Kennedy to retire - USSC will swing even further right

The question of the veracity (or otherwise) of the allegations should take precedence, while the question of political motivation (or otherwise) should be secondary.

If one is looking to gauge the veracity of the allegations, his friend, Judge's writings, the year book entries, and the statement by his room mate, all paint a picture of a not so saintly Kavanuagh and lend credence to the allegations.

 

and Merrick Garland? 54 Republicans wouldnt even consider him

 

Can you explain this to me please? Maybe I'll learn something new here from you for once.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TLU-tgJ3Iqw" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UBT78Q0rbSo" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Little known fact....He was actually more conservative than Ted Cruz before hitting the truck and the crossover to the liberal media changed him forever.

 

Yeah...Kavanaugh just said he was a virgin during those years he's been accused. Then again, he hasn't been accused of rape, so who knows how that'll help out his image. I bet he's happy trotting out that fact with his wife next to him.

With stakes this high, just hold serve and then take your time in a lifetime appointment doling out your wrath. Withdrawing makes no sense in any case, as he should be appointed.

I wish you were wrong too about the last part. Some people have ridiculous stipulations over one vote.

 

No I realized I saw it in the original New Yorker article....so basically we have another situation where one set of people says one thing about Kavanaugh and another set says another thing. Maybe he was Jeckyl and Hyde? I dunno....I still just can't get past that he looks like a guy who is more of a book worm than a rapey party animal. Maybe he's somewhere in between? Maybe he calmed down after a year or two? He also graduated c*m laude at Yale. That is certainly a pretty good accomplishment and I don't know how you do it if you are drunk 24/7 like Roche said. Also, we have another situation where two of her very close friends don't say they remember her ever saying anything about this incident. The best corroboration was from someone who wanted to remain anonymous or from her mother and sister who weren't interviewed. I don't want to disbelieve her, but I'm just left with a lot of questions. I understand she didn't have to put herself out there and deal with this backlash.

As I'm typing this I'm trying to go down memory lane and remember my first year at UT and senior year of high school. I know I got into more crazy **** than I'll ever remember. Obviously, I know I'm not up for Supreme Court, but I was just thinking how absurdly hard it is to remember any significant details of major events that happened back then and I'm only 38. God there's so many ridiculous things I've got into that have just kind of been forgotten with time. I was thinking it's funny how I can remember lyrics to songs from then that I haven't heard in forever, but I can't remember the details to crazy nights that are just kind of fragments at best now......

Spoiler

Anyhow....let the circus continue!

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news...rett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and one other classmate, Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: “We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.”

(Two students who initially signed the statement, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing, approached The New Yorker after the publication of this article and asked that their names be removed from it. “I never saw or heard anything like this,” Garry said. “But I cannot dispute Ramirez’s allegations, as I was not present.” Ewing also said he had no direct knowledge of the allegation and considered it out of character for Kavanaugh, but emphasized, “I also was not present and therefore am not in a position to directly dispute Ramirez’s account.”)

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement, said of Ramirez, “This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.” She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their “larger social circle.” In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

 

They were following the (Joe) Biden rule:

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all," he said. "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself."

 

How many of them had multiple people claiming sexual assault?

 

But..but...Clarence Thomas....pube on a coke can...so it's all the same, right?

Sorry. The Answer is Zero. No Supreme Court nominees. Ever.

 

These accusations are ridiculously flimsy, nothing but standard operating procedure from the Dem playbook. Ford will decide not to perjure herself and the second set of accusations have even less credibility, if that's even possible.

 

Nice try but that 'rule' was not applicable cos the GOP had decided not to consider anybody in mid-February, even before a nomination was made, which was months (not weeks and not days) before the DNC and Republican conventions.

It was simply the GOP as usual using any means to try and hold on to power

 

How dare anybody accuse Brett 'renate alumni' Kavanaugh!

 

^Looks like all of the incels are rallying around Virgin Brett after his five star fox news sitdown.

HES A TOTAL CHAD YOU FOOLS!

 

[Premium Post]
The horse faced leftwing activists' fake allegations have no substance, no evidence, no corroboration. They are purely partisan. How small, vile, and dishonest do the Democrats now look? Answer: Very small, very vile, very dishonest. The liberals can't win at the ballot box, nor can they win on policy issues. They are left with no other choice than to smear and personally attack Republicans using identity politics and the most vile accusations which are unsubstantiated. Sad. The backlash against them will be great. And when RBG goes to be with the Lord, and my girl Amy Coney Barrett takes her place, justice will be served.

GOOD DAY

 

traitor George's discounted elevator doesn't go to the top floor,

he cannot think for himself, as
all he does is parrot / regurgitate GOP talking points.​

for the education of Traitor George's discounted mind,

• conservatives w no skeletons in their closets, John Roberts and Gorsuch, sailed thru the nomination process.
• many GOPers voted against
  • Reagan's replacement pick (for Bork), Doug Ginsburg, because he had admitted to have smoked pot in his youth
  • Clinton's pick Zoe Baird because she didn't withhold tax on her payments to her baby sitter

 

Agree with most everything but the horse faced comment. Neither of these claims have any verifiable merit. I too look forward to the day Amy Coney Barrett gets seated on the high court. Had Trump nominated her to begin with, the left would not be able to pull these exact shenanigans. While I am sure they would have tried something else to keep her off the court, it would have even less credibility than these ridiculous claims.

 

There is a 4th accuser now:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article...ugh-accuser-is-taking-to-maryland-authorities

 

Didn't go to Harvard, Yale, or Columbia so she doesn't qualify. University of Notre Dame? She should be counting her lucky stars she isn't working at McDonalds.

 

While I'm saying it isn't automatically disqualifying, I do think Senators are justified in weighing the information to inform their decision. I think it's okay for one to say, 'he did it but he sees the error of his ways and has since grown,' while another says, 'we don't need any rapists on the Supreme Court.' They vote and what comes out comes out. What I do think is automatically disqualifying is a nominee lying in the Senate's face, they demonstrate he's lying, and then confirm him anyway. I can respect no Senator that would overlook such a transgression.

On your question, murder is a bit of a special case because there is no statute of limitation on it. If he murdered someone when he was 17, he should be indicted instead of confirmed. If it was attempted murder, my rubric would be the same though. Foremost, don't lie about it. Senators can then decide how it impacts their votes. I would be surprised if as many Senators were willing to let bygones be bygones, but it probably depends a lot on circumstances.

I feel you. I have 3 young daughters. They will be subjected to some of the bad actions being alleged against Kavanaugh, which makes me fantasize about various forms of street justice. Even so, leaving no room for forgiveness is poisonous.

But I think it brings up a good question of who is transgressed and who can forgive. Does it make any sense for the Senate to forgive a crime they were not victims of? Does it make any sense for me to say I'm okay if they forgive a crime they were not victims of? I'd say this is not an amnesty we're talking about. Ford can let the hatred burn in her heart forever, and I think she'd be justified. Nor do I think people should interpret a Senate confirmation as a general cleansing of his reputation. If a million people respond, "the rapist?" every time Kavanaugh writes the majority opinion, well maybe he has that coming (if he's guilty, etc). The forgiveness I'm talking about here is only whether the body politic can say it's good enough to allow him to serve. That's it. No one (but God, my wife would say) can give him or me real forgiveness.

Yeah, that's pretty shameful. I understand hating Cruz, but people go too far.