Travesty unfolding in Kavanaugh Hearing

[johnnylightnin]

Nah. Remember when a conservative court upheld Obamacare?

We are entering new uncharted territories, and our judges can’t allow our court system to go there even though Trump is trying to take us there.

Sorry...that won't fly. If Kavanaugh's response is purely political then the allegations are purely political. He can't bear all the burden of the politicization of the process. You've already admitted as much. Any Trump nominee is going to see character attacks like Kavanaugh has. This is where we are and both sides of the isle are responsible.

[atobulldog]

He was not behaving like a witness before a tribunal, and a judge should know exactly how a witness is supposed to behave. If a witness did this in his courtroom he would hold them in contempt. If anyone in that room should have known better, it was he.

I would think the judge would have also have held some of the questioners in contempt as well.

[Guisslapp]

Sorry...that won't fly. If Kavanaugh's response is purely political then the allegations are purely political. He can't bear all the burden of the politicization of the process. You've already admitted as much. Any Trump nominee is going to see character attacks like Kavanaugh has. This is where we are and both sides of the isle are responsible.

I don’t follow the logic of your “if-then” statement.

Someone that wants to be on the SC needs to suck it up and behave like they want to be on the SC - as if they care about the integrity and dignity of the institution. If the process has been politicized, so be it. The politicization of your nomination is not supposed to be your concern as a judge or the nominee of the S.C.

[Guisslapp]

I would think the judge would have also have held some of the questioners in contempt as well.

For asking questions he didn’t want to answer?

[DONW]

Nah. Remember when a conservative court upheld Obamacare?

We are entering new uncharted territories, and our judges can’t allow our court system to go there even though Trump is trying to take us there.

The supreme court has been Politicized since the early 90s when the democrats went after Clarence Thomas. The old woman, Ginsberg, came out against Trump in the campaign.

[DONW]

Not so fast!



Monica Mclean, retired FBI SSA and friend of Ford, gave @ABC this statement:

“I have NEVER had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime.”

And she was on Ford’s FBI witness list so they can ask her about it.

Do you not remember Mitchell asking Ford if she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph test? I believe Mitchell already knew the answer.

[Guisslapp]

Do you not remember Mitchell asking Ford if she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph test? I believe Mitchell already knew the answer.

This “ex” wrote his letter after the hearing - so how would Mitchell have known about his statement before asking the question? The FBI should ask McLean about it - she is one of their witnesses. She has already said it didn’t happen (publicly).

[DONW]

I think the “he lacks candor” was the problem originally, not what he did as a teenager. The lack of temperament wasn’t really an issue until he went scorched Earth on Thursday. That was a new unforced error, but now presents another problem (to me and other professionals, regardless of political affiliation) regarding his confirmation. It isn’t a matter of lacking “general” temperament, but his behavior calls into question his ability to be a fair judge going forward, and should he be confirmed tarnishes the image that the court is apolitical. Legal professionals and the mainstream media raised the same objection when Ginsburg made political statements after Trump’s election.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling,” The New York Times editorial board said. The Washington Post agreed.

Judicial ethics prohibit candidates from commenting on public office,” said David Bernstein, a legal scholar who opines for the Washington Post. “Even though the Supreme Court justice are not bound by the code,” Ginsburg’s outburst “does not reflect the consensus. It was wildly inappropriate.”

Trump even tweeted that she should “resign.”

I would have been disappointed if he hadn't got pissed off with the democrats trying to ruin his life. I don't blame him for fighting back.

[DONW]

This “ex” wrote his letter after the hearing - so how would Mitchell have known about his statement before asking the question? The FBI should ask McLean about it - she is one of their witnesses. She has already said it didn’t happen (publicly).

Mitchell is a prosecutor, she probably had someone do an investigation of Ford. She knew Ford was a Psycologist, and would have known about polygraph test. Ford went overboard trying to show how stupid she was and not everybody bought it. Her little girl act is what gave her away to me. She showed several different personalities. How do we know which one is the real Christine Ford? McLane is not going to tell the FBI she was coached on how to pass their polygraph test.

[dawg80]

This is rich! goosey acting like Trump initiated politicizing the judicial branch. LOL! First of all, I don't see where Trump has done ANYTHING to advance politicizing it. At the very worst, he has merely followed a recent (several decades) trend set by other presidents and senators.

But WAY BEYOND that!!! the libs are the champions of politicizing the judiciary. ONLY libs have used the courts to get what they can't get via legislation. Everyone knows it, and in fact, the libs and their willing accomplices in the lamestream media don't even hide it anymore. It's the basis of their anti-Kavanaugh fervor. It has nothing to do with his clear, constitutional track record...well, it does! They don't want a justice who will apply the constitution.

[Guisslapp]

R

[Guisslapp]

Remember when Ford and the Dems wanted the FBI investigation to happen first. The wisdom of that has only become more and more clear over time.

[SicemDawgz]

Are you suggesting Kavanaugh should have been looking after his own self interest or the best interest of the judicial system?

I’m suggesting that no matter how or in what tone he answered any question that was posed to him, it wouldn’t change a single “No” vote to a “Yes.”

[Guisslapp]

I’m suggesting that no matter how or in what tone he answered any question that was posed to him, it wouldn’t change a single “No” vote to a “Yes.”

Exactly. Which is why his theatrics did pointless damage to the court (if he gets confirmed).

[SicemDawgz]

What will be interesting to see is if enough RINOs vote no to let the Red State Crats vote yes, and Kavanaugh still lose the nomination.