The Kavanaugh Hearing
Let's, for arguments sake, say that Kavanaugh did not do these things. How has he reacted to this? Has he supported a full thorough investigation to establish the facts here? Has he demonstrated any understanding or empathy for Dr. Ford (who, even as we accept for argument's sake that she fired at the wrong target, clearly is not in this for any political reason)?
No, he has not. He has gone along with Republican plans to limit any attempt at real fact finding, to rush things along as quickly as possible, and to deny any credence to Ford's experience. He has done so in order to accept an offer from one of the most corrupt presidents in our history, a president under active investigation, who has clearly expressed that those he promotes are expected to demonstrate personal loyalty to him.
So what does all this tell us about his character, and about what kind of judge he would be? And that's, again, if we accept for argument's sake the position of Kavanaugh's defenders. The best case argument in his favor is still pretty bad, isn't it?
Saw a clip of Kavanaugh and his wife from the Fox interview. At one point he appeared to be on the verge of tears. I was imagining Avenatti cross examining him.
The interview revealed more information than I wanted to know about this guy who seems willing to grovel for the opportunity to deny women the right to chose.
If it was designed to illicit sympathy, I felt it failed miserably.
While investigators weren’t specific and spoke on background, they said they are looking at allegations made against Kavanaugh during his senior year in high school after an anonymous witness voluntarily came forward to speak with them this weekend.
This would potentially bring the number to four women accusing Kavanaugh of wrongdoing and comes after Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale college student, stepped forward this weekend to accuse Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her in college, and after attorney Michael Avenatti tweeted out a message saying he represents a woman with “credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.”
Now four witnesses.
https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/
Morganna said:
Saw a clip of Kavanaugh and his wife from the Fox interview. At one point he appeared to be on the verge of tears. I was imagining Avenatti cross examining him.
The interview revealed more information than I wanted to know about this guy who seems willing to grovel for the opportunity to deny women the right to chose.
If it was designed to illicit sympathy, I felt it failed miserably.
The sweet boy was a virgin in hs and “for many years after.”
GL2 said:
Morganna said:The sweet boy was a virgin in hs and “for many years after.”
Saw a clip of Kavanaugh and his wife from the Fox interview. At one point he appeared to be on the verge of tears. I was imagining Avenatti cross examining him.
The interview revealed more information than I wanted to know about this guy who seems willing to grovel for the opportunity to deny women the right to chose.
If it was designed to illicit sympathy, I felt it failed miserably.
I guess we'll find out if the "I was a teenage sexually-frustrated inebriate" defense is a winner for him.
This story was updated with comments from two former classmates of Kavanaugh, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing, who initially signed a statement of support for Kavanaugh provided by his attorneys. They approached The New Yorker after this story was published and asked that their names be removed from the statement, saying that they did not wish to dispute Ramirez’s claims.
ElizMcCord said:
I’ll have to say for once the Dems are putting up a heck of a fight and I love it. A SCOTUS seat deserves nothing less. The Republicans would give us nothing less.
I'd like to believe that, but am not sure what Dems are actually doing to fight. Had Professor Ford not come forward, it's likely Kavanaugh would have been confirmed already. And if he isn't confirmed, that likely will be owing to Republican swing votes like Murkowski or Collins voting against him. And that this can be decided on 51 votes rather than 60 is the doing of a Democrat, Harry Reid.
apple44 said:
ElizMcCord said:I'd like to believe that, but am not sure what Dems are actually doing to fight. Had Professor Ford not come forward, it's likely Kavanaugh would have been confirmed already. And if he isn't confirmed, that likely will be owing to Republican swing votes like Murkowski or Collins voting against him. And that this can be decided on 51 votes rather than 60 is the doing of a Democrat, Harry Reid.
I’ll have to say for once the Dems are putting up a heck of a fight and I love it. A SCOTUS seat deserves nothing less. The Republicans would give us nothing less.
I don't like that Reid changed that rule, but it was also his only choice. He never would have been able to get even one Obama nomination through the Senate if he needed even a single GOP vote. So we can say it was Reid's rule change, but the GOP essentially forced his hand.
ml1 said:
apple44 said:I don't like that Reid changed that rule, but it was also his only choice. He never would have been able to get even one Obama nomination through the Senate if he needed even a single GOP vote. So we can say it was Reid's rule change, but the GOP essentially forced his hand.
ElizMcCord said:I'd like to believe that, but am not sure what Dems are actually doing to fight. Had Professor Ford not come forward, it's likely Kavanaugh would have been confirmed already. And if he isn't confirmed, that likely will be owing to Republican swing votes like Murkowski or Collins voting against him. And that this can be decided on 51 votes rather than 60 is the doing of a Democrat, Harry Reid.
I’ll have to say for once the Dems are putting up a heck of a fight and I love it. A SCOTUS seat deserves nothing less. The Republicans would give us nothing less.
That's a good point. But it reinforces that the Repubs have been winning strategically for years now. I'd like to think the current situation with Kavanaugh is the result of Dems "fighting," I just don't see it.
Interesting point of view:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-fox-news-interview-220618
apple44 said:
ml1 said:That's a good point. But it reinforces that the Repubs have been winning strategically for years now. I'd like to think the current situation with Kavanaugh is the result of Dems "fighting," I just don't see it.
apple44 said:I don't like that Reid changed that rule, but it was also his only choice. He never would have been able to get even one Obama nomination through the Senate if he needed even a single GOP vote. So we can say it was Reid's rule change, but the GOP essentially forced his hand.
ElizMcCord said:I'd like to believe that, but am not sure what Dems are actually doing to fight. Had Professor Ford not come forward, it's likely Kavanaugh would have been confirmed already. And if he isn't confirmed, that likely will be owing to Republican swing votes like Murkowski or Collins voting against him. And that this can be decided on 51 votes rather than 60 is the doing of a Democrat, Harry Reid.
I’ll have to say for once the Dems are putting up a heck of a fight and I love it. A SCOTUS seat deserves nothing less. The Republicans would give us nothing less.
I agree with that. I don't think the Democrats would have fought if this story hadn't come out on its own. There was plenty of doubt about Kavanaugh previously, and I don't think the Democrats made enough of a fuss. There was the likely perjury during his previous confirmation hearings, the shameful Starr investigation memos, the arguments in favor of torture. If a Democratic president had nominated a person with a similar past, the Republicans would have convened, written their talking points ("we can't have perjurer on the highest court!"), and gone everywhere and repeated them endlessly. Every person in America would have been able to recite the talking points word for word. And then the Democratic president would withdraw the nomination. But that's not how it works in reverse. Because the Democrats don't get on the same page with the sound bites, they don't fight, and more importantly, Republicans are too shameless to ever back down once they're all in on a nominee.
We need tougher Democrats.
Democrats were fighting furiously before the Blasey Ford accusation surfaced, but given the balance of power, they only had popguns. I don't think there was anything in Kavanaugh's record that was going to preclude nomination. Sure the left can/did cite a laundry list of stuff that they believe disqualified Kavanaugh, but really that's just disliking him because he's conservative. Of course liberals aren't going to like a conservative judge, but when the conservatives are in charge, that's who's going to be appointed.
But now the sexual assault allegation is a real chance to derail the nomination. But while I agree broadly that tougher Democrats are needed, I think being overly strident here runs the risk of backfiring. This whole thing hinges on what Blasey Ford says and how credible she is on Thursday -- not on which grandstanding Democratic presidential hopeful breathes the most fire at the hearing.
I wish I weren't so pessimistic. Even if the Kavanaugh nomination somehow derails, I suppose that is some kind of victory. However, Trump could nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who is more of a conservative on many social issues than Kavanaugh is - or anyone else on his current "list" - and McConnell and team could push it through no matter what happens with the mid-terms. And like Kavanaugh, she could easily serve for 30 or more years. Plus, what would happen to Kavanaugh - he keeps his lifelong seat on a powerful Federal court.
Fun times.
The "nuclear option" had been discussed for years. McConnell didn't need Harry Ried to give him the idea. The Republicans would have adopted it immediately.
The Democrats adopted it out of necessity; if they hadn't, every seat occupied by a judge that Obama nominated in the last few years would now be occupied by a Heritage Foundation person.
Smedley said:
Democrats were fighting furiously before the Blasey Ford accusation surfaced, but given the balance of power, they only had popguns. I don't think there was anything in Kavanaugh's record that was going to preclude nomination. Sure the left can/did cite a laundry list of stuff that they believe disqualified Kavanaugh, but really that's just disliking him because he's conservative. Of course liberals aren't going to like a conservative judge, but when the conservatives are in charge, that's who's going to be appointed.
But now the sexual assault allegation is a real chance to derail the nomination. But while I agree broadly that tougher Democrats are needed, I think being overly strident here runs the risk of backfiring. This whole thing hinges on what Blasey Ford says and how credible she is on Thursday -- not on which grandstanding Democratic presidential hopeful breathes the most fire at the hearing.
they weren't fighting furiously. They were grandstanding for the cameras. Fighting furiously is the way Republicans fight -- disciplined, organized, fanning out en masse to every media outlet in the country.
And the opposition isn't just because he's conservative. Gorsuch is very conservative, but there wasn't the same kind of sleaziness in his background. Kavanaugh isn't just a conservative -- he's a sleazy, lying, partisan hack. There are very serious questions about his character, and an awful lot of evidence that he isn't a person possessing of the kind of integrity that a SCOTUS justice should have.
and if the Democrats were fighting Kavanaugh's nomination "furiously," that would have been a talking point. You would have heard dozens of Democrats all over the country repeating "sleazy, lying, partisan hack" until millions of people would have thought his full name was Sleazy Lying Partisan Hack Brett Kavanaugh.
ml1 said:
and if the Democrats were fighting Kavanaugh's nomination "furiously," that would have been a talking point. You would have heard dozens of Democrats all over the country repeating "sleazy, lying, partisan hack" until millions of people would have thought his full name was Sleazy Lying Partisan Hack Brett Kavanaugh.
Call him what you want.
The reality is he's a Federal Circuit judge sitting on the preeminent DC circuit. A judge who renders decisions affecting millions of Americans. Decisions that are very rarely reviewed by SC.
I guess it comes down to how one defines ‘fighting furiously’. Based on what I saw from the hearings earlier this month, Democrats fought furiously.
Lead of Sept 9 AP story:
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats don’t have the votes to block Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But that didn’t stop them from putting up a rowdy, leave-nothing-on-the-table fight during four days of Senate confirmation hearings that marked a new stage in the party’s resistance to President Donald Trump.
From the moment that the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman gaveled in the first session, the proceedings were tumultuous, disrupted first by Democratic senators objecting to the rules and then by protesters shouting “Sham president, sham vote” and other chants.”
And re: Gorsuch, the Democrats didn’t fight that one because as the minority party, they know they can’t fight everything, they have to pick their spots. So they went along with that one knowing the fight would be for the important one, ie this one that would make SCOTUS 5-4. They didn’t choose to not fight that one and fight this one because Gorsuch is a swell guy and Kavanaugh is a tool.
The GOP has recruited a "special victims unit" prosecutor (a woman) to conduct the questioning re: Dr. Blasey Ford's allegations.
I was wondering about the thought process with that. They don't really want to pin Kavanaugh to the mat, they want to challenge his accuser. But, they couldn't recruit a sex crimes defense attorney (someone who specializes in challenging accusers), because of the optics of how it would make Kavanaugh look.
So they went with a prosecutor. I can imagine lots of prosecutors being approached, and their thinking, "This would not be good for me. I can't be seen in a very public setting challenging and trying to poke holes in the testimony of an accuser."
They finally did find a prosecutor willing to do that. I don't know what this will do to her rapport with victims, in the future.
BG9 said:
ml1 said:Call him what you want.
and if the Democrats were fighting Kavanaugh's nomination "furiously," that would have been a talking point. You would have heard dozens of Democrats all over the country repeating "sleazy, lying, partisan hack" until millions of people would have thought his full name was Sleazy Lying Partisan Hack Brett Kavanaugh.
The reality is he's a Federal Circuit judge sitting on the preeminent DC circuit. A judge who renders decisions affecting millions of Americans. Decisions that are very rarely reviewed by SC.
all that means is that the Democrats should have fought harder to keep him off the circuit court. It was clear at the time that he was lying during his confirmation hearing. That's what Republicans would have done if the roles were reversed. A guy like Kavanaugh would have been destroyed by Republicans.
Smedley said:
I guess it comes down to how one defines ‘fighting furiously’. Based on what I saw from the hearings earlier this month, Democrats fought furiously.
Lead of Sept 9 AP story:
“WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats don’t have the votes to block Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. But that didn’t stop them from putting up a rowdy, leave-nothing-on-the-table fight during four days of Senate confirmation hearings that marked a new stage in the party’s resistance to President Donald Trump.
From the moment that the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman gaveled in the first session, the proceedings were tumultuous, disrupted first by Democratic senators objecting to the rules and then by protesters shouting “Sham president, sham vote” and other chants.”
And re: Gorsuch, the Democrats didn’t fight that one because as the minority party, they know they can’t fight everything, they have to pick their spots. So they went along with that one knowing the fight would be for the important one, ie this one that would make SCOTUS 5-4. They didn’t choose to not fight that one and fight this one because Gorsuch is a swell guy and Kavanaugh is a tool.
I don't consider the protesters to be who I'm referring to as Democrats. That would be the Democratic members of the Senate. And the Democratic Senators were actually apologizing to Kavanaugh for the protests. The GOP would NEVER apologize if they had activists disrupting the proceedings. That's what I'm talking about. The GOP fights in a scorched earth, take no prisoners style. Democrats always pull back from going all in. To me, "furiously" fighting means no retreat, no surrender. The Democrats have no concept of what that means. Their motto is "at some point we will in fact retreat, and then surrender."
here's an example. If the roles were reversed, would Republicans be questioning these allegations? Of course not, it would be on an endless loop on Fox News, and Repbublican senators would be everywhere shouting about it. And they wouldn't give a damn if the evidence was true or false.
But here's what Democrats are saying:
Democrats to Michael Avenatti: You’re Not Helping in the Kavanaugh Fight
ml1 said:
BG9 said:all that means is that the Democrats should have fought harder to keep him off the circuit court. It was clear at the time that he was lying during his confirmation hearing. That's what Republicans would have done if the roles were reversed. A guy like Kavanaugh would have been destroyed by Republicans.
ml1 said:Call him what you want.
and if the Democrats were fighting Kavanaugh's nomination "furiously," that would have been a talking point. You would have heard dozens of Democrats all over the country repeating "sleazy, lying, partisan hack" until millions of people would have thought his full name was Sleazy Lying Partisan Hack Brett Kavanaugh.
The reality is he's a Federal Circuit judge sitting on the preeminent DC circuit. A judge who renders decisions affecting millions of Americans. Decisions that are very rarely reviewed by SC.
Correct. Which shows us how often really useless the Democrats can be.
With all due respect if I went to a website where most of the participants were Right Wingers I would see many complaints that the Republicans were not fighting hard enough to get Kavanaugh confirmed and that McConnell should have already held the vote.
From Newt, prominent right-wing hasbeen:
On Tuesday's edition of 'Hannity' Fox News contributor, Newt Gingrich says the Democratic Party is desperate to stop the Supreme Court from being conservative.
"We're watching a period where what we have to understand is this is about raw power," Gingrich declared. "And if the left can stop Kavanaugh we will not get another conservative Justice in our lifetime on the Supreme Court."
"I think what the American people should think is that you have a Democratic party so desperate to stop the Supreme Court from becoming conservative that they are prepared to lie, to smear, to be hysterical, to break Senate rules to do whatever they have to do," Gingrich said.
Not to divert, but aren't there also money questions about Kavanaugh? Gambling in addition to the drinking? Sudden payoff of credit card debt? Other?? For myself, I would be concerned about that at least as much as the sex scandals - corruption? addictive behavior?
More recent, maybe more likely to be ongoing, and might have stronger "paper" evidence?
I guess it's too late now if they're voting on Fri, but I wish these things had been hammered more persistently (or did I just not tune in soon enough?).
"From Newt, prominent right-wing hasbeen"
LOST, this makes my morning. : )
LOST said:
With all due respect if I went to a website where most of the participants were Right Wingers I would see many complaints that the Republicans were not fighting hard enough to get Kavanaugh confirmed and that McConnell should have already held the vote.
From Newt, prominent right-wing hasbeen:
On Tuesday's edition of 'Hannity' Fox News contributor, Newt Gingrich says the Democratic Party is desperate to stop the Supreme Court from being conservative.
"We're watching a period where what we have to understand is this is about raw power," Gingrich declared. "And if the left can stop Kavanaugh we will not get another conservative Justice in our lifetime on the Supreme Court."
"I think what the American people should think is that you have a Democratic party so desperate to stop the Supreme Court from becoming conservative that they are prepared to lie, to smear, to be hysterical, to break Senate rules to do whatever they have to do," Gingrich said.
That's not a rebuttal to the fact that Democrats NEVER fight as hard as Republicans. In fact, it's proof positive that they don't. Look how hard Gingrich is pushing back on legitimate criticisms that Democrats are leveling at Kavanaugh.
This is why our side loses all the time. We have millions and millions of dispirited liberal voters who stay home on Election Day every two years. And contrary to popular belief, it's not because Democrats would lose elections by championing liberal ideas. Those ideas are overwhelmingly popular among voters. The real reason is that corporate interests own the party, and those benefactors don't want the Democrats pushing those policies. We need less "civility," less "centrism," and more furious fighting for a set of principles.
mjc said:
Not to divert, but aren't there also money questions about Kavanaugh? Gambling in addition to the drinking? Sudden payoff of credit card debt? Other?? For myself, I would be concerned about that at least as much as the sex scandals - corruption? addictive behavior?
More recent, maybe more likely to be ongoing, and might have stronger "paper" evidence?
I guess it's too late now if they're voting on Fri, but I wish these things had been hammered more persistently (or did I just not tune in soon enough?).
There's a ton of troubling stuff about Kavanaugh that hasn't been rigorously investigated. That's why I say the Democrats are not really fighting his nomination. They're play-acting at looking like they are in front of the cameras. Republicans would have these issues of gambling, of debts, of drinking, perjury, torture, and sexual assault front and center all day long every day if Kavanaugh had been nominated by a Democrat.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
cramer