Supreme Court Nominee #3

[Hope4More]

Very accurate. It's a vote on whether to vote. ;-)

LOL. Those who " know" me here know I'm typically incapable of saying things simply or of being succinct. And that I always admire those who can and are.

 

[CARIIS]

Whichever way this confirmation vote goes, I am worried about the fallout, in the streets. It's a terrible catch 22 situation.

you know my dear I have had these concerns for some time.

When tensions are high leadership needs to calming, soothing - not agitating and egging bad things along.

Between now and T-Giving might end up being scary times

 

[CARIIS]

LOL. Those who " know" me here know I'm typically incapable of saying things simply or of being succinct. And that I always admire those who can and are.

honey you do it far better than I

I actually enjoy writing that way about absurdities- it just oozes

no one needs more debate - we need all the people ignored by our Federal Bureau of Investigation to talk to the people via the media -- starting now.

 

[Hope4More]

Nominating SCOTUS justices is a serious matter. It's a lifetime appointment. Nominees are supposed to be held to the highest standards in the US. They're lowering the bar with this guy (again).

I know. And the fact that this nomination, even if he isn't confirmed, is not just going to damage the SC but ultimately, handfuls of repub senators at least, and perhaps the R party itself, is no consolation at all.

 

[BingoBongo]

Understandable, but at this level, I expect the candidate to focus on what the hearing was about (it was not about his family)

It was most certainly affecting his family!

Good grief, there were even cartoonists who were using his daughter to make their rude points about him.

I can fully understand, and accept, Kavanaugh's demeanor during his inquisition. Frankly I'm astounded that he didn't break out in hysterical laughter with some of the idiotic questioning that took place by "esteemed" members of the Senate. They were so obtuse as to assume that some of his classes yearbook notations re gas must have been about something much worse.

Boofing? Devil's Triangle? The Senate, media, and hysterical public did their best to make claims of alcohol and sexual abuse...no truth to that (at least for those terms) according to Kavanaugh's classmates.


When I was in HS, and as a young mother, friend and relatives referred to farting (especially when our kids did it) as "fluffing". There are other usuages for that word, and I'm fairly sure if his yearbook had used "fluffing" instead of "boofing" he would have been accused of making *advertiser censored* movies.

I do not believe that the current process with the Senate Judiciary Committee will last much longer, Senators (at least this set) are hardly qualified or unbiased enough to handle the task.

They were/are on a witch hunt.

It's one thing to find valid, provable, substantiated and quantifiable issues that would preclude him from this role...issues that are NOT indicative of relatively common/normal, high school/college behavior.

This was/is a witch hunt.

 

[Betty P]

you know my dear I have had these concerns for some time.

When tensions are high leadership needs to calming, soothing - not agitating and egging bad things along.

Between now and T-Giving might end up being scary times

Scary times, indeed. It's sad that so many Americans no longer have control of their own government. The federal government is supposed to work for us, not the other way around.

The Princeton study a couple of years ago revealed it's true

Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

 

[CARIIS]

Disagree. These protocols serve to put breaks on terribly important decisions being made by the Senate, the deliberative body, designed start to finish to not succumb to passions of the day. Bravo. There should be more of that, and strictly enforced, imo.

You understand it far better than I !

At this point each of us can tell each other what every single person who comes to the mike will say practically to the tee

bla bla bal

The fourth estate is our only hope !!

 

[BingoBongo]

Friend of Dr. Ford Felt Pressure to Revisit Statement

"McLean’s name might be familiar to readers. Ford’s ex-boyfriend submitted a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee contradicting Ford’s testimony in the hearing. Ford had claimed that she “never” assisted anyone in preparing for a polygraph exam, but the ex-boyfriend recalled her providing such assistance to her roommate at the time — Monica McLean, who went into the FBI. McLean vehemently denied receiving any such assistance, and that line of inquiry went dead."

Tell me this isn't suspicious.

 

[Betty P]

It was most certainly affecting his family!

Good grief, there were even cartoonists who were using his daughter to make their rude points about him.

I can fully understand, and accept, Kavanaugh's demeanor during his inquisition. Frankly I'm astounded that he didn't break out in hysterical laughter with some of the idiotic questioning that took place by "esteemed" members of the Senate. They were so obtuse as to assume that some of his classes yearbook notations re gas must have been about something much worse.

I do not believe that the current process with the Senate Judiciary Committee will last much longer, Senators (at least this set) are hardly qualified or unbiased enough to handle the task.

They were/are on a witch hunt.

It's one thing to find valid, provable, substantiated and quantifiable issues that would preclude him from this role...issues that are NOT indicative of relatively common/normal, high school/college behavior.

This was/is a witch hunt.

There were legitimate concerns about his professional and ethical qualifications to serve, but they were drowned out by the other issues.

They have to do with several instances where he lied to Congress while working for the Bush Administration and while testifying for nomination to his current position.

Check my post a couple pages back for the details.

Sanders Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Lied to Congress

• In his previous testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails had the subject line “spying.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he did not know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by the New York Times. This year an email revealed that while at the White House he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2004 Judge Kavanaugh testified the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit “was not one that I worked on personally.” Documents now contradict that statement. Newly released documents also call into question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles Pickering “was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh testified, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” New evidence released as part of these confirmation hearing contradicts that assertion. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• Kavanaugh testified before the committee that he did not believe polygraphs were reliable. In 2016 he wrote, “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to ‘screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.’ . . . The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” (Sack v. United States Department of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016)) What changed his opinion or was he misleading the committee as to his beliefs about the reliability of polygraph tests?

IMO, these problematic issues should have been the focus of the hearings. They're serious and should have disqualified him as a candidate.

 

[Gardenista]

It was most certainly affecting his family!
Good grief, there were even cartoonists who were using his daughter to make their rude points about him.
I can fully understand, and accept, Kavanaugh's demeanor during his inquisition. Frankly I'm astounded that he didn't break out in hysterical laughter with some of the idiotic questioning that took place by "esteemed" members of the Senate. They were so obtuse as to assume that some of his classes yearbook notations re gas must have been about something much worse.

I do not believe that the current process with the Senate Judiciary Committee will last much longer, Senators (at least this set) are hardly qualified or unbiased enough to handle the task.

They were/are on a witch hunt.

It's one thing to find valid, provable, substantiated and quantifiable issues that would preclude him from this role...issues that are NOT indicative of relatively common/normal, high school/college behavior.

This was/is a witch hunt.

I feel horrible because their filthy lies have caused he and his family so much pain. But I have laughed throughout much of this because it's such obvious BS.

 

[CARIIS]

Actually Flake did what he said he would do last THurs

vote of move forward and then decide

 

[CARIIS]

ok

We know collins time around three

I have little stomach to listen to all of them say everything they have been saying

does anyone know when flake goes

or the alaska one

those i want i to hear

booker karmela are neat to listen to as a result of the presence

anyone got times on the above mentioned??

 

[CARIIS]

I feel horrible because their filthy lies have caused he and his family so much pain. But I have laughed throughout much of this because it's such obvious BS.

Attempted rape/suffocation is rarely a laughable life event. imo

 

[Hope4More]

As an aside, as K no doubt knows, if he isn't confirmed to the SC, he faces the real possibility of being removed from his current appeals court bench.

 

[Hope4More]

There were legitimate concerns about his professional and ethical qualifications to serve, but they were drowned out by the other issues.

They have to do with several instances where he lied to Congress while working for the Bush Administration and while testifying for nomination to his current position.

Check my post a couple pages back for the details.

Sanders Demands FBI Investigate Whether Kavanaugh Lied to Congress

• In his previous testimony before Congress, Judge Kavanaugh was asked more than 100 times if he knew about files stolen by Republican staffers from Judiciary Committee Democrats. He said he knew nothing. Emails released as part of these hearings show that these files were regularly shared with Kavanaugh while he was on the White House staff. One of the emails had the subject line “spying.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh told Congress he did not know anything about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program prior to it being reported by the New York Times. This year an email revealed that while at the White House he might have been involved in some conversations about this program. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2004 Judge Kavanaugh testified the nomination of William Pryor to the 11th Circuit “was not one that I worked on personally.” Documents now contradict that statement. Newly released documents also call into question whether Judge Kavanaugh was truthful that the nomination of Charles Pickering “was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling.” Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• In 2006 Judge Kavanaugh testified, “I was not involved and am not involved in the questions about the rules governing detention of combatants.” New evidence released as part of these confirmation hearing contradicts that assertion. Was Judge Kavanaugh being truthful with the committee?

• Kavanaugh testified before the committee that he did not believe polygraphs were reliable. In 2016 he wrote, “As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to ‘screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles.’ . . . The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” (Sack v. United States Department of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (2016)) What changed his opinion or was he misleading the committee as to his beliefs about the reliability of polygraph tests?

IMO, these problematic issues should have been the focus of the hearings. They're serious and should have disqualified him as a candidate.

I agree. And there is every reason to believe there is more evidence against K in the 97% (I think that's the correct percent) of his records that weren't turned over.

Which is why McConnell didn't want him nominated, and perhaps why McConnell might not be so very devastated if K goes down.

All of those records & so much more will be available to dems with gavels at some point. The truth will out.

 

[Inthedetails]

Whichever way this confirmation vote goes, I am worried about the fallout, in the streets. It's a terrible catch 22 situation.

I'm not. Big issues have pulled people out in the streets lately....and then the next day it's as if it never happened. Feels weird.

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

SOrry guys this makes no sense !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only in govt!!!

Can you imagine a board meeting at McDonalds, spending hours discussing if you want to do something and then needing to vote about wanting to vote or not wanting to vote about voting on the vote and only if you vote to vote will you be able to vote but if you don't want to vote on taking the vote today you vote not to vote again by voting not to vote for the vote by voting no to voting resulting in no vote!!

Sure seems like we are all doing a heck of alot voting around this place!

Sure does not sound like a time efficient way of doing business!

just do your job already - enough already

Okay, here I come to the defense of the process. Democracy is messy. (And if you've ever served on a board, this happens all the time, even with small organizations with tiny budgets!)

jmo

 

[Inthedetails]

It was most certainly affecting his family!

I didn't say it didn't affect the family. I said the hearing was not about his family.

jmo

 

[BingoBongo]

Opinion | The Kavanaugh hearings were another rumbling of the volcano. And the left can’t hear it.

Though Donald Trump is not anyone’s idea of a conventional president, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh is not only extraordinarily qualified but also a deeply conventional choice. So when arguments about process failed, that part of the left that demands power above all other things turned to character assassination.

A vast swath of the public has concluded that the Democrats sat on an explosive charge until the last minute, and they imagine themselves being ambushed that way at work. They don’t want their daughters and sons to live in a society where allegation is conviction.

Toss in Michael Avenatti, and a New Yorker article that no other reputable news platform would stand behind as meeting their standards for reporting, and the volcano erupts because Kavanaugh — a thoroughly decent man, an obviously good man — was slimed.

Media elites locked inside “blue bubble” newsrooms don’t see, hear or feel it. Just as they didn’t see, hear, or feel the 2016 volcano’s rumblings either.

Thank you!

The media is soooooo far to the left these days that they have turned yellow journalism into fluorescent orange.

Most of them have one agenda, and that is to keep anyone conservative out of high positions. And they have, and will, use any angle to attempt their goal.

ALL reporting, unless it's obviously labeled an op-ed, should be reporting facts only...not speculation, not rumor, not assumptions, not bias commentary.

 

[BingoBongo]

What Democrats have said about an FBI Supplemental Background Investigation:

“It will not take a “tremendous amount of time,” but it is necessary if you truly want the facts to be known.” –Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
“It will only take a few days.” –Sen. Chuck Schumer
“The FBI has ample resources to do this within the 1-week period requested by the members of the Judiciary Committee. No one is asking that it take longer than a week …” – Sen. Chuck Schumer
“I have proposed and talked to some of my colleagues, and I know others have as well, about a finite period for an FBI investigation, maybe a week. George H.W. Bush ordered that in the Anita Hill case, a three-day investigation. That happened.” – Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
“I think I'm satisfied. … This is a very small universe of witnesses here and a very big FBI.” – Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
“And I have conveyed to my friends and colleagues that I had wished we would take a one-week pause, one week only.” –Sen.Chris Coons (D-DE)

Senate Judiciary Committee Receives Supplemental Background Investigation File on Kavanaugh Nomination | Chuck Grassley

LOL, but not that it doesn't appear to have achieved the goal they hoped for, one week, a few days isn't nearly enough.

The goalposts change with the wind.