated in that same era. “Trains” were not “par for the course” in the 80’s IMHO. And grooming by a teacher was noted as well.
    No, call me extremely skeptical at this point. If it proves to be true, prosecute the bastards. Maryland doesn’t have a statute of limitations on rape. But I’ll be shocked if its true.

  1636. Ramirez, NYT reported she told classmates when she called around she wasn’t sure it was Kavanaugh. Nuff said.
    Swetnick, just wow. She isn’t alleging an isolated incident but a systematized, pre-meditated rape culture. It beggars belief. Could it be true? I guess it’s possible. But logic dictates otherwise at this point.
    Plus her allegations lack specificity. I get that she might not remember her own alleged rape, but she doesn’t name a single person outside of Kavanaugh and Judge, provide a single location, etc. etc. Her only credibility rests on her security credentials (and I’m curious why those weren’t yanked due to her tax problems; I have had two clients that lost clearance due to foreclosures and I would think tax liens would be treated similarly, but I could be wrong).
    To say, Nigel, that someone of that era wouldn’t have identified it as gang rape? Are you kidding me? I graduated in that same era. “Trains” were not “par for the course” in the 80’s IMHO. And grooming by a teacher was noted as well.
    No, call me extremely skeptical at this point. If it proves to be true, prosecute the bastards. Maryland doesn’t have a statute of limitations on rape. But I’ll be shocked if its true.

  1637. sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity: decision-making fidelity or, as I called it long ago, monogamy of decision-making.
    This is what I mean. It is simply decision making. I try hard not to hurt my spouse’s feelings, whether through actions or words. I try hard to not hurt my subordinates or peers the same way. In no case would I be dishonest, but I do my best to be kind.
    Sometimes I am less than candid with my spouse, and lean toward kind, where I try to be candid at work, with kindness as the background. Even bad news can be conveyed with kindness.
    But the bottom line in both is honesty, even if you are delivering it nicely.
    All of that is decision-making, and honesty.
    Fidelity. do you mean what you say.

  1638. sexual fidelity and emotional fidelity: decision-making fidelity or, as I called it long ago, monogamy of decision-making.
    This is what I mean. It is simply decision making. I try hard not to hurt my spouse’s feelings, whether through actions or words. I try hard to not hurt my subordinates or peers the same way. In no case would I be dishonest, but I do my best to be kind.
    Sometimes I am less than candid with my spouse, and lean toward kind, where I try to be candid at work, with kindness as the background. Even bad news can be conveyed with kindness.
    But the bottom line in both is honesty, even if you are delivering it nicely.
    All of that is decision-making, and honesty.
    Fidelity. do you mean what you say.

  1641. No, call me extremely skeptical at this point.
    The timeline for this nomination has been hugely rushed. The documents (the 90% of the relevant documents that exist that the Senate needed to actually understand this man’s career will be available in late October. There’s plenty of time for the FBI to reopen the background check to determine the veracity of these allegations.
    What are they hiding? Oh, I know what they’re hiding. The guy is a torture-loving, scandal mongering, scandal laden, lying thief, who is a political hack and a disgrace. Just a thought.

  1642. No, call me extremely skeptical at this point.
    The timeline for this nomination has been hugely rushed. The documents (the 90% of the relevant documents that exist that the Senate needed to actually understand this man’s career will be available in late October. There’s plenty of time for the FBI to reopen the background check to determine the veracity of these allegations.
    What are they hiding? Oh, I know what they’re hiding. The guy is a torture-loving, scandal mongering, scandal laden, lying thief, who is a political hack and a disgrace. Just a thought.

  1643. Fidelity. Do you do what you said.
    Infidelity is NOT doing what you
    said.
    Physically or emotionally.
    What and how much can be lived with, forgiving is not usual or required, is variable by ones own sense of self and immediate circumstances.
    I have had people tell me they like their partner to cheat occasionally, it tends to improve their performance.
    Most of my friends that had open marriages ended up in non open marriages with people they met during the open marriage. With pretty unhappy splits.
    Just my thoughts triggered by the first statement.

  1644. Fidelity. Do you do what you said.
    Infidelity is NOT doing what you
    said.
    Physically or emotionally.
    What and how much can be lived with, forgiving is not usual or required, is variable by ones own sense of self and immediate circumstances.
    I have had people tell me they like their partner to cheat occasionally, it tends to improve their performance.
    Most of my friends that had open marriages ended up in non open marriages with people they met during the open marriage. With pretty unhappy splits.
    Just my thoughts triggered by the first statement.

  1645. Fidelity. Do you do what you said. etc.
    I really think that deep psychoanalyzing about people and their relationships to each other should have its own thread. The reason I weighed in on it earlier was to explain why it’s way too complicated for me to judge other people.
    I’m totally willing to accept that people should be mad at each other, and mad at their friends, mad at their parents, mad at whomever, and whatever makes them feel better. I prefer to stay away from judgment about other people’s consensual sex life. It’s my personal rule.

  1646. Fidelity. Do you do what you said. etc.
    I really think that deep psychoanalyzing about people and their relationships to each other should have its own thread. The reason I weighed in on it earlier was to explain why it’s way too complicated for me to judge other people.
    I’m totally willing to accept that people should be mad at each other, and mad at their friends, mad at their parents, mad at whomever, and whatever makes them feel better. I prefer to stay away from judgment about other people’s consensual sex life. It’s my personal rule.

  1647. bc,
    I’m glad you’re bothered by the “lick spittle” argument, but I suppose we can take it for granted that both Grassley and McConnell (not to mention He, Trump his own self) saw the same exhibition of slavish ass-kissing we all saw. What’s your feeling about their determination to shove the ass-kisser onto the SCOTUS?
    –TP

  1648. bc,
    I’m glad you’re bothered by the “lick spittle” argument, but I suppose we can take it for granted that both Grassley and McConnell (not to mention He, Trump his own self) saw the same exhibition of slavish ass-kissing we all saw. What’s your feeling about their determination to shove the ass-kisser onto the SCOTUS?
    –TP

  1649. “What’s your feeling about their determination to shove the ass-kisser onto the SCOTUS?”
    Ok, let’s say he kissed Trumps ass in his opening statement. Two sentences? Can you actually, without calling names, explain how that makes him unqualified for the job.
    Not why it makes you not like him, Just how does it make him unqualified?

  1650. “What’s your feeling about their determination to shove the ass-kisser onto the SCOTUS?”
    Ok, let’s say he kissed Trumps ass in his opening statement. Two sentences? Can you actually, without calling names, explain how that makes him unqualified for the job.
    Not why it makes you not like him, Just how does it make him unqualified?

  1651. And on top of that, why not a non-attorney?
    Call me naive (as well as not an attorney), but it seems to me that a job which involves ruling on the law rather requires some training in the law. Now perhaps someone who is not a practicing attorney, e.g. a law school teacher — I could see that. But without the training? Not seeing a way to do the job without the expertise the job requires.

  1652. And on top of that, why not a non-attorney?
    Call me naive (as well as not an attorney), but it seems to me that a job which involves ruling on the law rather requires some training in the law. Now perhaps someone who is not a practicing attorney, e.g. a law school teacher — I could see that. But without the training? Not seeing a way to do the job without the expertise the job requires.

  1655. Call me naive (as well as not an attorney), but it seems to me that a job which involves ruling on the law rather requires some training in the law.
    Yes.
    I am an attorney. I know that everyone is an expert in everything because of the Internet, but I still believe in studying a discipline, and the law is a discipline. When we give up learning the law in order to be a lawyer or a judge, we’re truly f’d.

  1656. Call me naive (as well as not an attorney), but it seems to me that a job which involves ruling on the law rather requires some training in the law.
    Yes.
    I am an attorney. I know that everyone is an expert in everything because of the Internet, but I still believe in studying a discipline, and the law is a discipline. When we give up learning the law in order to be a lawyer or a judge, we’re truly f’d.

  1657. Not why it makes you not like him, Just how does it make him unqualified?
    My concern would be because we are quite possibly looking at a situation where the SCOTUS will be ruling on whether a President can be call to answer to the law. Someone who has been genuflecting like this raises questions about his objectivity, should that President be Trump.
    And that’s over and above concerns about the way his views on Presidential immunity seem to depend on the party of the President involved.

  1658. Not why it makes you not like him, Just how does it make him unqualified?
    My concern would be because we are quite possibly looking at a situation where the SCOTUS will be ruling on whether a President can be call to answer to the law. Someone who has been genuflecting like this raises questions about his objectivity, should that President be Trump.
    And that’s over and above concerns about the way his views on Presidential immunity seem to depend on the party of the President involved.

  1659. Marty: Just how does it make him unqualified?
    I will let bc explain why BK’s ass-kissing “resonates” with him. Meanwhile, here’s why BK’s particular form of kissing that particular ass is disqualifying:
    He was either lying or bullshitting. Neither lies nor bullshit reflect “judicial temperament”.
    He must have known he was on national TV. Smart lickspittles kiss their padrone’s ass in private. Dumb lickspittles don’t belong on the SCOTUS.
    He was kissing the ass of He, Trump (who you claim to despise, yourself) and he wasn’t doing it extemporaneously but reading from a script. Pre-meditated bullshit is not “originalist” or “strict constructionist” or any of that high-fallutin judicial philosophy stuff. You could call it “textualist” I suppose 🙂
    But BK is a sure vote to overturn Roe and to protect He, Trump from “witch hunts”, so I do not expect that peek into Kavanaugh’s soul to “resonate” with you.
    –TP

  1660. Marty: Just how does it make him unqualified?
    I will let bc explain why BK’s ass-kissing “resonates” with him. Meanwhile, here’s why BK’s particular form of kissing that particular ass is disqualifying:
    He was either lying or bullshitting. Neither lies nor bullshit reflect “judicial temperament”.
    He must have known he was on national TV. Smart lickspittles kiss their padrone’s ass in private. Dumb lickspittles don’t belong on the SCOTUS.
    He was kissing the ass of He, Trump (who you claim to despise, yourself) and he wasn’t doing it extemporaneously but reading from a script. Pre-meditated bullshit is not “originalist” or “strict constructionist” or any of that high-fallutin judicial philosophy stuff. You could call it “textualist” I suppose 🙂
    But BK is a sure vote to overturn Roe and to protect He, Trump from “witch hunts”, so I do not expect that peek into Kavanaugh’s soul to “resonate” with you.
    –TP

  1661. We are talking about an American perspective. This is a discussion about a A USSC justice. I understand there are more cultures out there.
    That’s very true, which means that the ways Americans view sex and gender are topics that need to be considered, even though it may mean that anyone offering an opinion is going to have how they think about things interrogated. It will also mean that a lot of people may not be willing to go into that because sex is such a problematic topic, so we end up making a decision with some people perhaps not knowing _why_ they made it, which seems like a bad thing to me.
    lj noted way back when that some are lurking on this issue. I have been.
    I was, but I was also noting that this board seems to be composed of mostly white males, and the female commenters had not been posting as much, which has me wonder if the things they noted were different from what everyone else is.
    For example, bc, I’m not sure on your gender (and I’m not saying you have to reveal it) but you focus on the individuals, Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez and though you give a nod to the evidence of Kavanaugh’s yearbook, you seem to disbelieve it could represent a culture setting that might be pretty horrific and when coupled with Judge’s own writings, makes me very suspicious, especially after Kavanaugh’s interview on Fox. And the situation of Renate Dolphin is just icing on the cake. YMMV, but if your aim is to convince me, you need to explain why that information is not evidence of a culture that is misogynistic at its base.
    At any rate, even if Kavanaugh did not actually _do_ anything, one would have to question his judicial temperament if he knew and then claimed, as he has, to have been a choirboy, any only grudgingly acknowledging he may have, from time to time, had a post dinner sherry. Perhaps this might disqualify everyone from Georgetown Prep or anyone who belonged to a fraternity. But the job is a sinecure, not something that is ‘owned’ to anyone.

  1662. We are talking about an American perspective. This is a discussion about a A USSC justice. I understand there are more cultures out there.
    That’s very true, which means that the ways Americans view sex and gender are topics that need to be considered, even though it may mean that anyone offering an opinion is going to have how they think about things interrogated. It will also mean that a lot of people may not be willing to go into that because sex is such a problematic topic, so we end up making a decision with some people perhaps not knowing _why_ they made it, which seems like a bad thing to me.
    lj noted way back when that some are lurking on this issue. I have been.
    I was, but I was also noting that this board seems to be composed of mostly white males, and the female commenters had not been posting as much, which has me wonder if the things they noted were different from what everyone else is.
    For example, bc, I’m not sure on your gender (and I’m not saying you have to reveal it) but you focus on the individuals, Ford, Swetnick and Ramirez and though you give a nod to the evidence of Kavanaugh’s yearbook, you seem to disbelieve it could represent a culture setting that might be pretty horrific and when coupled with Judge’s own writings, makes me very suspicious, especially after Kavanaugh’s interview on Fox. And the situation of Renate Dolphin is just icing on the cake. YMMV, but if your aim is to convince me, you need to explain why that information is not evidence of a culture that is misogynistic at its base.
    At any rate, even if Kavanaugh did not actually _do_ anything, one would have to question his judicial temperament if he knew and then claimed, as he has, to have been a choirboy, any only grudgingly acknowledging he may have, from time to time, had a post dinner sherry. Perhaps this might disqualify everyone from Georgetown Prep or anyone who belonged to a fraternity. But the job is a sinecure, not something that is ‘owned’ to anyone.

  1663. bc tends to disappear when questions are asked. Then reappears when the subject is changed. Not sure how to keep track of bc, but people should be held accountable for their arguments here. Not in a bad way, because people evolve. But the drive-by until s/he doesn’t have an answer is unattractive in bc.
    Makes me think of a pie filter.

  1664. bc tends to disappear when questions are asked. Then reappears when the subject is changed. Not sure how to keep track of bc, but people should be held accountable for their arguments here. Not in a bad way, because people evolve. But the drive-by until s/he doesn’t have an answer is unattractive in bc.
    Makes me think of a pie filter.

  1665. “Most of my friends that had open marriages ended up in non open marriages with people they met during the open marriage. With pretty unhappy splits.”
    Only because I’m a stickler for statistics–we should note that a very large percentage of closed marriages end up this way too which suggests that the open/closed distinction may not be making the difference.

  1666. “Most of my friends that had open marriages ended up in non open marriages with people they met during the open marriage. With pretty unhappy splits.”
    Only because I’m a stickler for statistics–we should note that a very large percentage of closed marriages end up this way too which suggests that the open/closed distinction may not be making the difference.

  1667. TP: No commenter has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from different walks of life to seek input in responding to your question than I have.
    I didn’t like it, but thought it might be a “geek in the bright lights” sort of thing. He wasn’t smooth in delivering the line. I’m not sure all Trump did to come up with his list. That he had a list and campaigned on it and emphasized it repeatedly was notable. And the list changed. And I remember reading one of the vetters that literally everything is being read that has been written by the nominees (in terms of opinions, not yearbooks obviously). The charitable interpretation is that Trump struggled with the pick. At least until Kennedy said “pick Kavanaugh and I’ll retire.”
    As for shoving? I don’t think it was disqualifying. You do. But you have an objectively reasonable point in not liking Kavanaugh.
    All the above is without considering the “side show,” of course.

  1668. TP: No commenter has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from different walks of life to seek input in responding to your question than I have.
    I didn’t like it, but thought it might be a “geek in the bright lights” sort of thing. He wasn’t smooth in delivering the line. I’m not sure all Trump did to come up with his list. That he had a list and campaigned on it and emphasized it repeatedly was notable. And the list changed. And I remember reading one of the vetters that literally everything is being read that has been written by the nominees (in terms of opinions, not yearbooks obviously). The charitable interpretation is that Trump struggled with the pick. At least until Kennedy said “pick Kavanaugh and I’ll retire.”
    As for shoving? I don’t think it was disqualifying. You do. But you have an objectively reasonable point in not liking Kavanaugh.
    All the above is without considering the “side show,” of course.

  1669. lj: I am a white male.
    . . .you need to explain why that information is not evidence of a culture that is misogynistic at its base.
    Much of high school culture is DEFINITELY misogynistic. And shallow. And crass. etc. We hope everyone outgrows these things. Many do in high school or before high school.
    I don’t like a lot of what seems to be the “prep school culture” interpretation of high school at Kavanaugh’s alma mater. That certainly wasn’t my experience in high school. I don’t disbelieve that the culture there was a bit or a lot more than typical. But I wasn’t there. Maybe they talk a big talk.
    But we are having a different discussion than the main event, and I can’t help but think this discussion is colored by whether or not he raped someone. I acknowledge your point and don’t disagree, really.
    And frankly being accused of rape on this sort of stage must be tremendously difficult for all concerned and is not conducive to candidness on the small stuff for him, because any small slight or imperfection is going to be pounced on as proof of rape. I cannot imagine what Ford or Kavanaugh is going through right now.

  1670. lj: I am a white male.
    . . .you need to explain why that information is not evidence of a culture that is misogynistic at its base.
    Much of high school culture is DEFINITELY misogynistic. And shallow. And crass. etc. We hope everyone outgrows these things. Many do in high school or before high school.
    I don’t like a lot of what seems to be the “prep school culture” interpretation of high school at Kavanaugh’s alma mater. That certainly wasn’t my experience in high school. I don’t disbelieve that the culture there was a bit or a lot more than typical. But I wasn’t there. Maybe they talk a big talk.
    But we are having a different discussion than the main event, and I can’t help but think this discussion is colored by whether or not he raped someone. I acknowledge your point and don’t disagree, really.
    And frankly being accused of rape on this sort of stage must be tremendously difficult for all concerned and is not conducive to candidness on the small stuff for him, because any small slight or imperfection is going to be pounced on as proof of rape. I cannot imagine what Ford or Kavanaugh is going through right now.

  1671. bc tends to disappear when questions are asked.
    Huh? I tend to disappear when I get busy. I’m taking a mental health break from finishing an appellate brief right now. Sorry?

  1672. bc tends to disappear when questions are asked.
    Huh? I tend to disappear when I get busy. I’m taking a mental health break from finishing an appellate brief right now. Sorry?

  1681. Here is what sucks the most about the whole Kavanaugh-as-sex-offender business.
    If any of his accusers – any of them – fail to make a completely convincing showing, he’ll be off the hook.
    And everyone will forget the numerous other reasons that he does not belong on the court.
    It falls to Blasey Ford, Ramirez, et al, to convince the rest of us that Kavanaugh is not the guy for the SCOTUS. At risk to their own privacy, livelihoods, reputations, and lives for that matter. Why the bloody f*** is that their job? If any reasonable doubt can be cast on the idea that Kavanaugh was a serial rapist and juvenile sex offender, then suddenly he’s SCOTUS material?
    The SCOTUS is likely to have to rule on issues related to the investigation into the 2016 election, including Trump’s own participation in potentially illegal activities.
    Kavanaugh has expressed, publicly, views that the POTUS should be exempt from criminal or civil proceedings while in office, and/or not be required to answer to subpoenas. All of which represents a… remarkable evolution in his thinking.
    That, plus his baldly suck-up opening, calls into question his impartiality and his ability to weigh in on the question, should it arise, in true “balls and strikes” fashion.
    There is no reason that the Senate needs to vote on Kavanaugh this week, or next week, or this month, or next month. The average time that a SCOTUS seat has remained open over the last 40 or 50 years is about 55 days, the seat has barely been open that long.
    The (R)’s are determined to have a Federalist majority on the court, and they are determined to have that in place by the beginning of the next SCOTUS session. They’re entitled to their preferences. But there is no freaking reason on earth other than their preferences that this particular justice – or any particular justice – needs to be placed on the bench in any particular time frame.
    Blasey Ford’s claims should be investigated. Not in a one-day, he-said-she-said Senatorial version of the Jerry Springer show, but by a proper investigatory body.
    The paper trail from Kavanaugh’s work in the White House should be made available and researched, and he should be required to answer to all questions that arise from that.
    Kavanaugh should be required to give a reasonable and candid explanation of his views on whether the POTUS should be subject to criminal or civil proceedings. It’s not an irrelevant topic, and it’s also a topic on which he has made public statements.
    At this point, I think it’s also legitimate to look into the participation of characters like Whelan and the CRC, and the money flows into and out of that organization in support of his candidacy for the court. Start with how the fuck Whelan got Blasey Ford’s name before she went public.
    All of that would take time. It deserves time, because SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment, with no opportunity of review short of impeachment. If all of that seems overly burdensome, then Kavanaugh is probably not the right guy for the job. There are only 1,000 other guys in the Federalist pipeline waiting to jump in.
    Pick somebody else.
    Or, continue to carry on with this circus and maybe the (D)’s will flip the Senate. Then you get nothing. Which works for me.
    And anyone who wants to tut-tut about Feinstein’s “timing” can go write MERRICK GARLAND on the blackboard 100,000 times. Better yet, get Garland a hearing, and a seat on the SCOTUS if he acquits himself well. Compared to Kavanaugh’s prevarications and half-assery, he’ll seem like a genius.
    Don’t like Feinstein’s “timing”? Tough shit. What goes around, comes around.
    Merrick freaking Garland, y’all. Don’t like these kind of messes? Don’t make them. In the meantime, suck it up.
    I will not be watching the proceedings today, I will not be watching them after the fact on YouTube or any of its equivalents, I will not watch them at all. This whole misadventure is bullshit will to power kabuki, and I want no part of it.
    My position at this particular point in time is that the (R) party has become a party of scoundrels and cowards. It must be crushed, electorally, early and often, until it either disappears from the face of the earth, or regains whatever sanity it might ever have had.
    Destroy them in 2018, destroy them in 2020, destroy them until they either cease to exist or experience a radical collective metanoia.
    Scoundrels and cowards.
    That’s all I got on Kavanaugh. Over and out.

  1682. Here is what sucks the most about the whole Kavanaugh-as-sex-offender business.
    If any of his accusers – any of them – fail to make a completely convincing showing, he’ll be off the hook.
    And everyone will forget the numerous other reasons that he does not belong on the court.
    It falls to Blasey Ford, Ramirez, et al, to convince the rest of us that Kavanaugh is not the guy for the SCOTUS. At risk to their own privacy, livelihoods, reputations, and lives for that matter. Why the bloody f*** is that their job? If any reasonable doubt can be cast on the idea that Kavanaugh was a serial rapist and juvenile sex offender, then suddenly he’s SCOTUS material?
    The SCOTUS is likely to have to rule on issues related to the investigation into the 2016 election, including Trump’s own participation in potentially illegal activities.
    Kavanaugh has expressed, publicly, views that the POTUS should be exempt from criminal or civil proceedings while in office, and/or not be required to answer to subpoenas. All of which represents a… remarkable evolution in his thinking.
    That, plus his baldly suck-up opening, calls into question his impartiality and his ability to weigh in on the question, should it arise, in true “balls and strikes” fashion.
    There is no reason that the Senate needs to vote on Kavanaugh this week, or next week, or this month, or next month. The average time that a SCOTUS seat has remained open over the last 40 or 50 years is about 55 days, the seat has barely been open that long.
    The (R)’s are determined to have a Federalist majority on the court, and they are determined to have that in place by the beginning of the next SCOTUS session. They’re entitled to their preferences. But there is no freaking reason on earth other than their preferences that this particular justice – or any particular justice – needs to be placed on the bench in any particular time frame.
    Blasey Ford’s claims should be investigated. Not in a one-day, he-said-she-said Senatorial version of the Jerry Springer show, but by a proper investigatory body.
    The paper trail from Kavanaugh’s work in the White House should be made available and researched, and he should be required to answer to all questions that arise from that.
    Kavanaugh should be required to give a reasonable and candid explanation of his views on whether the POTUS should be subject to criminal or civil proceedings. It’s not an irrelevant topic, and it’s also a topic on which he has made public statements.
    At this point, I think it’s also legitimate to look into the participation of characters like Whelan and the CRC, and the money flows into and out of that organization in support of his candidacy for the court. Start with how the fuck Whelan got Blasey Ford’s name before she went public.
    All of that would take time. It deserves time, because SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment, with no opportunity of review short of impeachment. If all of that seems overly burdensome, then Kavanaugh is probably not the right guy for the job. There are only 1,000 other guys in the Federalist pipeline waiting to jump in.
    Pick somebody else.
    Or, continue to carry on with this circus and maybe the (D)’s will flip the Senate. Then you get nothing. Which works for me.
    And anyone who wants to tut-tut about Feinstein’s “timing” can go write MERRICK GARLAND on the blackboard 100,000 times. Better yet, get Garland a hearing, and a seat on the SCOTUS if he acquits himself well. Compared to Kavanaugh’s prevarications and half-assery, he’ll seem like a genius.
    Don’t like Feinstein’s “timing”? Tough shit. What goes around, comes around.
    Merrick freaking Garland, y’all. Don’t like these kind of messes? Don’t make them. In the meantime, suck it up.
    I will not be watching the proceedings today, I will not be watching them after the fact on YouTube or any of its equivalents, I will not watch them at all. This whole misadventure is bullshit will to power kabuki, and I want no part of it.
    My position at this particular point in time is that the (R) party has become a party of scoundrels and cowards. It must be crushed, electorally, early and often, until it either disappears from the face of the earth, or regains whatever sanity it might ever have had.
    Destroy them in 2018, destroy them in 2020, destroy them until they either cease to exist or experience a radical collective metanoia.
    Scoundrels and cowards.
    That’s all I got on Kavanaugh. Over and out.

  1689. I will not be watching the proceedings today, I will not be watching them after the fact on YouTube or any of its equivalents, I will not watch them at all.
    This reminds me of “Green Eggs and Ham.”

  1690. I will not be watching the proceedings today, I will not be watching them after the fact on YouTube or any of its equivalents, I will not watch them at all.
    This reminds me of “Green Eggs and Ham.”

  1691. Here’s Mitch McConnell in August 2016 bragging about preventing Pres Obama from filling Justice Scalia’s open seat: “One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy”

    — HT Anne Laurie at BJ

    I can’t stand to watch McConnell just as much as I can’t stand to watch or listen to Clickbait, and if you feel the same, don’t click. Because it’s not hearsay, it’s a video of McConnell bragging his sorry ass off.

  1692. Here’s Mitch McConnell in August 2016 bragging about preventing Pres Obama from filling Justice Scalia’s open seat: “One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill this Supreme Court vacancy”

    — HT Anne Laurie at BJ

    I can’t stand to watch McConnell just as much as I can’t stand to watch or listen to Clickbait, and if you feel the same, don’t click. Because it’s not hearsay, it’s a video of McConnell bragging his sorry ass off.

  1693. Russell wrote the other day …. I think it was him … that he couldn’t wait for this whole soap opera to be over.
    But I knew he still had a blow-your-socks-off aria, or drum solo, left in him.
    Not much more scenery to be chewed before the gravity-challenged lady does her thing.

  1694. Russell wrote the other day …. I think it was him … that he couldn’t wait for this whole soap opera to be over.
    But I knew he still had a blow-your-socks-off aria, or drum solo, left in him.
    Not much more scenery to be chewed before the gravity-challenged lady does her thing.

  1697. Two bits:
    Better a gonzo federalist masher/rapist on the Court than a Democratic rapist and/or a completely chaste Merrick Garland, I guess, is the lesson for the kids today.
    Juanita Broderick is attending the hearing in support of Kavanaugh.
    I had forgotten that one of the women, now his wife, Callista, who Gingrich was fucking while married to the previous woman he fucked while married to his first cancer-ridden wife, is now the U.S. Ambassador to the the Vatican.
    I would take a vow, but of what?
    I think the entire cast of these hearings today, certainly the leading lights, but also including the folks in the gallery, the press, and the Senate gendarmes, should be required to attend while buck naked.
    I’m anxious to catch a glimpse of the hickeys on Grassley.
    If George Carlin wasn’t rumored to be dead, I would cue him.

  1698. Two bits:
    Better a gonzo federalist masher/rapist on the Court than a Democratic rapist and/or a completely chaste Merrick Garland, I guess, is the lesson for the kids today.
    Juanita Broderick is attending the hearing in support of Kavanaugh.
    I had forgotten that one of the women, now his wife, Callista, who Gingrich was fucking while married to the previous woman he fucked while married to his first cancer-ridden wife, is now the U.S. Ambassador to the the Vatican.
    I would take a vow, but of what?
    I think the entire cast of these hearings today, certainly the leading lights, but also including the folks in the gallery, the press, and the Senate gendarmes, should be required to attend while buck naked.
    I’m anxious to catch a glimpse of the hickeys on Grassley.
    If George Carlin wasn’t rumored to be dead, I would cue him.

  1699. Gingrich is a piece of work, isn’t he?
    But IOKIYAR. Apparently even the Pope thinks so, or what is Callista doing in that role?

  1700. Gingrich is a piece of work, isn’t he?
    But IOKIYAR. Apparently even the Pope thinks so, or what is Callista doing in that role?

  1711. Walker Percy looked askance at behavioral science’s view of the Chimp/Human language nexus, but evidence gathered by the chimpanzees themselves have caused THEM to agree with Percy and object to the comparisons:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEhGV1tD5-8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXalR7beXgs
    The chimps will continue to study the matter unless the apes in the current administration withdraw their grant money:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8NRh9UI1aQ

  1712. Walker Percy looked askance at behavioral science’s view of the Chimp/Human language nexus, but evidence gathered by the chimpanzees themselves have caused THEM to agree with Percy and object to the comparisons:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEhGV1tD5-8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXalR7beXgs
    The chimps will continue to study the matter unless the apes in the current administration withdraw their grant money:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8NRh9UI1aQ

  1713. This reminds me of “Green Eggs and Ham.”
    I will not watch them while at work.
    I will not watch their stupid smirks.
    I will not watch them in my house.
    I will not watch them with my spouse.
    I will not them in the hall.
    I will watch them, not at all.

  1714. This reminds me of “Green Eggs and Ham.”
    I will not watch them while at work.
    I will not watch their stupid smirks.
    I will not watch them in my house.
    I will not watch them with my spouse.
    I will not them in the hall.
    I will watch them, not at all.

  1715. Circling back to the lickspittle argument, I’m not bothered by Kavanaugh’s kissing up nearly as much as I am bothered by his authoritarian leanings in his jurisprudence. I’ve been thinking for a long time that the right has gone deep into Carl Schmitt territory with their own version of identity politics. Kavanaugh seems the type of jurist who would see nothing wrong with the sort of decision that Schmitt made in Preussen contra Reich to support executive sovereignty at the expense of the opposition party.
    And all this without any of Schmitt’s philosophical prowess.

  1716. Circling back to the lickspittle argument, I’m not bothered by Kavanaugh’s kissing up nearly as much as I am bothered by his authoritarian leanings in his jurisprudence. I’ve been thinking for a long time that the right has gone deep into Carl Schmitt territory with their own version of identity politics. Kavanaugh seems the type of jurist who would see nothing wrong with the sort of decision that Schmitt made in Preussen contra Reich to support executive sovereignty at the expense of the opposition party.
    And all this without any of Schmitt’s philosophical prowess.

  1721. I’ve been listening on the radio, not intently the entire time, but very intently during Blasey-Ford’s opening statement. I think the Republicans have a tough road ahead. She sounded vulnerable, shaken, and honest. I don’t know how they can attack her in any way without looking like heartless villains to anyone but the most biased observers. I’m not sure Rachel Mitchell can save them.

  1722. I’ve been listening on the radio, not intently the entire time, but very intently during Blasey-Ford’s opening statement. I think the Republicans have a tough road ahead. She sounded vulnerable, shaken, and honest. I don’t know how they can attack her in any way without looking like heartless villains to anyone but the most biased observers. I’m not sure Rachel Mitchell can save them.

  1723. Do imagined realities start to seep into reality if enough people share the imagined realities? If so, the current reality might lead one to believe too many people have read too many Philip K. Dick novels.

  1724. Do imagined realities start to seep into reality if enough people share the imagined realities? If so, the current reality might lead one to believe too many people have read too many Philip K. Dick novels.

  1725. the bright folks over at Breitbart are very sure that Ford’s various comments about her feelings towards air travel have completely obliterated her credibility on anything.
    their reality is orthogonal to the one i see.

  1726. the bright folks over at Breitbart are very sure that Ford’s various comments about her feelings towards air travel have completely obliterated her credibility on anything.
    their reality is orthogonal to the one i see.

  1727. Senator Lindsey Graham envisions a “reality” in which no nominee ever again escapes sexual harassment charges from designing women, unto the ages and ages, amen.
    I’d like to see Kavanaugh get voted down and Graham nominated in his place. Just to test Lindsey’s “reality”, don’t you know.
    –TP

  1728. Senator Lindsey Graham envisions a “reality” in which no nominee ever again escapes sexual harassment charges from designing women, unto the ages and ages, amen.
    I’d like to see Kavanaugh get voted down and Graham nominated in his place. Just to test Lindsey’s “reality”, don’t you know.
    –TP

  1731. My comment just disappeared into the void! One more try before rushing off to shower, having been glued to the computer for four and a half hours: Kamala Harris and Maisie Hirono were great, and to quote Hunter ST: My heart is like an alligator
    [comment restored! no idea why it went into the spam folder — wj]

  1732. My comment just disappeared into the void! One more try before rushing off to shower, having been glued to the computer for four and a half hours: Kamala Harris and Maisie Hirono were great, and to quote Hunter ST: My heart is like an alligator
    [comment restored! no idea why it went into the spam folder — wj]

  1733. Reading through the live blogging at 538
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/brett-kavanaugh-hearing/
    I notice a lot of discussion of the merits of Republicans doubling down on Kavanaugh, vs withdrawing him and nominating someone else a couple of weeks back. But I think that misses the point.
    It isn’t Republican Senators who are in a position to drive this — short of just bringing him to a vote and voting him down. It’s Trump. Who believes anything like withdrawing Kavanaugh would look “weak”, which he can’t abide. So basically, they are stuck with him until either Kavanaugh himself decides to withdraw, or they get to a vote.

  1734. Reading through the live blogging at 538
    https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/brett-kavanaugh-hearing/
    I notice a lot of discussion of the merits of Republicans doubling down on Kavanaugh, vs withdrawing him and nominating someone else a couple of weeks back. But I think that misses the point.
    It isn’t Republican Senators who are in a position to drive this — short of just bringing him to a vote and voting him down. It’s Trump. Who believes anything like withdrawing Kavanaugh would look “weak”, which he can’t abide. So basically, they are stuck with him until either Kavanaugh himself decides to withdraw, or they get to a vote.

  1735. Correct. The Senators cannot nominate a candidate for the SCOTUS. Only the POTUS.
    All they can do is vote his nominees up or down.

  1736. Correct. The Senators cannot nominate a candidate for the SCOTUS. Only the POTUS.
    All they can do is vote his nominees up or down.

  1737. All they can do is vote his nominees up or down.
    there is a third way.
    it’s known by this rather cumbersome acronym : MERRICKGARLAND

  1738. All they can do is vote his nominees up or down.
    there is a third way.
    it’s known by this rather cumbersome acronym : MERRICKGARLAND

  1739. Kavanaugh’s (super-long) opening statement was kind of weird. Where is he getting the coordinated and well-funded effort on the parts of the senate Democrats? Is he a conspiracy theorist like the one who nominated him?

  1740. Kavanaugh’s (super-long) opening statement was kind of weird. Where is he getting the coordinated and well-funded effort on the parts of the senate Democrats? Is he a conspiracy theorist like the one who nominated him?

  1741. Very interesting. I think he put up a pretty convincing, emotional show, more than good enough to sway Trump and committed Republicans. The interesting thing is going to be what effect it has on the undecided and women in general, which is presumably what might sway Flake, Collins, Murkowski etc.

  1742. Very interesting. I think he put up a pretty convincing, emotional show, more than good enough to sway Trump and committed Republicans. The interesting thing is going to be what effect it has on the undecided and women in general, which is presumably what might sway Flake, Collins, Murkowski etc.

  1743. what might sway Flake, Collins, Murkowski etc.
    And that is indeed the rub. Yelling at Democratic Senators probably plays great with the GOP base. But whether it will play well with these Senators (those 3 plus Corker), all of whom are basically Senate institutionalists, is a whole different question.

  1744. what might sway Flake, Collins, Murkowski etc.
    And that is indeed the rub. Yelling at Democratic Senators probably plays great with the GOP base. But whether it will play well with these Senators (those 3 plus Corker), all of whom are basically Senate institutionalists, is a whole different question.

  1745. Is he a conspiracy theorist like the one who nominated him?
    The more I think about hsh’s question, the more important I think it is. His furious accusations against the Democratic senators, and implications of conspiracy, not to mention angry questions to a female Democratic questioner about her drinking habits, seem very unwise (except for the glee it will inspire in the Trumpistas). So: Flake, Collins, Murkowski, Corker and Sasse – what will they be thinking?

  1746. Is he a conspiracy theorist like the one who nominated him?
    The more I think about hsh’s question, the more important I think it is. His furious accusations against the Democratic senators, and implications of conspiracy, not to mention angry questions to a female Democratic questioner about her drinking habits, seem very unwise (except for the glee it will inspire in the Trumpistas). So: Flake, Collins, Murkowski, Corker and Sasse – what will they be thinking?

  1753. 5 minute break: I think the Democratic senators are starting to chip away at his drinking, memory issues etc, and do some damage which overcomes a bit of the effect of his opening, but as soon as the Republican senators take over the whole thing becomes clouded by smoke and mirrors over the fact that Feinstein held on to the accusation for so long. None of them give any weight to the fact that she was observing Ford’s wishes for confidentiality, and the Dems are not stressing that either. Also, Kavanaugh keeps on and on about the other alleged witnesses at the party deny it “under caution of felony”, but it has just emerged that Judge’s denial/evidence was 6 sentences long!

  1754. 5 minute break: I think the Democratic senators are starting to chip away at his drinking, memory issues etc, and do some damage which overcomes a bit of the effect of his opening, but as soon as the Republican senators take over the whole thing becomes clouded by smoke and mirrors over the fact that Feinstein held on to the accusation for so long. None of them give any weight to the fact that she was observing Ford’s wishes for confidentiality, and the Dems are not stressing that either. Also, Kavanaugh keeps on and on about the other alleged witnesses at the party deny it “under caution of felony”, but it has just emerged that Judge’s denial/evidence was 6 sentences long!

  1755. A slightly orthogonal thought. It seems quite possible that Maryland local officials will view the testimony today and consider whether to launch their own investigation — after all, there’s no statute of limitations on the crime alleged and the FBI isn’t the only organization which can do investigations.
    Suppose they do. Suppose further that they find enough evidence to warrant bringing charges. Where does that leave all of the Senators who have voted to confirm Kavanaugh? Especially those on the Judiciary Committee who went along with the refusal to even all Mr Judge as a witness.
    This could keep getting uglier for years.

  1756. A slightly orthogonal thought. It seems quite possible that Maryland local officials will view the testimony today and consider whether to launch their own investigation — after all, there’s no statute of limitations on the crime alleged and the FBI isn’t the only organization which can do investigations.
    Suppose they do. Suppose further that they find enough evidence to warrant bringing charges. Where does that leave all of the Senators who have voted to confirm Kavanaugh? Especially those on the Judiciary Committee who went along with the refusal to even all Mr Judge as a witness.
    This could keep getting uglier for years.

  1759. It also seems that someone like Chief Justice Roberts, who cares about the reputation of the Court, would be really unhappy about having someone like Kavanaugh on the Court where he is Chief Justice. Really, really unhappy. But then, what can he do about it?

  1760. It also seems that someone like Chief Justice Roberts, who cares about the reputation of the Court, would be really unhappy about having someone like Kavanaugh on the Court where he is Chief Justice. Really, really unhappy. But then, what can he do about it?

  1763. he’s definitely going through. there was never any doubt.
    it’s always been a GOP election stunt, and they can’t give up now.

  1764. he’s definitely going through. there was never any doubt.
    it’s always been a GOP election stunt, and they can’t give up now.

  1765. He has 4 basic points:
    1)I didn’t do it
    2)The other people who she says were there say they weren’t
    3)I have a pretty good documentation of where I was most of the time
    4)Lots of people who have known me all my life have been character witnesses for me
    Plus, no one on that committee seemed to believe the other 2, Avenatti’s in particular, so no pattern is established.
    After watching all day I have two observations.
    First, she was definitely molested, and incredibly frightened by it, and she is certain Brett Kavanaugh did it.
    Second, He seemed equally certain he did not and was pretty convincing.
    The Democratic Senators had nothing to refute his claim of innocence so they focused on attacking his general character and trying to make him look bad because he wouldn’t say he wanted the FBI to investigate. He handled he FBI line pretty well but it was uninformative and more typical Senate hearing jockeying. I think the FBI investigation stuff made them look bad, but I’m not unbiased. I know the yearbook stuff made them look bad.
    What Lindsey Graham said.

  1766. He has 4 basic points:
    1)I didn’t do it
    2)The other people who she says were there say they weren’t
    3)I have a pretty good documentation of where I was most of the time
    4)Lots of people who have known me all my life have been character witnesses for me
    Plus, no one on that committee seemed to believe the other 2, Avenatti’s in particular, so no pattern is established.
    After watching all day I have two observations.
    First, she was definitely molested, and incredibly frightened by it, and she is certain Brett Kavanaugh did it.
    Second, He seemed equally certain he did not and was pretty convincing.
    The Democratic Senators had nothing to refute his claim of innocence so they focused on attacking his general character and trying to make him look bad because he wouldn’t say he wanted the FBI to investigate. He handled he FBI line pretty well but it was uninformative and more typical Senate hearing jockeying. I think the FBI investigation stuff made them look bad, but I’m not unbiased. I know the yearbook stuff made them look bad.
    What Lindsey Graham said.

  1767. The fact that neither Kavanaugh nor any of the Rs on the committee think that the only alleged witness should be subpoenaed to give evidence is the clearest possible indication that they’re scared of what he’d say. Kavanaugh’s repeated statements about the 4 other people’s denials (clearly rehearsed as his best gambit) struck me as a bit weaselly (the commentators say it was misleading given what they had actually said), and regarding Judge specifically, apparently his 6 sentence statement, signed by his lawyer not him, does not count as the kind of testimony under caution of felony they (and Kavanaugh) kept claiming it was. The refusal to get Judge to testify under oath is the key.
    I’ve been watching for over 9 hours (with a quick shower during one of their breaks), and I’m done, and slightly depressed. I’m off to bed. Good night all.

  1768. The fact that neither Kavanaugh nor any of the Rs on the committee think that the only alleged witness should be subpoenaed to give evidence is the clearest possible indication that they’re scared of what he’d say. Kavanaugh’s repeated statements about the 4 other people’s denials (clearly rehearsed as his best gambit) struck me as a bit weaselly (the commentators say it was misleading given what they had actually said), and regarding Judge specifically, apparently his 6 sentence statement, signed by his lawyer not him, does not count as the kind of testimony under caution of felony they (and Kavanaugh) kept claiming it was. The refusal to get Judge to testify under oath is the key.
    I’ve been watching for over 9 hours (with a quick shower during one of their breaks), and I’m done, and slightly depressed. I’m off to bed. Good night all.

  1771. I didn’t get to hear or see all of Kavanaugh’s questioning, but I understand that it got to be repetitive on the part of Democrats. Some of it is understandable. (How many times did he say, “I like beer” while insisting he’s never been drunk enough to forget anything.) But I really don’t understand why he wasn’t challenged more about his assertions about a grand plot (on behalf of the Clinton’s, no less) by senate Democrats and, more generally, “the left.” Why didn’t anyone ask him what evidence he had for a conspiracy, particularly one involving Democrats on the committee? (And how did the Clintons end up being the inspiration for it?)
    Forget trying to make him look any guiltier than he might look. Just make him look like a partisan nut.
    (Lindsey Graham asking him if he was a gang rapist was, um, dramatic….)

  1772. I didn’t get to hear or see all of Kavanaugh’s questioning, but I understand that it got to be repetitive on the part of Democrats. Some of it is understandable. (How many times did he say, “I like beer” while insisting he’s never been drunk enough to forget anything.) But I really don’t understand why he wasn’t challenged more about his assertions about a grand plot (on behalf of the Clinton’s, no less) by senate Democrats and, more generally, “the left.” Why didn’t anyone ask him what evidence he had for a conspiracy, particularly one involving Democrats on the committee? (And how did the Clintons end up being the inspiration for it?)
    Forget trying to make him look any guiltier than he might look. Just make him look like a partisan nut.
    (Lindsey Graham asking him if he was a gang rapist was, um, dramatic….)

  1773. It also seems that someone like Chief Justice Roberts, who cares about the reputation of the Court
    We know what Roberts says, but we do not know what he believes. His jurisprudence would argue otherwise….cf Shelby
    He’s just another right wing ideologue, but with softer edges.

  1774. It also seems that someone like Chief Justice Roberts, who cares about the reputation of the Court
    We know what Roberts says, but we do not know what he believes. His jurisprudence would argue otherwise….cf Shelby
    He’s just another right wing ideologue, but with softer edges.

  1777. Kavanaugh said more than “I didn’t do it”, which is no more or less believable than Ford’s account. He also said “I wasn’t there”, which is a falsifiable assertion that an actual shoe-leather investigation might be able to verify — or disprove. Also that “It’s a Clinton conspiracy against me”, which sane people will dismiss as lunacy but Republicans will take as gospel.
    Kavanaugh did an excellent imitation of He, Trump mixed with a little Clarence Thomas and a smidge of Nixon in his cups. Which gave Lindsey Graham a woodie.
    I note in passing that Grassley’s hired “prosecutor” was quietly relegated to oblivion once it came time to question the accused perp. She was only there to prosecute the accuser.
    Kavanaugh will be confirmed because Republicans, including the “moderates”, love a belligerent punk who puts on a good show of righteous indignation.
    He will be impeached because Sheldon Whitehouse will chair the Judiciary Committee someday. If Kavanaugh’s god has any sense of humor, Merrick Garland will replace him on the Court.
    –TP

  1778. Kavanaugh said more than “I didn’t do it”, which is no more or less believable than Ford’s account. He also said “I wasn’t there”, which is a falsifiable assertion that an actual shoe-leather investigation might be able to verify — or disprove. Also that “It’s a Clinton conspiracy against me”, which sane people will dismiss as lunacy but Republicans will take as gospel.
    Kavanaugh did an excellent imitation of He, Trump mixed with a little Clarence Thomas and a smidge of Nixon in his cups. Which gave Lindsey Graham a woodie.
    I note in passing that Grassley’s hired “prosecutor” was quietly relegated to oblivion once it came time to question the accused perp. She was only there to prosecute the accuser.
    Kavanaugh will be confirmed because Republicans, including the “moderates”, love a belligerent punk who puts on a good show of righteous indignation.
    He will be impeached because Sheldon Whitehouse will chair the Judiciary Committee someday. If Kavanaugh’s god has any sense of humor, Merrick Garland will replace him on the Court.
    –TP

  1783. Kamala Harris did ask him about it, hairshirt.
    I saw that, but she asked one question, he didn’t really answer it, and she said only “Okay” before moving to her next question. I don’t know why someone didn’t probe him on it, forcing him to expand on his answers or to answer more specifically, to put emphasis on this aspect of his testimony. As it stands, no one’s going to remember Harris’ question or his non-answer.

  1784. Kamala Harris did ask him about it, hairshirt.
    I saw that, but she asked one question, he didn’t really answer it, and she said only “Okay” before moving to her next question. I don’t know why someone didn’t probe him on it, forcing him to expand on his answers or to answer more specifically, to put emphasis on this aspect of his testimony. As it stands, no one’s going to remember Harris’ question or his non-answer.

  1785. As it stands, no one’s going to remember Harris’ question or his non-answer.
    They will remember the fact that he is terrified of an FBI investigation, which would put to rest the “he said/she said” dynamic. It seems to me like that’s the most important thing. The “partisan conspiracists” nailing him on his conspiracy theory is just going to feed on itself.
    The guy is a bold faced liar, and is afraid of real evidence. The crap letter from Judge’s attorney is not evidence, and would never be accepted as such in any court. (Blumenthal alluded to the “best evidence rule”. No judge would accept that trash.) It’s very damning that he refuses the collection of any truly corroborating evidence. Blaming Democrats, when they each had only 5 minutes, and his answers were disrespectful, dissembling filibusters, and he was playing the victim card, is ridiculous. They did a good job. Only disgusting traitor Republicans would confirm this person, but that’s what we have.
    Still, I’m keeping my fingers crossed, because I want to.

  1786. As it stands, no one’s going to remember Harris’ question or his non-answer.
    They will remember the fact that he is terrified of an FBI investigation, which would put to rest the “he said/she said” dynamic. It seems to me like that’s the most important thing. The “partisan conspiracists” nailing him on his conspiracy theory is just going to feed on itself.
    The guy is a bold faced liar, and is afraid of real evidence. The crap letter from Judge’s attorney is not evidence, and would never be accepted as such in any court. (Blumenthal alluded to the “best evidence rule”. No judge would accept that trash.) It’s very damning that he refuses the collection of any truly corroborating evidence. Blaming Democrats, when they each had only 5 minutes, and his answers were disrespectful, dissembling filibusters, and he was playing the victim card, is ridiculous. They did a good job. Only disgusting traitor Republicans would confirm this person, but that’s what we have.
    Still, I’m keeping my fingers crossed, because I want to.

  1789. They will remember the fact that he is terrified of an FBI investigation, which would put to rest the “he said/she said” dynamic. It seems to me like that’s the most important thing.
    Yes, but they spent more than enough of their time on that, IMO. I’m not suggesting that they should have spent the whole time on the conspiracy theory, but even if they spent ten times the amount of time they did on that, there would have been plenty of time for everything else. I also think the conspiracy theory feeding on itself does nothing, because the people who already believe it can’t really believe it any more than they already do, and it’s not going to convert anyone who doesn’t already believe it. But it very well may convince people in the mushy middle that he’s partisan nutjob.

  1790. They will remember the fact that he is terrified of an FBI investigation, which would put to rest the “he said/she said” dynamic. It seems to me like that’s the most important thing.
    Yes, but they spent more than enough of their time on that, IMO. I’m not suggesting that they should have spent the whole time on the conspiracy theory, but even if they spent ten times the amount of time they did on that, there would have been plenty of time for everything else. I also think the conspiracy theory feeding on itself does nothing, because the people who already believe it can’t really believe it any more than they already do, and it’s not going to convert anyone who doesn’t already believe it. But it very well may convince people in the mushy middle that he’s partisan nutjob.

  1793. But it very well may convince people in the mushy middle that he’s partisan nutjob.
    That was pretty self-evident, IMO.

  1794. But it very well may convince people in the mushy middle that he’s partisan nutjob.
    That was pretty self-evident, IMO.

  1797. But it very well may convince people in the mushy middle that he’s partisan nutjob.
    Also, who cares what the mushy middle thinks? The only thing that matters is how Senators vote, and whatever Republican bullshit happens. They don’t care about anything or anyone or what anyone thinks. They have power, and they’ll do whatever they can for the Supreme Court to be stacked in their favor. They’ve already made a deal with the devil – they’re all in. There is no “mushy middle.” None that counts for anything.

  1798. But it very well may convince people in the mushy middle that he’s partisan nutjob.
    Also, who cares what the mushy middle thinks? The only thing that matters is how Senators vote, and whatever Republican bullshit happens. They don’t care about anything or anyone or what anyone thinks. They have power, and they’ll do whatever they can for the Supreme Court to be stacked in their favor. They’ve already made a deal with the devil – they’re all in. There is no “mushy middle.” None that counts for anything.

  1801. Also, who cares what the mushy middle thinks?
    Just for openers, Republican Senators in purple states. Assuming they ever want to get elected again.

  1802. Also, who cares what the mushy middle thinks?
    Just for openers, Republican Senators in purple states. Assuming they ever want to get elected again.

  1803. If Kavanaugh’s god has any sense of humor, Merrick Garland will replace him on the Court.
    Ahhhh, Merrick, we hardly knew ye.

  1804. If Kavanaugh’s god has any sense of humor, Merrick Garland will replace him on the Court.
    Ahhhh, Merrick, we hardly knew ye.

  1805. Blaming Democrats, when they each had only 5 minutes, and his answers were disrespectful, dissembling filibusters, and he was playing the victim card, is ridiculous.
    You can add weaselly and whiny and angry and combative and self-righteous and braggy (yes we know you were first in your class at Georgetown Prep, we heard it the first seventeen times) to the list of things he was.
    When he asked (was it) Kobuchar if *she* had ever not remembered the night before I thought she should have ripped him a new one and then reminded him that he was the one applying for a job on the Supreme Court, not her. She remained calm and polite, instead. Maybe she was right to do that, I don’t know.
    I would never have listened to a word of this, valuing what I have left of my sanity, but I had to go to Portland to today to find out that I need a root canal, and having the radio on (and off, and on, and off, and so on) was too tempting.
    It’s mighty ironic that in 1960 the opponents of JFK were issuing dire warnings that if he got elected, America would be under the thumb of the pope. Now we’ve got the court in the process of being packed with ever more right-wing Catholics, including, I’m sad to say, almost surely this belligerent partisan POS who wouldn’t recognize a judicial temperament if it sat down next to him at a bar.

  1806. Blaming Democrats, when they each had only 5 minutes, and his answers were disrespectful, dissembling filibusters, and he was playing the victim card, is ridiculous.
    You can add weaselly and whiny and angry and combative and self-righteous and braggy (yes we know you were first in your class at Georgetown Prep, we heard it the first seventeen times) to the list of things he was.
    When he asked (was it) Kobuchar if *she* had ever not remembered the night before I thought she should have ripped him a new one and then reminded him that he was the one applying for a job on the Supreme Court, not her. She remained calm and polite, instead. Maybe she was right to do that, I don’t know.
    I would never have listened to a word of this, valuing what I have left of my sanity, but I had to go to Portland to today to find out that I need a root canal, and having the radio on (and off, and on, and off, and so on) was too tempting.
    It’s mighty ironic that in 1960 the opponents of JFK were issuing dire warnings that if he got elected, America would be under the thumb of the pope. Now we’ve got the court in the process of being packed with ever more right-wing Catholics, including, I’m sad to say, almost surely this belligerent partisan POS who wouldn’t recognize a judicial temperament if it sat down next to him at a bar.

  1807. And even more ironic that the same people, more or less, who were making a bogeyman of the Catholic Church in 1960 are now happily handing it over.
    Did someone here post a link to an article about Leonard Leo? If not, look him up.

  1808. And even more ironic that the same people, more or less, who were making a bogeyman of the Catholic Church in 1960 are now happily handing it over.
    Did someone here post a link to an article about Leonard Leo? If not, look him up.

  1809. When he asked (was it) Kobuchar if *she* had ever not remembered the night before I thought she should have ripped him a new one and then reminded him that he was the one applying for a job on the Supreme Court, not her. She remained calm and polite, instead. Maybe she was right to do that, I don’t know.
    Yes. I almost jumped through my computer screen.
    Sorry about the root canal news, JanieM.

  1810. When he asked (was it) Kobuchar if *she* had ever not remembered the night before I thought she should have ripped him a new one and then reminded him that he was the one applying for a job on the Supreme Court, not her. She remained calm and polite, instead. Maybe she was right to do that, I don’t know.
    Yes. I almost jumped through my computer screen.
    Sorry about the root canal news, JanieM.

  1811. Thanks, sapient. Knock on wood, if it makes this tooth settle down it will be well worth it. The only other root canal I ever had wasn’t too bad. If this one is no worse, and it fixes the problem, I’ll be satisfied.

  1812. Thanks, sapient. Knock on wood, if it makes this tooth settle down it will be well worth it. The only other root canal I ever had wasn’t too bad. If this one is no worse, and it fixes the problem, I’ll be satisfied.

  1813. I didn’t really pick up on the “blaming Democrats” part until JanieM quoted it. I’m not sure if that was aimed at me or “Let’s be fair to Judge Kavavaugh like we were to Dr. Ford” Grassley. Dr. Ford was polite, calm, and as helpful as could be to all of her questioners, in sharp contrast to Judge Kavanaugh when responding to the Democrats.
    My criticism wasn’t so much blaming as puzzling-over. Nobody’s perfect, right? Not even Democrats.

  1814. I didn’t really pick up on the “blaming Democrats” part until JanieM quoted it. I’m not sure if that was aimed at me or “Let’s be fair to Judge Kavavaugh like we were to Dr. Ford” Grassley. Dr. Ford was polite, calm, and as helpful as could be to all of her questioners, in sharp contrast to Judge Kavanaugh when responding to the Democrats.
    My criticism wasn’t so much blaming as puzzling-over. Nobody’s perfect, right? Not even Democrats.

  1815. I did think “I don’t have a drinking problem” was a nice jab. Not exactly subtle, but not at all overdone.

  1816. I did think “I don’t have a drinking problem” was a nice jab. Not exactly subtle, but not at all overdone.

  1817. hsh, I can’t speak for sapient, but my quoting that bit wasn’t aimed at anyone, it was just the lead-in to what I was more focused on, which was how to describe Kavanaugh.
    Like, “judicial” isn’t a word I’d use.

  1818. hsh, I can’t speak for sapient, but my quoting that bit wasn’t aimed at anyone, it was just the lead-in to what I was more focused on, which was how to describe Kavanaugh.
    Like, “judicial” isn’t a word I’d use.

  1823. How do you know someone is lying?
    When a frat boy claims either (let alone both) of
    – I have never drunk until I passed out,
    – I have always respected women
    Anyone who has ever encountered one, which means pretty much anyone with a college education (possible exception for small private colleges with no frats), knows this quite well. Emphatically including college educated women — which may be part of why that demographic is moving the way it is.

  1824. How do you know someone is lying?
    When a frat boy claims either (let alone both) of
    – I have never drunk until I passed out,
    – I have always respected women
    Anyone who has ever encountered one, which means pretty much anyone with a college education (possible exception for small private colleges with no frats), knows this quite well. Emphatically including college educated women — which may be part of why that demographic is moving the way it is.

  1825. The whole mess makes me want to puke.
    A claim was made against Kavanaugh, but a credible person, about a sensitive manner. How to handle this?
    Have it investigated, discretely, by people who do things like investigate stuff. The FBI for instance.
    Trump would not have it. The (R) Senators would not have it. So, we have the Jerry Springer show. And, Kavanaugh and the (R) Senators are OUTRAGED that it ends up as the Jerry Springer show.
    The person I have the least regard for in all of this is Lindsay Graham, about 30 seconds of whose righteous indignation I unfortunately got to hear on the ride home.
    YOU DEMOCRATS JUST WANT TO HOLD THE SEAT OPEN UNTIL 2020!!!
    He seems to have utterly forgotten McConnell’s statement that his proudest moment in his Senate career was looking Barack Obama – a guy who actually did win the popular vote, and who actually did have a robust electoral college majority – in the eye and telling him his nominee would not be seated. Would not even get a hearing.
    Kavanaugh is a crap nominee. He was a partisan hatchet man, his record as a jurist is that of an ideologue and basically a judicial hatchet man.
    I don’t give a shit if his yearbook is full of stupid frat boy bullshit. I don’t care if got stupid drunk every weekend of his high school years. I do care if he assaulted women, but that is not something you’re going to sort out in the kind of bullshit he-said-she-said crap foisted upon us today.
    He’s not a good candidate for the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS should not be a partisan institution. Making it one will diminish its credibility and its value.
    The (R)’s don’t give a shit. They want a Federalist majority, and they don’t care if they destroy the court, the nomination process, and frankly the Senate, in the process of having it.
    Whether Kavanaugh gets in or not, he’s gonna live the rest of his life with an asterisk after his name. Whether he gets in or not, the SCOTUS has been diminished, significantly, by this clown show.
    No upside.

  1826. The whole mess makes me want to puke.
    A claim was made against Kavanaugh, but a credible person, about a sensitive manner. How to handle this?
    Have it investigated, discretely, by people who do things like investigate stuff. The FBI for instance.
    Trump would not have it. The (R) Senators would not have it. So, we have the Jerry Springer show. And, Kavanaugh and the (R) Senators are OUTRAGED that it ends up as the Jerry Springer show.
    The person I have the least regard for in all of this is Lindsay Graham, about 30 seconds of whose righteous indignation I unfortunately got to hear on the ride home.
    YOU DEMOCRATS JUST WANT TO HOLD THE SEAT OPEN UNTIL 2020!!!
    He seems to have utterly forgotten McConnell’s statement that his proudest moment in his Senate career was looking Barack Obama – a guy who actually did win the popular vote, and who actually did have a robust electoral college majority – in the eye and telling him his nominee would not be seated. Would not even get a hearing.
    Kavanaugh is a crap nominee. He was a partisan hatchet man, his record as a jurist is that of an ideologue and basically a judicial hatchet man.
    I don’t give a shit if his yearbook is full of stupid frat boy bullshit. I don’t care if got stupid drunk every weekend of his high school years. I do care if he assaulted women, but that is not something you’re going to sort out in the kind of bullshit he-said-she-said crap foisted upon us today.
    He’s not a good candidate for the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS should not be a partisan institution. Making it one will diminish its credibility and its value.
    The (R)’s don’t give a shit. They want a Federalist majority, and they don’t care if they destroy the court, the nomination process, and frankly the Senate, in the process of having it.
    Whether Kavanaugh gets in or not, he’s gonna live the rest of his life with an asterisk after his name. Whether he gets in or not, the SCOTUS has been diminished, significantly, by this clown show.
    No upside.

  1829. I’m hoping that this Post article that LGM is highlighting goes somewhere in a hurry. It seems like the party might be listed on Kavanaugh’s calendar after all.

  1830. I’m hoping that this Post article that LGM is highlighting goes somewhere in a hurry. It seems like the party might be listed on Kavanaugh’s calendar after all.

  1831. I don’t give a shit if his yearbook is full of stupid frat boy bullshit. I don’t care if got stupid drunk every weekend of his high school years. I do care if he assaulted women, but that is not something you’re going to sort out in the kind of bullshit he-said-she-said crap foisted upon us today.
    I could, however unhappily, live with the stupid frat boy bull. But committing perjury about it? No.

  1832. I don’t give a shit if his yearbook is full of stupid frat boy bullshit. I don’t care if got stupid drunk every weekend of his high school years. I do care if he assaulted women, but that is not something you’re going to sort out in the kind of bullshit he-said-she-said crap foisted upon us today.
    I could, however unhappily, live with the stupid frat boy bull. But committing perjury about it? No.

  1835. Lindsey Graham and the rest of ’em have a lot of goddamn gall accusing the Democrats of a “conspiracy” to keep someone off the Court. Oh Mister “I looked Obama in the eye” McConnell, what ever happened to Merrick Garland?

  1836. Lindsey Graham and the rest of ’em have a lot of goddamn gall accusing the Democrats of a “conspiracy” to keep someone off the Court. Oh Mister “I looked Obama in the eye” McConnell, what ever happened to Merrick Garland?

  1837. Headline in my local paper: “Defiant Kavanaugh denies Ford’s poignant assault accusation and calls process a ‘national disgrace’”
    Here’s what’s a national disgrace: the treatment of Merrick Garland.

  1838. Headline in my local paper: “Defiant Kavanaugh denies Ford’s poignant assault accusation and calls process a ‘national disgrace’”
    Here’s what’s a national disgrace: the treatment of Merrick Garland.

  1839. Well who, after all, would have more expertise to recognize such a conspiracy than someone who had been a party to one? 😉

  1840. Well who, after all, would have more expertise to recognize such a conspiracy than someone who had been a party to one? 😉

  1841. Oh I think we could agree that the process of Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been a disgrace. Albeit not exactly in the way he meant it.

  1842. Oh I think we could agree that the process of Kavanaugh’s confirmation has been a disgrace. Albeit not exactly in the way he meant it.

  1843. trying to make him look bad because he wouldn’t say he wanted the FBI to investigate.
    FFS. whenever the issue cam up, his own clumsy tap-dancing made him look like a fool. the Dems just put on the song.

  1844. trying to make him look bad because he wouldn’t say he wanted the FBI to investigate.
    FFS. whenever the issue cam up, his own clumsy tap-dancing made him look like a fool. the Dems just put on the song.

  1847. Here’s what’s a national disgrace: the treatment of Merrick Garland.
    And another: the election of an admitted sexual predator to the highest office in the land.
    And another: the indifference to the damage that ignorant predatory narcissistic clown is doing, because who cares what damage he does in every direction, as long as we get our tax cuts and our extreme right Supreme Court?
    Where is Merrick Garland these days?

  1848. Here’s what’s a national disgrace: the treatment of Merrick Garland.
    And another: the election of an admitted sexual predator to the highest office in the land.
    And another: the indifference to the damage that ignorant predatory narcissistic clown is doing, because who cares what damage he does in every direction, as long as we get our tax cuts and our extreme right Supreme Court?
    Where is Merrick Garland these days?

  1851. Garland is chief justice of the DC circuit, and is probably grateful to have avoided all of this crap.
    In other news, the ABA is now calling for an FBI investigation before any vote on Kavanaugh.
    Keep digging that hole. You’re nowhere near the bottom yet.

  1852. Garland is chief justice of the DC circuit, and is probably grateful to have avoided all of this crap.
    In other news, the ABA is now calling for an FBI investigation before any vote on Kavanaugh.
    Keep digging that hole. You’re nowhere near the bottom yet.

  1853. Cory Booker (my senator!) also asked Kavanaugh about his conspiracy theory, I’ve come to learn this morning. The media seem to be picking up on it pretty strongly, so maybe the minimal questioning on it during the hearing is more or less immaterial.
    Not that I think he’s not going to be confirmed, but I do think his confirmation should be made to bite the GOP in the ass as much as possible.

  1854. Cory Booker (my senator!) also asked Kavanaugh about his conspiracy theory, I’ve come to learn this morning. The media seem to be picking up on it pretty strongly, so maybe the minimal questioning on it during the hearing is more or less immaterial.
    Not that I think he’s not going to be confirmed, but I do think his confirmation should be made to bite the GOP in the ass as much as possible.

  1855. Hey, the ABA is the gold standard according to unhinged Lindsay Graham, so I guess they’ll have to listen, right?

  1856. Hey, the ABA is the gold standard according to unhinged Lindsay Graham, so I guess they’ll have to listen, right?

  1857. How not to win those hearts and minds.
    A nice attempt, but no, still not the bottom.
    Keep digging. Still a long to go to reach the bottom, but I know you got it in you to get there.
    Keep on digging that hole.

  1858. How not to win those hearts and minds.
    A nice attempt, but no, still not the bottom.
    Keep digging. Still a long to go to reach the bottom, but I know you got it in you to get there.
    Keep on digging that hole.

  1859. From Nigel’s link
    The Kavanaugh allegations, though, seem to have hit particularly hard. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (better known as RAINN) estimated an “unprecedented” 147 percent spike in requests to its hotline during Thursday’s hearing. (Hotline calls increased 33 percent after the release of the Access Hollywoodtape in October 2016.) As Ford and Kavanaugh were testifying, a stream of callers reached out to C-SPAN to share their stories of assault on air. Over the two weeks since Ford came forward by name in The Washington Post, almost every substantive conversation I have had with another woman has turned, as if by some dreadful gravitational force, toward Kavanaugh.
    Not busting anyone here, but this is why the absence of women commentators here should make anyone pause before making broad assertions about what ‘we’ ‘see’.

  1860. From Nigel’s link
    The Kavanaugh allegations, though, seem to have hit particularly hard. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (better known as RAINN) estimated an “unprecedented” 147 percent spike in requests to its hotline during Thursday’s hearing. (Hotline calls increased 33 percent after the release of the Access Hollywoodtape in October 2016.) As Ford and Kavanaugh were testifying, a stream of callers reached out to C-SPAN to share their stories of assault on air. Over the two weeks since Ford came forward by name in The Washington Post, almost every substantive conversation I have had with another woman has turned, as if by some dreadful gravitational force, toward Kavanaugh.
    Not busting anyone here, but this is why the absence of women commentators here should make anyone pause before making broad assertions about what ‘we’ ‘see’.

  1861. i can now see why Trump wanted Kavanaugh – they’re both thin-skinned entitled bullies who have zero problem with telling blatant lies because they have no respect for anyone but an overabundance of respect for themselves.

  1862. i can now see why Trump wanted Kavanaugh – they’re both thin-skinned entitled bullies who have zero problem with telling blatant lies because they have no respect for anyone but an overabundance of respect for themselves.

  1863. So Jeff Flake, “moderate Republican”, just announced he’ll vote for Kavanaugh in committee this morning.
    I keep telling you people: “moderate Republican” is a brand name, not a description.
    –TP

  1864. So Jeff Flake, “moderate Republican”, just announced he’ll vote for Kavanaugh in committee this morning.
    I keep telling you people: “moderate Republican” is a brand name, not a description.
    –TP

  1865. And this, lj:
    After the hearing I spoke with a male friend who told me that he was glad he had watched it with his female coworkers. “Almost all of them had a story like hers,” he said. “I never understood that.”…

  1866. And this, lj:
    After the hearing I spoke with a male friend who told me that he was glad he had watched it with his female coworkers. “Almost all of them had a story like hers,” he said. “I never understood that.”…

  1867. wrs:”The (R)’s don’t give a shit. They want a Federalist majority, and they don’t care if they destroy the court, the nomination process, and frankly the Senate, and the USA, in the process of having it.”
    And it’s about time that the USA returned the favor.

  1868. wrs:”The (R)’s don’t give a shit. They want a Federalist majority, and they don’t care if they destroy the court, the nomination process, and frankly the Senate, and the USA, in the process of having it.”
    And it’s about time that the USA returned the favor.

  1869. Kavanaugh’s calendar:
    ‘But one entry shows that he went “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.”’
    Wanna see my calendar for the rest of my life?

  1870. Kavanaugh’s calendar:
    ‘But one entry shows that he went “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.”’
    Wanna see my calendar for the rest of my life?

  1871. And it’s about time that the USA returned the favor.
    I can’t endorse that sentiment strongly enough without exploding.

  1872. And it’s about time that the USA returned the favor.
    I can’t endorse that sentiment strongly enough without exploding.

  1873. So Jeff Flake, “moderate Republican”, just announced he’ll vote for Kavanaugh in committee this morning.
    Kavanaugh’s being seated was, as they say, overdetermined.
    nothing was going to stop it.

  1874. So Jeff Flake, “moderate Republican”, just announced he’ll vote for Kavanaugh in committee this morning.
    Kavanaugh’s being seated was, as they say, overdetermined.
    nothing was going to stop it.

  1875. russell’s link at 09.17 about the Fox News contributor fired for calling Kavanaugh’s accusers “lying skanks” and telling Blasey Ford to “stop opening your legs and open a book”: no sexism here, no sirree.

  1876. russell’s link at 09.17 about the Fox News contributor fired for calling Kavanaugh’s accusers “lying skanks” and telling Blasey Ford to “stop opening your legs and open a book”: no sexism here, no sirree.

  1879. NPR was doing live coverage of the hearing yesterday; they were talking about Graham and one of the reporters actually said (paraphrasing) “Graham’s speech was impassioned. But after seeing so many of Lindsey’s outbursts over the years, I’m not that impressed.”

  1880. NPR was doing live coverage of the hearing yesterday; they were talking about Graham and one of the reporters actually said (paraphrasing) “Graham’s speech was impassioned. But after seeing so many of Lindsey’s outbursts over the years, I’m not that impressed.”

  1885. …out of it.
    christ. i’ve become so used to editable comments that i can’t write one friggin comment here without a typo anymore.

  1886. …out of it.
    christ. i’ve become so used to editable comments that i can’t write one friggin comment here without a typo anymore.

  1889. I dont think Drums basic assumption is realistic. If Kavansugh admits that it was horseplay but it happened, he was done. So, based on my belief that the truth is somewhere between Drums horseplay and he really wasnt there, I’m willing to assume the reality is not that he should be dusqualified.
    Beyond that his anger and bitterness was completely justifiable, and his treatment by the Democrats ludicrous.
    Whatever the facts from one day 36 years ago,the public lynching of him by the Democrats was purposeful. And wrong. His reaction yesterday was a completely appropriate response.

  1890. I dont think Drums basic assumption is realistic. If Kavansugh admits that it was horseplay but it happened, he was done. So, based on my belief that the truth is somewhere between Drums horseplay and he really wasnt there, I’m willing to assume the reality is not that he should be dusqualified.
    Beyond that his anger and bitterness was completely justifiable, and his treatment by the Democrats ludicrous.
    Whatever the facts from one day 36 years ago,the public lynching of him by the Democrats was purposeful. And wrong. His reaction yesterday was a completely appropriate response.

  1893. So far, the ABA and Alan Dershowitz have called for an FBI investigation before a vote.
    And Kavanaugh has lost the endorsement of the Jesuits.
    Keep digging. There is so much further to go.

  1894. So far, the ABA and Alan Dershowitz have called for an FBI investigation before a vote.
    And Kavanaugh has lost the endorsement of the Jesuits.
    Keep digging. There is so much further to go.

  1899. Merrick Garland was treated no better. He wasn’t even given a chance to be heard.
    Vile.
    As for the Jesuits un-endorsing Kavanaugh, I read yesterday that they made some mealy-mouthed statement about how lots of high schools have problems with underage drinking blah blah. But I stick to my observation of a few days ago that at my own Catholic high school (not Jesuit-run), nothing remotely like what those boys posted in their yearbook would have been allowed. Where were the Jesuits then?
    (BJ’s Adam Silverman, who went to a different Jesuit school for part of high school, said the same. There was a “Prefect of Discipline” who sometimes vetoed even what the faculty might have allowed.)

  1900. Merrick Garland was treated no better. He wasn’t even given a chance to be heard.
    Vile.
    As for the Jesuits un-endorsing Kavanaugh, I read yesterday that they made some mealy-mouthed statement about how lots of high schools have problems with underage drinking blah blah. But I stick to my observation of a few days ago that at my own Catholic high school (not Jesuit-run), nothing remotely like what those boys posted in their yearbook would have been allowed. Where were the Jesuits then?
    (BJ’s Adam Silverman, who went to a different Jesuit school for part of high school, said the same. There was a “Prefect of Discipline” who sometimes vetoed even what the faculty might have allowed.)

  1901. Drum’s take doesn’t seem to reflect the mood here. The “animating principle” here seems to be that R’s–not the D’s–are literally enemies of the country. I guess those posting here are the “relatively relatively small part of the progressive movement” to which he refers, right?
    My own sense is a bit different.

  1902. Drum’s take doesn’t seem to reflect the mood here. The “animating principle” here seems to be that R’s–not the D’s–are literally enemies of the country. I guess those posting here are the “relatively relatively small part of the progressive movement” to which he refers, right?
    My own sense is a bit different.

  1903. Grinding your body (presumably your erection) against an unwilling fellow human being, treating her as if she’s a nonentity, not human but just a thing put there for your lulz, is not “horseplay.”
    One of the most poignant moments of Ford’s testimony that I heard (replayed later) was when she tacitly declined to answer a senator’s framing of the laughter as being “at” her. She said no, “they were laughing with each other.”
    She was nothing to them. Just ilke the rest of us are nothing to that consummate actor Kavanaugh.
    And it’s the Rs who are always talking about paid actors. But how many times must I remind myself: IOKIYAR.

  1904. Grinding your body (presumably your erection) against an unwilling fellow human being, treating her as if she’s a nonentity, not human but just a thing put there for your lulz, is not “horseplay.”
    One of the most poignant moments of Ford’s testimony that I heard (replayed later) was when she tacitly declined to answer a senator’s framing of the laughter as being “at” her. She said no, “they were laughing with each other.”
    She was nothing to them. Just ilke the rest of us are nothing to that consummate actor Kavanaugh.
    And it’s the Rs who are always talking about paid actors. But how many times must I remind myself: IOKIYAR.

  1905. Not busting anyone here, but this is why the absence of women commentators here should make anyone pause before making broad assertions about what ‘we’ ‘see’.
    lj, why do you keep saying this? No doubt more women commenting would be good. But it’s not like this is an all male venue (which is how I would describe “absence”). And that’s without counting those whose gender is not obvious.

  1906. Not busting anyone here, but this is why the absence of women commentators here should make anyone pause before making broad assertions about what ‘we’ ‘see’.
    lj, why do you keep saying this? No doubt more women commenting would be good. But it’s not like this is an all male venue (which is how I would describe “absence”). And that’s without counting those whose gender is not obvious.

  1907. And yet if Dr. Ford had reacted the way Kavanaugh did, which would have been more than justifiable given the response from Republicans to her accusation, she’d have been labeled hysterical, emotional, over-reactive, and manipulatory. You’d have dismiseed her allegations no matter what, and happily sided with the good old boys club.
    This is why we don’t report sexual assault. Men like you hold all the cards. We have no trump we can play. If there’s evidence, men like you can poo-poo it away as “boys will be boys” and it’s our reputations that suffer. If there is little or no evidence we can bring, well then you poo-poo it away as unjustified lies, and again it’s our reputations that suffer.
    Christ on a cracker, could you be more goddamn tone-deaf in your carefully-weighed-to-not-consider-the-cost-to-her responses, Marty?
    Imagine for just one moment Dr. Ford isn’t just some name plucked out of millions by the Washington Post, but your sister, your wife, or your daughter? Do you want the Republican good ol’ boys with their outdated notions on sexuality and masculinity on your side, or do you want someone who understands ’empathy’ beyond what they memorized and regurgitated and promptly forgot for their 7th grade vocabulary quiz?
    My apologies for breaking the no-cursing rules, but if this is the hill I die on, then so be it. Grow a heart. This is reality for millions of us, myself included. All we want is for you to fucking listen instead of going, “tut-tut” and “there, there” and “calm down”.
    We are fucking calm. You don’t WANT to see what we’ll do once the emotional restraints are removed and that day is rapidly approaching.

  1908. And yet if Dr. Ford had reacted the way Kavanaugh did, which would have been more than justifiable given the response from Republicans to her accusation, she’d have been labeled hysterical, emotional, over-reactive, and manipulatory. You’d have dismiseed her allegations no matter what, and happily sided with the good old boys club.
    This is why we don’t report sexual assault. Men like you hold all the cards. We have no trump we can play. If there’s evidence, men like you can poo-poo it away as “boys will be boys” and it’s our reputations that suffer. If there is little or no evidence we can bring, well then you poo-poo it away as unjustified lies, and again it’s our reputations that suffer.
    Christ on a cracker, could you be more goddamn tone-deaf in your carefully-weighed-to-not-consider-the-cost-to-her responses, Marty?
    Imagine for just one moment Dr. Ford isn’t just some name plucked out of millions by the Washington Post, but your sister, your wife, or your daughter? Do you want the Republican good ol’ boys with their outdated notions on sexuality and masculinity on your side, or do you want someone who understands ’empathy’ beyond what they memorized and regurgitated and promptly forgot for their 7th grade vocabulary quiz?
    My apologies for breaking the no-cursing rules, but if this is the hill I die on, then so be it. Grow a heart. This is reality for millions of us, myself included. All we want is for you to fucking listen instead of going, “tut-tut” and “there, there” and “calm down”.
    We are fucking calm. You don’t WANT to see what we’ll do once the emotional restraints are removed and that day is rapidly approaching.

  1909. The “animating principle” here seems to be that R’s–not the D’s–are literally enemies of the country.
    I am coming to the conclusion that the (R)’s have little to no interest in small-r republican governance. No interest whatsoever in considering the interests of anyone other than their base.
    Call that whatever you like.
    I guess those posting here are the “relatively relatively small part of the progressive movement” to which he refers, right?
    I reject the label progressive, liberal, left. My political and social views are traditional.
    A self-governing people, through participation in representative democracy, in the political form of a republic.
    Of the people, by the people, for the people.
    Those are my political values. Full stop.

  1910. The “animating principle” here seems to be that R’s–not the D’s–are literally enemies of the country.
    I am coming to the conclusion that the (R)’s have little to no interest in small-r republican governance. No interest whatsoever in considering the interests of anyone other than their base.
    Call that whatever you like.
    I guess those posting here are the “relatively relatively small part of the progressive movement” to which he refers, right?
    I reject the label progressive, liberal, left. My political and social views are traditional.
    A self-governing people, through participation in representative democracy, in the political form of a republic.
    Of the people, by the people, for the people.
    Those are my political values. Full stop.

  1913. Remember folks: Marty and bc are more sincere, rational, and informed than the average Republican.
    Optimists AND pessimists can both agree on that, I think.
    –TP

  1914. Remember folks: Marty and bc are more sincere, rational, and informed than the average Republican.
    Optimists AND pessimists can both agree on that, I think.
    –TP

  1915. Hyperbole aside, I’m not even sure what Marty’s getting at. Did the Democrats create the allegations against Kavanaugh? Did they have sole discretion on the conduct of the hearing? Considering the premise of the hearings, what was it that they asked Kavanaugh that was inappropriate, and how? Should they have ignored Christine Blasey Ford, or what?

  1916. Hyperbole aside, I’m not even sure what Marty’s getting at. Did the Democrats create the allegations against Kavanaugh? Did they have sole discretion on the conduct of the hearing? Considering the premise of the hearings, what was it that they asked Kavanaugh that was inappropriate, and how? Should they have ignored Christine Blasey Ford, or what?

  1917. What JanieM and Areala said. This is the clearest possible example of the old (R) boys’ network rallying round to promote and protect their own. She was completely credible, and he was clearly both acting a part (although obviously very upset that he was being denied his just desserts) and lying, and trotting out rehearsed lines, and dancing round the question of the FBI investigation, the polygraph test, the drinking to excess etc. As for the issue of the Republicans being prepared to force this through in the face of credible accusations of sexual impropriety which, for whatever reason, have not been properly investigated, I can only hope that the women of America, like Areala, JanieM, sapient (and I, if I were American), decide for once and for all what this kind of thing means about the Republican Party’s attitudes to women, and vote accordingly.

  1918. What JanieM and Areala said. This is the clearest possible example of the old (R) boys’ network rallying round to promote and protect their own. She was completely credible, and he was clearly both acting a part (although obviously very upset that he was being denied his just desserts) and lying, and trotting out rehearsed lines, and dancing round the question of the FBI investigation, the polygraph test, the drinking to excess etc. As for the issue of the Republicans being prepared to force this through in the face of credible accusations of sexual impropriety which, for whatever reason, have not been properly investigated, I can only hope that the women of America, like Areala, JanieM, sapient (and I, if I were American), decide for once and for all what this kind of thing means about the Republican Party’s attitudes to women, and vote accordingly.

  1919. What GftNC said. Especially:

    he was clearly both acting a part (although obviously very upset that he was being denied his just desserts) and lying, and trotting out rehearsed lines

    I simply cannot see how anyone could listen to Kavanaugh and NOT recognize that he has lied his ass off throughout these hearings.

  1920. What GftNC said. Especially:

    he was clearly both acting a part (although obviously very upset that he was being denied his just desserts) and lying, and trotting out rehearsed lines

    I simply cannot see how anyone could listen to Kavanaugh and NOT recognize that he has lied his ass off throughout these hearings.

  1921. Imagine for just one moment Dr. Ford isn’t just some name plucked out of millions by the Washington Post, but your sister, your wife, or your daughter?
    I’ve stopped believing that they would give a flying f* even about those relatives. That’s why women often don’t even tell the men that are closest to them, much less report it to others. If they say they care, and they support this monster, they’re lying.

  1922. Imagine for just one moment Dr. Ford isn’t just some name plucked out of millions by the Washington Post, but your sister, your wife, or your daughter?
    I’ve stopped believing that they would give a flying f* even about those relatives. That’s why women often don’t even tell the men that are closest to them, much less report it to others. If they say they care, and they support this monster, they’re lying.

  1923. OK, I’m now completely confused. Did Flake say that if up to a further week’s FBI investigation isn’t authorised he won’t vote yes for the nomination on the floor of the Senate?

  1924. OK, I’m now completely confused. Did Flake say that if up to a further week’s FBI investigation isn’t authorised he won’t vote yes for the nomination on the floor of the Senate?

  1933. The hyperbole is what troubles me. Here is what I saw, trying to use my “trial attorney” eyes as best I can and leaving my “R” glasses at home:
    Ford was credible. I found here sincere. She seemed fragile, implying to me that something traumatic had happened to her. I noted her smiling and small laughter at breaks, and noted that her nervousness could be explained simply by the fact that she was testifying on national t.v. in this spectacle (or testifying at all for that matter). Ford also got a bit defensive when asked about where the party was. I found her “hippocampus” comment to detract from her credibility because it made me wonder if her “100%” memory has been bolstered in her own mind by her learning. There are many examples of mistaken identity by trauma survivors in spite of the effects she described of imprinting memories. But while presenting possible alternatives, I went with my first overall impression. She appears to me to believe what she says. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say she was “completely credible” simply because I have seen many witnesses that believe what they say and what they say sometimes turns out to be wrong. I’ve dealt with false accusations (that the accuser truly believed, IMHO) in my practice.
    I found her story less credible, but mainly because she was treated so respectfully (good thing) as to make it impossible to test her story and the lack of corroboration (not so good). This, IMHO, contributed to the difference in perception of her and Kavanaugh as witnesses. Any comparison is completely unfair for a multitude of reasons, but mainly because she was not cross examined or anything like unto it whereas Kavanaugh was treated as a hostile witness (although not a full cross exam either).
    Mitchell was almost completely ineffective. I was left with so very many questions and I found that frustrating. I did take some calls during the testimony, so perhaps I missed some things. But here are some areas/questions I wanted to have clarified: (1) I’m still not clear on the details of the attack. What was she wearing over her suit that he was trying to remove, did he actually touch private parts, physical positioning, etc. to distinguish horseplay from attempted rape (2) She dated the “Whelan guy?” did I have that right? (3) Is she diagnosed with anything other than PTSD and if so what, when,etc.; (4) has she ever been sexually assaulted or abused before or after this attack; (5) Who are the pool of people that would likely have driven her to/from the house; (6) some reasonable proximity of the house (nearer home or country club, frex); (7) She walked right past everyone and nobody spoke to her? And others I can’t think of right now.
    I wanted Mitchell to simply ask: “Dr. Ford, appearing here is a brave thing no matter what. You’ve come this far. I want to know if you are willing to go all in. The D’s on the committee are calling for an FBI investigation. If that were to happen, would you waive psychotherapist patient privilege and release all non-privileged emails and communications and documents regarding Kavanaugh?” Or something like that.
    As for Kavanaugh, I also found him credible. He had to come out firing and yet he had what I thought was real emotion too. His wife looked at him in a way that told me she backs him completely. That means something to me. He has a reputation and a good one outside of these allegations. If it’s false, that is an extremely hurtful thing too. It doesn’t take away from the true harm to women from sexual assault to acknowledge that.
    I thought he was good on his yearbook response and made Blumenthal (good grief man, are you that dense as to lecture him on veracity??!!) and Whitehouse look silly. Booker looked good for the base but not for anyone else by not letting him answer. Harris and Kobluchar were effective. Feinstein not at all.
    Sure, his “conspiracy theory” and FBI tap dance and “I like beer” only hurt his cause. He should have said: “Some say this is payback for Clinton, or a coordinated effort by the D’s. I don’t know. But it is surreal to me.” Or something like that. All he had to say to Kamala Harris was this: “Yes. Mr. President, please order an investigation, be it FBI or otherwise, that is conditioned upon equal and full participation by myself and Ms. Ford.” Then he could have said the rest (been there, done that, typical investigation won’t show anything, etc.). I am with Dershowitz on the investigation, but no reason why that can’t happen simultaneous with his appointment and impeach him later. And how hard is it to say: “Too much? When you start to lose control, you’ve had too much to drink.”
    But that being said, you have to give anyone accused of such allegations a break testifying under these circumstances. Overly defensive? Have you ever tried doing what either of them just did? Give both sides a break here.
    In the end, Ford could not win this IMHO in a non-politicized civil trial. No way. Not without corroborating evidence. It’s that simple. The allegations are just too stale and vague. But that is without what discovery in a civil trial might bring (and MAYBE an investigation depending on the scope). So go ahead. Maybe if this turned out one way or another the late minute accusations would either stop or be seen differently.
    I actually came away feeling more positive about both of them than I did at the start. But that is me.

  1934. The hyperbole is what troubles me. Here is what I saw, trying to use my “trial attorney” eyes as best I can and leaving my “R” glasses at home:
    Ford was credible. I found here sincere. She seemed fragile, implying to me that something traumatic had happened to her. I noted her smiling and small laughter at breaks, and noted that her nervousness could be explained simply by the fact that she was testifying on national t.v. in this spectacle (or testifying at all for that matter). Ford also got a bit defensive when asked about where the party was. I found her “hippocampus” comment to detract from her credibility because it made me wonder if her “100%” memory has been bolstered in her own mind by her learning. There are many examples of mistaken identity by trauma survivors in spite of the effects she described of imprinting memories. But while presenting possible alternatives, I went with my first overall impression. She appears to me to believe what she says. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say she was “completely credible” simply because I have seen many witnesses that believe what they say and what they say sometimes turns out to be wrong. I’ve dealt with false accusations (that the accuser truly believed, IMHO) in my practice.
    I found her story less credible, but mainly because she was treated so respectfully (good thing) as to make it impossible to test her story and the lack of corroboration (not so good). This, IMHO, contributed to the difference in perception of her and Kavanaugh as witnesses. Any comparison is completely unfair for a multitude of reasons, but mainly because she was not cross examined or anything like unto it whereas Kavanaugh was treated as a hostile witness (although not a full cross exam either).
    Mitchell was almost completely ineffective. I was left with so very many questions and I found that frustrating. I did take some calls during the testimony, so perhaps I missed some things. But here are some areas/questions I wanted to have clarified: (1) I’m still not clear on the details of the attack. What was she wearing over her suit that he was trying to remove, did he actually touch private parts, physical positioning, etc. to distinguish horseplay from attempted rape (2) She dated the “Whelan guy?” did I have that right? (3) Is she diagnosed with anything other than PTSD and if so what, when,etc.; (4) has she ever been sexually assaulted or abused before or after this attack; (5) Who are the pool of people that would likely have driven her to/from the house; (6) some reasonable proximity of the house (nearer home or country club, frex); (7) She walked right past everyone and nobody spoke to her? And others I can’t think of right now.
    I wanted Mitchell to simply ask: “Dr. Ford, appearing here is a brave thing no matter what. You’ve come this far. I want to know if you are willing to go all in. The D’s on the committee are calling for an FBI investigation. If that were to happen, would you waive psychotherapist patient privilege and release all non-privileged emails and communications and documents regarding Kavanaugh?” Or something like that.
    As for Kavanaugh, I also found him credible. He had to come out firing and yet he had what I thought was real emotion too. His wife looked at him in a way that told me she backs him completely. That means something to me. He has a reputation and a good one outside of these allegations. If it’s false, that is an extremely hurtful thing too. It doesn’t take away from the true harm to women from sexual assault to acknowledge that.
    I thought he was good on his yearbook response and made Blumenthal (good grief man, are you that dense as to lecture him on veracity??!!) and Whitehouse look silly. Booker looked good for the base but not for anyone else by not letting him answer. Harris and Kobluchar were effective. Feinstein not at all.
    Sure, his “conspiracy theory” and FBI tap dance and “I like beer” only hurt his cause. He should have said: “Some say this is payback for Clinton, or a coordinated effort by the D’s. I don’t know. But it is surreal to me.” Or something like that. All he had to say to Kamala Harris was this: “Yes. Mr. President, please order an investigation, be it FBI or otherwise, that is conditioned upon equal and full participation by myself and Ms. Ford.” Then he could have said the rest (been there, done that, typical investigation won’t show anything, etc.). I am with Dershowitz on the investigation, but no reason why that can’t happen simultaneous with his appointment and impeach him later. And how hard is it to say: “Too much? When you start to lose control, you’ve had too much to drink.”
    But that being said, you have to give anyone accused of such allegations a break testifying under these circumstances. Overly defensive? Have you ever tried doing what either of them just did? Give both sides a break here.
    In the end, Ford could not win this IMHO in a non-politicized civil trial. No way. Not without corroborating evidence. It’s that simple. The allegations are just too stale and vague. But that is without what discovery in a civil trial might bring (and MAYBE an investigation depending on the scope). So go ahead. Maybe if this turned out one way or another the late minute accusations would either stop or be seen differently.
    I actually came away feeling more positive about both of them than I did at the start. But that is me.

  1935. In the end, Ford could not win this IMHO in a non-politicized civil trial. No way. Not without corroborating evidence. It’s that simple.
    But there is this little detail. The Judiciary Committee has refused to ask to reopen an investigation which might (or might not) provide such evidence. And it has declined to call the witness that Dr Ford says eas present.

  1936. In the end, Ford could not win this IMHO in a non-politicized civil trial. No way. Not without corroborating evidence. It’s that simple.
    But there is this little detail. The Judiciary Committee has refused to ask to reopen an investigation which might (or might not) provide such evidence. And it has declined to call the witness that Dr Ford says eas present.

  1937. somehow, Team Daughter-lusting Pussy Grabber never fails to come in below expectations.
    this is my shocked face. 😐

  1938. somehow, Team Daughter-lusting Pussy Grabber never fails to come in below expectations.
    this is my shocked face. 😐

  1939. Some say this is payback for Clinton
    “This is payback for Clinton” is going to be the mantra for a while now.
    You know what? People like me are over the election. What we object to is the present reality.
    This wasn’t about Clinton. It wasn’t even about Trump. The treatment of Garland was certainly a large part of it.
    But mostly, it was about Kavanaugh.
    Partisan hatchet man. Not a particularly good jurist. Federalist drone.
    People like me don’t want him on the SCOTUS. Regardless of 2016, or Clinton (either one), or Trump, or whatever else.
    He’s not a good choice for the SCOTUS. Nominate somebody else.

  1940. Some say this is payback for Clinton
    “This is payback for Clinton” is going to be the mantra for a while now.
    You know what? People like me are over the election. What we object to is the present reality.
    This wasn’t about Clinton. It wasn’t even about Trump. The treatment of Garland was certainly a large part of it.
    But mostly, it was about Kavanaugh.
    Partisan hatchet man. Not a particularly good jurist. Federalist drone.
    People like me don’t want him on the SCOTUS. Regardless of 2016, or Clinton (either one), or Trump, or whatever else.
    He’s not a good choice for the SCOTUS. Nominate somebody else.

  1941. Apparently Lisa Murkowski has joined Flake in saying she won’t vote yes without the FBI investigaation. So I guess it’s up to Trump to request it or not….I don’t know how many more days of this I can take!

  1942. Apparently Lisa Murkowski has joined Flake in saying she won’t vote yes without the FBI investigaation. So I guess it’s up to Trump to request it or not….I don’t know how many more days of this I can take!

  1943. OK, I’m now completely confused. Did Flake say that if up to a further week’s FBI investigation isn’t authorised he won’t vote yes for the nomination on the floor of the Senate?
    Does not really matter actually. McConnell has stated that he would put K. up for a full senate vote even if the judiciary committee votes ‘no’.
    My personal money (metaphorically speaking) is on a 50:50 vote with Pence breaking the tie in favor. One endangered senator will be allowed to vote ‘no’ and this will be presented as proof that the GOP is not enforcing lockstepping.

  1944. OK, I’m now completely confused. Did Flake say that if up to a further week’s FBI investigation isn’t authorised he won’t vote yes for the nomination on the floor of the Senate?
    Does not really matter actually. McConnell has stated that he would put K. up for a full senate vote even if the judiciary committee votes ‘no’.
    My personal money (metaphorically speaking) is on a 50:50 vote with Pence breaking the tie in favor. One endangered senator will be allowed to vote ‘no’ and this will be presented as proof that the GOP is not enforcing lockstepping.

  1945. mostly, it was about Kavanaugh.
    Partisan hatchet man. Not a particularly good jurist. Federalist drone.
    While I dislike the Federalist view of the law, I could live with something like “Federalist drone.” But the other two are, IMO, disqualifying.

  1946. russell: that’s not what I meant. I was commenting on presentation, not what I think on that particular issue. This was about Garland if anything, as you said.
    Btw, I haven’t read much of his opinions, but those that have analyzed them find him Garland’s conservative doppelganger of sorts. If the reports that Kennedy wanted him to replace him, he’s not as conservative as advertised.

  1947. mostly, it was about Kavanaugh.
    Partisan hatchet man. Not a particularly good jurist. Federalist drone.
    While I dislike the Federalist view of the law, I could live with something like “Federalist drone.” But the other two are, IMO, disqualifying.

  1948. russell: that’s not what I meant. I was commenting on presentation, not what I think on that particular issue. This was about Garland if anything, as you said.
    Btw, I haven’t read much of his opinions, but those that have analyzed them find him Garland’s conservative doppelganger of sorts. If the reports that Kennedy wanted him to replace him, he’s not as conservative as advertised.

  1949. Btw, no one is yet talking about another dirty option if all else fails: recess appointing. Even if it puts K. on SCOTUS for just a few months and he keeps quiet, this could be the way to ‘persuade’ the wavering ‘moderates’ to keep him there post-election.
    After that he could drop the mask.

  1950. Btw, no one is yet talking about another dirty option if all else fails: recess appointing. Even if it puts K. on SCOTUS for just a few months and he keeps quiet, this could be the way to ‘persuade’ the wavering ‘moderates’ to keep him there post-election.
    After that he could drop the mask.

  1951. …Garland’s conservative doppelganger of sorts.
    We should not forget that Hatch proposed Garland as a candidate, the GOP could live with, should Obama nominate him (until he got actually nominated. Then he went the way of Romneycare).

  1952. …Garland’s conservative doppelganger of sorts.
    We should not forget that Hatch proposed Garland as a candidate, the GOP could live with, should Obama nominate him (until he got actually nominated. Then he went the way of Romneycare).

  1953. bc,
    False memories, sincerely believed, are not confined to accusers. If you’ve never encountered an accused who sincerely believed his own denial of guilt, you must be an exceptional lawyer.
    If you think Kavanaugh made Whitehouse “look silly”, that’s fine: keep thinking that.
    If you care to argue that not-a-rapist is adequate qualification for a SCOTUS seat, and transparent lies are inadequate disqualification, keep thinking that too.
    But don’t try to peddle the notion that the Democratic Senators were “not letting him answer” to those of us who actually watched Kavanaugh filibuster and tap-dance, let alone hurl insults, in response to their questions.
    –TP

  1954. bc,
    False memories, sincerely believed, are not confined to accusers. If you’ve never encountered an accused who sincerely believed his own denial of guilt, you must be an exceptional lawyer.
    If you think Kavanaugh made Whitehouse “look silly”, that’s fine: keep thinking that.
    If you care to argue that not-a-rapist is adequate qualification for a SCOTUS seat, and transparent lies are inadequate disqualification, keep thinking that too.
    But don’t try to peddle the notion that the Democratic Senators were “not letting him answer” to those of us who actually watched Kavanaugh filibuster and tap-dance, let alone hurl insults, in response to their questions.
    –TP

  1961. False memories, sincerely believed, are not confined to accusers.
    Agreed. Didn’t meant to imply otherwise.
    And only Booker didn’t let him answer. He was tap dancing on some issues, mainly FBI investigation and beer. I noted that.
    As for transparent lies, some of that, IMHO, is in the eye of the beholder (not meant as a slight, just sayin).

  1962. False memories, sincerely believed, are not confined to accusers.
    Agreed. Didn’t meant to imply otherwise.
    And only Booker didn’t let him answer. He was tap dancing on some issues, mainly FBI investigation and beer. I noted that.
    As for transparent lies, some of that, IMHO, is in the eye of the beholder (not meant as a slight, just sayin).

  1963. I hesitated to mention this, because I knew nothing about him (and frankly can’t be bothered to research him at the moment), but I was rather impressed by Whitehouse, both by his presentation style and by the content. Anybody care to comment?

  1964. I hesitated to mention this, because I knew nothing about him (and frankly can’t be bothered to research him at the moment), but I was rather impressed by Whitehouse, both by his presentation style and by the content. Anybody care to comment?

  1965. BTW, bc
    In a spirit of pure partisanship, let me say that I hope McConnell “plows through” and gets Kavanaugh’s ass on the bench. I’d rather have a visibly, rabidly partisan Federalist on SCOTUS than see a slicker, more polished, but equally-committed RWNJ installed there.
    I’ll go further and say I hope that if McConnell fulfills his promise to those “Values Voters” then RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan respond by resigning en masse. Let He, Trump and Mitch McConnell reap the full benefit of “elections have consequences”. I say that because the SCOTUS has neither an army nor a tax base. Its power is wholly contingent on its appearance of legitimacy. And I can’t wait to see the legitimacy of a SCOTUS packed full of He, Trump’s lickspittles by seat-stealer Mitch McConnell.
    –TP

  1966. BTW, bc
    In a spirit of pure partisanship, let me say that I hope McConnell “plows through” and gets Kavanaugh’s ass on the bench. I’d rather have a visibly, rabidly partisan Federalist on SCOTUS than see a slicker, more polished, but equally-committed RWNJ installed there.
    I’ll go further and say I hope that if McConnell fulfills his promise to those “Values Voters” then RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan respond by resigning en masse. Let He, Trump and Mitch McConnell reap the full benefit of “elections have consequences”. I say that because the SCOTUS has neither an army nor a tax base. Its power is wholly contingent on its appearance of legitimacy. And I can’t wait to see the legitimacy of a SCOTUS packed full of He, Trump’s lickspittles by seat-stealer Mitch McConnell.
    –TP

  1969. GftNC,
    Sheldon Whitehouse is a very serious guy. He calls BS on bullshit very effectively. Not with the bombast of a Lindsey Graham, but with forceful exposition of facts. If you have not seen his presentation at this (Friday) morning’s committee meeting, you owe yourself the pleasure of looking it up.
    But don’t tell bc where you find it. It might harsh bc’s mellow to see what a Senator who “looks silly” can do to a lying liar’s lies.
    –TP

  1970. GftNC,
    Sheldon Whitehouse is a very serious guy. He calls BS on bullshit very effectively. Not with the bombast of a Lindsey Graham, but with forceful exposition of facts. If you have not seen his presentation at this (Friday) morning’s committee meeting, you owe yourself the pleasure of looking it up.
    But don’t tell bc where you find it. It might harsh bc’s mellow to see what a Senator who “looks silly” can do to a lying liar’s lies.
    –TP

  1971. TonyP, thank you for confirming my impression after yesterday’s marathon. When I came in today, he was in the middle of his address, and I was impressed all over again, but I might well try and watch it from the beginning now you’ve said this. Yup, the opposite of silly I would say.

  1972. TonyP, thank you for confirming my impression after yesterday’s marathon. When I came in today, he was in the middle of his address, and I was impressed all over again, but I might well try and watch it from the beginning now you’ve said this. Yup, the opposite of silly I would say.

  1973. I’m hearing now that the Senate Republican leadership has agreed to delay the vote of the full Senate for an additional week “in order to allow further FBI investigation.”
    Somehow, images of Chinese water torture (no ethnic slur intended) leap to mind. They just keep, extremely reluctantly, admitting that they need to dig further. And then finding stuff that they would rather not have on the record.

  1974. I’m hearing now that the Senate Republican leadership has agreed to delay the vote of the full Senate for an additional week “in order to allow further FBI investigation.”
    Somehow, images of Chinese water torture (no ethnic slur intended) leap to mind. They just keep, extremely reluctantly, admitting that they need to dig further. And then finding stuff that they would rather not have on the record.

  1975. Do I understand this right? Kavanaugh’s miraculously preserved diary shows a house party during “beach week” of exactly the sort Ford described. So can he say that he didn’t attend any such party? Other than that lying is SOP.

  1976. Do I understand this right? Kavanaugh’s miraculously preserved diary shows a house party during “beach week” of exactly the sort Ford described. So can he say that he didn’t attend any such party? Other than that lying is SOP.

  1977. Yes, and it was interesting to see Grassley try to dispose of that inconvenient fact. He said something like “Dr Ford said there were 4 boys there, but this list shows 6 boys plus Brett Kavanaugh, so it can’t be this party.” But anyone (like me) who was nutty enough to listen to the whole thing remembers that Ford said, and confirmed that there were “at least” 4 boys present. She made it clear that it wasn’t a large gathering, but the “at least” was repeated and clarified a couple of times. So Grassley’s bad faith is right there, out in the open.

  1978. Yes, and it was interesting to see Grassley try to dispose of that inconvenient fact. He said something like “Dr Ford said there were 4 boys there, but this list shows 6 boys plus Brett Kavanaugh, so it can’t be this party.” But anyone (like me) who was nutty enough to listen to the whole thing remembers that Ford said, and confirmed that there were “at least” 4 boys present. She made it clear that it wasn’t a large gathering, but the “at least” was repeated and clarified a couple of times. So Grassley’s bad faith is right there, out in the open.

  1979. But don’t try to peddle the notion that the Democratic Senators were “not letting him answer” to those of us who actually watched Kavanaugh filibuster and tap-dance, let alone hurl insults, in response to their questions.
    No kidding. As if the answer to a yes-or-no question is a fifteen-minute prestidigitative walk down memory lane, complete with name-dropped lists of high school, college, and law school pals and tales of all their little adventures and squabbles. And oh, by the way, did you know he was first in his class at Georgetown Prep, and got into Yale, and then into Yale Law School? In case you forgot, he’ll be glad to remind you again later.

  1980. But don’t try to peddle the notion that the Democratic Senators were “not letting him answer” to those of us who actually watched Kavanaugh filibuster and tap-dance, let alone hurl insults, in response to their questions.
    No kidding. As if the answer to a yes-or-no question is a fifteen-minute prestidigitative walk down memory lane, complete with name-dropped lists of high school, college, and law school pals and tales of all their little adventures and squabbles. And oh, by the way, did you know he was first in his class at Georgetown Prep, and got into Yale, and then into Yale Law School? In case you forgot, he’ll be glad to remind you again later.

  1981. Btw, I haven’t read much of his opinions, but those that have analyzed them find him Garland’s conservative doppelganger of sorts.
    Huh? Those who I’ve read find his decisions execrable. He pulls it out of his ass.
    I could maybe respect a conservative jurist who had a coherent and learned judicial philosophy. K does not have it. He was a political attack dog working for the GOP and he will continue to be a political attack dog on the SC.
    He should not be put there. End of story.

  1982. Btw, I haven’t read much of his opinions, but those that have analyzed them find him Garland’s conservative doppelganger of sorts.
    Huh? Those who I’ve read find his decisions execrable. He pulls it out of his ass.
    I could maybe respect a conservative jurist who had a coherent and learned judicial philosophy. K does not have it. He was a political attack dog working for the GOP and he will continue to be a political attack dog on the SC.
    He should not be put there. End of story.

  1983. His wife looked at him in a way that told me she backs him completely.
    She has no reason not to back him 100% unless she’s privy to information none of the rest of us are. If somebody came out swinging against my wife, claiming she sexually assaulted someone in high school, you’d damn well better believe I’d have her back. That falls under the ‘…or for worse’ clause of the vows, methinks.
    Want to know the only circumstance under which I wouldn’t have her back? If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accusations were true. Because as much as I love my wife, and as shocked and heartbroken as I’d be at the thought of being forcibly separated from her in a criminal matter, justice prevailing is more important than my feelings.
    I’m sure this took her completely by surprise. I’d be shocked if he, at any point in their relationship, sat down and said, “Sweetie, I need you to know a few things about my past that might come out of the woodwork on the off-chance I’m ever, you know, nominated to a position on the Supreme Court for example…”. Shocked because there’s no situation where that helps him at all. If it never happened, there’s no reason for it to come up, and no reason not to back him completely. If it happened and he doesn’t remember due to impairment, there’s no reason for it to come up, and no reason not to back him completely. If it happened and he remembers every minute of it, and still reminisces with his old (male) classmates about “That one time at the party where we…”, he’s sure as hell not going to bring it up, and so there’s no reason for her not to back him completely.
    His wife should back him up 100%. There’s no rational reason for her not to, because yeah, their lives are being torn apart and the allegations will forever haunt his entry on Wikipedia whether or not he’s confirmed. Seeing that should play exactly ZERO role in determining the credibility of either him or his testimony.
    To be clear: as a woman, I greatly dislike and, indeed, fear Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Court due to his political stance on a variety of topics. That does not mean I want him or his life destroyed by nefarious means, I don’t want his nomination obliterated through lies and deceit, and if he is a truly good, upstanding man, then I want the investigations to show just that.
    I don’t support Dr. Ford because I think Kavanaugh is guilty, I support Dr. Ford because victims need to be heard, and right now, this is the loudest voice any of us as the survivors of sexual assault have to plead with the good ol’ boys club to please take us seriously.

  1984. His wife looked at him in a way that told me she backs him completely.
    She has no reason not to back him 100% unless she’s privy to information none of the rest of us are. If somebody came out swinging against my wife, claiming she sexually assaulted someone in high school, you’d damn well better believe I’d have her back. That falls under the ‘…or for worse’ clause of the vows, methinks.
    Want to know the only circumstance under which I wouldn’t have her back? If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accusations were true. Because as much as I love my wife, and as shocked and heartbroken as I’d be at the thought of being forcibly separated from her in a criminal matter, justice prevailing is more important than my feelings.
    I’m sure this took her completely by surprise. I’d be shocked if he, at any point in their relationship, sat down and said, “Sweetie, I need you to know a few things about my past that might come out of the woodwork on the off-chance I’m ever, you know, nominated to a position on the Supreme Court for example…”. Shocked because there’s no situation where that helps him at all. If it never happened, there’s no reason for it to come up, and no reason not to back him completely. If it happened and he doesn’t remember due to impairment, there’s no reason for it to come up, and no reason not to back him completely. If it happened and he remembers every minute of it, and still reminisces with his old (male) classmates about “That one time at the party where we…”, he’s sure as hell not going to bring it up, and so there’s no reason for her not to back him completely.
    His wife should back him up 100%. There’s no rational reason for her not to, because yeah, their lives are being torn apart and the allegations will forever haunt his entry on Wikipedia whether or not he’s confirmed. Seeing that should play exactly ZERO role in determining the credibility of either him or his testimony.
    To be clear: as a woman, I greatly dislike and, indeed, fear Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Court due to his political stance on a variety of topics. That does not mean I want him or his life destroyed by nefarious means, I don’t want his nomination obliterated through lies and deceit, and if he is a truly good, upstanding man, then I want the investigations to show just that.
    I don’t support Dr. Ford because I think Kavanaugh is guilty, I support Dr. Ford because victims need to be heard, and right now, this is the loudest voice any of us as the survivors of sexual assault have to plead with the good ol’ boys club to please take us seriously.

  1985. Re: false memories. Eye witness testimony is notorioulsy bad except when victim was acqianted with the abuser prior to the event.
    She knew Kavanaugh So either is she is lying or she is telling the truth. It is not possible that she would be mistaken.

  1986. Re: false memories. Eye witness testimony is notorioulsy bad except when victim was acqianted with the abuser prior to the event.
    She knew Kavanaugh So either is she is lying or she is telling the truth. It is not possible that she would be mistaken.

  1987. She knew Kavanaugh. She said she is 100% certain it was Kavanaugh who did this to her. I would bet a large sum of money, or stake a body part, on the fact that she is telling the truth. It’s possible that he was so drunk he doesn’t remember the event, but she is telling the truth.

  1988. She knew Kavanaugh. She said she is 100% certain it was Kavanaugh who did this to her. I would bet a large sum of money, or stake a body part, on the fact that she is telling the truth. It’s possible that he was so drunk he doesn’t remember the event, but she is telling the truth.

  1989. The delay suggests that at least a few Republican Senators don’t want to be on record voting for him, so they are hoping an investigation turns up something else that they can hang him on.
    Or cynically at the very least they are worried enough to want to see some polling.

  1990. The delay suggests that at least a few Republican Senators don’t want to be on record voting for him, so they are hoping an investigation turns up something else that they can hang him on.
    Or cynically at the very least they are worried enough to want to see some polling.

  1993. You know how sometimes you can have an achy body part that’s worrying you, and you think maybe you’ll go get it checked out, but time goes by, and then one day you realize that it stopped aching some time ago, and you didn’t even notice, because “normal” is to be without the ache, and the absence of something unusual that has been present for a while is less noticeable than the onset of something unusual that hasn’t? I.e., you notice when you get an unusual ache, but you don’t necessarily notice the moment when it disappears. At least, that’s how it is for me.
    Well, it isn’t a precise analogy, but this afternoon (driving around again, doing errands, with the radio on) I realized that days and days have gone by with the Kavanaugh mess dominating the news cycle instead of Clickbait. Yes, I know, the Kavanaugh debacle is part and parcel of the more general Clickbait debacle, and both are part and parcel of the long debacular campaign funded by the Kochs, and the Mercers, and that Leo guy, and Putin, and who knows who else. (Like, long years of trying out, and refining, laws in the states….)
    But still. If I’m not mistaken, Clickbait has been pretty quiet. He hasn’t (yet) done something to say “me me me me me pay attention to me directly instead of my nominee,” nor AFAICT has he tweeted something that would upset other people’s carefully laid plans, or dictated his own mavericky decisions ditto.
    So who is sitting on him, and how hard? Even if he desperately wants Kavanaugh himself (and it would surprise me if he could keep his mind on one goal long enough to make it through this mess), on everything else that has happened in the last two years he has come across as an unaccountable loose cannon.
    So, wtf is going on?

  1994. You know how sometimes you can have an achy body part that’s worrying you, and you think maybe you’ll go get it checked out, but time goes by, and then one day you realize that it stopped aching some time ago, and you didn’t even notice, because “normal” is to be without the ache, and the absence of something unusual that has been present for a while is less noticeable than the onset of something unusual that hasn’t? I.e., you notice when you get an unusual ache, but you don’t necessarily notice the moment when it disappears. At least, that’s how it is for me.
    Well, it isn’t a precise analogy, but this afternoon (driving around again, doing errands, with the radio on) I realized that days and days have gone by with the Kavanaugh mess dominating the news cycle instead of Clickbait. Yes, I know, the Kavanaugh debacle is part and parcel of the more general Clickbait debacle, and both are part and parcel of the long debacular campaign funded by the Kochs, and the Mercers, and that Leo guy, and Putin, and who knows who else. (Like, long years of trying out, and refining, laws in the states….)
    But still. If I’m not mistaken, Clickbait has been pretty quiet. He hasn’t (yet) done something to say “me me me me me pay attention to me directly instead of my nominee,” nor AFAICT has he tweeted something that would upset other people’s carefully laid plans, or dictated his own mavericky decisions ditto.
    So who is sitting on him, and how hard? Even if he desperately wants Kavanaugh himself (and it would surprise me if he could keep his mind on one goal long enough to make it through this mess), on everything else that has happened in the last two years he has come across as an unaccountable loose cannon.
    So, wtf is going on?

  1995. Morning all, wj asked
    lj, why do you keep saying this? No doubt more women commenting would be good. But it’s not like this is an all male venue (which is how I would describe “absence”). And that’s without counting those whose gender is not obvious.
    Well, first of all, we don’t know whose who and by my count, we have only 3 women who have participated at the same frequency as the men. Lack of representation leads to skewed views about what ‘everyone’ thinks. If we don’t have a mix of people participating, the viewpoint that we get (and ultimately assume) is hopelessly occluded and it is very difficult to see that without someone saying something. That’s why the push for equal representation, whether it is gender balance, racial balance or even having a Supreme Court that is not made up of graduates from two universities is so important and it is also why there is such pushback when it is pointed out. Kavanaugh apparently pointed out at least 7 times that he went to Yale and graduated first in his class.
    We’ve seen with Black Lives Matter how pervasive an experience can be for a group of people yet the majority be totally oblivious to it. It all starts when you don’t have that group represented.

  1996. Morning all, wj asked
    lj, why do you keep saying this? No doubt more women commenting would be good. But it’s not like this is an all male venue (which is how I would describe “absence”). And that’s without counting those whose gender is not obvious.
    Well, first of all, we don’t know whose who and by my count, we have only 3 women who have participated at the same frequency as the men. Lack of representation leads to skewed views about what ‘everyone’ thinks. If we don’t have a mix of people participating, the viewpoint that we get (and ultimately assume) is hopelessly occluded and it is very difficult to see that without someone saying something. That’s why the push for equal representation, whether it is gender balance, racial balance or even having a Supreme Court that is not made up of graduates from two universities is so important and it is also why there is such pushback when it is pointed out. Kavanaugh apparently pointed out at least 7 times that he went to Yale and graduated first in his class.
    We’ve seen with Black Lives Matter how pervasive an experience can be for a group of people yet the majority be totally oblivious to it. It all starts when you don’t have that group represented.

  1997. Kavanaugh apparently pointed out at least 7 times that he went to Yale and graduated first in his class.
    The repetition made it extra weird. Most Yalies I’ve known, and I’ve known quite a few, don’t brag about it, they’re too cool for that. Did he think his Yaliness would make his listeners more likely to kowtow to his wonderfulness? Is he still insecure about his accomplishments after all these years? Did he psychologically never get beyond high school, so he still has to brag about which college he got into? Because even that part is interesting: I think he kept saying “I got into Yale,” not “I went to Yale” or “I graduated from Yale with a degree in X.” It was the “getting in” that mattered most.
    The way he kept naming his friends was weird too.
    I suppose you could argue that the timing of the alleged assault puts him back there in a big way, but I still think his framing, and the repetition, have some deep psychological meaning….which I’m sure we’ll never know, and which of course is none of my business anyhow, except for the effect he wants to have the right to have on my life going forward.

  1998. Kavanaugh apparently pointed out at least 7 times that he went to Yale and graduated first in his class.
    The repetition made it extra weird. Most Yalies I’ve known, and I’ve known quite a few, don’t brag about it, they’re too cool for that. Did he think his Yaliness would make his listeners more likely to kowtow to his wonderfulness? Is he still insecure about his accomplishments after all these years? Did he psychologically never get beyond high school, so he still has to brag about which college he got into? Because even that part is interesting: I think he kept saying “I got into Yale,” not “I went to Yale” or “I graduated from Yale with a degree in X.” It was the “getting in” that mattered most.
    The way he kept naming his friends was weird too.
    I suppose you could argue that the timing of the alleged assault puts him back there in a big way, but I still think his framing, and the repetition, have some deep psychological meaning….which I’m sure we’ll never know, and which of course is none of my business anyhow, except for the effect he wants to have the right to have on my life going forward.

  1999. What my friend Dave Morris (journalist and PTSD survivor/researcher wrote on his FB page about false memory:
    I just watched Elizabeth Loftus, a psych prof from UC Irvine on CNN delivering a misguided and speculative account on what might have happened to Dr Blasey-Ford’s memory after her assault in the 80s. Loftus is not a trauma researcher and has never published a word on PTSD—her work deals with eyewitness legal testimony and her ideas are not derived from first-person trauma research. Most of her research was published before PTSD was even recognized by psychiatry. A victim is not an eyewitness to a crime, they are the victim. Loftus and CNN should be ashamed. This is irrelevant research being compounded by shoddy journalism.
    I have used both Morris’ and Loftus’ work in my own writing about violence and trauma, and Morris (along with Alice Seybold, who is his friend and colleague as well) is a UCI alum and quite familiar with Loftus’ work. I’m inclined to side with Morris in this narrow case.

  2000. What my friend Dave Morris (journalist and PTSD survivor/researcher wrote on his FB page about false memory:
    I just watched Elizabeth Loftus, a psych prof from UC Irvine on CNN delivering a misguided and speculative account on what might have happened to Dr Blasey-Ford’s memory after her assault in the 80s. Loftus is not a trauma researcher and has never published a word on PTSD—her work deals with eyewitness legal testimony and her ideas are not derived from first-person trauma research. Most of her research was published before PTSD was even recognized by psychiatry. A victim is not an eyewitness to a crime, they are the victim. Loftus and CNN should be ashamed. This is irrelevant research being compounded by shoddy journalism.
    I have used both Morris’ and Loftus’ work in my own writing about violence and trauma, and Morris (along with Alice Seybold, who is his friend and colleague as well) is a UCI alum and quite familiar with Loftus’ work. I’m inclined to side with Morris in this narrow case.

  2001. Did he think his Yaliness would make his listeners more likely to kowtow to his wonderfulness?
    At a time when, apparently, only graduates of Harvard and Yale are to be considered for the Supreme Court, perhaps he wanted to make sure that the Senators (or possibly Trump) knew he was indeed among the eligible.

  2002. Did he think his Yaliness would make his listeners more likely to kowtow to his wonderfulness?
    At a time when, apparently, only graduates of Harvard and Yale are to be considered for the Supreme Court, perhaps he wanted to make sure that the Senators (or possibly Trump) knew he was indeed among the eligible.

  2003. Yes, the constant repetition about Yale came across as quite creepy and weird – it was supposed to convey that he couldn’t be the hard-drinking fuckup they were suggesting, but anybody who’s known or been a student knows this doesn’t follow. The other trope he kept returning to, again and again, of how the four other people all denied the existence of such a party, also came across as creepy and rehearsed. He must have said it, in almost the same words, at least 10 times, and after the first couple I think it had the opposite effect (at least on those who weren’t his partisans) than the one he hoped. By the end, he was even using it at inappropriate times, where it didn’t really make any sense as an answer to what he had been asked. I think the delay is going to damage his chances, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

  2004. Yes, the constant repetition about Yale came across as quite creepy and weird – it was supposed to convey that he couldn’t be the hard-drinking fuckup they were suggesting, but anybody who’s known or been a student knows this doesn’t follow. The other trope he kept returning to, again and again, of how the four other people all denied the existence of such a party, also came across as creepy and rehearsed. He must have said it, in almost the same words, at least 10 times, and after the first couple I think it had the opposite effect (at least on those who weren’t his partisans) than the one he hoped. By the end, he was even using it at inappropriate times, where it didn’t really make any sense as an answer to what he had been asked. I think the delay is going to damage his chances, but I’m not getting my hopes up.

  2005. I would bet a large sum of money, or stake a body part, on the fact that she is telling the truth. It’s possible that he was so drunk he doesn’t remember the event, but she is telling the truth.
    I agree with the first sentence.
    As to the second sentence, it was partly the drunkenness, but also possibly the insignificance. I think a lot of people would not have realized that it was a biggie to terrorize someone in that way. I mean, he didn’t leave any marks, probably, and there was no penetration.
    I think that a lot of women [and I’m speaking about women here, not male survivors, because of the general cultural expectations placed on women and girls of that era, and the fact that I don’t know whether this is true of men and boys] dismissed the insults delivered to them in the same way that Brett Kavanaugh might have. Except for the effect that it had on them: maybe they weren’t traumatized in the same way as Dr. Ford had been, but their sense of self-worth was eroded. Their expectations of men were diminished. Their understanding of how they had to behave in the future was altered.
    I don’t think any of this can be measured, and I don’t know whether I’m overstating it. I’m just glad that people are more aware of it now. On the other hand, I don’t know how much better things really are. There were always men who behaved honorably, and other men likely to engage in this kind of behavior. I’m hoping that the latter category are, these days, more inclined to think twice.

  2006. I would bet a large sum of money, or stake a body part, on the fact that she is telling the truth. It’s possible that he was so drunk he doesn’t remember the event, but she is telling the truth.
    I agree with the first sentence.
    As to the second sentence, it was partly the drunkenness, but also possibly the insignificance. I think a lot of people would not have realized that it was a biggie to terrorize someone in that way. I mean, he didn’t leave any marks, probably, and there was no penetration.
    I think that a lot of women [and I’m speaking about women here, not male survivors, because of the general cultural expectations placed on women and girls of that era, and the fact that I don’t know whether this is true of men and boys] dismissed the insults delivered to them in the same way that Brett Kavanaugh might have. Except for the effect that it had on them: maybe they weren’t traumatized in the same way as Dr. Ford had been, but their sense of self-worth was eroded. Their expectations of men were diminished. Their understanding of how they had to behave in the future was altered.
    I don’t think any of this can be measured, and I don’t know whether I’m overstating it. I’m just glad that people are more aware of it now. On the other hand, I don’t know how much better things really are. There were always men who behaved honorably, and other men likely to engage in this kind of behavior. I’m hoping that the latter category are, these days, more inclined to think twice.

  2007. At a time when, apparently, only graduates of Harvard and Yale are to be considered for the Supreme Court, perhaps he wanted to make sure that the Senators (or possibly Trump) knew he was indeed among the eligible.
    They/we all already knew that. I think the repetition (of that and other things) was because he was rehearsed to stick to certain themes, and to avoid answering certain questions. The exact form of the things he repeated is a separate puzzle piece.
    Or: it wasn’t so much “eligibility” he was pushing as his Yale-bestowed right to the seat.

  2008. At a time when, apparently, only graduates of Harvard and Yale are to be considered for the Supreme Court, perhaps he wanted to make sure that the Senators (or possibly Trump) knew he was indeed among the eligible.
    They/we all already knew that. I think the repetition (of that and other things) was because he was rehearsed to stick to certain themes, and to avoid answering certain questions. The exact form of the things he repeated is a separate puzzle piece.
    Or: it wasn’t so much “eligibility” he was pushing as his Yale-bestowed right to the seat.

  2009. I am reminded of one other notable feature from yesterday. Nobody, at least no Senator, is willing to say flat out that he thinks Dr Ford lied. For example, Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said, “I find no reason to find her not credible.” And yet, they are voting to confirm Kavanaugh anyway.
    In other words, they are following the approach that Kevin Cramer (Republican candidate running against Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota) made explicitly: “Even if it’s all true, does it disqualify him? It certainly means that he did something really bad 36 years ago. But does it disqualify him from the Supreme Court?”
    In other words, so what if he did try to rape her, we don’t care. (Nor do we care that he has lied about it during his confirmation hearing.) Disgusting.

  2010. I am reminded of one other notable feature from yesterday. Nobody, at least no Senator, is willing to say flat out that he thinks Dr Ford lied. For example, Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said, “I find no reason to find her not credible.” And yet, they are voting to confirm Kavanaugh anyway.
    In other words, they are following the approach that Kevin Cramer (Republican candidate running against Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota) made explicitly: “Even if it’s all true, does it disqualify him? It certainly means that he did something really bad 36 years ago. But does it disqualify him from the Supreme Court?”
    In other words, so what if he did try to rape her, we don’t care. (Nor do we care that he has lied about it during his confirmation hearing.) Disgusting.

  2011. Nobody, at least no Senator, is willing to say flat out that he thinks Dr Ford lied.
    Interestingly, even Trump has apparently said (at least for public consumption) flattering things about her. They must all have had it drummed into them that attacking her is a badly losing strategy.

  2012. Nobody, at least no Senator, is willing to say flat out that he thinks Dr Ford lied.
    Interestingly, even Trump has apparently said (at least for public consumption) flattering things about her. They must all have had it drummed into them that attacking her is a badly losing strategy.

  2015. He was testifying to the TV. It is an important point and one completely ignored by the questioners that EVERYBODY she named said it didn’t happen.
    Late in the hearing Senator Harris said that Ms. Ford had come before them with credible testimony and :corroborating evidence”. She tried to sneak that in but it was simply a lie, the only way to overcome that lie from a Senator who states it as fact is to repeatedly point out that no one has corroborated her story, in fact they have corroborated his recollection.
    As often end and loudly as possible. It wasn’t weird at all except to partisans trying to find everything wrong with his testimony.

  2016. He was testifying to the TV. It is an important point and one completely ignored by the questioners that EVERYBODY she named said it didn’t happen.
    Late in the hearing Senator Harris said that Ms. Ford had come before them with credible testimony and :corroborating evidence”. She tried to sneak that in but it was simply a lie, the only way to overcome that lie from a Senator who states it as fact is to repeatedly point out that no one has corroborated her story, in fact they have corroborated his recollection.
    As often end and loudly as possible. It wasn’t weird at all except to partisans trying to find everything wrong with his testimony.

  2017. He was testifying to the TV. It is an important point and one completely ignored by the questioners that EVERYBODY she named said it didn’t happen.
    This is entirely untrue, but it’s not surprising you believe it because Kavanaugh kept saying it. He kept saying they “refuted” it, which is laughable, in the context:
    But Keyser also personally told the Washington Post that, while she cannot remember the gathering taking place or having met Kavanaugh, she believes Blasey’s testimony. This did not stop Kavanaugh and Republicans from twisting Keyser’s statements that she can’t remember into an exonerating statement that implies the events never happened at all.

  2018. He was testifying to the TV. It is an important point and one completely ignored by the questioners that EVERYBODY she named said it didn’t happen.
    This is entirely untrue, but it’s not surprising you believe it because Kavanaugh kept saying it. He kept saying they “refuted” it, which is laughable, in the context:
    But Keyser also personally told the Washington Post that, while she cannot remember the gathering taking place or having met Kavanaugh, she believes Blasey’s testimony. This did not stop Kavanaugh and Republicans from twisting Keyser’s statements that she can’t remember into an exonerating statement that implies the events never happened at all.

  2019. I should have said, laughable in the context that he is a judge who should presumably know the meaning of the word “refuted”!

  2020. I should have said, laughable in the context that he is a judge who should presumably know the meaning of the word “refuted”!

  2021. You have 3 people who say (not under oath and subject to cross questioning) that they don’t remember the incident. And one (who happens to be Kavanaugh himself) who says it didn’t happen. That’s just a huge step away from “4 people refute the charge.”
    Put another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  2022. You have 3 people who say (not under oath and subject to cross questioning) that they don’t remember the incident. And one (who happens to be Kavanaugh himself) who says it didn’t happen. That’s just a huge step away from “4 people refute the charge.”
    Put another way, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

  2023. It is an important point and one completely ignored by the questioners that EVERYBODY she named said it didn’t happen.
    That’s a lie. People said they didn’t remember it.
    Late in the hearing Senator Harris said that Ms. Ford had come before them with credible testimony and corroborating evidence”
    In the law, prior statements [in this case, to her husband and therapists] can be corroborative evidence. Check it out.

  2024. It is an important point and one completely ignored by the questioners that EVERYBODY she named said it didn’t happen.
    That’s a lie. People said they didn’t remember it.
    Late in the hearing Senator Harris said that Ms. Ford had come before them with credible testimony and corroborating evidence”
    In the law, prior statements [in this case, to her husband and therapists] can be corroborative evidence. Check it out.

  2025. So, Marty, now you don’t believe Ford? You are going to lose your ‘sensitive to women’s concerns’ card…
    It wasn’t weird at all except to partisans trying to find everything wrong with his testimony.
    And the line of questions _from Mitchell, the women the Republicans hired_ about the timeline doesn’t mean anything?
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914174/brett-kavanaugh-calendar-christine-blasey-ford
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/mark-judges-book-validates-christine-fords-timeline-alleged-kavanaugh-assault/
    Isiah 32:3 Marty, look it up…

  2026. So, Marty, now you don’t believe Ford? You are going to lose your ‘sensitive to women’s concerns’ card…
    It wasn’t weird at all except to partisans trying to find everything wrong with his testimony.
    And the line of questions _from Mitchell, the women the Republicans hired_ about the timeline doesn’t mean anything?
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914174/brett-kavanaugh-calendar-christine-blasey-ford
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/mark-judges-book-validates-christine-fords-timeline-alleged-kavanaugh-assault/
    Isiah 32:3 Marty, look it up…

  2027. They’re rerunning his horrible testimony. Judicial temperament? What a joke.
    He’s a deeply disturbed human being. I hope he seeks help. And that his family runs ASAP away.

  2028. They’re rerunning his horrible testimony. Judicial temperament? What a joke.
    He’s a deeply disturbed human being. I hope he seeks help. And that his family runs ASAP away.

  2029. Marty needs to look up “corroborate” in some English-language dictionary. His English-to-Republican translation software seems to render “corroborating” as “dispositive”. Not to mention “unproved” as “refuted”.
    Sane people and Trump partisans. Two nations separated by a common language.
    –TP

  2030. Marty needs to look up “corroborate” in some English-language dictionary. His English-to-Republican translation software seems to render “corroborating” as “dispositive”. Not to mention “unproved” as “refuted”.
    Sane people and Trump partisans. Two nations separated by a common language.
    –TP

  2033. I’m listening to MSNBC in the background. Some dark site sponsored ad just played on “Kavanaugh, yeah!” Disturbing as all hell.

  2034. I’m listening to MSNBC in the background. Some dark site sponsored ad just played on “Kavanaugh, yeah!” Disturbing as all hell.

  2035. No, TP, no, you have it all wrong.
    Marty is the one true non-partisan, coming into our partisan bubble to try, and try, and try to help us into the light. He would never dream of parroting Republican, much less Fox news, talking points.

  2036. No, TP, no, you have it all wrong.
    Marty is the one true non-partisan, coming into our partisan bubble to try, and try, and try to help us into the light. He would never dream of parroting Republican, much less Fox news, talking points.

  2037. also this
    https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17912102/feinstein-christine-blasey-ford-letter-leak
    Feinstein’s comment was confirmed by the reporter who first published the story about Ford’s letter. “Feinstein’s staff did not leak the letter to The Intercept,” Ryan Grim, the bureau chief at the Intercept, and author of the original story, tweeted.
    Some folks here need to ‘man up’ as they say and apologize for claims that Feinstein did this.

  2038. also this
    https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17912102/feinstein-christine-blasey-ford-letter-leak
    Feinstein’s comment was confirmed by the reporter who first published the story about Ford’s letter. “Feinstein’s staff did not leak the letter to The Intercept,” Ryan Grim, the bureau chief at the Intercept, and author of the original story, tweeted.
    Some folks here need to ‘man up’ as they say and apologize for claims that Feinstein did this.

  2039. And this, from TPM, is something to keep an eye on.
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/were-watching-a-clumsy-cover-up-in-real-time
    Apologies for the long quote, but maybe folks might not get this on Facebook…
    You know about the Whelan debacle. A far-fetched series of conjectures all leading to pointing the finger of blame at a classmate at Kavanaugh’s school. That was crazy for all the reasons we thought it was crazy – not least a highly trained lawyer brazenly libeling an innocent person. Remember too that Whelan worked with the Federalist Society’s PR firm. There’s also good reason, though not hard proof, to believe Leonard Leo, Federalist Society chief was also involved. Whelan blamed a then-boy named Christ Garrett.
    Garrett happened to be a good friend of Kavanaugh’s at the time and was Blasey Ford’s boyfriend at the time of the alleged attack.
    Think about this. If you are working from records of where people lived at the time, what are the odds that of all Kavanaugh’s classmates you’d come up with one of Kavanaugh’s friends and the friend who was actually going out with Blasey Ford at the time? Whelan just happened upon the connection which actually brought Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh together? Not likely.
    I would suggest that there’s virtually no chance that is a coincidence.
    Of course they’re connected. And the connection almost certainly stems from Kavanaugh’s recollections. Kavanaugh says not only that he doesn’t remember the alleged attack but that he doesn’t have any recollection of Blasey Ford at all. They weren’t even in the same social circles, he claimed. She went to a school that didn’t have a lot of overlap with his. And yet, when his friend and top nomination advisors came up with an alternative theory of the crime they picked her then boyfriend? That is not an accident. This fact needs to be investigated just as much as the alleged assault because it is highly likely that shows Kavanaugh’s knowledge and I suspect, if looked at closely, will show real evidence of Kavanaugh’s consciousness of guilt.
    ouch…

  2040. And this, from TPM, is something to keep an eye on.
    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/were-watching-a-clumsy-cover-up-in-real-time
    Apologies for the long quote, but maybe folks might not get this on Facebook…
    You know about the Whelan debacle. A far-fetched series of conjectures all leading to pointing the finger of blame at a classmate at Kavanaugh’s school. That was crazy for all the reasons we thought it was crazy – not least a highly trained lawyer brazenly libeling an innocent person. Remember too that Whelan worked with the Federalist Society’s PR firm. There’s also good reason, though not hard proof, to believe Leonard Leo, Federalist Society chief was also involved. Whelan blamed a then-boy named Christ Garrett.
    Garrett happened to be a good friend of Kavanaugh’s at the time and was Blasey Ford’s boyfriend at the time of the alleged attack.
    Think about this. If you are working from records of where people lived at the time, what are the odds that of all Kavanaugh’s classmates you’d come up with one of Kavanaugh’s friends and the friend who was actually going out with Blasey Ford at the time? Whelan just happened upon the connection which actually brought Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh together? Not likely.
    I would suggest that there’s virtually no chance that is a coincidence.
    Of course they’re connected. And the connection almost certainly stems from Kavanaugh’s recollections. Kavanaugh says not only that he doesn’t remember the alleged attack but that he doesn’t have any recollection of Blasey Ford at all. They weren’t even in the same social circles, he claimed. She went to a school that didn’t have a lot of overlap with his. And yet, when his friend and top nomination advisors came up with an alternative theory of the crime they picked her then boyfriend? That is not an accident. This fact needs to be investigated just as much as the alleged assault because it is highly likely that shows Kavanaugh’s knowledge and I suspect, if looked at closely, will show real evidence of Kavanaugh’s consciousness of guilt.
    ouch…

  2041. Whelan just happened upon the connection which actually brought Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh together?
    Always important to keep in mind that Kavanaugh used to be, professonally, Whelan.
    Deeply horrible people. I wish them ill.
    Not nice of me, I know. I used to be nice – maybe I could find 65 folks to say that.

  2042. Whelan just happened upon the connection which actually brought Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh together?
    Always important to keep in mind that Kavanaugh used to be, professonally, Whelan.
    Deeply horrible people. I wish them ill.
    Not nice of me, I know. I used to be nice – maybe I could find 65 folks to say that.

  2045. Why did Kavanaugh produce it in evidence when it proves he’s lying?
    First of all, who cares about lies? Look at bc and Marty. They’re fine with it.
    It’s a calendar, and he’s proud of it because his dad did that.
    Sadly, the guy is a sociopath. His whole career says so. Vince Foster? Clinton details? Dr. Ford? He’s into cruelty.

  2046. Why did Kavanaugh produce it in evidence when it proves he’s lying?
    First of all, who cares about lies? Look at bc and Marty. They’re fine with it.
    It’s a calendar, and he’s proud of it because his dad did that.
    Sadly, the guy is a sociopath. His whole career says so. Vince Foster? Clinton details? Dr. Ford? He’s into cruelty.

  2047. Pro Bono, I don’t really know, of course. But if he drank as much as it seems he did in high school, right there is evidence of a practice and pattern established of presenting a certain front to the world (i.e. the adults) that masked the persona that lived behind the choirboy facade.
    And it worked. I remember some reference yesterday to how often he was grounded, which (the info behind the reference) must have come from the calendar, but in general it seems that the adult world accepted the high-achieving choirboy persona, and that persona wasn’t even false. He did get into Yale, after all. You don’t get into Yale without knowing how to present yourself well and plausibly, and with some truth to the presentation. It isn’t that the choirboy was a myth, it’s just that it wasn’t the only side of BK.
    But that (except for the Yale part) just makes him a pretty garden-variety teenager. I was as goody-goody a child as you could find anywhere, and yet when I got to a certain point in adolescence, I started sneaking around doing things I didn’t want my parents to know about, and framing the account of how I spent my time in a way that was meant to deceive them. (This had to do with who I was hanging around with, and sex. Nothing illegal, except the one time I got drunk, which cured me forever. And even then I was out of high school when it happened.)
    My guess about his bringing the calendar out now is that he has had a lifetime of people accepting him at the value of the face he chooses to present. If it has worked for all these years, why shouldn’t it work now? He’s so smart, after all, he got into Yale, and he can twist the truth, evade the facts, and explain away suspicious appearances with the best of them.
    Except maybe it’s not working anymore.

  2048. Pro Bono, I don’t really know, of course. But if he drank as much as it seems he did in high school, right there is evidence of a practice and pattern established of presenting a certain front to the world (i.e. the adults) that masked the persona that lived behind the choirboy facade.
    And it worked. I remember some reference yesterday to how often he was grounded, which (the info behind the reference) must have come from the calendar, but in general it seems that the adult world accepted the high-achieving choirboy persona, and that persona wasn’t even false. He did get into Yale, after all. You don’t get into Yale without knowing how to present yourself well and plausibly, and with some truth to the presentation. It isn’t that the choirboy was a myth, it’s just that it wasn’t the only side of BK.
    But that (except for the Yale part) just makes him a pretty garden-variety teenager. I was as goody-goody a child as you could find anywhere, and yet when I got to a certain point in adolescence, I started sneaking around doing things I didn’t want my parents to know about, and framing the account of how I spent my time in a way that was meant to deceive them. (This had to do with who I was hanging around with, and sex. Nothing illegal, except the one time I got drunk, which cured me forever. And even then I was out of high school when it happened.)
    My guess about his bringing the calendar out now is that he has had a lifetime of people accepting him at the value of the face he chooses to present. If it has worked for all these years, why shouldn’t it work now? He’s so smart, after all, he got into Yale, and he can twist the truth, evade the facts, and explain away suspicious appearances with the best of them.
    Except maybe it’s not working anymore.


  2049. Sadly, the guy is a sociopath. His whole career says so. Vince Foster? Clinton details? Dr. Ford? He’s into cruelty.
    Forgot about the court decisions. Hamdi? His preference for indefinite detention was overturned by SCOTUS. Pregnant immigrant young woman, (probably Dr. Ford’s age at the time): have that baby!
    I guess I’m not a fan.


  2050. Sadly, the guy is a sociopath. His whole career says so. Vince Foster? Clinton details? Dr. Ford? He’s into cruelty.
    Forgot about the court decisions. Hamdi? His preference for indefinite detention was overturned by SCOTUS. Pregnant immigrant young woman, (probably Dr. Ford’s age at the time): have that baby!
    I guess I’m not a fan.

  2055. First, I will respond to lj. I believe she was molested. Perhaps, no where near certainly, by Kavanaugh. I believe she is 100% sure it was Kavanaugh. Innocent people have spent lifetimes in prison on 100% certain testimony.
    There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.
    Just as I’ve said for some number of days.
    He testified like father, son and husband whose life and reputation had been wrecked by one unsubstantiated charge.
    I hope no one ever has to go through what shes been through.
    The list of people I hope have to go through what hes had to go through is getting longer.

  2056. First, I will respond to lj. I believe she was molested. Perhaps, no where near certainly, by Kavanaugh. I believe she is 100% sure it was Kavanaugh. Innocent people have spent lifetimes in prison on 100% certain testimony.
    There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.
    Just as I’ve said for some number of days.
    He testified like father, son and husband whose life and reputation had been wrecked by one unsubstantiated charge.
    I hope no one ever has to go through what shes been through.
    The list of people I hope have to go through what hes had to go through is getting longer.

  2057. The list of people I hope have to go through what hes had to go through is getting longer.
    Poor him. Vince Foster conspiracist. Monica Lewinsky slut-shamer. Torturer helpmate. Child immigrant body-fuckwader.
    I hate him for whatever he’s done, during and subsequent to, his teenage years.
    Also, global warming will kill us. He’s helping.
    I don’t own weapons.

  2058. The list of people I hope have to go through what hes had to go through is getting longer.
    Poor him. Vince Foster conspiracist. Monica Lewinsky slut-shamer. Torturer helpmate. Child immigrant body-fuckwader.
    I hate him for whatever he’s done, during and subsequent to, his teenage years.
    Also, global warming will kill us. He’s helping.
    I don’t own weapons.

  2059. The list of people I hope have to go through what hes had to go through is getting longer.
    That list is starting to include people I know.

  2060. The list of people I hope have to go through what hes had to go through is getting longer.
    That list is starting to include people I know.

  2061. His life hasn’t been ‘wrecked’ any more than Merrick Garland’s life was ‘wrecked’ by not getting a seat on the Supreme Court.
    Not every nominee is guaranteed acceptance. People withdraw themselves. People are found less-than-ideal.
    This isn’t a criminal trial. He’s not facing a prison term (unless she decides to go forward with a rape allegation which, under Maryland law, has no statute of limitations and could see him perp-walked out of the SC in handcuffs his first day on the job).
    Worst case scenario, he remains a high-ranking federal court judge, or bails on the government payroll and takes a higher-paid position as a news commentator for Fox or private practice at a law firm.
    His life is not over no matter what happens.
    It’s OK to believe he’s both innocent of the crime for which he is charged and that his conduct, past and present, is indicative of a character unsuited to sit as a magistrate in the country’s highest court. There have been more than enough lies, proven lies, utterly bald-faced, brazen lies to come out of his mouth in his own confirmation hearing pre-Dr. Ford’s testimony and his own attempted rebuttal, to make it clear he has no business there.
    I hope no one ever has to go through what shes been through.
    You may hope that no one ever has to go through what she’s been through, but I’m sorry to break it to you: millions of women share her story. Your hope isn’t good enough. It hasn’t been good enough for your entire life. It won’t be good enough from here on out.
    From here on out, you have a choice: you can ‘hope’ nothing like this happens to anyone else, and maintain the status quo, or you can listen to the women telling you, repeatedly, over and over, that this is their story too, and think, “What message could I help send that this isn’t cool? I know–I could believe them.”
    That’s step one. There are roughly twenty five million steps to go after that, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Are you willing to start walking, or is it more comfortable to sit at the good ol’ boy table and ignore the ruckus?
    Don’t give women like us your ‘hope’. Give us your backing, give us your attention, give us a sign of respect–anything to let us know you hear us, sympathize, and understand our rage and our grief. And if you can’t do that, then give yourself a pat on the back for being brave enough not to disturb the universe, and sit back down in your seat while someone else does all the heavy lifting.

  2062. His life hasn’t been ‘wrecked’ any more than Merrick Garland’s life was ‘wrecked’ by not getting a seat on the Supreme Court.
    Not every nominee is guaranteed acceptance. People withdraw themselves. People are found less-than-ideal.
    This isn’t a criminal trial. He’s not facing a prison term (unless she decides to go forward with a rape allegation which, under Maryland law, has no statute of limitations and could see him perp-walked out of the SC in handcuffs his first day on the job).
    Worst case scenario, he remains a high-ranking federal court judge, or bails on the government payroll and takes a higher-paid position as a news commentator for Fox or private practice at a law firm.
    His life is not over no matter what happens.
    It’s OK to believe he’s both innocent of the crime for which he is charged and that his conduct, past and present, is indicative of a character unsuited to sit as a magistrate in the country’s highest court. There have been more than enough lies, proven lies, utterly bald-faced, brazen lies to come out of his mouth in his own confirmation hearing pre-Dr. Ford’s testimony and his own attempted rebuttal, to make it clear he has no business there.
    I hope no one ever has to go through what shes been through.
    You may hope that no one ever has to go through what she’s been through, but I’m sorry to break it to you: millions of women share her story. Your hope isn’t good enough. It hasn’t been good enough for your entire life. It won’t be good enough from here on out.
    From here on out, you have a choice: you can ‘hope’ nothing like this happens to anyone else, and maintain the status quo, or you can listen to the women telling you, repeatedly, over and over, that this is their story too, and think, “What message could I help send that this isn’t cool? I know–I could believe them.”
    That’s step one. There are roughly twenty five million steps to go after that, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Are you willing to start walking, or is it more comfortable to sit at the good ol’ boy table and ignore the ruckus?
    Don’t give women like us your ‘hope’. Give us your backing, give us your attention, give us a sign of respect–anything to let us know you hear us, sympathize, and understand our rage and our grief. And if you can’t do that, then give yourself a pat on the back for being brave enough not to disturb the universe, and sit back down in your seat while someone else does all the heavy lifting.

  2063. Let the FBI evaluate the claims and report out what they find. Then go from there.
    The scenario I personally find most likely is the one outlined by Drum in the Mother Jones piece. But WTF do I know.
    There are numerous claims on the table. There are people who are actually skilled at sifting stuff like this out. Let them do their job.
    If the (R)’s really want to resolve this mess, the path forward is dead simple.
    Withdraw Kavanaugh. Nominate a moderate conservative, somebody like, I don’t know, Kennedy.
    All done.
    They won’t do that. They’re gonna keep poking everyone in the eye until the whole thing is broken.
    This is why I say they need to be crushed. Decisively and resoundingly beaten. Punished, until they wise the hell up.
    They don’t understand reason, or good will, or compromise. They only understand power.
    So, power it is. Gird up your loins. No rest until victory.
    I gotta say, they seem to be intent on losing.
    Dig dig dig, (R)’s. That hole us nowhere deep enough yet. I’m sure there’s another ten or eleven demographics you can totally alienate by 2020.
    Although it’ll be hard to top pissing off half the population in one go. That is kind of a personal best.
    Maybe you can even do some more damage by the mid-terms. You got another six weeks or so, see what you can come up with.

  2064. Let the FBI evaluate the claims and report out what they find. Then go from there.
    The scenario I personally find most likely is the one outlined by Drum in the Mother Jones piece. But WTF do I know.
    There are numerous claims on the table. There are people who are actually skilled at sifting stuff like this out. Let them do their job.
    If the (R)’s really want to resolve this mess, the path forward is dead simple.
    Withdraw Kavanaugh. Nominate a moderate conservative, somebody like, I don’t know, Kennedy.
    All done.
    They won’t do that. They’re gonna keep poking everyone in the eye until the whole thing is broken.
    This is why I say they need to be crushed. Decisively and resoundingly beaten. Punished, until they wise the hell up.
    They don’t understand reason, or good will, or compromise. They only understand power.
    So, power it is. Gird up your loins. No rest until victory.
    I gotta say, they seem to be intent on losing.
    Dig dig dig, (R)’s. That hole us nowhere deep enough yet. I’m sure there’s another ten or eleven demographics you can totally alienate by 2020.
    Although it’ll be hard to top pissing off half the population in one go. That is kind of a personal best.
    Maybe you can even do some more damage by the mid-terms. You got another six weeks or so, see what you can come up with.

  2065. It’s OK to believe he’s both innocent of the crime for which he is charged and that his conduct, past and present, is indicative of a character unsuited to sit as a magistrate in the country’s highest court. There have been more than enough lies, proven lies, utterly bald-faced, brazen lies to come out of his mouth in his own confirmation hearing pre-Dr. Ford’s testimony and his own attempted rebuttal, to make it clear he has no business there.
    Areala wins the thread.
    Thank you.

  2066. It’s OK to believe he’s both innocent of the crime for which he is charged and that his conduct, past and present, is indicative of a character unsuited to sit as a magistrate in the country’s highest court. There have been more than enough lies, proven lies, utterly bald-faced, brazen lies to come out of his mouth in his own confirmation hearing pre-Dr. Ford’s testimony and his own attempted rebuttal, to make it clear he has no business there.
    Areala wins the thread.
    Thank you.

  2067. There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.
    Let’s be clear. We don’t KNOW of any evidence. Not least because great effort has been made to avoid investigating (until now) or calling obviously relevant witnesses to testify.
    That’s not at all the same as there not being any evidence. It’s possible there really isn’t any evidence. But if not, one has to wonder why all the effort to avoid looking.

  2068. There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.
    Let’s be clear. We don’t KNOW of any evidence. Not least because great effort has been made to avoid investigating (until now) or calling obviously relevant witnesses to testify.
    That’s not at all the same as there not being any evidence. It’s possible there really isn’t any evidence. But if not, one has to wonder why all the effort to avoid looking.

  2069. He’s not facing a prison term (unless she decides to go forward with a rape allegation which, under Maryland law, has no statute of limitations and could see him perp-walked out of the SC in handcuffs his first day on the job).
    Sadly, he’s not at risk over the attempted rape. Period.
    Maryland law has no statue of limitation NOW. But the relevant law is what prevailed in the early 1980s. When sexual assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors (yes, really!), with a statue of limitations of one year — which is now long past.
    Of course, there’s always perjury. But he’s free of criminal liability for the rape attempt itself even if it is proved that he tried to rape her.

  2070. He’s not facing a prison term (unless she decides to go forward with a rape allegation which, under Maryland law, has no statute of limitations and could see him perp-walked out of the SC in handcuffs his first day on the job).
    Sadly, he’s not at risk over the attempted rape. Period.
    Maryland law has no statue of limitation NOW. But the relevant law is what prevailed in the early 1980s. When sexual assault and attempted rape were misdemeanors (yes, really!), with a statue of limitations of one year — which is now long past.
    Of course, there’s always perjury. But he’s free of criminal liability for the rape attempt itself even if it is proved that he tried to rape her.

  2075. The ratio of threads Areala wins compared to the number of threads on which she appears is olympian.
    Koufax may be the only other lefty with that won/loss percentage.
    Harper Lee, Ralph Ellison, among novelists.

  2076. The ratio of threads Areala wins compared to the number of threads on which she appears is olympian.
    Koufax may be the only other lefty with that won/loss percentage.
    Harper Lee, Ralph Ellison, among novelists.

  2077. They must all have had it drummed into them that attacking her is a badly losing strategy.
    oddly, they were all attacking her before she spoke.

  2078. They must all have had it drummed into them that attacking her is a badly losing strategy.
    oddly, they were all attacking her before she spoke.

  2079. There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.
    and goddamnit, we’re going to keep it that way.
    – The Stupid Party

  2080. There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.
    and goddamnit, we’re going to keep it that way.
    – The Stupid Party

  2081. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23516986/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-mark-judge-jeff-flake/
    I remember EVERYTHING in my life, good and bad, with the exception of where my glasses are at the moment.
    I didn’t drink in high school, but I made up for the short fall in college. I remember precisely what the drinking ages were in the states I was in.
    It was vital information, as it was for Kavanaugh, like, you know, the date of his fucking birthday.
    Kids celebrated the day they could drink legally.

  2082. https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23516986/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-mark-judge-jeff-flake/
    I remember EVERYTHING in my life, good and bad, with the exception of where my glasses are at the moment.
    I didn’t drink in high school, but I made up for the short fall in college. I remember precisely what the drinking ages were in the states I was in.
    It was vital information, as it was for Kavanaugh, like, you know, the date of his fucking birthday.
    Kids celebrated the day they could drink legally.

  2083. the naked tribalism “conservatives” are showing to this patently unfit asshole is amazing.
    no, wait. it’s predictable.

  2084. the naked tribalism “conservatives” are showing to this patently unfit asshole is amazing.
    no, wait. it’s predictable.

  2085. I’m so old that when I was a teenager in Ohio you could legally drink 3-2 beer at 18.
    Wild times back in the dark ages.

  2086. I’m so old that when I was a teenager in Ohio you could legally drink 3-2 beer at 18.
    Wild times back in the dark ages.

  2087. oddly, they were all attacking her before she spoke.
    Not all that odd. It’s the optics of attacking her in person, face to face, that hurts. Attacking her in absentia doesn’t seem to have the same bad impact.

  2088. oddly, they were all attacking her before she spoke.
    Not all that odd. It’s the optics of attacking her in person, face to face, that hurts. Attacking her in absentia doesn’t seem to have the same bad impact.

  2089. Marty: There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.
    I have to confess that Marty is actually correct to say that.
    Of course, Dr. Ford has offered evidence that she believed her story was true some years ago — a few years closer to the event. So if she has believed her story for some years, I wonder when she first started to remember things wrong. When she got her PhD? While a junior in college? The morning after the event? (Or, as Kavanaugh would have it, the non-event?) Or when?
    I think Marty should ask himself that question, but nevertheless: I apologize for thinking he had said something different from the above.
    I am also willing to give Jeff Flake credit for not being a complete wuss. Lindsey Graham, on the other hand …
    –TP

  2090. Marty: There is no evidence that corroborates anything more than she believes her story is true.
    I have to confess that Marty is actually correct to say that.
    Of course, Dr. Ford has offered evidence that she believed her story was true some years ago — a few years closer to the event. So if she has believed her story for some years, I wonder when she first started to remember things wrong. When she got her PhD? While a junior in college? The morning after the event? (Or, as Kavanaugh would have it, the non-event?) Or when?
    I think Marty should ask himself that question, but nevertheless: I apologize for thinking he had said something different from the above.
    I am also willing to give Jeff Flake credit for not being a complete wuss. Lindsey Graham, on the other hand …
    –TP

  2091. yup, I went to college in Ohio. I had to wait a full week the Fall of my freshman year for my 18th birthday to belly up to the bar.
    This sounds perfectly plausible in shitfuck America:
    https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/09/28/right-wing-conspiracy-theorists-now-claim-christine-blasey-ford-deeply-tied-cia/221505
    Blasey-Ford had the same look on her face as those chick spies in the Austin Powers movies, just before their breasts converted to gatling guns and shot up the joint, don’t ya think.
    I see now why the republican committee members and mp mini me Kavanaugh looked so a-sceared and under the gun.
    Truth is not truth is truth not is.

  2092. yup, I went to college in Ohio. I had to wait a full week the Fall of my freshman year for my 18th birthday to belly up to the bar.
    This sounds perfectly plausible in shitfuck America:
    https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/09/28/right-wing-conspiracy-theorists-now-claim-christine-blasey-ford-deeply-tied-cia/221505
    Blasey-Ford had the same look on her face as those chick spies in the Austin Powers movies, just before their breasts converted to gatling guns and shot up the joint, don’t ya think.
    I see now why the republican committee members and mp mini me Kavanaugh looked so a-sceared and under the gun.
    Truth is not truth is truth not is.

  2093. Areala,
    As nicely as I can, I come from a family where sexual abuse was the norm. 4 kids all sexually abused by the age of 9. I can assure you my story is more graphically difficult than Ms. Fords and my sisters got the worst of it.
    I have no problem believing her story as I’ve stated fucking multiple times. Take your internet winning smartass advice and shove it.
    I make no assumptions about your personal experience, but if it doesn’t include holding your 8 year old sister as she cries herself to sleep after being used by her stepfather then take a few steps to catch up.
    My wish that no one experiences what Ms Ford has may be more closely held than you imagine.

  2094. Areala,
    As nicely as I can, I come from a family where sexual abuse was the norm. 4 kids all sexually abused by the age of 9. I can assure you my story is more graphically difficult than Ms. Fords and my sisters got the worst of it.
    I have no problem believing her story as I’ve stated fucking multiple times. Take your internet winning smartass advice and shove it.
    I make no assumptions about your personal experience, but if it doesn’t include holding your 8 year old sister as she cries herself to sleep after being used by her stepfather then take a few steps to catch up.
    My wish that no one experiences what Ms Ford has may be more closely held than you imagine.

  2095. Marty, I’m sorry you had to go through whatever emotions were provoked in having to remind us of your personal experiences. I have no doubt about your own personal kindness and humanity in these matters. I would just ask you to think about us, and our personal qualities too, instead of turning us into cartoon partisan lefties in your head (I don’t dispute that you are sometimes turned into a cartoon partisan rightie on this blog).
    It’s true that we’re all very incensed about the extraordinary breaking of norms over Merrick Garland, but cast your mind back: we didn’t partake in this kind of discussion about Gorsuch. The re-balancing of the court to the right, against the wishes of the majority of the American people, is not our main concern here (although it is a concern). You said above that EVERYBODY she named said it didn’t happen. You said it because Kavanaugh said it, but he was lying (and not for the first time in his confirmation hearings). He is a weasel, and a liar, and unfit to sit on your SCOTUS for these and other reasons. Trump nominated him, against Republican advice, because of a calculation that his road to Damascus conversion after Starr means he will almost certainly try to protect Trump from criminal charges, and that self-interested calculation by Trump is what has enabled this whole circus. It is just a great shame that the emotive issue of sexual abuse has driven you and us into unfair accusations and characterisations when our normal political differences do that more than well enough already.

  2096. Marty, I’m sorry you had to go through whatever emotions were provoked in having to remind us of your personal experiences. I have no doubt about your own personal kindness and humanity in these matters. I would just ask you to think about us, and our personal qualities too, instead of turning us into cartoon partisan lefties in your head (I don’t dispute that you are sometimes turned into a cartoon partisan rightie on this blog).
    It’s true that we’re all very incensed about the extraordinary breaking of norms over Merrick Garland, but cast your mind back: we didn’t partake in this kind of discussion about Gorsuch. The re-balancing of the court to the right, against the wishes of the majority of the American people, is not our main concern here (although it is a concern). You said above that EVERYBODY she named said it didn’t happen. You said it because Kavanaugh said it, but he was lying (and not for the first time in his confirmation hearings). He is a weasel, and a liar, and unfit to sit on your SCOTUS for these and other reasons. Trump nominated him, against Republican advice, because of a calculation that his road to Damascus conversion after Starr means he will almost certainly try to protect Trump from criminal charges, and that self-interested calculation by Trump is what has enabled this whole circus. It is just a great shame that the emotive issue of sexual abuse has driven you and us into unfair accusations and characterisations when our normal political differences do that more than well enough already.

  2097. GFTNC,
    “You said it because Kavanaugh said it, but he was lying ”
    Merrick Garland was discussed during Gorsuch, not as much. But memories are short. Merrick Garland was used in the campaign by both sides and was a good Democratic talking point, with every expectation President Clinton would get to pick a more progressive judge once elected.
    I thought he should have been given s hearing just for that reason. Imagine my relief on that single front when Trump won. But Gorsuch replaced Scalia, there was opposition but the balance that people were used to was maintained, Roe was still safe.
    Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh is a whole different kettle of fish. It seems to put Roe in jeopardy, it makes the court firmly conservative and Federalist. It makes Robert’s the swing vote. That’s why all this is happening.
    You believe bad things about Kavanaugh, I think they are exaggerated by the emotion of the moment. Every time russell comments he throws in that Trump should withdraw the nomination and pick a moderate judge, that is the real desire here. It is not that it shouldn’t be Kavanaugh, it shouldn’t be anyone like Kavanaugh.
    I dont believe he should be subjected to public humiliation because he creates a court that you (generic you) are afraid of. I would be just as afraid of any candidate a President Clinton would have nominated.
    That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not, but I would be panicked to have to think about Justice Ginsbergs opinions being the majority.
    That panic by the left is driving the ferocity of this dissent and, imo, making Kavanaugh a monster is required to maintain the rationalization of a fair appraisal.
    Our political differences are clear, but, now to the line I quote above. No I said it because it is true. Everyone including the person she said she went with declares either they remember no such event or that they do remember it never happened.
    It is a legitimate question as to whether she remembers the events accurately. For just a second let me describe an experience I had that makes me believe you can question it.
    At 6 my next door neighbor, I think he was, I wouldnt have known to call him that at the time, was packing his car as they were moving out. I wandered over to the edge of my yard to watch what he was doing, I dont remember whether I had ever met him before. So he said come on over and let me show you something.
    He started what I now surmise was a practiced act, by asking me, at 6, if I had ever seen my parents have sex. It was not my first exposure to the subject but I immediately knew something was off. As he started rubbing me with one hand he started showing we pictures of what he said was pictures of he and his wife having sex pointing out the details asking if I liked them.
    I have no idea, by that time my brain had started turning off, everything seemed foggy. I couldn’t focus on the pictures, I have no idea other than his description what they were and I was already waiting for this to be over. I remember bits and pieces of the next 10 minutes, a time frame I’ve reconstructed that could be wildly off, but I have no 100% clear memory after that initial realization of what was happening.
    I didn’t scream or cry, I didn’t tell anyone for sure, and occasionally I’ve wondered how much I just dont remember because I dont want to. That fog that set in, that refusal to deal with it, that mental requirement to reconstruct what happened later is powerful. It was not the last time I would experience it, unfortunately the most horrible of things get less frightening as you survive them, but it isl how I hear her telling her story. The reconstructed bits and pieces put together later. Thats why there are holes that seem incongruous to others (how did she get home?) That dont seem incongruous to me at all. But it means she could easily have substituted some identifiable person in the reconstruction, even six weeks later when she saw Mark Judge and felt like he “looked” guilty. Which makes no sense based on the rest of the description.
    I am not a psychologist, nor do I know specifically how she felt or reacted or why she remembers the things she does. Her description tells me she experienced the kind of mental withdrawal I experienced, so I know how those memories can be affected.
    My sympathy for her is immense, I believe she believes every detail as she describes it, I believe she could be mistaken.
    I have a whole bunch more complicated thoughts on thus overall, I dont think any of it is simple.

  2098. GFTNC,
    “You said it because Kavanaugh said it, but he was lying ”
    Merrick Garland was discussed during Gorsuch, not as much. But memories are short. Merrick Garland was used in the campaign by both sides and was a good Democratic talking point, with every expectation President Clinton would get to pick a more progressive judge once elected.
    I thought he should have been given s hearing just for that reason. Imagine my relief on that single front when Trump won. But Gorsuch replaced Scalia, there was opposition but the balance that people were used to was maintained, Roe was still safe.
    Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh is a whole different kettle of fish. It seems to put Roe in jeopardy, it makes the court firmly conservative and Federalist. It makes Robert’s the swing vote. That’s why all this is happening.
    You believe bad things about Kavanaugh, I think they are exaggerated by the emotion of the moment. Every time russell comments he throws in that Trump should withdraw the nomination and pick a moderate judge, that is the real desire here. It is not that it shouldn’t be Kavanaugh, it shouldn’t be anyone like Kavanaugh.
    I dont believe he should be subjected to public humiliation because he creates a court that you (generic you) are afraid of. I would be just as afraid of any candidate a President Clinton would have nominated.
    That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not, but I would be panicked to have to think about Justice Ginsbergs opinions being the majority.
    That panic by the left is driving the ferocity of this dissent and, imo, making Kavanaugh a monster is required to maintain the rationalization of a fair appraisal.
    Our political differences are clear, but, now to the line I quote above. No I said it because it is true. Everyone including the person she said she went with declares either they remember no such event or that they do remember it never happened.
    It is a legitimate question as to whether she remembers the events accurately. For just a second let me describe an experience I had that makes me believe you can question it.
    At 6 my next door neighbor, I think he was, I wouldnt have known to call him that at the time, was packing his car as they were moving out. I wandered over to the edge of my yard to watch what he was doing, I dont remember whether I had ever met him before. So he said come on over and let me show you something.
    He started what I now surmise was a practiced act, by asking me, at 6, if I had ever seen my parents have sex. It was not my first exposure to the subject but I immediately knew something was off. As he started rubbing me with one hand he started showing we pictures of what he said was pictures of he and his wife having sex pointing out the details asking if I liked them.
    I have no idea, by that time my brain had started turning off, everything seemed foggy. I couldn’t focus on the pictures, I have no idea other than his description what they were and I was already waiting for this to be over. I remember bits and pieces of the next 10 minutes, a time frame I’ve reconstructed that could be wildly off, but I have no 100% clear memory after that initial realization of what was happening.
    I didn’t scream or cry, I didn’t tell anyone for sure, and occasionally I’ve wondered how much I just dont remember because I dont want to. That fog that set in, that refusal to deal with it, that mental requirement to reconstruct what happened later is powerful. It was not the last time I would experience it, unfortunately the most horrible of things get less frightening as you survive them, but it isl how I hear her telling her story. The reconstructed bits and pieces put together later. Thats why there are holes that seem incongruous to others (how did she get home?) That dont seem incongruous to me at all. But it means she could easily have substituted some identifiable person in the reconstruction, even six weeks later when she saw Mark Judge and felt like he “looked” guilty. Which makes no sense based on the rest of the description.
    I am not a psychologist, nor do I know specifically how she felt or reacted or why she remembers the things she does. Her description tells me she experienced the kind of mental withdrawal I experienced, so I know how those memories can be affected.
    My sympathy for her is immense, I believe she believes every detail as she describes it, I believe she could be mistaken.
    I have a whole bunch more complicated thoughts on thus overall, I dont think any of it is simple.

  2099. Marty, the withdrawal you describe is indeed very common in such cases. You were 6 of course, and she was 15, and she says she remembers the actual attack perfectly and is 100% certain it was Kavanaugh, and I (and maybe even you) believe her. That she does not remember how she got home is hardly surprising, under the circumstances, and even how she got there in the first place, since nothing untoward had yet taken place to make the event any more memorable than it was to the other (uninvolved) people. Kavanaughs characterisation of Leland’s “refutation” is a flat out lie: she says she doesn’t remember, but she says she believes Ford.
    Your discussion of the difference between the balance to the court in the cases of Gorsuch versus Kavanaugh is fair enough (from a Republican perspective of course), and I’m sure we would be having extremely heated arguments about anybody that Trump had nominated to succeed Kennedy, but we wouldn’t be having this particular argument.
    I too have a whole bunch more complicated thoughts on this, and I guess that applies to many of us. But mischaracterising you (or us) and our attitudes to sexual abuse, does not help. Peace to you, Marty.

  2100. Marty, the withdrawal you describe is indeed very common in such cases. You were 6 of course, and she was 15, and she says she remembers the actual attack perfectly and is 100% certain it was Kavanaugh, and I (and maybe even you) believe her. That she does not remember how she got home is hardly surprising, under the circumstances, and even how she got there in the first place, since nothing untoward had yet taken place to make the event any more memorable than it was to the other (uninvolved) people. Kavanaughs characterisation of Leland’s “refutation” is a flat out lie: she says she doesn’t remember, but she says she believes Ford.
    Your discussion of the difference between the balance to the court in the cases of Gorsuch versus Kavanaugh is fair enough (from a Republican perspective of course), and I’m sure we would be having extremely heated arguments about anybody that Trump had nominated to succeed Kennedy, but we wouldn’t be having this particular argument.
    I too have a whole bunch more complicated thoughts on this, and I guess that applies to many of us. But mischaracterising you (or us) and our attitudes to sexual abuse, does not help. Peace to you, Marty.

  2101. Marty, i’m sorry to hear all of that.
    —
    if memory is not to be trusted, who’s to say K’s memory isn’t the faulty one? why is it always the accuser’s memory that must be assumed faulty?

  2102. Marty, i’m sorry to hear all of that.
    —
    if memory is not to be trusted, who’s to say K’s memory isn’t the faulty one? why is it always the accuser’s memory that must be assumed faulty?

  2103. First, I think I speak for everyone when I say the circumstances of your childhood sound horrible. I am, sincerely, sorry you had to live with that.
    To substance:
    Every time russell comments he throws in that Trump should withdraw the nomination and pick a moderate judge, that is the real desire here. It is not that it shouldn’t be Kavanaugh, it shouldn’t be anyone like Kavanaugh.
    It’s a long thread and I’m not going to go back and count the number of times I suggested that Trump nominate someone else. Of those times, I suggested a moderate nomination one time. My suggestions were Kethledge or Hardiman, both justices already on Trump’s short list, both justices who are, staunchly and famously, conservative Federalists.
    My primary objection to Kavanaugh is his history as a partisan activist. SCOTUS justices have points of view, and we all recognize and accept that. What we do not want from the folks on the SCOTUS bench, or any bench, are explicit partisan actors.
    That has been my argument, throughout this very long thread. You can look it up.
    Kindly do not change the things I say to suit your argument.
    That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not
    Yes, maybe not.

  2104. First, I think I speak for everyone when I say the circumstances of your childhood sound horrible. I am, sincerely, sorry you had to live with that.
    To substance:
    Every time russell comments he throws in that Trump should withdraw the nomination and pick a moderate judge, that is the real desire here. It is not that it shouldn’t be Kavanaugh, it shouldn’t be anyone like Kavanaugh.
    It’s a long thread and I’m not going to go back and count the number of times I suggested that Trump nominate someone else. Of those times, I suggested a moderate nomination one time. My suggestions were Kethledge or Hardiman, both justices already on Trump’s short list, both justices who are, staunchly and famously, conservative Federalists.
    My primary objection to Kavanaugh is his history as a partisan activist. SCOTUS justices have points of view, and we all recognize and accept that. What we do not want from the folks on the SCOTUS bench, or any bench, are explicit partisan actors.
    That has been my argument, throughout this very long thread. You can look it up.
    Kindly do not change the things I say to suit your argument.
    That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not
    Yes, maybe not.

  2105. Back to politics:
    I dont believe he should be subjected to public humiliation because he creates a court that you (generic you) are afraid of. I would be just as afraid of any candidate a President Clinton would have nominated.
    That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not, but I would be panicked to have to think about Justice Ginsbergs opinions being the majority.
    You might be just as afraid of any candidate that Clinton would have nominated, but the majority of your countrymen would not have been.
    Regarding the list of changes you believe would have ensued, they are exaggerated to the point of parody (which admittedly you acknowledge with “Or maybe not”, but I would point out, as an example, about the item I have bolded that the economy at the end of Clinton’s administration rather puts the lie to that claim at least, not to mention the upswing which was already taking place at the end of Obama’s, and for which Trump is eagerly claiming credit.

  2106. Back to politics:
    I dont believe he should be subjected to public humiliation because he creates a court that you (generic you) are afraid of. I would be just as afraid of any candidate a President Clinton would have nominated.
    That court would remove all restrictions on killing unborn babies, effectively rescind the second amendment, support the executive right to destroy our country economically, make every person in the world have the right to immigrate here, make every US worker have to join a union. Or maybe not, but I would be panicked to have to think about Justice Ginsbergs opinions being the majority.
    You might be just as afraid of any candidate that Clinton would have nominated, but the majority of your countrymen would not have been.
    Regarding the list of changes you believe would have ensued, they are exaggerated to the point of parody (which admittedly you acknowledge with “Or maybe not”, but I would point out, as an example, about the item I have bolded that the economy at the end of Clinton’s administration rather puts the lie to that claim at least, not to mention the upswing which was already taking place at the end of Obama’s, and for which Trump is eagerly claiming credit.

  2107. This Clinton is not that Clinton, the parody is a mirror of the parody from the left of the courts positions and their effect. If anything I have understated the damage a Ginsberg court could do while the downside of a conservative court is constantly overstated.
    Last year in November I gladly agreed that Trump really hadn’t had much to do with actual economic activity yet, but we are now past the point of giving Obama credit for this economy.
    It is expanding in ways Obama never succeeded in accomplishing, particularly in rising real wages across the board. While somehow it seems, basked on some complaints, the fact that they are rising even more for the poor and minority communities is a problem.
    And, yes, the continued and broadened, note the recognition that Obama managed to allow the economy to grow, expansion of the economy is now Trumps accomplishment.
    In fact, there is a reasonable argument that his regulatory changes may go too far in support of it, that’s a more valid criticism than he hasn’t accomplished it. To pretend his policies havent increased business activity is simply not wanting to give him credit for anything.
    Sorry russell, it has been a long thread and you had mentioned short list candidates above. I didn’t really need to reference you for my point to be accurate anyway. So my apologies.

  2108. This Clinton is not that Clinton, the parody is a mirror of the parody from the left of the courts positions and their effect. If anything I have understated the damage a Ginsberg court could do while the downside of a conservative court is constantly overstated.
    Last year in November I gladly agreed that Trump really hadn’t had much to do with actual economic activity yet, but we are now past the point of giving Obama credit for this economy.
    It is expanding in ways Obama never succeeded in accomplishing, particularly in rising real wages across the board. While somehow it seems, basked on some complaints, the fact that they are rising even more for the poor and minority communities is a problem.
    And, yes, the continued and broadened, note the recognition that Obama managed to allow the economy to grow, expansion of the economy is now Trumps accomplishment.
    In fact, there is a reasonable argument that his regulatory changes may go too far in support of it, that’s a more valid criticism than he hasn’t accomplished it. To pretend his policies havent increased business activity is simply not wanting to give him credit for anything.
    Sorry russell, it has been a long thread and you had mentioned short list candidates above. I didn’t really need to reference you for my point to be accurate anyway. So my apologies.

  2109. “if memory is not to be trusted, who’s to say K’s memory isn’t the faulty one? why is it always the accuser’s memory that must be assumed faulty?”
    Actually it is politically incorrect to suggest an accuser may be misremembering and fashionable to just assume the accused is lying.
    I’m happy, always, to recognize either might be misremembering, or both could on some details.

  2110. “if memory is not to be trusted, who’s to say K’s memory isn’t the faulty one? why is it always the accuser’s memory that must be assumed faulty?”
    Actually it is politically incorrect to suggest an accuser may be misremembering and fashionable to just assume the accused is lying.
    I’m happy, always, to recognize either might be misremembering, or both could on some details.

  2111. FWIW, I believe if you look at the graph of the improvement in the economy it is a clear and pretty smooth continuation upwards since before the end of the Obama presidency. But, as I have often said, economics are not my thing, and I am prepared to be contradicted. This Clinton was not that Clinton, but (again FWIW) Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by that Clinton!

  2112. FWIW, I believe if you look at the graph of the improvement in the economy it is a clear and pretty smooth continuation upwards since before the end of the Obama presidency. But, as I have often said, economics are not my thing, and I am prepared to be contradicted. This Clinton was not that Clinton, but (again FWIW) Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by that Clinton!

  2119. they are exaggerated to the point of parody
    Yes.
    Exaggerated to the point of parody, but to a point indicative of projection. The panic you accuse us of, you demonstrate, in spades.
    And the panic you accuse us of is, blatantly, obvious in the grasping and headlong process that the (R)’s in the Senate are dragging the nation through.
    They just want to fucking win, and they don’t care how they do it. Or what they break in the process.
    It will be profoundly damaging to the reputation and credibility of the court to be dominated by a majority who are, not simply conservative, but ideologues.
    And that is what we are going to have.
    Seriously, conservatives need to stop flipping the rest of the country the bird. If you think the push-back on Kavanaugh is outrageous, just you wait and see.
    As far as broad-based improvement in wages, there’s also this analysis.
    Enjoy your tax cut.

  2120. they are exaggerated to the point of parody
    Yes.
    Exaggerated to the point of parody, but to a point indicative of projection. The panic you accuse us of, you demonstrate, in spades.
    And the panic you accuse us of is, blatantly, obvious in the grasping and headlong process that the (R)’s in the Senate are dragging the nation through.
    They just want to fucking win, and they don’t care how they do it. Or what they break in the process.
    It will be profoundly damaging to the reputation and credibility of the court to be dominated by a majority who are, not simply conservative, but ideologues.
    And that is what we are going to have.
    Seriously, conservatives need to stop flipping the rest of the country the bird. If you think the push-back on Kavanaugh is outrageous, just you wait and see.
    As far as broad-based improvement in wages, there’s also this analysis.
    Enjoy your tax cut.

  2121. Yes, the 10-year shows the Obama/mp trends, but going back to 1979 shows the longer term trends in wage growth.
    What are the political/economic factors since 1979 that have contributed to declining wage growth?
    Especially among low earners, to go with Russell’s link:
    https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/eric-posner-companies-monopoly-power-over-wages
    Some tax rate blah, blah:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2017/10/17/tax-rates-and-economic-growth-is-there-really-a-correlation/#6f42a3507c3e
    More fashionable, politically correct tax talk:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-corporations-have-brought-home-cash-after-the-tax-cut-but-they-havent-put-it-to-work-2018-06-29

  2122. Yes, the 10-year shows the Obama/mp trends, but going back to 1979 shows the longer term trends in wage growth.
    What are the political/economic factors since 1979 that have contributed to declining wage growth?
    Especially among low earners, to go with Russell’s link:
    https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/eric-posner-companies-monopoly-power-over-wages
    Some tax rate blah, blah:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2017/10/17/tax-rates-and-economic-growth-is-there-really-a-correlation/#6f42a3507c3e
    More fashionable, politically correct tax talk:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-corporations-have-brought-home-cash-after-the-tax-cut-but-they-havent-put-it-to-work-2018-06-29

  2123. The write up from the Counts link:
    United States Average Hourly Earnings
    US average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 10 cents to USD 27.16, or 0.4 percent, in August 2018, following an unrevised 0.3 percent gain in July and above expectations of a 0.2 percent gain. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 77 cents, or 2.9 percent, the largest increase since June 2009, from 2.7 percent in July. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to USD 22.73 in August. Average Hourly Earnings in the United States averaged 0.20 percent from 2006 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 0.60 percent in June of 2007 and a record low of -0.20 percent in August of 2011.

  2124. The write up from the Counts link:
    United States Average Hourly Earnings
    US average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 10 cents to USD 27.16, or 0.4 percent, in August 2018, following an unrevised 0.3 percent gain in July and above expectations of a 0.2 percent gain. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 77 cents, or 2.9 percent, the largest increase since June 2009, from 2.7 percent in July. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to USD 22.73 in August. Average Hourly Earnings in the United States averaged 0.20 percent from 2006 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 0.60 percent in June of 2007 and a record low of -0.20 percent in August of 2011.

  2127. This just in:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-working-in-texas-and-these-four-states-saw-best-income-gains-in-the-spring-2018-09-29?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
    mp is demanding lower oil prices from OPEC which, if ceded to, will impact these earnings gains in the strong, natural resource-based state economies cited.
    Trade wars are already impacting growth in other industries in other states, the blue ones mostly, held in similar high esteem as China, Mexico, and Canada are by this White House.

  2128. This just in:
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americans-working-in-texas-and-these-four-states-saw-best-income-gains-in-the-spring-2018-09-29?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
    mp is demanding lower oil prices from OPEC which, if ceded to, will impact these earnings gains in the strong, natural resource-based state economies cited.
    Trade wars are already impacting growth in other industries in other states, the blue ones mostly, held in similar high esteem as China, Mexico, and Canada are by this White House.

  2133. particularly in rising real wages across the board
    how much of that is due to states raising their minimum wages?
    (hint – at the low end, quite a lot)

  2134. particularly in rising real wages across the board
    how much of that is due to states raising their minimum wages?
    (hint – at the low end, quite a lot)

  2135. Drop us a line. When you send yours back to the government.
    I’m spending mine on electing (D)’s.
    Enjoy your tax cut!

  2136. Drop us a line. When you send yours back to the government.
    I’m spending mine on electing (D)’s.
    Enjoy your tax cut!

  2137. Actually it is politically incorrect to suggest an accuser may be misremembering and fashionable to just assume the accused is lying.
    when the accused has made a series of pointless lies, while sitting in front of the Senate, it’s fair to assume he’s lying about the important things, too.

  2138. Actually it is politically incorrect to suggest an accuser may be misremembering and fashionable to just assume the accused is lying.
    when the accused has made a series of pointless lies, while sitting in front of the Senate, it’s fair to assume he’s lying about the important things, too.

  2139. ActScully, since I now get my income from a partnership on a k-1 I will get a fairly significant tax rate cut. I dont make all that much being a minority partner but it has allowed us to hire 2 additional people this year(5 total) because, tax cut.
    So at least 3 or 4 of us will enjoy it in what I consider pretty generically positive ways.

  2140. ActScully, since I now get my income from a partnership on a k-1 I will get a fairly significant tax rate cut. I dont make all that much being a minority partner but it has allowed us to hire 2 additional people this year(5 total) because, tax cut.
    So at least 3 or 4 of us will enjoy it in what I consider pretty generically positive ways.

  2143. I have no reason to disbelieve Marty’s memories of his childhood. We have no “corroboration” for his stories except his own testimony, but I am not inclined to demand “proof”.
    What I want to know is whether Marty would be pissed off under the following circumstances:
    That creepy neighbor went on to law school, went to work for the Clinton Foundation as a ratfucker, and got nominated to the pivotal seat on the SCOTUS by President Sanders. Marty, recognizing his face on TV, came out with his story. Libruls, lusting after unlimited abortions and gun control and job-killing regulations, told Marty “There, there, we believe something happened to you, but we refuse to let the FBI investigate. I mean, how could they uncover any facts all these years later?”
    Can Marty project himself into that scenario?
    –TP

  2144. I have no reason to disbelieve Marty’s memories of his childhood. We have no “corroboration” for his stories except his own testimony, but I am not inclined to demand “proof”.
    What I want to know is whether Marty would be pissed off under the following circumstances:
    That creepy neighbor went on to law school, went to work for the Clinton Foundation as a ratfucker, and got nominated to the pivotal seat on the SCOTUS by President Sanders. Marty, recognizing his face on TV, came out with his story. Libruls, lusting after unlimited abortions and gun control and job-killing regulations, told Marty “There, there, we believe something happened to you, but we refuse to let the FBI investigate. I mean, how could they uncover any facts all these years later?”
    Can Marty project himself into that scenario?
    –TP

  2145. Economics: I can borrow a pile of money and use it to enjoy a higher standard of living for a while. Even if I give 86% of it to people who are richer than me.

  2146. Economics: I can borrow a pile of money and use it to enjoy a higher standard of living for a while. Even if I give 86% of it to people who are richer than me.

  2147. I dont make all that much being a minority partner but it has allowed us to hire 2 additional people this year(5 total) because, tax cut.
    Well done.
    If all business owners use their tax cuts as you have, that will be great.
    We’ll see how it plays out.

  2148. I dont make all that much being a minority partner but it has allowed us to hire 2 additional people this year(5 total) because, tax cut.
    Well done.
    If all business owners use their tax cuts as you have, that will be great.
    We’ll see how it plays out.

  2149. A brief announcement, I’m closing the comments on this thread and I’ve started a new one on Kavanaugh. I’m doing this for a number of reasons and if anyone feels this is unfair, feel free to discuss this offlist by emailing the kitty.

  2150. A brief announcement, I’m closing the comments on this thread and I’ve started a new one on Kavanaugh. I’m doing this for a number of reasons and if anyone feels this is unfair, feel free to discuss this offlist by emailing the kitty.

Comments are closed.