• New Registration

    To become a member of JackpineRadicals please see post: https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/join-jackpine-radicals/

Home Main Forums General Discussion What Kavanaugh's Testimony Revealed

  • snot (1437 posts)
    Donor

    What Kavanaugh's Testimony Revealed

    I’m deeply concerned about the allegations against Kavanaugh and, were I on a jury applying a “reasonable doubt” standard, I’d hold him responsible.  But if the allegations were the only objection to his appointment, then absent more evidence than I’m aware of, I’d reluctantly have to concede that it’s possible for reasonable, conservative people to vote to confirm him, and I’d accept that outcome as to-be-expected.

    I do not believe the allegations were the only objection, however.  Even if you choose to believe everything Kavanaugh said, I am as much or more disturbed by the way he responded to questioning in the hearings.

    I’m not a qualified lawyer, although I know a bit about it, so please take the following with a grain of salt. But several aspects struck me:

    (1) His emotionality and his attribution of the “attack” on him to a coordinated conspiracy traceable to the Clintons or their supporters.  For all I know, the Clintons were involved – I wouldn’t put it past them and certainly can’t disprove it – but at this point, it’s at best pure speculation, and it was completely unresponsive to any question.  This kind of testimony would not have been tolerated in any court I’ve ever been in; it could in fact only have been meant to derail inquiry and inflame supporters – basically, it was Alex Jones’ tactics.

    And as a judge, Kavanaugh is far too experienced not to have recognized exactly what he was doing – that his response was evasive and inflammatory.

    He did not need to do this; conservative talking heads would have eagerly made such claims on his behalf.

    (2) Kavanaugh’s highly-charged response destroyed any appearance of impartiality on his part – we now know he gives credence to theories of left-wing conspiracies AND we know that he now has a very personal, very emotional investment in them.

    One of the most important ethical principals applicable to judges is that they must avoid even the appearance of any impropriety.  For this reason, imho, if any case should come before the Supreme Court involving the Democratic party, no ethically acceptable course will remain open for Judge Kavanaugh but to recuse himself.

    The idea that one more more cases involving one of the two major parties in our country could now come before the Supreme Court (highly possible these days) and that the outcomes might either hinge on the decision of an overt partisan or be deadlocked because of Kavanaugh’s recusal – I’m pretty sure that may be what’s called a Constitutional crisis; in any case, it’s horrifying, and it’s exactly the kind of thing that judicial ethics were designed to avoid.

    And it was Kavanaugh’s choice – to abandon any appearance of impartiality – that has created that situation. It wasn’t just reckless; he knowingly put his own selfish interests above the welfare of the nation.

    And let’s be clear about one more aspect re- all this. All good judicial nominees should evade answering questions to the extent they pertain to matters that could conceivably come before the court they’re being appointed to, for precisely the reasons discussed above. E.g., when you hear a nominee avoid discussing how they would rule if a Roe v. Wade-type case came before them, that should not be held against them, for they are only trying to preserve the appearance of impartiality (and hopefully, it is in fact more than just an appearance), which is what judicial ethics requires of them. The mere fact that a nominee is at times evasive is not by itself necessarily bad – it depends what kinds of questions they’re evasive about.

    But Kavanaugh’s evasions had nothing to do with this “good” type of evasiveness, because there is no possibility that he would ever be called on to adjudicate any of his accusers’ allegations against him.

    So if anyone tries to tell you that Kavanaugh’s evasions don’t matter because all nominees are evasive, they’re wrong. This was different, because he wasn’t doing it to comply with judicial ethics; he was trying to save his own skin.

    (3) Finally, as a related but somewhat separate point, Kavanaugh’s responses betrayed a lack of appropriate “judicial temperament,” which has been defined to include open-mindedness, courtesy, patience, and freedom from bias, among other things.

    I’m sure Kavanaugh felt tremendous strain not only because of the possible defeat of his understandably much-desired appointment to the S. Court but also because of the nature of the allegations against him and the very negative consequences he faces from their even having been made.

    Nonetheless, from a man nominated to become one of the nine most powerful people on the planet, I think we have to have the highest expectations.  And it is now clear that either his testimony was knowingly evasive, inflammatory, and in violation of judicial ethics, or he is unsuited by both knowledge and temperament to be a judge.   In either case, he is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

    (All of that said, I do also feel it was objectionable for the Democratic leadership to sit on Ford’s letter for so long. They knew the Republicans would do almost anything to avoid delaying the vote until after the midterms, so if they really wanted the matter investigated, or cared about victims of sexual assault, they should have brought it out immediately.)

    Pastiche, Aerows, OCMI and 24 othersOhio Barbarian, MrMickeysMom, quinn, LaaDeeDaaVA, Enthusiast, mrdmk, eridani, Coldmountaintrail, Utopian Leftist, 99thMonkey, ThomPaine, Koko, Land of Enchantment, Xyzse, h-32, caliny, A little weird, Two way street, Bearian, Iwalani88, retired liberal, PADemD, NV Wino, Betty Karlson like this
    https://www.battleforthenet.com/                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         1% “To Do” list:

    1.  Control banking; 2.  Control communications (including “news” media); 3.  Control the government; 4.  Control education ; ....


You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
19 replies
  • RufusTFirefly (4436 posts)
    Mr. Jenkins

    1. What these hearings desperately needed was a clear-eyed kid to shout…

    “The emperor has no clothes!”

    Normally, I’m a skeptic and a cynic, but I see no reason to disbelieve Dr. Ford’s allegations. Yet even if you set those aside, Kavanaugh is obviously such a shameless perjurer that he should’ve been immediately disqualified.

    Boofed? Devil’s Triangle? Renate Alumni?  Ralph?

    Senators should’ve laughed in his face and shouted “Next!” when he provided pathetic, utterly implausible redefinitions for these things.

    And, of course, there is the ample evidence that he received stolen e-mails during a previous confirmation hearing. You really have to twist yourself into a logical pretzel to believe any of his shameless contentions.

    And that’s even before he became utterly unhinged.

    Ironically, Kavanaugh was right about one thing: We really have entered the Twilight Zone.

     

  • sadoldgirl (2944 posts)
    Donor

    2. The Dems made a lot of mistakes, among the first was to accept

    Gorsuch without a lot of fuss. Next they allowed 15 conservative

    judges to get on Federal courts claiming time for their own

    reelections to be more important. Thus this nomination was for

    the Dems only a campaign issue without any substance except for

    “me too”. I know several women, who consider themselves as voters

    for the Dems, who found this whole spectacle disgusting, if not

    ridiculous. The Dems have developed a trait to avoid the issues,

    which most people care about. This time they made it obvious that

    they only wanted theater, not engage with serious issues. And this

    may just help the Repugs, which may please their Party, because

    they really don’t want to govern. Just my 2 cents.

     

     

  • vattel (2610 posts)

    3. His jurisprudence itself is disqualifying. Crazy views on exectutive power

    • GloriaMundi (842 posts)
      Donor

      4. I agree!

      And not only that, his documented perjury.

      But don’t ever expect the Democrats to fight based on those old issues.  No sir, gotta be #metoo.  And as with the Clarence Thomas hearings, that tactic crashed and burned, again.  Both justices were unfit for the Supreme Court, quite apart from their sexual misbehavior.

      In fact now that I think about it, it kinda encapsulates all that is wrong with the current Democratic party.  They will never fight on economic issues or issues of principle, and they will always use social justice issues to obfuscate and to pretend they are “for the people”.

    • Coldmountaintrail (8881 posts)
      Donor

      13. too bad the dems ignored the substantive issues in favor of sexcrime

      at a 35 year remove

  • Land of Enchantment (11413 posts)
    Moderator

    5. Spot on! Thanks for putting into words what many of us have been thinking.

    What we saw throughout the charade of ‘hearings’ was pure, unadulterated political power. Mitch had his way with the Committee and the Senate, and fulfilled his life’s dream to pack the (supposedly politically impartial) Court with conservative Republican judges hell bent on taking our society back at least 150 years. It’s apparent why Kavanaugh wanted this appointment so desperately and that in itself was enough for reasonable minds to reject him.

         "Hope is the feathered thing that perches in your heart." ~ Emily Dickinson  
  • Koko (6116 posts)
    Donor

    6. Recommend…

    OP and replies.

  • ThomPaine (6745 posts)
    Moderator

    7. Kav had it in the bag so why cry? He was appealing to the party bobble-heads

    • ThomPaine (6745 posts)
      Moderator

      8. to come out and vote against the meany Dems that made him cry.

  • ThomPaine (6745 posts)
    Moderator

    9. It's a tactic for tyrants to push the People beyond the envelope to see just how

    • ThomPaine (6745 posts)
      Moderator

      10. much they can and back off some if needed only to push again. Normalization

  • Deadpool (16992 posts)
    Son of Village Idiot

    11. On the Daily Radical!

    • snot (1437 posts)
      Donor

      14. Thanks!

      :hi:

      https://www.battleforthenet.com/                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         1% “To Do” list:

      1.  Control banking; 2.  Control communications (including “news” media); 3.  Control the government; 4.  Control education ; ....

  • doh1304 (1050 posts)

    12. I agree with everything you said

    but I still have to focus on 2 things: first that he’s an angry drunk. (my father was an angry drunk; I know how dangerous that can be – worse than you make it sound) but second, his allegation of a conspiracy from “the Clintons.” The conspiracy as I see it (and this is pure conjecture, though supported by years of experiences) is that it was intended to fail – to rile up the socially intolerant base to sabotage, discredit, and discourage any (progressive) “blue wave” while at the same time enraging identity politics donors.

    I cannot get beyond Diane Feinstein’s role in this alleged conspiracy. I moved to SF in 1981 and so have over thirty years of evidence of her perfidy. It is conceivable (if you didn’t know Feinstein) that she held back to save Blasey from the inevitable attacks, but to claim so is frankly ridiculous. On the other hand, though it seems unlikely that Blasey was lying, Feinstein’s involvement makes such an allegation very believable.

    • MrMickeysMom (2283 posts)
      Moderator

      16. This enables Feinstein to have it both ways…

      Didn’t she play with the gay vote initially to win her Senate position? She plays everybody, and laughs all the way to the bank, like so many, many other useless people who should be shoved out the door.

      Hell no...I'm not giving up...     cat-gif-238.gif giphy.gif
      • doh1304 (1050 posts)

        17. I don't remember that election

        but I remember very well how Feinstein repeatedly grandstanded on gun control – constantly sponsoring in so many words unconstitutional (CA constitution) gun bans while making no attempt to address the constitutional issue. She would get a lot of favorable press for the worthless, intentionally doomed measures, then a lot of favorable press when the courts shot her down, only to repeat the process the next time a (highly visible white person) was shot.

        Until Hillary came along I used to say that if DiFi and Hitler were put in a room with me and a gun with only 1 bullet I would say “Hitler got lucky again” and use the bullet on Feinstein. Her and Hillary? I just might use it on myself.

  • Blue Meany (603 posts)

    15. I totally agree…and I find I can't stop thinking about him and the process that

    allowed him on to the Supreme Court.  I think that the preponderance of evidence shows that he engaged in sexual assault, which may not be enough to convict him but this is the standard that many universities use for disciplinary action.  And I think there is little doubt that he perjured himself repeatedly.

    I understand why Republicans did what they did: they have been trying to pack the Supreme Court with partisans for years in order to gain one more advantage in retaining power.  It’s already paid off with decision to allow the voter suppression of Native Americans in North Dakota.

    What I do not understand is why the Democratic members of the committee did not use the one tool available to them to halt or at least stall his nomination: denying the committee a quorum to vote his nomination out of the committee.  A quorum requires the presence of two minority members, so if they boycotted the business meetings, his nomination would not have gone forward. FWIW I wrote to every Democratic member of the committee pointing out this rule and asking them to boycott, but got no responses from any of them.  I’m glad that Democrats brought up the issues with his nomination in the hearings–I enjoyed seeing them fight, for once–but this suggests that all of the grandstanding was primarily to advance the visibility of members of the committee rather than a serious attempt to halt the nomination of a seriously flawed judge.

    • Ohio Barbarian (11777 posts)
      Moderator

      18. That bit about grandstanding is certainly true for Booker and Harris, who both

      have presidential ambitions. At another site there was a lot of frantic masturbatory cheering for them going on.

      No man ought to stay poor so another man can get rich. --Newton Knight
  • Aerows (4912 posts)
    Donor

    19. Kavanaugh is wrong for the job.

    He shouldn’t be a school crossing guard, let alone on the Supreme Court.

    His demeanor is poor, and the ranting and raving should have ended his chances at serving on the nation’s highest court.  I cannot believe that idiot was confirmed.

    Pyrrhic victory.

      Root: If we're just information, just noise in the system, we might as well be a symphony.