​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett (4 Viewers)

[squistion]

But they will be asking Judge about her, right?

Yes, so it appears.

 

[dawgtrails]

I am guessing this Judge guy is going to be a terrible liar

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So what exactly do you think he was lying about?

The number of beers he drank on Thirsty Thurday at Squee's house?

The slang term for farting?

The name of a drinking game?

Grinding on Ford?

Something else?

I keep seeing "if he lied under oath then he is unfit".

What specifically do you think he was lying about?

And how do you think the FBI is going to verify that 30 years later?

If a witness appears that disputes Kavanaugh, with nothing more than he said he/she said, is that enough proof for you that he was lying?

If a witness appears that disputes Ford, with nothing more than she said he/she said, is that enough proof for you that she is lying?

How about, if confronted with an FBI interview his drinking buddy Mr. Judge states that Kavanaugh did do as alleged by Ford and that Kavanaugh contacted him, Judge, to get their stories straight and to remind him, Judge, of their boyhood pact of silence and if not silence, support, regardless of the truth.  Its possible.  Judge is weak.

 

[squistion]

I am guessing this Judge guy is going to be a terrible liar

He will claim that he can't remember due to his frequent blackout drinking. But that might be contradicted from what he has told others about that time, particularly his ex-girlfriend, who already has stated he admitted to her participating in a gang rape.

 

[parasaurolophus]

The swetnick accusations give judge a pretty easy "plead the 5th" 

 

[squistion]

I don’t think he has to say blackout drunk.  35 years, in fairness, is a pretty good reason for can’t recall.  

Not recalling a gang rape? Thank not something one should forget after 35 years.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I feel like this country has a drinking and penis problem.

Ahh beer googles and or whiskey ****.  Certainly problems in my younger years.

 

[Henry Ford]

The swetnick accusations give judge a pretty easy "plead the 5th" 

If the FBI investigation says “his friends pled the fifth” it will be bedlam. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Ahh beer googles and or whiskey ****.  certainly problems in my younger years.

For a moment I thought those might be nicknames for Kavanaugh’s childhood friends like “Donkey Kong Doug” and “Squi.”

 

[dawgtrails]

If the FBI investigation says “his friends pled the fifth” it will be bedlam. 

conservatives love the "if you got nothing to hide" line of thinking in most investigative instances. somehow doubt they would take that view if his buddies plead the 5th though. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

conservatives love the "if you got nothing to hide" line of thinking in most investigative instances. somehow doubt they would take that view if his buddies plead the 5th though. 

They would just set judge up as the fall guy. 

 

[timschochet]

If the FBI investigation says “his friends pled the fifth” it will be bedlam. 

I mentioned this before but I don’t think you can plead the 5th to the FBI. I think you can simply say I won’t answer, in which case then the FBI gets a grand jury to subpoena you and then you plead the 5th. But there’s no time for a grand jury here so I don’t know what happens. 

 

[timschochet]

About a week ago, several people who “contributed” to this thread in defense of Brett Kavanaugh were suspended because their posts were so tasteless and offensive. Now some of them have returned and once again the thread has become unreadable whenever they are present and “contributing”. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I mentioned this before but I don’t think you can plead the 5th to the FBI. I think you can simply say I won’t answer, in which case then the FBI gets a grand jury to subpoena you and then you plead the 5th. But there’s no time for a grand jury here so I don’t know what happens. 

I disagree. Any person is imbued with their Constitutional rights at all times.  (Absent being disabused of them by judicial order.) That is inherent in Miranda which is a bit more than just the 5th amendment, but not much if one believes the advice of counsel is a necessary component of knowingly and intelligently exercising a right against self incrimination.

 

[timschochet]

I disagree. Any person is imbued with their Constitutional rights at all times.  That is inherent in Miranda which is a bit more than just the 5th amendment, but not much if one believes the advice of counsel is a necessary component of knowingly and intelligently exercising a right against self incrimination.

You’re a lawyer and I am not so I defer to you, but I thought it was only when you were under oath. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

About a week ago, several people who “contributed” to this thread in defense of Brett Kavanaugh were suspended because their posts were so tasteless and offensive. Now some of them have returned and once again the thread has become unreadable whenever they are present and “contributing”. 

There are many people that make this thread unreadable.  Not just those you disagree with.  

 

[timschochet]

There are many people that make this thread unreadable.  Not just those you disagree with.  

I don’t think so. I can’t come up with an example of somebody on the “anti-Kavanaugh” side who has flooded this thread with offensive and inane comments. Can you? 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

You’re a lawyer and I am not so I defer to you, but I thought it was only when you were under oath. 

Yeah, but I am not a very good lawyer so maybe you should ask Maurile, AA., Henry Ford, Sein Fein, bigbottom, Otis or Woz.  You know, guys who know their stuff.  I'm just a drunken monkey.  I'm Kavanaugh times ten, but without the rapey and without the moral cowardice.

 

[timschochet]

Yeah, but I am not a very good lawyer so maybe you should ask Maurile, AA., Henry Ford, Sein Fein, bigbottom, Otis or Woz.  You know, guys who know their stuff.  I'm just a drunken monkey.

I would be stunned if you are not a very good lawyer. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would be stunned if you are not a very good lawyer. 

Well I appreciate that.

 

[Mario Kart]

One huge thing people should realize about Dr. Ford and Anita Hill is that they took their accusations to Congress. The two of them sat down and told their story in front of the country. That is much different than going to talk to Barbara Walters and crying on tv.

What has been good for the people of this country has not been happening in recent years. What happened to the ideals of this country? Many ideals have been flawed through the years, "All men are created equal," but that is for us to rectify and move forward understanding the errors of the past. What has been happening is zero understanding to the errors of the past and actually celebrating the errors we have had. It's simply wrong as a society, for us to continue doing this. Surely, Republicans see this. Surely, there are people on the Right that cannot agree with the societal errors that continue to occur.

Surely, I must be wrong since it continues.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I don’t think so. I can’t come up with an example of somebody on the “anti-Kavanaugh” side who has flooded this thread with offensive and inane comments. Can you? 

Yeah those calling him a rapist are pretty unreadable.  But I was more referring to this thread gets unreadable when one post you mentioned has to have 10 replies zinging him.  Easy to skip by the one post.  The guys that have to reply every time is the unreadable part. 

 

[sho nuff]

Do you have any interest in a reasoned conversation about this?  

New to this poster?

 

[zoonation]

There are many people that make this thread unreadable.  Not just those you disagree with.  

The ones who struggle with logic and deductive reasoning and continue to parrot false equivalencies and straw man arguments post after post are the most unfortunate.  Not talking about you, btw

 

[sho nuff]

I am going to laugh my ### off if the Left is successful in blocking Kavanaugh and, for their efforts, they get Amy Coney Barrett  

Kinda like the "don't get rid of Trump or we get Pence"?

rack 'em up!

Why laugh...you should understand that while people may not like the others politics...we actually have respect for the offices and don’t like seeing them tarnished by people completely unfit to serve.

 

[IC FBGCav]

Why laugh...you should understand that while people may not like the others politics...we actually have respect for the offices and don’t like seeing them tarnished by people completely unfit to serve.

I don't know why you respond to him.  He is either a troll or needs help.  His post show a truely disturbed person who has to hold in all the anger and hate IRL but will release it here.  

 

[sho nuff]

I don't know why you respond to him.  He is either a troll or needs help.  His post show a truely disturbed person who has to hold in all the anger and hate IRL but will release it here.  

Oh...I agree.  I’ve passed by most of his posts today.  But every now and then I challenge his posts.  As others did.

 

[timschochet]

In regards to all this talk about Amy Coney Barrett- the reason that Trump didn’t choose her in the first place is that she wouldn’t get approved. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are not going to vote for a person who is pledged to overturn Roe vs Wade. Not gonna happen. 

If Kavenaugh doesn’t get confirmed Trump will choose another conservative- but it won’t be Barrett. 

 

[Sand]

Just watching Stephanopolous and he had on both Graham and Hirono.  Graham interview was pretty repetitive of previous.  Hirono interview was more interesting.  She has pivoted from the sexual allegations to repeating multiple times statements about his objectivity.   It seemed to me the talking points have moved to highlight this part of his testimony rather the Ford allegations.  It's an interesting pivot.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don’t think so. I can’t come up with an example of somebody on the “anti-Kavanaugh” side who has flooded this thread with offensive and inane comments. Can you? 

I find the constant bringing up of gorsuch to be pretty silly. How can these posters be such supporters of the #metoo movement, but then completely ignore its existence and power when they keep bringing up this silly point. 

 

[timschochet]

Just watching Stephanopolous and he had on both Graham and Hirono.  Graham interview was pretty repetitive of previous.  Hirono interview was more interesting.  She has pivoted from the sexual allegations to repeating multiple times statements about his objectivity.   It seemed to me the talking points have moved to highlight this part of his testimony rather the Ford allegations.  It's an interesting pivot.

I don’t know if it’s that much of a pivot. Both are compelling arguments as to why he shouldn’t be confirmed, IMO. 

But let’s face it- the objectivity argument, while interesting, is not going o convince Collins, Flake, or a Murkowski. Unless the FBI comes up with something, they’re going to vote for Kavanaugh. 

 

[Sinn Fein]

I mentioned this before but I don’t think you can plead the 5th to the FBI. I think you can simply say I won’t answer, in which case then the FBI gets a grand jury to subpoena you and then you plead the 5th. But there’s no time for a grand jury here so I don’t know what happens. 

There is no reason for Judge to be "uncooperative".  He has a built in - "I can't recall" excuse to virtually any question from that era.  Now, if the FBI had more time, and could really dig into his book on the era - maybe they could poke and prod a little deeper - but Judge won't recall much of anything, and the FBI won't be able to do much about that.

If this was played out on a national stage, I suspect most people would interpret Judge as lying - but the FBI is not going to make judgement call like that - they will simply report on Judge's responses, and let the Senators decide what it means - and we already know what the senators will decide:  Dems will disbelieve Judge, and GOPers will find no reason to disbelieve Judge.

 

[timschochet]

I find the constant bringing up of gorsuch to be pretty silly. How can these posters be such supporters of the #metoo movement, but then completely ignore its existence and power when they keep bringing up this silly point. 

Well first I don’t understand why you would bring it up In the context of my post. I was talking about certain people on one side making offensive comments. Is bringing up Gorsuch offensive? 

Second, Gorsuch is usually brought up in response to the conspiratorial claim, oft repeated, that this is all a smear job because Kavanaugh is a conservative, or in revenge for Garland. The easy confirmation of Gorsuch refutes those claims; it’s not silly at all. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Long piece but detailed: HOW WE KNOW KAVANAUGH IS LYING - This man should not serve another day as any kind of judge…

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just watching Stephanopolous and he had on both Graham and Hirono.  Graham interview was pretty repetitive of previous.  Hirono interview was more interesting.  She has pivoted from the sexual allegations to repeating multiple times statements about his objectivity.   It seemed to me the talking points have moved to highlight this part of his testimony rather the Ford allegations.  It's an interesting pivot.

Everything else in a vacuum the 'What goes around comes around' statement is automatically disqualifying.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Well first I don’t understand why you would bring it up In the context of my post. I was talking about certain people on one side making offensive comments. Is bringing up Gorsuch offensive? 

Second, Gorsuch is usually brought up in response to the conspiratorial claim, oft repeated, that this is all a smear job because Kavanaugh is a conservative, or in revenge for Garland. The easy confirmation of Gorsuch refutes those claims; it’s not silly at all. 

Doesn't inane mean silly? 

 

[The Commish]

....based on the fact that he drank....AND had a penis?

I think it's more based on his latest actions, the lack of temperament, is willingness to lie under oath, his willingness to go on political tiraids during his job interview and his unwillingness to answer the simple questions laid out before him during said interview.  If we're being honest, Ford doesn't matter at all in terms of his interview.  We all saw his disqualifications on display just a few days ago.  It was quite spectacular.  

 

[timschochet]

NBC now reporting that despite Trump’s tweet last night, despite the assurances of Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, both of whom appeared on Sunday morning shows, the FBI continues to be very limited on who they can approach. Don McGann has instructed them that they can not question Julie Swetnick, nor are they allowed to question any Yale classmates of Kavanaugh who might contradict his testimony. McGann provided the FBI a small list of people they can question. 

So of course the White House is lying about this, and hoping nobody notices. 

 

[The Commish]

It used to be a place where we are ruled by facts....not emotions.

Tell me about it....THANKS TRUMP!!!!!   

 

[The Commish]

Just watching Stephanopolous and he had on both Graham and Hirono.  Graham interview was pretty repetitive of previous.  Hirono interview was more interesting.  She has pivoted from the sexual allegations to repeating multiple times statements about his objectivity.   It seemed to me the talking points have moved to highlight this part of his testimony rather the Ford allegations.  It's an interesting pivot.

Is this really a "pivot" though?  Let's be honest.  He gave Democrats a ton of new material that is now current day.  They really don't need the Ford allegations for their purposes any longer.  They have plenty that's less than a week old.  Prior to this there was still a question of whether he was a partisan hack.  We were able to assume he was reasoned in his temperament.  We were able to assume he was forthcoming with his positions.  Let's be honest, his unwillingness to answer questions directly, agree to further investigation of some of the details and completely partisan ladened opening statement was more legit ammo than the Dems could hope for.

 

[zoonation]

NBC now reporting that despite Trump’s tweet last night, despite the assurances of Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, both of whom appeared on Sunday morning shows, the FBI continues to be very limited on who they can approach. Don McGann has instructed them that they can not question Julie Swetnick, nor are they allowed to question any Yale classmates of Kavanaugh who might contradict his testimony. McGann provided the FBI a small list of people they can question. 

So of course the White House is lying about this, and hoping nobody notices. 

Protect the lies.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

Well first I don’t understand why you would bring it up In the context of my post. I was talking about certain people on one side making offensive comments. Is bringing up Gorsuch offensive? 

Second, Gorsuch is usually brought up in response to the conspiratorial claim, oft repeated, that this is all a smear job because Kavanaugh is a conservative, or in revenge for Garland. The easy confirmation of Gorsuch refutes those claims; it’s not silly at all. 

And no this doesnt even come close. For three reasons.

First, It is silly logic. "See they didnt do it before, so obviously they didnt do it now."  Its like saying a shoplifter went to the store last week and didnt steal anything so obviously he didnt this time. 

Second, the metoo movement had a fraction of the power then as it does now. So a 35 year old accusation with almost no details and the alleged people around the scene all saying they dont remember wouldnt have the weight it does now. 

Third it is simply possible they liked gorsuch a lot more. 

Plenty of other reasons to shoot down the conspiracy theories. Gorsuch isnt one of them. It is one of the sillier arguments in this thread, and that is saying something. 

 

[Mario Kart]

Long piece but detailed: HOW WE KNOW KAVANAUGH IS LYING - This man should not serve another day as any kind of judge…

When the Bar association and Yale come out saying he shouldn’t be confirmed. Maybe they know a thing or two. 

 

[timschochet]

And no this doesnt even come close. For three reasons.

First, It is silly logic. "See they didnt do it before, so obviously they didnt do it now."  Its like saying a shoplifter went to the store last week and didnt steal anything so obviously he didnt this time. 

Second, the metoo movement had a fraction of the power then as it does now. So a 35 year old accusation with almost no details and the alleged people around the scene all saying they dont remember wouldnt have the weight it does now. 

Third it is simply possible they liked gorsuch a lot more. 

Plenty of other reasons to shoot down the conspiracy theories. Gorsuch isnt one of them. It is one of the sillier arguments in this thread, and that is saying something. 

Sorry but none of your reasons hold any water: 

1. A big part of the “smear campaign” logic is “revenge for Garland”. So in other words the Democrats will skip a judge in Gorsuch and then seek their revenge? Yeah right. 

2. The woman’s movement, which demonstrated its power the day after Trump was inaugurated (the Woman’s March) was just as powerful in the spring of 2017 as it is now. It wasn’t called metoo yet I don’t think, but that March remains it’s biggest moment ever, and that occurred BEFORE the Gorsuch nomination. 

3. Gorsuch, in terms of his decisions, is much more conservative than Kavanaugh. So fail. 

Sorry, Para. The Gorsuch argument isn’t silly. It’s highly pertinent and unanswerable as a refutation to charges of conspiracy. 

 

[cosjobs]

Protect the lies.  

deny deny deny

create chaos

 

[badmojo1006]

If (probably when) Kavanaugh is confirmed, Chief Justice Roberts will become the swing vote. Maybe not as much as Kennedy was, but he sees his legacy slipping away and wants to retain some semblance of non-partisanship on the court 

 

[squistion]

Sorry but none of your reasons hold any water: 

1. A big part of the “smear campaign” logic is “revenge for Garland”. So in other words the Democrats will skip a judge in Gorsuch and then seek their revenge? Yeah right. 

2. The woman’s movement, which demonstrated its power the day after Trump was inaugurated (the Woman’s March) was just as powerful in the spring of 2017 as it is now. It wasn’t called metoo yet I don’t think, but that March remains it’s biggest moment ever, and that occurred BEFORE the Gorsuch nomination. 

3. Gorsuch, in terms of his decisions, is much more conservative than Kavanaugh. So fail. 

Sorry, Para. The Gorsuch argument isn’t silly. It’s highly pertinent and unanswerable as a refutation to charges of conspiracy. 

His argument is pretty much destroyed right there. Logic fail that Gorsuch would be skipped. Points 2 and 3 are just icing on the cake.

 

[Biff84]

NBC now reporting that despite Trump’s tweet last night, despite the assurances of Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, both of whom appeared on Sunday morning shows, the FBI continues to be very limited on who they can approach. Don McGann has instructed them that they can not question Julie Swetnick, nor are they allowed to question any Yale classmates of Kavanaugh who might contradict his testimony. McGann provided the FBI a small list of people they can question. 

So of course the White House is lying about this, and hoping nobody notices. 

Avoiding the Swetnick allegations seem to be a priority for them. That’s pretty telling. If they suspect that her claims are completely made up, wouldn’t they want to prove that to try and discredit the other accusers? Or to simply waste FBI resources on a nothingburger. There’s something there that they don’t want in the FBI report. Your move Mr. Avenatti.

 

[squistion]

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump 7m7 minutes ago*

Like many, I don’t watch Saturday Night Live (even though I past hosted it) - no longer funny, no talent or charm. It is just a political ad for the Dems. Word is that Kanye West, who put on a MAGA hat after the show (despite being told “no”), was great. He’s leading the charge!

*cross posted in Trump Tweets thread.

 

[badmojo1006]

Can you explain the lack of temperament?

Did you watch his testimony? If that had been somebody testifying in his courtroom, he would have held them in contempt