Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Congrats, Democrats. You just made a lifelong enemy. Good job.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

It's a shame, because he was famously such a nonpartisan figure up to this point. I like how this theme in conservative circles just takes it for granted that he's completely unfit to be a judge and doesn't seem to care.

Anyway, can you give some examples Doc of realistic cases that might come before the Supreme Court where Kavanaugh would've sided one way, but now will go the other due to a primal need to pwn the libs? Like, was he going to uphold Chevron deference, but now is going to crush to the federal bureaucracy's capacity to regulate commerce because libs hurt his feelings?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Like, was he going to uphold Chevron deference, but now is going to crush to the federal bureaucracy's capacity to regulate commerce because libs hurt his feelings?

I mean, isn't that the argument that's been had for the last week? That he's a rage-aholic frat boy and will swing the court to such a degree we're going to lose RvW?

But to answer your question above, I cannot. I'm just antagonizing the butthurts on this forum. If I had to guess he'll be fairly centrist, but maintain his historical jurisprudence as demonstrated on this blog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/poten ... kavanaugh/

He does see, in my opinion, a role in limiting what he views as 'judicial activism'. So whether or not that's activism in of itself I couldn't really say.

eta: In a timely article Yahoo News posted this:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-co ... 39762.html

With Kavanaugh confirmed, a bloc of conservative justices may set the Supreme Court's agenda

On Saturday afternoon, as women bellowed objections from the Senate galleries and other protesters chanted slogans and listened to speeches in front of the Supreme Court, senators confirmed Brett M. Kavanaugh to a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court by a vote of 50-48.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the lone Republican opposed to Kavanaugh’s confirmation, voted present as a courtesy to Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who favored Kavanaugh but was away from the Senate for his daughter’s wedding. Kavanaugh is the second Supreme Court justice appointed by President Trump. The vote at the end of a relatively untroubled Saturday of mild protests and senatorial speeches marked an anticlimax for a political drama that has riveted the nation for weeks and may have a few surprises yet to come.

Kavanaugh will take over Justice Anthony Kennedy’s swing seat as soon as Tuesday morning. Observers will be watching to see if the court’s five-justice majority sets out on a radical project to refashion American law in accordance with the conservative movement’s desires, or whether one of those five justices takes on the role of checking those ambitions and steering the Court on a more moderate path.

If any of the court’s conservatives step into the swing voter role, observers almost unanimously agree it will likely be Chief Justice Roberts. Roberts, however, has been a fairly reliable conservative vote during his 13 years on the bench, tending to break with Republicans only rarely, in cases where the Court’s legitimacy is at stake — such as the bitter partisan battle over the Affordable Care Act. The question of the years to come is whether that tendency will expand on account of the court’s new realities.

Unlike Justice Kennedy, Kavanaugh has a reputation as a hardline conservative partisan. Many of the Senators voting against Kavanaugh’s confirmation cited the partisan sentiments expressed in his opening statement at last Thursday’s hearing to consider Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a high school party in early 1980s. In that prepared statement, Kavanaugh blamed Democrats for allowing Ford’s allegations to come to light and appeared to promise revenge against them if he were confirmed to the bench.

Early in his career, Kavanaugh served in roles more partisan than a typical nominee to the court. In addition to more traditional clerkships and a stint at the Solicitor General’s Office, Kavanaugh worked as a prosecutor in Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton, making a reputation for himself as one of the most aggressive prosecutors in a famously unsparing operation pursuing the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He also got involved in the recount fight on George W. Bush’s side in the disputed 2000 presidential election. Kavanaugh went on to serve in the Bush White House, first in the counsel’s office and then as staff secretary, managing judicial nominations and other hot-button issues in the fraught years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This work remained shrouded in some mystery even on the day of his confirmation vote.

President Bush nominated Kavanaugh for a seat on the D.C. Circuit in 2003, but Democratic senators who accused him of being too partisan stalled his confirmation for three years.

“Some might call Mr. Kavanaugh the Zelig of young Republican lawyers,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said at his initial confirmation hearing in 2004. “He has managed to find himself at the center of so many high-profile, controversial issues in his short career, from the notorious Starr Report to the Florida recount, to this president’s secrecy and privilege claims, to post-9/11 legislative battles, including the victims compensation fund, to controversial judicial nominations.”

Because of his partisan track record prior to his time on the bench, his 12 years of uniformly conservative decisions at the D.C. Circuit, and the conservative leanings of the four other Republican-appointed justices, Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court has been widely expected to mark the end of a dynamic that has helped to determine the court’s decisions for roughly 47 years. While justices appointed by Republican presidents have for many decades constituted the majority of the Court, several of those Justices, including Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, did not hold to a doctrinaire Republican ideology and were considered swing votes.

Kennedy, who is retiring and whose seat Kavanaugh is taking, originally appointed by President Ronald Reagan, was widely considered the court’s last remaining swing vote. While Kennedy reliably voted with the conservatives on many issues, he habitually broke with them on issues of individual rights, voting in a sometimes uneasy alliance with the liberal justices on social issues like marriage equality and reproductive rights. Kennedy is the author of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court’s landmark decision establishing a right to same-sex marriage. Kennedy himself replaced Justice Lewis F. Powell, also a Republican-appointed swing justice.

At Justice Powell’s retirement, President Reagan had sought to move the court to the right by appointing a firebrand conservative judge from the D.C. Circuit, Robert Bork. The failure of Bork’s nomination paved the way for the more heterodox Anthony Kennedy.

Kavanaugh himself did little to dispel expectations that he would follow a conservative line in his confirmation hearings. He signaled in a number of ways that he intends to chip away at access to abortion. He took a hard line on guns. He refused to provide any comfort that he would uphold the law against denying health insurance coverage on account of preexisting conditions. He outlined and expansive vision of executive power that would limit the ability of other branches of government to constrain or investigate the president and his associates.

With Kavanaugh stepping in for Kennedy, the court appears likely to have five reliably conservative votes on most issues. The person who is likely to determine whether this majority will embark on a broad reevaluation of the Court’s decisions or hew to its swing-vote dominated recent past is Chief Justice John Roberts. In his 13 years on the bench, the chief justice has not fit the mold of a Kennedy or Powell, but he is the most centrist of the five. Observers predict that Kavanaugh’s confirmation will lead to a large volume of so-called test cases reaching the court; test cases are lawsuits identified and advanced through the appellate courts by activists (conservative activists, in this case) because they feature an issue on which the activists want the law to change. A similar dynamic may play out with litigation around the Mueller investigation, with interested parties like Andrew Miller, the Roger Stone associate who is resisting a grand jury subpoena, appealing cases to the Supreme Court to see if the justices will apply a broader vision of executive power than they have in the past.

The votes of only four justices are necessary to grant a case the opportunity to be heard by the Justices, so Kavanaugh and his three highly conservative colleagues, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas, have the power to put a test case on the Supreme Court’s agenda. Once a test case is before the court, Roberts will have to decide whether to reshape the law according to the conservatives’ desires or to transition into the role of a swing justice, something he has occasionally done to uphold parts of the Affordable Care Act. Soon, Roberts may have to decide whether he will play a similar role on questions of executive power, setting up a direct confrontation with the president, particularly if the questions concern the special counsel investigation into Trump’s possible ties to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Kavanaugh’s raucous confirmation process became, in some ways, a microcosm of Trump’s presidency. The policy implications were largely secondary to a dizzying array of controversies piled up faster than the body politic could digest. Trouble started from the first day, with Kavanaugh’s widely lampooned praise of President Trump. “No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination,” the freshly minted nominee told the president in the East Room of the White House.

From there, the issues multiplied. Washington Post reporters looking into Kavanaugh’s large, fluctuating credit card debt reported that the White House had attributed it to a seemingly improbable tale about baseball tickets (a White House official would later say this initial report was misleading).

Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill began to fight about the release of documents from Kavanaugh’s time in the White House, with Republicans settling on a highly restricted and accelerated document production that may have left some lurking time bombs in the government’s files.

When hearings kicked off, the controversies continued. Kavanaugh refused to shake the hand of a man whose daughter had been murdered in the Parkland shootings in Florida. He appeared to trip up over questions from Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., about whether he’d discussed the special counsel’s Russia investigation with anyone from the president’s law firm. And documents initially marked confidential showed that he’d played a more significant role in a Senate hacking scandal and the confirmation of certain controversial judicial nominees than he had let on in past sworn testimony to the Senate.

Finally, after the initial hearings concluded, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez came forward to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault, and a third woman accused Kavanaugh of crude behavior in a lurid sworn affidavit. Ford’s allegations led to an extraordinary additional hearing before the Senate judiciary committee and a controversial supplemental FBI investigation.

But in the end, none of the controversies, not even the blockbuster sexual misconduct allegations that came to light at the end of the confirmation process, could halt Kavanaugh’s momentum and the determination of the Senate’s Republican majority to put him on the bench for life and start an uncertain new chapter in the court’s history.

Although the vote was anticlimactic, a few thousand protesters gathered outside the Capitol building and — a few hours before the final vote — crossed police lines to rally on the steps of the U.S. Senate, prompting mass arrests.

The protest rally then moved to the steps of the Supreme Court, just a few hundred yards away, where members of the Senate addressed the crowd.

“This is not defeat. This is the beginning of a revolution in this country,” said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass.. He added moments later that he was calling for “a revolution at the ballot box.”

Inside the chamber, protests continued during the vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Vice President Mike Pence presided over the Senate, providing the insurance of an extra Republican vote if needed, and he warned spectators in the gallery not to interrupt.

But as soon as the vote was called, about a dozen protesters — most of them women — stood and voiced their opposition. “I am a patriot. I do not consent,” one woman yelled. She screamed loudly as she was taken by Capitol police out of the chamber and down the hall.

Protesters interrupted the vote several more times, specifically targeting lawmakers who had cast the deciding votes in favor of Kavanaugh after struggling with whether they should do so.

“You’re a coward, Flake,” one young man yelled at Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who a week ago, bucked his own party to call for a one-week delay to allow for an FBI investigation into Ford’s allegations of sexual assault.

When Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., voted in favor of the nomination, a young woman stood and yelled out, “I am a survivor of sexual assault. How dare you try to save your own seat?”

There was another outburst when Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, voted aye. Collins was essentially the deciding vote for Kavanaugh.

Pence issued a few warnings to the gallery, the last coming just before the Senate clerk announced the final vote of 50-48. When Pence announced that Kavanaugh’s nomination had been officially confirmed and approved by the Senate, a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., pumped his fist and walked out the door.

And another round of protests erupted in the gallery. “This is a stain on American history. Do you understand that?” a woman stood and yelled before being apprehended by police.

Outside the Capitol, protesters yelled “Shame!” at Pence’s motorcade as he departed.

I can't imagine why I would think Democrats think Kavanaugh is out to get them or the 'Liberal Agenda'.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

Like, was he going to uphold Chevron deference, but now is going to crush to the federal bureaucracy's capacity to regulate commerce because libs hurt his feelings?

I mean, isn't that the argument that's been had for the last week? That he's a rage-aholic frat boy and will swing the court to such a degree we're going to lose RvW?

But to answer your question above, I cannot. I'm just antagonizing the butthurts on this forum. If I had to guess he'll be fairly centrist, but maintain his historical jurisprudence as demonstrated on this blog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/poten ... kavanaugh/

He does see, in my opinion, a role in limiting what he views as 'judicial activism'. So whether or not that's activism in of itself I couldn't really say.

- Doc

See, this is where things get interesting. Prior to the hearing, any future ruling would likely been somewhat expected given his record. But now, Kavanaugh has a choice that must be made. Does he decide to be extra careful in how he approaches his decisions so as not to confirm the worst expectations of non-Republicans, or does he decide to go all out on his “hell to pay” promises by taking a distinctly partisan route and penning decisions full of barely-disguised vitriol and/or contempt for the ‘other side’?

Does he try for a legacy of mature judicial responsibility, or one where he’ll be remembered as the perpetual, whiny, injured, rageaholic snowflake frat-boy that he threatened to be?

Decisions, decisions.

[_Res Ipsa]

Look Doc, if you’re going to declare that I’m having this conversation with you in bad faith, then I’ll just say “have a good day” and move on.

You're the one that is declaring people plotting against other people within the political arena is somehow this mystical unknowable concept at best and that it's a nutbjob conspirator theory tinfoil hat wearing angle at worst. It's not like Katz is literally part of a self-professed Trump resistance movement, though.

I don't understand how what you said is responsive to what I said. You were talking about folks on the left arguing in bad faith. I didn't accuse you of arguing in bad faith. Anyone can both (1) argue in bad faith and (2) make a bad argument. I'm not saying that political plotting is a mystical concept -- I'm saying that I don't see in this set of facts the obvious political conspiracy that you think is obvious. It seems to me, that if you are saying the whole thing is a "political hit job," then you must have some mental picture of how it all happened that leads you to that conclusion. I could sit around all day dreaming up factual conspiracy scenarios, but why do that when I can ask you?

If you can’t accept that I don’t interpret a complicated factual situation the way you do, even when you think the answer is obvious, then I’ve misjudged you. When you say the “whole thing” is a political hit job, that could mean all kinds of scenarios. I’m assuming you have some kind of picture in mind, so that’s why I’m asking specifics.

I've been pretty clear throughout the entire thread. I think this is a coordinated effort made by Democrat partisans to resist Trump, and Kavanaugh was a target of opportunity. Clearly. That's exactly what happened.

There are literally million s of D partisans in the country. Telling me that unnamed partisans "coordinated" doesn't tell me anything specific. It doesn't let me assess evidence. That's why I started asking about Ford. If "the whole thing" is a hit job, then the natural place to start asking questions is Ford's role in it. That's why I've asked you, and I'm asking for the third time, whether she was lying when she testified about her story before Congress. Why won't you answer that question?

I’m a little way because the way you are approaching this reminds me of ever conspiracy theory crank I’ve ever conversed with. Insisting that that the situation is obvious and expressing contempt for those who don’t agree is the modus operandi of the 911 truther or the moon landing is a hoax crowd.

That fact that you can compare a partisan plot to take down Kavanaugh with 9-11 truthers or a moon landing hoax is exactly why you're arguing in bad faith. It couldn't be more ridiculous what you just posted.[/quote]

But what you are accusing me of arguing is not what I'm arguing. I addressed the way you are arguing. And when you start out by saying "explain X" instead of going over the facts and explaining how they fit together to support the claim you are making, you are absolutely using the same form of argument used to support every conspiracy claim on the planet. An analogy: I read something in the newspaper in the military and post here about how there is some kind of plot within the military to do something nefarious. You, having experience in the military, tell me "hey dude, that's absolutely SOP. There's nothing suspicious about that and here's why." But I just keep repeating that there is an "obvious plot" and you are in bad faith because you won't admit it.

Likewise, demanding an explanation for how F found her lawyer is a classic CT argument. Explain why the flag waves when there isn’t any air. Explain why the collapsing tower looks exactly like a controlled demolition. But CT arguments don’t match up with my picture of you from all my dealing with you on the board. So rather than write you off as a crank on this topic, I’m trying to understand exactly what you are seeing in this complex set of facts that I am not.

So, you don't know. You don't know how a registered Democrat Trump protestor who had indirect connections to Kavanaugh in high school could possibly be linked up with Debra Katz, and open and avowed feminist and political activist who is part of an openly Trump resistance movement.

Wait a second. You didn't ask me how "could" F have met K. You asked me this: [quiote]How did Christine Ford meet Debra Katz....

And the only truthful answer you or I could give to that question is "I don't know." Because we don't. With respect to your revised question, she could have met Katz a million different ways. Katz is a high profile lawyer in Washington DC who represents whistleblowers and women on discrimination/harassment/assault issues. She could have looked in any number of publications and found her. She might have had a friend or relative who worked with Katz. She could have contacted an attorney who couldn't take the case and recommended Katz. She could have had a friend or relative, or friend of a friend, or friend of a friend of a friend who had some contact with POGO or other organization Katz was affiliated with. She could have read an article by Katz, or had a friend who read an article by Katz. The possibilities are practically endless. And they are all mundane explanations that don't require a puppet master or conspiracy.

Now, there are answers to the moon landing question and the 911 question, and there certainly is an answer to the question “how did Ford find her lawyers?” But I din’t have access to that answer and neither do you. So the honest answer is “I don’t know.” Anything beyond that is simply making stuff up.”

All I can say is that I see nothing in F retaining Katz that causes me to be suspicious that “the whole thing” is a political hit job. Based on my experience, I would guess she found Katz based on a recommendation from a friend or family member who knew Katz professionally, personally, or by reputation. Or maybe a friend of a friend. That’s how most people find their lawyers.

Well. You're getting closer. Let me know if you care enough to start making the connections that are open to a Google search and show a link through their political actions. You do realize, that it's a fairly common investigative practice my law enforcement and intelligence agencies to literally draw link charts between people, discover what their connections are, and then draw conclusions so they can understand networks and organizations? This isn't moon landing conspiracy stuff. This is just basic common sense. Weird that you think making connections and drawing conclusions is akin to the Truther movement.

You're talking to a guy who spent a number of years doing link analyses. But you clearly don't understand what that means. It doesn't mean that, if you find a "link" between people, you automatically jump to a conspiracy or nefarious plot. You can't skip the mundane, ordinary explanations like "this is exactly how people find lawyers." You can't skip over the fact that what F needed in a lawyer was someone in DC who wasn't conflicted out because they were representing any of the governmental officials involved, who didn't want to risk their legal practices by going up against a potential supreme court judge backed by powerful politicians, etc. Frankly, that makes Frank a perfect fit for what Ford needed in a lawyer. What would require some explanation is if she had hired some ambulance chaser from Tuscaloosa.

There is nothing surprising or unusual about K being represented by F. You're trying to claim that some extraordinary occurrence is needed to explain something that is mundane and ordinary, if you understand how people find lawyers, especially in high profile cases. Occam's razor, dude.

If I try to put myself in F’s shoes — having been outed by he press and knowing I’m up against some of the most powerful men in the country who will do anything to discredit me (cough Hatch cough), I’d be looking for good lawyers with experience in sexual assault cases as well as high profile political hearings. That’s likely to be more than one lawyer. And the question I’d be asking is who is the best.

And you'd naturally end up at Katz, Marshall, and Banks, LLP. Naturally.

https://www.kmblegal.com/attorneys-and-staff/debra-katz

Well, she has to end up with some qualified attorney who will take the case, right? DC lawyer? Check. Sexual harassment litigator? Check. Whistleblower litigator? Bonus! Why do you think there is anything weird about F ending up retaining a lawyer whose experience is, frankly, pretty much what she needed in a lawyer?

My personal experience includes attending a private, east coast law school, where I observed the extent of networking that resulted from being educated in preparation schools. It was a real eye opener for this west coast kid who went to public schools. F attended UNC for undergrad, so it doesn’t surprise me at all that she could work her connections and end up with Katz. From there, I would imagine Katz provided recommendations for other lawyers.

Now you're getting. A team was put together, with a goal in mind. Can you point out how Ford got into contact with Katz, and then how Katz got into contact with the other players? Because we're actually starting to see a strategy form, all I need you to do is make the connections.

eta: *cough* Michael Bromwich *cough*

I mean, if you're willing, we can start to piece together Ford's team, and put together the link chart that would show the connections that would undeniably show this was an effort by the Democrats to resist Trump. Let me know.

Sure, a team was put together. Look, this was a mammoth undertaking for any attorney. Ford was in deep weeds. She was up against some of the meanest, nastiest, slimiest political operatives in the country. Look at how they tried to frame an innocent guy for the whole incident just to save their guy. Her lawyers had an extremely short period of time to do what any good lawyer would do: verify the client, get a handle on the facts, try and interview witnesses, and preparation the client. One thing Katz didn't have was experience with hearings. Look at Bromwich's resume: he spent most of his career researching governmental corruption. Digging the facts out of a complicated case is a skill, and his resume shows he has mad skillz in that area. He also has experience with Congressional hearings. Again, there is nothing unusual about Katz needed more lawyer help, identify what kind of experience she needed, and bringing on another lawyer with that experience.

Are both lawyers critical of Trump? Sure. That's a really big club these days. And those DC lawyers who support Trump aren't going to take a case like this.

Again, you're assuming that some kind of puppet master is needed for this set of facts, when nothing of the kind is needed. You're assuming that there is something unusual about the connections here, when there isn't . Assuming that connections=conspiracy is how we end up with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[_EAllusion]

Doc, I think you missed the thrust of my question. Of course Kavanaugh was going to be harmful to liberal policy aims. I am asking what he is going to do now that he wouldn't have done before as a result of personal grievances.

I think partisan rage Kavanaugh was equal parts show for Republicans and revealing who he pretty obviously already was. If you think something snapped in his head that will affect his jurisprudence, then how? Which cases are going the other way now?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc, I think you missed the thrust of my question. Of course Kavanaugh was going to be harmful to liberal policy aims. I am asking what he is going to do now that he wouldn't have done before as a result of personal grievances.

I think partisan rage Kavanaugh was equal parts show for Republicans and revealing who he pretty obviously already was. If you think something snapped in his head that will affect his jurisprudence, then how? Which cases are going the other way now?

I have no idea. I don't occupy space in his head. But if you think people are unaffected by other people's actions, in this case Kavanaugh having had this experience, I think you're more optimistic than I am. Could there be a landmark case, where at some point a Liberal or Leftist cause comes to the Supreme Court where Kavanaugh will reflect back on this time in his life and have it affect his approach, decision, or due diligence? I think so. There IS a reason why the court is considered Liberal or Conservative. It's because they favor Liberal or Conservative interpretations of the law.

Other than that I'm not sure what you want me to say. The fear I think you're attempting to poo poo is coming mainly from the Left and what Kavanaugh is going to do. That's why I went through the bother of highlighting the Yahoo News article, which was to underscore that this perception exists. Whether or not it's true? *shrugs* You might as well tell me there is no such thing as a Liberal or Conservative judge and that judicial activism is just paranoia.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Doc, I think you missed the thrust of my question. Of course Kavanaugh was going to be harmful to liberal policy aims. I am asking what he is going to do now that he wouldn't have done before as a result of personal grievances.

I think partisan rage Kavanaugh was equal parts show for Republicans and revealing who he pretty obviously already was. If you think something snapped in his head that will affect his jurisprudence, then how? Which cases are going the other way now?

I have no idea. I don't occupy space in his head. But if you think people are unaffected by other people's actions, in this case Kavanaugh having had this experience, I think you're more optimistic than I am. Could there be a landmark case, where at some point a Liberal or Leftist cause comes to the Supreme Court where Kavanaugh will reflect back on this time in his life and have it affect his approach, decision, or due diligence? I think so. There IS a reason why the court is considered Liberal or Conservative. It's because they favor Liberal or Conservative interpretations of the law.

Other than that I'm not sure what you want me to say. The fear I think you're attempting to poo poo is coming mainly from the Left and what Kavanaugh is going to do. That's why I went through the bother of highlighting the Yahoo News article, which was to underscore that this perception exists. Whether or not it's true? *shrugs* You might as well tell me there is no such thing as a Liberal or Conservative judge and that judicial activism is just paranoia.

- Doc

I think you are confusing two issues. In the article you highlighted a lot of examples of liberals pointing out, probably correctly, ways he's going to rule that they find undesirable and that he seems excessively partisan. This does not mean he's going to rule that way because he's been activated as a partisan hack as a result of this experience. He already was a something of a partisan hack and is ideologically conservative in a way that will produce outcomes liberals tend to dislike on contentious issues. His scowling rant about Democrats probably is best read as confirmation of who he was rather than a recent development. Prior to being a judge, his entire career arc is that of a sketchy GOP operative.

You posted a meme indicating a theme I've seen come up a fair amount in conservative circles that looks a like wish fulfillment where Kavanaugh now is coming to pwn the libs specifically because of what happened in Ford's allegations. I don't see it. And if that were true, obviously that makes him egregiously unfit to sit on any bench.

[_ajax18]

I don't see it. And if that were true, obviously that makes him egregiously unfit to sit on any bench.

So what if he is unfit? He's on the bench to stay whether unfit or not. Are the Democrats going to impeach him because they think he's retaliating for the slander leveled against him by congressional Democrats?

I don't think any level of investigation would satisfy some people. But I would really like to have found a hard conclusion on who was lying. The Duke rape case was unique in that by forcing the accused to spend so much money proving their innocence and the malicious prosecution by DA Nifong (D) trying to win favor with the black community in an upcoming election, we actually did get to ultimately see who was lying. I personally think Dr. Ford probably believes she was assaulted by Kavanaugh but she has mistaken his identity for someone else. If we could prove that were true, I believe she should face jail time for bearing false testimony. If she's mistaken, there is no way she can be sure and she testified she was 100% sure it was Kavanaugh. It's no surprise that she could pass a polygraph given that she once taught people how to do this in her career.

[_Res Ipsa]

I don't see it. And if that were true, obviously that makes him egregiously unfit to sit on any bench.

So what if he is unfit? He's on the bench to stay whether unfit or not. Are the Democrats going to impeach him because they think he's retaliating for the slander leveled against him by congressional Democrats?

I don't think any level of investigation would satisfy some people. But I would really like to have found a hard conclusion on who was lying. The Duke rape case was unique in that by forcing the accused to spend so much money proving their innocence and the malicious prosecution by DA Nifong (D) trying to win favor with the black community in an upcoming election, we actually did get to ultimately see who was lying. I personally think Dr. Ford probably believes she was assaulted by Kavanaugh but she has mistaken his identity for someone else. If we could prove that were true, I believe she should face jail time for bearing false testimony. If she's mistaken, there is no way she can be sure and she testified she was 100% sure it was Kavanaugh. It's no surprise that she could pass a polygraph given that she once taught people how to do this in her career.

You understand, don't you, that people can be 100% sure and still be wrong? I've seen it happen lots of times. So you're going to jail folks for being wrong? What about all the people who misidentified all those black guys in prison. Are we going to jail all them, too? If you're called to testify and you tell what you believe is the truth and it turns out you were wrong, should we really throw you in the slammer? Just for being wrong?

The only evidence about F and polygraphs comes from an ex-boyfriend who admits their relationship ended badly. You got any exes out there? Should we take everything they say about you as gospel? Both parties to the alleged conversation deny it. But bitches be lying', right?