2 hours ago, bandito said:

Come off it.

What was your behaviour at age 17?

Going to church and being a choirboy?

Shouting " praise the Lord" and all that?

Or were you drinking beer and chasing girls?

The whole shebang reminds me of the McCarthy era witch hunt.

Did you actually read what you are quoting? It was about his testimony as a 53 year old not his behavior as a 17 year old. His prepared statements make him ripe for request for him to recuse himself from any cases involving Democrats or the media that come before the Supreme Court. Also his case concerning the drinking and partying as a teenager only got worse when he was caught lying about it at which time he changed his store twice. Oh and then there is the attempted rape allegation...

3 hours ago, bandito said:

Come off it.

What was your behaviour at age 17?

Going to church and being a choirboy?

Shouting " praise the Lord" and all that?

Or were you drinking beer and chasing girls?

The whole shebang reminds me of the McCarthy era witch hunt.

hey you come off it!!!

 

He was talking about his behavior at the hearing under oath!!! 

What kind of judge that is basically applying for a job as he is here, tells blatant lies under oath??? This alone makes him unfit for the position.

 

It is common knowledge that a devils triangle is not a drinking game, it is threeway sex with one woman and two men.

 

He lies about several other things as well.

 

There is a long list of candidates that would be better suited ie. judges that don't lie under oath etc.

 

The reason Trump wants this guy is because he won't vote to impeach Trump when the time comes.

 

3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Yup, Kav is a done-deal. 

SCOTUS is now 5/4 ratio. 

Reminds me of a wee town in New Mexico , with an unusual name..... ignoring of course, the second half of the name

3 hours ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

Two words for you...........Merrick Garland.

Two words back: Biden rule.

 

How soon they forget.

 

Again...Not for thee, but for me

Total sham.  How can you do a complete and fair investigation on a very short time line and with the White House dictating who can or can't be interviewed.  Just ridiculous.  I wonder how many Americans will realize they have been bamboozled once again by the great Liar in Chief.  

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The FBI investigation being kept secret from the public.

 

something to hide?!

Yes, that they didn't really investigate.

1 hour ago, quandow said:

Not quite. There will be a Supreme Court ruling next month on whether or not a sitting president can be indicted at the state level AFTER his term in office. I believe it is Maryland which has indictments already printed out, waiting for the instant DT is out of office. No sane person argues Trump isn't a criminal. Most ALL of them are. Trump may be an uncouth boor, talking at a 4th grade level, but he's not stupid. THAT has been the underlying motive to get this lickspittle liar into the Supreme Court as he's already indicated in previous similar rulings he'd vote along this line of thinking.

Please provide the class with a citation for that interesting news about indictments?

 

PS...are you calling all folks who DONT think Trump is a criminal insane?

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Nyezhov

1 hour ago, quandow said:

EXACTLY!

Here's the bottom line (from the first link you posted):

"Potential impact

The case has been analyzed in the context of the Special Counsel investigation into the Trump campaign; if the separate sovereigns doctrine is overruled, a pardon for federal crimes from Donald Trump may prevent state prosecution."

 

He can pardon himself (or so he believes) then CANNOT be prosecuted at the state level.

Again, he's a nasty piece of poop, but stupid he ain't!

Funny that the case before the Supreme Court is based, in part, on an opinion by Ginsburg.

 

Glad to see that Wikipedia is now the expert source on constitutional analysis 55555.

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Nyezhov

4 hours ago, blazes said:

Since all the Dem senators, immediately the nomination was announced in July, vowed they would not vote for Judge K, it is quite clear that the whole thing was to be political from beginning to end.  This woman who testified about her false memory is just a pawn flung to the rabid #Metoo tribe to satisfy their lust for blood.  

It has all been about abortion and (of course) hatred of Trump.  

First sentence is incorrect.  Senator Manchin, for one is undecided.

1 minute ago, newnative said:

First sentence is incorrect.  Senator Manchin, for one is undecided.

And I havent seen him whinge about the investigation either. Or am I wrong?

Christ, what a storm in a tea cup. America has far more pressing issues than this. The left is 'progressively' getting more desperate as time goes on.

6 hours ago, webfact said:

 

"When the noise fades, when the uncorroborated mud washes away, what's left is the distinguished nominee who stands before us," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said....

Reminds me of the theme song from “El Chapo”...

 

“Even when the clouds drift away

even when my skin dries away

ill be back someday

to unleash my return”

1 minute ago, guest879 said:

Christ, what a storm in a tea cup. America has far more pressing issues than this. The left is 'progressively' getting more desperate as time goes on.

Yes!

cut the head of the snake!

lock him up.... lock him up.... lock him up

 

thatll fix it... good one mr guest.... hang around... have another beer

13 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Two words back: Biden rule.

 

How soon they forget.

 

Again...Not for thee, but for me

You are being a bit disingenuous here. Absolutely no equivalency. McConnell was playing hard and fast with the truth and the circumstances were very different.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/ 

 

2 hours ago, helpisgood said:

 

As has been stated many times, Kavanaugh knows as a lawyer that the evasion of questions and the clear refusal of answering direct questions erode his credibility especially as a nominee for the Supreme Court.  Yet, he did just that during his infamous interview done on the same day as Ford's.  What's he hiding?

 

Then, check out all the silly and small lies he made.  For example, he said that his use long ago of a "devil's triangle" was a drinking game even though there's lots of evidence that it has to do with sex with two men and one woman.  Then there's the "ffffff" or something like that by his name on some document from that time period.  Kavanaugh testified that it had to do with stuttering.  It's since been shown that it has to do with sex.  The first f's have to do with a specific sexual activity and the last one stands for "forget" them or her.  Obviously, it refers to sexual abuse of women.  There's more than I cannot recall.  However, the point is why lie about small things like this especially since they can be proven wrong so easily.  What's he hiding?

 

As for me, I am not a nominee for the SCOTUS.  Plus, you can assume I am being truthful because, unlike other people, I wouldn't be so insensitive as to how women should be respected to buy into categorically believing that "Kavanaugh didn't do that."  

 

 

The document from that time period is his high school yearbook where he was quoted as saying "I survived the fffffffouth of July". With 7 F's. The yearbook is loaded with examples of multiple F's at the start of words (involving many students) apparently an inside joke about stuttering.

Someone has also come forward to confirm the devil's triangle was indeed a drinking game their group  played. There were three cups and four people around the table and they took turns trying bounce the coin into one of the cups. I played a similar game in university, we just called it quarters.

I have never heard of a menage trois with two men as a devil's triangle. Sounds like creative journalism.

 

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by canuckamuck

Remove the racist 'wise Latina' Sonia Sotomayor first. 

 

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by vinegarbase

5 hours ago, blazes said:

Since all the Dem senators, immediately the nomination was announced in July, vowed they would not vote for Judge K, it is quite clear that the whole thing was to be political from beginning to end.  This woman who testified about her false memory is just a pawn flung to the rabid #Metoo tribe to satisfy their lust for blood.  

It has all been about abortion and (of course) hatred of Trump.  

That’s a bit rich. Putting the “did he/didn’t he” aside for a minute I find it fantastically hypocritical when individuals like yourself call this “political” and “orchestrated by the evil Dems” when the Republicans did even worse with Merrick Garland. With 10 months left in office, Obama’s perfectly reasonable nomination; a moderate with no accusation of any impropriety whatsoever was treated 20 times worse than this idiot. Republicans wouldn’t even give him a hearing never mind a vote. Like a petulant child they just flat out refused to even discuss the matter. 

So when you’re whining on that it’s all just “political” and the dems fault, just remember they are asking 

for an investigation into a claim of sexual assault, which is absolutely right when considering a lifetime nomination for the highest court in the land. And at least they are giving much more consideration than Republicans ever gave Garland. 

Can anyone point to another nominee to the USSC to ever be declared unfit to the court by a Retired Supreme Court Justice? After being appointed by President Ford and then serving 34 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens spoke publicly yesterday in Florida. He lead off with saying that Kavanaugh's behavior during the Senate hearing was sufficient to cause him to change his mind, that while he had been sufficiently satisfied with Kavanaughs adept knowledge of the law to have initially approved of the nomination, the political partisanship that Kavanaugh displayed was inexcusable for anyone being considered for he Supreme Court.

Quote

“At that time, I thought (Kavanaugh) had the qualifications for the Supreme Court should he be selected,” Stevens said. “I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability … I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.” https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/retired-supreme-court-justice-kavanaugh-does-not-belong-high-court/aXEO6XTeiF8OECimtNxpjJ/

This following an open letter in the New York Times signed by over 1,000 Law PROFESSORS (liberal, conservative and moderate) also saying that the demeanor displayed disqualified Kavanaugh and should remove him from consideration.
UPDATE: the headline was "over 1,000" as of yesterday, but it is now "over 2,400 Law Professors"

Quote

The letter to the Senate cites two laws governing bias and recusal, noting, “Judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair. …

“We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh,” they wrote. “But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land. " https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2018/10/04/unprecedented-unfathomable-more-than-law-professors-sign-letter-after-kavanaugh-hearing/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.01be87c5e6d7

I have no doubt the GOP has more such nominees ready to spring forward to fill the gap - if this one fails a vote. For the good of the country as to having any trust in the court, I want to see this one indeed fail.

12 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

That’s a bit rich. Putting the “did he/didn’t he” aside for a minute I find it fantastically hypocritical when individuals like yourself call this “political” and “orchestrated by the evil Dems” when the Republicans did even worse with Merrick Garland. With 10 months left in office, Obama’s perfectly reasonable nomination; a moderate with no accusation of any impropriety whatsoever was treated 20 times worse than this idiot. Republicans wouldn’t even give him a hearing never mind a vote. Like a petulant child they just flat out refused to even discuss the matter. 

So when you’re whining on that it’s all just “political” and the dems fault, just remember they are asking 

for an investigation into a claim of sexual assault, which is absolutely right when considering a lifetime nomination for the highest court in the land. And at least they are giving much more consideration than Republicans ever gave Garland. 

 

As they say in LoS: som nam na, or "what goes around comes around".

Sure the GOP did that to Garland, and apart from the abortion debate and the (presumed) women's vote (women's rights and all that), the Dems are doing exactly what was done to them.  I couldn't care less either way, but I am pleased to see that you are (by raising the Garland issue) confirming my view that this is all "political".

 

Like me, and ALL the other contributors to this particular thread, you have no idea what the Truth is in this squalid matter.  All we are doing is confirming our own biases the moment we hit "return".

 

 

1 hour ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

You are being a bit disingenuous here. Absolutely no equivalency. McConnell was playing hard and fast with the truth and the circumstances were very different.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/ 

 

I think you need to reread Polifact and Bidens words. But whatever, your mind is probably already made up, your very mention of Garland shows it.

 

 

I agree that it is not the despicable (probably wholly false) accusation of a sexual assault that should decide the issue here.

I was, like the Florida judge, struck by how much Kavanaugh undermined his own candidacy by lowering  himself to the gutter that the politicians occupy.

He erred in singling out the Democrats for his anger, even if his anger was totally understandable in the context of this grotesque attempt to deprive a man of his career.

 

18 minutes ago, RPCVguy said:

I have no doubt the GOP has more such nominees ready to spring forward to fill the gap - if this one fails a vote. For the good of the country as to having any trust in the court, I want to see this one indeed fail.

He wont. And I cant wait for the screaming over his next one.

 

I will make a prediction though. After Kavanaugh is confirmed, his first opinion will be a unanimous one.

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by Nyezhov

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

After his behaviour at the hearing he is clearly unfit, and should be voted against by any decent human being. No matter the result of the very limited FBI investigation.

 

So someone can be accused of a crime, quite vaguely and with absolutely no corroborating evidence, and without ever being charged or convicted be punished because in your opinion they didn't keep a stiff upper lip and allowed their emotions to show?

 

What an interesting world we live in.

What really gets me is he was found not quilty of charges but people will not accept that. If it had gone the other way would people have still protested who believed him. Women rights groups have to back off. Win some lose some. Some women lie. Memory is bad etc. 

  A man always is quilty in women's eyes no matter what the out come is. Grow up ladies you are not the perfect sex with no faults .

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

The document from that time period is his high school yearbook where he was quoted as saying "I survived the fffffffouth of July". With 7 F's. The yearbook is loaded with examples of multiple F's at the start of words (involving many students) apparently an inside joke about stuttering.

Someone has also come forward to confirm the devil's triangle was indeed a drinking game their group  played. There were three cups and four people around the table and they took turns trying bounce the coin into one of the cups. I played a similar game in university, we just called it quarters.

I have never heard of a menage trois with two men as a devil's triangle. Sounds like creative journalism.

 

 

Yeah, sure.

 

Sure, stuttering is always such a hot joke with kids from that age group, unlike sex and partying.  That's so obvious.  

 

Is Devil's Triangle a drinking game with three cups because that's so practical?  But, it's always four people?  What if a fifth drinking buddy is there?  Makes sense?  Or, are the glasses shaped like triangles?    By the way, look up "Devil's Threesome" from the link below.  And, it's menage a trois (sorry, can't add the proper French accent marks).  I guess you didn't bother to look that up either, as if French spelling cannot be tricky to non-French speakers.  That reveals a lack of caution.    

 

From some "creative journalism":    

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Devil's_Triangle

 

Yes, besides the more well-known reference to a part of the Atlantic Ocean, it says that it's a synonym to "devil's threesome" which is sexual intercourse with two men and one woman (familiar situation for Kavanaugh and his buddies?).

 

So, sure I'll buy that and I'll take the Brooklyn Bridge along with it.  Geez, talk about being gullible.

 

Those without an axe to grind, unlike Brett's buddies or Fox News, will corroborate. 

Edited October 5, 20187 yr by helpisgood
rewrote a sentence

9 minutes ago, helpisgood said:

Yes, besides the more well-known reference to a part of the Atlantic Ocean, it says that it's a synonym to "devil's threesome" which is sexual intercourse with two men and one woman (familiar situation for Kavanaugh and his buddies?).

Id love to see the edit history on that...maybe someone who cares more can enlighten us.

 

But anyway, Im older than Kav. In high school, we used to worship the unattainable goal of two girls and one guy (we never wanted two guys, thats gross!)  and we called it....hold your breath now...

 

A threesome.

 

 

1 hour ago, blazes said:

Like me, and ALL the other contributors to this particular thread, you have no idea what the Truth is in this squalid matter.  All we are doing is confirming our own biases the moment we hit "return".

That's true, but his performance during the hearing is not up for debate as it was televised and in the eyes of many his obvious partisanship (something that's gotten him in trouble earlier in his career) was more than enough to disqualify him from the SCOTUS.

 

Sad days for the US indeed when there's a semi-retard in the WH nominating unqualified people for extremely important positions.

 

1 hour ago, Nyezhov said:

He wont. And I cant wait for the screaming over his next one.

 

I will make a prediction though. After Kavanaugh is confirmed, his first opinion will be a unanimous one.

Didn't you also make a prediction that Manafort would never go to jail? Did that egg-on-face incident teach you nothing?

3 hours ago, farcanell said:

Yes!

cut the head of the snake!

lock him up.... lock him up.... lock him up

 

thatll fix it... good one mr guest.... hang around... have another beer

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by your post. are you drunk man?

15 minutes ago, guest879 said:

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by your post. are you drunk man?

Lol... it’s right there in line two

and three... it’s also in line three... just in case you missed line two.