Kavanaugh Sobers Up

[Tilly]

Alleging someone was drunk and or drugged because they drank some water and expressed emotions over heinous allegations against them does not even bear a passing resemblance to common sense.
Neither does suggesting his wife must be on tranquillisers and that he took them.
It’s truly terrifying that you say you’re a teacher, you drunken old sot.

Tilly would you like your daughter ,if you had one, going out for a few beers with Kavanaugh?? Or even Ice?

Would you like your son, if you have one, to be called an alcoholic who is drunk and drugged because he drinks water and expresses emotion over heinous baseless allegations made against him?

Would you like your sons good name dragged through the mud on the basis of allegations that have not a single shred of evidence to back them up?

Would you like your son and his wife and children to receive death threats on the basis of an allegation that has not a shred of evidence to back it up?

Would you like your son to lose his position at Harvard based upon allegations that have not a single shred of evidence to back them up?

Would you like your son to be called a rapist ad infinitum on the basis of allegations that have not a single shred of evidence to back them up?

It'd all be OK after buffoons seat him on the highest court in the land Then he could get his revenge Revenge is a dish best served cold

Then I hope to God you’re not father to a son.

I am The greatest kid a father could hope for ....a chip off the ol block......lol

Doubtful.

 

[beautress]

I think Brett Kavanaugh is a man who has been wrongfully humbled, but evidence presented shows that he has diligently loved and practiced justice his whole career, he will serve the Americans with mercy for the helpless and patiently consider and weigh the toughest cases with his comprehensive understanding of the Constitutional laws as justices do. May God bless him and his colleagues on the bench to make America a good place for good and loyal citizens of our country. Those who've been taken in by false witnesses will soon see Judge Kavanaugh does right, has a deep and abiding faith in the good life God through the founders gave us creating laws that celebrate the freedoms good people have earned with hard work, patience, and charity.

As American citizens, I think we should all pray for our leaders in all 3 branches of our government, and not go into beating up on each other before all the facts are in.

 

[bodecea]

Soooo, because your mom took them, you assume Kavanaughs’s wife does...
How do I know you aren’t lying about taking them yourself, now? Oh, you want us to believe you, even though there IS no evidence of such.
Unlike Kavanaugh, who had numerous people deny there was such a gathering that Ford claimed were there...

Sure... his wife’s tranquilizers? Do you have experience with them?

I am really surprised at what a strong reaction Kavanaugh's kind-of-apology thread is getting. I figured it would sink to page 3 on the Active List within in an hour, like most of my threads do.

Huh.

I respect USMB rules and I was not trying to trigger just more comments on whether Kavanaugh is a good guy or a bad guy. I would have stuck it in the daily thread on the subject if I had that in mind. I guess just saying the name is going to trigger this crowd, though, and set them going like an overused answering machine message.

Yeah, I think he was under the influence of something when he testified and who cares; I'm NOT saying the guy is an alcoholic or that he was shitfaced when he testified. A bit buzzed, though. He probably thought it would relax him to have a couple drinks or one of his wife's tranquilizers, and I'm not saying the guy is an alcoholic. ALL I'm saying is ... he seems to have sobered up and perhaps is not quite so rabid as he acted last week, which is probably a good thing and I'd think everyone would be quite happy for that.

As a matter of fact, yes. My mom slipped me a Valium before a wake and it made me MORE tearful and then I wanted to eat a whole pan of brownies. And then I needed a nap. I would never take one of them things again. It just made me stupid and leaky.

They denied nothing...they said they don't remember. Those are not the same thing, you know.

 

[BS Filter]

Soooo, because your mom took them, you assume Kavanaughs’s wife does...
How do I know you aren’t lying about taking them yourself, now? Oh, you want us to believe you, even though there IS no evidence of such.
Unlike Kavanaugh, who had numerous people deny there was such a gathering that Ford claimed were there...

Too many tears, too much water, too many outbursts.
But happily, he's sobered up and realizes he was out of line. Kinda.
So he says. I don't think his deep disaffection with Democrats/liberals is going to disappear just because he gets on the Court. He may stop talking about it (if he's smart) but he believes the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him. Ford was not a plant.

3 points:

1. Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals back in 2004, but got filibustered by the Dems and didn't get confirmed. Bush renominated him again in 2006, and after a difficult and bruising fight got confirmed that time. And yet there is no case or example that shows partiality by him against the Dems. There is no case where his decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. So when you say his deep disaffection for the Dems means he can't be impartial then I have to ask on what do you base that opinion on.

2. Not sure if he has actually said that the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him, but Good Lord how can you blame him for thinking that? You don't see the timing of all these allegations and calls for investigations as somewhat suspect? You say you have eyes an common sense, but it does not appear that is the case. This has been one long delay and deny tactic on the part of the Democrats, which is fine but not when you set out ahead of time to viciously smear the reputation of a nominee for no other reason than political objectives. They had already said they would do anything to stop the confirmation of Trump's nominee no matter who it was.

3. "Happily he's sobered up". That's really low, OL. You got any reason to support your contention that he was under the influence of anything? No, you don't, and that is pretty reprehensible on your part.

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Bush92]

So maybe you will tell Me.

How many cases do you think will come before Kavanaugh in which his two little girls, his wife, and his sterling reputation will be ruthlessly attacked with fictitious claims, slander, outright lies?

Not many. Once he is seated he is there. We don’t nominate and confirm judges based on a fear of how much noise the lunatic left will make.

 

[BS Filter]

Soooo, because your mom took them, you assume Kavanaughs’s wife does...
How do I know you aren’t lying about taking them yourself, now? Oh, you want us to believe you, even though there IS no evidence of such.
Unlike Kavanaugh, who had numerous people deny there was such a gathering that Ford claimed were there...

Sure... his wife’s tranquilizers? Do you have experience with them?

I am really surprised at what a strong reaction Kavanaugh's kind-of-apology thread is getting. I figured it would sink to page 3 on the Active List within in an hour, like most of my threads do.

Huh.

I respect USMB rules and I was not trying to trigger just more comments on whether Kavanaugh is a good guy or a bad guy. I would have stuck it in the daily thread on the subject if I had that in mind. I guess just saying the name is going to trigger this crowd, though, and set them going like an overused answering machine message.

Yeah, I think he was under the influence of something when he testified and who cares; I'm NOT saying the guy is an alcoholic or that he was shitfaced when he testified. A bit buzzed, though. He probably thought it would relax him to have a couple drinks or one of his wife's tranquilizers, and I'm not saying the guy is an alcoholic. ALL I'm saying is ... he seems to have sobered up and perhaps is not quite so rabid as he acted last week, which is probably a good thing and I'd think everyone would be quite happy for that.

As a matter of fact, yes. My mom slipped me a Valium before a wake and it made me MORE tearful and then I wanted to eat a whole pan of brownies. And then I needed a nap. I would never take one of them things again. It just made me stupid and leaky.

They denied nothing...they said they don't remember. Those are not the same thing, you know.

They sure aren't corroboration. No one can corroborate her fairy tale.

 

[iceberg]

I am really surprised at what a strong reaction Kavanaugh's kind-of-apology thread is getting. I figured it would sink to page 3 on the Active List within in an hour, like most of my threads do.

Huh.

I respect USMB rules and I was not trying to trigger just more comments on whether Kavanaugh is a good guy or a bad guy. I would have stuck it in the daily thread on the subject if I had that in mind. I guess just saying the name is going to trigger this crowd, though, and set them going like an overused answering machine message.

Yeah, I think he was under the influence of something when he testified and who cares; I'm NOT saying the guy is an alcoholic or that he was shitfaced when he testified. A bit buzzed, though. He probably thought it would relax him to have a couple drinks or one of his wife's tranquilizers, and I'm not saying the guy is an alcoholic. ALL I'm saying is ... he seems to have sobered up and perhaps is not quite so rabid as he acted last week, which is probably a good thing and I'd think everyone would be quite happy for that.

no.

you're just doing the typical liberal bullshit of making accusations you can't prove and then running with them as if they're true. IF he were under the influence of ANYTHING then i'd have to believe the liberal fanatics would take note and be on him like shit on stank. since that didn't happen, maybe - just maybe - you're wrong.

fyi - here is were adults admit it and move on.

I have no reason to change my mind and I'm not going to. Have you got anything intelligent to say about his "impartiality?" Or his rethinking how he may have gone too far in his testimony?

You don't think that it's possible, even likely that he was justifiably upset with the personal attacks against him and reacted accordingly? He got emotional and angry at the unfair treatment he's received, nobody is going to dispute that. I'd be pissed if I was accused of attempted rape, exposing myself, or drugging and raping young women, and I'd probably be pretty vocal with those who suggest it's true. Especially since for the last 35 years there's absolutely nothing to indicate a problem exists, either with booze or sexual misconduct. But to say he was drunk is a whole 'nother thing, has anyone said or written a word about liquor on his breath, or him stumbling into or out of the hearing? Has anyone said or written anything in the last 30 years or so about him drinking to excess once he got out of college? Am I to believe that he has a drinking problem and nobody knows about it.

You say you have no reason to change your mind, but I think you do. Just like with the charges of sexual misconduct, there is absolutely NOTHING in the way of evidence to support your position that he was under the influence and you are willing to think the worst of somebody based on NOTHING more than your own political lens. And let me ask you if you've got anything intelligent to say about his lack of impartiality, show me one case that was overturned by the SCOTUS where he voted the wrong way. Just one. Can't do it can you, cuz such a case does not exist. He is willing to consider hat he may have gone too far in his testimony, I am wondering if you are too.

others are not allowed to be guided by how they feel - only she is.

 

[Bush92]

Soooo, because your mom took them, you assume Kavanaughs’s wife does...
How do I know you aren’t lying about taking them yourself, now? Oh, you want us to believe you, even though there IS no evidence of such.
Unlike Kavanaugh, who had numerous people deny there was such a gathering that Ford claimed were there...

Sure... his wife’s tranquilizers? Do you have experience with them?

I am really surprised at what a strong reaction Kavanaugh's kind-of-apology thread is getting. I figured it would sink to page 3 on the Active List within in an hour, like most of my threads do.

Huh.

I respect USMB rules and I was not trying to trigger just more comments on whether Kavanaugh is a good guy or a bad guy. I would have stuck it in the daily thread on the subject if I had that in mind. I guess just saying the name is going to trigger this crowd, though, and set them going like an overused answering machine message.

Yeah, I think he was under the influence of something when he testified and who cares; I'm NOT saying the guy is an alcoholic or that he was shitfaced when he testified. A bit buzzed, though. He probably thought it would relax him to have a couple drinks or one of his wife's tranquilizers, and I'm not saying the guy is an alcoholic. ALL I'm saying is ... he seems to have sobered up and perhaps is not quite so rabid as he acted last week, which is probably a good thing and I'd think everyone would be quite happy for that.

As a matter of fact, yes. My mom slipped me a Valium before a wake and it made me MORE tearful and then I wanted to eat a whole pan of brownies. And then I needed a nap. I would never take one of them things again. It just made me stupid and leaky.

They denied nothing...they said they don't remember. Those are not the same thing, you know.

Then Kavanaugh deserves a yes vote. Fucking California loon Ford couldn’t recall for 32 years...until political expediency presented itself.

 

[OldLady]

Too many tears, too much water, too many outbursts.
But happily, he's sobered up and realizes he was out of line. Kinda.
So he says. I don't think his deep disaffection with Democrats/liberals is going to disappear just because he gets on the Court. He may stop talking about it (if he's smart) but he believes the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him. Ford was not a plant.

3 points:

1. Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals back in 2004, but got filibustered by the Dems and didn't get confirmed. Bush renominated him again in 2006, and after a difficult and bruising fight got confirmed that time. And yet there is no case or example that shows partiality by him against the Dems. There is no case where his decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. So when you say his deep disaffection for the Dems means he can't be impartial then I have to ask on what do you base that opinion on.

2. Not sure if he has actually said that the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him, but Good Lord how can you blame him for thinking that? You don't see the timing of all these allegations and calls for investigations as somewhat suspect? You say you have eyes an common sense, but it does not appear that is the case. This has been one long delay and deny tactic on the part of the Democrats, which is fine but not when you set out ahead of time to viciously smear the reputation of a nominee for no other reason than political objectives. They had already said they would do anything to stop the confirmation of Trump's nominee no matter who it was.

3. "Happily he's sobered up". That's really low, OL. You got any reason to support your contention that he was under the influence of anything? No, you don't, and that is pretty reprehensible on your part.

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

This isn't a Kavanaugh is good/bad thread.

 

[iceberg]

I am really surprised at what a strong reaction Kavanaugh's kind-of-apology thread is getting. I figured it would sink to page 3 on the Active List within in an hour, like most of my threads do.

Huh.

I respect USMB rules and I was not trying to trigger just more comments on whether Kavanaugh is a good guy or a bad guy. I would have stuck it in the daily thread on the subject if I had that in mind. I guess just saying the name is going to trigger this crowd, though, and set them going like an overused answering machine message.

Yeah, I think he was under the influence of something when he testified and who cares; I'm NOT saying the guy is an alcoholic or that he was shitfaced when he testified. A bit buzzed, though. He probably thought it would relax him to have a couple drinks or one of his wife's tranquilizers, and I'm not saying the guy is an alcoholic. ALL I'm saying is ... he seems to have sobered up and perhaps is not quite so rabid as he acted last week, which is probably a good thing and I'd think everyone would be quite happy for that.

I'm NOT saying the guy is an alcoholic

You deliberately imply in your thread title that he’s an alcoholic, and now you are suggesting his wife takes tranquillisers, you vapid drunken old sot, OldLady.

yea, it's the "i'm not saying what i'm saying but i'm saying it and then saying i'm not saying it so in case anyone gets made i said it i can say i never said it" routine.

seen it a million times.

Iceberg struggles with complexity. We make allowances.

now now - don't make me turn you in for trolling....

 

[BS Filter]

3 points:

1. Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals back in 2004, but got filibustered by the Dems and didn't get confirmed. Bush renominated him again in 2006, and after a difficult and bruising fight got confirmed that time. And yet there is no case or example that shows partiality by him against the Dems. There is no case where his decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. So when you say his deep disaffection for the Dems means he can't be impartial then I have to ask on what do you base that opinion on.

2. Not sure if he has actually said that the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him, but Good Lord how can you blame him for thinking that? You don't see the timing of all these allegations and calls for investigations as somewhat suspect? You say you have eyes an common sense, but it does not appear that is the case. This has been one long delay and deny tactic on the part of the Democrats, which is fine but not when you set out ahead of time to viciously smear the reputation of a nominee for no other reason than political objectives. They had already said they would do anything to stop the confirmation of Trump's nominee no matter who it was.

3. "Happily he's sobered up". That's really low, OL. You got any reason to support your contention that he was under the influence of anything? No, you don't, and that is pretty reprehensible on your part.

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

This isn't a Kavanaugh is good/bad thread.

Well, do you believe in the American concept of justice, innocent until proven guilty or not?

 

[Tilly]

3 points:

1. Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals back in 2004, but got filibustered by the Dems and didn't get confirmed. Bush renominated him again in 2006, and after a difficult and bruising fight got confirmed that time. And yet there is no case or example that shows partiality by him against the Dems. There is no case where his decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. So when you say his deep disaffection for the Dems means he can't be impartial then I have to ask on what do you base that opinion on.

2. Not sure if he has actually said that the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him, but Good Lord how can you blame him for thinking that? You don't see the timing of all these allegations and calls for investigations as somewhat suspect? You say you have eyes an common sense, but it does not appear that is the case. This has been one long delay and deny tactic on the part of the Democrats, which is fine but not when you set out ahead of time to viciously smear the reputation of a nominee for no other reason than political objectives. They had already said they would do anything to stop the confirmation of Trump's nominee no matter who it was.

3. "Happily he's sobered up". That's really low, OL. You got any reason to support your contention that he was under the influence of anything? No, you don't, and that is pretty reprehensible on your part.

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

This isn't a Kavanaugh is good/bad thread.

It’s a Kav is an alcoholic drug user thread, based on nothing but your feelz.

 

[OldLady]

Too many tears, too much water, too many outbursts.
But happily, he's sobered up and realizes he was out of line. Kinda.
So he says. I don't think his deep disaffection with Democrats/liberals is going to disappear just because he gets on the Court. He may stop talking about it (if he's smart) but he believes the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him. Ford was not a plant.

3 points:

1. Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals back in 2004, but got filibustered by the Dems and didn't get confirmed. Bush renominated him again in 2006, and after a difficult and bruising fight got confirmed that time. And yet there is no case or example that shows partiality by him against the Dems. There is no case where his decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. So when you say his deep disaffection for the Dems means he can't be impartial then I have to ask on what do you base that opinion on.

2. Not sure if he has actually said that the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him, but Good Lord how can you blame him for thinking that? You don't see the timing of all these allegations and calls for investigations as somewhat suspect? You say you have eyes an common sense, but it does not appear that is the case. This has been one long delay and deny tactic on the part of the Democrats, which is fine but not when you set out ahead of time to viciously smear the reputation of a nominee for no other reason than political objectives. They had already said they would do anything to stop the confirmation of Trump's nominee no matter who it was.

3. "Happily he's sobered up". That's really low, OL. You got any reason to support your contention that he was under the influence of anything? No, you don't, and that is pretty reprehensible on your part.

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

There were only two witnesses--Kavanaugh who of course would deny it, and his friend Mark Judge who said he does not recall it and wrote a book about his life at the time being full of black outs.
As with most sexual assaults, they don't happen in the view of many others. It's kind of illegal, you know?

 

[Bush92]

Soooo, because your mom took them, you assume Kavanaughs’s wife does...
How do I know you aren’t lying about taking them yourself, now? Oh, you want us to believe you, even though there IS no evidence of such.
Unlike Kavanaugh, who had numerous people deny there was such a gathering that Ford claimed were there...

Sure... his wife’s tranquilizers? Do you have experience with them?

I am really surprised at what a strong reaction Kavanaugh's kind-of-apology thread is getting. I figured it would sink to page 3 on the Active List within in an hour, like most of my threads do.

Huh.

I respect USMB rules and I was not trying to trigger just more comments on whether Kavanaugh is a good guy or a bad guy. I would have stuck it in the daily thread on the subject if I had that in mind. I guess just saying the name is going to trigger this crowd, though, and set them going like an overused answering machine message.

Yeah, I think he was under the influence of something when he testified and who cares; I'm NOT saying the guy is an alcoholic or that he was shitfaced when he testified. A bit buzzed, though. He probably thought it would relax him to have a couple drinks or one of his wife's tranquilizers, and I'm not saying the guy is an alcoholic. ALL I'm saying is ... he seems to have sobered up and perhaps is not quite so rabid as he acted last week, which is probably a good thing and I'd think everyone would be quite happy for that.

As a matter of fact, yes. My mom slipped me a Valium before a wake and it made me MORE tearful and then I wanted to eat a whole pan of brownies. And then I needed a nap. I would never take one of them things again. It just made me stupid and leaky.

They denied nothing...they said they don't remember. Those are not the same thing, you know.

Perhaps it depends on what your definition of “is”...is huh?

 

[Tilly]

3 points:

1. Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals back in 2004, but got filibustered by the Dems and didn't get confirmed. Bush renominated him again in 2006, and after a difficult and bruising fight got confirmed that time. And yet there is no case or example that shows partiality by him against the Dems. There is no case where his decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. So when you say his deep disaffection for the Dems means he can't be impartial then I have to ask on what do you base that opinion on.

2. Not sure if he has actually said that the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him, but Good Lord how can you blame him for thinking that? You don't see the timing of all these allegations and calls for investigations as somewhat suspect? You say you have eyes an common sense, but it does not appear that is the case. This has been one long delay and deny tactic on the part of the Democrats, which is fine but not when you set out ahead of time to viciously smear the reputation of a nominee for no other reason than political objectives. They had already said they would do anything to stop the confirmation of Trump's nominee no matter who it was.

3. "Happily he's sobered up". That's really low, OL. You got any reason to support your contention that he was under the influence of anything? No, you don't, and that is pretty reprehensible on your part.

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

There were only two witnesses--Kavanaugh who of course would deny it, and his friend Mark Judge who said he does not recall it and wrote a book about his life at the time being full of black outs.
As with most sexual assaults, they don't happen in the view of many others. It's kind of illegal, you know?

No, there were several witnesses named by Fraud, one of whom is her friend, neither of whom corroborated her story.

 

[Bush92]

3 points:

1. Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals back in 2004, but got filibustered by the Dems and didn't get confirmed. Bush renominated him again in 2006, and after a difficult and bruising fight got confirmed that time. And yet there is no case or example that shows partiality by him against the Dems. There is no case where his decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. So when you say his deep disaffection for the Dems means he can't be impartial then I have to ask on what do you base that opinion on.

2. Not sure if he has actually said that the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him, but Good Lord how can you blame him for thinking that? You don't see the timing of all these allegations and calls for investigations as somewhat suspect? You say you have eyes an common sense, but it does not appear that is the case. This has been one long delay and deny tactic on the part of the Democrats, which is fine but not when you set out ahead of time to viciously smear the reputation of a nominee for no other reason than political objectives. They had already said they would do anything to stop the confirmation of Trump's nominee no matter who it was.

3. "Happily he's sobered up". That's really low, OL. You got any reason to support your contention that he was under the influence of anything? No, you don't, and that is pretty reprehensible on your part.

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

There were only two witnesses--Kavanaugh who of course would deny it, and his friend Mark Judge who said he does not recall it and wrote a book about his life at the time being full of black outs.
As with most sexual assaults, they don't happen in the view of many others. It's kind of illegal, you know?

There were ZERO witnesses because this shit never happened you loon.

 

[iceberg]

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

There were only two witnesses--Kavanaugh who of course would deny it, and his friend Mark Judge who said he does not recall it and wrote a book about his life at the time being full of black outs.
As with most sexual assaults, they don't happen in the view of many others. It's kind of illegal, you know?

No, there were several witnesses named by Fraud, one of whom is her friend, neither of whom corroborated her story.

and one even came out today to say she was told WHAT to say and how to say it.

kinda of illegal, ya know?

 

[rightwinger]

I guess it's as close as we'll get to an "I'm sorry" for all the disrespectful, flippant responses to questions and angry shouting at last week's hearing. Just remember, he's really impartial.
LOL

• I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge

Yes, I was emotional last Thursday. I hope everyone can understand I was there as a son, husband and dad.
By
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Oct. 4, 2018 7:30 p.m. ET

I was deeply honored to stand at the White House July 9 with my wife, Ashley, and my daughters, Margaret and Liza, to accept President Trump’s nomination to succeed my former boss and mentor, Justice Anthony Kennedy, on the Supreme Court. My mom, Martha—one of the first women to serve as a Maryland prosecutor and trial judge, and my inspiration to become a lawyer—sat in the audience with my dad, Ed.

That night, I told the American people who I am and what I believe. I talked about my 28-year career as a lawyer, almost all of which has been in public service. I talked about my 12 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the second most important court in the country, and my five years of service in the White House for President George W. Bush. I talked about my long record of advancing and promoting women, including as a judge—a majority of my 48 law clerks have been women—and as a longtime coach of girls’ basketball teams.


As I explained that night, a good judge must be an umpire—a neutral and impartial arbiter who favors no political party, litigant or policy. As Justice Kennedy has stated, judges do not make decisions to reach a preferred result. Judges make decisions because the law and the Constitution compel the result. Over the past 12 years, I have ruled sometimes for the prosecution and sometimes for criminal defendants, sometimes for workers and sometimes for businesses, sometimes for environmentalists and sometimes for coal miners. In each case, I have followed the law. I do not decide cases based on personal or policy preferences. I am not a pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant judge. I am not a pro-prosecution or pro-defense judge. I am a pro-law judge.
As Justice Kennedy showed us, a judge must be independent, not swayed by public pressure. Our independent judiciary is the crown jewel of our constitutional republic. The Supreme Court is the last line of defense for the separation of powers, and for the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court must never be viewed as a partisan institution. The justices do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle. They do not caucus in separate rooms. As I have said repeatedly, if confirmed to the court, I would be part of a team of nine, committed to deciding cases according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I would always strive to be a team player.

During the confirmation process, I met with 65 senators and explained my approach to the law. I participated in more than 30 hours of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I submitted written answers to nearly 1,300 additional questions. I was grateful for the opportunity.

After all those meetings and after my initial hearing concluded, I was subjected to wrongful and sometimes vicious allegations. My time in high school and college, more than 30 years ago, has been ridiculously distorted. My wife and daughters have faced vile and violent threats.

Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

Going forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good. As a judge, I have always treated colleagues and litigants with the utmost respect. I have been known for my courtesy on and off the bench. I have not changed. I will continue to be the same kind of judge I have been for the last 12 years. And I will continue to contribute to our country as a coach, volunteer, and teacher. Every day I will try to be the best husband, dad, and friend I can be. I will remain optimistic, on the sunrise side of the mountain. I will continue to see the day that is coming, not the day that is gone.

I revere the Constitution. I believe that an independent and impartial judiciary is essential to our constitutional republic. If confirmed by the Senate to serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep an open mind in every case and always strive to preserve the Constitution of the United States and the American rule of law.

Judge Kavanaugh has been nominated as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Appeared in the October 5, 2018, print edition.
Opinion | I Am an Independent, Impartial Judge

He claims to be independent and impartial, yet he was selected for the SC by a far right special interest group specifically because he is NOT independent or impartial

Yea ...he is impartial
Even though the Clintons are out to get him

 

[BS Filter]

3 points:

1. Kavanaugh was nominated to the DC Court of Appeals back in 2004, but got filibustered by the Dems and didn't get confirmed. Bush renominated him again in 2006, and after a difficult and bruising fight got confirmed that time. And yet there is no case or example that shows partiality by him against the Dems. There is no case where his decision was overturned by the SCOTUS. So when you say his deep disaffection for the Dems means he can't be impartial then I have to ask on what do you base that opinion on.

2. Not sure if he has actually said that the Democrats staged this whole thing to stop him, but Good Lord how can you blame him for thinking that? You don't see the timing of all these allegations and calls for investigations as somewhat suspect? You say you have eyes an common sense, but it does not appear that is the case. This has been one long delay and deny tactic on the part of the Democrats, which is fine but not when you set out ahead of time to viciously smear the reputation of a nominee for no other reason than political objectives. They had already said they would do anything to stop the confirmation of Trump's nominee no matter who it was.

3. "Happily he's sobered up". That's really low, OL. You got any reason to support your contention that he was under the influence of anything? No, you don't, and that is pretty reprehensible on your part.

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

There were only two witnesses--Kavanaugh who of course would deny it, and his friend Mark Judge who said he does not recall it and wrote a book about his life at the time being full of black outs.
As with most sexual assaults, they don't happen in the view of many others. It's kind of illegal, you know?

Blah, blah, blah. Answer my question, do you believe in the American concept of justice, innocent until proven guilty or not?

 

[iceberg]

You guys have all been playing "lawyer" too long. I don't need fucking PROOF to comment on his behavior during the testimony. I already told you what I did and did NOT mean by it and if you ask me, you guys are all overreacting almost as much as Kavanaugh did. Stop the tears. I honestly don't like to see it.

Maybe you shouldn't throw shit around then. Cuz the wind direction can change. This isn't about playing at lawyering, this is about what's fair and honest. Which the Democrats have not been through this whole sad saga.

I AM being honest; that is what I think. You don't agree, fine.

Not one person corroborated Ford's story. So you don't believe in the American concept of justice, Innocent until proven guilty.

There were only two witnesses--Kavanaugh who of course would deny it, and his friend Mark Judge who said he does not recall it and wrote a book about his life at the time being full of black outs.
As with most sexual assaults, they don't happen in the view of many others. It's kind of illegal, you know?

Blah, blah, blah. Answer my question, do you believe in the American concept of justice, innocent until proven guilty or not?

it's complex. she doesn't do well with complexity.