Comments regarding the Kavanaugh nomination (thread 2)

[Yank2133]

Consensus on twitter is that Murkowski is leaning towards No.

So Murkowski is going to listen to partisan protesters telling their story of their own sexual abuse in comparison to the alleged sexual abuse that has failed to be corroborated whatsoever. Diabolical reasoning, if true.

Uhhh considering the fact Alaska is the rape capitol of the country, yes.

But there's been zero evidence that BK raped or even sexually assaulted anyone. Therefore, this issue shouldn't have been brought forward to begin with, and considering the allegation has zero corroboration means that it shouldn't even be a consideration when voting to confirm BK.

Public polling has shown that people have found Ford more credible then Kavanaugh. Those numbers may be even worse for Kavanaugh in Alaska.

We shall see, but Murkowski voting no would not be a surprise given the states history with rape and the make up of her base.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Consensus on twitter is that Murkowski is leaning towards No.

So Murkowski is going to listen to partisan protesters telling their story of their own sexual abuse in comparison to the alleged sexual abuse that has failed to be corroborated whatsoever. Diabolical reasoning, if true.

Uhhh considering the fact Alaska is the rape capitol of the country, yes.

But there's been zero evidence that BK raped or even sexually assaulted anyone. Therefore, this issue shouldn't have been brought forward to begin with, and considering the allegation has zero corroboration means that it shouldn't even be a consideration when voting to confirm BK.

Public polling has shown that people have found Ford more credible then Kavanaugh. Those numbers may be even worse for Kavanaugh in Alaska.

We shall see, but Murkowski voting no would not be a surprise given the states history with rape and the make up of her base.

Yet public polling is fairly split on confirmation itself.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243377/americans-closely-divided-kavanaugh-confirmation.aspx

[Yank2133]

Consensus on twitter is that Murkowski is leaning towards No.

So Murkowski is going to listen to partisan protesters telling their story of their own sexual abuse in comparison to the alleged sexual abuse that has failed to be corroborated whatsoever. Diabolical reasoning, if true.

Uhhh considering the fact Alaska is the rape capitol of the country, yes.

But there's been zero evidence that BK raped or even sexually assaulted anyone. Therefore, this issue shouldn't have been brought forward to begin with, and considering the allegation has zero corroboration means that it shouldn't even be a consideration when voting to confirm BK.

Public polling has shown that people have found Ford more credible then Kavanaugh. Those numbers may be even worse for Kavanaugh in Alaska.

We shall see, but Murkowski voting no would not be a surprise given the states history with rape and the make up of her base.

Yet public polling is fairly split on confirmation itself.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243377/americans-closely-divided-kavanaugh-confirmation.aspx

You say that as if it is a good thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Crumpets]

Not strictly relevant, but I dropped by the protests today after work and I got within about 20 feet of Elizabeth Warren.

[Donald Trump’s Toupée]

Not strictly relevant, but I dropped by the protests today after work and I got within about 20 feet of Elizabeth Warren.

I bought a new jeep and called it Elizabeth Warren because it's all white but it says it's a Cherokee.

[Slick Willie]

Not strictly relevant, but I dropped by the protests today after work and I got within about 20 feet of Elizabeth Warren.

I bought a new jeep and called it Elizabeth Warren because it's all white but it says it's a Cherokee.

Ha ha...

What an original joke.

[Ogre Mage]

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says Kavanaugh should not be confirmed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/retired-supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-does-not-belong-high-court/aXEO6XTeiF8OECimtNxpjJ/

I cannot recall this ever happening -- a retired Supreme Court Justice speaking out against a current nominee to the Court.

[Ogre Mage]

This is behind a paywall at the WSJ but Kavanaugh wrote an editorial apologizing for his behavior during the confirmation hearings:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822?mod=e2two

Things must not be going so well if he felt the need to write this.

As for the merits of what he wrote, I can smell the bull$h!t from 2000 miles away.  Sorry, Brett, you're a blatant Republican hack, shameless hypocrite and liar who thinks your $h!t doesn't stink.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This is behind a paywall at the WSJ but Kavanaugh wrote an editorial apologizing for his behavior during the confirmation hearings:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822?mod=e2two

Things must not be going so well if he felt the need to write this.

As for the merits of what he wrote, I can smell the bull$h!t from 2000 miles away.  Sorry, Brett, you're a blatant Republican hack, shameless hypocrite and liar who thinks your $h!t doesn't stink.

His integrity as a judge is being questioned, so he's responding.  There's no reason to assume this says anything about hour by hour developments in whipping votes.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says Kavanaugh should not be confirmed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/retired-supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-does-not-belong-high-court/aXEO6XTeiF8OECimtNxpjJ/

I cannot recall this ever happening -- a retired Supreme Court Justice speaking out against a current nominee to the Court.

Stevens is a hero. I doubt the Court will see anyone of his stature again for a long, long time.

[Ogre Mage]

This is behind a paywall at the WSJ but Kavanaugh wrote an editorial apologizing for his behavior during the confirmation hearings:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822?mod=e2two

Things must not be going so well if he felt the need to write this.

As for the merits of what he wrote, I can smell the bull$h!t from 2000 miles away.  Sorry, Brett, you're a blatant Republican hack, shameless hypocrite and liar who thinks your $h!t doesn't stink.

His integrity as a judge is being questioned, so he's responding.  There's no reason to assume this says anything about hour by hour developments in whipping votes.

What this tells us is Kavanaugh realizes his performance was a PR disaster and he is trying to clean up the mess he made.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL.  If a female Supreme Court nominee said this, she would be crucified. But it seems Kavabro can get away with it.

[BudgieForce]

https://twitter.com/frankthorp/status/1048049282232856576

So Steve Daines has made arrangements to be there Saturday. So whats probably going to happen is this: if the confirmation is one vote short of going through, McConnell will hold the vote open until Daines gets there.

[SCNCmod]

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says Kavanaugh should not be confirmed:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/retired-supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-does-not-belong-high-court/aXEO6XTeiF8OECimtNxpjJ/

I cannot recall this ever happening -- a retired Supreme Court Justice speaking out against a current nominee to the Court.

This is a much bigger event/statement than the coverage it is getting imo.  A retired SCOTUS justice speaking out against a current nominee is a big deal- and you can't say its political, considering he originally was in support of Kavanaugh... prior to his 2nd senate hearing.

[SCNCmod]

A SCOTUS nom having an interview spot with wife on FOXnews... then a WSJ OpEd...  this is getting out of control for a SC nom.  By its very nature the efforts are trying to appeal to the American people (to then influence Senators).  Last I checked there are good reasons we do not elect SC Justices.  His actions are seeming far too political & his testimony far too erratic ... to justify a seat on the SCOTUS.  (I don't recall Merritt Garland doing interviews and Op Eds to beg & campaign for a seat on the court.)

[Frodo]

If and when Brett Kavanaugh ever provides the fifth vote needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade/Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, and we have a Democratic trifecta at the time that decision takes place, the President should do an Andrew Jackson, and challenge the Court to enforce its decision itself.  With two accused sexual predators on the bench, the Supreme Court will lack all moral authority to push anyone to enforce its decision. 

[Dwarven Dragon]

A SCOTUS nom having an interview spot with wife on FOXnews... then a WSJ OpEd...  this is getting out of control for a SC nom.  By its very nature the efforts are trying to appeal to the American people (to then influence Senators).  Last I checked there are good reasons we do not elect SC Justices.  His actions are seeming far too political & his testimony far too erratic ... to justify a seat on the SCOTUS.  (I don't recall Merritt Garland doing interviews and Op Eds to beg & campaign for a seat on the court.)

Wouldn't have mattered if Garland did that anyway, his name was known for the couple of months he spent meeting with Senators, filling out a questionnaire for the heck of it, and watching Lisa Murkowski and Jerry Moran come out in support of hearings for about five seconds before quickly being whipped back into place. Once those items were out of the news, the public had no reason to think about Garland, and he soon only had name recognition among journalists, certain activists, judges, politicians, and atlasians. In November 2016, people just knew that there was an open seat and the next president would fill it, Garland himself had 20% name rec at best.

[Dwarven Dragon]

If and when Brett Kavanaugh ever provides the fifth vote needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade/Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, and we have a Democratic trifecta at the time that decision takes place, the President should do an Andrew Jackson, and challenge the Court to enforce its decision itself.  With two accused sexual predators on the bench, the Supreme Court will lack all moral authority to push anyone to enforce its decision. 

This was only a thing in the Andrew Jackson era because the decision required the government to take a certain action toward native americans. In this case, repeal of Roe would simply return power to the states and there would be no role for the executive to play. States would not need the help of the executive to institute pro-life legislation either - if it got challenged in court, the case would be decided in favor of the state at the district court level - because district courts are bound by supreme court precedent over anything else, and well, if Roe vs. Wade has been declared moot, then there's nothing to base a pro-choice ruling on, aside from language in a state constitution.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

What time is the cloture vote scheduled for tomorrow?

[Dwarven Dragon]

What time is the cloture vote scheduled for tomorrow?

10:30 AM sharp. Which means 7:30 AM for western coastal liberals.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

What time is the cloture vote scheduled for tomorrow?

10:30 AM sharp. Which means 7:30 AM for western coastal liberals.

Oh, good, so at least I'll know the outcome when I wake up and won't spend the entire morning agonizing over it like I did for the committee vote.

Then again, that might also mean I won't be able to sleep tonight.

[IceSpear]

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/1047927071903797249?ref_src=twsrc%5...

Heidi Heitkamp is a woman of integrity. She has a 1000 times more courage and bravery than Jeff Flake.

Wait, she's voting no even though she acknowledges it will hurt her politically? But Atlas galaxy brain hot takes told me that voting no would help her!

Anyway, Heidi is a massive FF. I'll be sad to see her go.

[eric82oslo]

If and when Brett Kavanaugh ever provides the fifth vote needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade/Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, and we have a Democratic trifecta at the time that decision takes place, the President should do an Andrew Jackson, and challenge the Court to enforce its decision itself.  With two accused sexual predators on the bench, the Supreme Court will lack all moral authority to push anyone to enforce its decision. 

[SingingAnalyst]

With all the focus on an alleged assault from 36 years ago, we may be overlooking two important questions: (1) does Kavanaugh have the temperament to be a Supreme Court justice; (2) would his decisions uphold the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution?

This article from Reason.com seriously questions Kavanaugh's temperament: https://reason.com/volokh/2018/10/02/judge-kavanagh-judicial-temperament-and

In addition, his apparent willingness to compromise the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is concerning: https://www.lp.org/all-libertarians-say-no-to-sexual-assault/

Here are my takeaways so far: (1) One's position on the truth of Dr. Ford's allegations against Kavanaugh is entirely predictable from one's 2016 Presidential vote: I know no one who has "switched sides". (2) Those who identify with being falsely accused of assault may be tempted to support Kavanaugh, just to oppose Dr. Ford. As the two articles above imply, that is not a good thing.

As one meme pointed out: If Kavanaugh is innocent of the allegations, he still should not sit on the Supreme Court.

[gottsu]

Consensus on twitter is that Murkowski is leaning towards No.

So Murkowski is going to listen to partisan protesters telling their story of their own sexual abuse in comparison to the alleged sexual abuse that has failed to be corroborated whatsoever. Diabolical reasoning, if true.

Uhhh considering the fact Alaska is the rape capitol of the country, yes.

But there's been zero evidence that BK raped or even sexually assaulted anyone. Therefore, this issue shouldn't have been brought forward to begin with, and considering the allegation has zero corroboration means that it shouldn't even be a consideration when voting to confirm BK.

Do you really believe that Senate or FBI on GOP WH order should prove guilty of BK in judicial matters and seeking to corroborate or not all the Kavanaugh's stuff?

It's the same thing with impeachment - it goes here not to prove if BK raped or assaulted, who, where, at what time, with incontrovertible evidence like maybe footages or photos of such deeds or not, but only about a political and/or judicial vetting of such person. I mean, these two things (to prove sb guilty in judicial way and to politically and/or judicially vet sb) differ.

[Gustaf]

Consensus on twitter is that Murkowski is leaning towards No.

So Murkowski is going to listen to partisan protesters telling their story of their own sexual abuse in comparison to the alleged sexual abuse that has failed to be corroborated whatsoever. Diabolical reasoning, if true.

Uhhh considering the fact Alaska is the rape capitol of the country, yes.

But there's been zero evidence that BK raped or even sexually assaulted anyone. Therefore, this issue shouldn't have been brought forward to begin with, and considering the allegation has zero corroboration means that it shouldn't even be a consideration when voting to confirm BK.

You should read up on what the Word evidence means.