Official Kavanaugh hearing thread

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Of course they should establish his credibility if that’s all they have to go off of. Same with her. I’m not saying that it would ever be able to prove whether he assaulted her or not, but it would be useful to know if you’re next Supreme Court justice has a past with alcohol abuse that could bring more skeletons out of the closet. It would also be useful in figuring out if the man lied under oath or not. And the same credibility check should go for his accusers as well, in the purpose of clearing his name. 

How in the world is that the FBI's responsibility to determine though? Should they be called to investigate every time an appointee makes a claim that is subsequently disputed by others? 

[AuCivilEng1 11,046]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How in the world is that the FBI's responsibility to determine though? Should they be called to investigate every time an appointee makes a claim that is subsequently disputed by others? 

In a matter that is as serious as a nominee potentially being a sexual assaulter, absolutely. Why would you not? Who does it hurt? If they find something, that poses a red flag, the American people dodge a bullet. And if they don’t it clears helps to clear the name of the accused. 

[AUDub 11,242]

Collins is a yes. That'll do it. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

f they find something, that poses a red flag, the American people dodge a bullet.

Again, that conflates the responsibilities of the senate judiciary committee with those of the FBI. The FBI can investigate the claims of sexual assault. That's fine. But where do you draw the line then if you advocate digging into totally unrelated issues from the claim at issue, which arose years later? There must be a defined scope. If you maintain that the FBI's job is to conduct an investigation and report on one's credibility as to character, then why have a senate hearing in the first place? Are the FBI background checks already in place superfluous? 

[homersapien 11,610]

23 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How did people react to the “lynching” portion of his remarks?

I thought he was playing the "race card".  Very effectively.

 

[homersapien 11,610]

15 hours ago, Mikey said:

That's not surprising. Logic has never been a forte' of America's left.

Didn't realize you were part of "America's left".

WELCOME!  

We need more defectors.

[homersapien 11,610]

15 hours ago, Mikey said:

Of course not. I'm one of those that voted against Hillary. How could I possibly be expected to know my butt from a hole in the ground?

Irony.  A perfectly logical response. 

[homersapien 11,610]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

Exactly. Whatever one thinks of deploying the race card there, there's no denying that it was an incisive rhetorical flourish that hamstrung a lot of his opposition. "What makes me different from you?"

I don't agree with Thomas much, but there's no denying he is smart as a whip. 

Possibly, but you couldn't prove it by me. He sure doesn't have much to say.

[AuCivilEng1 11,046]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Again, that conflates the responsibilities of the senate judiciary committee with those of the FBI. The FBI can investigate the claims of sexual assault. That's fine. But where do you draw the line then if you advocate digging into totally unrelated issues from the claim at issue, which arose years later? There must be a defined scope. If you maintain that the FBI's job is to conduct an investigation and report on one's credibility as to character, then why have a senate hearing in the first place? Are the FBI background checks already in place superfluous? 

I personally don’t trust the Senate Judiciary Committee to do anything that they should. So I’m the wrong person to talk to about their usefulness. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

26 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Collins is a yes. That'll do it. 

She's making a lot of contradictory statements in this speech too.  It's all over the place.

[AuCivilEng1 11,046]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Again, that conflates the responsibilities of the senate judiciary committee with those of the FBI. The FBI can investigate the claims of sexual assault. That's fine. But where do you draw the line then if you advocate digging into totally unrelated issues from the claim at issue, which arose years later? There must be a defined scope. If you maintain that the FBI's job is to conduct an investigation and report on one's credibility as to character, then why have a senate hearing in the first place? Are the FBI background checks already in place superfluous? 

Also, the minute Kavanaugh started hanging his hat on the whole, “I’m a choir boy with no previous alcohol abuse problems”, under oath, that’s when it became the FBI’s job to check his credibility. Especially since there are reasons to believe (Boofing,Devils Triagle, etc etc) he isn’t and that he lied to the committee right to their faces. 

[homersapien 11,610]

7 hours ago, Mikey said:

Par for the course. I'm used to experiencing a condescending "I'm smarter than you" attitude from lefties with an IQ of 80. They've been acting like that for decades now. I think liberal college professors must tell their D students that it's all ok. If they just vote and riot for liberal causes they will be smarter than other people, grades and IQ to the contrary. Fortunately. the vast majority of my professors at Auburn weren't liberals. One of my favorite remarks learned on Ag Hill: "The reason farm people are conservative is because we've shoveled enough manure to recognize it when we see it."

Ironically enough, my degrees were also from the school of agriculture.

(You're not helping your case.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

29 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Collins is a yes. That'll do it. 

Did you see Palin's tweet?

[homersapien 11,610]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

If you really want to play conspiracy theorist, what if the Democrats actually know about another credible allegation out there, but once they realized how determined McConnell was to sticking with Kavanaugh, and the realization that right now getting Kavanaugh pulled would only result in a more conservative nominee getting through in his place, they have decided to sit on it for now and wait to take the WH in 2020 or to get a majority in the Senate?  They could wait on this more corroborated allegation and instead of wasting it now, use it two years from now to suddenly lurch Kennedy's slot totally the other direction.  

I mean, it would be a bald-faced political move but this is what the Republicans are leaving themselves open to.

You give the Democrats far too much credit, IMO. 

[AuCivilEng1 11,046]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Did you see Palin's tweet?

God help the state of Alaska.

[homersapien 11,610]

4 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

That’s a big What If, Titan.  

What if Kavanaugh sues for slander and wins; emails, conspiracy, and possibly even some money are found to exist between parties on the left to support false accusation claims. This is just as likely too. The Avenatti guy getting involved suggests as much and honestly wasted the dem’s momentum at that moment in time. However, Ford will likely get a multimillion dollar book deal out of this.  There is just too much crap for this to all be real, at least about 50% of Americans believe that.  You can’t just always discredit that many people with the snap of your finger  

This man most likely did not deserve this treatment by the left is a fair statement. 

Ain't gonna happen.

And trust me, soon to be justice Kavanaugh wants this to disappear as soon as possible.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

Also, the minute Kavanaugh started hanging his hat on the whole, “I’m a choir boy with no previous alcohol abuse problems”, under oath, that’s when it became the FBI’s job to check his credibility. Especially since there are reasons to believe (Boofing,Devils Triagle, etc etc) he isn’t and that he lied to the committee right to their faces. 

So if you think its the FBI's job to investigate federal appointments subsequent to testimony, what's the point of the confirmation process as it stands? What you're advocating for would establish a new procedure. I clearly disagree, but I am interested in your articulation. 

[AUDub 11,242]

LOL Manchin didn't even wait 5 minutes. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

As much as I can't stand the guy, Mitch McConnell should have a freaking statue built for him at RNC headquarters for getting the SC majority.

[homersapien 11,610]

2 hours ago, WDavE said:

Never bringing a nominee to a vote is a lot like trying to destroy another nominees reputation. NOT!

I find it very amusing when Democrats talk about bi-partisanship. It seems to come up every time their in the minority....

It's worse actually.

Garland deserved to experience the nomination confirmation process.  There was absolutely no reason other that pure partisanship to deny him a hearing.

[AuCivilEng1 11,046]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So if you think its the FBI's job to investigate federal appointments subsequent to testimony, what's the point of the confirmation process as it stands? What you're advocating for would establish a new procedure. I clearly disagree, but I am interested in your articulation. 

Tbh this is the first I’m discussing this idea at all. I’m not sure what I do think the FBI and SJC should be responsible for. What I do know is that, in this situation, by the end of this, there is literally no way in hell that the senate held enough bi partisan credibility to make a judgement on this man’s credibility. Everyone on both sides showed their butts during this thing. So, IMO the only way to insure that at least a large enough portion of the population doesn’t feel like they weren’t heard, an independent bi-partisan agency should conduct enough of an investigation to clear him enough to at least have him take the seat and not be protested every day of his career.

[WDavE 332]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's worse actually.

Garland deserved to experience the nomination confirmation process.  There was absolution no reason other that pure partisanship to deny him a hearing.

Politics aside!  Do you actually believe that? Your visions or what is right and wrong is way our of kilter with mine.

[homersapien 11,610]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It's the "Biden rule."  

Thank goodness MG did not get appointed. He does not deserve Scalia's seat. 

Which nominee did Biden block?

Was there a SCOTUS vacancy at all?

Did the senate ever take a vote on the so called "Biden rule"?

The "Biden rule" was never a rule at all. McConnell was just using a thoughtful speech by Biden as an excuse for his own blatant obstruction of Obama's presidency.   (Can't say he wasn't consistent though.)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

[TitanTiger 20,570]

38 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Did you see Palin's tweet?

I get all the stupidity I can stand reading threads on this forum.  I've no need to seek more of it out.

[homersapien 11,610]

16 minutes ago, WDavE said:

Politics aside!  Do you actually believe that? Your visions or what is right and wrong is way our of kilter with mine.

Explain what you meant by the "experience of the confirmation process" that Kavanaugh went through.

What makes you so sure that Garland doesn't have a "Ford" in his past?

What makes you so sure that Garland wasn't such a heavy drinker?

Kavanaugh had something to do with his experience in the confirmation process. And it might have been ugly but it certainly wasn't unfair. After all, he's on the court when Garland didn't even get a chance.

That's my feeling on it.