by liberal japonicus
This post is a ‘fresh sheet of paper’ for Kavanaugh discussions. My original title was Kavanaugh: where we stand, but I didn’t want someone to interpret that as making a claim that the post represents an opinion about Kavanaugh.
As it stands, there will be an investigation by the FBI. This CNN piece says that Jeff Flake demanded it
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/29/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-background-investigation/index.html
This TPM piece emphasizes how all of this is ‘gentlemen’s and women’s agreement’.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/what-just-happened-3
Questions I have:
How did/does/will this ‘gentlemen’s and women’s agreement’ work?
How much will Trump’s recent pillorying of the FBI affect any investigation, both rhetorically (in terms of discussing the final outcome) and in actual fact?
How will this affect the midterms?
Add your answers and your other questions in the comments.
How did/does/will this ‘gentlemen’s and women’s agreement’ work?
the FBI will do what it does. Flake et al will say, “OK, looks good to me!” and will then vote to confirm.
How did/does/will this ‘gentlemen’s and women’s agreement’ work?
the FBI will do what it does. Flake et al will say, “OK, looks good to me!” and will then vote to confirm.
Succinct and I don’t disagree at all cleek, but I wonder how Flake conveyed to Grassley that the FBI investigation was necessary. The TPM link has a hot mic exchange and I wonder if Grassley’s ‘gentlemen’s and women’s agreement’ means that this was a combination of Flake and Collins and/or Murkowski.
Succinct and I don’t disagree at all cleek, but I wonder how Flake conveyed to Grassley that the FBI investigation was necessary. The TPM link has a hot mic exchange and I wonder if Grassley’s ‘gentlemen’s and women’s agreement’ means that this was a combination of Flake and Collins and/or Murkowski.
From what I’ve seen, Flake huddled with both Murkowski and Collins. And then told Grassley (and McConnell) that the three of them would be No votes when it got to the Senate floor, absent reopening the FBI investigation.
So while it’s a “gentlemen’s agreement”, he’s also got a gun to their heads.
I agree that it’s still more likely than not that Flake will vote to confirm. (Although that elevator confrontation seems to have shaken him badly.) But that’s assuming the FBI finds nada. Any sign, e.g. from Judge, that Kavanaugh has kied, about anything during his testimony and he’s toast.
From what I’ve seen, Flake huddled with both Murkowski and Collins. And then told Grassley (and McConnell) that the three of them would be No votes when it got to the Senate floor, absent reopening the FBI investigation.
So while it’s a “gentlemen’s agreement”, he’s also got a gun to their heads.
I agree that it’s still more likely than not that Flake will vote to confirm. (Although that elevator confrontation seems to have shaken him badly.) But that’s assuming the FBI finds nada. Any sign, e.g. from Judge, that Kavanaugh has kied, about anything during his testimony and he’s toast.
One other detail (for whatever it may be worth). The ABA also called for reopening the FBI investigation. “Deciding to proceed without conducting an additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court,” ABA President Robert Carlson wrote. This as Kavanaugh was including the ABA’s earlier endorsement in his rant about how qualified he is.
Dominoes falling?
One other detail (for whatever it may be worth). The ABA also called for reopening the FBI investigation. “Deciding to proceed without conducting an additional investigation would not only have a lasting impact on the Senate’s reputation, but it will also negatively affect the great trust necessary for the American people to have in the Supreme Court,” ABA President Robert Carlson wrote. This as Kavanaugh was including the ABA’s earlier endorsement in his rant about how qualified he is.
Dominoes falling?
Any sign, e.g. from Judge, that Kavanaugh has lied, about anything during his testimony and he’s toast.
Except that the lying was already obvious, and Flake wasn’t moved by that.
I don’t know what motivates people like Flake and Sasse who talk a good game, and seem to care about integrity, but no one with a functioning conscience who cares about truth could justify a Kavanaugh yes vote.
Any sign, e.g. from Judge, that Kavanaugh has lied, about anything during his testimony and he’s toast.
Except that the lying was already obvious, and Flake wasn’t moved by that.
I don’t know what motivates people like Flake and Sasse who talk a good game, and seem to care about integrity, but no one with a functioning conscience who cares about truth could justify a Kavanaugh yes vote.
Murkowski telling McConnell that she won’t vote for Kavanaugh on the floor unless Flake gets the FBI investigation is all it took to seal the deal. Flake probably had Murkowski’s promise to do that before he made his demand.
This assumes that McConnell could not count on Heitkamp or Manchin to defect.
Maybe Collins backed up Flake and Murkowski, maybe not.
All of the above are still liable to vote for Kavanaugh on the floor no matter what the FBI reports. So it’s possible the drama is just a well-orchestrated sideshow.
Strutting bantam Lindsey Graham would still vote for Kavanaugh if the FBI turned up actual videotape of young Brett committing actual rape. To preserve the dignity of future nominees, don’t you know. Folksy old god-botherer Kennedy would also. Anybody who thinks the Republicans are less committed to shoving Kavanaugh’s ass into a SCOTUS seat than Democrats are to blocking him is too foolish to argue with.
The sex-and-drinking stuff is a sideshow because for Republicans not-a-rapist is perfectly adequate qualification for a SCOTUS nominee, and transparent lies are not a disqualification.
–TP
Murkowski telling McConnell that she won’t vote for Kavanaugh on the floor unless Flake gets the FBI investigation is all it took to seal the deal. Flake probably had Murkowski’s promise to do that before he made his demand.
This assumes that McConnell could not count on Heitkamp or Manchin to defect.
Maybe Collins backed up Flake and Murkowski, maybe not.
All of the above are still liable to vote for Kavanaugh on the floor no matter what the FBI reports. So it’s possible the drama is just a well-orchestrated sideshow.
Strutting bantam Lindsey Graham would still vote for Kavanaugh if the FBI turned up actual videotape of young Brett committing actual rape. To preserve the dignity of future nominees, don’t you know. Folksy old god-botherer Kennedy would also. Anybody who thinks the Republicans are less committed to shoving Kavanaugh’s ass into a SCOTUS seat than Democrats are to blocking him is too foolish to argue with.
The sex-and-drinking stuff is a sideshow because for Republicans not-a-rapist is perfectly adequate qualification for a SCOTUS nominee, and transparent lies are not a disqualification.
–TP
I stand corrected. Flake had spoken with Murkowski and she was onboard. But he had not spoken with Collins.
I stand corrected. Flake had spoken with Murkowski and she was onboard. But he had not spoken with Collins.
Except that the lying was already obvious, and Flake wasn’t moved by that.
Yes, it was obvious. I’d say blatantly obvious.
But what it wasn’t, thanks to careful management by Grassley, was contradicted on the record. The FBI report may change that.
Except that the lying was already obvious, and Flake wasn’t moved by that.
Yes, it was obvious. I’d say blatantly obvious.
But what it wasn’t, thanks to careful management by Grassley, was contradicted on the record. The FBI report may change that.
I don’t now what “contradicted on the record” means. Do Grassley et al pretend that “Devil’s Triangle was just a drinking game” is not “on the record”, or that it’s to be believed by not-stupid people, or what?
–TP
I don’t now what “contradicted on the record” means. Do Grassley et al pretend that “Devil’s Triangle was just a drinking game” is not “on the record”, or that it’s to be believed by not-stupid people, or what?
–TP
I think what motivates Sasse is that he loves being a pedant and talking about virtue, but he’s also enough of a partisan ideologue to go all in on his opponent’s motes while ignoring his own side’s beams.
IOW he’s a sophist building his own brand in the image of Buckley out of what Trilling aptly described as “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas”
I think what motivates Sasse is that he loves being a pedant and talking about virtue, but he’s also enough of a partisan ideologue to go all in on his opponent’s motes while ignoring his own side’s beams.
IOW he’s a sophist building his own brand in the image of Buckley out of what Trilling aptly described as “irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas”
“contradicted on the record” means someone said, either in front of the committee or in the official FBI report, something which contradicts or conflicts with it.
Just “we all know better” isn’t sufficient. Because there are plenty of stupid, or wilfully ignorant, people out there. Unfortunately, many of them vote. On the record means there’s something clearly beyond rumor to smack them with.
“contradicted on the record” means someone said, either in front of the committee or in the official FBI report, something which contradicts or conflicts with it.
Just “we all know better” isn’t sufficient. Because there are plenty of stupid, or wilfully ignorant, people out there. Unfortunately, many of them vote. On the record means there’s something clearly beyond rumor to smack them with.
“irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas”
That’s a great line.
*****
Where I am now (per the title of the post) is: still processing what I heard of the hearings, because that’s much more interesting to me than trying to game out the next and next and next moves of senators, much less of Clickbait.
Per my sometimes horrified, sometimes bemused fascination with the question of why we do what we do, a moment from one of BK’s answers came back to me just now. The topic was high school/underage drinking, and IIRC he was answering at obfuscatory length, and his answer included something to the effect that “Well, I was underage, yes, but the seniors were legal.”
So….so what? So…that’s more okay than if he bought alcohol his own underage self? He drank the alcohol his friends furnished him illegally, but he didn’t actually buy it, so….what?
I see this as just another chapter in the teenage-style project of misdirection, of filling the air with lots of factoids and assertions and speculations and side stories in hopes that your parents won’t notice that you actually haven’t answered the question, or that they’ll get tired of the game before you do, or that this senator’s five minutes will expire ditto.
Of course, in this case a lot of people noticed, much good will it do us.
“irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas”
That’s a great line.
*****
Where I am now (per the title of the post) is: still processing what I heard of the hearings, because that’s much more interesting to me than trying to game out the next and next and next moves of senators, much less of Clickbait.
Per my sometimes horrified, sometimes bemused fascination with the question of why we do what we do, a moment from one of BK’s answers came back to me just now. The topic was high school/underage drinking, and IIRC he was answering at obfuscatory length, and his answer included something to the effect that “Well, I was underage, yes, but the seniors were legal.”
So….so what? So…that’s more okay than if he bought alcohol his own underage self? He drank the alcohol his friends furnished him illegally, but he didn’t actually buy it, so….what?
I see this as just another chapter in the teenage-style project of misdirection, of filling the air with lots of factoids and assertions and speculations and side stories in hopes that your parents won’t notice that you actually haven’t answered the question, or that they’ll get tired of the game before you do, or that this senator’s five minutes will expire ditto.
Of course, in this case a lot of people noticed, much good will it do us.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-difference-between-ford-and.html
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-difference-between-ford-and.html
The thing about FBI investigations (and the reason it was being resisted) is you don’t know, let alone control, where they will go.
FBI reaches out to second woman who has accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct
The woman in this case being Kavanaugh’s fellow Yale student, Ms Ramirez.
The thing about FBI investigations (and the reason it was being resisted) is you don’t know, let alone control, where they will go.
FBI reaches out to second woman who has accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct
The woman in this case being Kavanaugh’s fellow Yale student, Ms Ramirez.
Cue FBI-as-Deep-State rants in 5, 4, 3, …
Cue FBI-as-Deep-State rants in 5, 4, 3, …
wj: On the record means there’s something clearly beyond rumor to smack them with.
I don’t believe that “on the record” will persuade the kind of people who already dismiss the evidence of their own eyes and ears.
I agree that it’s just barely possible Flake, Murkowski, and Collins will say “My common sense wasn’t enough to figure out that Kavanaugh lied to my face, but now that the FBI says so …”
Of course that “…” may translate as “Tut, tut, but it’s not enough to vote him down”. We shall see.
–TP
wj: On the record means there’s something clearly beyond rumor to smack them with.
I don’t believe that “on the record” will persuade the kind of people who already dismiss the evidence of their own eyes and ears.
I agree that it’s just barely possible Flake, Murkowski, and Collins will say “My common sense wasn’t enough to figure out that Kavanaugh lied to my face, but now that the FBI says so …”
Of course that “…” may translate as “Tut, tut, but it’s not enough to vote him down”. We shall see.
–TP
Tony, my sense (or maybe naive hope) is that there are a few Senators who are basically looking for an excuse to vote against Kavanaugh. “Excuse” as in “something that they think will avoid losing their next election”. That’s a sad commentary on them, to be sure. But it’s the hand we’ve got to play.
Tony, my sense (or maybe naive hope) is that there are a few Senators who are basically looking for an excuse to vote against Kavanaugh. “Excuse” as in “something that they think will avoid losing their next election”. That’s a sad commentary on them, to be sure. But it’s the hand we’ve got to play.
wj…it seems like a forlorn hope to me, call it naive if you want. I don’t think they’re looking for an excuse to vote him down, I think it’s more like “maybe the horse will talk.”
wj…it seems like a forlorn hope to me, call it naive if you want. I don’t think they’re looking for an excuse to vote him down, I think it’s more like “maybe the horse will talk.”
Janie, for the overwhelming majority of Republican Senators, I would agree. Except that majority, although huge, isn’t actually overwhelming. For the simple reason that voting Kavanaugh down only requires a couple of them.
I think Murkowski is in the “searching for an excuse” category. Flake may be — else why bother here?
Even Collins isn’t impossible. I think she would rather toe the party line. But what is she seeing in the electoral environment back there in Maine? Not what is the environment, but what does she think it is?
Janie, for the overwhelming majority of Republican Senators, I would agree. Except that majority, although huge, isn’t actually overwhelming. For the simple reason that voting Kavanaugh down only requires a couple of them.
I think Murkowski is in the “searching for an excuse” category. Flake may be — else why bother here?
Even Collins isn’t impossible. I think she would rather toe the party line. But what is she seeing in the electoral environment back there in Maine? Not what is the environment, but what does she think it is?
I don’t know what she’s seeing in Maine, or what she thinks she’s seeing.
But I think she’s more likely to be looking to be let off the hook for voting yes than the other way around. An FBI investigation that doesn’t find anything much will let her say “at least we tried.” And since he is obviously an upstanding choir boy, that’s all she’ll need.
That’s not a statement about her electoral prospects (I have in fact heard rumors that she might not run again, but that’s very thin gruel), it’s a bet about what she’ll do without something very big from the FBI that would let her point to it for the opposite reason.
I don’t know what she’s seeing in Maine, or what she thinks she’s seeing.
But I think she’s more likely to be looking to be let off the hook for voting yes than the other way around. An FBI investigation that doesn’t find anything much will let her say “at least we tried.” And since he is obviously an upstanding choir boy, that’s all she’ll need.
That’s not a statement about her electoral prospects (I have in fact heard rumors that she might not run again, but that’s very thin gruel), it’s a bet about what she’ll do without something very big from the FBI that would let her point to it for the opposite reason.
Push play. Turn up volume.
https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1045747245939871746?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1045815031928160256&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
Push play. Turn up volume.
https://twitter.com/girlsreallyrule/status/1045747245939871746?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1045815031928160256&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
Cue FBI-as-Deep-State rants in 5, 4, 3, …
lesser minds are already there!
if you can stomach ZeroHedge, they were going on the other day about how Ford is in with the CIA (and so is SunTrust bank! cripes! that makes me an accomplice!)
Cue FBI-as-Deep-State rants in 5, 4, 3, …
lesser minds are already there!
if you can stomach ZeroHedge, they were going on the other day about how Ford is in with the CIA (and so is SunTrust bank! cripes! that makes me an accomplice!)
wj, what do you think the FBI can find out that would give these senators a clear path to voting no?
It seems unlikely that anything can be proven about Ford’s allegations directly, short of Mark Judge swearing under oath that what she says happened, happened. But it seems far more likely that he too was too blind drunk to remember, and that he wouldn’t swear anyhow.
So, other people coming forward? As with Cosby and others, the sheer numbers overwhelming doubt, either about his treatment of women or his continued drinking habits? But it seems like that would have happened already if it was going to at all.
Or maybe — it seems the likeliest — lots of little chips of factoids that show how much he’s been lying. “Devil’s Triangle,” etc. etc. etc. etc. But I don’t think our dear senator from Maine will vote “no” on that stuff. I don’t know about the others.
wj, what do you think the FBI can find out that would give these senators a clear path to voting no?
It seems unlikely that anything can be proven about Ford’s allegations directly, short of Mark Judge swearing under oath that what she says happened, happened. But it seems far more likely that he too was too blind drunk to remember, and that he wouldn’t swear anyhow.
So, other people coming forward? As with Cosby and others, the sheer numbers overwhelming doubt, either about his treatment of women or his continued drinking habits? But it seems like that would have happened already if it was going to at all.
Or maybe — it seems the likeliest — lots of little chips of factoids that show how much he’s been lying. “Devil’s Triangle,” etc. etc. etc. etc. But I don’t think our dear senator from Maine will vote “no” on that stuff. I don’t know about the others.
Convoluted, but from the Twitter account of Ben Wittes, apparently a friend of BK and until recently (although it’s stated only very obliquely at the top of the thread) a big booster:
HT BJ.
Convoluted, but from the Twitter account of Ben Wittes, apparently a friend of BK and until recently (although it’s stated only very obliquely at the top of the thread) a big booster:
HT BJ.
For clarity’s sake, those comments are in response to something Wittes wrote, they’re not his. His is buried in a reference to a legal case.
For clarity’s sake, those comments are in response to something Wittes wrote, they’re not his. His is buried in a reference to a legal case.
Can anybody enlighten me about what “the accusations of “training” are”? I listened to the whole 9 hours, and don’t remember anything about training except football training etc.
Can anybody enlighten me about what “the accusations of “training” are”? I listened to the whole 9 hours, and don’t remember anything about training except football training etc.
Wow on that Appeals Court opinion, JanieM. That could do for him!
Wow on that Appeals Court opinion, JanieM. That could do for him!
“training” is the alleged gang rape, i believe. the boys were lined up like train cars, waiting their turn.
“training” is the alleged gang rape, i believe. the boys were lined up like train cars, waiting their turn.
Oh I see, thanks cleek.
Oh I see, thanks cleek.
They called it “pulling a train” when I was a teenager….so the usage is at least that old.
They called it “pulling a train” when I was a teenager….so the usage is at least that old.
Interesting, I’d never heard that usage over here, but that could just be me.
Interesting, I’d never heard that usage over here, but that could just be me.
In all honesty, I’m pretty sure I only ever heard it said out loud once in my life, but it was said in a context, and about a person, such that I never forgot it.
In all honesty, I’m pretty sure I only ever heard it said out loud once in my life, but it was said in a context, and about a person, such that I never forgot it.
I think a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand how this country works.
There’s a poll going around showing horrifyingly high numbers of conservatives think K should be confirmed even if the accusations are true.
A lot of people on the left are taking that seriously, and merging it with a lot of other features of their world view to add up to a critique of conservatives and conservative culture as degenerate. Pundits like Matthew Yglesias are writing post after post about how the real issue here is that conservatives just don’t think it’s BAD to drunkenly hold a girl down and cover her mouth so she can’t scream as you try to rip her clothes off.
I think that fundamentally misunderstands the way conservatives relate to “beliefs.”
When conservatives advocate birtherism they aren’t describing a belief they cane to hold. When they say Trumps behavior is fine they’re not describing their real feelings. When they talk about soldiers and America it’s not something they actually think. When they talk about JESUS it’s not what they actually believe.
There’s a giant category error in how people think about this. These things aren’t their beliefs because they haven’t got beliefs. They’re making noises with their mouth holes. They know who they like and who they hate, and like Trump himself, anyone they like they praise in whatever way seems most obvious, and whoever they hate they condemn in whatever way seems easy and familiar.
They aren’t changing their minds when it’s convenient because their beliefs never ran deep enough for that to begin with. We don’t need to hypothesixe a reason for why they, for example, act as though they have 180 opposite opinions on gun control depending on whether we’re discussing Chicago or Mexico. They never had opinions. They had attitudes, and like water flowing downhill they made the mouth sounds necessary to justify them.
The Yglesias types think that conservative opinions need an explanation that can be found by harmonizing the things they do and say, but they’re trying to infer the shape of something that isn’t even there.
I think a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand how this country works.
There’s a poll going around showing horrifyingly high numbers of conservatives think K should be confirmed even if the accusations are true.
A lot of people on the left are taking that seriously, and merging it with a lot of other features of their world view to add up to a critique of conservatives and conservative culture as degenerate. Pundits like Matthew Yglesias are writing post after post about how the real issue here is that conservatives just don’t think it’s BAD to drunkenly hold a girl down and cover her mouth so she can’t scream as you try to rip her clothes off.
I think that fundamentally misunderstands the way conservatives relate to “beliefs.”
When conservatives advocate birtherism they aren’t describing a belief they cane to hold. When they say Trumps behavior is fine they’re not describing their real feelings. When they talk about soldiers and America it’s not something they actually think. When they talk about JESUS it’s not what they actually believe.
There’s a giant category error in how people think about this. These things aren’t their beliefs because they haven’t got beliefs. They’re making noises with their mouth holes. They know who they like and who they hate, and like Trump himself, anyone they like they praise in whatever way seems most obvious, and whoever they hate they condemn in whatever way seems easy and familiar.
They aren’t changing their minds when it’s convenient because their beliefs never ran deep enough for that to begin with. We don’t need to hypothesixe a reason for why they, for example, act as though they have 180 opposite opinions on gun control depending on whether we’re discussing Chicago or Mexico. They never had opinions. They had attitudes, and like water flowing downhill they made the mouth sounds necessary to justify them.
The Yglesias types think that conservative opinions need an explanation that can be found by harmonizing the things they do and say, but they’re trying to infer the shape of something that isn’t even there.
wj, what do you think the FBI can find out that would give these senators a clear path to voting no?
I don’t have a lot of hope that they will find evidence to support Ford. Although what Judge might say is anyone’s guess. Given how hard they have worked to avoid having him testify….
But what I think they may well find is evidence/testimony that directly contradicts something (probably a lot of somethings) that Kavanaugh said in his testimony. That is, evidence of perjury. His drinking seems like a likely possibility, but there may also be other stuff as well — maybe something in the additional documents which are (slowly!) coming out, which there will now be time to process some more of.
wj, what do you think the FBI can find out that would give these senators a clear path to voting no?
I don’t have a lot of hope that they will find evidence to support Ford. Although what Judge might say is anyone’s guess. Given how hard they have worked to avoid having him testify….
But what I think they may well find is evidence/testimony that directly contradicts something (probably a lot of somethings) that Kavanaugh said in his testimony. That is, evidence of perjury. His drinking seems like a likely possibility, but there may also be other stuff as well — maybe something in the additional documents which are (slowly!) coming out, which there will now be time to process some more of.
Yes, I can imagine. We have a rather revolting expression here, recently publicised in the trial of a professional footballer accused of rape, of “spit-roasting”, which refers to a man at each end of the same woman simultaneously. But I can’t, offhand, think of an expression for men waiting in line, whether for a gang rape or a consensual orgy situation.
Yes, I can imagine. We have a rather revolting expression here, recently publicised in the trial of a professional footballer accused of rape, of “spit-roasting”, which refers to a man at each end of the same woman simultaneously. But I can’t, offhand, think of an expression for men waiting in line, whether for a gang rape or a consensual orgy situation.
My comment relates to Janie’s 04.01
My comment relates to Janie’s 04.01
They never had opinions. They had attitudes, and like water flowing downhill they made the mouth sounds necessary to justify them.
This, and the rest of Patrick’s comment, is fascinating and, to the extent it is persuasive (which is to say rather), depressing. The only thing is, I have a feeiing it describes some groups other than conservatives as well.
They never had opinions. They had attitudes, and like water flowing downhill they made the mouth sounds necessary to justify them.
This, and the rest of Patrick’s comment, is fascinating and, to the extent it is persuasive (which is to say rather), depressing. The only thing is, I have a feeiing it describes some groups other than conservatives as well.
In the few times that I’ve encountered the expression, “pulling a train,” it implied a consensual situation.
In the few times that I’ve encountered the expression, “pulling a train,” it implied a consensual situation.
It’s going to be a pro forma farce.
Just enough cover for yes votes.
It’s going to be a pro forma farce.
Just enough cover for yes votes.
Two things at once.
First someone is looking for a good enough reason to say no, or a terrible enough confirmable revelation to cause a withdrawal. I have no idea what that would look like, and I suspect an FBI investigation won’t turn it up but who knows.
Second, someone wants time to see how this polls out before they commit to a vote. So if anyone want to poll you, do it.
Two things at once.
First someone is looking for a good enough reason to say no, or a terrible enough confirmable revelation to cause a withdrawal. I have no idea what that would look like, and I suspect an FBI investigation won’t turn it up but who knows.
Second, someone wants time to see how this polls out before they commit to a vote. So if anyone want to poll you, do it.
Not a good pick. Too partisan.
Apologies for the paywall, if I can find it somewhere else I will re-link.
Not a good pick. Too partisan.
Apologies for the paywall, if I can find it somewhere else I will re-link.
I’ll say the same thing, again, and I’ll keep on saying it.
Kavanaugh is not a good pick for the SCOTUS. He is too partisan an actor.
Trump should nominate somebody else.
There is a freaking conga line of bright shiny Federalist justices who would not bring Kavanaugh’s baggage. Pick one of those.
From my point of view that would still suck, because it would result in a majority of justices who are, not just conservative by temperament or inclination, but doctrinaire originalist hard-liners.
And the reason *that* would suck is not because my personal preferences would not prevail, but because, in bold caps:
IT WILL COMPROMISE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SCOTUS AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL ARBITER OF WHAT LAW DOES, AND SHOULD, MEAN.
It’s actually valuable for the SCOTUS to be seen as a non-partisan institution. The (R)’s are going to destroy that.
And that’s why this whole (R) kabuki clown show is so much, much, much worse than just a kabuki clown show.
They want power, and they are perfectly fine with breaking stuff – valuable, essential stuff – to get it.
That is gonna come back on them. So be it.
I’ll say the same thing, again, and I’ll keep on saying it.
Kavanaugh is not a good pick for the SCOTUS. He is too partisan an actor.
Trump should nominate somebody else.
There is a freaking conga line of bright shiny Federalist justices who would not bring Kavanaugh’s baggage. Pick one of those.
From my point of view that would still suck, because it would result in a majority of justices who are, not just conservative by temperament or inclination, but doctrinaire originalist hard-liners.
And the reason *that* would suck is not because my personal preferences would not prevail, but because, in bold caps:
IT WILL COMPROMISE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SCOTUS AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL ARBITER OF WHAT LAW DOES, AND SHOULD, MEAN.
It’s actually valuable for the SCOTUS to be seen as a non-partisan institution. The (R)’s are going to destroy that.
And that’s why this whole (R) kabuki clown show is so much, much, much worse than just a kabuki clown show.
They want power, and they are perfectly fine with breaking stuff – valuable, essential stuff – to get it.
That is gonna come back on them. So be it.
russell, I dont necessarily agree with needing a fair and non partisan institution. But if Hilary were picking this pick it would end up 5-4 partisans the other way. So, while I agree on the goal, I prefer this reality to the alternative.
russell, I dont necessarily agree with needing a fair and non partisan institution. But if Hilary were picking this pick it would end up 5-4 partisans the other way. So, while I agree on the goal, I prefer this reality to the alternative.
Janie, I’m thinking that the White House restricting who the FBI can talk to, i.e. the pro forma farce, may turn out to be counterproductive. (Which would be in pattern for them.) At least if they want to give some Senators the patina of fairness to justify voting for him.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see who they restrict the FBI to talking to.
Janie, I’m thinking that the White House restricting who the FBI can talk to, i.e. the pro forma farce, may turn out to be counterproductive. (Which would be in pattern for them.) At least if they want to give some Senators the patina of fairness to justify voting for him.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see who they restrict the FBI to talking to.
But if Hilary were picking this pick it would end up 5-4 partisans the other way.
there is absolutely 0 chance any nominee HRC would have put up would have sat there shouting at Senators, cutting them off, screaming like Alex Jones about conspiracies by the GOP to make him/her look bad.
as russell has been saying for days now: it’s not that Kavanaugh has opinions. it’s that he is so naked and brazenly partisan (and a flaming asshole, to boot) that it actually makes one think that he will be acting in large part as a Republican operative, and not a judge.
why you refuse to acknowledge that remains a mystery.
But if Hilary were picking this pick it would end up 5-4 partisans the other way.
there is absolutely 0 chance any nominee HRC would have put up would have sat there shouting at Senators, cutting them off, screaming like Alex Jones about conspiracies by the GOP to make him/her look bad.
as russell has been saying for days now: it’s not that Kavanaugh has opinions. it’s that he is so naked and brazenly partisan (and a flaming asshole, to boot) that it actually makes one think that he will be acting in large part as a Republican operative, and not a judge.
why you refuse to acknowledge that remains a mystery.
Marty, do you mean you don’t necessarily DISagree with needing a fair and non-partisan institution? Your last sentence suggests that.
Marty, do you mean you don’t necessarily DISagree with needing a fair and non-partisan institution? Your last sentence suggests that.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see who they restrict the FBI to talking to
“whatever you do, don’t talk to Kavanaugh’s old roomie Rapey McRapeyface!”
The Trumpies cleverness is only exceeded by their self-delusion.
If nothing else, it will be interesting to see who they restrict the FBI to talking to
“whatever you do, don’t talk to Kavanaugh’s old roomie Rapey McRapeyface!”
The Trumpies cleverness is only exceeded by their self-delusion.
Tactically, the best option for the Ds would be if they fail to stop Kavanaugh being confirmed now and can then impeach him when next they get control of the Senate. Assuming that the lies he’s told in his testimony amount to an impeachable offence.
Tactically, the best option for the Ds would be if they fail to stop Kavanaugh being confirmed now and can then impeach him when next they get control of the Senate. Assuming that the lies he’s told in his testimony amount to an impeachable offence.
Since Maryland misdemeanors were referenced in the previous thread.
“In particular, while in most of the rest of the country misdemeanors are defined by their comparatively light punishments (usually a year or less in jail), in Maryland misdemeanors can lead to long prison terms, up to life in prison (as in this 1982 attempted rape case). The same is true of misdemeanor attempt; as a 1984 Maryland high court case put it,
Maryland misdemeanors, then, aren’t (and weren’t) necessarily minor crimes, or crimes with a minor maximum penalty; certainly attempts to commit serious felonies aren’t minor crimes. But they do (and did) carry with them different procedural rules, including the statute of limitations, which is the point that the police department letter mentioned.”
Maryland Misdemeanor Law: What Maryland calls “misdemeanors” is very different from what other states do.
Since Maryland misdemeanors were referenced in the previous thread.
“In particular, while in most of the rest of the country misdemeanors are defined by their comparatively light punishments (usually a year or less in jail), in Maryland misdemeanors can lead to long prison terms, up to life in prison (as in this 1982 attempted rape case). The same is true of misdemeanor attempt; as a 1984 Maryland high court case put it,
Maryland misdemeanors, then, aren’t (and weren’t) necessarily minor crimes, or crimes with a minor maximum penalty; certainly attempts to commit serious felonies aren’t minor crimes. But they do (and did) carry with them different procedural rules, including the statute of limitations, which is the point that the police department letter mentioned.”
Maryland Misdemeanor Law: What Maryland calls “misdemeanors” is very different from what other states do.
cleek, you have no idea how any judge might act if they were accused of rape, convicted in the press and called a liar by the Senators. No Democratic nominee would have been treated this way. The Democrats have destroyed one institution, the Senate, we shouldn’t let them destroy Kavanaugh on their way to destroying the court.
cleek, you have no idea how any judge might act if they were accused of rape, convicted in the press and called a liar by the Senators. No Democratic nominee would have been treated this way. The Democrats have destroyed one institution, the Senate, we shouldn’t let them destroy Kavanaugh on their way to destroying the court.
Charles, thanks for that clarification. (I learn something new every day here!)
But the statue of limitations has still elapsed.
Charles, thanks for that clarification. (I learn something new every day here!)
But the statue of limitations has still elapsed.
Gftnc, yes, thanks.
Gftnc, yes, thanks.
Pro Bono: ain’t gonna happen:
To convict someone who has been impeached, a two-thirds majority vote is required by the Senate.
Unless you just mean that they could try him to discredit him without actually having a prayer of removing him.
Pro Bono: ain’t gonna happen:
To convict someone who has been impeached, a two-thirds majority vote is required by the Senate.
Unless you just mean that they could try him to discredit him without actually having a prayer of removing him.
Thanks JanieM, I forgot the rules.
Thanks JanieM, I forgot the rules.
The Democrats have destroyed one institution, the Senate,
WTF ?
i got two words for you:
MERRICK GARLAND
The Democrats have destroyed one institution, the Senate,
WTF ?
i got two words for you:
MERRICK GARLAND
Every time russell comments he throws in that Trump should withdraw the nomination and pick a moderate judge, that is the real desire here.
Speaking for myself: absolutely Trump should pick a moderate judge. Regardless of the truth of Kavanaugh’s personal failings, it’s wrong to be packing the Supreme Court with political partisans. And the same would apply if Hillary Clinton were president. Or Barack Obama.
The Court should represent a range of views and backgrounds – Obama was right to appoint Sotomayor. But its political balance should be roughly in the US centre. The Court is already well to the right of that.
What other country has a very powerful and highly politicized Supreme Court?
Every time russell comments he throws in that Trump should withdraw the nomination and pick a moderate judge, that is the real desire here.
Speaking for myself: absolutely Trump should pick a moderate judge. Regardless of the truth of Kavanaugh’s personal failings, it’s wrong to be packing the Supreme Court with political partisans. And the same would apply if Hillary Clinton were president. Or Barack Obama.
The Court should represent a range of views and backgrounds – Obama was right to appoint Sotomayor. But its political balance should be roughly in the US centre. The Court is already well to the right of that.
What other country has a very powerful and highly politicized Supreme Court?
No Democratic nominee would have been treated this way.
nobody has yet demanded to see his long-form birth certificate. he hasn’t been accused of “paling around with terrorists”. he hasn’t been accused of killing Vince Foster.
how he is being “treated”?
either you care about rape or you don’t. either you care about the truth or you don’t. either you care about letting a guy who attempted to rape a 15 year old girl on the Court or you don’t.
if you care about any of that, you should be more interested in the results of the FBI investigation than the fact that Team GOP might have to cool it’s fucking jets for a week.
No Democratic nominee would have been treated this way.
nobody has yet demanded to see his long-form birth certificate. he hasn’t been accused of “paling around with terrorists”. he hasn’t been accused of killing Vince Foster.
how he is being “treated”?
either you care about rape or you don’t. either you care about the truth or you don’t. either you care about letting a guy who attempted to rape a 15 year old girl on the Court or you don’t.
if you care about any of that, you should be more interested in the results of the FBI investigation than the fact that Team GOP might have to cool it’s fucking jets for a week.
did he commit a crime? i don’t know! quit treating him so badly by wanting to find out!
is he a liar, under oath? yes! but that’s just because someone accused him of a crime that we don’t want to investigate because it would be demoralizing right before an election if it turns out there’s evidence against him!
STUF UP LIBZ! It’s OUR SEAT ! OURS!OURS!OURS!OURS!OURS!
did he commit a crime? i don’t know! quit treating him so badly by wanting to find out!
is he a liar, under oath? yes! but that’s just because someone accused him of a crime that we don’t want to investigate because it would be demoralizing right before an election if it turns out there’s evidence against him!
STUF UP LIBZ! It’s OUR SEAT ! OURS!OURS!OURS!OURS!OURS!
re Whitehouse: Uh. . . no. Seriously silly. We’ll just have to disagree.
Do I understand this right? Kavanaugh’s miraculously preserved diary shows a house party during “beach week” of exactly the sort Ford described
I’m pretty sure the beach week took place at beaches a couple of hours away from where Ford said the party took place.
Ford said, and confirmed that there were “at least” 4 boys present.
Ford: She has said: 1)four people present; 2) four boys and a couple of girls; 3) me and four others and finally at the hearing: 4)at least four boys.
No kidding. As if the answer to a yes-or-no question is a fifteen-minute prestidigitative walk down memory lane
Lol. No, I was just referring to Booker.
She [his wife] has no reason not to back him 100% unless she’s privy to information none of the rest of us are.
Exactly. It was just one piece of info, nothing more.
She knew Kavanaugh So either is she is lying or she is telling the truth. It is not possible that she would be mistaken.
Really? Not possible?
I’m inclined to side with Morris in this narrow case.
Nous, is Morris referring to people with otherwise normal psyche’s? Because my understanding (admittedly limited and mostly from legal cases I’ve been involved with) suggests that there are situations where the psychological state of the victim and other psychological pressures can affect identification, especially down the road. That is why I would ask Ford for all therapist notes and whether she has a diagnosis of PTSD for this or some other event or any other diagnoses.
Yes, the constant repetition about Yale came across as quite creepy and weird
Not creepy but weird to me too. He seemed to be trying to emphasize that for him he couldn’t party and do well at Yale because it was tough. But it didn’t come across that way.
He kept saying they “refuted” it, which is laughable,
But he referred to all the witnesses that Ford said were there, not just Keyser. Keyser said:
“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford”
Judge said: “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”
P.J: “I have no knowledge of the party in question” and “I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”
Kavanaugh obviously categorically denies the charge.
“Refute” can mean contradict, but more commonly means disproves. As an advocate, I’m sure I’ve used it for the “small r” meaning. But when you have two people saying “It did not happen,” one saying “I have no knowledge of that party” and “I’ve never seem him act disrespectfully towards women” and her own friend saying “I don’t recall ever being at a party with Kavanaugh”, it is fair to say you have refuted the accusation.
But again, arguing you have refuted it and the fact finder finding in your favor are two different things. Obviously. Look here.
Some folks here need to ‘man up’ as they say and apologize for claims that Feinstein did this.
Because only direct leaks count, right? And Feinstein is stupid enough to directly leak it? I think someone else leaked it.
I was mad at Feinstein because she could have brought up an anonymous source without naming Ford just after she learned of it, questioned Kavanaugh in closed session, but did not.
Deeply horrible people. I wish them ill.
Just wow.
First of all, who cares about lies? Look at bc and Marty. They’re fine with it.
sapient: Now I see the pie filter comment in its true light. You WERE saying I should be filtered as spam, right? Ad hominem much?
Btw, I found the question (I think) you said I didn’t answer. I’ll answer it. I just missed it when it was buried in all the Ford/Kavanaugh discussion.
As to the calendar, I found it more interesting that Garrett was there and she went out with Garrett at some point. If she were there, wouldn’t she have remembered Garrett?
And as for me being ok with lies, I am not. Nor am I ok with sexual assault in any form. I have four daughters, and while I do not have the first-hand experience of the too many victims of such assault, it isn’t hard for me to personalize it to the extent I am able.
re Whitehouse: Uh. . . no. Seriously silly. We’ll just have to disagree.
Do I understand this right? Kavanaugh’s miraculously preserved diary shows a house party during “beach week” of exactly the sort Ford described
I’m pretty sure the beach week took place at beaches a couple of hours away from where Ford said the party took place.
Ford said, and confirmed that there were “at least” 4 boys present.
Ford: She has said: 1)four people present; 2) four boys and a couple of girls; 3) me and four others and finally at the hearing: 4)at least four boys.
No kidding. As if the answer to a yes-or-no question is a fifteen-minute prestidigitative walk down memory lane
Lol. No, I was just referring to Booker.
She [his wife] has no reason not to back him 100% unless she’s privy to information none of the rest of us are.
Exactly. It was just one piece of info, nothing more.
She knew Kavanaugh So either is she is lying or she is telling the truth. It is not possible that she would be mistaken.
Really? Not possible?
I’m inclined to side with Morris in this narrow case.
Nous, is Morris referring to people with otherwise normal psyche’s? Because my understanding (admittedly limited and mostly from legal cases I’ve been involved with) suggests that there are situations where the psychological state of the victim and other psychological pressures can affect identification, especially down the road. That is why I would ask Ford for all therapist notes and whether she has a diagnosis of PTSD for this or some other event or any other diagnoses.
Yes, the constant repetition about Yale came across as quite creepy and weird
Not creepy but weird to me too. He seemed to be trying to emphasize that for him he couldn’t party and do well at Yale because it was tough. But it didn’t come across that way.
He kept saying they “refuted” it, which is laughable,
But he referred to all the witnesses that Ford said were there, not just Keyser. Keyser said:
“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford”
Judge said: “I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”
P.J: “I have no knowledge of the party in question” and “I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”
Kavanaugh obviously categorically denies the charge.
“Refute” can mean contradict, but more commonly means disproves. As an advocate, I’m sure I’ve used it for the “small r” meaning. But when you have two people saying “It did not happen,” one saying “I have no knowledge of that party” and “I’ve never seem him act disrespectfully towards women” and her own friend saying “I don’t recall ever being at a party with Kavanaugh”, it is fair to say you have refuted the accusation.
But again, arguing you have refuted it and the fact finder finding in your favor are two different things. Obviously. Look here.
Some folks here need to ‘man up’ as they say and apologize for claims that Feinstein did this.
Because only direct leaks count, right? And Feinstein is stupid enough to directly leak it? I think someone else leaked it.
I was mad at Feinstein because she could have brought up an anonymous source without naming Ford just after she learned of it, questioned Kavanaugh in closed session, but did not.
Deeply horrible people. I wish them ill.
Just wow.
First of all, who cares about lies? Look at bc and Marty. They’re fine with it.
sapient: Now I see the pie filter comment in its true light. You WERE saying I should be filtered as spam, right? Ad hominem much?
Btw, I found the question (I think) you said I didn’t answer. I’ll answer it. I just missed it when it was buried in all the Ford/Kavanaugh discussion.
As to the calendar, I found it more interesting that Garrett was there and she went out with Garrett at some point. If she were there, wouldn’t she have remembered Garrett?
And as for me being ok with lies, I am not. Nor am I ok with sexual assault in any form. I have four daughters, and while I do not have the first-hand experience of the too many victims of such assault, it isn’t hard for me to personalize it to the extent I am able.
bc,
May I assume that you find Whitehouse silly but Lindsey Graham serious?
–TP
bc,
May I assume that you find Whitehouse silly but Lindsey Graham serious?
–TP
The activity called “pulling a train”, I believe, originated with motorcycle gangs, most notably the Hell’s Angels, in the late 1950s and the 1960s.
Tom Wolfe describes his witness of one in “The Electric Koolaid Acid Test”, when he hitched his star to Ken Kesey’s and the Merry Pranksters’ bus, called Further, when they stopped somewhere or other and the Hell’s Angels were encamped nearby.
Next thing you know, Altamont.
Like everything in America, where the magnetic poles have reversed over the past fifty years and the window blinds on the Overton Window have required total refitting, the Hell’s Angels now have bigger gangs to bang, being upstanding tax dodgers and America firsters, not to mention their connection to meth production and distribution, so they threw in with mp’s and the Republican Party fucked up fantasia of fringe fascism:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1489538/hells-angels-gun-slingers-and-off-duty-nuns-we-get-ringside-seat-for-republican-circus/
Of course, their principles, such as they are, are now sorely tested as mp is now pulling a train on Harley Davidson, the gang’s ride when they aren’t riding their women.
So ride Vespas, ya whiners, but patriotism is that thing between their legs. The Harley, that is.
When I think of the practice of pulling a train, which never comes to mind, of course, but it seems like an illustration of those public service commercials for sexual abstinence and/or protection, in which one is cautioned that you may be having sex with every other person your partner has engaged with, except in this case you get to meet most of them personally as they stand around shaking hands with the unemployed while in line.
You could ask me what a “chili cheese dog” is and what “take old one-eye to the optometrist” means too, but like everything, you can look it up yourselves.
Or ask Kavanaugh.
The activity called “pulling a train”, I believe, originated with motorcycle gangs, most notably the Hell’s Angels, in the late 1950s and the 1960s.
Tom Wolfe describes his witness of one in “The Electric Koolaid Acid Test”, when he hitched his star to Ken Kesey’s and the Merry Pranksters’ bus, called Further, when they stopped somewhere or other and the Hell’s Angels were encamped nearby.
Next thing you know, Altamont.
Like everything in America, where the magnetic poles have reversed over the past fifty years and the window blinds on the Overton Window have required total refitting, the Hell’s Angels now have bigger gangs to bang, being upstanding tax dodgers and America firsters, not to mention their connection to meth production and distribution, so they threw in with mp’s and the Republican Party fucked up fantasia of fringe fascism:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1489538/hells-angels-gun-slingers-and-off-duty-nuns-we-get-ringside-seat-for-republican-circus/
Of course, their principles, such as they are, are now sorely tested as mp is now pulling a train on Harley Davidson, the gang’s ride when they aren’t riding their women.
So ride Vespas, ya whiners, but patriotism is that thing between their legs. The Harley, that is.
When I think of the practice of pulling a train, which never comes to mind, of course, but it seems like an illustration of those public service commercials for sexual abstinence and/or protection, in which one is cautioned that you may be having sex with every other person your partner has engaged with, except in this case you get to meet most of them personally as they stand around shaking hands with the unemployed while in line.
You could ask me what a “chili cheese dog” is and what “take old one-eye to the optometrist” means too, but like everything, you can look it up yourselves.
Or ask Kavanaugh.
Merrick Garland tools around on a bicycle.
Merrick Garland tools around on a bicycle.
Mark Judge:
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2018/09/21/brett-kavanaugh-s-friend-mark-judge-advocated-bigotry-and-extremism-and-even-wrote-about-being/221400
also Ms Keyser:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/blasey-ford-friend-does-not-refute-dr-fords-account-of-assault-lawyer-says
Patrick: “They are making noises with their mouth holes”
Note to self: steal that.
Mouth Hole, the next social media platform.
Mark Judge:
https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2018/09/21/brett-kavanaugh-s-friend-mark-judge-advocated-bigotry-and-extremism-and-even-wrote-about-being/221400
also Ms Keyser:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/blasey-ford-friend-does-not-refute-dr-fords-account-of-assault-lawyer-says
Patrick: “They are making noises with their mouth holes”
Note to self: steal that.
Mouth Hole, the next social media platform.
But when you have two people saying “It did not happen,” one saying “I have no knowledge of that party” and “I’ve never seem him act disrespectfully towards women” and her own friend saying “I don’t recall ever being at a party with Kavanaugh”, it is fair to say you have refuted the accusation.
Laughable again. The two people who say it did not happen are the two accused of perpetrating and participating in the assault. Re Leland, it is perfectly possible to be at a party at someone’s house and not know one of the other people there, and therefore not remember being at a party with them. To consider this anything like a refutation, even before the fact that nonetheless she says she believes Ford, is indeed laughable. Which leaves us with PJ, who as you quote, says “I have no knowledge of the party in question” and “I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.” In the name of all that is holy, how do you get a refutation out of any of this? What kind of a lawyer are you?
But when you have two people saying “It did not happen,” one saying “I have no knowledge of that party” and “I’ve never seem him act disrespectfully towards women” and her own friend saying “I don’t recall ever being at a party with Kavanaugh”, it is fair to say you have refuted the accusation.
Laughable again. The two people who say it did not happen are the two accused of perpetrating and participating in the assault. Re Leland, it is perfectly possible to be at a party at someone’s house and not know one of the other people there, and therefore not remember being at a party with them. To consider this anything like a refutation, even before the fact that nonetheless she says she believes Ford, is indeed laughable. Which leaves us with PJ, who as you quote, says “I have no knowledge of the party in question” and “I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.” In the name of all that is holy, how do you get a refutation out of any of this? What kind of a lawyer are you?
TP: While many on the right find Graham’s comments “top 5 in the history of the senate” I disagree. He started off good. He should have stopped, though, soon after he said “when you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them Lindsey Graham said hello” and that he would never have done to them what Feinstein et al had done to Kavanaugh. That was good. He made a fine point. Putting Garland aside (I know that is hard if not impossible), he is right IMHO that if the D’s had wanted the truth, they could have alerted the R’s early on, kept it anonymous and called for an investigation. Feinstein did not. She questioned Kavanaugh and never even asked him about the incident. She recommended an activist lawyer for Ford. IMHO, Feinstein didn’t care about Ford. She, like the other D’s, already had their minds made up. The investigation will not change that even if he is completely exonerated by the investigation.
But making Kavanaugh too much of a victim with a victim in the room isn’t good manners or optics. He would have been more effective pointing out that while Dr. Ford may not feel like anybody’s pawn, she certainly was used as one.
Kavanaugh should have said to Harris: “Senator, if a full FBI investigation comes out in my favor, will you vote for me?”
TP: While many on the right find Graham’s comments “top 5 in the history of the senate” I disagree. He started off good. He should have stopped, though, soon after he said “when you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them Lindsey Graham said hello” and that he would never have done to them what Feinstein et al had done to Kavanaugh. That was good. He made a fine point. Putting Garland aside (I know that is hard if not impossible), he is right IMHO that if the D’s had wanted the truth, they could have alerted the R’s early on, kept it anonymous and called for an investigation. Feinstein did not. She questioned Kavanaugh and never even asked him about the incident. She recommended an activist lawyer for Ford. IMHO, Feinstein didn’t care about Ford. She, like the other D’s, already had their minds made up. The investigation will not change that even if he is completely exonerated by the investigation.
But making Kavanaugh too much of a victim with a victim in the room isn’t good manners or optics. He would have been more effective pointing out that while Dr. Ford may not feel like anybody’s pawn, she certainly was used as one.
Kavanaugh should have said to Harris: “Senator, if a full FBI investigation comes out in my favor, will you vote for me?”
See GFTNC what you just did? No matter how many people dont remember or have never witnessed, it simply cant be proven he didn’t do it. Any fact that could actually be refuted, when, where, how she got there, how she got home, she doesn’t remember.
So he cant say at that time I was in a different place or prove her ride took her someplace he could not have been, etc. and everyone she said could collaborate didnt. No matter who they believe.
He could have been in some house at some time with some group of people somewhere, snd there is no way to prove otherwise.
See GFTNC what you just did? No matter how many people dont remember or have never witnessed, it simply cant be proven he didn’t do it. Any fact that could actually be refuted, when, where, how she got there, how she got home, she doesn’t remember.
So he cant say at that time I was in a different place or prove her ride took her someplace he could not have been, etc. and everyone she said could collaborate didnt. No matter who they believe.
He could have been in some house at some time with some group of people somewhere, snd there is no way to prove otherwise.
corroborate
corroborate
Marty, nobody denies it is hard to get to the truth of something after this kind of time lapse. But for the purposes of this immediate comment, you are not reading what I actually said: Kavanaugh kept saying (again and again) that all of them refuted Ford’s claims, and that is a lie by either meaning of the word refute, let alone by far the most common one, which is disprove. That’s what I just did, showed that Kavanaugh lied.
Marty, nobody denies it is hard to get to the truth of something after this kind of time lapse. But for the purposes of this immediate comment, you are not reading what I actually said: Kavanaugh kept saying (again and again) that all of them refuted Ford’s claims, and that is a lie by either meaning of the word refute, let alone by far the most common one, which is disprove. That’s what I just did, showed that Kavanaugh lied.
No it isn’t a lie and that is a real stretch, could he have said they didn’t corroborate her story, ok that would be better. But that is a pretty trifling semantic argument in my opinion.
No it isn’t a lie and that is a real stretch, could he have said they didn’t corroborate her story, ok that would be better. But that is a pretty trifling semantic argument in my opinion.
bc is Morris referring to people with otherwise normal psyche’s? Because my understanding (admittedly limited and mostly from legal cases I’ve been involved with) suggests that there are situations where the psychological state of the victim and other psychological pressures can affect identification, especially down the road.
What Morris says later on in response to some questions:
Loftus’ own research on memory variability published in 1987 contradicts much of what she said tonight. As she and every memory researcher worth his salt (including Jim McGaugh, her colleague at UCI) knows, emotional activation and enhanced recall post-event are strongly correlated. This has been replicated in scores of studies. No sane person would claim that the survivor of an airline crash would mis-remember their brush with death, why would it be different for a woman who was assaulted and thought she might die?
He also points to this NYT op ed as a much better account of the neuroscience involved.
His main point being that the narrative of why Dr. Ford might misremember who had been involved casts doubt on the very details that would have been reinforced in memory by trauma and demanded greater detail from her on the details that would be less likely to be strongly activated by her neurobiology, and that Loftus is not sufficiently well read on the subject to be considered an expert in this case.
At least that’s my understanding of what he’s argued on FB.
bc is Morris referring to people with otherwise normal psyche’s? Because my understanding (admittedly limited and mostly from legal cases I’ve been involved with) suggests that there are situations where the psychological state of the victim and other psychological pressures can affect identification, especially down the road.
What Morris says later on in response to some questions:
Loftus’ own research on memory variability published in 1987 contradicts much of what she said tonight. As she and every memory researcher worth his salt (including Jim McGaugh, her colleague at UCI) knows, emotional activation and enhanced recall post-event are strongly correlated. This has been replicated in scores of studies. No sane person would claim that the survivor of an airline crash would mis-remember their brush with death, why would it be different for a woman who was assaulted and thought she might die?
He also points to this NYT op ed as a much better account of the neuroscience involved.
His main point being that the narrative of why Dr. Ford might misremember who had been involved casts doubt on the very details that would have been reinforced in memory by trauma and demanded greater detail from her on the details that would be less likely to be strongly activated by her neurobiology, and that Loftus is not sufficiently well read on the subject to be considered an expert in this case.
At least that’s my understanding of what he’s argued on FB.
In the name of all that is holy, how do you get a refutation out of any of this? What kind of a lawyer are you?
Good grief, GFTNC, apparently a better lawyer than commenter. I’ll try again because I clearly didn’t communicate my point effectively.
A refutation can come from one person. You and others took shots at Kavanaugh as a judge “not knowing” what refutation really means. To refute means to prove wrong OR to deny. “I refute the charges” says the accused. Or “The charges have been conclusively refuted” says the judge. Some grammarists may point to the “to prove wrong” meaning as the more correct, but I hear “he refutes the allegations” all the time.
Plus as a lawyer, I’m always arguing my case. If I ARGUE that something has been refuted, the judge doesn’t have to accept my ARGUMENT. If the evidence is sufficient for a fact finder to find in one side’s favor, it is perfectly normal to argue that “the allegations have been refuted, your honor.” But the judge may find otherwise.
I don’t think in my mind the four witnesses, two of whom are Kavanaugh and Judge, are conclusive. That wasn’t my point and I apologize if I confused the issue. I was trying to say that Kavanaugh’s use of the word “refute” was a fair use of the word. It is not ridiculous for Kavanaugh to argue the accusations have been refuted.
You obviously think he overstated his case and that is a fair opinion to have, IMHO.
In the name of all that is holy, how do you get a refutation out of any of this? What kind of a lawyer are you?
Good grief, GFTNC, apparently a better lawyer than commenter. I’ll try again because I clearly didn’t communicate my point effectively.
A refutation can come from one person. You and others took shots at Kavanaugh as a judge “not knowing” what refutation really means. To refute means to prove wrong OR to deny. “I refute the charges” says the accused. Or “The charges have been conclusively refuted” says the judge. Some grammarists may point to the “to prove wrong” meaning as the more correct, but I hear “he refutes the allegations” all the time.
Plus as a lawyer, I’m always arguing my case. If I ARGUE that something has been refuted, the judge doesn’t have to accept my ARGUMENT. If the evidence is sufficient for a fact finder to find in one side’s favor, it is perfectly normal to argue that “the allegations have been refuted, your honor.” But the judge may find otherwise.
I don’t think in my mind the four witnesses, two of whom are Kavanaugh and Judge, are conclusive. That wasn’t my point and I apologize if I confused the issue. I was trying to say that Kavanaugh’s use of the word “refute” was a fair use of the word. It is not ridiculous for Kavanaugh to argue the accusations have been refuted.
You obviously think he overstated his case and that is a fair opinion to have, IMHO.
These were not guys chewing the fat and talking loosely in a bar. This was a judge, who went to Yale, answering questions under oath in the senate. If he had said the relevant people did not corroborate her story, that would have been true. He knows the meaning of the word refute, so he lied. And he said it again and again, in clearly rehearsed words. It worked on people like you, maybe it will go on working. But it’s a LIE.
I still can’t believe we’re talking about somebody like this getting on the SCOTUS. It’s 1.15 a.m – good night!
These were not guys chewing the fat and talking loosely in a bar. This was a judge, who went to Yale, answering questions under oath in the senate. If he had said the relevant people did not corroborate her story, that would have been true. He knows the meaning of the word refute, so he lied. And he said it again and again, in clearly rehearsed words. It worked on people like you, maybe it will go on working. But it’s a LIE.
I still can’t believe we’re talking about somebody like this getting on the SCOTUS. It’s 1.15 a.m – good night!
One more point on refute: Is the evidence of the four witnesses irrefutable? No. Interesting how that word possess only one meaning, while refute has more than one.
One more point on refute: Is the evidence of the four witnesses irrefutable? No. Interesting how that word possess only one meaning, while refute has more than one.
Sorry, one last word. The most important tool of the law is language: the accurate use and interpretation of language is the absolute foundation of the law. The idea that a judge educated at America’s top law school wouldn’t understand the meaning of the word refute is absolutely unbelievable and, yes, laughable.
Sorry, one last word. The most important tool of the law is language: the accurate use and interpretation of language is the absolute foundation of the law. The idea that a judge educated at America’s top law school wouldn’t understand the meaning of the word refute is absolutely unbelievable and, yes, laughable.
Just out of curiousity, GFTNC, where are you from originally?
Just out of curiousity, GFTNC, where are you from originally?
bc: Kavanaugh should have said to Harris: “Senator, if a full FBI investigation comes out in my favor, will you vote for me?
Would Harris have been uppity if she replied “Judge, if the FBI finds proof that you’ve lied to us, should Senator Lindsey Graham vote against you?” ?
We live in different universes, bc. Water runs downhill in mine.
Also in my universe, a sitting judge and prospective Justice who, first thing out of the box and on national TV, kisses his padrone’s ass with a scripted statement that is at best irresponsible bullshit and possibly a premeditated lie is a “silly” man. When he proceeds to lie, under oath and on national TV, while interrupting and insulting Senators who were elected by their constituents just like Lindsey Graham was, about slang phrases that not-stupid people know mean things that said judge denies they mean, his champions and defenders start to appear like “silly” men.
Surely we can “agree to disagree about that”, right?
–TP
bc: Kavanaugh should have said to Harris: “Senator, if a full FBI investigation comes out in my favor, will you vote for me?
Would Harris have been uppity if she replied “Judge, if the FBI finds proof that you’ve lied to us, should Senator Lindsey Graham vote against you?” ?
We live in different universes, bc. Water runs downhill in mine.
Also in my universe, a sitting judge and prospective Justice who, first thing out of the box and on national TV, kisses his padrone’s ass with a scripted statement that is at best irresponsible bullshit and possibly a premeditated lie is a “silly” man. When he proceeds to lie, under oath and on national TV, while interrupting and insulting Senators who were elected by their constituents just like Lindsey Graham was, about slang phrases that not-stupid people know mean things that said judge denies they mean, his champions and defenders start to appear like “silly” men.
Surely we can “agree to disagree about that”, right?
–TP
My last two comments were to Marty, I’m in bed and on my phone, so had not read bc’s reply. Kavanaugh was under oath, not arguing a client’s case. His use of the word refute, given the relevant people’s statements, was absurd, and clearly meant to mislead. The man is a weasel, and a liar,and that’s my last word, at least for tonight!
My last two comments were to Marty, I’m in bed and on my phone, so had not read bc’s reply. Kavanaugh was under oath, not arguing a client’s case. His use of the word refute, given the relevant people’s statements, was absurd, and clearly meant to mislead. The man is a weasel, and a liar,and that’s my last word, at least for tonight!
Since I was quoted from the previous post, where I wrote
Some folks here need to ‘man up’ as they say and apologize for claims that Feinstein did this.
bc complains
Because only direct leaks count, right? And Feinstein is stupid enough to directly leak it? I think someone else leaked it.
I was mad at Feinstein because she could have brought up an anonymous source without naming Ford just after she learned of it, questioned Kavanaugh in closed session, but did not.
I’m not going to go back through the thread, but if you’d like to go and show me that your anger directed at Feinstein included the above hedges, I would certainly take note of it. But if you want to come back to me with a discursion on what the word ‘leak’ means, I’ll pass.
There’s one other quote from the previous thread that I won’t point out, but I would just note this. While I’m all for quoting and citing and I think that people should, given what was set out in the previous thread, my closing of the thread was to have us start afresh. Perhaps bc felt that I was targeting him, and if he wrote that Feinstein leaked or was somehow planning the leak, then he is included, but given the firehose torrent of information, I saw plenty of people all over making claims about what Feinstein did or did not do that were false and it wasn’t targeted at him. But if people are not honest about their rhetoric, there is really no way to have a conversation, imho. There are real issues here, and I don’t have much time for people who just want to disrupt that conversation, whether they are aware of what they do or not.
Since I was quoted from the previous post, where I wrote
Some folks here need to ‘man up’ as they say and apologize for claims that Feinstein did this.
bc complains
Because only direct leaks count, right? And Feinstein is stupid enough to directly leak it? I think someone else leaked it.
I was mad at Feinstein because she could have brought up an anonymous source without naming Ford just after she learned of it, questioned Kavanaugh in closed session, but did not.
I’m not going to go back through the thread, but if you’d like to go and show me that your anger directed at Feinstein included the above hedges, I would certainly take note of it. But if you want to come back to me with a discursion on what the word ‘leak’ means, I’ll pass.
There’s one other quote from the previous thread that I won’t point out, but I would just note this. While I’m all for quoting and citing and I think that people should, given what was set out in the previous thread, my closing of the thread was to have us start afresh. Perhaps bc felt that I was targeting him, and if he wrote that Feinstein leaked or was somehow planning the leak, then he is included, but given the firehose torrent of information, I saw plenty of people all over making claims about what Feinstein did or did not do that were false and it wasn’t targeted at him. But if people are not honest about their rhetoric, there is really no way to have a conversation, imho. There are real issues here, and I don’t have much time for people who just want to disrupt that conversation, whether they are aware of what they do or not.
TP: putting Garland aside, could the procedure for bringing accusations of sexual assault against SCOTUS nominees be improved? Do you have any issue with how this was handled?
As for slang phrases, you may be a better judge than I on that. I didn’t know the meanings ascribed to those words/phrases by others, so I admit I may not be a good judge on that issue. My friends and I had our own slang too, most of which I can’t remember because it was in the early 80’s and I didn’t put it in my yearbook.
TP: putting Garland aside, could the procedure for bringing accusations of sexual assault against SCOTUS nominees be improved? Do you have any issue with how this was handled?
As for slang phrases, you may be a better judge than I on that. I didn’t know the meanings ascribed to those words/phrases by others, so I admit I may not be a good judge on that issue. My friends and I had our own slang too, most of which I can’t remember because it was in the early 80’s and I didn’t put it in my yearbook.
bc,
You can put Garland aside if it suits your world view, but it’s presumptuous of you to ask me to do the same. Putting Garland aside would be a “hypothetical”, you know.
Meanwhile, my question at 8:29 awaits your answer.
–TP
bc,
You can put Garland aside if it suits your world view, but it’s presumptuous of you to ask me to do the same. Putting Garland aside would be a “hypothetical”, you know.
Meanwhile, my question at 8:29 awaits your answer.
–TP
bc: To refute means to prove wrong OR to deny.
That may be the legal meaning. But in my experience, in general use and conversation “refute” means “prove to be false”. Granted that, as nominally a lawyer, Kavanaugh might have been using the word in the legal usage. But arguing that reminds me forcibly of Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of is is.”
bc: To refute means to prove wrong OR to deny.
That may be the legal meaning. But in my experience, in general use and conversation “refute” means “prove to be false”. Granted that, as nominally a lawyer, Kavanaugh might have been using the word in the legal usage. But arguing that reminds me forcibly of Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of is is.”
Objection, compound.
Objection, compound.
wj: If I have time, I’ll go through SCOTUS opinions with my subscription just to see how SCOTUS uses the word. “Refute” can mean reject, contradict, rebut and so forth. And that is the more common usage meaning. The more formal, classical meaning is to prove wrong.
This is nowhere close to Clintonian. Nobody parses words like the Billster. I laughed out loud when I heard him say that and at the same time admired his devious logical skills.
wj: If I have time, I’ll go through SCOTUS opinions with my subscription just to see how SCOTUS uses the word. “Refute” can mean reject, contradict, rebut and so forth. And that is the more common usage meaning. The more formal, classical meaning is to prove wrong.
This is nowhere close to Clintonian. Nobody parses words like the Billster. I laughed out loud when I heard him say that and at the same time admired his devious logical skills.
Overruled. I don’t know what “compound” means.
–TP
Overruled. I don’t know what “compound” means.
–TP
bc, it’s Clintonian in that both are being devious while saying something that their wider audience (and both were speaking to a wide audience) would see very differently than the lawyers listening.
bc, it’s Clintonian in that both are being devious while saying something that their wider audience (and both were speaking to a wide audience) would see very differently than the lawyers listening.
TP: I’m not silly (nor am I a “champion”). Some senators were silly (not all). Kavanaugh was silly at times too. So we can agree to partially agree (’cause I’m a glass half-full kind of guy).
TP: I’m not silly (nor am I a “champion”). Some senators were silly (not all). Kavanaugh was silly at times too. So we can agree to partially agree (’cause I’m a glass half-full kind of guy).
wj: I just don’t see it that way. Kavanaugh was reverting to lawyer mode in probably THE most intense argument of his life. And it was an argument. Everyone gives Ford a break when she wasn’t even under attack. Give him a break.
If it comes out that he did this and it was what she said, I take it back. Then you will have to hold me back.
wj: I just don’t see it that way. Kavanaugh was reverting to lawyer mode in probably THE most intense argument of his life. And it was an argument. Everyone gives Ford a break when she wasn’t even under attack. Give him a break.
If it comes out that he did this and it was what she said, I take it back. Then you will have to hold me back.
russell, I dont necessarily agree with needing a fair and non partisan institution.
And this – this understanding, or lack thereof, of how our public institutions are supposed to operate – is precisely why I say the (R)’s need to be utterly crushed.
But if Hilary were picking this pick it would end up 5-4 partisans the other way
This is called a contrafactual, and also bears more than a passing resemblance to projection.
russell, I dont necessarily agree with needing a fair and non partisan institution.
And this – this understanding, or lack thereof, of how our public institutions are supposed to operate – is precisely why I say the (R)’s need to be utterly crushed.
But if Hilary were picking this pick it would end up 5-4 partisans the other way
This is called a contrafactual, and also bears more than a passing resemblance to projection.
bc,
I’m not silly either. So let me rephrase my question in a serious tone:
Granting for the sake of argument that
would you call it appropriate or inappropriate for Harris to respond with
For purposes of my question we can put aside the fact that Brett Kavanaugh was a witness before Senator Harris.
You’re not under subpoena, bc. You can ignore the question if you like.
–TP
bc,
I’m not silly either. So let me rephrase my question in a serious tone:
Granting for the sake of argument that
would you call it appropriate or inappropriate for Harris to respond with
For purposes of my question we can put aside the fact that Brett Kavanaugh was a witness before Senator Harris.
You’re not under subpoena, bc. You can ignore the question if you like.
–TP
You do realize russell that a few comments down gftnc noted I had mistyped what should have been I dont necessarily disagree
You do realize russell that a few comments down gftnc noted I had mistyped what should have been I dont necessarily disagree
TP Oops, my bad. I thought I answered that.
And before I answer, I’m trying to approach this as logically as I can. I didn’t mean it as a snub in saying to put Garland to one side. It was meant as a hypo, nothing more. It wasn’t a pun, frex. Like I have said many times before, I’d be pissed if the situation were reversed on Garland.
So my answer: If she answered the question, then yes it would be a completely appropriate question. And he should answer yes.
TP Oops, my bad. I thought I answered that.
And before I answer, I’m trying to approach this as logically as I can. I didn’t mean it as a snub in saying to put Garland to one side. It was meant as a hypo, nothing more. It wasn’t a pun, frex. Like I have said many times before, I’d be pissed if the situation were reversed on Garland.
So my answer: If she answered the question, then yes it would be a completely appropriate question. And he should answer yes.
bc,
What if Senator Harris did NOT answer the witness’s question but responded with exactly and only the words I “quoted”?
I’m not trying to badger you, but I want to be sure I’m not misinterpreting your “If she answered the question” preamble.
–TP
bc,
What if Senator Harris did NOT answer the witness’s question but responded with exactly and only the words I “quoted”?
I’m not trying to badger you, but I want to be sure I’m not misinterpreting your “If she answered the question” preamble.
–TP
You do realize russell that a few comments down gftnc noted I had mistyped what should have been I dont necessarily disagree
I did not realize, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Nonetheless, I find the (R)’s at the national level to be a profoundly harmful crew. I want them out.
You do realize russell that a few comments down gftnc noted I had mistyped what should have been I dont necessarily disagree
I did not realize, thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
Nonetheless, I find the (R)’s at the national level to be a profoundly harmful crew. I want them out.
All good russell.
All good russell.
Because only direct leaks count, right? And Feinstein is stupid enough to directly leak it? I think someone else leaked it.
The Intercept, who would know, says it didn’t come from Feinstein.
QED.
Because only direct leaks count, right? And Feinstein is stupid enough to directly leak it? I think someone else leaked it.
The Intercept, who would know, says it didn’t come from Feinstein.
QED.
And the Intercept said it was not from someone on Feinstein’s staff. So she goes slinking around to find someone outside of the people she hires to shop the leak, with the admonition that her name be kept out if it. It’s a pity that the Dems don’t have someone like Whelen or Leo to turn to…
And the Intercept said it was not from someone on Feinstein’s staff. So she goes slinking around to find someone outside of the people she hires to shop the leak, with the admonition that her name be kept out if it. It’s a pity that the Dems don’t have someone like Whelen or Leo to turn to…
What if Senator Harris did NOT answer the witness’s question but responded with exactly and only the words I “quoted”?
Then he should answer yes and press her for an answer.
What if Senator Harris did NOT answer the witness’s question but responded with exactly and only the words I “quoted”?
Then he should answer yes and press her for an answer.
And the Intercept said it was not from someone on Feinstein’s staff
lj: I put two different thoughts there and expressed them poorly. 1) I was pointing out that smart people don’t leak in such a way as they can be identified by the recipient (so I would not be surprised for the Intercept to say “Feinstein wasn’t the source” even if she were); and 2) I don’t think Feinstein leaked it.
And the Intercept said it was not from someone on Feinstein’s staff
lj: I put two different thoughts there and expressed them poorly. 1) I was pointing out that smart people don’t leak in such a way as they can be identified by the recipient (so I would not be surprised for the Intercept to say “Feinstein wasn’t the source” even if she were); and 2) I don’t think Feinstein leaked it.
bc, I hope I’m not being too picky when I note that the implication of the first thought is that Feinstein somehow did it and contradicts your second thought.
We were talking about fidelity, and I have been in situations where someone has asked me to keep a confidence, and I have, even though I thought that a lot of trouble might have been avoided if I had revealed what I knew. But because I was asked to keep things confidential and not put forward the person’s name, I didn’t. I see Feinstein as being placed in a similar position, perhaps with much higher stakes, by Eshoo.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6219515/New-questions-leaked-Christine-Fords-explosive-accusation-Brett-Kavanaugh.html
bc, I hope I’m not being too picky when I note that the implication of the first thought is that Feinstein somehow did it and contradicts your second thought.
We were talking about fidelity, and I have been in situations where someone has asked me to keep a confidence, and I have, even though I thought that a lot of trouble might have been avoided if I had revealed what I knew. But because I was asked to keep things confidential and not put forward the person’s name, I didn’t. I see Feinstein as being placed in a similar position, perhaps with much higher stakes, by Eshoo.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6219515/New-questions-leaked-Christine-Fords-explosive-accusation-Brett-Kavanaugh.html
bc, I am English, born South African but left when three and educated throughout in the English educational system. “Refute” means to prove false. The secondary usage of “contradict, deny” is a mistaken usage which gained some ground in the second half of the 20th century, but is incorrect. “Disinterested” means impartial, without an interest to declare. “Uninterested” means not interested. Millions of people use “disinterested” incorrectly, but I would not expect this to be the case by senior judges, who are supposed to be disinterested.
Even using the word “refuted” to mean contradicted or denied, this was a lie. Saying you don’t remember something happening is not denying it happened, and saying you never witnessed something happening is not denying that it may have happened out of your presence, as in this case. Calling the denials of accused people “refutation” is laughable.
bc, I am English, born South African but left when three and educated throughout in the English educational system. “Refute” means to prove false. The secondary usage of “contradict, deny” is a mistaken usage which gained some ground in the second half of the 20th century, but is incorrect. “Disinterested” means impartial, without an interest to declare. “Uninterested” means not interested. Millions of people use “disinterested” incorrectly, but I would not expect this to be the case by senior judges, who are supposed to be disinterested.
Even using the word “refuted” to mean contradicted or denied, this was a lie. Saying you don’t remember something happening is not denying it happened, and saying you never witnessed something happening is not denying that it may have happened out of your presence, as in this case. Calling the denials of accused people “refutation” is laughable.
Accusing the Democrats of a large scale political conspiracy against you – on rather less evidence than has been presented by your accusers – is not exactly judicial, either.
Accusing the Democrats of a large scale political conspiracy against you – on rather less evidence than has been presented by your accusers – is not exactly judicial, either.
could the procedure for bringing accusations of sexual assault against SCOTUS nominees be improved?
Sure, they could be investigated by those trained to investigate such matters, rather than octogenarian Senators.
could the procedure for bringing accusations of sexual assault against SCOTUS nominees be improved?
Sure, they could be investigated by those trained to investigate such matters, rather than octogenarian Senators.
The correct answer to the hypothetical question to Senator Harris is, “No.”
I refute it thus 🙂
The correct answer to the hypothetical question to Senator Harris is, “No.”
I refute it thus 🙂
Let’s face it Nigel, even octogenarian Senators, if they were actually trying to investigate, would be an improvement to the “procedure” we have been watching.
Let’s face it Nigel, even octogenarian Senators, if they were actually trying to investigate, would be an improvement to the “procedure” we have been watching.
Why we fight
Why we fight
they could be investigated by those trained to investigate such matters, rather than octogenarian Senators.
but that would be unfair because there’s no evidence!
see, unless there’s evidence, you can’t look for evidence. unless there’s a Clinton or an Obama involved.
they could be investigated by those trained to investigate such matters, rather than octogenarian Senators.
but that would be unfair because there’s no evidence!
see, unless there’s evidence, you can’t look for evidence. unless there’s a Clinton or an Obama involved.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/09/28/look-me-look-me-laura-ingraham-and-guest-mock-sexual-assault-survivors-protesting-jeff-flake-ask-if/221511
Ingraham, one of many FOX understudies to STAGE over-actor John Wilkes Booth and fresh from the off-STAGE larding on of make-up across her STAGE visage, now under the lights on-STAGE, one of many STAGES at FOX News, where the STAGING of the far-right Republican Party’s ruination of America has been STAGED for 35 years by paid STAGE actors, coyly called STAGE-contributors memorizing STAGE-scripts, STAGE mp’s next tweet and complain about elevator protests being … STAGED!
Take your seats, ladies and gentleman. The stage play will begin presently. Please ignore the audience participation and real action in the form of gunfire from the gallery.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/09/28/look-me-look-me-laura-ingraham-and-guest-mock-sexual-assault-survivors-protesting-jeff-flake-ask-if/221511
Ingraham, one of many FOX understudies to STAGE over-actor John Wilkes Booth and fresh from the off-STAGE larding on of make-up across her STAGE visage, now under the lights on-STAGE, one of many STAGES at FOX News, where the STAGING of the far-right Republican Party’s ruination of America has been STAGED for 35 years by paid STAGE actors, coyly called STAGE-contributors memorizing STAGE-scripts, STAGE mp’s next tweet and complain about elevator protests being … STAGED!
Take your seats, ladies and gentleman. The stage play will begin presently. Please ignore the audience participation and real action in the form of gunfire from the gallery.
Assume, just for a moment and for the sake of discussion, the Kavanaugh is not confirmed. Then he still has his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, right?
Yes, but. Federal judges (but NOT, be it noted, Supreme Court justices) are bound by fairly specific rules about conflicts of interest and when they must recuse themselves.
In short, there is some reason to believe that Kavanaugh’s screed last week could cost him his fallback seat. Without, be it noted, any action (e.g impeachment and removal) by Congress. The Federal judiciary already has mechanisms in place to purge itself if necessary.
Assume, just for a moment and for the sake of discussion, the Kavanaugh is not confirmed. Then he still has his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, right?
Yes, but. Federal judges (but NOT, be it noted, Supreme Court justices) are bound by fairly specific rules about conflicts of interest and when they must recuse themselves.
In short, there is some reason to believe that Kavanaugh’s screed last week could cost him his fallback seat. Without, be it noted, any action (e.g impeachment and removal) by Congress. The Federal judiciary already has mechanisms in place to purge itself if necessary.
“octogenarian Senators”
Lower the minimum age for folks to run for the Senate from 30 years of age to 12, and let the republican high fives, booty runs, and keg stands commence DURING the hearings.
“octogenarian Senators”
Lower the minimum age for folks to run for the Senate from 30 years of age to 12, and let the republican high fives, booty runs, and keg stands commence DURING the hearings.
Why we fight
Yep.
Delendo est the (R) party.
Why we fight
Yep.
Delendo est the (R) party.
Wait… did Ingraham say something about “torches”?
Wait… did Ingraham say something about “torches”?
What there is not, is facts in dispute. At some time, on some day of some year, at some place, with some people, I arrived some how at a party that lasted some length until somehow I went home.
If all that’s true, it is utterly uncheckable.
What there is not, is facts in dispute. At some time, on some day of some year, at some place, with some people, I arrived some how at a party that lasted some length until somehow I went home.
If all that’s true, it is utterly uncheckable.
it is utterly uncheckable.
it certainly isn’t.
one could start with K’s own calendar:
July 1, 1982: “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.”
skis = brewskis.
Ford named several of those people being at the party, never having seen K’s calendar.
or, one could decline to look at all.
it depends on what one thinks is important.
it is utterly uncheckable.
it certainly isn’t.
one could start with K’s own calendar:
July 1, 1982: “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.”
skis = brewskis.
Ford named several of those people being at the party, never having seen K’s calendar.
or, one could decline to look at all.
it depends on what one thinks is important.
Kavanaugh was reverting to lawyer mode in probably THE most intense argument of his life. And it was an argument. Everyone gives Ford a break when she wasn’t even under attack. Give him a break.
That’s one of my many problems with him.
Even in the earlier hearing he was evasive, non-responsive, and, to put it politely, lawyerly. He seems unwilling to provide straight answers – the kind that straight-shooting manly men provide – to simple questions. Wonder why.
Kavanaugh was reverting to lawyer mode in probably THE most intense argument of his life. And it was an argument. Everyone gives Ford a break when she wasn’t even under attack. Give him a break.
That’s one of my many problems with him.
Even in the earlier hearing he was evasive, non-responsive, and, to put it politely, lawyerly. He seems unwilling to provide straight answers – the kind that straight-shooting manly men provide – to simple questions. Wonder why.
Kavanaugh was reverting to lawyer mode in probably THE most intense argument of his life
Except he wasn’t, if this means his use of the word refute misleadingly. At least, it would be ignorant, crooked, shyster-like lawyer mode, and I believe (where did I get this) he went to Yale and is alleged to be an upstanding citizen? Anyway, wj’s point was that it was like Clinton and “it depends what the meaning of the word is is”, and despite bc’s demurral, that comparison is apt: they were not appearing as lawyers, they were being questioned under oath, and their attempts to mislead should be judged accordingly.
Kavanaugh was reverting to lawyer mode in probably THE most intense argument of his life
Except he wasn’t, if this means his use of the word refute misleadingly. At least, it would be ignorant, crooked, shyster-like lawyer mode, and I believe (where did I get this) he went to Yale and is alleged to be an upstanding citizen? Anyway, wj’s point was that it was like Clinton and “it depends what the meaning of the word is is”, and despite bc’s demurral, that comparison is apt: they were not appearing as lawyers, they were being questioned under oath, and their attempts to mislead should be judged accordingly.
“the kind that straight-shooting manly men provide”
This was used over at Balloon Juice recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nqcgUDoV_M
“the kind that straight-shooting manly men provide”
This was used over at Balloon Juice recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nqcgUDoV_M
This is a fascinating and persuasive article from today’s NYT about the phenomenon of alcohol-induced blackouts:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-blackouts.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
This is a fascinating and persuasive article from today’s NYT about the phenomenon of alcohol-induced blackouts:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-blackouts.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Bonnie and Clyde were folk heroes too for awhile in flyover country during their era:
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/09/28/tucker-carlson-brett-kavanaugh-folk-hero-unfairly-maligned/221509
Meanwhile … folk heroes:
https://www.eschatonblog.com/2018/09/what-country.html
Bonnie and Clyde were folk heroes too for awhile in flyover country during their era:
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/09/28/tucker-carlson-brett-kavanaugh-folk-hero-unfairly-maligned/221509
Meanwhile … folk heroes:
https://www.eschatonblog.com/2018/09/what-country.html
From GftNC’s link:
From GftNC’s link:
JanieM: Bingo. That is indeed the killer extract.
JanieM: Bingo. That is indeed the killer extract.
In the event that Ted Nugent is nominated by mp to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg ….
https://www.houstonpress.com/music/the-five-most-repellent-things-ted-nugent-has-ever-done-6756533
… expect this assessment of the nominee by presidential pox-spox Sarah Huckabee Sanders whose Dad would happily sneak backstage and submit to if only to become Nugent’s bass player:
“Look Acosta, Mr. Wings fan, the President fully agrees with Judge-to-be Nugent’s precedent-setting opinion in the lyrics of “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang. As you know, the words to that song were lifted straight out of The Song of Solomon, the Arkansas translation.
Grassley will remark to appointee Nugent during the hearings that he does not understand how the word “Sweet” in the title of his hit song can in anyway infer a misogynistic temperament in his previous rulings.
Marty will point out that had Hillary Clinton been President and appointing Supreme Court judges (it would have been Tim Kaine, Clinton having been shot, dead, and buried before she could even sit down in the Oval Office, but never mind) SHE would have given us a nominee who couldn’t play the shredding guitar solo in “Cat Scratch Fever” on an AR-15, and besides the words Gibson Byrdland do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, so what would you suggest he use.
In the event that Ted Nugent is nominated by mp to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg ….
https://www.houstonpress.com/music/the-five-most-repellent-things-ted-nugent-has-ever-done-6756533
… expect this assessment of the nominee by presidential pox-spox Sarah Huckabee Sanders whose Dad would happily sneak backstage and submit to if only to become Nugent’s bass player:
“Look Acosta, Mr. Wings fan, the President fully agrees with Judge-to-be Nugent’s precedent-setting opinion in the lyrics of “Wang Dang Sweet Poontang. As you know, the words to that song were lifted straight out of The Song of Solomon, the Arkansas translation.
Grassley will remark to appointee Nugent during the hearings that he does not understand how the word “Sweet” in the title of his hit song can in anyway infer a misogynistic temperament in his previous rulings.
Marty will point out that had Hillary Clinton been President and appointing Supreme Court judges (it would have been Tim Kaine, Clinton having been shot, dead, and buried before she could even sit down in the Oval Office, but never mind) SHE would have given us a nominee who couldn’t play the shredding guitar solo in “Cat Scratch Fever” on an AR-15, and besides the words Gibson Byrdland do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, so what would you suggest he use.
As a former teenaged boy, though not a partier in high school, but privy,and eagerly so, to dozens of tales told by my fellows about the parties I was not invited to AND the ones I could have crashed had my parents (thank you) not kept a tight reign on me, being the oldest, the younger siblings having gotten away with stuff that I, having a judicious if not a judicial temperament, decided wisely to put off the major-hijinks-wise activities until I was out of the house, and as a fairly prodigious drinker in college* (since moderated considerably), though, perhaps unhappily for my liver, I’ve always been able to hold my liquor and never experienced blackouts, nor was I a mean drunk, no, I become “more than happy” which is also something Carlin told us to watch out for as well, because others would fall down and hurt themselves from the hilarity alone, let me say this:
I call fucking bullshit on this idea that Kavanaugh, Judge and company cannot recall any such behavior and its whereabouts, on their parts. A teenaged boy, the fully machismo American type, even if they blacked out, has full access to the braggadocio gland, especially among their peers, tongue-lolling horndogs all, so I’m quite sure the details, perhaps even exaggerated to include various penetrations in all directions, these stories, have been told before, years ago, and not at the malt shop, by Kavanaugh and Judge and company, to each other and guys who didn’t make it to the party.
What did you have, eight beers? Even if the kid had only four, it’s fuck no, man, I downed a full case and don’t get me started on the Jagermeister I’ll date myself, it was Boone’s Farm at that time) that flowed.
And then what? Well, you know that hot girl ….. etc.
Did you black out?
No way, bro.
Then how is it we were able to scrawl “My cock Rules” on your forehead and get you to scratch your face with the whipped cream in your hand?
I’m a light sleeper. Wait until we’re old enough to have a bachelor party and I’ll show you “black out”.
And then what? Well, you know that hot girl ….. etc.
Like war stories, maybe of Iwo Jima, now they keep it to themselves and we call it being a grown up.
*I lived in a house in college with my fellow long hairs and artist types and hung with elitist hippies and there was no shortage of unlawful sinning going on, heartily engaged in, and even at times planned ahead for, (sorry I didn’t keep a calendar, but I ask you, what kind of 17-year old putz not only keeps a calendar, but KEPT it for 35 years?) when and if I really wanted to witness the full technicolor satirycon spectacle of machismo young men, most of them conservatives then and one can only wonder how tax-hating conservative, not to mention devout now, I paid a visit occasionally to frat row on a weekend night, the American flag majestically displayed in front of most of them, where merely sitting on the living room furniture was not quite good enough, no, piling the couches and coffee tables up in the front yard and setting them ablaze was sometimes their idea of exterior decorating and you would occasionally catch a fleeting glimpse of a naked coed sprinting down a hallway (over in hippie town, we had the good taste to keep the doors closed and to suggest a towel at least as cover for our girlfriends’ dash to the loo) and drinking ones beer (why stop with beer?) out of a cup or mug was considered an inefficient time waster in the serious business of drinking, and a drag on the shareholder value of Rolling Rock, Budweiser and Coors, no, lie down on the floor, open your mouth, and take it directly from the fully pumped tap, aimed at your mug from across the room by some guy who is now, I expect, the devout Rod Dreher.
As a former teenaged boy, though not a partier in high school, but privy,and eagerly so, to dozens of tales told by my fellows about the parties I was not invited to AND the ones I could have crashed had my parents (thank you) not kept a tight reign on me, being the oldest, the younger siblings having gotten away with stuff that I, having a judicious if not a judicial temperament, decided wisely to put off the major-hijinks-wise activities until I was out of the house, and as a fairly prodigious drinker in college* (since moderated considerably), though, perhaps unhappily for my liver, I’ve always been able to hold my liquor and never experienced blackouts, nor was I a mean drunk, no, I become “more than happy” which is also something Carlin told us to watch out for as well, because others would fall down and hurt themselves from the hilarity alone, let me say this:
I call fucking bullshit on this idea that Kavanaugh, Judge and company cannot recall any such behavior and its whereabouts, on their parts. A teenaged boy, the fully machismo American type, even if they blacked out, has full access to the braggadocio gland, especially among their peers, tongue-lolling horndogs all, so I’m quite sure the details, perhaps even exaggerated to include various penetrations in all directions, these stories, have been told before, years ago, and not at the malt shop, by Kavanaugh and Judge and company, to each other and guys who didn’t make it to the party.
What did you have, eight beers? Even if the kid had only four, it’s fuck no, man, I downed a full case and don’t get me started on the Jagermeister I’ll date myself, it was Boone’s Farm at that time) that flowed.
And then what? Well, you know that hot girl ….. etc.
Did you black out?
No way, bro.
Then how is it we were able to scrawl “My cock Rules” on your forehead and get you to scratch your face with the whipped cream in your hand?
I’m a light sleeper. Wait until we’re old enough to have a bachelor party and I’ll show you “black out”.
And then what? Well, you know that hot girl ….. etc.
Like war stories, maybe of Iwo Jima, now they keep it to themselves and we call it being a grown up.
*I lived in a house in college with my fellow long hairs and artist types and hung with elitist hippies and there was no shortage of unlawful sinning going on, heartily engaged in, and even at times planned ahead for, (sorry I didn’t keep a calendar, but I ask you, what kind of 17-year old putz not only keeps a calendar, but KEPT it for 35 years?) when and if I really wanted to witness the full technicolor satirycon spectacle of machismo young men, most of them conservatives then and one can only wonder how tax-hating conservative, not to mention devout now, I paid a visit occasionally to frat row on a weekend night, the American flag majestically displayed in front of most of them, where merely sitting on the living room furniture was not quite good enough, no, piling the couches and coffee tables up in the front yard and setting them ablaze was sometimes their idea of exterior decorating and you would occasionally catch a fleeting glimpse of a naked coed sprinting down a hallway (over in hippie town, we had the good taste to keep the doors closed and to suggest a towel at least as cover for our girlfriends’ dash to the loo) and drinking ones beer (why stop with beer?) out of a cup or mug was considered an inefficient time waster in the serious business of drinking, and a drag on the shareholder value of Rolling Rock, Budweiser and Coors, no, lie down on the floor, open your mouth, and take it directly from the fully pumped tap, aimed at your mug from across the room by some guy who is now, I expect, the devout Rod Dreher.
Rod Dreher was maybe three years old at the time, but that just goes to show how out of hand frat could get.
Rod Dreher was maybe three years old at the time, but that just goes to show how out of hand frat could get.
Count, that 12:16 is one of your classics.
So, as someone with some experience, do you think a lot of those teenage boys and young college men grew out of the drinking-to-excess habit?
Because we have BK’s implied choirboy word that he’s as sober as a judge™ today.
Count, that 12:16 is one of your classics.
So, as someone with some experience, do you think a lot of those teenage boys and young college men grew out of the drinking-to-excess habit?
Because we have BK’s implied choirboy word that he’s as sober as a judge™ today.
Because we have BK’s implied choirboy word that he’s as sober as a judge™ today.
Well, sober as a judge who likes beer can be, of course. Lots of people like beer. Do you like beer?
Because we have BK’s implied choirboy word that he’s as sober as a judge™ today.
Well, sober as a judge who likes beer can be, of course. Lots of people like beer. Do you like beer?
It’s Sunday morning and Kavanaugh is still He, Trump’s nominee. This disgusts people who think a rabidly partisan liar and lickspittle doesn’t belong on the SCOTUS.
Next Sunday morning Brett will be Justice Kavanaugh. That will please people who DON’T MIND a rabidly partisan liar and lickspittle in control of, not just sitting on, the SCOTUS.
Poor God. Even He can’t please everybody. But He can still please ME by ordaining that next Monday RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan resign en masse.
Come to think of it, that would also please the likes of bc and Marty — people who may deplore He, Trump but applaud His judicial picks, not to mention His “(Republican) policies”. A SCOTUS majority selected by He, Trump would be like living in Heaven without having to die first, for True Conservatives.
My fellow libruls, hippies, and socialists may object to this wish of mine. They may believe that preserving the pretense that the SCOTUS is a respectable judicial body, even with a receiver of stolen goods and two perverts on it, is necessary for the sake of The Republic. Oh, well: like God, I can’t please everybody.
In all seriousness, though: I remember Breyer doing the book tour rounds a few years ago, expounding the proposition that the SCOTUS (having neither an army nor a tax base) relies exclusively on its legitimacy for its power. I would dearly love to sit Justice Breyer down on my couch and watch him watch Kavanaugh’s performance art before the Judiciary Committee. Then I’d ask him to tell me about legitimacy again.
–TP
It’s Sunday morning and Kavanaugh is still He, Trump’s nominee. This disgusts people who think a rabidly partisan liar and lickspittle doesn’t belong on the SCOTUS.
Next Sunday morning Brett will be Justice Kavanaugh. That will please people who DON’T MIND a rabidly partisan liar and lickspittle in control of, not just sitting on, the SCOTUS.
Poor God. Even He can’t please everybody. But He can still please ME by ordaining that next Monday RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan resign en masse.
Come to think of it, that would also please the likes of bc and Marty — people who may deplore He, Trump but applaud His judicial picks, not to mention His “(Republican) policies”. A SCOTUS majority selected by He, Trump would be like living in Heaven without having to die first, for True Conservatives.
My fellow libruls, hippies, and socialists may object to this wish of mine. They may believe that preserving the pretense that the SCOTUS is a respectable judicial body, even with a receiver of stolen goods and two perverts on it, is necessary for the sake of The Republic. Oh, well: like God, I can’t please everybody.
In all seriousness, though: I remember Breyer doing the book tour rounds a few years ago, expounding the proposition that the SCOTUS (having neither an army nor a tax base) relies exclusively on its legitimacy for its power. I would dearly love to sit Justice Breyer down on my couch and watch him watch Kavanaugh’s performance art before the Judiciary Committee. Then I’d ask him to tell me about legitimacy again.
–TP
Well, Kavanaugh stated he still likes beer, which is irrelevant, except for the fact that he lied while sober under oath about drinking ages at the time of these events.
Sorry, again, I don’t buy that he mis-remembers the legal drinking ages or much of anything else.
Ulysses S. Grant still likes beer and he’s dead.
Yes, I think, and in some cases know that teenage boys and young college men, and women, grow out of the drinking-to-excess habit for one reason or another, not excluding doctor’s orders.
I had a cousin, a successful individual in all walks of life, who never shook it and he’s dead from the effects.
More generally, they moderate because keeping the earlier pace is suicidal.
I also know accomplished, fully functioning men and women who can still put it away and one feels it a challenge to even imagine in their presence keeping up with them.
I also know of a lifelong tea-totaling individual whose colorful and risky sexual escapes have been accomplished alcohol free because he made a conscious decision early on to keep his mind clear so he can keep his stories straight about the mayhem, you know, like a safe cracker who keeps his cuticles and fingernails immaculately manicured.
I also personally knew a few individuals who were plucked from fatal car accidents as teens by the random hand of Death and the non-random fateful application of alcohol and thus didn’t live long enough to wise up.
I have another closer relative than the cousin who is the only one of a few survivors of his teenage clique who is still among the living because of drug-related car accidents and other circumstances.
This relative tried to join them numerous times to no avail, having totaled and walked away from six of my mother’s cars and a motorcycle.
He’s got the hardest head I’ve ever known in more ways than one.
His secret, I guess, was to do some substance to excess and then relax, perhaps even drop off to sleep as the vehicles became airborne, though tragically, I think there was ample, purposeful self-directed contempt involved too and he wanted to join his buddies.
I remember everything. So does Kavanaugh, even if he blacked out, because his confederates regaled him with the stories afterwards. Sometimes I remember more than happened if it will add color to the telling of it, but I never remember less.
Kavanaugh is a liar, mostly and relevantly about the mutual consensuality of sexual behavior, which would also make him a lousy judge of contract law.
He was nominated as an experienced, trained-in-the-trenches-of-gutter-politics political hack to hold the Constitution he misremembers aloft as a Supreme Court Judge to protect this President from any responsibility and charges the latter is found to have committed but that both of them hope we think neither of them can remember and in my personal opinion none of that should escape notice in this job interview purview.
Too, he was nominated to void throw the Court to an anti Roe versus Wade majority vote, but I expect they won’t question the constitutionality of finger-fucking, oral sex, and the dominance of sperm over a woman’s right to choose.
Anal sex might be ruled unconstitutional again, but only for certain people, but probably not unconscious women.
In this era of vanquished political norms, my dear Merrick, the two of them, mp and Kavanaugh, are fair game for any sort of fuck off the system can bring itself to muster.
Well, Kavanaugh stated he still likes beer, which is irrelevant, except for the fact that he lied while sober under oath about drinking ages at the time of these events.
Sorry, again, I don’t buy that he mis-remembers the legal drinking ages or much of anything else.
Ulysses S. Grant still likes beer and he’s dead.
Yes, I think, and in some cases know that teenage boys and young college men, and women, grow out of the drinking-to-excess habit for one reason or another, not excluding doctor’s orders.
I had a cousin, a successful individual in all walks of life, who never shook it and he’s dead from the effects.
More generally, they moderate because keeping the earlier pace is suicidal.
I also know accomplished, fully functioning men and women who can still put it away and one feels it a challenge to even imagine in their presence keeping up with them.
I also know of a lifelong tea-totaling individual whose colorful and risky sexual escapes have been accomplished alcohol free because he made a conscious decision early on to keep his mind clear so he can keep his stories straight about the mayhem, you know, like a safe cracker who keeps his cuticles and fingernails immaculately manicured.
I also personally knew a few individuals who were plucked from fatal car accidents as teens by the random hand of Death and the non-random fateful application of alcohol and thus didn’t live long enough to wise up.
I have another closer relative than the cousin who is the only one of a few survivors of his teenage clique who is still among the living because of drug-related car accidents and other circumstances.
This relative tried to join them numerous times to no avail, having totaled and walked away from six of my mother’s cars and a motorcycle.
He’s got the hardest head I’ve ever known in more ways than one.
His secret, I guess, was to do some substance to excess and then relax, perhaps even drop off to sleep as the vehicles became airborne, though tragically, I think there was ample, purposeful self-directed contempt involved too and he wanted to join his buddies.
I remember everything. So does Kavanaugh, even if he blacked out, because his confederates regaled him with the stories afterwards. Sometimes I remember more than happened if it will add color to the telling of it, but I never remember less.
Kavanaugh is a liar, mostly and relevantly about the mutual consensuality of sexual behavior, which would also make him a lousy judge of contract law.
He was nominated as an experienced, trained-in-the-trenches-of-gutter-politics political hack to hold the Constitution he misremembers aloft as a Supreme Court Judge to protect this President from any responsibility and charges the latter is found to have committed but that both of them hope we think neither of them can remember and in my personal opinion none of that should escape notice in this job interview purview.
Too, he was nominated to void throw the Court to an anti Roe versus Wade majority vote, but I expect they won’t question the constitutionality of finger-fucking, oral sex, and the dominance of sperm over a woman’s right to choose.
Anal sex might be ruled unconstitutional again, but only for certain people, but probably not unconscious women.
In this era of vanquished political norms, my dear Merrick, the two of them, mp and Kavanaugh, are fair game for any sort of fuck off the system can bring itself to muster.
he lied while sober under oath
How do you know he was sober? I’ve had high-functioning alcoholics who would hardly have given off clues.
he lied while sober under oath
How do you know he was sober? I’ve had high-functioning alcoholics who would hardly have given off clues.
Sorry, that should have been “high-functioning alcoholic acquaintances”…
Sorry, that should have been “high-functioning alcoholic acquaintances”…
But other than that, another great one, Count.
But other than that, another great one, Count.
Because we have BK’s implied choirboy word that he’s as sober as a judge™ today.
There is a story (one among many) about the great barrister and wit, F E Smith, appearing before a judge and saying about the accused “he was as drunk as a judge, your honour”, and when the judge said “Surely you mean as drunk as a lord!” F E Smith is said to have replied: “Yes, m’lord”.
Because we have BK’s implied choirboy word that he’s as sober as a judge™ today.
There is a story (one among many) about the great barrister and wit, F E Smith, appearing before a judge and saying about the accused “he was as drunk as a judge, your honour”, and when the judge said “Surely you mean as drunk as a lord!” F E Smith is said to have replied: “Yes, m’lord”.
Kavanaugh was reverting to lawyer mode in probably THE most intense argument of his life
I would also note that Kavanaugh hasn’t actually spent much time in his life working as a lawyer arguing cases. This argument would have a lot more persuasive power if he had.
Kavanaugh was reverting to lawyer mode in probably THE most intense argument of his life
I would also note that Kavanaugh hasn’t actually spent much time in his life working as a lawyer arguing cases. This argument would have a lot more persuasive power if he had.
Frankly, I would worry more if Kavanaugh never consumes a drop of alcohol.
That he come by his judicial temperament and his ruthless partisan reputation soberly would be of no comfort.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
Frankly, I would worry more if Kavanaugh never consumes a drop of alcohol.
That he come by his judicial temperament and his ruthless partisan reputation soberly would be of no comfort.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
From the wikipedia entry on F E Smith:
Judge: You are extremely offensive, young man!
Smith: As a matter of fact we both are; and the only difference between us is that I am trying to be, and you can’t help it.
Quoted in F.E. : The Life of F. E. Smith First Earl of Birkenhead (1933) by Frederick Second Earl of Birkenhead, 1959 edition, Ch 9
Judge: What do you suppose I am on the bench for?
Smith: It is not for me, Your Honour, to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence.
Quoted in F.E. : The Life of F. E. Smith First Earl of Birkenhead (1933) by Frederick Second Earl of Birkenhead, 1959 edition, Ch 9.
Judge: I’ve listened to you for an hour and I’m none wiser.
Smith: None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed
Quoted in “London Letter” by Francis Cowper in New York Law Journal (28 August 1961), p. 4.
From the wikipedia entry on F E Smith:
Judge: You are extremely offensive, young man!
Smith: As a matter of fact we both are; and the only difference between us is that I am trying to be, and you can’t help it.
Quoted in F.E. : The Life of F. E. Smith First Earl of Birkenhead (1933) by Frederick Second Earl of Birkenhead, 1959 edition, Ch 9
Judge: What do you suppose I am on the bench for?
Smith: It is not for me, Your Honour, to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence.
Quoted in F.E. : The Life of F. E. Smith First Earl of Birkenhead (1933) by Frederick Second Earl of Birkenhead, 1959 edition, Ch 9.
Judge: I’ve listened to you for an hour and I’m none wiser.
Smith: None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed
Quoted in “London Letter” by Francis Cowper in New York Law Journal (28 August 1961), p. 4.
we have BK’s implied choirboy word that he’s as sober as a judge™ today.
I commend to your attention this,
https://www.economist.com/comment/3588620#comment-3588620
from a practicing psychologist with whom I have engage in long blog-comment conversations over the years.
(While she does live in the same area, I’m pretty sure that she isn’t Dr Ford. Not least because she’s an immigrant from China. 😉
we have BK’s implied choirboy word that he’s as sober as a judge™ today.
I commend to your attention this,
https://www.economist.com/comment/3588620#comment-3588620
from a practicing psychologist with whom I have engage in long blog-comment conversations over the years.
(While she does live in the same area, I’m pretty sure that she isn’t Dr Ford. Not least because she’s an immigrant from China. 😉
If God has any sense of humor, Brett Kavanaugh will end up as a pitchman for either Coors or Budweiser.
–TP
If God has any sense of humor, Brett Kavanaugh will end up as a pitchman for either Coors or Budweiser.
–TP
If God has any sense of humor, Brett Kavanaugh will end up as a pitchman for either Coors or Budweiser
Or something even more down-market . . . if such a thing exists. (Not being a beer drinker, I don’t keep up with such details.)
If God has any sense of humor, Brett Kavanaugh will end up as a pitchman for either Coors or Budweiser
Or something even more down-market . . . if such a thing exists. (Not being a beer drinker, I don’t keep up with such details.)
“I would dearly love to sit Justice Breyer down on my couch…. ”
Nina Totenberg was asked recently what she thinks the sitting Supreme Court Judges think about this whole shebang, and she paused, for quite awhile, and said “I can just imagine” …. the response if I broke the jounalistic norms of asking such an opinion of a sitting Supreme Court Judge .. they would look at me like I have three heads. Maybe, maybe, a barely detectable roll of the eyes might be forthcoming in this case. But no, not gonna happen.
Odd, ain’t it, the only people we CAN’T ask for an opinion are the very and only eight people in the country most respected for their objectivity and thus might be listened to.
I suspect they can’t be objective either, and the eight know that most of all, but we need to keep up the ruse, like Santa Claus.
“I would dearly love to sit Justice Breyer down on my couch…. ”
Nina Totenberg was asked recently what she thinks the sitting Supreme Court Judges think about this whole shebang, and she paused, for quite awhile, and said “I can just imagine” …. the response if I broke the jounalistic norms of asking such an opinion of a sitting Supreme Court Judge .. they would look at me like I have three heads. Maybe, maybe, a barely detectable roll of the eyes might be forthcoming in this case. But no, not gonna happen.
Odd, ain’t it, the only people we CAN’T ask for an opinion are the very and only eight people in the country most respected for their objectivity and thus might be listened to.
I suspect they can’t be objective either, and the eight know that most of all, but we need to keep up the ruse, like Santa Claus.
No, I would allow that he was sober during his testimony.
Maybe his wife simply said “Not today, Brett.”
No, I would allow that he was sober during his testimony.
Maybe his wife simply said “Not today, Brett.”
Everclear, maybe
Everclear, maybe
July 1, 1982: “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.”
skis = brewskis.
Not in evidence. They may have been planning their winter sports season.
Hahaha!!
Some things to remember about all of this:
This is not a criminal case. It is a political proceeding. A claim was made about Kavanaugh, the FBI is going to (correctly) look into it, they’ll find whatever they find, withing the scope of what they’re allowed to look into.
But they might come back and say that there is no there there, and it would still be legitimate for the (D)’s in the Senate, or anybody for that matter, to say that Kavanaugh is not the guy for the job. For *purely political reasons*.
Because it’s not a criminal proceeding, it’s a political one.
It will damage the SCOTUS if its dominated by one extreme end of the spectrum. The originalist Federalist reading of the Constitution *is an extreme end of the spectrum*. It occupies approximately the same position relative to the Constitution that literalist fundamentalist interpretation occupies relative to the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran.
That’s not a point of view that represents a majority of the country. It’s not a point of view that represents historical Constitutional interpretation. In a sort of cruel twist of irony, it’s not even a point of view that accurately represents the intent of the blessed founders, peace be upon them.
It should not represent a majority of the SCOTUS.
The court is a political institution, but it should not be a plainly and explicitly partisan one. It should not be made up of plainly and explicitly partisan justices. Kavanaugh is, plainly and explicitly, a partisan. Not just conservative, but partisan.
He does not belong on the SCOTUS. He really ought not be on the DC Circuit, for the reasons cited by the ABA when he was nominated to it:
HE IS TOO PARTISAN TO BE CREDIBLE AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VOICE IN INTERPRETING THE LAW.
Period.
Pick somebody else. It’s too late for the beginning of the court season, but if they get on it fast enough they can get somebody less freaking toxic in place before the mid-terms.
Or, not. They can drag this mess out to the bitter end if they like. And maybe the (D)’s will flip the Senate, and the (R)’s will get nothing.
Which works for me.
July 1, 1982: “to Timmy’s for skis w/Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi.”
skis = brewskis.
Not in evidence. They may have been planning their winter sports season.
Hahaha!!
Some things to remember about all of this:
This is not a criminal case. It is a political proceeding. A claim was made about Kavanaugh, the FBI is going to (correctly) look into it, they’ll find whatever they find, withing the scope of what they’re allowed to look into.
But they might come back and say that there is no there there, and it would still be legitimate for the (D)’s in the Senate, or anybody for that matter, to say that Kavanaugh is not the guy for the job. For *purely political reasons*.
Because it’s not a criminal proceeding, it’s a political one.
It will damage the SCOTUS if its dominated by one extreme end of the spectrum. The originalist Federalist reading of the Constitution *is an extreme end of the spectrum*. It occupies approximately the same position relative to the Constitution that literalist fundamentalist interpretation occupies relative to the Bible, or the Torah, or the Koran.
That’s not a point of view that represents a majority of the country. It’s not a point of view that represents historical Constitutional interpretation. In a sort of cruel twist of irony, it’s not even a point of view that accurately represents the intent of the blessed founders, peace be upon them.
It should not represent a majority of the SCOTUS.
The court is a political institution, but it should not be a plainly and explicitly partisan one. It should not be made up of plainly and explicitly partisan justices. Kavanaugh is, plainly and explicitly, a partisan. Not just conservative, but partisan.
He does not belong on the SCOTUS. He really ought not be on the DC Circuit, for the reasons cited by the ABA when he was nominated to it:
HE IS TOO PARTISAN TO BE CREDIBLE AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VOICE IN INTERPRETING THE LAW.
Period.
Pick somebody else. It’s too late for the beginning of the court season, but if they get on it fast enough they can get somebody less freaking toxic in place before the mid-terms.
Or, not. They can drag this mess out to the bitter end if they like. And maybe the (D)’s will flip the Senate, and the (R)’s will get nothing.
Which works for me.
It’s too late for the beginning of the court season, but if they get on it fast enough they can get somebody less freaking toxic in place before the mid-terms.
Or, not. They can drag this mess out to the bitter end if they like. And maybe the (D)’s will flip the Senate, and the (R)’s will get nothing.
Or, worst case, the Democrats flip the Senate and so the Republicans ram through some ideologue during the lame duck session.
It’s too late for the beginning of the court season, but if they get on it fast enough they can get somebody less freaking toxic in place before the mid-terms.
Or, not. They can drag this mess out to the bitter end if they like. And maybe the (D)’s will flip the Senate, and the (R)’s will get nothing.
Or, worst case, the Democrats flip the Senate and so the Republicans ram through some ideologue during the lame duck session.
I think I am beginning to follow Tony P in his argument that the high school and college drunken accusations are a dead end (from 3 days ago, not the recent stuff I did not digest while writing this). I include the assaults, and the current lies about the assaults.
I think that behavior in the early-mid 80s was wide spread enough that many men and women from that time have similar memories. I recall going to parties based on ‘Animal House,’ Toga parties with everclear punch in a watermelon (9th grade, didn’t get lucky, very worried about the underwear check), and no common understanding of ‘too drunk to consent.’ Not to mention the other drugs that were illegal no matter how old you were, and that ‘spiking the punch’ was funny, not a step toward date rape.
I imagine many non-victim women feel guilt because they also knew it was happening in front of them, labelled the victim, did nothing to help, and gossiped about it as much as the boys. Probably many still blame the victims, since they knew better than to be a victim. My recollection of my high school is the girls can be brutal to each other, especially over something like this, and the boy was popular.
I believe her and not him because this is the 1980’s I recall. And that is the problem. I do not believe I ever acted as bad as Kavanaugh is alleged, but I have definitely reached a second time after the first ‘no.’ Separating the girl you were interested in from the group was required to try and kiss her.
I recall thinking it was completely unfair that a drunk victim can’t give consent, but the drunk perpetrator can’t use lack of cognition as a defense. Two drunk people, only one has no responsibility for actions. Still conflicted on that, really, particularly when we are supposed to reach a standard ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ with two drunks, and no witnesses.
The current issue is people can choose to believe a person should not have put themselves in that position, that the culture at the time made it likely, that the person was lucky that is all that happened. especially those who are against alcohol/drugs, and have strict dating/dancing policies, etc. It is probably not cognitive dissonance for many fundamentalist believers to discount the whole thing as what happens when you are bad.
Even the fact she went to the bathroom by herself (as I understand the testimony) does not meet stereotypical norms: the joke set-up, ‘why can’t women go the the bathroom by themselves?’ The sad punchline, ‘Apparently, so they are less likely to get assaulted.’
I don’t think this investigation is going to matter, because what is described is history, and denying it is like saying ‘I didn’t inhale.’ No one believes it, no one cares.
I think Kavanaugh did everything he is accused of, I think he is lying, and I don’t want him on the Supreme Court.
The Republicans are probably correct that given enough time to digest what is on TV, many people will think about their husbands, sons, friends, and decide: I don’t want my son/husband/HS friend to not be employed 35 years later even if true.
And thus the brilliance of Republicans holding the hearing before the investigation. It no longer matters what they find. Fatigue has set in.
I think I am beginning to follow Tony P in his argument that the high school and college drunken accusations are a dead end (from 3 days ago, not the recent stuff I did not digest while writing this). I include the assaults, and the current lies about the assaults.
I think that behavior in the early-mid 80s was wide spread enough that many men and women from that time have similar memories. I recall going to parties based on ‘Animal House,’ Toga parties with everclear punch in a watermelon (9th grade, didn’t get lucky, very worried about the underwear check), and no common understanding of ‘too drunk to consent.’ Not to mention the other drugs that were illegal no matter how old you were, and that ‘spiking the punch’ was funny, not a step toward date rape.
I imagine many non-victim women feel guilt because they also knew it was happening in front of them, labelled the victim, did nothing to help, and gossiped about it as much as the boys. Probably many still blame the victims, since they knew better than to be a victim. My recollection of my high school is the girls can be brutal to each other, especially over something like this, and the boy was popular.
I believe her and not him because this is the 1980’s I recall. And that is the problem. I do not believe I ever acted as bad as Kavanaugh is alleged, but I have definitely reached a second time after the first ‘no.’ Separating the girl you were interested in from the group was required to try and kiss her.
I recall thinking it was completely unfair that a drunk victim can’t give consent, but the drunk perpetrator can’t use lack of cognition as a defense. Two drunk people, only one has no responsibility for actions. Still conflicted on that, really, particularly when we are supposed to reach a standard ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ with two drunks, and no witnesses.
The current issue is people can choose to believe a person should not have put themselves in that position, that the culture at the time made it likely, that the person was lucky that is all that happened. especially those who are against alcohol/drugs, and have strict dating/dancing policies, etc. It is probably not cognitive dissonance for many fundamentalist believers to discount the whole thing as what happens when you are bad.
Even the fact she went to the bathroom by herself (as I understand the testimony) does not meet stereotypical norms: the joke set-up, ‘why can’t women go the the bathroom by themselves?’ The sad punchline, ‘Apparently, so they are less likely to get assaulted.’
I don’t think this investigation is going to matter, because what is described is history, and denying it is like saying ‘I didn’t inhale.’ No one believes it, no one cares.
I think Kavanaugh did everything he is accused of, I think he is lying, and I don’t want him on the Supreme Court.
The Republicans are probably correct that given enough time to digest what is on TV, many people will think about their husbands, sons, friends, and decide: I don’t want my son/husband/HS friend to not be employed 35 years later even if true.
And thus the brilliance of Republicans holding the hearing before the investigation. It no longer matters what they find. Fatigue has set in.
Meanwhile….
That makes two such cases.
It’s why we fight.
Meanwhile….
That makes two such cases.
It’s why we fight.
The Republicans are probably correct that given enough time to digest what is on TV, many people will think about their husbands, sons, friends, and decide: I don’t want my son/husband/HS friend to not be employed 35 years later even if true.
I think it’s a contest. On one side, we have the view you give. On the other side however, we have two threads:
– I don’t want that to happen to MY daughter!
– I don’t want to believe that my husband, son, etc. behaved, or will behave, that way — they aren’t that kind of people.
It’s a matter of which bears the most weight. (And, I suppose, on how certain they are on that second point. I’d say a substantial majority of men are not that kind of scum in high school; far from angels, but not that bad. But if a woman spent her teen years around those kind of guys, she may well believe everybody is that way.
The Republicans are probably correct that given enough time to digest what is on TV, many people will think about their husbands, sons, friends, and decide: I don’t want my son/husband/HS friend to not be employed 35 years later even if true.
I think it’s a contest. On one side, we have the view you give. On the other side however, we have two threads:
– I don’t want that to happen to MY daughter!
– I don’t want to believe that my husband, son, etc. behaved, or will behave, that way — they aren’t that kind of people.
It’s a matter of which bears the most weight. (And, I suppose, on how certain they are on that second point. I’d say a substantial majority of men are not that kind of scum in high school; far from angels, but not that bad. But if a woman spent her teen years around those kind of guys, she may well believe everybody is that way.
I don’t want my son/husband/HS friend to not be employed 35 years later even if true.
Kavanaugh is currently a justice on the DC Circuit court. It’s a lifetime appointment.
This is not a question of “not being employed”. The dude already has the brass ring, he just wants the bigger one.
I don’t want my son/husband/HS friend to not be employed 35 years later even if true.
Kavanaugh is currently a justice on the DC Circuit court. It’s a lifetime appointment.
This is not a question of “not being employed”. The dude already has the brass ring, he just wants the bigger one.
Not becoming a Republican Supreme Court Judge is NOT becoming unemployed, well, as long as FOX News and Breitbart are hiring contributors
Fire and Hire at will is what we’re told.
Jobs are plentiful right now. It’s even hard to find a good bartender.
Get a job.
I don’t recall .. as in it never happened, the Romney Republicans from 2008 and all through the 2012 election, and from the beginning of time until this very moment, any such sensitivity about unemployment felt about the millions of unemployed Takers they maligned right then and there, not 35 years later.
Commenter Patrick wrote there are no real Republican beliefs, which I agree with as a generality, but they are going to be made to live by the lying presentation of their beliefs they puke from their mouth holes.
Not becoming a Republican Supreme Court Judge is NOT becoming unemployed, well, as long as FOX News and Breitbart are hiring contributors
Fire and Hire at will is what we’re told.
Jobs are plentiful right now. It’s even hard to find a good bartender.
Get a job.
I don’t recall .. as in it never happened, the Romney Republicans from 2008 and all through the 2012 election, and from the beginning of time until this very moment, any such sensitivity about unemployment felt about the millions of unemployed Takers they maligned right then and there, not 35 years later.
Commenter Patrick wrote there are no real Republican beliefs, which I agree with as a generality, but they are going to be made to live by the lying presentation of their beliefs they puke from their mouth holes.
From where I sit, all this talk about what he did in high school — including my own speculations and snark — is mostly a way to vent, and to pass the time.
He’s going to get confirmed, or else someone equally ideological is going to get confirmed in the lame duck session regardless of who gets elected in November. The FBI investigation is a joke, given that it’s being controlled from the White House and isn’t what the requesting senators seemed to intend anyhow.
I think the so-called waverers were never really on the fence, they just had to look like they were, and they will vote the way they need to vote (whatever horsetrading is done behind the scenes) for BK to get confirmed.
Susan Collins does this wavering “I’m very concerned” schtick on autopilot these days, then votes with the party when the chips are down. Yes, there are one or two exceptions, but I don’t think this time is going to be one of them. Waiting is too chancy for the Rs. They want it, and they want it now, and Susan is an R to her bones.
We are so fncked.
From where I sit, all this talk about what he did in high school — including my own speculations and snark — is mostly a way to vent, and to pass the time.
He’s going to get confirmed, or else someone equally ideological is going to get confirmed in the lame duck session regardless of who gets elected in November. The FBI investigation is a joke, given that it’s being controlled from the White House and isn’t what the requesting senators seemed to intend anyhow.
I think the so-called waverers were never really on the fence, they just had to look like they were, and they will vote the way they need to vote (whatever horsetrading is done behind the scenes) for BK to get confirmed.
Susan Collins does this wavering “I’m very concerned” schtick on autopilot these days, then votes with the party when the chips are down. Yes, there are one or two exceptions, but I don’t think this time is going to be one of them. Waiting is too chancy for the Rs. They want it, and they want it now, and Susan is an R to her bones.
We are so fncked.
Yup, I hate to say it, but I fear it’s what Janie said.
Yup, I hate to say it, but I fear it’s what Janie said.
I’ll amend my 1:41 regarding the diminution of the drinking impulse over time by making exceptions for writers and poets, actors and others of the artistic inclination, commodities traders and the Irish and Welsh at large 😉 the latter for whom rosacea of the proboscis is a birthright.
I’ll amend my 1:41 regarding the diminution of the drinking impulse over time by making exceptions for writers and poets, actors and others of the artistic inclination, commodities traders and the Irish and Welsh at large 😉 the latter for whom rosacea of the proboscis is a birthright.
Another funny courtroom exchange:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
Another funny courtroom exchange:
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No..
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
Misogynist homosocial culture must change. Might as well do it now. Whether or not Ford’s specific allegations against Kavanaugh are verifiable, he fits the profile for this sort of behavior and has undoubtedly been complicit. So change the nomination on principle to address the larger context and punt on Kavanaugh personally. That would be the wise strategic move.
If the administration were to call time on Kavanaugh and put Amy Coney Barrett in his place, this would all be over no matter what the Democrats thought of her legal positions and with less damage to the Republican party.
And if they really thought that Kavanaugh were blameless, the administration could promise that he’d get the first shot at an opening the next time a justice retires once a full FBI investigation was done outside of the spotlight of an ongoing nomination.
A different form of power politics, but just as effective. It misses the additional benefit of making Democrats sit around like cucks while the Republicans get their way, so I don’t expect that either Trump or McConnell will choose this route. Bullying is the whole point of this choice and picking a woman would play like a concession even if it were just as bitter a poison pill for the Democrats where legal policy is concerned.
Misogynist homosocial culture must change. Might as well do it now. Whether or not Ford’s specific allegations against Kavanaugh are verifiable, he fits the profile for this sort of behavior and has undoubtedly been complicit. So change the nomination on principle to address the larger context and punt on Kavanaugh personally. That would be the wise strategic move.
If the administration were to call time on Kavanaugh and put Amy Coney Barrett in his place, this would all be over no matter what the Democrats thought of her legal positions and with less damage to the Republican party.
And if they really thought that Kavanaugh were blameless, the administration could promise that he’d get the first shot at an opening the next time a justice retires once a full FBI investigation was done outside of the spotlight of an ongoing nomination.
A different form of power politics, but just as effective. It misses the additional benefit of making Democrats sit around like cucks while the Republicans get their way, so I don’t expect that either Trump or McConnell will choose this route. Bullying is the whole point of this choice and picking a woman would play like a concession even if it were just as bitter a poison pill for the Democrats where legal policy is concerned.
I haven’t had a serious drink (including beer and wine) since 12/30/68, and I hadn’t had much before that, either. Yet, I have rosacea on my cheeks, nose, and chin. It’s not severe…yet.
Hereditary? That would make sense, since my mom has it and she too has never been a drinker (not even coffee or tea). But we both love chocolate.
Now there’s an addiction to be reckoned with. Superfood!!!!
And Count: you forgot the Russians at large, and the Germans, and the Scots, and…….
I haven’t had a serious drink (including beer and wine) since 12/30/68, and I hadn’t had much before that, either. Yet, I have rosacea on my cheeks, nose, and chin. It’s not severe…yet.
Hereditary? That would make sense, since my mom has it and she too has never been a drinker (not even coffee or tea). But we both love chocolate.
Now there’s an addiction to be reckoned with. Superfood!!!!
And Count: you forgot the Russians at large, and the Germans, and the Scots, and…….
– I don’t want that to happen to MY daughter!
I agree it is a contest.
The whole ‘shotgun on the porch’ is about me protecting my daughters (4). I feel it is my failure it they aren’t.
I believe this is the basis of many of the rules about women not working, what they wear, and in some cultures not leaving the house without a father, husband or brother.
Most men know most other men can be pigs (don’t have to be but can), and therefore try to protect the females they think belong to them.
I can tell you I literally feel this way: I do not worry about my son being harmed, I worry about him harming a someone else’s daughter. I worry about my daughters being harmed by someone else’s son.
I am not willing to restrain my daughter’s freedom to protect them, I want to restrain the other people’s sons around them. To the extent they are not restrained, I think it is my job.
I know this is not your opinion nor argument, but The contest is ‘will society control the males,’ or will families ‘continue to control the females.’ We have much evidence that controlling the females is bad for society (ie, everywhere females are more controlled than equal).
Russell,
I know this is not some job and agree that Kavanaugh should not have it. We are not most Americans. I think most American’s don’t care, don’t know, and even if they did would treat this as a tribal issue.
– I don’t want that to happen to MY daughter!
I agree it is a contest.
The whole ‘shotgun on the porch’ is about me protecting my daughters (4). I feel it is my failure it they aren’t.
I believe this is the basis of many of the rules about women not working, what they wear, and in some cultures not leaving the house without a father, husband or brother.
Most men know most other men can be pigs (don’t have to be but can), and therefore try to protect the females they think belong to them.
I can tell you I literally feel this way: I do not worry about my son being harmed, I worry about him harming a someone else’s daughter. I worry about my daughters being harmed by someone else’s son.
I am not willing to restrain my daughter’s freedom to protect them, I want to restrain the other people’s sons around them. To the extent they are not restrained, I think it is my job.
I know this is not your opinion nor argument, but The contest is ‘will society control the males,’ or will families ‘continue to control the females.’ We have much evidence that controlling the females is bad for society (ie, everywhere females are more controlled than equal).
Russell,
I know this is not some job and agree that Kavanaugh should not have it. We are not most Americans. I think most American’s don’t care, don’t know, and even if they did would treat this as a tribal issue.
“Susan Collins does this wavering “I’m very concerned” schtick on autopilot these days, then votes with the party when the chips are down.”
She reminds of Ash in Alien One, “concerned”, programmed for empathy as far is it is a means to an end, but with bigger fish to fry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrf0cH4o_g4
“Susan Collins does this wavering “I’m very concerned” schtick on autopilot these days, then votes with the party when the chips are down.”
She reminds of Ash in Alien One, “concerned”, programmed for empathy as far is it is a means to an end, but with bigger fish to fry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrf0cH4o_g4
I never forget the Germans, meine Volk.
I never forget the Germans, meine Volk.
we’re getting ready for our annual group trip to the beach. it’ll be a little sad this year, since people are warned from going in the ocean thanks to the billions of gallons of liquefied pit shit that just washed down the rivers. but, we’re going anyway!
it’s called “Drunkfest”.
i know from booze.
we’re getting ready for our annual group trip to the beach. it’ll be a little sad this year, since people are warned from going in the ocean thanks to the billions of gallons of liquefied pit shit that just washed down the rivers. but, we’re going anyway!
it’s called “Drunkfest”.
i know from booze.
Whatever you do, cleek, don’t drive while knowing from booze.
Pigshit and Booze
Could be a title for Kavanaugh’s memoir.
Whatever you do, cleek, don’t drive while knowing from booze.
Pigshit and Booze
Could be a title for Kavanaugh’s memoir.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-white-house-only-wants-fbi-to-talk-to-two-kavanaugh-accusers-not-the-third?via=newsletter&source=Weekend
https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-white-house-only-wants-fbi-to-talk-to-two-kavanaugh-accusers-not-the-third?via=newsletter&source=Weekend
with any luck i won’t touch a car from Sunday to Sunday.
with any luck i won’t touch a car from Sunday to Sunday.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/snl-matt-damon-absolutely-nails-brett-kavanaugh-in-season-premiere?via=newsletter&source=Weekend
https://www.thedailybeast.com/snl-matt-damon-absolutely-nails-brett-kavanaugh-in-season-premiere?via=newsletter&source=Weekend
He’s going to get confirmed, or else someone equally ideological is going to get confirmed in the lame duck session regardless of who gets elected in November.
Yup.
If the administration were to call time on Kavanaugh and put Amy Coney Barrett in his place, this would all be over no matter what the Democrats thought of her legal positions and with less damage to the Republican party.
Nope.
Barrett participates in a very conservative Catholic charismatic community. It would come up. That, of course, would provoke claims of religious discrimination.
And we’d be off to the races again.
For that very reason, if they punt on Kavanaugh, my money is on Barrett. Who could resist such an opportunity for pissing off libs and stoking the base?
Pigshit and Booze
Isn’t that a Kinky Friedman song?
He’s going to get confirmed, or else someone equally ideological is going to get confirmed in the lame duck session regardless of who gets elected in November.
Yup.
If the administration were to call time on Kavanaugh and put Amy Coney Barrett in his place, this would all be over no matter what the Democrats thought of her legal positions and with less damage to the Republican party.
Nope.
Barrett participates in a very conservative Catholic charismatic community. It would come up. That, of course, would provoke claims of religious discrimination.
And we’d be off to the races again.
For that very reason, if they punt on Kavanaugh, my money is on Barrett. Who could resist such an opportunity for pissing off libs and stoking the base?
Pigshit and Booze
Isn’t that a Kinky Friedman song?
Isn’t that a Kinky Friedman song?
“Kinky” because of his hair? Personality? Both?
A masterful effort to offend everyone.
Kinky Friedman – They Don’t Make Jews Like Jesus Anymore
Isn’t that a Kinky Friedman song?
“Kinky” because of his hair? Personality? Both?
A masterful effort to offend everyone.
Kinky Friedman – They Don’t Make Jews Like Jesus Anymore
Amy Coney Barrett’s rightful federal job should be Ambassador to the Vatican where she wouldn’t have to recuse herself from every other meeting with Papal officials because of religious conflicts of the conscience.
Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich got his way on the Vatican appointment by putting forth the woman he had his out-of-wedlock way with for the post.
Fortunately or not, Ms Gingrich carries out her duties representing the United States to the Vatican without shameful blushing on mp’s behalf.
Amy Coney Barrett’s rightful federal job should be Ambassador to the Vatican where she wouldn’t have to recuse herself from every other meeting with Papal officials because of religious conflicts of the conscience.
Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich got his way on the Vatican appointment by putting forth the woman he had his out-of-wedlock way with for the post.
Fortunately or not, Ms Gingrich carries out her duties representing the United States to the Vatican without shameful blushing on mp’s behalf.
I think most American’s don’t care, don’t know, and even if they did would treat this as a tribal issue.
Yep. It’s pretty bad out there. We may well be truly up the river without a paddle.
But it’s why we fight. No retreat. No surrender. Might be time to throw “no quarter” into the mix as well.
I think most American’s don’t care, don’t know, and even if they did would treat this as a tribal issue.
Yep. It’s pretty bad out there. We may well be truly up the river without a paddle.
But it’s why we fight. No retreat. No surrender. Might be time to throw “no quarter” into the mix as well.
My point with Barrett is that if you wanted to ram someone through, her religious ties would at least have the merit of being a “religious freedom” talking point for the base while avoiding the appearance of dismissing the experience of the preponderance of their female constituents. They’d even be able to trot out the “look at us promoting women” card. And if Barrett were shot down (which I’m not convinced would happen, given that they have gotten this far with Beer Pong Brett despite his huge downside), it would just be a minor blip rather than what looks to be a serious fracture in the GOP brand.
My point with Barrett is that if you wanted to ram someone through, her religious ties would at least have the merit of being a “religious freedom” talking point for the base while avoiding the appearance of dismissing the experience of the preponderance of their female constituents. They’d even be able to trot out the “look at us promoting women” card. And if Barrett were shot down (which I’m not convinced would happen, given that they have gotten this far with Beer Pong Brett despite his huge downside), it would just be a minor blip rather than what looks to be a serious fracture in the GOP brand.
Nous, I do not disagree.
Nous, I do not disagree.
The White House is denying limiting the investigation, but it’s pretty clear it is being limited.
I’m particularly impressed bu Graham saying it’s essential we should interview the guy accused of a crime, but not the accuser… because the accusation is clearly nonsense…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/30/fbi-investigation-brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-kellyanne-conway
Conway and press secretary Sarah Sanders, who appeared on Fox News Sunday, both insisted the White House was not micro-managing. But Graham appeared to confirm Swetnick would not be questioned.
“I think the allegation that she makes is outrageous and not one Democrat mentioned it,” the South Carolina senator and judiciary committee member told ABC’s This Week. “But Mark Judge, who is named by Ms Swetnick as being part of a gang rape and drugging women, will be asked did he ever see it happen. Or did he see Kavanaugh engage in it?”…
The White House is denying limiting the investigation, but it’s pretty clear it is being limited.
I’m particularly impressed bu Graham saying it’s essential we should interview the guy accused of a crime, but not the accuser… because the accusation is clearly nonsense…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/30/fbi-investigation-brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-kellyanne-conway
Conway and press secretary Sarah Sanders, who appeared on Fox News Sunday, both insisted the White House was not micro-managing. But Graham appeared to confirm Swetnick would not be questioned.
“I think the allegation that she makes is outrageous and not one Democrat mentioned it,” the South Carolina senator and judiciary committee member told ABC’s This Week. “But Mark Judge, who is named by Ms Swetnick as being part of a gang rape and drugging women, will be asked did he ever see it happen. Or did he see Kavanaugh engage in it?”…
We may well be truly up the river without a paddle.
Say, bobby, can I interest you in a plan to partition the country :^) Don’t know which part you’re in, but I’m pretty sure my part is going to be able to have nice things.
We may well be truly up the river without a paddle.
Say, bobby, can I interest you in a plan to partition the country :^) Don’t know which part you’re in, but I’m pretty sure my part is going to be able to have nice things.
and not one Democrat mentioned it,
A lie, of course. Diane Feinstein mentioned it.
and not one Democrat mentioned it,
A lie, of course. Diane Feinstein mentioned it.
In keeping with my looking at the little things while the big battle rages, there’s this
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/devils-triangle-edit/index.html
Wikipedia, the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia, was edited after his testimony to make his explanation of one of the mysteries make sense.
One of the puzzles had been what was meant by the term “Devil’s Triangle.”
and the kicker
Devil’s Triangle (disambiguation) Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives https://t.co/D3poeTGMuK pic.twitter.com/oB74iOxzBS
— congress-edits (@congressedits) September 27, 2018
A bit more from the article
Congress-Edits is a Twitter bot that tracks Wikipedia updates from congressional IP addresses. The entry has since been removed.
Other congressional Wikipedia editors were posting the DC addresses of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to the site. Those too have been removed. Mean tricks expand far beyond high school in Washington.
In keeping with my looking at the little things while the big battle rages, there’s this
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/27/politics/devils-triangle-edit/index.html
Wikipedia, the crowd-sourced online encyclopedia, was edited after his testimony to make his explanation of one of the mysteries make sense.
One of the puzzles had been what was meant by the term “Devil’s Triangle.”
and the kicker
Devil’s Triangle (disambiguation) Wikipedia article edited anonymously from US House of Representatives https://t.co/D3poeTGMuK pic.twitter.com/oB74iOxzBS
— congress-edits (@congressedits) September 27, 2018
A bit more from the article
Congress-Edits is a Twitter bot that tracks Wikipedia updates from congressional IP addresses. The entry has since been removed.
Other congressional Wikipedia editors were posting the DC addresses of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to the site. Those too have been removed. Mean tricks expand far beyond high school in Washington.
So. Just who is telling the lies here?
So. Just who is telling the lies here?
I prefer this:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils%20Triangle
A made up game of quarters with three cups arranged in a triangle. The rules are unknown because the inventor of the game, Brett Kavanaugh, could not explain them under oath.
I prefer this:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils%20Triangle
A made up game of quarters with three cups arranged in a triangle. The rules are unknown because the inventor of the game, Brett Kavanaugh, could not explain them under oath.
Isn’t that a Kinky Friedman song?
“Kinky” because of his hair? Personality? Both?
A masterful effort to offend everyone.
Well, not everyone, just the people in the middle. As Kinky Friedman once said about the band being called Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys “It means that all our fans are either really smart, or really dumb.”
Isn’t that a Kinky Friedman song?
“Kinky” because of his hair? Personality? Both?
A masterful effort to offend everyone.
Well, not everyone, just the people in the middle. As Kinky Friedman once said about the band being called Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys “It means that all our fans are either really smart, or really dumb.”
So. Just who is telling the lies here?
how nice it is to have all of that in one place!
such a credible witness K was. oy.
GOP = cult of suckers
So. Just who is telling the lies here?
how nice it is to have all of that in one place!
such a credible witness K was. oy.
GOP = cult of suckers
Nathan Robinson, the author of the article at bobbyp’s link, went to Yale Law, FWIW.
Just sayin’. It’s a small world, after all…..
Nathan Robinson, the author of the article at bobbyp’s link, went to Yale Law, FWIW.
Just sayin’. It’s a small world, after all…..
bobbyp, that’s a really excellent, forensic examination of Kavanaugh’s testimony in the Current Affairs piece. It’s quite long, but then, it’s extremely thorough. I only hope the FBI read it!
bobbyp, that’s a really excellent, forensic examination of Kavanaugh’s testimony in the Current Affairs piece. It’s quite long, but then, it’s extremely thorough. I only hope the FBI read it!
On a happier note (and wildly OT), for cinephiles, there’s a splendid edition of the BBC’s Film Program with director Paul King discussing Powell and Pressburger’s The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bkv1v8
If you know the film, it’s really enjoyable.
On a happier note (and wildly OT), for cinephiles, there’s a splendid edition of the BBC’s Film Program with director Paul King discussing Powell and Pressburger’s The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bkv1v8
If you know the film, it’s really enjoyable.
“Ever play quarters?”
“No”
“It’s a quarters game”
If the SCOTUS thing doesn’t work out, there’s a future for Kavanaugh working the short con.
“Ever play quarters?”
“No”
“It’s a quarters game”
If the SCOTUS thing doesn’t work out, there’s a future for Kavanaugh working the short con.
Hello Michael Cain…I reside in the major metropolitan area in the western part of the 48th Soviet of Washington (State).
I enjoy your posts, but alas am no fan of partitioning the USofA, and tend to be a one-worlder currently promoting a theory that space aliens are behind global warming as part of a plot to suck all of our essential bodily fluids for their evil ends. It’s the only way I see how we can overcome the Tragedy of Commons wrt that issue.
The ends do justify the means.
Hello Michael Cain…I reside in the major metropolitan area in the western part of the 48th Soviet of Washington (State).
I enjoy your posts, but alas am no fan of partitioning the USofA, and tend to be a one-worlder currently promoting a theory that space aliens are behind global warming as part of a plot to suck all of our essential bodily fluids for their evil ends. It’s the only way I see how we can overcome the Tragedy of Commons wrt that issue.
The ends do justify the means.
In this case, the buck stops with.. the Senate ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/white-house-not-micromanaging-fbi-press-sec-says-853934
president is not “micromanaging” the FBI’s investigation into Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assaults, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Sunday.
“The Senate is dictating the terms,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.” “They laid out the request, and we‘ve opened it up.”
Whatever the hell that might mean.
In this case, the buck stops with.. the Senate ?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/white-house-not-micromanaging-fbi-press-sec-says-853934
president is not “micromanaging” the FBI’s investigation into Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assaults, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Sunday.
“The Senate is dictating the terms,” she said on “Fox News Sunday.” “They laid out the request, and we‘ve opened it up.”
Whatever the hell that might mean.
If the Senate is ‘dictating terms’, that’s news to the ranking Democrat:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409168-feinstein-requests-written-directive-sent-by-white-house-to-fbi-for-kavanaugh
If the Senate is ‘dictating terms’, that’s news to the ranking Democrat:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409168-feinstein-requests-written-directive-sent-by-white-house-to-fbi-for-kavanaugh
I wanted to write about jrudkis’ interesting comment. One way to look at this is to see this as a generational conflict and I’d like to take his point, perhaps a bit further than he would.
This LGM post points out how many of the things that Kavanaugh is having to deal with were bog-standard tropes in the 80’s. We had some discussion about ‘pulling a train’, and in the first Airplane movie, there’s a scene where a woman becomes hysterical and a man starts to slap her, and then the stewardess intervenes and then Leslie Nielsen says he is a doctor and that he should do it and then he starts to slap her, and then a nun say ‘no let me handle this’ and the camera pans back to a line of people waiting for their turn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNkpIDBtC2c
(it’s a sign of the Zucker and Abrahams thought that went into the joke that not only is the gag leavened by the presence of the stewardess and then the nun, but that immediately after that gag, we see Robert Stack, as the pilot called on to talk the plane down, going thru the airport and punching out a line of people offering religious and liberal nostrums. Good comedy, thy name is balance)
I’d observe that mistaken idea that this sort of train relates to ‘training’ women is a false etymology, and that leads into my larger observation that this is, in a lot of way, the younger generation fighting the older generation. Kavanaugh is an absolutely ordinary wasp preppie who is incensed that he (the nerve!) is being questioned. His privilege shown thru and he made it very clear (and others have picked up this theme) that he was angry at his treatment. It’s not only toxic white male privilege, it is the gall at suggesting that he has ever done anything that would merit the treatment he is deserving, a note that Graham made into a symphony. So male privilege, check, wasp privilege, check, but also a total lack of reflection that something that was done in one’s youth might be problematic today, so the privilege of old age. Don’t judge me by today’s standards, because I’m the one who is supposed to judge you.
As jrudkis points out, there is a generation for whom all this is not surprising. It is also not surprising that the idea of the train would be turned into something even more insidious, where there is some attempt to ‘teach’ this behavior, which, from my 80’s recollections, is ridiculous because the point seems to be that the woman would be labelled a slut, so there is no training, there is just the disposable nature of the act. One would think that is horrific enough, but the recasting of it is to force some sort of responsibility on the actors. It may backfire, when Kavanaugh and others say they never ‘trained’ any women and then, sub rosa, adduce it is the woman’s fault for being at a place where the punch was spiked. That’s why I think you have to be historically and linguistically accurate, much like GftNC discussing refute.
Looking at the anger, not only of Kavanaugh, but of Graham, all this takes on an appearance of, as jrudkis points out, history, with the younger generation looking to get rid of the older generation and the older generation not wanting to give up power. This is not to say that other things are in the mix, but I think this is a thread that runs thru this. Some people may object, saying that the brush is overly broad, and I may be looking at it this way because I’m so sick and tired of reading about it, but can’t turn away. And I’m here in Japan, so it’s not in my face. I can only imagine what it would be like if I were in the US. But beyond party conflicts, this is also a fight between old and new and old is always going to lose.
Another thing, in keeping with my own interests, is that looking at all of the commentary, I don’t see a lot, well, really any commentary by African Americans or minorities. I’m waiting for someone like Dave Chappelle to observe how some white folks seem to get real upset about false accusations, but are somehow able to shrug when it’s a black guy on the short end of the stick.
https://www.amny.com/news/central-park-five-1.19884350
God help us.
I wanted to write about jrudkis’ interesting comment. One way to look at this is to see this as a generational conflict and I’d like to take his point, perhaps a bit further than he would.
This LGM post points out how many of the things that Kavanaugh is having to deal with were bog-standard tropes in the 80’s. We had some discussion about ‘pulling a train’, and in the first Airplane movie, there’s a scene where a woman becomes hysterical and a man starts to slap her, and then the stewardess intervenes and then Leslie Nielsen says he is a doctor and that he should do it and then he starts to slap her, and then a nun say ‘no let me handle this’ and the camera pans back to a line of people waiting for their turn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNkpIDBtC2c
(it’s a sign of the Zucker and Abrahams thought that went into the joke that not only is the gag leavened by the presence of the stewardess and then the nun, but that immediately after that gag, we see Robert Stack, as the pilot called on to talk the plane down, going thru the airport and punching out a line of people offering religious and liberal nostrums. Good comedy, thy name is balance)
I’d observe that mistaken idea that this sort of train relates to ‘training’ women is a false etymology, and that leads into my larger observation that this is, in a lot of way, the younger generation fighting the older generation. Kavanaugh is an absolutely ordinary wasp preppie who is incensed that he (the nerve!) is being questioned. His privilege shown thru and he made it very clear (and others have picked up this theme) that he was angry at his treatment. It’s not only toxic white male privilege, it is the gall at suggesting that he has ever done anything that would merit the treatment he is deserving, a note that Graham made into a symphony. So male privilege, check, wasp privilege, check, but also a total lack of reflection that something that was done in one’s youth might be problematic today, so the privilege of old age. Don’t judge me by today’s standards, because I’m the one who is supposed to judge you.
As jrudkis points out, there is a generation for whom all this is not surprising. It is also not surprising that the idea of the train would be turned into something even more insidious, where there is some attempt to ‘teach’ this behavior, which, from my 80’s recollections, is ridiculous because the point seems to be that the woman would be labelled a slut, so there is no training, there is just the disposable nature of the act. One would think that is horrific enough, but the recasting of it is to force some sort of responsibility on the actors. It may backfire, when Kavanaugh and others say they never ‘trained’ any women and then, sub rosa, adduce it is the woman’s fault for being at a place where the punch was spiked. That’s why I think you have to be historically and linguistically accurate, much like GftNC discussing refute.
Looking at the anger, not only of Kavanaugh, but of Graham, all this takes on an appearance of, as jrudkis points out, history, with the younger generation looking to get rid of the older generation and the older generation not wanting to give up power. This is not to say that other things are in the mix, but I think this is a thread that runs thru this. Some people may object, saying that the brush is overly broad, and I may be looking at it this way because I’m so sick and tired of reading about it, but can’t turn away. And I’m here in Japan, so it’s not in my face. I can only imagine what it would be like if I were in the US. But beyond party conflicts, this is also a fight between old and new and old is always going to lose.
Another thing, in keeping with my own interests, is that looking at all of the commentary, I don’t see a lot, well, really any commentary by African Americans or minorities. I’m waiting for someone like Dave Chappelle to observe how some white folks seem to get real upset about false accusations, but are somehow able to shrug when it’s a black guy on the short end of the stick.
https://www.amny.com/news/central-park-five-1.19884350
God help us.
I’m waiting for someone like Dave Chappelle to observe how some white folks seem to get real upset about false accusations, but are somehow able to shrug when it’s a black guy on the short end of the stick.
Excellent point, among many others, lj.
I’m waiting for someone like Dave Chappelle to observe how some white folks seem to get real upset about false accusations, but are somehow able to shrug when it’s a black guy on the short end of the stick.
Excellent point, among many others, lj.
To pick a nit, Kavanaugh is of Irish descent, and Catholic. So, technically at least, not your classic W(hite) A(nglo)-S(axon) P(rotestant).
Granted, the fault lines that would have made that distinction important when I was young have long ago shifted.
To pick a nit, Kavanaugh is of Irish descent, and Catholic. So, technically at least, not your classic W(hite) A(nglo)-S(axon) P(rotestant).
Granted, the fault lines that would have made that distinction important when I was young have long ago shifted.
Here is the finest summation of our collective predicament that I have seen anywhere :
http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2018/09/constitutional-crisis.html?cid=6a00e54fdb30b98834022ad3b4e4ce200b#comment-6a00e54fdb30b98834022ad3b4e4ce200b
Here is the finest summation of our collective predicament that I have seen anywhere :
http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2018/09/constitutional-crisis.html?cid=6a00e54fdb30b98834022ad3b4e4ce200b#comment-6a00e54fdb30b98834022ad3b4e4ce200b
Janie, that is a real good point and I should have caught it. That about 100 years ago, it would be ‘of course, one doesn’t expect a Kavanaugh to hold his liquor’ kind of adds to the irony of this and gives his wheedling about being in Yale at the top of his class an interesting added note. Is there some sort of striving feeling of his parents being parvenue that pushed him to go along to get along? The whole question of the country club memberships seems to resonate with that.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/
Whitehouse also asked about Kavanaugh’s membership in the Chevy Chase Club, which he joined in 2016. In his responses to a Senate questionnaire before his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh made the club sound like a basic rec center, writing, “The Chevy Chase Club is a recreational club. We joined because the club has an outdoor hockey rink and a girls ice hockey program, and because of its gym and sports facilities.”
But the Chevy Chase Club is a lot more than a gym. Whitehouse noted in his questions that the club’s initiation fee is reportedly $92,000, plus more than $9,000 in annual dues. The private country club founded in 1892 is so elite that a neighborhood realtor once told the Guardian that “you can be a CEO, a billionaire, but you can’t get in.” Its website offers no insight as to how someone might go about joining—it’s by invitation only. But the website does outline the dress code: no jeans, no collarless shirts, and hats must be worn “visor forward.” Any guest hoping to play tennis with a member must appear on the court dressed only in white.
As recently as 1976, the club refused to admit Jewish and African American members. In 2011, a reporter from the Telegraph wrote of the club, “Order a cocktail at the Chevy Chase country-club and you’ll step back into antebellum Savannah. The blacks wait on Wasps, showing all the deference expected of them. You won’t find many Cohens either, lounging on the well-kept lawn.”
Janie, that is a real good point and I should have caught it. That about 100 years ago, it would be ‘of course, one doesn’t expect a Kavanaugh to hold his liquor’ kind of adds to the irony of this and gives his wheedling about being in Yale at the top of his class an interesting added note. Is there some sort of striving feeling of his parents being parvenue that pushed him to go along to get along? The whole question of the country club memberships seems to resonate with that.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/the-many-mysteries-of-brett-kavanaughs-finances/
Whitehouse also asked about Kavanaugh’s membership in the Chevy Chase Club, which he joined in 2016. In his responses to a Senate questionnaire before his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh made the club sound like a basic rec center, writing, “The Chevy Chase Club is a recreational club. We joined because the club has an outdoor hockey rink and a girls ice hockey program, and because of its gym and sports facilities.”
But the Chevy Chase Club is a lot more than a gym. Whitehouse noted in his questions that the club’s initiation fee is reportedly $92,000, plus more than $9,000 in annual dues. The private country club founded in 1892 is so elite that a neighborhood realtor once told the Guardian that “you can be a CEO, a billionaire, but you can’t get in.” Its website offers no insight as to how someone might go about joining—it’s by invitation only. But the website does outline the dress code: no jeans, no collarless shirts, and hats must be worn “visor forward.” Any guest hoping to play tennis with a member must appear on the court dressed only in white.
As recently as 1976, the club refused to admit Jewish and African American members. In 2011, a reporter from the Telegraph wrote of the club, “Order a cocktail at the Chevy Chase country-club and you’ll step back into antebellum Savannah. The blacks wait on Wasps, showing all the deference expected of them. You won’t find many Cohens either, lounging on the well-kept lawn.”
Besides the possibility of parvenu striving, I feel like his performance [sic] on Friday was also not remotely WASPish. (Though I could be all wrong about this…) Too much open emotion, too much conspiracy foolishness, both of which put the speaker too much into a vulnerable/victim’s role. A WASP is never vulnerable and never a victim. Too cool for that, and too cool to show it anyhow. Too superior to give oneself away like that to one’s inferiors.
No, Friday’s performance was more Clickbait than WASP. Obviously it wasn’t for the senate, it was for the TV cameras.
“I got into Yale on my own hard work” — would a WASP say that? If so, only with a different subtext, which would be “…not just because Daddy went there.”
*****
WASP a funny term. I have always wondered what to call my mother’s family, who were white Anglo-Saxon protestants (Baptists) but about as far from being WASPS as you could get and still be those other things. I would like to call them English-American, on the grounds that either everyone or no one should be a hyphenated American.
But that’s another whole topic.
We are so fncked.
Besides the possibility of parvenu striving, I feel like his performance [sic] on Friday was also not remotely WASPish. (Though I could be all wrong about this…) Too much open emotion, too much conspiracy foolishness, both of which put the speaker too much into a vulnerable/victim’s role. A WASP is never vulnerable and never a victim. Too cool for that, and too cool to show it anyhow. Too superior to give oneself away like that to one’s inferiors.
No, Friday’s performance was more Clickbait than WASP. Obviously it wasn’t for the senate, it was for the TV cameras.
“I got into Yale on my own hard work” — would a WASP say that? If so, only with a different subtext, which would be “…not just because Daddy went there.”
*****
WASP a funny term. I have always wondered what to call my mother’s family, who were white Anglo-Saxon protestants (Baptists) but about as far from being WASPS as you could get and still be those other things. I would like to call them English-American, on the grounds that either everyone or no one should be a hyphenated American.
But that’s another whole topic.
We are so fncked.
I only hope the FBI read it!
Given the shackles placed on the so-called investigation, they may have to.
I only hope the FBI read it!
Given the shackles placed on the so-called investigation, they may have to.
Not sure Kavanaugh’s Irish background was a problem. His grandfather was a Yale alum (contrary to his testimony that he had no connections to Yale), and his father was born in New Haven. This is more history of Chevy Chase.
Maryland is a historically Catholic state.
Not sure Kavanaugh’s Irish background was a problem. His grandfather was a Yale alum (contrary to his testimony that he had no connections to Yale), and his father was born in New Haven. This is more history of Chevy Chase.
Maryland is a historically Catholic state.
Not sure whether I (or someone else) has already mentioned this article about party culture among private schools (including Georgetown Prep), published in 1990. Apologies if so.
Not sure whether I (or someone else) has already mentioned this article about party culture among private schools (including Georgetown Prep), published in 1990. Apologies if so.
I for one never said Kavanaugh’s Irish background was a “problem.” I just said that an Irish Catholic isn’t a WASP.
I for one never said Kavanaugh’s Irish background was a “problem.” I just said that an Irish Catholic isn’t a WASP.
I just said that an Irish Catholic isn’t a WASP.
Right. Just saying, though, he had some blue blood.
I just said that an Irish Catholic isn’t a WASP.
Right. Just saying, though, he had some blue blood.
“I got into Yale on my own hard work” — would a WASP say that?
Yale is just where one goes.
“I got into Yale on my own hard work” — would a WASP say that?
Yale is just where one goes.
lj wields a mighty tweezer, I’ve noted before, of the finer points
Yeah, Dave Cappelle will be along shortly, I expect on Netflix, tearing new ones for one and all.
lj wields a mighty tweezer, I’ve noted before, of the finer points
Yeah, Dave Cappelle will be along shortly, I expect on Netflix, tearing new ones for one and all.
Here’s something interesting, though:
“Accepted” isn’t the same as attending, but still, that’s progress. In 1967, an admissions officer at the only Catholic college I applied to (to please the nun who was my guidance counselor) (no, it was really because my boyfriend was there, and one of my best friends 🙂 told me that given my SATs I would get into every college I applied to, “except maybe Radcliffe, and that will depend on whether they need an Italian girl from the midwest to round out their class.”
He was right, I did, as an early beneficiary of the subversive idea that admission to selective colleges should be based on brains more than on blood.
It was a mixed blessing for me, but that’s not a topic for tonight. It’s just interesting to contemplate the change from the late sixties to now in terms of diversity on these campuses. Two of my original female classmates at MIT left after the first year to be part of the first cohort of women at Yale. That would have been the fall of 1969. My freshman class at MIT had sixty women (out of 900 total) and maybe one or two African American students. Now the genders are almost at parity at both MIT and Yale, and the campuses are incredibly diverse, especially to the eyes of someone accustomed to the whiteness of rural Maine.
So now, what do we do about the lack of diversity on the Supreme Court? Several women, one a Latina; an African American man; yes.
But no one not from HLS or YLS, and no Protestants (Gorsuch is apparently not saying; he was raised Catholic but attended an Episcopalian church in Denver).
The world is so darned complicated!
And boy are we fncked.
Here’s something interesting, though:
“Accepted” isn’t the same as attending, but still, that’s progress. In 1967, an admissions officer at the only Catholic college I applied to (to please the nun who was my guidance counselor) (no, it was really because my boyfriend was there, and one of my best friends 🙂 told me that given my SATs I would get into every college I applied to, “except maybe Radcliffe, and that will depend on whether they need an Italian girl from the midwest to round out their class.”
He was right, I did, as an early beneficiary of the subversive idea that admission to selective colleges should be based on brains more than on blood.
It was a mixed blessing for me, but that’s not a topic for tonight. It’s just interesting to contemplate the change from the late sixties to now in terms of diversity on these campuses. Two of my original female classmates at MIT left after the first year to be part of the first cohort of women at Yale. That would have been the fall of 1969. My freshman class at MIT had sixty women (out of 900 total) and maybe one or two African American students. Now the genders are almost at parity at both MIT and Yale, and the campuses are incredibly diverse, especially to the eyes of someone accustomed to the whiteness of rural Maine.
So now, what do we do about the lack of diversity on the Supreme Court? Several women, one a Latina; an African American man; yes.
But no one not from HLS or YLS, and no Protestants (Gorsuch is apparently not saying; he was raised Catholic but attended an Episcopalian church in Denver).
The world is so darned complicated!
And boy are we fncked.
What Janie said. It’s not that it is a problem, it is that you don’t shake it. Or as Faulkner said “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Kavanaugh’s performance wasn’t WASP and seeing his yearbook and his prostations that he went to Yale, one might think that he’s always felt the pressure to succeed from parents and has never really reflected on why he was doing something, just that it was the thing to do.
And without knowing exactly how the grandfather got into Yale, I’d be hesitant to claim he was a blue blood. (I also hope that there was something more than just finding the name in a yearbook. I’m sure we all noted when a _different_ Christie Ford was doxxed after Dr. Ford stepped forward. And Ed Whelan’s remarkable turn (which Josh Marshall at TPM has sunk his teeth into quite a bit)) But if it is the same person, then looking at this page
https://prabook.com/web/everett.kavanaugh/1365780
Kavanaugh began his career as a sales representative at Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company in 1963 and held it for five years. In 1970, he was appointed an assistant to executive offices at the United States Chamber of Commerce. Since 1972 Everett was a president of Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (nowadays Personal Care Products Council).
Starting as a sales rep and then assistant to executive offices doesn’t sound like a blue blood kind of path.
What Janie said. It’s not that it is a problem, it is that you don’t shake it. Or as Faulkner said “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Kavanaugh’s performance wasn’t WASP and seeing his yearbook and his prostations that he went to Yale, one might think that he’s always felt the pressure to succeed from parents and has never really reflected on why he was doing something, just that it was the thing to do.
And without knowing exactly how the grandfather got into Yale, I’d be hesitant to claim he was a blue blood. (I also hope that there was something more than just finding the name in a yearbook. I’m sure we all noted when a _different_ Christie Ford was doxxed after Dr. Ford stepped forward. And Ed Whelan’s remarkable turn (which Josh Marshall at TPM has sunk his teeth into quite a bit)) But if it is the same person, then looking at this page
https://prabook.com/web/everett.kavanaugh/1365780
Kavanaugh began his career as a sales representative at Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company in 1963 and held it for five years. In 1970, he was appointed an assistant to executive offices at the United States Chamber of Commerce. Since 1972 Everett was a president of Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (nowadays Personal Care Products Council).
Starting as a sales rep and then assistant to executive offices doesn’t sound like a blue blood kind of path.
Starting as a sales rep and then assistant to executive offices doesn’t sound like a blue blood kind of path.
First job in 1963, and nine years later, at 31 years old, president of a major industry’s trade association?
Obviously, I have no idea, but it sounds like a blue blood path to me, especially in that era.
Starting as a sales rep and then assistant to executive offices doesn’t sound like a blue blood kind of path.
First job in 1963, and nine years later, at 31 years old, president of a major industry’s trade association?
Obviously, I have no idea, but it sounds like a blue blood path to me, especially in that era.
president of Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association
I think those were not the sinecures that they are now, and people who were pliant yes men probably often landed there. Also, it was originally The Manufacturing Perfumers Association, but then became the American Manufacturers of Toilet Articles and it went by the name “Toilet Goods Association”
https://web.archive.org/web/20081011162840/http://www.personalcarecouncil.org/Content/NavigationMenu/About_Us/History/History_2.htm
being a blue blood ain’t what it used to be…
president of Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association
I think those were not the sinecures that they are now, and people who were pliant yes men probably often landed there. Also, it was originally The Manufacturing Perfumers Association, but then became the American Manufacturers of Toilet Articles and it went by the name “Toilet Goods Association”
https://web.archive.org/web/20081011162840/http://www.personalcarecouncil.org/Content/NavigationMenu/About_Us/History/History_2.htm
being a blue blood ain’t what it used to be…
No matter how unattractive the name, the job definitely put him in the one percent:
“Yet Ed Kavanaugh’s career may shed light on his son’s hostility to government regulation, a major reason conservatives are so enthralled by his nomination to the Supreme Court. He spent more than two decades in Washington as a top lobbyist for the cosmetics industry, courting Congress and combating regulations from the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies. (Among his hires for legal work: John G. Roberts Jr., now the chief justice.)
“In current parlance, as an old friend put it, the elder Mr. Kavanaugh and his associates were “swamp creatures,” using money and connections to fend off demands for safer products and greater transparency about ingredients. He was a golf partner of Tip O’Neill, the longtime Democratic House speaker, who weighed in to support Martha Kavanaugh’s nomination to a judgeship. He was paid $13 million, including his retirement package, in 2005, his last year at the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, records show.”
No matter how unattractive the name, the job definitely put him in the one percent:
“Yet Ed Kavanaugh’s career may shed light on his son’s hostility to government regulation, a major reason conservatives are so enthralled by his nomination to the Supreme Court. He spent more than two decades in Washington as a top lobbyist for the cosmetics industry, courting Congress and combating regulations from the Food and Drug Administration and other agencies. (Among his hires for legal work: John G. Roberts Jr., now the chief justice.)
“In current parlance, as an old friend put it, the elder Mr. Kavanaugh and his associates were “swamp creatures,” using money and connections to fend off demands for safer products and greater transparency about ingredients. He was a golf partner of Tip O’Neill, the longtime Democratic House speaker, who weighed in to support Martha Kavanaugh’s nomination to a judgeship. He was paid $13 million, including his retirement package, in 2005, his last year at the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, records show.”
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/thoroughly-decent-honorable-person
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/thoroughly-decent-honorable-person
The comments to that post are amusing, Count.
What seems almost beyond doubt is that Kavanaugh lied pretty well continuously under oath about the details of his youth. Whether that makes him guilty of sexual assault is debatable, but it certainly doesn’t make him Justice material.
The lie about having no family connection to Yale is pitiful in a way, but since his Yale prowess was his answer to most of the questioning about his drinking….
The comments to that post are amusing, Count.
What seems almost beyond doubt is that Kavanaugh lied pretty well continuously under oath about the details of his youth. Whether that makes him guilty of sexual assault is debatable, but it certainly doesn’t make him Justice material.
The lie about having no family connection to Yale is pitiful in a way, but since his Yale prowess was his answer to most of the questioning about his drinking….
This is desperate stuff. There is not even the barest pretence that this is about seating a suitable Justice:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/kavanaugh-response-senate-confirmation-854297
This is desperate stuff. There is not even the barest pretence that this is about seating a suitable Justice:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/30/kavanaugh-response-senate-confirmation-854297
This is honest, I guess. Ita laso,massively cynical:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409158-flake-if-i-were-running-for-re-election-not-a-chance-id-call-for-kavanaugh
This is honest, I guess. Ita laso,massively cynical:
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409158-flake-if-i-were-running-for-re-election-not-a-chance-id-call-for-kavanaugh
Looking at the anger, not only of Kavanaugh, but of Graham, all this takes on an appearance of, as jrudkis points out, history, with the younger generation looking to get rid of the older generation and the older generation not wanting to give up power.
lj, I think the anger is more about self-image. If they accept that these sorts of accusations are true, then they aren’t the paragons of virtue that they like to see themselves as. The mere prospect is horrifying for them. Not least because the accusations are true, and on some level they know it.
Looking at the anger, not only of Kavanaugh, but of Graham, all this takes on an appearance of, as jrudkis points out, history, with the younger generation looking to get rid of the older generation and the older generation not wanting to give up power.
lj, I think the anger is more about self-image. If they accept that these sorts of accusations are true, then they aren’t the paragons of virtue that they like to see themselves as. The mere prospect is horrifying for them. Not least because the accusations are true, and on some level they know it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/09/29/viral-kavanaugh-cartoon-powerfully-depicts-the-assault-of-lady-justice/
You gotta love that first cartoon!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/09/29/viral-kavanaugh-cartoon-powerfully-depicts-the-assault-of-lady-justice/
You gotta love that first cartoon!
And for those struggling with the Post’s subscription limits
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/
And for those struggling with the Post’s subscription limits
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/editorial-cartoons/editorial-cartoon-sept-29-2018-245696/
Thanks sapient, and apologies if you were posting that as information, and you probably realize this, but a blue blood and a 1 percenter, while having significant overlap, are not the same. In fact, I see the striving of the father and am not surprised that the son turned out the way he did.
Thanks sapient, and apologies if you were posting that as information, and you probably realize this, but a blue blood and a 1 percenter, while having significant overlap, are not the same. In fact, I see the striving of the father and am not surprised that the son turned out the way he did.
wj, good point. I think that anger is a complex emotion and when you say ‘you are angry because of X’, it’s often a(n over)simplification. However, I’m not sure if Kavanaugh has ever believed that he doesn’t measure up and if he did, he shoved that thought far to the back of his mind. Maybe their anger is covering their horror, but usually, when people are horrified at something about themselves, they usually shrink back (think of Flake’s demeanor)
Graham’s anger of ‘I voted for your person, why don’t you vote for mine’ seems transactional, and he feels probably feels cheated that the Dems don’t roll over and vote for his guy. But a lot of the anger is anger at the old order collapsing, and having to deal with this. None of the anger, incidentally, is directed at Trump for choosing this guy or at McConnell for saying in stronger terms that Kavanaugh was not a good choice (though I wonder if he knew about the issues that have come up. The Ford accusations, probably not, but the drinking?) but the anger that Graham demonstrated when he said
What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat, and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that. Not me! You’ve got nothing to apologize for. When you see [Justices] Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello to them, because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy!
Graham’s anger only surfaces when it is Kavanaugh, not when Ford is being questioned. If it were calculated, he would have dropped this speech during the time with Ford and then say ‘as I said before…’ But he didn’t cause this anger isn’t calculated, it is coming from a very deep place. Graham was a judge advocate in the Air Force, so he must have seen a lot of problematic behavior and cases in his time and he’s probably more than aware that it could happen, so maybe that features in the mix.
I feel like the right has often used anger to get its way, but the danger is that at some point, the anger is going to use you. I think that is what has happened and they really only have themselves to blame.
wj, good point. I think that anger is a complex emotion and when you say ‘you are angry because of X’, it’s often a(n over)simplification. However, I’m not sure if Kavanaugh has ever believed that he doesn’t measure up and if he did, he shoved that thought far to the back of his mind. Maybe their anger is covering their horror, but usually, when people are horrified at something about themselves, they usually shrink back (think of Flake’s demeanor)
Graham’s anger of ‘I voted for your person, why don’t you vote for mine’ seems transactional, and he feels probably feels cheated that the Dems don’t roll over and vote for his guy. But a lot of the anger is anger at the old order collapsing, and having to deal with this. None of the anger, incidentally, is directed at Trump for choosing this guy or at McConnell for saying in stronger terms that Kavanaugh was not a good choice (though I wonder if he knew about the issues that have come up. The Ford accusations, probably not, but the drinking?) but the anger that Graham demonstrated when he said
What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat, and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that. Not me! You’ve got nothing to apologize for. When you see [Justices] Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello to them, because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy!
Graham’s anger only surfaces when it is Kavanaugh, not when Ford is being questioned. If it were calculated, he would have dropped this speech during the time with Ford and then say ‘as I said before…’ But he didn’t cause this anger isn’t calculated, it is coming from a very deep place. Graham was a judge advocate in the Air Force, so he must have seen a lot of problematic behavior and cases in his time and he’s probably more than aware that it could happen, so maybe that features in the mix.
I feel like the right has often used anger to get its way, but the danger is that at some point, the anger is going to use you. I think that is what has happened and they really only have themselves to blame.
I’d like commentators supporting Kavanaugh here to read the opinions in Saleh v Titan and then tell us why they prefer Kavanaugh to Garland.
I’d like commentators supporting Kavanaugh here to read the opinions in Saleh v Titan and then tell us why they prefer Kavanaugh to Garland.
Ford was being questioned politely and with great respect,rightfully. Kavanaugh was being asked by the Senzte Democrats stupid wuestions(wlll you sir turn to Don McGahn and ask him..) along with questions about a 36 year old yearbook and completely unsubstantiated charges that were completely inappropriate for any Senate hearing.
There might have been an actual, valid reason beyond some psychoanalytical bs that one might have generated anger and one not.
Ford was being questioned politely and with great respect,rightfully. Kavanaugh was being asked by the Senzte Democrats stupid wuestions(wlll you sir turn to Don McGahn and ask him..) along with questions about a 36 year old yearbook and completely unsubstantiated charges that were completely inappropriate for any Senate hearing.
There might have been an actual, valid reason beyond some psychoanalytical bs that one might have generated anger and one not.
I suppose that is possible, Marty, but from what I saw, Kavanaugh came in there with an ax to grind, though I did not watch the whole thing and it sounds like you did. But Kavanaugh’s opening statement seemed like it was purpose built to throw down a gauntlet, so I don’t think he can But the vox chart of all the the questions dodged by Kavanaugh and Ford. And the response to Klobuchar’s question, which seemed to be a perfectly valid question, suggests to me that Kavanaugh hasn’t come to grips with either his behavior as a young man or his drinking now.
Again, if Kavanaugh has nothing to hide, he has a valid reason to be angry. But given his evasions about drinking and his misrepresentations about it being legal (I won’t repost the links here, but several of them are very damning), it seems to me that his anger is more trying to bluff his way out of this situation. And you don’t seem to want to address Graham’s anger, which is a lot more interesting to me than Kavanaugh’s sweaty grimacing performance. Call it bs if you like, but I have a feeling that the FBI, as Comey just pointed out that the FBI’s investigation is not going to be as hard as Republicans hope it will be.
I suppose that is possible, Marty, but from what I saw, Kavanaugh came in there with an ax to grind, though I did not watch the whole thing and it sounds like you did. But Kavanaugh’s opening statement seemed like it was purpose built to throw down a gauntlet, so I don’t think he can But the vox chart of all the the questions dodged by Kavanaugh and Ford. And the response to Klobuchar’s question, which seemed to be a perfectly valid question, suggests to me that Kavanaugh hasn’t come to grips with either his behavior as a young man or his drinking now.
Again, if Kavanaugh has nothing to hide, he has a valid reason to be angry. But given his evasions about drinking and his misrepresentations about it being legal (I won’t repost the links here, but several of them are very damning), it seems to me that his anger is more trying to bluff his way out of this situation. And you don’t seem to want to address Graham’s anger, which is a lot more interesting to me than Kavanaugh’s sweaty grimacing performance. Call it bs if you like, but I have a feeling that the FBI, as Comey just pointed out that the FBI’s investigation is not going to be as hard as Republicans hope it will be.
Whoops.
so I don’t think he can [claim that he was ambushed.]
Whoops.
so I don’t think he can [claim that he was ambushed.]
The scales of justice in that cartoon look almost like a flail/mornnig star to me.
Since it was the first thing to come into view when the image very slowly built up, I at first expected it would show BK using it as such (hmm…maybe an idea for a later cartoon).
The scales of justice in that cartoon look almost like a flail/mornnig star to me.
Since it was the first thing to come into view when the image very slowly built up, I at first expected it would show BK using it as such (hmm…maybe an idea for a later cartoon).
but I have a feeling that the FBI, as Comey just pointed out that the FBI’s investigation is not going to be as hard as Republicans hope it will be.
If the widespread press reports are to be believed (and the quotes from Graham suggest that they are), then the FBI likely isn’t going to be tugging at any of those loose ends.
This sounds very like an investigation designed not to find anything.
We’ll see.
but I have a feeling that the FBI, as Comey just pointed out that the FBI’s investigation is not going to be as hard as Republicans hope it will be.
If the widespread press reports are to be believed (and the quotes from Graham suggest that they are), then the FBI likely isn’t going to be tugging at any of those loose ends.
This sounds very like an investigation designed not to find anything.
We’ll see.
lj, ambushed isn’t the word I would use. He was asked questions, all of them, that had nothing to do with his fitness to be a Justice or to ascertain any fact. All of them were meant to make him look bad, including Korbuchars.
Some of the questions, Durbins, were simply theater at his expense and I think it set a bad tone. Others were meant to trap him in a lie, or a “see you could have done it” moment. Or just to demean his character to portray him as someone likely to do it.
There were no facts she presented that he could be questioned about. Where were you on x day, can anyone corroborate your story, etc.
So it was simply character assassination of a 17 year old boy,applied to an accomplished jurist, with no point.
From my perspective, it was infuriating and insulting.
lj, ambushed isn’t the word I would use. He was asked questions, all of them, that had nothing to do with his fitness to be a Justice or to ascertain any fact. All of them were meant to make him look bad, including Korbuchars.
Some of the questions, Durbins, were simply theater at his expense and I think it set a bad tone. Others were meant to trap him in a lie, or a “see you could have done it” moment. Or just to demean his character to portray him as someone likely to do it.
There were no facts she presented that he could be questioned about. Where were you on x day, can anyone corroborate your story, etc.
So it was simply character assassination of a 17 year old boy,applied to an accomplished jurist, with no point.
From my perspective, it was infuriating and insulting.
Shorter me, they weren’t questioning him, they were clearly prosecuting him. Whatever lawyer instincts kicked in to defend himself were reasonable, and called for.
Shorter me, they weren’t questioning him, they were clearly prosecuting him. Whatever lawyer instincts kicked in to defend himself were reasonable, and called for.
Nothing Comey said had anything to do with establishing the facts of the assault on Blasey-Ford.
We are now prosecuting him for possibly, at some point, blacking out. This is a guy who said under oath, yes sometimes I drank too much. So we’re going to try to investigate whether it’s really “too much” or I blacked out a few times?
Nothing Comey said had anything to do with establishing the facts of the assault on Blasey-Ford.
We are now prosecuting him for possibly, at some point, blacking out. This is a guy who said under oath, yes sometimes I drank too much. So we’re going to try to investigate whether it’s really “too much” or I blacked out a few times?
I’m not sure that youthful frat boy drinking is all that relevant in a Senate SCOTUS hearing. I also don’t think questions of that kind are all that unusual, whether relevant or not. See also Ginsburg (the other Ginsburg), denied a SCOTUS seat for smoking weed as a college student and young man.
Assault is a different story.
It’s a political proceeding. Senators can, and do, ask whatever they want, quite often for purely political reasons.
Because, politics.
Among the things that contribute to the strongly adversarial tone of this particular hearing are the (R)’s insistence that Kavanaugh be seated by the beginning of the session, and the White House’s refusal to provide the paper trail for Kavabaugh’s time there.
And, of course, Merrick Garland. If McConnell thought there would be no payback for that, he’s an idiot.
My take-away on this mess is that Kavanaugh has, consistently, come off like an entitled dick. And not a particularly honest one.
He was a bad choice. And it looks like the (R)’s are gonna stick with it to the bitter end.
Keep digging that hole.
I’m not sure that youthful frat boy drinking is all that relevant in a Senate SCOTUS hearing. I also don’t think questions of that kind are all that unusual, whether relevant or not. See also Ginsburg (the other Ginsburg), denied a SCOTUS seat for smoking weed as a college student and young man.
Assault is a different story.
It’s a political proceeding. Senators can, and do, ask whatever they want, quite often for purely political reasons.
Because, politics.
Among the things that contribute to the strongly adversarial tone of this particular hearing are the (R)’s insistence that Kavanaugh be seated by the beginning of the session, and the White House’s refusal to provide the paper trail for Kavabaugh’s time there.
And, of course, Merrick Garland. If McConnell thought there would be no payback for that, he’s an idiot.
My take-away on this mess is that Kavanaugh has, consistently, come off like an entitled dick. And not a particularly honest one.
He was a bad choice. And it looks like the (R)’s are gonna stick with it to the bitter end.
Keep digging that hole.
So we’re going to try to investigate whether it’s really “too much” or I blacked out a few times?
You can persuade me that attending keggers in high school and college is really nobody’s business.
Drinking to the point of blacking out, different story.
So we’re going to try to investigate whether it’s really “too much” or I blacked out a few times?
You can persuade me that attending keggers in high school and college is really nobody’s business.
Drinking to the point of blacking out, different story.
Also, too: in case you haven’t noticed, “infuriating and insulting” is basically the motor the drives the (R) bus nowadays.
If you don’t want stuff broken, don’t break it.
Also, too: in case you haven’t noticed, “infuriating and insulting” is basically the motor the drives the (R) bus nowadays.
If you don’t want stuff broken, don’t break it.
Cute lines russell, you should trademark them.
Cute lines russell, you should trademark them.
Meanwhile, while we’re all focused on the Kavanaugh fiasco, this is going on.
Meanwhile, while we’re all focused on the Kavanaugh fiasco, this is going on.
this is going on.
Cute lines russell, you should trademark them.
Ha! Great comeback. Guess you showed me.
Your party is breaking the nation.
this is going on.
Cute lines russell, you should trademark them.
Ha! Great comeback. Guess you showed me.
Your party is breaking the nation.
Looking at the anger, not only of Kavanaugh, but of Graham, all this takes on an appearance of, as jrudkis points out, history, with the younger generation looking to get rid of the older generation and the older generation not wanting to give up power.
there’s an election coming up.
that explains the timing and the rush, why the GOP is so committed to K, why Graham threw his tantrum, why K was coached to act like an educated mini-Trump: it’s all about stirring up the GOP base ahead of this election.
Looking at the anger, not only of Kavanaugh, but of Graham, all this takes on an appearance of, as jrudkis points out, history, with the younger generation looking to get rid of the older generation and the older generation not wanting to give up power.
there’s an election coming up.
that explains the timing and the rush, why the GOP is so committed to K, why Graham threw his tantrum, why K was coached to act like an educated mini-Trump: it’s all about stirring up the GOP base ahead of this election.
or, maybe not coached:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/thoroughly-decent-honorable-person
the best people. the best.
or, maybe not coached:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/09/thoroughly-decent-honorable-person
the best people. the best.
When someone has made an accusation of assault which pretty well every Republican Senator on the committee characterised as ‘credible’ (while simultaneously saying it was utterly incredible that the assailant could have been Kavanaugh, owing to his equally ‘convincing’ testimony), questions about his drinking habits are neither impertinent nor irrelevant.
And it goes to the credibility or otherwise of the second assault allegation. So not just 17… and yes we really ought to know whether he was merely a social as opposed to problem drinker.
And also whether he is a reflexive liar.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/chad-ludington-says-kavanaugh-mischaracterized-drinking-habits-to-lawmakers.html
When someone has made an accusation of assault which pretty well every Republican Senator on the committee characterised as ‘credible’ (while simultaneously saying it was utterly incredible that the assailant could have been Kavanaugh, owing to his equally ‘convincing’ testimony), questions about his drinking habits are neither impertinent nor irrelevant.
And it goes to the credibility or otherwise of the second assault allegation. So not just 17… and yes we really ought to know whether he was merely a social as opposed to problem drinker.
And also whether he is a reflexive liar.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/chad-ludington-says-kavanaugh-mischaracterized-drinking-habits-to-lawmakers.html
The witch hunt defence is not exclusive to Republican politicians.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/01/jean-claude-arnault-centre-nobel-scandal-jailed-rape
The witch hunt defence is not exclusive to Republican politicians.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/01/jean-claude-arnault-centre-nobel-scandal-jailed-rape
I love the Ludington prosecution. He was insulted, so instead of defusing the situation he threw his beer in the person’s face.
Let’s see. He was insulted and drunk, which he never denied, but certainly wasnt blacked out. And the guys friend ended up in jail.
And no, we dont really need to know how much he drank in college, or high school, or now, as there is no Indictation he cant do his job.
I love the Ludington prosecution. He was insulted, so instead of defusing the situation he threw his beer in the person’s face.
Let’s see. He was insulted and drunk, which he never denied, but certainly wasnt blacked out. And the guys friend ended up in jail.
And no, we dont really need to know how much he drank in college, or high school, or now, as there is no Indictation he cant do his job.
I hope I confirmed how pompous and dismissive they read, bumper sticker slogans.
Which I realize is the intent, just letting you know it’s working. It used to be after you made what could be a good point. Nows it seems like more of a tic.
I hope I confirmed how pompous and dismissive they read, bumper sticker slogans.
Which I realize is the intent, just letting you know it’s working. It used to be after you made what could be a good point. Nows it seems like more of a tic.
How much he drank is relevant only to the extent that, if he drank to the point that he could no longer remember things, his denial of the attack, at least the way he insisted on making it, becomes less credible. It’s not like he said “I don’t remember anything like that.” What he said was “It never happened.”
And by all accounts, he did indeed drink to that kind of excess.
How much he drank is relevant only to the extent that, if he drank to the point that he could no longer remember things, his denial of the attack, at least the way he insisted on making it, becomes less credible. It’s not like he said “I don’t remember anything like that.” What he said was “It never happened.”
And by all accounts, he did indeed drink to that kind of excess.
there is no Indictation he cant do his job.
I’d say that his denouncing the whole proceeding as an attack by “liberals and Democrats” demonstrates that he will be unable to do his job whenever a case involves a member of either group.
there is no Indictation he cant do his job.
I’d say that his denouncing the whole proceeding as an attack by “liberals and Democrats” demonstrates that he will be unable to do his job whenever a case involves a member of either group.
By all accounts? Not even close to all accounts. In fact, a couple of people versus the hundred or so who have offered support.
In fact, even this guy doesn’t say he blacked out. By all accounts?
By all accounts? Not even close to all accounts. In fact, a couple of people versus the hundred or so who have offered support.
In fact, even this guy doesn’t say he blacked out. By all accounts?
Marty, I assumed that you were suggesting he was ambushed which is why he showed so much anger. But now, it sounds like you think he knew the questions that were coming and behaved that way? Not really a great recommendation for judicial temperament. But maybe he was just mad at the way he was prepared.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6198665/Im-not-going-answer-Kavanaugh-REFUSES-answer-questions-private-life-prep.html
Also, unlike you, I think the Comey remarks are on point.
FBI investigators “know that little lies point to bigger lies,” Comey wrote. “They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.”
I assume that Comey is also signalling to FBI agents that they should not bow to political pressure and investigate as they would for anyone else seeking this kind of position or security clearance. Maybe he’s doing it because of the way Trump treated him. Karma is a bitch.
Unlike Russell and wj, I think the frat boy antics are an issue because he basically tried to deny them. Especially as testimony like Ludington’s comes out. Sorry if this sounds like a bumper sticker, but If you want to hire folks like that with your tax cuts, go for it.
Marty, I assumed that you were suggesting he was ambushed which is why he showed so much anger. But now, it sounds like you think he knew the questions that were coming and behaved that way? Not really a great recommendation for judicial temperament. But maybe he was just mad at the way he was prepared.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6198665/Im-not-going-answer-Kavanaugh-REFUSES-answer-questions-private-life-prep.html
Also, unlike you, I think the Comey remarks are on point.
FBI investigators “know that little lies point to bigger lies,” Comey wrote. “They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.”
I assume that Comey is also signalling to FBI agents that they should not bow to political pressure and investigate as they would for anyone else seeking this kind of position or security clearance. Maybe he’s doing it because of the way Trump treated him. Karma is a bitch.
Unlike Russell and wj, I think the frat boy antics are an issue because he basically tried to deny them. Especially as testimony like Ludington’s comes out. Sorry if this sounds like a bumper sticker, but If you want to hire folks like that with your tax cuts, go for it.
For light relief, more mucking out of the republican stables and milking barns:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/
For light relief, more mucking out of the republican stables and milking barns:
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/
lj: Unlike Russell and wj, I think the frat boy antics are an issue because he basically tried to deny them.
Actually, I was trying to say exactly that.
lj: Unlike Russell and wj, I think the frat boy antics are an issue because he basically tried to deny them.
Actually, I was trying to say exactly that.
Ahh, sorry about that. I misread that.
Ahh, sorry about that. I misread that.
No worries. Probably me expressing myself poorly.
No worries. Probably me expressing myself poorly.
And no, we dont really need to know how much he drank in college, or high school,
since he’s chosen to lie about it, building up more evidence that he’s lying is a good way to show to more and more people that he’s a liar.
he probably could have avoided all this if he’d chosen not to lie about all kinds of secondary matters. but he chose to lie, and now people are pointing out that he lied.
that’s what happens to liars when they lie.
And no, we dont really need to know how much he drank in college, or high school,
since he’s chosen to lie about it, building up more evidence that he’s lying is a good way to show to more and more people that he’s a liar.
he probably could have avoided all this if he’d chosen not to lie about all kinds of secondary matters. but he chose to lie, and now people are pointing out that he lied.
that’s what happens to liars when they lie.
I hope I confirmed how pompous and dismissive they read, bumper sticker slogans.
You don’t like my tone?
Maybe address the substance.
Trump lost the popular vote. (R)’s in the Senate represent a total of 44% of the population. Between them they want to ram a Federalist hard liner through a sham of a hearing to secure a majority of Federalist hard liners on the court.
Well, fuck that noise. How’s that for a bumper sticker?
Want a real process? Release Kavanaugh’s paper trail from his WH days and allow sufficient time for a review.
That won’t happen, because the (R)’s know what’s in there and they know it won’t fly. Most likely they know it will demonstrate that Kavanaugh has been lying his ass off.
He’s not a good candidate. Even among the fundamentalist Federalist crew, he’s not good. And yet, he’s the guy Trump picks, and he’s the guy McConnell is going to drag the country through hell to have.
Your party sucks. They are destroying the United States as a functional self-governing Republic. If you don’t like my tone, wait until you hear what I sound like when I’m not being polite.
I hope I confirmed how pompous and dismissive they read, bumper sticker slogans.
You don’t like my tone?
Maybe address the substance.
Trump lost the popular vote. (R)’s in the Senate represent a total of 44% of the population. Between them they want to ram a Federalist hard liner through a sham of a hearing to secure a majority of Federalist hard liners on the court.
Well, fuck that noise. How’s that for a bumper sticker?
Want a real process? Release Kavanaugh’s paper trail from his WH days and allow sufficient time for a review.
That won’t happen, because the (R)’s know what’s in there and they know it won’t fly. Most likely they know it will demonstrate that Kavanaugh has been lying his ass off.
He’s not a good candidate. Even among the fundamentalist Federalist crew, he’s not good. And yet, he’s the guy Trump picks, and he’s the guy McConnell is going to drag the country through hell to have.
Your party sucks. They are destroying the United States as a functional self-governing Republic. If you don’t like my tone, wait until you hear what I sound like when I’m not being polite.
who could have guessed that Devin Nunez’ family uses undocumented workers on its dairy farm?
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/
GOP = Sucker Cult
who could have guessed that Devin Nunez’ family uses undocumented workers on its dairy farm?
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23471864/devin-nunes-family-farm-iowa-california/
GOP = Sucker Cult
wj: I’d say that his denouncing the whole proceeding as an attack by “liberals and Democrats” demonstrates that he will be unable to do his job whenever a case involves a member of either group.
What job do you think Marty believes He, Trump and Mitch McConnell are hiring Kavanaugh to actually do?
–TP
wj: I’d say that his denouncing the whole proceeding as an attack by “liberals and Democrats” demonstrates that he will be unable to do his job whenever a case involves a member of either group.
What job do you think Marty believes He, Trump and Mitch McConnell are hiring Kavanaugh to actually do?
–TP
russell :
No one seems to have followed the link, but if you read the piece at the link in my only other comment in this thread, you’ll find what I think is one of the clearest and most eloquent expressions of “your party broke the country” I’ve seen anywhere.
russell :
No one seems to have followed the link, but if you read the piece at the link in my only other comment in this thread, you’ll find what I think is one of the clearest and most eloquent expressions of “your party broke the country” I’ve seen anywhere.
a couple of people
A cursory search gives that the lie – and I don’t have FBI resources:
Lynne Brookes
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/kavanaugh-lied-fox-news-interview-drank-excess-frequently/
Liz Swisher
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-yale-classmate-described-sloppy-drinking-2018-9
Lavan, Roche, Winter
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1046054371543445504
Elizabeth Rasor
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-witnesses.html
versus the hundred or so who have offered support
Some of who are discovering they didn’t know Brett at all.
a couple of people
A cursory search gives that the lie – and I don’t have FBI resources:
Lynne Brookes
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/kavanaugh-lied-fox-news-interview-drank-excess-frequently/
Liz Swisher
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brett-kavanaugh-yale-classmate-described-sloppy-drinking-2018-9
Lavan, Roche, Winter
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1046054371543445504
Elizabeth Rasor
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-witnesses.html
versus the hundred or so who have offered support
Some of who are discovering they didn’t know Brett at all.
Joel, I bookmarked your link when you posted it, but then let it slip amidst my copious jabberwocky.
Excellent commentary.
Thanks.
Joel, I bookmarked your link when you posted it, but then let it slip amidst my copious jabberwocky.
Excellent commentary.
Thanks.
No one seems to have followed the link
I read it, and agree with your thoughts about it.
Folks should read it.
Some of who are discovering they didn’t know Brett at all.
And/or, are withdrawing their support.
After, for instance, discovering that they had been slut-shamed by Kavanaugh and his pals. Or that they had been named as the “real rapist” by Kavanaugh pal Ed Whelan.
This is a mess, all right, but the fault for that doesn’t all go to the (D)’s.
No one seems to have followed the link
I read it, and agree with your thoughts about it.
Folks should read it.
Some of who are discovering they didn’t know Brett at all.
And/or, are withdrawing their support.
After, for instance, discovering that they had been slut-shamed by Kavanaugh and his pals. Or that they had been named as the “real rapist” by Kavanaugh pal Ed Whelan.
This is a mess, all right, but the fault for that doesn’t all go to the (D)’s.
Apologies, russell – that ought to have read ‘whom’.
Apologies, russell – that ought to have read ‘whom’.
Joel, I too read your link last night, and thought it was good. So many links, so many time to comment on them — or, on mornings like this, to even read them.
*****
And, of course, Merrick Garland. If McConnell thought there would be no payback for that, he’s an idiot.
I suspect his calculation was that if he could just get the court packed in time, the payback would be just more entertainment. Suck on this, libs.
Joel, I too read your link last night, and thought it was good. So many links, so many time to comment on them — or, on mornings like this, to even read them.
*****
And, of course, Merrick Garland. If McConnell thought there would be no payback for that, he’s an idiot.
I suspect his calculation was that if he could just get the court packed in time, the payback would be just more entertainment. Suck on this, libs.
“let it slip amidst my copious jabberwocky”
Seems like there’s a lot of that going around. Especially since Sen. Graham did his “mome raths outgrabe” routine in the K hearing.
“let it slip amidst my copious jabberwocky”
Seems like there’s a lot of that going around. Especially since Sen. Graham did his “mome raths outgrabe” routine in the K hearing.
I read joel’s link last night, too. I didn’t comment on it. I just nodded to myself.
I read joel’s link last night, too. I didn’t comment on it. I just nodded to myself.
Except one of the four you listed doesn’t even dispute Kavanaughs assertion that yes sometimes he drank too much.
Personally, and as far as I have read she hasn’t said it, Mark Judges girlfriend provides the most possible evidence that would impact my thought. But her lawyer didn’t say that Kavanaugh did anything. Seems an interesting detail to leave out.
Except one of the four you listed doesn’t even dispute Kavanaughs assertion that yes sometimes he drank too much.
Personally, and as far as I have read she hasn’t said it, Mark Judges girlfriend provides the most possible evidence that would impact my thought. But her lawyer didn’t say that Kavanaugh did anything. Seems an interesting detail to leave out.
Comey, quoted above: FBI investigators “know that little lies point to bigger lies,” Comey wrote. “They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.”
I’ve characterized the tapestry of lies as typical of adolescents skilled in throwing smoke into their parents eyes. But the more important point is that he’s clearly a practiced liar, still.
Comey, quoted above: FBI investigators “know that little lies point to bigger lies,” Comey wrote. “They know that obvious lies by the nominee about the meaning of words in a yearbook are a flashing signal to dig deeper.”
I’ve characterized the tapestry of lies as typical of adolescents skilled in throwing smoke into their parents eyes. But the more important point is that he’s clearly a practiced liar, still.
IOW, the lies come so trippingly off his tongue…
IOW, the lies come so trippingly off his tongue…
This isn’t the most analytical comment on this mess, but the more time that goes by, the nuttier Kavanaugh’s testimony seems. In the moment, I don’t think I was really appreciating what I was hearing and what it meant within its context.
I know some people (or at least, here, one person) will say it was only because the Democrats were being terribly unfair in their questioning. While I won’t deny political grandstanding on their part (not that it was just on their part – not by a long shot), I don’t really see, given what they were there to discuss, that Kavanaugh couldn’t have defended himself far, far better as a potential SCOTUS justice – both in terms of words and demeanor.
I haven’t gone on youtube or anything to see what people might have put together in terms of what I’ll call “highlight reels.” But I can imagine that people have put some stunning videos together, given the source material they had to work with. It was a bizarre day.
This isn’t the most analytical comment on this mess, but the more time that goes by, the nuttier Kavanaugh’s testimony seems. In the moment, I don’t think I was really appreciating what I was hearing and what it meant within its context.
I know some people (or at least, here, one person) will say it was only because the Democrats were being terribly unfair in their questioning. While I won’t deny political grandstanding on their part (not that it was just on their part – not by a long shot), I don’t really see, given what they were there to discuss, that Kavanaugh couldn’t have defended himself far, far better as a potential SCOTUS justice – both in terms of words and demeanor.
I haven’t gone on youtube or anything to see what people might have put together in terms of what I’ll call “highlight reels.” But I can imagine that people have put some stunning videos together, given the source material they had to work with. It was a bizarre day.
WaPo on Mark Judge’s girlfriend:
WaPo on Mark Judge’s girlfriend:
russell posted a link that I’ll repost for people’s convenience.
I’m sorry, but we keep hearing that some of the people who support Trump are good people, but people who aren’t opposing Trump are letting this go on, and I don’t see how this can be squared with “good people”. Same as how I don’t see how Kavanaugh’s lying can square with being a decent judge, much less Supreme Court Justice. I don’t understand how limiting an investigation to exclude people who are on the record (in some cases, sworn) as having information on the fitness of Kavanaugh is a fair investigation.
Decent people should not stand for any of this. It’s ugly, wrong, and ruining our country. And, yes, the link that joel hanes provided is right on.
russell posted a link that I’ll repost for people’s convenience.
I’m sorry, but we keep hearing that some of the people who support Trump are good people, but people who aren’t opposing Trump are letting this go on, and I don’t see how this can be squared with “good people”. Same as how I don’t see how Kavanaugh’s lying can square with being a decent judge, much less Supreme Court Justice. I don’t understand how limiting an investigation to exclude people who are on the record (in some cases, sworn) as having information on the fitness of Kavanaugh is a fair investigation.
Decent people should not stand for any of this. It’s ugly, wrong, and ruining our country. And, yes, the link that joel hanes provided is right on.
I don’t see how Kavanaugh’s lying can square with being a decent judge, much less Supreme Court Justice
no, me either.
unless i use a meaning of “decent” that’s more like “a screaming paranoid Fox News Republican™”
then it makes perfect sense.
I don’t see how Kavanaugh’s lying can square with being a decent judge, much less Supreme Court Justice
no, me either.
unless i use a meaning of “decent” that’s more like “a screaming paranoid Fox News Republican™”
then it makes perfect sense.
hsh, He was aggressive in his opening remarks, probably necessarily so to have any hope of being heard. But the questioning from the Dems was a prosecution that required him to be his own defense lawyer.
It is unfair to treat him like a criminal and then criticize him because he didn’t act like a judge. He did have to choose his words, use ones that were best for his defense, carefully not admit to any did you stop beating your wife questions.
So no, he didn’t look particularly judge like in that setting. But it is a very unfair bar.
hsh, He was aggressive in his opening remarks, probably necessarily so to have any hope of being heard. But the questioning from the Dems was a prosecution that required him to be his own defense lawyer.
It is unfair to treat him like a criminal and then criticize him because he didn’t act like a judge. He did have to choose his words, use ones that were best for his defense, carefully not admit to any did you stop beating your wife questions.
So no, he didn’t look particularly judge like in that setting. But it is a very unfair bar.
I think its pretty straight forward from a simple confirmation perspective.
1. Some people (Democrats, not Republicans) believe that sexual assault at 17 is at least potentially disqualifying for Supreme Court confirmation.
2. His drinking is relevant to investigation of the sexual assault because it speaks to whether he can actually deny having done something that may have occurred when he was in a blackout drunk state.
3. Literally anything he says in his defense is relevant to the investigation because if its a self serving lie that speaks to the overall credibility of his testimony. AND it is relevant because some people (Democrats, not Republicans) believe that someone who offers self serving lies under oath in their own defense, even against a false charge, shouldn’t be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
4. His overall demeanor in responding to these accusations is relevant to whether he has the temperament to handle a difficult and politically and emotionally sensitive job.
5. In his defense he has minimized his drinking and claimed that he remained a virgin until after college. He has also offered a TON of specific claims and assertions about his life in his teens.
6. Evidence and testimony suggest that a huge percentage of these were egregious lies. He apparently had a reputation for drinking to unreasonable excess, doing things when drunk that he wouldn’t do when sober, bragging about his sexual conquests, and so forth. Further a lot of his claims about his life in general appear extremely dubious or downright willfully misleading.
7. Also he evidenced a character beneath that of what I expect from a federal judge. There’s a wealth of material here but petulantly trying to reverse reasonable and relevant questions on the senators asking them was just pathetic coming from someone who is supposedly professional capable of… managing trials where people cross examine those accused of, and those accusing others of, rape and sexual assault.
8. He shouldn’t be confirmed because his willingness to offer self serving lies in his own defense makes his denials less credible, and so on balance we should believe his accuser.
9. He shouldn’t be confirmed because his willingness to offer self serving lies in his own defense while under oath is conduct unbefitting a judge or justice.
10. He shouldn’t be confirmed because his behavior during his testimony showed that his overall character is not up to the level of what we should expect from a judge or justice.
I think its pretty straight forward from a simple confirmation perspective.
1. Some people (Democrats, not Republicans) believe that sexual assault at 17 is at least potentially disqualifying for Supreme Court confirmation.
2. His drinking is relevant to investigation of the sexual assault because it speaks to whether he can actually deny having done something that may have occurred when he was in a blackout drunk state.
3. Literally anything he says in his defense is relevant to the investigation because if its a self serving lie that speaks to the overall credibility of his testimony. AND it is relevant because some people (Democrats, not Republicans) believe that someone who offers self serving lies under oath in their own defense, even against a false charge, shouldn’t be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
4. His overall demeanor in responding to these accusations is relevant to whether he has the temperament to handle a difficult and politically and emotionally sensitive job.
5. In his defense he has minimized his drinking and claimed that he remained a virgin until after college. He has also offered a TON of specific claims and assertions about his life in his teens.
6. Evidence and testimony suggest that a huge percentage of these were egregious lies. He apparently had a reputation for drinking to unreasonable excess, doing things when drunk that he wouldn’t do when sober, bragging about his sexual conquests, and so forth. Further a lot of his claims about his life in general appear extremely dubious or downright willfully misleading.
7. Also he evidenced a character beneath that of what I expect from a federal judge. There’s a wealth of material here but petulantly trying to reverse reasonable and relevant questions on the senators asking them was just pathetic coming from someone who is supposedly professional capable of… managing trials where people cross examine those accused of, and those accusing others of, rape and sexual assault.
8. He shouldn’t be confirmed because his willingness to offer self serving lies in his own defense makes his denials less credible, and so on balance we should believe his accuser.
9. He shouldn’t be confirmed because his willingness to offer self serving lies in his own defense while under oath is conduct unbefitting a judge or justice.
10. He shouldn’t be confirmed because his behavior during his testimony showed that his overall character is not up to the level of what we should expect from a judge or justice.
“It is unfair to treat him like a criminal and then criticize him because he didn’t act like a judge.”
Yeah, that orange jumpsuit really wasn’t his best color, was it? And the leg shackles was a but much, but rules are rules, amirite?
And the questioning was SO unfair! How was he supposed to answer when asked if he has stopped raping underage girls?1??
“It is unfair to treat him like a criminal and then criticize him because he didn’t act like a judge.”
Yeah, that orange jumpsuit really wasn’t his best color, was it? And the leg shackles was a but much, but rules are rules, amirite?
And the questioning was SO unfair! How was he supposed to answer when asked if he has stopped raping underage girls?1??
There is no testimony that he lied once, there is no evidence that he lied.
People say he drank to excess, he said he drank too much sometimes, But he didn’t black out.
There aren’t ten points worth to make out of the fact he said what they did.
Treating your prosecution as it deserves is not disqualifying.
You don’t want him to be confirmed, got it.
There is no testimony that he lied once, there is no evidence that he lied.
People say he drank to excess, he said he drank too much sometimes, But he didn’t black out.
There aren’t ten points worth to make out of the fact he said what they did.
Treating your prosecution as it deserves is not disqualifying.
You don’t want him to be confirmed, got it.
There is no testimony that he lied once,
he lied about the meanings of “Devil’s Triangle”, “boofing” and “ralph”.
he lied about “Renate Alumnius”.
he lied about his teenage and college drinking.
he lied when he said that four of the people named as being present said the event never happened. K is the only one who said that. everyone else says they don’t remember.
There is no testimony that he lied once,
he lied about the meanings of “Devil’s Triangle”, “boofing” and “ralph”.
he lied about “Renate Alumnius”.
he lied about his teenage and college drinking.
he lied when he said that four of the people named as being present said the event never happened. K is the only one who said that. everyone else says they don’t remember.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UwaX4-0YYQw/W7IDBOIwvCI/AAAAAAAAGaM/NMzIm7zDDtw_XpYiFVQHyOhz12Aj8saKgCLcBGAs/s1600/Capture.JPG
We keep calling the hearings a job interview.
Maybe instead it was an audition for the lead in “The Days of Wine and Roses” or a Eugene O’Neill play.
Maybe the Broadway revival of “Animal House”
If in fact it was a job interview, then all of those “Top Ten Things You Shouldn’t Day In A Job Interview” advisories should be revised.
Cry, stomp you feet, grab the pant leg of one of your interlocutors and snivel that you deserve the fucking job …. you when one of the panel asks where you see yourself in five years, scowl at her and hit back: “Making your life miserable and fucking up your company, missy. How bout you?”
Conservative America: so full of pigshit it has nowhere to go but to drain into the oceans.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UwaX4-0YYQw/W7IDBOIwvCI/AAAAAAAAGaM/NMzIm7zDDtw_XpYiFVQHyOhz12Aj8saKgCLcBGAs/s1600/Capture.JPG
We keep calling the hearings a job interview.
Maybe instead it was an audition for the lead in “The Days of Wine and Roses” or a Eugene O’Neill play.
Maybe the Broadway revival of “Animal House”
If in fact it was a job interview, then all of those “Top Ten Things You Shouldn’t Day In A Job Interview” advisories should be revised.
Cry, stomp you feet, grab the pant leg of one of your interlocutors and snivel that you deserve the fucking job …. you when one of the panel asks where you see yourself in five years, scowl at her and hit back: “Making your life miserable and fucking up your company, missy. How bout you?”
Conservative America: so full of pigshit it has nowhere to go but to drain into the oceans.
Arguing with Marty is a waste of pixels. I want to hear from McKinneyTexas on the subject of “treating your prosecution as it deserves”.
–TP
Arguing with Marty is a waste of pixels. I want to hear from McKinneyTexas on the subject of “treating your prosecution as it deserves”.
–TP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ac58705f43e2
“shouldn’t SAY in a job interview”
I always ended my job interviews by looking around and asking innocently “Say, when does happy hour start around here?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-xgd_eETE
Inspiring.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/28/heres-where-kavanaughs-sworn-testimony-was-misleading-or-wrong/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ac58705f43e2
“shouldn’t SAY in a job interview”
I always ended my job interviews by looking around and asking innocently “Say, when does happy hour start around here?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-xgd_eETE
Inspiring.
Reasons why Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court:
1) Trump should not be allowed to appoint a Justice who will protect him from answering for his (alleged) crimes. Kavanaugh is exactly that Justice – a toadying partisan with, when a Republican is President, an extreme view of executive immunity.
2) The Supreme Court should not become any more partisan than it already is. The US polity needs a moderate judge to replace Kennedy.
3) Kavanaugh is a bad judge. Just one example: he claims to be a textualist, but in the horrible opinion he joined in Saleh v Titan, he ignored the text of the law and the text of the Supreme Court opinion cited. Because his favoured politicians might have been embarrassed by an honest ruling.
4) Kavanaugh lied in his testimony to the Senate (see Cleek above).
5) Kavanaugh has admitted, without showing any remorse, to habitual illegal drinking in his teens. A few youthful indiscretions should not be disqualifying, but habitual disregard for the law, and a continuing sense of entitlement about it should be.
6) Kavanaugh’s threatening rant against the Democratic party disqualifies him from hearing any case affecting it.
7) Merrick Garland, give him the seat.
Reasons why Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court:
1) Trump should not be allowed to appoint a Justice who will protect him from answering for his (alleged) crimes. Kavanaugh is exactly that Justice – a toadying partisan with, when a Republican is President, an extreme view of executive immunity.
2) The Supreme Court should not become any more partisan than it already is. The US polity needs a moderate judge to replace Kennedy.
3) Kavanaugh is a bad judge. Just one example: he claims to be a textualist, but in the horrible opinion he joined in Saleh v Titan, he ignored the text of the law and the text of the Supreme Court opinion cited. Because his favoured politicians might have been embarrassed by an honest ruling.
4) Kavanaugh lied in his testimony to the Senate (see Cleek above).
5) Kavanaugh has admitted, without showing any remorse, to habitual illegal drinking in his teens. A few youthful indiscretions should not be disqualifying, but habitual disregard for the law, and a continuing sense of entitlement about it should be.
6) Kavanaugh’s threatening rant against the Democratic party disqualifies him from hearing any case affecting it.
7) Merrick Garland, give him the seat.
‘Dismissive’, Marty ?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/will-white-suburban-women-vote-republican-november/571720/
On Thursday, during a break in Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, a woman called out to Senator Lindsey Graham that she had been raped in the past. “I’m so sorry,” Graham responded as he ducked into an elevator. “You needed to tell the cops.”
‘Dismissive’, Marty ?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/will-white-suburban-women-vote-republican-november/571720/
On Thursday, during a break in Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, a woman called out to Senator Lindsey Graham that she had been raped in the past. “I’m so sorry,” Graham responded as he ducked into an elevator. “You needed to tell the cops.”
2) The Supreme Court should not become any more partisan than it already is. The US polity needs a moderate judge to replace Kennedy.
This.
Thank you.
2) The Supreme Court should not become any more partisan than it already is. The US polity needs a moderate judge to replace Kennedy.
This.
Thank you.
more than half of polled Republicans don’t care if the allegations are true.
so, facts aren’t going to convince them. they just want their bully boy on the court.
the party of family values, donchaknow
more than half of polled Republicans don’t care if the allegations are true.
so, facts aren’t going to convince them. they just want their bully boy on the court.
the party of family values, donchaknow
I think it’s very unfair to bring up things like this,” [Clickbait] said of questions about Kavanaugh’s drinking in high school and college.
I think it’s very unfair to ignore Merrick Garland for a year and then give the seat to someone else.
I think it’s very unfair, abominable even, for the Sainted John to say that he would never vote to seat a Hillary nominee even if she were president for eight years.
What goes around comes around.
I think it’s very unfair to bring up things like this,” [Clickbait] said of questions about Kavanaugh’s drinking in high school and college.
I think it’s very unfair to ignore Merrick Garland for a year and then give the seat to someone else.
I think it’s very unfair, abominable even, for the Sainted John to say that he would never vote to seat a Hillary nominee even if she were president for eight years.
What goes around comes around.
unless i use a meaning of “decent” that’s more like “a screaming paranoid Fox News Republican™”
longer everything i’ve been saying about this : http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/poll-opposition-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-grows-after-christine-blasey-ford-hearing.html
the GOP is a cult
unless i use a meaning of “decent” that’s more like “a screaming paranoid Fox News Republican™”
longer everything i’ve been saying about this : http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/poll-opposition-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-grows-after-christine-blasey-ford-hearing.html
the GOP is a cult
I read joel’s link last night, too. I didn’t comment on it. I just nodded to myself.
Me too.
What Patrick said at 11.58 a.m and Pro Bono at 12.46 p.m.
hsh: the more time that goes by, the nuttier Kavanaugh’s testimony seems. In the moment, I don’t think I was really appreciating what I was hearing and what it meant within its context.
I know some people (or at least, here, one person) will say it was only because the Democrats were being terribly unfair in their questioning. While I2 won’t deny political grandstanding on their part (not that it was just on their part – not by a long shot), I don’t really see, given what they were there to discuss, that Kavanaugh couldn’t have defended himself far, far better as a potential SCOTUS justice – both in terms of words and demeanor.
I completely agree with this. I watched the whole bloody thing, and still much of Kavanaugh’s behaviour passed fast enough that it barely left enough of a proper impression on my mind. That’s why bobbyp’s Current Affairs piece was so excellent: it went into the kind exact, forensic detail that enabled one to remember properly, and say to oneself “Wow, that’s actually what he said. Jesus Christ.”
I read joel’s link last night, too. I didn’t comment on it. I just nodded to myself.
Me too.
What Patrick said at 11.58 a.m and Pro Bono at 12.46 p.m.
hsh: the more time that goes by, the nuttier Kavanaugh’s testimony seems. In the moment, I don’t think I was really appreciating what I was hearing and what it meant within its context.
I know some people (or at least, here, one person) will say it was only because the Democrats were being terribly unfair in their questioning. While I2 won’t deny political grandstanding on their part (not that it was just on their part – not by a long shot), I don’t really see, given what they were there to discuss, that Kavanaugh couldn’t have defended himself far, far better as a potential SCOTUS justice – both in terms of words and demeanor.
I completely agree with this. I watched the whole bloody thing, and still much of Kavanaugh’s behaviour passed fast enough that it barely left enough of a proper impression on my mind. That’s why bobbyp’s Current Affairs piece was so excellent: it went into the kind exact, forensic detail that enabled one to remember properly, and say to oneself “Wow, that’s actually what he said. Jesus Christ.”
I, not 12
I, not 12
before he decided it was better to be a mini-Trumpfor the rubes, K actually said this:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/kavanaugh-in-2015-a-judge-must-keep-emotions-in-check-and-not-be-a-political-partisan/
before he decided it was better to be a mini-Trumpfor the rubes, K actually said this:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/kavanaugh-in-2015-a-judge-must-keep-emotions-in-check-and-not-be-a-political-partisan/
you become more like yourself—and that can be a problem.
Words to live by.
you become more like yourself—and that can be a problem.
Words to live by.
From a BJ commenter:
IOKIYAR. Just like with Merrick Garland.
From a BJ commenter:
IOKIYAR. Just like with Merrick Garland.
Daniel Larison:
IOKIYAR.
Daniel Larison:
IOKIYAR.
In all the back and forth here with Marty, he has repeatedly claimed Kravenaugh is a capable and serious jurist.
He is not.
Myself and several others have cited some of his terrible decisions on this board. Nobody here has deigned to defend them.
They’d rather argue about blackouts.
In all the back and forth here with Marty, he has repeatedly claimed Kravenaugh is a capable and serious jurist.
He is not.
Myself and several others have cited some of his terrible decisions on this board. Nobody here has deigned to defend them.
They’d rather argue about blackouts.
From the Washington Post, a headline: “The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.”
Just like Marty.
IOKIYAR.
From the Washington Post, a headline: “The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.”
Just like Marty.
IOKIYAR.
Interesting poll:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2574
The ‘smear campaign’ line is clearly getting through, which is mildly disquieting.
Interesting poll:
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2574
The ‘smear campaign’ line is clearly getting through, which is mildly disquieting.
Interesting.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh’s team and former classmates in advance of the story.
The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem’s efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.
Interesting.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/mutual-friend-ramirez-kavanaugh-anxious-come-forward-evidence-n915566
The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh’s team and former classmates in advance of the story.
The texts also demonstrate that Kavanaugh and Ramirez were more socially connected than previously understood and that Ramirez was uncomfortable around Kavanaugh when they saw each other at a wedding 10 years after they graduated. Berchem’s efforts also show that some potential witnesses have been unable to get important information to the FBI.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/brett-kavanaugh-democrats-ethics-question-supreme-court
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/brett-kavanaugh-democrats-ethics-question-supreme-court
Who is going to volunteer to hold bc back?
Who is going to volunteer to hold bc back?
Nigel at 637 is pretty damning if true.
Nigel at 637 is pretty damning if true.
lj, what is your 06.49 above linking to? It just seems to go to the beginning of this thread – or have I missed something?
lj, what is your 06.49 above linking to? It just seems to go to the beginning of this thread – or have I missed something?
Posted by: bc | September 29, 2018 at 09:17 PM
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2018/09/kavanaugh-where-we-are-now/comments/page/1/#comments
anger is easy, comedy is hard…
Posted by: bc | September 29, 2018 at 09:17 PM
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2018/09/kavanaugh-where-we-are-now/comments/page/1/#comments
anger is easy, comedy is hard…
He can’t help himself. He just lies.
He can’t help himself. He just lies.
Trump, like some giant, poorly inflated orange blimp, seems to be attempting to float above the fray:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/trump-kavanaugh-drinking-habits-854866
Trump on Kavanaugh: ‘I was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer’
Trump, like some giant, poorly inflated orange blimp, seems to be attempting to float above the fray:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/01/trump-kavanaugh-drinking-habits-854866
Trump on Kavanaugh: ‘I was surprised at how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer’
I see this as a teaching moment (although some people will never learn).
We’ve been seeing Kavanaugh promote lies, conspiracy theories, etc., then be elevated (after much protest) to a lifetime position to a very prestigious and powerful federal court. Now he may or may not be promoted to our country’s most powerful arbiter of justice.
He’s a blatant liar, and most certainly has a history of sexual misconduct, including attempted rape.
[His judicial philosophy is cruel and destructive, but we seem to be stuck with that, since that’s who Republicans are.]
I hope his nomination is derailed, of course. But the next best thing (which is not a good thing) is that we all know what we have here, and who here supports what we have here. This latest lie, and the various coverups are just icing on the cake. People who see this happening are complicit if they’re not fighting it.
I see this as a teaching moment (although some people will never learn).
We’ve been seeing Kavanaugh promote lies, conspiracy theories, etc., then be elevated (after much protest) to a lifetime position to a very prestigious and powerful federal court. Now he may or may not be promoted to our country’s most powerful arbiter of justice.
He’s a blatant liar, and most certainly has a history of sexual misconduct, including attempted rape.
[His judicial philosophy is cruel and destructive, but we seem to be stuck with that, since that’s who Republicans are.]
I hope his nomination is derailed, of course. But the next best thing (which is not a good thing) is that we all know what we have here, and who here supports what we have here. This latest lie, and the various coverups are just icing on the cake. People who see this happening are complicit if they’re not fighting it.
Nice guy, with great judicial temperament!
Nice guy, with great judicial temperament!
When you’ve lost Forbes???
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-the-senate-judiciary-committee-clarifies-the-key-issue/#2835643b89e4
When you’ve lost Forbes???
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2018/09/28/kavanaugh-the-senate-judiciary-committee-clarifies-the-key-issue/#2835643b89e4
Well, he also lost John Oliver, so anything else is downhill.
Well, he also lost John Oliver, so anything else is downhill.
nbcnews online has an article entitled, “Fact check: What [Clickbait] got wrong about Brett Kavanaugh,” that ends thusly:
It brought back to mind this exchange between Sen. Whitehouse and Kavanaugh from the hearing.
K: Drinking game.
W: How’s it played?
K: Three glasses, in a triangle.
W: And…?
K: You ever play quarters?
W: No.
K: Okay, it’s a quarters game.
The clip at the link is less than half a minute long…and conveys the tone, of course, in a way the written version can’t.
These tidbits, along with the exchange between BK and Klobuchar about blackouts, make an interesting set in terms of the gulf between someone who takes drinking, and drinking games, for granted and other people (perhaps surprisingly to the person in the drinking bubble) who don’t. It’s interesting which side of this divide the guy in the WH is on. This may be the first time I’ve ever agreed with him about anything. (“It’s one of my only good traits.”)
“It’s a quarters game” — as if it goes without saying that everyone knows what *that* is, even if some of us haven’t played it.
nbcnews online has an article entitled, “Fact check: What [Clickbait] got wrong about Brett Kavanaugh,” that ends thusly:
It brought back to mind this exchange between Sen. Whitehouse and Kavanaugh from the hearing.
K: Drinking game.
W: How’s it played?
K: Three glasses, in a triangle.
W: And…?
K: You ever play quarters?
W: No.
K: Okay, it’s a quarters game.
The clip at the link is less than half a minute long…and conveys the tone, of course, in a way the written version can’t.
These tidbits, along with the exchange between BK and Klobuchar about blackouts, make an interesting set in terms of the gulf between someone who takes drinking, and drinking games, for granted and other people (perhaps surprisingly to the person in the drinking bubble) who don’t. It’s interesting which side of this divide the guy in the WH is on. This may be the first time I’ve ever agreed with him about anything. (“It’s one of my only good traits.”)
“It’s a quarters game” — as if it goes without saying that everyone knows what *that* is, even if some of us haven’t played it.
lj: anger is easy, comedy is hard…
Huh?
lj: anger is easy, comedy is hard…
Huh?
There’s an old joke where a famous actor is on his deathbed and his disciple/understudy says, in hushed tones, ‘is dying…difficult?” The actor, (imagine Shakespearian, with incredible gravitas) intones
‘Dying is easy…comedy is hard!’
There’s an old joke where a famous actor is on his deathbed and his disciple/understudy says, in hushed tones, ‘is dying…difficult?” The actor, (imagine Shakespearian, with incredible gravitas) intones
‘Dying is easy…comedy is hard!’
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/hes-not-man-hes-remorseless-perjury-machine
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/hes-not-man-hes-remorseless-perjury-machine
“It’s a quarters game” — as if it goes without saying that everyone knows what *that* is, even if some of us haven’t played it.
I didn’t hear that exchange, only read it. The way it came off the page to me was basically:
Feel Whitehouse out to see what he knows about drinking games. Which, apparently, ain’t much.
Discovers Whitehouse doesn’t know about quarters.
Decides to go with “it’s a quarters game”, because Whitehouse doesn’t know enough to tell if it’s BS or not.
Of course, that could all be my vivid imagination. I was just glad he didn’t go with “There’s these three cups, see, and a little ball… wait, I’ll show you – see if you can follow which cup the ball is under…”.
From what I know of teenage frat bros, Kavanaugh and his pals were most likely to experience a “Devils Triangle” in the pages of the Penthouse Forum.
But what do I know.
IANAL or even particularly knowledgeable about the courts, but I hope Kavanaugh is not typical of the talent in our Circuit appellate courts.
This is what a “highly qualified” jurist looks like?
“It’s a quarters game” — as if it goes without saying that everyone knows what *that* is, even if some of us haven’t played it.
I didn’t hear that exchange, only read it. The way it came off the page to me was basically:
Feel Whitehouse out to see what he knows about drinking games. Which, apparently, ain’t much.
Discovers Whitehouse doesn’t know about quarters.
Decides to go with “it’s a quarters game”, because Whitehouse doesn’t know enough to tell if it’s BS or not.
Of course, that could all be my vivid imagination. I was just glad he didn’t go with “There’s these three cups, see, and a little ball… wait, I’ll show you – see if you can follow which cup the ball is under…”.
From what I know of teenage frat bros, Kavanaugh and his pals were most likely to experience a “Devils Triangle” in the pages of the Penthouse Forum.
But what do I know.
IANAL or even particularly knowledgeable about the courts, but I hope Kavanaugh is not typical of the talent in our Circuit appellate courts.
This is what a “highly qualified” jurist looks like?
Folks, you have to dig deep and directly confront the diabolical nature of the conservative vision. It is everything good people should abhor. It is a conscious and well funded desire (plan?) to return this country to the 1890’s. It needs to be resolutely opposed.
Folks, you have to dig deep and directly confront the diabolical nature of the conservative vision. It is everything good people should abhor. It is a conscious and well funded desire (plan?) to return this country to the 1890’s. It needs to be resolutely opposed.
Huh?
You can’t, as the saying goes, be serious.
Huh?
You can’t, as the saying goes, be serious.
Not that we need another goddamned thing to hate these people for.
I wish I believed in hell so I could hope they all burn.
Not that we need another goddamned thing to hate these people for.
I wish I believed in hell so I could hope they all burn.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/classmate-told-fbi-kavanaugh-lied-235900502.html
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/classmate-told-fbi-kavanaugh-lied-235900502.html
This too, Janie:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-miller-urged-trump-end-student-visas-for-chinese-nationals-report
China needs to be taking a long hard look at its nuclear posture.
This too, Janie:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-miller-urged-trump-end-student-visas-for-chinese-nationals-report
China needs to be taking a long hard look at its nuclear posture.
China needs to be taking a long hard look at its nuclear posture.
Are you suggesting that China (among others) needs a nuclear weapon which can take out Stephen Miller without doing significant damage to the rest of the country? Sounds reasonable.
China needs to be taking a long hard look at its nuclear posture.
Are you suggesting that China (among others) needs a nuclear weapon which can take out Stephen Miller without doing significant damage to the rest of the country? Sounds reasonable.
If only. He seems like a truly poisonous individual, with no redeeming features that I have ever read about.
If only. He seems like a truly poisonous individual, with no redeeming features that I have ever read about.
Are you suggesting ….?
Something along the lines of the neutron bomb that takes out the entire flesh and blood component of the conservative movement, while preserving their property to divvy up among the deserving.
Seems like the “property surviving” element of the weapon would lead some conservatives to remark, beforehand, that at least the weapons our enemies are using have its priorities straight, in accordance with the Republican political platform.
There’s no reason to destroy Mar-a-Lago, or say, the FOX News studios on the Avenue of the Hystericals, structures, like termite towers, which are innocent unto themselves and can be repurposed.
Are you suggesting ….?
Something along the lines of the neutron bomb that takes out the entire flesh and blood component of the conservative movement, while preserving their property to divvy up among the deserving.
Seems like the “property surviving” element of the weapon would lead some conservatives to remark, beforehand, that at least the weapons our enemies are using have its priorities straight, in accordance with the Republican political platform.
There’s no reason to destroy Mar-a-Lago, or say, the FOX News studios on the Avenue of the Hystericals, structures, like termite towers, which are innocent unto themselves and can be repurposed.
I figure Trump keeps Miller around because he misses Roy Cohn.
And Rayne over at emptywheel asks an obvious question.
Anyway, on with the clown show.
I figure Trump keeps Miller around because he misses Roy Cohn.
And Rayne over at emptywheel asks an obvious question.
Anyway, on with the clown show.
Party of Trump:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/02/house-republicans-trump-midterms-855643
Party of Trump:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/02/house-republicans-trump-midterms-855643
in the ads i’ve seen, Republicans aren’t mentioning their party. some will make a big deal out of “Standing with President Trump”, but they won’t say “Republican”.
odd.
in the ads i’ve seen, Republicans aren’t mentioning their party. some will make a big deal out of “Standing with President Trump”, but they won’t say “Republican”.
odd.
Meanwhile, in other news of the effects of the Trump presidency, this from Forbes from hilzoy’s feed:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/10/02/how-trump-is-tryingand-failingto-get-rich-off-his-presidency/
Meanwhile, in other news of the effects of the Trump presidency, this from Forbes from hilzoy’s feed:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2018/10/02/how-trump-is-tryingand-failingto-get-rich-off-his-presidency/
Yeah but, Obama wrote a book.
Yeah but, Obama wrote a book.
Yes, in the absence of bob mcm, it’s important to be reminded of the bastards cashing in, or trying to….
Yes, in the absence of bob mcm, it’s important to be reminded of the bastards cashing in, or trying to….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-be-fooled-working-americans-are-worse-off-under-trump/2018/09/30/f789f198-be82-11e8-be70-52bd11fe18af_story.html?utm_term=.e649c276031f
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernie-sanders-refers-to-amazons-15-an-hour-wage-as-shot-heard-round-the-world-2018-10-02?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-be-fooled-working-americans-are-worse-off-under-trump/2018/09/30/f789f198-be82-11e8-be70-52bd11fe18af_story.html?utm_term=.e649c276031f
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernie-sanders-refers-to-amazons-15-an-hour-wage-as-shot-heard-round-the-world-2018-10-02?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Facing a tight labor market and having to hire about 100,000 seasonal employees, Amazon may be combining a bit of economic reality with virtue signaling.
Facing a tight labor market and having to hire about 100,000 seasonal employees, Amazon may be combining a bit of economic reality with virtue signaling.
Better than the sort of signaling we’ve become accustomed to.
I’m sure there will be even less virtuous signaling in our future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMF8Watvcws
Here’s a signal:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/761831/Donald-Trump-END-OF-THE-WORLD-second-coming-jesus-christ
Better than the sort of signaling we’ve become accustomed to.
I’m sure there will be even less virtuous signaling in our future:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMF8Watvcws
Here’s a signal:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/761831/Donald-Trump-END-OF-THE-WORLD-second-coming-jesus-christ
From GftNC (via Hilzoy) link
Such weakness seems to have infected the Trump brand across the board. After multiple bankruptcies, Trump adroitly turned his business toward real estate management and licensing, slapping his name on other people’s buildings, ties, steaks and even a urine test
From GftNC (via Hilzoy) link
Such weakness seems to have infected the Trump brand across the board. After multiple bankruptcies, Trump adroitly turned his business toward real estate management and licensing, slapping his name on other people’s buildings, ties, steaks and even a urine test
While we wait for Mitch McConnell to bury the pro forma FBI report of its non-investigation and “plow through” with shoving Kavanaugh’s rabidly partisan lickspittle ass on to the SCOTUS, I renew my call to McKinneyTexas to weigh in on “treating the prosecution as it deserves”, from a lawyer’s POV.
I also renew my call for the 4 “liberals” on the Court to resign en masse and let the SCOTUS try to retain its “legitimacy” with a receiver of stolen goods, a couple of perverts, and 4 new McConnell/Trump Justices on it. But I digress.
McKinney: you argue before judges. Let us know your thoughts on arguing before a judge of Kavanaugh’s … er, caliber.
–TP
While we wait for Mitch McConnell to bury the pro forma FBI report of its non-investigation and “plow through” with shoving Kavanaugh’s rabidly partisan lickspittle ass on to the SCOTUS, I renew my call to McKinneyTexas to weigh in on “treating the prosecution as it deserves”, from a lawyer’s POV.
I also renew my call for the 4 “liberals” on the Court to resign en masse and let the SCOTUS try to retain its “legitimacy” with a receiver of stolen goods, a couple of perverts, and 4 new McConnell/Trump Justices on it. But I digress.
McKinney: you argue before judges. Let us know your thoughts on arguing before a judge of Kavanaugh’s … er, caliber.
–TP
and now Trump is mocking Ford.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-mocks-christine-blasey-ford-testimony-make-america-great-again-rally-mississippi-landers-center-2018-10-02/
the GOP is a fucking disease.
everyone who supports or defends it should be goddamned ashamed of themselves.
he’s mocking sexual assault victims! and the idiot crowd is cheering him.
fuck the GOP.
and now Trump is mocking Ford.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-mocks-christine-blasey-ford-testimony-make-america-great-again-rally-mississippi-landers-center-2018-10-02/
the GOP is a fucking disease.
everyone who supports or defends it should be goddamned ashamed of themselves.
he’s mocking sexual assault victims! and the idiot crowd is cheering him.
fuck the GOP.
This vile criminal asshole is the president of the United States. He has spent a good portion of his time in that office going around, not only already campaigning for 2020, but revving up the worst kind of ignorance and violence.
This can’t end well.
I try to keep some sliver of hope, but it isn’t easy.
This vile criminal asshole is the president of the United States. He has spent a good portion of his time in that office going around, not only already campaigning for 2020, but revving up the worst kind of ignorance and violence.
This can’t end well.
I try to keep some sliver of hope, but it isn’t easy.
I hope Blasey Ford and her family have good protection.
I hope Blasey Ford and her family have good protection.
I also renew my call for the 4 “liberals” on the Court to resign en masse and let the SCOTUS try to retain its “legitimacy” with a receiver of stolen goods, a couple of perverts, and 4 new McConnell/Trump Justices on it.
This is the kind of sophomoric self-defeating gesture I remember from the left in my college days. If it happened, it would at best lead to a violent revolution, with lots of obvious negatives. Including for you personally. (If you want that, just go follow the Count’s call to take up arms yourself.) More likely, it would just end up with all kinds of bad stuff from the Federal government, and the country just suffering thru it.
It’s on a par with suggesting that all of the Democratic members of Congress should have just walked out at the beginning of 2017. Sure, it would have been dramatic. But would you be happier with the world if the Republicans in Congress had been able to pass everything the “Liberty Caucus” desired? Probably not.
I also renew my call for the 4 “liberals” on the Court to resign en masse and let the SCOTUS try to retain its “legitimacy” with a receiver of stolen goods, a couple of perverts, and 4 new McConnell/Trump Justices on it.
This is the kind of sophomoric self-defeating gesture I remember from the left in my college days. If it happened, it would at best lead to a violent revolution, with lots of obvious negatives. Including for you personally. (If you want that, just go follow the Count’s call to take up arms yourself.) More likely, it would just end up with all kinds of bad stuff from the Federal government, and the country just suffering thru it.
It’s on a par with suggesting that all of the Democratic members of Congress should have just walked out at the beginning of 2017. Sure, it would have been dramatic. But would you be happier with the world if the Republicans in Congress had been able to pass everything the “Liberty Caucus” desired? Probably not.
This is the kind of sophomoric self-defeating gesture I remember from the left in my college days.
If I can engage in some “psychoanalytical bs” on tony p’s behalf (and I don’t mean to dismiss him with this, but to try and explain why he might say this) I’ve noticed that the liberal side of the equation often expresses this sort of thing as a token of frustration, kind of like the mother saying to the teenage boy in the house ‘ok, how would you like it if I didn’t wash your clothes and you had to do it?’ or something similar. Some mothers try it out, and soon realize that the adolescent can put up with living in a room that any normal person would recoil in horror from. So the ‘yeah, let’s let them f*ck things up and then they will be responsible for the clean up’ never seems to work with the right because they never take responsibility for the f*ck-ups on their watch. So it’s not (I believe) so much a plan presented for approval, but more like a cri de coeur that shouldn’t be taken as an actual proposal.
At least that is how I read it.
This is the kind of sophomoric self-defeating gesture I remember from the left in my college days.
If I can engage in some “psychoanalytical bs” on tony p’s behalf (and I don’t mean to dismiss him with this, but to try and explain why he might say this) I’ve noticed that the liberal side of the equation often expresses this sort of thing as a token of frustration, kind of like the mother saying to the teenage boy in the house ‘ok, how would you like it if I didn’t wash your clothes and you had to do it?’ or something similar. Some mothers try it out, and soon realize that the adolescent can put up with living in a room that any normal person would recoil in horror from. So the ‘yeah, let’s let them f*ck things up and then they will be responsible for the clean up’ never seems to work with the right because they never take responsibility for the f*ck-ups on their watch. So it’s not (I believe) so much a plan presented for approval, but more like a cri de coeur that shouldn’t be taken as an actual proposal.
At least that is how I read it.
What lj said.
What lj said.
Wittes, who is not in any way, shape or form a Democrat, weighs in again:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/
The Brett Kavanaugh who showed up to Thursday’s hearing is a man I have never met, whom I have never even caught a glimpse of in 20 years of knowing the person who showed up to the first hearing. ..
My cognitive dissonance at Kavanaugh’s performance Thursday is not important. What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursday’s hearing and the judicial function. Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable pro-choice woman would feel like her position could get a fair shake before a Justice Kavanaugh? Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence? Quite apart from the merits of Ford’s allegations against him, Kavanaugh’s display on Thursday—if I were a senator voting on confirmation—would preclude my support….
Wittes, who is not in any way, shape or form a Democrat, weighs in again:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/
The Brett Kavanaugh who showed up to Thursday’s hearing is a man I have never met, whom I have never even caught a glimpse of in 20 years of knowing the person who showed up to the first hearing. ..
My cognitive dissonance at Kavanaugh’s performance Thursday is not important. What is important is the dissonance between the Kavanaugh of Thursday’s hearing and the judicial function. Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable pro-choice woman would feel like her position could get a fair shake before a Justice Kavanaugh? Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence? Quite apart from the merits of Ford’s allegations against him, Kavanaugh’s display on Thursday—if I were a senator voting on confirmation—would preclude my support….
Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence?
the longer this goes on, the more obvious it becomes that the GOP wants an angry partisan blowhard.
i’m sure the Marty’s of the world are very very dismayed. and, with lower lips stuck out and many many tears flowing, blame the Democrats for making them do this.
Can anyone seriously entertain the notion that a reasonable Democrat, or a reasonable liberal of any kind, would after that performance consider him a fair arbiter in, say, a case about partisan gerrymandering, voter identification, or anything else with a strong partisan valence?
the longer this goes on, the more obvious it becomes that the GOP wants an angry partisan blowhard.
i’m sure the Marty’s of the world are very very dismayed. and, with lower lips stuck out and many many tears flowing, blame the Democrats for making them do this.
If you read it, Wittes is doing nothing but bending with the wind. First he was for him, then the charges were unfalsifiable, then he should resign if he couldn’t adequately disprove them now he was too aggressive in defending himself.
That’s some tough goalposts as far as Marty’s concerned.
If you read it, Wittes is doing nothing but bending with the wind. First he was for him, then the charges were unfalsifiable, then he should resign if he couldn’t adequately disprove them now he was too aggressive in defending himself.
That’s some tough goalposts as far as Marty’s concerned.
The problem wasn’t that he was “aggressive” in defending himself. It’s that he was 1) partisan and 2) intemperate in his defense. In short, he shows a lack of judicial temperament. The goal posts didn’t move. But, says Wittes, Kavanaugh moved past them.
The problem wasn’t that he was “aggressive” in defending himself. It’s that he was 1) partisan and 2) intemperate in his defense. In short, he shows a lack of judicial temperament. The goal posts didn’t move. But, says Wittes, Kavanaugh moved past them.
Marty, did you read what Wittes wrote? Here is his opening
These are words I write with no pleasure, but with deep sadness. Unlike many people who will read them with glee—as validating preexisting political, philosophical, or jurisprudential opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination—I have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence. I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character—more than once—and taken a fair bit of heat for doing so. I have also spent a substantial portion of my adult life defending the proposition that judicial nominees are entitled to a measure of decency from the Senate and that there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.
To lead with that (assuming you believe him when he says it) makes it pretty amazing for him to come down where he has.
Marty, did you read what Wittes wrote? Here is his opening
These are words I write with no pleasure, but with deep sadness. Unlike many people who will read them with glee—as validating preexisting political, philosophical, or jurisprudential opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination—I have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence. I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character—more than once—and taken a fair bit of heat for doing so. I have also spent a substantial portion of my adult life defending the proposition that judicial nominees are entitled to a measure of decency from the Senate and that there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.
To lead with that (assuming you believe him when he says it) makes it pretty amazing for him to come down where he has.
I have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence.
I do.
I have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence.
I do.
I read every word, not amazing at all. Internet echo chamber influence. The expectation that he should be judicial in his defense in front of prosecutors is simply unrealistic. He deserves the consideration to provide as vigorous a defense as necessary, particularly in a public forum.
I read every word, not amazing at all. Internet echo chamber influence. The expectation that he should be judicial in his defense in front of prosecutors is simply unrealistic. He deserves the consideration to provide as vigorous a defense as necessary, particularly in a public forum.
The expectation that he should be judicial in his defense in front of prosecutors is simply unrealistic.
he wasn’t being prosecuted.
his fitness for an elevated job position was being ascertained.
and he lied and cried and deflected and yelled and interrupted and talked back and generally made an ass of himself.
a true GOP hero.
The expectation that he should be judicial in his defense in front of prosecutors is simply unrealistic.
he wasn’t being prosecuted.
his fitness for an elevated job position was being ascertained.
and he lied and cried and deflected and yelled and interrupted and talked back and generally made an ass of himself.
a true GOP hero.
lj: … kind of like the mother saying to the teenage boy in the house …
Is the obnoxious “teenage boy” (a sophomore, perhaps) analogous to the GOP? If so, I have no objection to your analogy.
wj: … It’s on a par with suggesting that all of the Democratic members of Congress should have just walked out at the beginning of 2017.
No, it is not. He, Trump and Mitch McConnell would not get to nominate and confirm their replacements for life.
Actually, to return to lj’s analogy, the truculent, sophomoric, teenage brat in this mess is the MAGA crowd. “Reasonable Republicans” are its peace-at-all-costs younger brother, and the parents are out of town. Let the babysitter throw up her hands and quit, and maybe the younger brother will finally work up the courage to call the grown-ups back home.
–TP
lj: … kind of like the mother saying to the teenage boy in the house …
Is the obnoxious “teenage boy” (a sophomore, perhaps) analogous to the GOP? If so, I have no objection to your analogy.
wj: … It’s on a par with suggesting that all of the Democratic members of Congress should have just walked out at the beginning of 2017.
No, it is not. He, Trump and Mitch McConnell would not get to nominate and confirm their replacements for life.
Actually, to return to lj’s analogy, the truculent, sophomoric, teenage brat in this mess is the MAGA crowd. “Reasonable Republicans” are its peace-at-all-costs younger brother, and the parents are out of town. Let the babysitter throw up her hands and quit, and maybe the younger brother will finally work up the courage to call the grown-ups back home.
–TP
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-the-actual-fck-republicans
Apparently not content to simply dismiss Brett Kavanaugh’s third accuser, Julie Swetnick, the committee led by Chuck Grassley posted a letter on its website from a former weatherman and failed politician who claims he met Swetnick in a bar and cheated on his wife with her.
further down
The weatherman says he was abused when he was nine years old by his grandfather’s best friend, so he knows “what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed.” That is truly sad, and my heart goes out to him.
In the next sentence, he says, “I also know what it’s like to be accused of something significant and not be believed.” Apparently he was not interested in talking about things he didn’t do, because he provided no further information.
He felt really bad, he said, about potentially hurting his family and “Julie,” but he also felt bad when he watched Kavanaugh’s hearing and “saw Mrs. Kavanaugh looking so sad” so then he wanted to tell her that he thinks Kavanaugh actually didn’t rape one of the women who accused him. So he says he talked to a “church leader” who put him in touch with another “church leader” who got in touch with Orrin Hatch’s office.
I suppose we are meant to believe that the failed politician-weatherman received no coaching to write this letter, and that it brought Hatch no joy to help the letter find its way to the public in order to humiliate a woman he’s never met—a woman whose alleged “psychological problems” and personal sexual preferences did not prevent her from getting approved for a variety of government security clearances, something that Kavanaugh himself cited as evidence of his righteousness.
Vigorous defenses for Kavanaugh, innuendo and slime for women who step up.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-the-actual-fck-republicans
Apparently not content to simply dismiss Brett Kavanaugh’s third accuser, Julie Swetnick, the committee led by Chuck Grassley posted a letter on its website from a former weatherman and failed politician who claims he met Swetnick in a bar and cheated on his wife with her.
further down
The weatherman says he was abused when he was nine years old by his grandfather’s best friend, so he knows “what it’s like to be sexually assaulted and not be believed.” That is truly sad, and my heart goes out to him.
In the next sentence, he says, “I also know what it’s like to be accused of something significant and not be believed.” Apparently he was not interested in talking about things he didn’t do, because he provided no further information.
He felt really bad, he said, about potentially hurting his family and “Julie,” but he also felt bad when he watched Kavanaugh’s hearing and “saw Mrs. Kavanaugh looking so sad” so then he wanted to tell her that he thinks Kavanaugh actually didn’t rape one of the women who accused him. So he says he talked to a “church leader” who put him in touch with another “church leader” who got in touch with Orrin Hatch’s office.
I suppose we are meant to believe that the failed politician-weatherman received no coaching to write this letter, and that it brought Hatch no joy to help the letter find its way to the public in order to humiliate a woman he’s never met—a woman whose alleged “psychological problems” and personal sexual preferences did not prevent her from getting approved for a variety of government security clearances, something that Kavanaugh himself cited as evidence of his righteousness.
Vigorous defenses for Kavanaugh, innuendo and slime for women who step up.
He was being prosecuted, period. And, lj, coaching has happened with every letter: accuser,accused, and others that we’ve seen.
He was being prosecuted, period. And, lj, coaching has happened with every letter: accuser,accused, and others that we’ve seen.
there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.
So much civility was shown to Merrick Garland, we were all just drowning in it.
BK is the choice of a vile criminal asshole president who is ginning up violent hatred in this country. If Wittes’ description of the old BK and the new BK is to be believed (it’s more likely he only saw the public persona previously, unlike some of the women who have had the misfortune to cross paths with the drunken jerk in the past, but never mind that), BK is taking on the color of his patron, whose criminality and viciousness he is preparing to provide “legal” cover for. It isn’t hard to know what to think of anyone who keeps defending this shit.
there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.
So much civility was shown to Merrick Garland, we were all just drowning in it.
BK is the choice of a vile criminal asshole president who is ginning up violent hatred in this country. If Wittes’ description of the old BK and the new BK is to be believed (it’s more likely he only saw the public persona previously, unlike some of the women who have had the misfortune to cross paths with the drunken jerk in the past, but never mind that), BK is taking on the color of his patron, whose criminality and viciousness he is preparing to provide “legal” cover for. It isn’t hard to know what to think of anyone who keeps defending this shit.
He was being prosecuted, period.
words mean what Marty wants them to mean.
and that’s enough for me.
He was being prosecuted, period.
words mean what Marty wants them to mean.
and that’s enough for me.
I suppose that (most) Americans should feel themselves fortunate that the USSC has not fallen to the level of the Wisconsin state supreme court, otherwise Alito would have attempted to choke RBG while in chambers.
We can only hope that RBG is prepared to Stand Her Ground™.
I suppose that (most) Americans should feel themselves fortunate that the USSC has not fallen to the level of the Wisconsin state supreme court, otherwise Alito would have attempted to choke RBG while in chambers.
We can only hope that RBG is prepared to Stand Her Ground™.
He was being tested. He failed.
He was being tested. He failed.
Once more for the road, wrs: Enjoy those tax cuts.
Once more for the road, wrs: Enjoy those tax cuts.
as vigorous a defense as necessary
Ah, but was that kind of defense necessary? Did it seem to you he was convincing any of the Democrats thereby that they should vote for his confirmation? Did it seem that he was convincing any of the wavering Republicans with his carrying on?
as vigorous a defense as necessary
Ah, but was that kind of defense necessary? Did it seem to you he was convincing any of the Democrats thereby that they should vote for his confirmation? Did it seem that he was convincing any of the wavering Republicans with his carrying on?
We don’t need a weatherman to see which way the Orrin Hatch blows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0
We don’t need a weatherman to see which way the Orrin Hatch blows:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxjIBEZvx0
Yeah, let’s cut those taxes.
My tax cut, such as it is, will go to support the life of someone who is disabled, one of the millions whose lives will be even more difficult because…tax cuts, brought to you by a vile criminal asshole who barely pays any taxes himself, but now spends our tax dollars swanning around the country riling up his deluded fans by mocking…practically everyone.
BK fandom is Clickbait fandom. Pass it on.
Yeah, let’s cut those taxes.
My tax cut, such as it is, will go to support the life of someone who is disabled, one of the millions whose lives will be even more difficult because…tax cuts, brought to you by a vile criminal asshole who barely pays any taxes himself, but now spends our tax dollars swanning around the country riling up his deluded fans by mocking…practically everyone.
BK fandom is Clickbait fandom. Pass it on.
Some background on Snarki’s allusion to the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/06/28/137480847/wisconsins-alleged-high-court-choking-incident-gets-two-probes
Walker, whose lifelines on the greased palms of his dirty hands read of sudden bereavement for those who still give a shit about him, quoted within:
“I don’t know what the right answer is.”
Sure, he knew:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-destruction-of-the-wisconsin-supreme-court
All of them know what to do:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/west-virginia-supreme-court-appeals_us_5b69ec5ae4b0b15abaa7d968
Corrupt republican liar and thief Rick Scott of Florida doesn’t need a weatherman either to see who needs to blow him:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/rick-scott-plans-to-pack-the-florida-supreme-court-after-his-term-ends.html
If Judge Ginsburg requires the weapons of self defense, she can pay a visit to Colorado and we’ll set her up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vpzpjKVsw
Some background on Snarki’s allusion to the Wisconsin Supreme Court:
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/06/28/137480847/wisconsins-alleged-high-court-choking-incident-gets-two-probes
Walker, whose lifelines on the greased palms of his dirty hands read of sudden bereavement for those who still give a shit about him, quoted within:
“I don’t know what the right answer is.”
Sure, he knew:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-destruction-of-the-wisconsin-supreme-court
All of them know what to do:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/west-virginia-supreme-court-appeals_us_5b69ec5ae4b0b15abaa7d968
Corrupt republican liar and thief Rick Scott of Florida doesn’t need a weatherman either to see who needs to blow him:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/rick-scott-plans-to-pack-the-florida-supreme-court-after-his-term-ends.html
If Judge Ginsburg requires the weapons of self defense, she can pay a visit to Colorado and we’ll set her up:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0vpzpjKVsw
This is an excerpt I pulled from an nj.com article (emphasis added):
Such a business man!
This is an excerpt I pulled from an nj.com article (emphasis added):
Such a business man!
The perfect republican vermin candidate.
Aspirational:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/10/times-report-trump-wealth-largely-based-on-tax-scams-and-bailouts-from-dad/
The perfect republican vermin candidate.
Aspirational:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/10/times-report-trump-wealth-largely-based-on-tax-scams-and-bailouts-from-dad/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/03/michael-lewis-on-the-fifth-risk-i-think-trump-moves-through-the-world-avoiding-colliding-with-information/#more-245803
Nothing happens when Pence’s wife is in the room.
Pence’s slavish, sloppy sucking up to El Caudillo guaranteed that nothing has happened since when Pence and his wife are alone in the bedroom, too.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/03/michael-lewis-on-the-fifth-risk-i-think-trump-moves-through-the-world-avoiding-colliding-with-information/#more-245803
Nothing happens when Pence’s wife is in the room.
Pence’s slavish, sloppy sucking up to El Caudillo guaranteed that nothing has happened since when Pence and his wife are alone in the bedroom, too.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/now-duncan-hunter-is-muslim-bashing-his-democratic-opponentwhos-a-protestant?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
https://www.thedailybeast.com/now-duncan-hunter-is-muslim-bashing-his-democratic-opponentwhos-a-protestant?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tasha-reign-the-porn-star-teaching-frat-boys-about-consent?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
https://www.thedailybeast.com/tasha-reign-the-porn-star-teaching-frat-boys-about-consent?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
I’d love to hear anyone on the right make an argument for why Kavanaugh actually represents the best and brightest that they have to offer for the highest bench in the nation and therefore more worthy of this nomination than any of the other conservative jurists they could appoint.
The only reason to choose a nominee that is less qualified would be to find one that is more acceptable to the other side. I’m not seeing either of these things at work in this instance. He’s neither distinguished nor more palatable to the opposition.
I’d love to hear anyone on the right make an argument for why Kavanaugh actually represents the best and brightest that they have to offer for the highest bench in the nation and therefore more worthy of this nomination than any of the other conservative jurists they could appoint.
The only reason to choose a nominee that is less qualified would be to find one that is more acceptable to the other side. I’m not seeing either of these things at work in this instance. He’s neither distinguished nor more palatable to the opposition.
Count,
If you have a private channel of communication with McKinneyTexas, please convey to him my polite request to enter our “echo chamber”. I am truly curious to learn his position on Kavanaugh’s performance.
If McKinney is busy arguing before some histrionic judge at the moment, I can of course understand his radio silence.
–TP
Count,
If you have a private channel of communication with McKinneyTexas, please convey to him my polite request to enter our “echo chamber”. I am truly curious to learn his position on Kavanaugh’s performance.
If McKinney is busy arguing before some histrionic judge at the moment, I can of course understand his radio silence.
–TP
I wouldn’t be surprised if McK wanted to stay as far away from this mess as possible.
I wouldn’t be surprised if McK wanted to stay as far away from this mess as possible.
I’m sure McTX is lurking.
I’m sure McTX is lurking.
While porn star Tasha Reign explains a few things to stunned frat boys, Kellyanne Conway picks up the $200 on the dresser and lets herself out:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/kellyanne-conway-ford-treated-like-a-faberge-egg-trump-right-to-mock-her-inconsistencies
While porn star Tasha Reign explains a few things to stunned frat boys, Kellyanne Conway picks up the $200 on the dresser and lets herself out:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/kellyanne-conway-ford-treated-like-a-faberge-egg-trump-right-to-mock-her-inconsistencies
Internet echo chamber influence.
Marty, of course, generously comes inside the echo chamber to make sure we hear other voices, hopeless causes that we are.
Appearances make it seem as if he’s copying his talking points from some other echo chamber, but appearances are deceptive; there’s only one echo chamber, and that’s this one. Marty doesn’t have to repeat talking points, because Marty knows The Truth™.
Internet echo chamber influence.
Marty, of course, generously comes inside the echo chamber to make sure we hear other voices, hopeless causes that we are.
Appearances make it seem as if he’s copying his talking points from some other echo chamber, but appearances are deceptive; there’s only one echo chamber, and that’s this one. Marty doesn’t have to repeat talking points, because Marty knows The Truth™.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dhs-oig-report-nooses-adelanto-immigration-detention
Fucking dead fucks.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/dhs-oig-report-nooses-adelanto-immigration-detention
Fucking dead fucks.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23579738/donald-trump-mock-christine-blasey-ford-sexual-assault/
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23579738/donald-trump-mock-christine-blasey-ford-sexual-assault/
I’d love to hear anyone on the right make an argument for why Kavanaugh actually represents the best and brightest that they have to offer for the highest bench in the nation and therefore more worthy of this nomination than any of the other conservative jurists they could appoint.
It’s a matter of correctly understanding the meaning of “best”. 😉
What Kavanaugh provides is a living breathing example of what “privilege” is all about. And how accountability is for losers. None of the other conservative jurors would provide the same opportunity to rub the plebes noses in the fact of their unimportance.
(Of course, there’s also the fact that it might be difficult to convince one of the others to quite such an expansive view of blanket Presidential (at least when the president is Trump) immunity. The rest aren’t anything like the blatantly partisan hacks that he is.)
I’d love to hear anyone on the right make an argument for why Kavanaugh actually represents the best and brightest that they have to offer for the highest bench in the nation and therefore more worthy of this nomination than any of the other conservative jurists they could appoint.
It’s a matter of correctly understanding the meaning of “best”. 😉
What Kavanaugh provides is a living breathing example of what “privilege” is all about. And how accountability is for losers. None of the other conservative jurors would provide the same opportunity to rub the plebes noses in the fact of their unimportance.
(Of course, there’s also the fact that it might be difficult to convince one of the others to quite such an expansive view of blanket Presidential (at least when the president is Trump) immunity. The rest aren’t anything like the blatantly partisan hacks that he is.)
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/white-house-press-briefing-10-03-18/index.html
The story is “boring”, she opines.
I like the original soundtrack to this scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4VlruVG81w
But contemporary sensibilities may have found it “boring”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgnpYrFLXjg
Ride ’em, cowboy.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/white-house-press-briefing-10-03-18/index.html
The story is “boring”, she opines.
I like the original soundtrack to this scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4VlruVG81w
But contemporary sensibilities may have found it “boring”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgnpYrFLXjg
Ride ’em, cowboy.
Just received my emergency alert from mp on the National Wireless Emergency Alert System.
“No action is needed” it said.
Is that a threat about how or even if I should vote?
Just received my emergency alert from mp on the National Wireless Emergency Alert System.
“No action is needed” it said.
Is that a threat about how or even if I should vote?
That pigfucker sleeps on sheets I pay to have laundered:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-familys-alleged-tax-evasion-would-be-triple-the-typical-evasion-among-the-superwealthy-2018-10-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Hey, republicans, try to tax me.
See what the fuck happens to you.
That pigfucker sleeps on sheets I pay to have laundered:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-familys-alleged-tax-evasion-would-be-triple-the-typical-evasion-among-the-superwealthy-2018-10-03?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Hey, republicans, try to tax me.
See what the fuck happens to you.
Kethledge. Hardiman. Take your pick. Probably ten other justices they could find in about ten minutes that would fill the bill.
Conservatives get their Federalist majority. No FBI. No beer-liking, devil’s triangle, did-he-or-didn’t-he, what-the-hell-is-boofing-and-do-i-even-wanna-know drama. No quarters. No bar fight.
Sucks for people like me, so even some lib-owning thrown in for good measure.
Too late for first Monday in October, but you’ll probably get a vote before the mid-terms. Certainly within the lame-duck time frame.
So simple. Won’t happen. They gotta have this guy, and only this guy, even if it means they have to burn the place down to make it happen.
Why? Beats the hell out of me.
Kethledge. Hardiman. Take your pick. Probably ten other justices they could find in about ten minutes that would fill the bill.
Conservatives get their Federalist majority. No FBI. No beer-liking, devil’s triangle, did-he-or-didn’t-he, what-the-hell-is-boofing-and-do-i-even-wanna-know drama. No quarters. No bar fight.
Sucks for people like me, so even some lib-owning thrown in for good measure.
Too late for first Monday in October, but you’ll probably get a vote before the mid-terms. Certainly within the lame-duck time frame.
So simple. Won’t happen. They gotta have this guy, and only this guy, even if it means they have to burn the place down to make it happen.
Why? Beats the hell out of me.
They need this guy because
1. Any replacement they have to nominate will have to be nominated by Trump. Trump likes this guy because he thinks this guy will shield him from investigation. The conservative legislators would rather push through Kavanaugh than risk Trump going off on his own to pick a replacement that suits his needs if Trump doesn’t feel confident in the personal loyalty of the rest of the Federalist Society shortlist.
2. Any replacement they nominate will take longer to confirm than between now and the midterms, and they’re worried Democrats will use the midterms as a justification for delaying or non confirming a replacement.
3. In order to nominate a replacement they would have to get rid of Kavanaugh, and none of them can afford to be the hatchetman who does that. Their base will turn on them. So they need either Trump to do it, or the Democrats to do it. But the Democrats can’t do it without Republican votes.
They need this guy because
1. Any replacement they have to nominate will have to be nominated by Trump. Trump likes this guy because he thinks this guy will shield him from investigation. The conservative legislators would rather push through Kavanaugh than risk Trump going off on his own to pick a replacement that suits his needs if Trump doesn’t feel confident in the personal loyalty of the rest of the Federalist Society shortlist.
2. Any replacement they nominate will take longer to confirm than between now and the midterms, and they’re worried Democrats will use the midterms as a justification for delaying or non confirming a replacement.
3. In order to nominate a replacement they would have to get rid of Kavanaugh, and none of them can afford to be the hatchetman who does that. Their base will turn on them. So they need either Trump to do it, or the Democrats to do it. But the Democrats can’t do it without Republican votes.
4. the fight has become about Kavanaugh himself. if K quits or is forced out, it’s a loss for the GOP.
4. the fight has become about Kavanaugh himself. if K quits or is forced out, it’s a loss for the GOP.
Anybody who pays a dime in federal tax outside of withholding while Marty’s favorite rapist is president is a moron.
Anybody who pays a dime in federal tax outside of withholding while Marty’s favorite rapist is president is a moron.
the fight has become about Kavanaugh himself.
Yeah, I think it’s beyond the point of no return.
the fight has become about Kavanaugh himself.
Yeah, I think it’s beyond the point of no return.
Oh, I agree, I’d just like to see someone either make an effort to justify his qualifications or just admit that they don’t give a rat’s ass about his qualifications and that they have passed over people with better qualifications for the sake of personal crap.
Oh, I agree, I’d just like to see someone either make an effort to justify his qualifications or just admit that they don’t give a rat’s ass about his qualifications and that they have passed over people with better qualifications for the sake of personal crap.
It clearly has, and the battle lines are drawn…
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/conservative-women-kavanaugh-ford/572023/
Conservatives like Wittes, who retain a sense of scepticism, appear to be a very small minority.
It clearly has, and the battle lines are drawn…
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/conservative-women-kavanaugh-ford/572023/
Conservatives like Wittes, who retain a sense of scepticism, appear to be a very small minority.
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/10/03/following-trumps-attack-conservatives-call-ford-liar-deserving-prison/221555
I put us roughly in late pre-Civil War America, September 1860.
I’ll look up the dates for Rome, pre-Revolutionary Russia, and the India/Pakistan partition on the sub-Continent.
A conservative plurality of the majority Hutus in Rwanda held up the Arusha Accords, believing the agreement to be compromise with mortal enemies in 1993 before they resorted in April of 1994 to full-scale genocide of the minority Tutsis, along with the murder of moderate Hutu HINOs who desired power-sharing on April of 1994.
In the interim, the importation of machetes soared.
NRA-like HUTU militias, exhorted the tribe to arm themselves and attack their Tutsi neighbors. Rape became a weapon against all who resisted.
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/10/03/following-trumps-attack-conservatives-call-ford-liar-deserving-prison/221555
I put us roughly in late pre-Civil War America, September 1860.
I’ll look up the dates for Rome, pre-Revolutionary Russia, and the India/Pakistan partition on the sub-Continent.
A conservative plurality of the majority Hutus in Rwanda held up the Arusha Accords, believing the agreement to be compromise with mortal enemies in 1993 before they resorted in April of 1994 to full-scale genocide of the minority Tutsis, along with the murder of moderate Hutu HINOs who desired power-sharing on April of 1994.
In the interim, the importation of machetes soared.
NRA-like HUTU militias, exhorted the tribe to arm themselves and attack their Tutsi neighbors. Rape became a weapon against all who resisted.
It’s interesting, given the gullibility of the Republican base and reading Nigel’s link, strategically, a better option would be a crawl down on K followed by even more dire warnings about the liberal hordes. However, Patrick’s points about Trump turning on them, midterms and none of them willing to be the hatchet man probably prevents that gambit.
It’s interesting, given the gullibility of the Republican base and reading Nigel’s link, strategically, a better option would be a crawl down on K followed by even more dire warnings about the liberal hordes. However, Patrick’s points about Trump turning on them, midterms and none of them willing to be the hatchet man probably prevents that gambit.
I’d just like to see someone either make an effort to justify his qualifications
on paper, i guess he’s qualified. he’s been a Federal Judge in good standing.
it’s his personality, and history, that sucks
I’d just like to see someone either make an effort to justify his qualifications
on paper, i guess he’s qualified. he’s been a Federal Judge in good standing.
it’s his personality, and history, that sucks
@Patrick,
“So they need either Trump to do it, or the Democrats to do it. But the Democrats can’t do it without Republican votes.”
Sure they can. It just requires a few R’s to be “raptured”, ifyouknowwhatImean.
@Patrick,
“So they need either Trump to do it, or the Democrats to do it. But the Democrats can’t do it without Republican votes.”
Sure they can. It just requires a few R’s to be “raptured”, ifyouknowwhatImean.
Lindsey Graham, yesterday:
Lindsey Graham, yesterday:
Our patience’s long, but soon we won’t have any.
Our patience’s long, but soon we won’t have any.
So, we all know what’s happening. What if it keeps going on, and we can’t fix it with elections?
First is the November election, and all the investigations and stuff that go with it. If we win, I’m willing to dream on, and work to get further, with that for awhile.
But if not, and if the old white people don’t die pretty f’ing soon, we’re going to have a problem. We need to start figuring out what that looks like, and what we’re going to do.
I don’t own guns, and I don’t ever want one in my house. However, I’d be willing to train to use one, and keep one in an armory. Unfortunately, I’m not kidding. I’m not going to live in this cruel regime if an authoritarian minority keeps using our wonderful but flawed system to grab power and exercise it over the majority, a majority that supports tolerance, human rights and equal justice under the law. They’re doubling down on the immigrant cruelty, and mass incarceration to beef up their private prison profits.
I’m going to DC on Friday to protest Kavanaugh. I’m fairly sure he’ll get in, but I’m going to put my face out there against a lying sociopath on the Supreme Court. I didn’t go to law school to buy into a legal system with a Rush Limbaugh clone on our highest court.
lj told me not to organize here. Y’all can do your own thing.
So, we all know what’s happening. What if it keeps going on, and we can’t fix it with elections?
First is the November election, and all the investigations and stuff that go with it. If we win, I’m willing to dream on, and work to get further, with that for awhile.
But if not, and if the old white people don’t die pretty f’ing soon, we’re going to have a problem. We need to start figuring out what that looks like, and what we’re going to do.
I don’t own guns, and I don’t ever want one in my house. However, I’d be willing to train to use one, and keep one in an armory. Unfortunately, I’m not kidding. I’m not going to live in this cruel regime if an authoritarian minority keeps using our wonderful but flawed system to grab power and exercise it over the majority, a majority that supports tolerance, human rights and equal justice under the law. They’re doubling down on the immigrant cruelty, and mass incarceration to beef up their private prison profits.
I’m going to DC on Friday to protest Kavanaugh. I’m fairly sure he’ll get in, but I’m going to put my face out there against a lying sociopath on the Supreme Court. I didn’t go to law school to buy into a legal system with a Rush Limbaugh clone on our highest court.
lj told me not to organize here. Y’all can do your own thing.
As I have often said to you before, sapient: more power to you.
As I have often said to you before, sapient: more power to you.
Thanks, GftNC. It means a lot.
Thanks, GftNC. It means a lot.
Go get ’em, Sapient.
As for the rest of you….read this and ponder the meaning of political legitimacy.
Enough.
Go get ’em, Sapient.
As for the rest of you….read this and ponder the meaning of political legitimacy.
Enough.
russell: I wouldn’t be surprised if McK wanted to stay as far away from this mess as possible.
Neither would I. When it comes to crunch time, the best a “reasonable Republican” or “principled conservative” or whatever can do is leave the deplorables like He, Trump and Marty alone to do their snowflake act.
Countme-a-Demon: I’m sure McTX is lurking.
If so, I repeat my invitation for McKinney to speak up. To quote the sainted Thomas More: “In law, silence implies consent”.
–TP
russell: I wouldn’t be surprised if McK wanted to stay as far away from this mess as possible.
Neither would I. When it comes to crunch time, the best a “reasonable Republican” or “principled conservative” or whatever can do is leave the deplorables like He, Trump and Marty alone to do their snowflake act.
Countme-a-Demon: I’m sure McTX is lurking.
If so, I repeat my invitation for McKinney to speak up. To quote the sainted Thomas More: “In law, silence implies consent”.
–TP
ffs, I didn’t say ‘don’t organize’. I said ‘stop haranguing people’. If you want to post a link or identify a site or direct people to go somewhere where they can help, that’s fine. Like this
https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response-events/search/
If there are similar protests being organized for if/when Kavanaugh is confirmed, by all means, share those. If you want to organize, get organized and point people to what they can do.
ffs, I didn’t say ‘don’t organize’. I said ‘stop haranguing people’. If you want to post a link or identify a site or direct people to go somewhere where they can help, that’s fine. Like this
https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response-events/search/
If there are similar protests being organized for if/when Kavanaugh is confirmed, by all means, share those. If you want to organize, get organized and point people to what they can do.
Thanks, lj. You did it for me. Sorry to have misunderstood.
Thanks, lj. You did it for me. Sorry to have misunderstood.
Planning to go Friday, so here’s a link: https://www.facebook.com/events/165922930998845/
Moveon had a three day thing, including Friday, so trying to find out where else I can show up. I have a train ticket, so I’ll be somewhere.
Thanks again, lj.
Planning to go Friday, so here’s a link: https://www.facebook.com/events/165922930998845/
Moveon had a three day thing, including Friday, so trying to find out where else I can show up. I have a train ticket, so I’ll be somewhere.
Thanks again, lj.
on paper, i guess he’s qualified. he’s been a Federal Judge in good standing.
it’s his personality, and history, that sucks.
It may be noteworthy that, as a result of his behavior during the last hearing, that good standing as a Federal judge may be in jeopardy. At least, the folks who are responsible for monitoring Federal judges for conflicts of interest, political partisanship, and other ethics violations are taking a serious look at whether he is in violation.
Of course, if he gets confirmed, he isn’t required to abide by the same ethics requirements as other Federal judges. Which may be a strong reason for him not to withdraw himself. His “good standing” in his current job may be in question.
on paper, i guess he’s qualified. he’s been a Federal Judge in good standing.
it’s his personality, and history, that sucks.
It may be noteworthy that, as a result of his behavior during the last hearing, that good standing as a Federal judge may be in jeopardy. At least, the folks who are responsible for monitoring Federal judges for conflicts of interest, political partisanship, and other ethics violations are taking a serious look at whether he is in violation.
Of course, if he gets confirmed, he isn’t required to abide by the same ethics requirements as other Federal judges. Which may be a strong reason for him not to withdraw himself. His “good standing” in his current job may be in question.
At least, the folks who are responsible for monitoring Federal judges for conflicts of interest, political partisanship, and other ethics violations are taking a serious look at whether he is in violation.
Nononononononono, they, and perhaps gullible you as well, have it all wrong. We have it on the best authority that the only people whose behavior was at all questionable at the hearing were the Democratic senators. What’s the matter with you, wj? Not to mention the people charged with monitoring Federal judges. Sad to say, they’re being pushed around by the internet echo chamber too, just like us. I’m sure they haven’t a clue how to do their jobs.
At least, the folks who are responsible for monitoring Federal judges for conflicts of interest, political partisanship, and other ethics violations are taking a serious look at whether he is in violation.
Nononononononono, they, and perhaps gullible you as well, have it all wrong. We have it on the best authority that the only people whose behavior was at all questionable at the hearing were the Democratic senators. What’s the matter with you, wj? Not to mention the people charged with monitoring Federal judges. Sad to say, they’re being pushed around by the internet echo chamber too, just like us. I’m sure they haven’t a clue how to do their jobs.
What’s the matter with you, wj?
I have this sometimes awkward attachment to objective reality. It can be a struggle (especially when engaged in conversations with some people), but I show no signs of losing it. 😉
What’s the matter with you, wj?
I have this sometimes awkward attachment to objective reality. It can be a struggle (especially when engaged in conversations with some people), but I show no signs of losing it. 😉
And it may bear mentioning that the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit where Kavanaugh sits is . . . Merrick Garland. Hmmm….
And it may bear mentioning that the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit where Kavanaugh sits is . . . Merrick Garland. Hmmm….
It may be noteworthy that, as a result of his behavior during the last hearing, that good standing as a Federal judge may be in jeopardy. At least, the folks who are responsible for monitoring Federal judges for conflicts of interest, political partisanship, and other ethics violations are taking a serious look at whether he is in violation.
Who are these people? What can they do? And (the ultimate question) like, SO WHAT?
Please do fire up the secret decoder ring connecting you objective reality and fill us in.
Thank you.
Rod Serling sends his regards.
It may be noteworthy that, as a result of his behavior during the last hearing, that good standing as a Federal judge may be in jeopardy. At least, the folks who are responsible for monitoring Federal judges for conflicts of interest, political partisanship, and other ethics violations are taking a serious look at whether he is in violation.
Who are these people? What can they do? And (the ultimate question) like, SO WHAT?
Please do fire up the secret decoder ring connecting you objective reality and fill us in.
Thank you.
Rod Serling sends his regards.
Bobby, here’s the Code of Conduct:
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Cases are considered by the circuit’s Judicial Council, which can impose various sanctions. They can’t formally force the judge from office (that takes Congress impeaching him), but they can do other things, including barring him from hearing any future cases and asking that a new judge be appointed to take up the work.
Objective reality, at your service.
Bobby, here’s the Code of Conduct:
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Cases are considered by the circuit’s Judicial Council, which can impose various sanctions. They can’t formally force the judge from office (that takes Congress impeaching him), but they can do other things, including barring him from hearing any future cases and asking that a new judge be appointed to take up the work.
Objective reality, at your service.
It’s unfortunate that this article was not posted a couple of days earlier, as it appears as though the ‘investigation’ intends to ignore this guy:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jamie-roche.html
In 1983, I was one of Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman roommates at Yale University. About two weeks ago I came forward to lend my support to my friend Deborah Ramirez, who says Brett sexually assaulted her at a party in a dorm suite. I did this because I believe Debbie.
Now the FBI is investigating this incident. I am willing to speak with them about my experiences at Yale with both Debbie and Brett. I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation. In his words and his behavior, Judge Kavanaugh has shown contempt for the truth, for the process, for the rule of law, and for accountability. His willingness to lie to avoid embarrassment throws doubt on his denials about the larger questions of sexual assault. In contrast, I cannot remember ever having a reason to distrust anything, large or small, that I have heard from Debbie.,,,
It’s unfortunate that this article was not posted a couple of days earlier, as it appears as though the ‘investigation’ intends to ignore this guy:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-jamie-roche.html
In 1983, I was one of Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman roommates at Yale University. About two weeks ago I came forward to lend my support to my friend Deborah Ramirez, who says Brett sexually assaulted her at a party in a dorm suite. I did this because I believe Debbie.
Now the FBI is investigating this incident. I am willing to speak with them about my experiences at Yale with both Debbie and Brett. I would tell them this: Brett Kavanaugh stood up under oath and lied about his drinking and about the meaning of words in his yearbook. He did so baldly, without hesitation or reservation. In his words and his behavior, Judge Kavanaugh has shown contempt for the truth, for the process, for the rule of law, and for accountability. His willingness to lie to avoid embarrassment throws doubt on his denials about the larger questions of sexual assault. In contrast, I cannot remember ever having a reason to distrust anything, large or small, that I have heard from Debbie.,,,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/you-idiot-reporters-are-making-it-worse/ar-BBNQYIz
This is a solid summary worth contemplating.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/you-idiot-reporters-are-making-it-worse/ar-BBNQYIz
This is a solid summary worth contemplating.
only the left has agency.
only the left has agency.
Max Boot doesn’t think much of Trompe:
The news this week confirms it: Donald Trump is the worst person ever to be president.
his defenders seem to think he doesn’t rub off on them. they so wrong.
Max Boot doesn’t think much of Trompe:
The news this week confirms it: Donald Trump is the worst person ever to be president.
his defenders seem to think he doesn’t rub off on them. they so wrong.
TP, Russell has it exactly right. However, read Emily Yoffe’s article in the Atlantic.
TP, Russell has it exactly right. However, read Emily Yoffe’s article in the Atlantic.
A lecture from Jonah Gold’Souza, whelped from a long line of elite carnivorous conservative ratfuckers, is just the richest ticket.
A lecture from Jonah Gold’Souza, whelped from a long line of elite carnivorous conservative ratfuckers, is just the richest ticket.
I’m with John Cole here, but I can do without the tiles:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/03/im-in-a-foul-mood-so-here-is-something-positive/
I’m with John Cole here, but I can do without the tiles:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/10/03/im-in-a-foul-mood-so-here-is-something-positive/
Objective reality, at your service.
Nope. Here’s reality: Kozinski
If BK does not make it to the SC, the chances of his being chastised by a Judicial Council are approximately zero.
Though it was interesting to find out the Code does not apply to the Supreme Court. So thanks!
Objective reality, at your service.
Nope. Here’s reality: Kozinski
If BK does not make it to the SC, the chances of his being chastised by a Judicial Council are approximately zero.
Though it was interesting to find out the Code does not apply to the Supreme Court. So thanks!
What we have in the United States is a slow-motion coup by the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is now very much the party of the wealthy and greedy few. So how can it get power? It’s not easy, but there’s a strategy:
– pander to bigotry. Most Republican politicians aren’t actively racist. But they want racists to vote for them, because someone has to.
– pander to religion. Most Republican politicians (Gingrich, Trump…) don’t cleave to Christian virtue. But making it more difficult for poor people to get abortions is a sure vote winner. And it won’t apply to the politicians’ daughters.
– abandon fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts are popular, deficits don’t matter (no Republican president since “no new taxes” Bush has cared about deficits). Sooner or later the other side will get in: they can take the political hit for sorting it out.
– destroy the environment. Environmental regulations are irksome. Global warming either isn’t happening, or it’s too late to stop it. No one really cares about birds and newts. Everyone wants cheap fuel.
– guns. The other side gets distressed when innocent people get shot. But there are more gun lovers than gun victims.
ok, so now you’ve got a coalition of the selfish rich, the racists, the evangelists, the economically gullible, and the shooters. It’s a sizeable minority, but it’s not enough. What’s next?
– cheat. Any time you can get control of a state governorship or legislatures, use it to gerrymander to the max so that you can keep control locally, and get Republicans elected to the House of Representatives. Pass state laws to make it difficult for the sort of people who support the other side to vote.
– control the Supreme Court. Make sure Republican leaning Justices retire when there’s a Republican president (in the last 50 years, 14 our of 18 Justices have been nominated by Republican presidents). Make sure Republican Presidents nominate extreme partisan Justices. Use control of the Senate, which you can often get with fewer votes than the other side because of the bent electoral system, to cheat again (Merrick Garland).
– collude with hostile foreign powers. Trump openly called for Russian assistance in the 2016 election. His team met covertly with Russian agents. Given the closeness of the electoral college result (of course the popular vote wasn’t close) it’s very likely that the Russian effort tipped the balance.
Note that the various forms of cheating help one another. The more power you have, the more power you can seize. There’s no chance that a partisan Republican Supreme Court will do anything to inhibit gerrymandering. And Bush v Gore.
Every element of the strategy is bad for the United States, but the strategy has worked. The Republican Party almost always gets fewer votes nationally that the Democratic Party, but it’s close enough that, combined with the cheating, the Republicans now control the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court.
The time is past to treat this as a temporary aberration. The USA now has a President whose best friends internationally are dictators, while right-wing leaders of democracies (May, Merkel) visibly hold their noses to talk to him. The Senate and the House are right behind him. He’s in the process of appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court who will give him immunity for all crimes. This has to stop now. And the only way to stop it is by overwhelming votes against it.
– decent Republicans need to vote for Democratic Party candidates. Yes I know you don’t like their policies. But the Ds having too much power is not the problem.
– Democratic candidates need to make it easy for Republicans to vote for them. Sorry, but you have to give up on any sort of Federal gun control. Mandatory liability insurance for gun sellers, buyers, and owners, at state level, is the way to go. Sorry, but when the Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade, that’s not the hill to fight on – abortion law should be decided at state level. (The British Isles has long lived with a situation where abortion was illegal in Ireland but legal in Britain, with free travel between them. Which is not ideal for Irishwomen, but it’s democratic, and it’s about to change democratically.)
– launch a non-partisan Campaign for Democracy in the USA, with the sole aim of campaigning for fair representation, for voting rights, against gerrymandering, for a fairly elected executive and legislature, and for a fairly appointed judiciary. And with a strict rule against endorsing any candidate for election. If Republicans are opposed to democracy (they are) make them say so.
What we have in the United States is a slow-motion coup by the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is now very much the party of the wealthy and greedy few. So how can it get power? It’s not easy, but there’s a strategy:
– pander to bigotry. Most Republican politicians aren’t actively racist. But they want racists to vote for them, because someone has to.
– pander to religion. Most Republican politicians (Gingrich, Trump…) don’t cleave to Christian virtue. But making it more difficult for poor people to get abortions is a sure vote winner. And it won’t apply to the politicians’ daughters.
– abandon fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts are popular, deficits don’t matter (no Republican president since “no new taxes” Bush has cared about deficits). Sooner or later the other side will get in: they can take the political hit for sorting it out.
– destroy the environment. Environmental regulations are irksome. Global warming either isn’t happening, or it’s too late to stop it. No one really cares about birds and newts. Everyone wants cheap fuel.
– guns. The other side gets distressed when innocent people get shot. But there are more gun lovers than gun victims.
ok, so now you’ve got a coalition of the selfish rich, the racists, the evangelists, the economically gullible, and the shooters. It’s a sizeable minority, but it’s not enough. What’s next?
– cheat. Any time you can get control of a state governorship or legislatures, use it to gerrymander to the max so that you can keep control locally, and get Republicans elected to the House of Representatives. Pass state laws to make it difficult for the sort of people who support the other side to vote.
– control the Supreme Court. Make sure Republican leaning Justices retire when there’s a Republican president (in the last 50 years, 14 our of 18 Justices have been nominated by Republican presidents). Make sure Republican Presidents nominate extreme partisan Justices. Use control of the Senate, which you can often get with fewer votes than the other side because of the bent electoral system, to cheat again (Merrick Garland).
– collude with hostile foreign powers. Trump openly called for Russian assistance in the 2016 election. His team met covertly with Russian agents. Given the closeness of the electoral college result (of course the popular vote wasn’t close) it’s very likely that the Russian effort tipped the balance.
Note that the various forms of cheating help one another. The more power you have, the more power you can seize. There’s no chance that a partisan Republican Supreme Court will do anything to inhibit gerrymandering. And Bush v Gore.
Every element of the strategy is bad for the United States, but the strategy has worked. The Republican Party almost always gets fewer votes nationally that the Democratic Party, but it’s close enough that, combined with the cheating, the Republicans now control the Presidency, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court.
The time is past to treat this as a temporary aberration. The USA now has a President whose best friends internationally are dictators, while right-wing leaders of democracies (May, Merkel) visibly hold their noses to talk to him. The Senate and the House are right behind him. He’s in the process of appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court who will give him immunity for all crimes. This has to stop now. And the only way to stop it is by overwhelming votes against it.
– decent Republicans need to vote for Democratic Party candidates. Yes I know you don’t like their policies. But the Ds having too much power is not the problem.
– Democratic candidates need to make it easy for Republicans to vote for them. Sorry, but you have to give up on any sort of Federal gun control. Mandatory liability insurance for gun sellers, buyers, and owners, at state level, is the way to go. Sorry, but when the Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade, that’s not the hill to fight on – abortion law should be decided at state level. (The British Isles has long lived with a situation where abortion was illegal in Ireland but legal in Britain, with free travel between them. Which is not ideal for Irishwomen, but it’s democratic, and it’s about to change democratically.)
– launch a non-partisan Campaign for Democracy in the USA, with the sole aim of campaigning for fair representation, for voting rights, against gerrymandering, for a fairly elected executive and legislature, and for a fairly appointed judiciary. And with a strict rule against endorsing any candidate for election. If Republicans are opposed to democracy (they are) make them say so.
McK, thanks for the tip on Yoffe’s piece, I thought it was very good.
Marty, I’m just not interested in reading Goldberg. Others can make their own choices.
If McConnell can whip the votes, we are likely to have Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS by next week. I do not see that as a good outcome.
McK, thanks for the tip on Yoffe’s piece, I thought it was very good.
Marty, I’m just not interested in reading Goldberg. Others can make their own choices.
If McConnell can whip the votes, we are likely to have Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS by next week. I do not see that as a good outcome.
I’m with John Cole here
Likewise
I’m with John Cole here
Likewise
Emily Yoffe’s article has much to commend it, with a couple of caveats.
First, there is the long-standing tendency, which remains in some quarters, to dismiss accounts such as Ford’s as not evidence at all. The ‘I believe’ thing is a reaction to that.
I’ve more extended thoughts on that, but need to formulate them before posting anything here.
Secondly, the prosecutor employed by the Republican majority was within the scope of what was reasonable when questioning Ford, but well outside of it with the report she published (especially as she was barely allowed to question Kavanaugh).
There is also, of course, a very large difference between the student cases to which she refers and the confirmation hearing of a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
Emily Yoffe’s article has much to commend it, with a couple of caveats.
First, there is the long-standing tendency, which remains in some quarters, to dismiss accounts such as Ford’s as not evidence at all. The ‘I believe’ thing is a reaction to that.
I’ve more extended thoughts on that, but need to formulate them before posting anything here.
Secondly, the prosecutor employed by the Republican majority was within the scope of what was reasonable when questioning Ford, but well outside of it with the report she published (especially as she was barely allowed to question Kavanaugh).
There is also, of course, a very large difference between the student cases to which she refers and the confirmation hearing of a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
I was going to say Pro Bono’s analysis was faultless, until I got to his penultimate point. And frankly, although I don’t like it, he may even be right about that one (I know wj, the definition of an honourable self-styled Republican, but really a RINO, will agree with it). I, and many people I know are unutterably depressed about this spectacle, not to mention the rise of the right throughout Europe and the carcrash which is Brexit. It will take a damn sight more than tiles to cheer us up.
I was going to say Pro Bono’s analysis was faultless, until I got to his penultimate point. And frankly, although I don’t like it, he may even be right about that one (I know wj, the definition of an honourable self-styled Republican, but really a RINO, will agree with it). I, and many people I know are unutterably depressed about this spectacle, not to mention the rise of the right throughout Europe and the carcrash which is Brexit. It will take a damn sight more than tiles to cheer us up.
And of course it is of no bearing at all on the rather compelling evidence from a college roommate that Kavanaugh is a reflexive perjurer.
And of course it is of no bearing at all on the rather compelling evidence from a college roommate that Kavanaugh is a reflexive perjurer.
I’d also be very interested in what McK makes of the Wittes article(s) in the Atlantic, as they make a principled Republican case for not confirming Kavanaugh.
I’d also be very interested in what McK makes of the Wittes article(s) in the Atlantic, as they make a principled Republican case for not confirming Kavanaugh.
the GOP doesn’t care about perjury per se. they care about getting wins over the left. they’ll care deeply about perjury (and “family values” and ethics in government, and hating foreign influence in our elections, etc, etc) the second doing so will help them get a win over the left.
the GOP doesn’t care about perjury per se. they care about getting wins over the left. they’ll care deeply about perjury (and “family values” and ethics in government, and hating foreign influence in our elections, etc, etc) the second doing so will help them get a win over the left.
oh, and tax cheating. they’ll care a lot about tax cheating as soon as Trompe is out of office.
oh, and tax cheating. they’ll care a lot about tax cheating as soon as Trompe is out of office.
NYC and NY state might care a lot about tax cheating right now.
NYC and NY state might care a lot about tax cheating right now.
the GOP doesn’t care about perjury per se. they care about getting wins over the left.
I wouldn’t argue with that.
I remain interested in how principled conservatives feel about it.
the GOP doesn’t care about perjury per se. they care about getting wins over the left.
I wouldn’t argue with that.
I remain interested in how principled conservatives feel about it.
I too thought Yoffe’s piece good, but I agree with Nigel’s caveats, particularly his last paragraph. And of course, I think you have to see it in the context of Pro Bono’s “illegitimate takeover of institutions” analysis.
I too thought Yoffe’s piece good, but I agree with Nigel’s caveats, particularly his last paragraph. And of course, I think you have to see it in the context of Pro Bono’s “illegitimate takeover of institutions” analysis.
‘M’ was me… not quite sure what happened there.
‘M’ was me… not quite sure what happened there.
I too thought Yoffe’s piece good, but I agree with Nigel’s caveats, particularly his last paragraph.
Comments moving too fast for me: this refers to the last paragraph of Nigel’s 09.15, namely:
There is also, of course, a very large difference between the student cases to which she refers and the confirmation hearing of a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
I too thought Yoffe’s piece good, but I agree with Nigel’s caveats, particularly his last paragraph.
Comments moving too fast for me: this refers to the last paragraph of Nigel’s 09.15, namely:
There is also, of course, a very large difference between the student cases to which she refers and the confirmation hearing of a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
M may have been your own job application, Nigel!
M may have been your own job application, Nigel!
Nigel, thanks for the interest in my views. Same to TP. I really am sitting this one out, for a number of reasons, mainly because my practice won’t allow it. I’m very seriously slammed, mostly in a good way. Adios.
Nigel, thanks for the interest in my views. Same to TP. I really am sitting this one out, for a number of reasons, mainly because my practice won’t allow it. I’m very seriously slammed, mostly in a good way. Adios.
Would you like to talk about pop muzik, Nigel?
Would you like to talk about pop muzik, Nigel?
No worries McK, see you on the flip side.
Thanks for saying hey!
No worries McK, see you on the flip side.
Thanks for saying hey!
If this is the article McTX refers to, I have serious problems with it. Not least among them: quoting without demur one Patricia Hamill, attorney at law, as saying “No witnesses to what happened” as if Mark Judge was chopped liver.
But my main, overall, pull-out-my-hair-and throw-things objection is this: NOT-A-RAPIST is not (not! NOT!!) a qualification for a seat on the SCOTUS. I said last week that the Ford allegation was a sideshow, and it gives me no pleasure to have been right.
Bart O’Kavanaugh is a shameless lickspittle, a rabid partisan, and a transparent liar — BUT HE’S NOT A PROVEN RAPIST, hallelujah! Collins, Murowski, and Flake have their cover to vote for him. His fellow Justices will welcome him as a colleague because to do otherwise would be “sophomoric”.
And of course, good “conservatives” will rejoice that such a fine fellow — who they know will be a reliable anti-Roe, pro-corporate vote on the Court — shall stand athwart the Mueller investigation and yell “Stop!”
Good luck to all who stand by Bart, because as the man himself said: “What goes around, comes around.”
–TP
If this is the article McTX refers to, I have serious problems with it. Not least among them: quoting without demur one Patricia Hamill, attorney at law, as saying “No witnesses to what happened” as if Mark Judge was chopped liver.
But my main, overall, pull-out-my-hair-and throw-things objection is this: NOT-A-RAPIST is not (not! NOT!!) a qualification for a seat on the SCOTUS. I said last week that the Ford allegation was a sideshow, and it gives me no pleasure to have been right.
Bart O’Kavanaugh is a shameless lickspittle, a rabid partisan, and a transparent liar — BUT HE’S NOT A PROVEN RAPIST, hallelujah! Collins, Murowski, and Flake have their cover to vote for him. His fellow Justices will welcome him as a colleague because to do otherwise would be “sophomoric”.
And of course, good “conservatives” will rejoice that such a fine fellow — who they know will be a reliable anti-Roe, pro-corporate vote on the Court — shall stand athwart the Mueller investigation and yell “Stop!”
Good luck to all who stand by Bart, because as the man himself said: “What goes around, comes around.”
–TP
Immoderate conservative game show host (most of them are conservative financiers of the republican party) Alex Trebek moderates a political debate:
http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/politics/elections/five-takeaways-alex-trebek-pennsylvania-debate-tom-wolf-scott-wagner-20181002.html
I’ll take “Full of Shit America” for $1000, please.
Immoderate conservative game show host (most of them are conservative financiers of the republican party) Alex Trebek moderates a political debate:
http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/politics/elections/five-takeaways-alex-trebek-pennsylvania-debate-tom-wolf-scott-wagner-20181002.html
I’ll take “Full of Shit America” for $1000, please.
P-bono: – launch a non-partisan Campaign for Democracy in the USA, with the sole aim of campaigning for fair representation, for voting rights, against gerrymandering, for a fairly elected executive and legislature, and for a fairly appointed judiciary. And with a strict rule against endorsing any candidate for election. If Republicans are opposed to democracy (they are) make them say so.
This is all well and good, but please do name a point in US history when things were not “partisan”.
The present political ascendancy of the GOP is due in large part to going all in and pandering to their base (guns, abortion, etc.).
Appeals for the Dems to simply shut up, shut up, shut up, about guns and/or abortion and make non-partisan appeals to common sense and decency is simply ignoring how elections are won in this country in the actually prevailing political climate.
It is a recipe for disaster.
To win Dems need to fire up and expand their base. Appeals to the ‘center’ or trying to peal off ‘reasonable’ republicans are a dead loser.
Thanks.
P-bono: – launch a non-partisan Campaign for Democracy in the USA, with the sole aim of campaigning for fair representation, for voting rights, against gerrymandering, for a fairly elected executive and legislature, and for a fairly appointed judiciary. And with a strict rule against endorsing any candidate for election. If Republicans are opposed to democracy (they are) make them say so.
This is all well and good, but please do name a point in US history when things were not “partisan”.
The present political ascendancy of the GOP is due in large part to going all in and pandering to their base (guns, abortion, etc.).
Appeals for the Dems to simply shut up, shut up, shut up, about guns and/or abortion and make non-partisan appeals to common sense and decency is simply ignoring how elections are won in this country in the actually prevailing political climate.
It is a recipe for disaster.
To win Dems need to fire up and expand their base. Appeals to the ‘center’ or trying to peal off ‘reasonable’ republicans are a dead loser.
Thanks.
Watch this narrative very closely:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/white-house-begins-the-china-counter-narrative
…. and listen to the interview by Terri Gross with Michael Lewis, author of the “The Fifth Risk to learn how (Lewis gets to the identity of the Fifth Risk late in the interview) the China narrative fits hand-in-glove with the ultimate goal of the anti-American, country-wrecking Republican Party and its blunt instrument, mp, whose only proven lifelong talent is turning assets to dust while skimming the goodies and fucking everyone else from behind: defaulting on the debt and using national security vis a vis China as the demagogic lever to bankrupt the United States of America, ceasing all government functions outside of what is required to suck Defense Department contractor cocks.
https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/
All else is sideshow. Kavanaugh, of course, is needed on the Court, along with the next Federalist shit mp appoints, to fend off any legal challenges to the bankruptcy of the U.S. Government.
I disagree with Lewis in that his Fifth Risk is merely the penultimate one to #6 — nuclear confrontation with China and … #7, savage bloody Civil War fought, free of any electoral bullshit niceties, against the entire republican/conservative movement edifice in every street and alley in all 50 states in this country
I spose THIS comment will disqualify me from a seat on the Supreme Court.
I know I should spend my time more wisely and judiciously, as a future investment in a lifetime sinecure, by getting my dick wet using every ruthless, non-consensual tactic in the book.
Watch this narrative very closely:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/white-house-begins-the-china-counter-narrative
…. and listen to the interview by Terri Gross with Michael Lewis, author of the “The Fifth Risk to learn how (Lewis gets to the identity of the Fifth Risk late in the interview) the China narrative fits hand-in-glove with the ultimate goal of the anti-American, country-wrecking Republican Party and its blunt instrument, mp, whose only proven lifelong talent is turning assets to dust while skimming the goodies and fucking everyone else from behind: defaulting on the debt and using national security vis a vis China as the demagogic lever to bankrupt the United States of America, ceasing all government functions outside of what is required to suck Defense Department contractor cocks.
https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/
All else is sideshow. Kavanaugh, of course, is needed on the Court, along with the next Federalist shit mp appoints, to fend off any legal challenges to the bankruptcy of the U.S. Government.
I disagree with Lewis in that his Fifth Risk is merely the penultimate one to #6 — nuclear confrontation with China and … #7, savage bloody Civil War fought, free of any electoral bullshit niceties, against the entire republican/conservative movement edifice in every street and alley in all 50 states in this country
I spose THIS comment will disqualify me from a seat on the Supreme Court.
I know I should spend my time more wisely and judiciously, as a future investment in a lifetime sinecure, by getting my dick wet using every ruthless, non-consensual tactic in the book.
The swindle with the prosecutors report is in its premise.
Of course a reasonable prosecutor wouldn’t file this case. It’s been three decades! You shouldn’t file a case just because you think it’s plausibke, you should file it if you think “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an achievable standard. It would be stunning if a he said she said case didn’t at least evoke a reasonable doubt given the timeframes involved and the inaccessibility of formerly available evidence spoiled by the passage of time. Many crimes have statutes of limitations for the explicit purpose of enshrining that judgment- that the passage of time renders conclusions increasingly difficult until one can’t meet the criminal law standard.
Still probably did it though, particularly given that we can find the accusers testimony at least reasonably compelling and the accused’s teatimony worthless on the ground that he doesn’t have an honest character and has almost 100% definitely offered a variety of self serving lies in his defense.
The swindle of the prosecutors report was just to slip the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard into public discourse in a procedure that isn’t based on that. That’s all she was doing all along.
The swindle with the prosecutors report is in its premise.
Of course a reasonable prosecutor wouldn’t file this case. It’s been three decades! You shouldn’t file a case just because you think it’s plausibke, you should file it if you think “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an achievable standard. It would be stunning if a he said she said case didn’t at least evoke a reasonable doubt given the timeframes involved and the inaccessibility of formerly available evidence spoiled by the passage of time. Many crimes have statutes of limitations for the explicit purpose of enshrining that judgment- that the passage of time renders conclusions increasingly difficult until one can’t meet the criminal law standard.
Still probably did it though, particularly given that we can find the accusers testimony at least reasonably compelling and the accused’s teatimony worthless on the ground that he doesn’t have an honest character and has almost 100% definitely offered a variety of self serving lies in his defense.
The swindle of the prosecutors report was just to slip the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard into public discourse in a procedure that isn’t based on that. That’s all she was doing all along.
I spose THIS comment will disqualify me from a seat on the Supreme Court.
I nominated you…WTF? Didn’t you get a hearing?
I spose THIS comment will disqualify me from a seat on the Supreme Court.
I nominated you…WTF? Didn’t you get a hearing?
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/rubin-opposition-kavanaugh-final-straw-conservatives-ask-change-title
There will come a civil war in which Rubin’s life will be spared by this stripping of her conservative credentials by these subhuman filth.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/rubin-opposition-kavanaugh-final-straw-conservatives-ask-change-title
There will come a civil war in which Rubin’s life will be spared by this stripping of her conservative credentials by these subhuman filth.
WRT count’s China-not-Russia narrative link, looks like Bloomberg is claiming that China is involved in a supply-chain hack of major American companies. It’s a serious enough probability that Bruce Schneier is paying attention to it.
What it is not, however, is any sort of electoral interference, the evidence for which remains scant and dubious. But in the public mind, all hacking is magic, so a large segment of the media consuming public will have a hard time distinguishing one type of smoke for another when the GOP (Gilead/Omelas/Panem) starts yelling fire in earnest after the Kavanaugh vote and before the midterms.
Think we have an early preview of their Maovember Surprise.
WRT count’s China-not-Russia narrative link, looks like Bloomberg is claiming that China is involved in a supply-chain hack of major American companies. It’s a serious enough probability that Bruce Schneier is paying attention to it.
What it is not, however, is any sort of electoral interference, the evidence for which remains scant and dubious. But in the public mind, all hacking is magic, so a large segment of the media consuming public will have a hard time distinguishing one type of smoke for another when the GOP (Gilead/Omelas/Panem) starts yelling fire in earnest after the Kavanaugh vote and before the midterms.
Think we have an early preview of their Maovember Surprise.
Michelle Malkin, “Investigative Journalist”
Michelle Malkin, “Investigative Journalist”
here’s Bloomberg’s story:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
evidence looks anything but scant. tiny, but not scant.
here’s Bloomberg’s story:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies
evidence looks anything but scant. tiny, but not scant.
The “scan evidence” comment refers specifically to Trumps allegations of Chinese election interference, not to the reported supply-chain hack. These two things should not be conflated until someone shows something more than what Foreign Policy discusses in their article.
The “scan evidence” comment refers specifically to Trumps allegations of Chinese election interference, not to the reported supply-chain hack. These two things should not be conflated until someone shows something more than what Foreign Policy discusses in their article.
How did mp know that the Chinese government created the HOAX of global warming if his vast worldwide operations didn’t hack their computing infrastructure?
You can’t tell me he pulled that one out of his fundament too.
Speaking of his fundament, since so many so-called Americans seem to be entirely up it head first and all ears, could they report back to us what else is coming.
How did mp know that the Chinese government created the HOAX of global warming if his vast worldwide operations didn’t hack their computing infrastructure?
You can’t tell me he pulled that one out of his fundament too.
Speaking of his fundament, since so many so-called Americans seem to be entirely up it head first and all ears, could they report back to us what else is coming.
Kavanaugh is more popular that Jesus, but NOT the Beatles, just to be clear.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/10/04/fox-news-host-compares-kavanaugh-jesus-christ-and-investigation-crucifixion/221580
When FOX touts Kavanaugh as more popular than God on his perch at Mar-a-Lago, I’m betting shithead anti-Americans will ignite the Beatle record- and book-burning bonfires yet again.
Kavanaugh is more popular that Jesus, but NOT the Beatles, just to be clear.
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/10/04/fox-news-host-compares-kavanaugh-jesus-christ-and-investigation-crucifixion/221580
When FOX touts Kavanaugh as more popular than God on his perch at Mar-a-Lago, I’m betting shithead anti-Americans will ignite the Beatle record- and book-burning bonfires yet again.
To win Dems need to fire up and expand their base. Appeals to the ‘center’ or trying to peal off ‘reasonable’ republicans are a dead loser.
Except, Bobby, that “Appeals to the ‘center’ or trying to peal off ‘reasonable’ republicans” is EXACTLY what “expand their base” means.
Unless you have some other, magic, approach that just hasn’t occurred to me….
To win Dems need to fire up and expand their base. Appeals to the ‘center’ or trying to peal off ‘reasonable’ republicans are a dead loser.
Except, Bobby, that “Appeals to the ‘center’ or trying to peal off ‘reasonable’ republicans” is EXACTLY what “expand their base” means.
Unless you have some other, magic, approach that just hasn’t occurred to me….
I was going to say Pro Bono’s analysis was faultless, until I got to his penultimate point. And frankly, although I don’t like it, he may even be right about that one (I know wj, the definition of an honourable self-styled Republican, but really a RINO, will agree with it).
GftNC, sorry for the belated response. (Mis-adventures getting back to SFO from Brussels.)
I would (and have) say that Federalizing the abortion issue was a mistake. But it’s where we are now. The problem with going back is that it will take at least a couple of decades (probably more) to lose the culture wars baggage and get back to where we were pre-Roe: grandual, but steady legalization across the country with even quite conservative religious (e.g the Southern Baptists) actively supporting it.
P.S. I’m a RINO only if one accepts the authority of the far right to define the GOP. And I emphatically do NOT accept it. Indeed, I would argue that it is they, not me, who are “Republicans in name only”. They may have successfully seized power, but that doesn’t confer legitimacy.
I was going to say Pro Bono’s analysis was faultless, until I got to his penultimate point. And frankly, although I don’t like it, he may even be right about that one (I know wj, the definition of an honourable self-styled Republican, but really a RINO, will agree with it).
GftNC, sorry for the belated response. (Mis-adventures getting back to SFO from Brussels.)
I would (and have) say that Federalizing the abortion issue was a mistake. But it’s where we are now. The problem with going back is that it will take at least a couple of decades (probably more) to lose the culture wars baggage and get back to where we were pre-Roe: grandual, but steady legalization across the country with even quite conservative religious (e.g the Southern Baptists) actively supporting it.
P.S. I’m a RINO only if one accepts the authority of the far right to define the GOP. And I emphatically do NOT accept it. Indeed, I would argue that it is they, not me, who are “Republicans in name only”. They may have successfully seized power, but that doesn’t confer legitimacy.
Wj,
There are previously-Republican voters who the Democrats might win over by taking Republican-lite stands. Then there are previously-non-voters who might vote for stand-your-ground Democrats when they eventually figure out that Republicans are basically screwing them. Either class might expand the Democratic “base”. You have your notion of which is more likely, and I have mine.
–TP
Wj,
There are previously-Republican voters who the Democrats might win over by taking Republican-lite stands. Then there are previously-non-voters who might vote for stand-your-ground Democrats when they eventually figure out that Republicans are basically screwing them. Either class might expand the Democratic “base”. You have your notion of which is more likely, and I have mine.
–TP
Previous non-voters are great, if you can get them. But only a tiny fraction of those are folks who didn’t vote at all because neither party was left enough for them.
The trouble with counting on the other non-voters is that they probably can’t be relied upon going forward. The reasons that they haven’t voted in the past are likely to result in them returning to non-voting in the future.
Previous non-voters are great, if you can get them. But only a tiny fraction of those are folks who didn’t vote at all because neither party was left enough for them.
The trouble with counting on the other non-voters is that they probably can’t be relied upon going forward. The reasons that they haven’t voted in the past are likely to result in them returning to non-voting in the future.
Except, Bobby, that “Appeals to the ‘center’ or trying to peal off ‘reasonable’ republicans” is EXACTLY what “expand their base” means.
Your theory is self-refuting. Is it your contention that the GOP has achieved electoral dominance by appeals to the center and trying to peel off ‘reasonable Democrats’?
You cannot be serious.
Taking republican-lite stands is a recipe for electoral disaster for Democrats in the current political climate.
Except, Bobby, that “Appeals to the ‘center’ or trying to peal off ‘reasonable’ republicans” is EXACTLY what “expand their base” means.
Your theory is self-refuting. Is it your contention that the GOP has achieved electoral dominance by appeals to the center and trying to peel off ‘reasonable Democrats’?
You cannot be serious.
Taking republican-lite stands is a recipe for electoral disaster for Democrats in the current political climate.
The trouble with counting on the other non-voters is that they probably can’t be relied upon going forward
Balderdash. If you win and DELIVER they will be there for you next time.
The trouble with counting on the other non-voters is that they probably can’t be relied upon going forward
Balderdash. If you win and DELIVER they will be there for you next time.
…and get back to where we were pre-Roe: grandual, but steady legalization across the country with even quite conservative religious (e.g the Southern Baptists) actively supporting it.
This is simply not true.
The repetition of lazy historical nostrums does not make them true.
See also here.“>http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/those-contradictions-wont-heighten-themselves-ladies”>here.
…and get back to where we were pre-Roe: grandual, but steady legalization across the country with even quite conservative religious (e.g the Southern Baptists) actively supporting it.
This is simply not true.
The repetition of lazy historical nostrums does not make them true.
See also here.“>http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/03/those-contradictions-wont-heighten-themselves-ladies”>here.
This is an interesting article (which stands in contrast to the patently self-serving oped published by Kavanaugh last night) –
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/10/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-metoo-toxic-masculinity.html
It is about rather more than the Kavanaugh nomination, but in that particular context, the women’s stories made very clear the gap in comprehension between his supporters and those who see him as unfit to be appointed.
This is an interesting article (which stands in contrast to the patently self-serving oped published by Kavanaugh last night) –
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/10/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-metoo-toxic-masculinity.html
It is about rather more than the Kavanaugh nomination, but in that particular context, the women’s stories made very clear the gap in comprehension between his supporters and those who see him as unfit to be appointed.
The political problem with Roe is that it constitutionalized the abortion question at a place where 2/3 of the population disagrees with it. (Not alllowing protection of the fetus until month 7 instead of somewhere about month 4 or 5). So it is literally illegal to put the line where a huge majority wants to draw it, and we get sucked into stupid arguments between people who want to ban it altogether (a little less than 1/3 of the population) and people who think the third trimester (about 1/3 of the population) or completely the woman’s choice through birth (about 1/5 of the population) is right. Since the only way to fix that Court driven political decision to codify the will of less tha. 1/3 of the population is through focusing laser like on the Court, that’s what people have done. Now just because 2/3 of people disagree with the line doesn’t mean it’s their most important agenda item so the concentrated minority has hung on (see the NRA and common sense gun control issues). But it’s been a big thing that has stupidly poisoned the well on the Supreme Court for two generations.
But they can get that without the Kavanaugh nomination, so they should get it without the Kavanauh nomination.
The political problem with Roe is that it constitutionalized the abortion question at a place where 2/3 of the population disagrees with it. (Not alllowing protection of the fetus until month 7 instead of somewhere about month 4 or 5). So it is literally illegal to put the line where a huge majority wants to draw it, and we get sucked into stupid arguments between people who want to ban it altogether (a little less than 1/3 of the population) and people who think the third trimester (about 1/3 of the population) or completely the woman’s choice through birth (about 1/5 of the population) is right. Since the only way to fix that Court driven political decision to codify the will of less tha. 1/3 of the population is through focusing laser like on the Court, that’s what people have done. Now just because 2/3 of people disagree with the line doesn’t mean it’s their most important agenda item so the concentrated minority has hung on (see the NRA and common sense gun control issues). But it’s been a big thing that has stupidly poisoned the well on the Supreme Court for two generations.
But they can get that without the Kavanaugh nomination, so they should get it without the Kavanauh nomination.
The FBI found no corroborating evidence…
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates
Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”…
I guess they were told not to bother any theologians, or something.
The FBI found no corroborating evidence…
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates
Several former Yale students who claim to have information regarding the alleged incident with Ramirez or about Kavanaugh’s behavior at Yale said that they had not been contacted by the F.B.I. Kenneth G. Appold was a suitemate of Kavanaugh’s at the time of the alleged incident. He had previously spoken to The New Yorker about Ramirez on condition of anonymity, but he said that he is now willing to be identified because he believes that the F.B.I. must thoroughly investigate her allegation. Appold, who is the James Hastings Nichols Professor of Reformation History at Princeton Theological Seminary, said that he first heard about the alleged incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez either the night it occurred or a day or two later. Appold said that he was “one-hundred-per-cent certain” that he was told that Kavanaugh was the male student who exposed himself to Ramirez. He said that he never discussed the allegation with Ramirez, whom he said he barely knew in college. But he recalled details—which, he said, an eyewitness described to him at the time—that match Ramirez’s memory of what happened. “I can corroborate Debbie’s account,” he said in an interview. “I believe her because it matches the same story I heard thirty-five years ago, although the two of us have never talked.”…
I guess they were told not to bother any theologians, or something.
Nothing to see here.
Beth Wilkinson, Kavanaugh’s attorney, said, “There is no new information here. The Judge stands by his denial.” The F.B.I. declined to comment on its investigation.
Nothing to see here.
Beth Wilkinson, Kavanaugh’s attorney, said, “There is no new information here. The Judge stands by his denial.” The F.B.I. declined to comment on its investigation.
number of abortion providers, by state. That is all providers, not just clinics.
Good thing, bad thing, depends on your point of view. But to Sebastian’s point, it seems to me that, as a practical matter, local preferences and value systems prevail, regardless of Roe.
To Pro Bono’s point, one significant difference between the US and the UK is that in the US there is no established church, and in fact establishment of religion or religious practice is expressly forbidden. And good luck teasing apart any understanding of when life and personhood begin from religion.
Conservatives owe overturning Roe to their base. I have no doubt that once a Federalist is on the bench, it’ll be on the agenda.
If and when it is overturned, we’ll see what goes with it. Like, a recognition of an unenumerated right to privacy.
It will be generations before any understanding of the 2nd A other than individual right to own is considered. Americans love to shoot.
number of abortion providers, by state. That is all providers, not just clinics.
Good thing, bad thing, depends on your point of view. But to Sebastian’s point, it seems to me that, as a practical matter, local preferences and value systems prevail, regardless of Roe.
To Pro Bono’s point, one significant difference between the US and the UK is that in the US there is no established church, and in fact establishment of religion or religious practice is expressly forbidden. And good luck teasing apart any understanding of when life and personhood begin from religion.
Conservatives owe overturning Roe to their base. I have no doubt that once a Federalist is on the bench, it’ll be on the agenda.
If and when it is overturned, we’ll see what goes with it. Like, a recognition of an unenumerated right to privacy.
It will be generations before any understanding of the 2nd A other than individual right to own is considered. Americans love to shoot.
Kavanaugh, yet again.
Can’t say as I can remember a SCOTUS nominee personally writing an op-ed to argue their own case. But I could be mistaken.
I really just do not know what to make of all of this.
Kavanaugh, yet again.
Can’t say as I can remember a SCOTUS nominee personally writing an op-ed to argue their own case. But I could be mistaken.
I really just do not know what to make of all of this.
they’re keeping K in front of the public as much as they can, because he’s a rallying point for The Base. he’s a symbol of their manufactured grievances. he’s their bloody shirt.
they’re keeping K in front of the public as much as they can, because he’s a rallying point for The Base. he’s a symbol of their manufactured grievances. he’s their bloody shirt.
wcs
wcs
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/continuing-rise-american-style-fascism
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/10/continuing-rise-american-style-fascism
From the Count’s link:
“Put simply, Mitch McConnell and his cronies believe that Brett “I like beer” Kavanaugh is worth a little ethnic cleansing.”
From the Count’s link:
“Put simply, Mitch McConnell and his cronies believe that Brett “I like beer” Kavanaugh is worth a little ethnic cleansing.”
Reading through the comments at the Count’s link, I’m thinking there needs to be terminology for politics that includes “micropolitics” and “macropolitics,” paralleling the way people (well, some people) look at economics.
(Please note that I have no formal education in political science and may be ignorant of the existence of reasonably similar terminology that would render my comment moot.)
Reading through the comments at the Count’s link, I’m thinking there needs to be terminology for politics that includes “micropolitics” and “macropolitics,” paralleling the way people (well, some people) look at economics.
(Please note that I have no formal education in political science and may be ignorant of the existence of reasonably similar terminology that would render my comment moot.)
A good summation of where we (well, you actually) are now:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-guardrails-fall/572242/
A good summation of where we (well, you actually) are now:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-guardrails-fall/572242/
A good summation
yep.
oh well.
next.
A good summation
yep.
oh well.
next.
about K’s “sunrise side of the mountain”…
he apparently cribbed that from … W.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25954
about K’s “sunrise side of the mountain”…
he apparently cribbed that from … W.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25954
From Nigel’s link:
From Nigel’s link:
cleek: … he’s a rallying point for The Base
What, those fabulous tax cuts and the Best Economy EVAH! were not enough? They still need to rally The Base??
Of course they do. That’s how you win elections. Not by namby-pamby reason and flaccid reasonableness aimed at The Middle.
Democrats may eventually catch on. We will know next time the Dems stumble into power: will they impeach Bart for lying under oath, just to rile up their Base? or will they take the “reasonable” position that the GOP stole the SCOTUS fair and square?
–TP
cleek: … he’s a rallying point for The Base
What, those fabulous tax cuts and the Best Economy EVAH! were not enough? They still need to rally The Base??
Of course they do. That’s how you win elections. Not by namby-pamby reason and flaccid reasonableness aimed at The Middle.
Democrats may eventually catch on. We will know next time the Dems stumble into power: will they impeach Bart for lying under oath, just to rile up their Base? or will they take the “reasonable” position that the GOP stole the SCOTUS fair and square?
–TP
i’d love to see him impeached. but 67 Senators is a tough lift.
i’d love to see him impeached. but 67 Senators is a tough lift.
Murkowski’s a “no.” Maybe that will encourage others, but probably not.
Murkowski’s a “no.” Maybe that will encourage others, but probably not.
wj: The trouble with counting on the other non-voters is that they probably can’t be relied upon going forward
bobby: Balderdash. If you win and DELIVER they will be there for you next time.
So, in 2010, when Obama had got the economy on the road to recovery and the Democrats had passed the ACA, those voters rewarded the Democrats with increased majorities in the Congress? Funny, that’s not the way I remember it working out. Memory failure on my part, no doubt. 😉
wj: The trouble with counting on the other non-voters is that they probably can’t be relied upon going forward
bobby: Balderdash. If you win and DELIVER they will be there for you next time.
So, in 2010, when Obama had got the economy on the road to recovery and the Democrats had passed the ACA, those voters rewarded the Democrats with increased majorities in the Congress? Funny, that’s not the way I remember it working out. Memory failure on my part, no doubt. 😉
Your theory is self-refuting. Is it your contention that the GOP has achieved electoral dominance by appeals to the center and trying to peel off ‘reasonable Democrats’?
You cannot be serious.
Taking republican-lite stands is a recipe for electoral disaster for Democrats in the current political climate.
My first reaction was: nobody is suggesting becoming “Republican lite”. Just resisting the temptation to become a “Republican mirror” — as ideologically rigid on the left as the Republicans have become on the right.
But then it occurred to me that perhaps, for you, “Republican lite” encompasses anything that isn’t a mirror of the Republican extremism. Rejection of moderation isn’t unique to the right, after all.
Your theory is self-refuting. Is it your contention that the GOP has achieved electoral dominance by appeals to the center and trying to peel off ‘reasonable Democrats’?
You cannot be serious.
Taking republican-lite stands is a recipe for electoral disaster for Democrats in the current political climate.
My first reaction was: nobody is suggesting becoming “Republican lite”. Just resisting the temptation to become a “Republican mirror” — as ideologically rigid on the left as the Republicans have become on the right.
But then it occurred to me that perhaps, for you, “Republican lite” encompasses anything that isn’t a mirror of the Republican extremism. Rejection of moderation isn’t unique to the right, after all.
Can’t say as I can remember a SCOTUS nominee personally writing an op-ed to argue their own case. But I could be mistaken.
I really just do not know what to make of all of this.
What I make of it is that the politicization of the Supreme Court has become explicit. Kavanaugh is running like he was in a national election. Sickening — independent of his other shortcomings, which are legion.
Can’t say as I can remember a SCOTUS nominee personally writing an op-ed to argue their own case. But I could be mistaken.
I really just do not know what to make of all of this.
What I make of it is that the politicization of the Supreme Court has become explicit. Kavanaugh is running like he was in a national election. Sickening — independent of his other shortcomings, which are legion.
So, wj,
Is your theory that Obama and the Dems would have done better in 2010 by catering to “Republican voters” more?
If yes, how?
–TP
So, wj,
Is your theory that Obama and the Dems would have done better in 2010 by catering to “Republican voters” more?
If yes, how?
–TP
Perhaps the problem is that “delivering” would have been something like single-payer/Medicare-for-all rather than the ACA or aggressively going after the people responsible for torture during the Bush administration rather than “looking forward and not back.” Maybe it would have been putting the financiers behind the Great Recession in jail.
None of those things happened, so we don’t know.
Perhaps the problem is that “delivering” would have been something like single-payer/Medicare-for-all rather than the ACA or aggressively going after the people responsible for torture during the Bush administration rather than “looking forward and not back.” Maybe it would have been putting the financiers behind the Great Recession in jail.
None of those things happened, so we don’t know.
The (D)’s already are “Republican lite”.
How much more “Republican lite” are they supposed to go?
The (D)’s already are “Republican lite”.
How much more “Republican lite” are they supposed to go?
Only in the sense that they would have done better by running candidates who were better reflective of their district in places which are now represented by Republicans. For example, if that means not running someone who is enthused about gun control (which, FWIW, I support) because that is how voters in the district see things, so be it. That doesn’t add a vote for gun control in Congress, but it does get Democrats a vote on other issues. (Not to mention increasing the chances of keeping control of the chamber.)
There are places where generic Democratic stands can win. In those places, no need to compromise in the candidate you run. But there are other places where you need to accept the reality that the voters aren’t with you yet on some issues. So run on those where they are with you, but with a candidate who is with them on some hot-button issues.
Not sure if that is any clearer than what I’ve written earlier. But if not, let me know and I’ll take another go at it.
Only in the sense that they would have done better by running candidates who were better reflective of their district in places which are now represented by Republicans. For example, if that means not running someone who is enthused about gun control (which, FWIW, I support) because that is how voters in the district see things, so be it. That doesn’t add a vote for gun control in Congress, but it does get Democrats a vote on other issues. (Not to mention increasing the chances of keeping control of the chamber.)
There are places where generic Democratic stands can win. In those places, no need to compromise in the candidate you run. But there are other places where you need to accept the reality that the voters aren’t with you yet on some issues. So run on those where they are with you, but with a candidate who is with them on some hot-button issues.
Not sure if that is any clearer than what I’ve written earlier. But if not, let me know and I’ll take another go at it.
My general impression is that (D)’s from areas that aren’t stereotypical coastal elite enclaves tend to not hold doctrinaire coastal elite enclave positions.
So, people like Tester, or Manchin, in the Senate. I’m less familiar with red- or purple-district (D)’s in the House, because there are just too many people in the House to keep track of.
My general impression is that (D)’s from areas that aren’t stereotypical coastal elite enclaves tend to not hold doctrinaire coastal elite enclave positions.
So, people like Tester, or Manchin, in the Senate. I’m less familiar with red- or purple-district (D)’s in the House, because there are just too many people in the House to keep track of.
What I would say in response to your suggestion is that it is (R)’s who need to get their house in order.
Any (R) at the national level who does not adhere to the rigorous party line stands in danger of being challenged in the next round of primaries. By the most fire-breathing character the (R)’s can round up.
If there is one thing at which the (R) party excels, it is lock-step party discipline. (R) moderates basically don’t stand a chance.
I can’t fix that. (R)’s can.
What I would say in response to your suggestion is that it is (R)’s who need to get their house in order.
Any (R) at the national level who does not adhere to the rigorous party line stands in danger of being challenged in the next round of primaries. By the most fire-breathing character the (R)’s can round up.
If there is one thing at which the (R) party excels, it is lock-step party discipline. (R) moderates basically don’t stand a chance.
I can’t fix that. (R)’s can.
I take wj’s point about catering for regional differences in political character, but what about a case like Manchin ?
If this weekend he goes ahead and votes to confirm a guy who will debase the court for the next generation, is it worth supporting him as a Democrat just for the nominal win of the Senate seat ?
Gorsuch is one thing, and a I can understand that, tactically – but a Kavanaugh is quite another matter.
I take wj’s point about catering for regional differences in political character, but what about a case like Manchin ?
If this weekend he goes ahead and votes to confirm a guy who will debase the court for the next generation, is it worth supporting him as a Democrat just for the nominal win of the Senate seat ?
Gorsuch is one thing, and a I can understand that, tactically – but a Kavanaugh is quite another matter.
This [that abortion was getting gradually legalized] is simply not true.
The repetition of lazy historical nostrums does not make them true.
Finally got un-jet-lagged enough to read the linked article. What it says is that, in the year prior to Roe, abortion legalization bills failed to pass in any state where they were submitted. But what it doesn’t mention is that bills to re-crminalize, or even just restrict, abortion didn’t pass anywhere either. (As opposed to what we keep seeing today.)
That’s what “gradual” means: you take a step, then you maybe have a pause, then you take another. Sometimes you maybe even take a step back before resuming the occasional step forward.
Was legalization going forward as fast as you would like? No. Was it going forward at an ever increasing pace? Also no. But the trend was quite clear.
This [that abortion was getting gradually legalized] is simply not true.
The repetition of lazy historical nostrums does not make them true.
Finally got un-jet-lagged enough to read the linked article. What it says is that, in the year prior to Roe, abortion legalization bills failed to pass in any state where they were submitted. But what it doesn’t mention is that bills to re-crminalize, or even just restrict, abortion didn’t pass anywhere either. (As opposed to what we keep seeing today.)
That’s what “gradual” means: you take a step, then you maybe have a pause, then you take another. Sometimes you maybe even take a step back before resuming the occasional step forward.
Was legalization going forward as fast as you would like? No. Was it going forward at an ever increasing pace? Also no. But the trend was quite clear.
is it worth supporting him as a Democrat just for the nominal win of the Senate seat ?
yes. having the majority in the Senate with a less-than-lockstep member is much more valuable than being in the minority, so every seat counts.
is it worth supporting him as a Democrat just for the nominal win of the Senate seat ?
yes. having the majority in the Senate with a less-than-lockstep member is much more valuable than being in the minority, so every seat counts.
(i mean…. presuming the Dems were to get lucky and win enough seats, Manchin’s would have to be one of them)
(i mean…. presuming the Dems were to get lucky and win enough seats, Manchin’s would have to be one of them)
Drat! I had a comment with more on supporting Democratic candidates (including Manchin) even if they voted for Kavanaugh. But it got et.
Well briefly: what cleek said.
Drat! I had a comment with more on supporting Democratic candidates (including Manchin) even if they voted for Kavanaugh. But it got et.
Well briefly: what cleek said.
If this weekend he goes ahead and votes to confirm a guy who will debase the court for the next generation, is it worth supporting him as a Democrat just for the nominal win of the Senate seat ?
Yes.
Or, more accurately, hell yeah.
If this weekend he goes ahead and votes to confirm a guy who will debase the court for the next generation, is it worth supporting him as a Democrat just for the nominal win of the Senate seat ?
Yes.
Or, more accurately, hell yeah.
Sticks in the throat, though.
Sticks in the throat, though.
Why didn’t Garland get a hearing? There’s your answer.
Why didn’t Garland get a hearing? There’s your answer.
Why didn’t Garland get a hearing? There’s your answer.
Yep. Frex without Lieberman’s vote for the ACA it does not pass.
Why didn’t Garland get a hearing? There’s your answer.
Yep. Frex without Lieberman’s vote for the ACA it does not pass.
But the trend was quite clear.
No. It was not. If Roe is overturned the trend will be quite clear, and legal abortion may well disappear is more than a few states.
Some trend.
And there is still the matter of onerous federal regulations (Hyde Amendment, etc.).
But the trend was quite clear.
No. It was not. If Roe is overturned the trend will be quite clear, and legal abortion may well disappear is more than a few states.
Some trend.
And there is still the matter of onerous federal regulations (Hyde Amendment, etc.).
When some konservative nitwit gets on your case asserting “the left” is immoral because “it” believes the ends justify the means, don’t be afraid to tell them to just go f*nk themselves.
Shorter version: Yet another very good Serwer essay.
Have a nice day.
When some konservative nitwit gets on your case asserting “the left” is immoral because “it” believes the ends justify the means, don’t be afraid to tell them to just go f*nk themselves.
Shorter version: Yet another very good Serwer essay.
Have a nice day.
What really needs to happen for our politics to change is that “moderate” Rs need to stop acting as if all of this is the fault of the Ds, show some backbone and actually fight against their own lunatics. There aren’t enough Ds in power for the Rs to pass the buck and hope the other guys will stop the madness.
Flake is on his way out. If, after a vote, it proves that even he can’t muster the courage to hit the brakes, then the GOP is a lost cause. And if R voters can’t use the agency they have to change their own party, then they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves for the shitshow on their side of the aisle.
What really needs to happen for our politics to change is that “moderate” Rs need to stop acting as if all of this is the fault of the Ds, show some backbone and actually fight against their own lunatics. There aren’t enough Ds in power for the Rs to pass the buck and hope the other guys will stop the madness.
Flake is on his way out. If, after a vote, it proves that even he can’t muster the courage to hit the brakes, then the GOP is a lost cause. And if R voters can’t use the agency they have to change their own party, then they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves for the shitshow on their side of the aisle.
Yep. It’s becoming a shit show.
You know, Marty remarked post election that Trump couldn’t do anything to seriously undermine our democratic institutions, and I tended to agree with him.
Now? I’m not so sure. The Meuller Report may well be the tale of the tape.
Yep. It’s becoming a shit show.
You know, Marty remarked post election that Trump couldn’t do anything to seriously undermine our democratic institutions, and I tended to agree with him.
Now? I’m not so sure. The Meuller Report may well be the tale of the tape.
there are no moderate Rs.
there are Rs who pretend to have to think about things. but their decisions are always indistinguishable from every other R.
there are no moderate Rs.
there are Rs who pretend to have to think about things. but their decisions are always indistinguishable from every other R.
Trump hasn’t done much to hurt our institutions, compared to McConnell.
McConnell’s the guy who heard about the Russian meddling while it was happening and refused to do anything about it.
McConnell’s the guy who destroyed any chance that a USSC justice will be seated unless the President and the Senate are controlled by the same party.
and McConnell’s the guy who rammed K through, despite his perjury.
said it before, say it again: Gingrich broke the House, McConnell broke the Senate.
Trump hasn’t done much to hurt our institutions, compared to McConnell.
McConnell’s the guy who heard about the Russian meddling while it was happening and refused to do anything about it.
McConnell’s the guy who destroyed any chance that a USSC justice will be seated unless the President and the Senate are controlled by the same party.
and McConnell’s the guy who rammed K through, despite his perjury.
said it before, say it again: Gingrich broke the House, McConnell broke the Senate.
Any (R) at the national level who does not adhere to the rigorous party line stands in danger of being challenged in the next round of primaries. By the most fire-breathing character the (R)’s can round up.
If there is one thing at which the (R) party excels, it is lock-step party discipline. (R) moderates basically don’t stand a chance.
I can’t fix that. (R)’s can.
This is correct. There was a time when the R’s would take a “RINO” rather than a Dem, but now, not so much, if at all. Currently, the Dems have to take whoever they can get. If the day comes when the progressive left can do to Dem moderates and traditional liberals what the Republican base can do to those who don’t toe the line, I’m confident we will see the same thing on then on the left as we see now on the right.
Any (R) at the national level who does not adhere to the rigorous party line stands in danger of being challenged in the next round of primaries. By the most fire-breathing character the (R)’s can round up.
If there is one thing at which the (R) party excels, it is lock-step party discipline. (R) moderates basically don’t stand a chance.
I can’t fix that. (R)’s can.
This is correct. There was a time when the R’s would take a “RINO” rather than a Dem, but now, not so much, if at all. Currently, the Dems have to take whoever they can get. If the day comes when the progressive left can do to Dem moderates and traditional liberals what the Republican base can do to those who don’t toe the line, I’m confident we will see the same thing on then on the left as we see now on the right.
Crap, posted too soon. To round out the thought, I disagree with Cleek at 3:34 and offer the defeat of Roy Moore for the senate as Exhibit A. A lot of Repubs took a powder on that one.
Crap, posted too soon. To round out the thought, I disagree with Cleek at 3:34 and offer the defeat of Roy Moore for the senate as Exhibit A. A lot of Repubs took a powder on that one.
A lot of Repubs took a powder on that one.
some.
McConnell didn’t. Trump didn’t. Fox News didn’t. a lot of Republicans did at the start, saw that he might actually win, and then rallied to him at the end.
the same way they did for President Daughter-lusting Pussy Grabber.
A lot of Repubs took a powder on that one.
some.
McConnell didn’t. Trump didn’t. Fox News didn’t. a lot of Republicans did at the start, saw that he might actually win, and then rallied to him at the end.
the same way they did for President Daughter-lusting Pussy Grabber.
McKinney – I’ve long ago concluded that the Rs are swayed by some version of the dark grievances that moved the Croatian Nationalists. And I worry that the left may find itself responding like the Yugoslavists turned Serbian Nationalists when the cleavage becomes too strong to resist.
My hope, however, lies in the extraordinary diversity of the left, which makes it less likely to fall into the romance of nationalism. It takes extreme conditions to unify such a diverse group under the flag of some universalist ideal (like internationalist communism). Sadly, extreme conditions are the one thing at which the rightward coalition excel at the moment. The left is not yet broken, but it is mightily pressed.
McKinney – I’ve long ago concluded that the Rs are swayed by some version of the dark grievances that moved the Croatian Nationalists. And I worry that the left may find itself responding like the Yugoslavists turned Serbian Nationalists when the cleavage becomes too strong to resist.
My hope, however, lies in the extraordinary diversity of the left, which makes it less likely to fall into the romance of nationalism. It takes extreme conditions to unify such a diverse group under the flag of some universalist ideal (like internationalist communism). Sadly, extreme conditions are the one thing at which the rightward coalition excel at the moment. The left is not yet broken, but it is mightily pressed.
Justice Kavanaugh.
And the band played on
Justice Kavanaugh.
And the band played on
Hi McKinney,
Take on some RINO’s and “centrists” in the left fold…sure. Why not? I’m an easy going type of guy. The problem is we are always asked to sacrifice some of our core positions in order to do so, while they in turn sacrifice absolutely nothing.
Effective political alliances are built on give and take, compromise, mutual respect, and having each other’s back.
As I see it, moderate republicans have decided to throw their lot in with revanchist ethno-nationalists and religious extremists. They get their tax cuts and the repeal of the New Deal state, and the far right gets to put children in camps, polish their guns, outlaw abortions, and frankly just gloat.
Hi McKinney,
Take on some RINO’s and “centrists” in the left fold…sure. Why not? I’m an easy going type of guy. The problem is we are always asked to sacrifice some of our core positions in order to do so, while they in turn sacrifice absolutely nothing.
Effective political alliances are built on give and take, compromise, mutual respect, and having each other’s back.
As I see it, moderate republicans have decided to throw their lot in with revanchist ethno-nationalists and religious extremists. They get their tax cuts and the repeal of the New Deal state, and the far right gets to put children in camps, polish their guns, outlaw abortions, and frankly just gloat.
McTX: Currently, the Dems have to take whoever they can get.
Whereas the GOP can pick and choose? Got it: the GOP consists of exactly who the base Republicans want.
I also take it that McKinney would rather see Ted Cruz re-elected, because Beto O’Rourke is a Democrat. Not that McKinney would actually vote for Cruz; he’s made clear his distaste for the man. But vote for O’Rourke? I beg leave to doubt it.
–TP
McTX: Currently, the Dems have to take whoever they can get.
Whereas the GOP can pick and choose? Got it: the GOP consists of exactly who the base Republicans want.
I also take it that McKinney would rather see Ted Cruz re-elected, because Beto O’Rourke is a Democrat. Not that McKinney would actually vote for Cruz; he’s made clear his distaste for the man. But vote for O’Rourke? I beg leave to doubt it.
–TP
The rebirth of the GOP comes when moderate minorities who have been one issue Democrats begin to feel the GOP is not going to target them.
Immigration reform, built on any consensus, will be a huge boon for
the GOP.
Until then, same old same old.
The rebirth of the GOP comes when moderate minorities who have been one issue Democrats begin to feel the GOP is not going to target them.
Immigration reform, built on any consensus, will be a huge boon for
the GOP.
Until then, same old same old.
If the day comes when the progressive left can do to Dem moderates and traditional liberals what the Republican base can do to those who don’t toe the line, I’m confident we will see the same thing on then on the left as we see now on the right.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, a vote for Kavanaugh is neither moderate nor liberal in any sense.
Still, the pragmatic arguments for supporting Manchin are persuasive.
If the day comes when the progressive left can do to Dem moderates and traditional liberals what the Republican base can do to those who don’t toe the line, I’m confident we will see the same thing on then on the left as we see now on the right.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. However, a vote for Kavanaugh is neither moderate nor liberal in any sense.
Still, the pragmatic arguments for supporting Manchin are persuasive.
The use of the word “target” is a little confusing, given the subject.
The use of the word “target” is a little confusing, given the subject.
The problem is we are always asked to sacrifice some of our core positions in order to do so, while they in turn sacrifice absolutely nothing.
I would say that moving to the D column and voting D isn’t exactly not giving up anything.
Whereas the GOP can pick and choose? Got it: the GOP consists of exactly who the base Republicans want.
My interpretation of Russell’s comment was that the GOP base is not tolerating anyone outside the bubble. I agree with Russell, if that is what he was saying. So, in response to your comment, I’m saying the GOP doesn’t pick and choose. It just picks, even if it loses, it still picks from the True Believers. For now, the Dems tolerate a degree of internal dissent in view of the larger picture. Again, I say that will likely change when tolerance is no longer necessary.
The problem is we are always asked to sacrifice some of our core positions in order to do so, while they in turn sacrifice absolutely nothing.
I would say that moving to the D column and voting D isn’t exactly not giving up anything.
Whereas the GOP can pick and choose? Got it: the GOP consists of exactly who the base Republicans want.
My interpretation of Russell’s comment was that the GOP base is not tolerating anyone outside the bubble. I agree with Russell, if that is what he was saying. So, in response to your comment, I’m saying the GOP doesn’t pick and choose. It just picks, even if it loses, it still picks from the True Believers. For now, the Dems tolerate a degree of internal dissent in view of the larger picture. Again, I say that will likely change when tolerance is no longer necessary.
the GOP will reform itself when appealing solely to stupid racist white men is no longer sufficient.
the GOP will reform itself when appealing solely to stupid racist white men is no longer sufficient.
No. It was not. If Roe is overturned the trend will be quite clear, and legal abortion may well disappear is more than a few states.
Some trend.
Yes, it was. Then.
Today, we’re in a different environment. You are doubtless correct that legal abortion will disappear in several states. As I noted, because of where we are today, it may well be a couple of decades (or until the passing of today’s culture warriors) before we get back on track.
Is that regretable? Damn right. But it’s the result of making abortion a culture war totem, not something inherent to the 1960’s views of those states.
No. It was not. If Roe is overturned the trend will be quite clear, and legal abortion may well disappear is more than a few states.
Some trend.
Yes, it was. Then.
Today, we’re in a different environment. You are doubtless correct that legal abortion will disappear in several states. As I noted, because of where we are today, it may well be a couple of decades (or until the passing of today’s culture warriors) before we get back on track.
Is that regretable? Damn right. But it’s the result of making abortion a culture war totem, not something inherent to the 1960’s views of those states.
The GOP needs to be born again? WTF is Marty talking about?
As for immigration reform “built on any consensus”, when the GOP base demands that He, Trump reunite the kids He separated from their parents and grant citizenship to the Dreamers then we can begin to discuss “consensus”. Until then, enjoy the weather on your planet, Marty.
–TP
The GOP needs to be born again? WTF is Marty talking about?
As for immigration reform “built on any consensus”, when the GOP base demands that He, Trump reunite the kids He separated from their parents and grant citizenship to the Dreamers then we can begin to discuss “consensus”. Until then, enjoy the weather on your planet, Marty.
–TP
Nous: What really needs to happen for our politics to change is that “moderate” Rs need to stop acting as if all of this is the fault of the Ds, show some backbone and actually fight against their own lunatics.
Damn right.
cleek: there are no moderate Rs.
there are Rs who pretend to have to think about things. but their decisions are always indistinguishable from every other R.
Actually there are. At least outside the national level. And even there, there is a range of insanity in evidence. Not saying you will find any of them good; but I think there’s no question that some are worse than others. (You did notice, I trust, that the ACA did not, in the end, actually get repealed. Narrowly, but even with a majority in both houses it didn’t quite happen.)
Nous: What really needs to happen for our politics to change is that “moderate” Rs need to stop acting as if all of this is the fault of the Ds, show some backbone and actually fight against their own lunatics.
Damn right.
cleek: there are no moderate Rs.
there are Rs who pretend to have to think about things. but their decisions are always indistinguishable from every other R.
Actually there are. At least outside the national level. And even there, there is a range of insanity in evidence. Not saying you will find any of them good; but I think there’s no question that some are worse than others. (You did notice, I trust, that the ACA did not, in the end, actually get repealed. Narrowly, but even with a majority in both houses it didn’t quite happen.)
What cleek said (3:34).
In many ways, Trump is just a useful idiot for McConnell (as he is for Putin). He’s doing his own damage, but McConnell is doing far more.
What cleek said (3:34).
In many ways, Trump is just a useful idiot for McConnell (as he is for Putin). He’s doing his own damage, but McConnell is doing far more.
“The rebirth of the GOP comes when moderate minorities who have been one issue Democrats begin to feel the GOP is not going to target them.”
The feral crakkker thugs you fellate will never stop targeting minorities. Not while there’s a single breath left in their deformed bodies.
“The rebirth of the GOP comes when moderate minorities who have been one issue Democrats begin to feel the GOP is not going to target them.”
The feral crakkker thugs you fellate will never stop targeting minorities. Not while there’s a single breath left in their deformed bodies.
“The rebirth of the GOP comes when moderate minorities who have been one issue Democrats begin to feel the GOP is not going to target them.”
bobbyp: “My fellow Americans. my search for immoderate minorities shall be strenuous and unceasing. Your help is urgently needed. Please dial the immoderate minority hot line: 1-800-KIS-MYAS. Your information shall be kept strictly confidential.”
“The rebirth of the GOP comes when moderate minorities who have been one issue Democrats begin to feel the GOP is not going to target them.”
bobbyp: “My fellow Americans. my search for immoderate minorities shall be strenuous and unceasing. Your help is urgently needed. Please dial the immoderate minority hot line: 1-800-KIS-MYAS. Your information shall be kept strictly confidential.”
I also take it that McKinney would rather see Ted Cruz re-elected, because Beto O’Rourke is a Democrat. Not that McKinney would actually vote for Cruz; he’s made clear his distaste for the man. But vote for O’Rourke? I beg leave to doubt it.
Since I did not–and will not–respond to your request for my views on Kavanaugh, I will comment on this one: I’m voting in November, but not for either senatorial candidate. I don’t think Beto is particularly special other than he seems to be getting a lot of traction, which I think stems more from charisma and disgust with Trump than him being anything notably special. Cruz will always make me nauseous, that will never change.
I also take it that McKinney would rather see Ted Cruz re-elected, because Beto O’Rourke is a Democrat. Not that McKinney would actually vote for Cruz; he’s made clear his distaste for the man. But vote for O’Rourke? I beg leave to doubt it.
Since I did not–and will not–respond to your request for my views on Kavanaugh, I will comment on this one: I’m voting in November, but not for either senatorial candidate. I don’t think Beto is particularly special other than he seems to be getting a lot of traction, which I think stems more from charisma and disgust with Trump than him being anything notably special. Cruz will always make me nauseous, that will never change.
And that squeamishness to vote for the only guy who might beat the person enabling the shitshow ensures that the shitshow continues.
And that squeamishness to vote for the only guy who might beat the person enabling the shitshow ensures that the shitshow continues.
Iirc the ACA repeal failed because some of the most extreme GOP guys in Congress found the bill not extreme ENOUGH because it considered keeping some of the protections in place and voted NO.
Looks like my bet on the Kavanaugh vote was right with Murkowski being the only one of her party voting no (maybe with a special dispense(ation?) from McConnell).
Should it end with Manchin being the deciding vote (i.e. not Pence tie breaking) then I will fully approve of all female Dem senators slapping him in the face on camera in the senate chamber.
Iirc the ACA repeal failed because some of the most extreme GOP guys in Congress found the bill not extreme ENOUGH because it considered keeping some of the protections in place and voted NO.
Looks like my bet on the Kavanaugh vote was right with Murkowski being the only one of her party voting no (maybe with a special dispense(ation?) from McConnell).
Should it end with Manchin being the deciding vote (i.e. not Pence tie breaking) then I will fully approve of all female Dem senators slapping him in the face on camera in the senate chamber.
Narrowly, but even with a majority in both houses it didn’t quite happen.)
This is a reflection of the current knife edge balance as between two parties who are becoming increasingly ideologically cohesive.
Naturally, only Democrats can change this, and if things go to shit, they will have to bear the blame.
Narrowly, but even with a majority in both houses it didn’t quite happen.)
This is a reflection of the current knife edge balance as between two parties who are becoming increasingly ideologically cohesive.
Naturally, only Democrats can change this, and if things go to shit, they will have to bear the blame.
My interpretation of Russell’s comment was that the GOP base is not tolerating anyone outside the bubble. I agree with Russell, if that is what he was saying.
You read me right.
The rebirth of the GOP comes when moderate minorities who have been one issue Democrats begin to feel the GOP is not going to target them.
And for that to happen, the GOP will have to stop targeting them.
My interpretation of Russell’s comment was that the GOP base is not tolerating anyone outside the bubble. I agree with Russell, if that is what he was saying.
You read me right.
The rebirth of the GOP comes when moderate minorities who have been one issue Democrats begin to feel the GOP is not going to target them.
And for that to happen, the GOP will have to stop targeting them.
Sticks in the throat, though.
To be honest, I’m not that big on adherence to party lines. I think we’d be in a much better place if we weren’t able to basically predict every vote in Congress based on how many (R)’s and (D)’s there were.
At this particular point in time, I absolutely think the (D)’s should circle the wagons and work as a bloc. Because that’s what they are facing on the other side, and the differences in number are too close to allow for any wiggle room. I think that sucks, but I also recognize it as a necessity if the (D)’s don’t want to simply all pack their bags, go home, and leave governance to the (R)’s for the near future.
But as far as Manchin goes, he is the Senator from WV, not MA. I don’t expect him to vote the way Warren or Markey are going to vote on all, or even most, issues. I’d prefer if he would go in their general direction most of the time, on the issues that are important to me, but I don’t assume he will.
Because WV ain’t MA.
In this particular case, it’s completely plausible that a “no” vote would have cost him his seat, and then we’d almost certainly have another hard-line (R) as his replacement.
So I think he made the call he needed to make.
I do appreciate Heitkamp’s principled stand, and Murkowski’s as well, for that matter. I will probably send Heitkamp some money, she’s gonna need all the help she can get. The (R)’s are gonna be after her scalp.
Sticks in the throat, though.
To be honest, I’m not that big on adherence to party lines. I think we’d be in a much better place if we weren’t able to basically predict every vote in Congress based on how many (R)’s and (D)’s there were.
At this particular point in time, I absolutely think the (D)’s should circle the wagons and work as a bloc. Because that’s what they are facing on the other side, and the differences in number are too close to allow for any wiggle room. I think that sucks, but I also recognize it as a necessity if the (D)’s don’t want to simply all pack their bags, go home, and leave governance to the (R)’s for the near future.
But as far as Manchin goes, he is the Senator from WV, not MA. I don’t expect him to vote the way Warren or Markey are going to vote on all, or even most, issues. I’d prefer if he would go in their general direction most of the time, on the issues that are important to me, but I don’t assume he will.
Because WV ain’t MA.
In this particular case, it’s completely plausible that a “no” vote would have cost him his seat, and then we’d almost certainly have another hard-line (R) as his replacement.
So I think he made the call he needed to make.
I do appreciate Heitkamp’s principled stand, and Murkowski’s as well, for that matter. I will probably send Heitkamp some money, she’s gonna need all the help she can get. The (R)’s are gonna be after her scalp.
Naturally, only Democrats can change this, and if things go to shit, they will have to bear the blame.
No, the blame for things going to shit lies firmly with the Republicans.
But that doesn’t mean that the Democrats should avoid doing things which would allow them to keep things from going that way. It would be better if the Republicans returned to sanity. And if they don’t, they get the blame for making the mess. But until and unless that happens, the only hope is for Democrats to do some things they would prefer not to do, in order to avoid worse.
Naturally, only Democrats can change this, and if things go to shit, they will have to bear the blame.
No, the blame for things going to shit lies firmly with the Republicans.
But that doesn’t mean that the Democrats should avoid doing things which would allow them to keep things from going that way. It would be better if the Republicans returned to sanity. And if they don’t, they get the blame for making the mess. But until and unless that happens, the only hope is for Democrats to do some things they would prefer not to do, in order to avoid worse.
russell –I will probably send Heitkamp some money, she’s gonna need all the help she can get. The (R)’s are gonna be after her scalp.
I just did that this morning as well.
But until and unless that happens, the only hope is for Democrats to do some things they would prefer not to do, in order to avoid worse.
Yes, but tacking right has gotten them nothing but derision and mockery and thanks for ceding a bit more ground. Giving up the high ground to fight on the low ground is also “doing something.”
russell –I will probably send Heitkamp some money, she’s gonna need all the help she can get. The (R)’s are gonna be after her scalp.
I just did that this morning as well.
But until and unless that happens, the only hope is for Democrats to do some things they would prefer not to do, in order to avoid worse.
Yes, but tacking right has gotten them nothing but derision and mockery and thanks for ceding a bit more ground. Giving up the high ground to fight on the low ground is also “doing something.”
And that squeamishness to vote for the only guy who might beat the person enabling the shitshow ensures that the shitshow continues.
If this is directed at me–and if it isn’t, apologies and please disregard–I get this from both sides. I don’t care, really. It actually tends to validate my views. I certainly don’t feel moved to reconsider my position. Usually just the opposite. Being criticized for exercising my right to disapprove of both sides tends to solidify my antipathy for the side giving me the grief. FWIW.
And that squeamishness to vote for the only guy who might beat the person enabling the shitshow ensures that the shitshow continues.
If this is directed at me–and if it isn’t, apologies and please disregard–I get this from both sides. I don’t care, really. It actually tends to validate my views. I certainly don’t feel moved to reconsider my position. Usually just the opposite. Being criticized for exercising my right to disapprove of both sides tends to solidify my antipathy for the side giving me the grief. FWIW.
And… Susan Collins says she hopes Kavanaugh can help bridge the partisan divide on the court.
Seriously, I just don’t know what to say. How freaking lame. It is, actually, borderline insulting.
Own your damned vote, you freaking coward.
And that’s all I got on Susan Collins.
And… Susan Collins says she hopes Kavanaugh can help bridge the partisan divide on the court.
Seriously, I just don’t know what to say. How freaking lame. It is, actually, borderline insulting.
Own your damned vote, you freaking coward.
And that’s all I got on Susan Collins.
And… Susan Collins says she hopes Kavanaugh can help bridge the partisan divide on the court.
The mind boggles. Seriously, the woman has lost all touch with reality. Way gone through the looking glass.
And… Susan Collins says she hopes Kavanaugh can help bridge the partisan divide on the court.
The mind boggles. Seriously, the woman has lost all touch with reality. Way gone through the looking glass.
Susan Collins says she hopes Kavanaugh can help bridge the partisan divide on the court.
Unless he’s going to get them all to play beer pong together ….
Susan Collins says she hopes Kavanaugh can help bridge the partisan divide on the court.
Unless he’s going to get them all to play beer pong together ….
the whole thing is a shit show.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yw9q8b/trump-toilet-paper-shoe-air-force-one-video-vgtrn?utm_source=dmfb
the whole thing is a shit show.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yw9q8b/trump-toilet-paper-shoe-air-force-one-video-vgtrn?utm_source=dmfb
McTX: I get this from both sides
When “both sides” think you’re wrong about something, it may just be that you’re … you know, wrong 🙂
–TP
McTX: I get this from both sides
When “both sides” think you’re wrong about something, it may just be that you’re … you know, wrong 🙂
–TP
Well that Susan Collins thing went even worse than could easily be expected. Ugh.
Well that Susan Collins thing went even worse than could easily be expected. Ugh.
Collins is disgusting.
Forty minutes to say all that BS and then announce, ultimately to no one’s great astonishment, that she is again going to dance to McConnell’s tune.
If I read one more description of her as a “moderate” I will ralph.
I’m with bobbyp. There are no moderate R’s. Only those who like to pretend because it gets them press coverage and TV time.
Collins is disgusting.
Forty minutes to say all that BS and then announce, ultimately to no one’s great astonishment, that she is again going to dance to McConnell’s tune.
If I read one more description of her as a “moderate” I will ralph.
I’m with bobbyp. There are no moderate R’s. Only those who like to pretend because it gets them press coverage and TV time.
McTX: I get this from both sides
I feel your pain, McKinney. I get it from both the Revolutionary Socialists of America and the American Revolutionary Socialists.
So I guess I can sleep soundly knowing I am correct. Thanks for your help.
bobbyp
McTX: I get this from both sides
I feel your pain, McKinney. I get it from both the Revolutionary Socialists of America and the American Revolutionary Socialists.
So I guess I can sleep soundly knowing I am correct. Thanks for your help.
bobbyp
the cure for collins.
Vote these people out.
the cure for collins.
Vote these people out.
BP. LOL. Your handicap?
BP. LOL. Your handicap?
13.5 and like my age, climbing.
13.5 and like my age, climbing.
Yeah, same here. But, you owe me two strokes.
Yeah, same here. But, you owe me two strokes.