Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing

[SMuser69]

Care to site a credible source for that claim? And again, there’s plenty of risk involved with accusing, even if you don’t want to believe that’s the case.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ls-hearing-alleged-kavanaugh-incident-n911111

It's quoting her in an NPR interview (I can't find the NPR link and the link from the NBC article is somewhat broken). But it does quote her statement.

"In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered, and I was sure that it probably did. I had no idea that I would have to now go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over [MSNBC] and Twitter.” She does say more than this which is quoted so not to disrupt context.

No lie detector.

He's a lawyer and a judge. Lie detection test are fault and aren't able to be admissible in evidence his the US circuit courts so why would he or anyone count on a test that can't be used in a court of law. Saying someone passed a lie detector is audience play because you don't have to mention when they fail one and nothing about it is can be used an real evidence. it's just people using TV court logic to add more drama.

What if she's a sociopath? Sociopaths love being therapist because they can practice pretending to care. Half the Shane youtube thing is about explaining sociopaths. I can't think of anything more enjoyable if she was a sociopath than to convince an entire country to hate someone with just accusation and some tears.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ls-hearing-alleged-kavanaugh-incident-n911111

It's quoting her in an NPR interview (I can't find the NPR link and the link from the NBC article is somewhat broken). But it does quote her statement.

"In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered, and I was sure that it probably did. I had no idea that I would have to now go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over [MSNBC] and Twitter.” She does say more than this which is quoted so not to disrupt context.




He's a lawyer and a judge. Lie detection test are fault and aren't able to be admissible in evidence his the US circuit courts so why would he or anyone count on a test that can't be used in a court of law. Saying someone passed a lie detector is audience play because you don't have to mention when they fail one and nothing about it is can be used an real evidence. it's just people using TV court logic to add more drama.

What if she's a sociopath? Sociopaths love being therapist because they can practice pretending to care. Half the Shane youtube thing is about explaining sociopaths. I can't think of anything more enjoyable if she was a sociopath than to convince an entire country to hate someone with just accusation and some tears.

You really twisted the contents of that article to fit your narrative. She said she remembers hearing about an incident involving Kavaganah at a party. She later clarified that she did not have first hand knowledge of the incident Ford is talking about. Which is what she said originally. First hand knowledge means you saw it happen yourself. Not that you heard about it later from someone else. No where did she lie or contradict herself.

 

[SMuser69]

She later clarified that she did not have first hand knowledge of the incident Ford is talking about. Which is what she said originally.

You don't see how damning that change of statement is legally? She made a statement of 1st party information against him and reduced it all the way to hearsay. You have understand the legal weight between "I was there" and "I heard about it".

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

You don't see how damning that change of statement is legally? She made a statement of 1st party information against him and reduced it all the way to hearsay. You have understand the legal weight between "I was there" and "I heard about it".

Saying that you heard about an incident and saying that you didn’t have first hand knowledge of said incident are the same exact thing. She never claimed first hand knowledge. I’m really not sure where you’re seeing this contradiction?

 

[JickyJuly]

@ForceTenAgreed. And... I think the people deserved to see what came of Al Franken's investigation and deserve to see what comes of Ellison's. Even though I lean lib, I'm ecstatic that groping a woman was enough to get rid of Al. It should be. The only difference between Kavanaugh and these two is that he's a judge. If he doesn't trust an investigation why should any other accused person? If a nominee for SCOTUS doesn't have faith in our justice system, either the system is broken for everyone or he is not fit for the job regardless of his innocence or guilt really.

@SMuser69 He's on record touting lie detector tests as worthy. If he only meant worthwhile for others and not for himself, he shouldn't be trusted as a judge.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

@ForceTen I think the people deserved to see what came of Al Franken's investigation and deserve to see what comes of Ellison's. Even though I lean lib, I'm ecstatic that groping a woman was enough to get rid of Al. It should be. The only difference between Kavanaugh and these two is that he's a judge. If he doesn't trust an investigation why should any other accused person? If a nominee for SCOTUS doesn't have faith in our justice system, either the system is broken for everyone or he is not fit for the job regardless of his innocence or guilt really.

I definitely agree with you here. I think both parties are at fault for trying to hide specific things, in the respective case. While Kavanaugh is a judge, and should trust in the system he's working in. The same should be said of Legislatures. None of them should be above the law.

It looks like the Kavanaugh issue will be delayed for one week to allow for the FBI to investigate the matter further:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/28/politics/jeff-flake-brett-kavanaugh-judiciary-committee/index.html

 

[justjoinedtopost]

When you're being accused of treating a woman like an object

Treating a woman like an object is not a crime, nor should it be. It is a nonsense accusation that belongs in the trash can right alongside "grieving the Holy Spirit". Sexual assault is a different story. That is what he is being accused of. Not objectification. Sexual assault.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...ls-hearing-alleged-kavanaugh-incident-n911111

It's quoting her in an NPR interview (I can't find the NPR link and the link from the NBC article is somewhat broken). But it does quote her statement.

"In my [Facebook] post, I was empowered, and I was sure that it probably did. I had no idea that I would have to now go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over [MSNBC] and Twitter.” She does say more than this which is quoted so not to disrupt context.

Reads more like a clarification to me, not a major retraction.

It lends some credibility to Ford's account as I read it.

What if she's a sociopath? Sociopaths love being therapist because they can practice pretending to care. Half the Shane youtube thing is about explaining sociopaths. I can't think of anything more enjoyable if she was a sociopath than to convince an entire country to hate someone with just accusation and some tears.

Listening to Ford, I thought she came across as convincing/convinced, but not credible. I don't know what all is behind the can/can't fly business the Fox crowd is howling about, but even if I believe her sincerity 100% (clearly not possible), I am left to wonder if she is just a broken toy. Sociopath? I would be more inclined to wonder if her memory/account has been colored by years of leftist indoctrination; admittedly this is based more on the last couple years of hearing about feminist/SJW lunacy in universities than her testimony...

I had real trouble believing Kavanaugh is as clean as he claims, having lived through that period. Talking more about the 'no blackouts/memory loss/drinking to excess' stuff, not the assault accusations. I also thought he seemed rambling and evasive early on, but came to believe this was a result of extreme emotional stress as the hearing wore on.

His character references from women count for very little imo. Predictable, and I don't count anything against him for doing it, but in all honesty it carries little weight with me, and it won't no matter how many times it gets brought up by his supporters in the media. I remember a preacher who I heard women just gush over, what a good man he was etc., and the whole time he was molesting his daughter.

What surprised me the most I think was Lindsey Graham, someone who I have historically been a huge non-fan of. If he couldn't march that ghoul of a war profiteer Feinstein up some gallows, I guess calling her out for her scam was the next best thing.

 

[JickyJuly]

Treating a woman like an object is not a crime, nor should it be. It is a nonsense accusation that belongs in the trash can right alongside "grieving the Holy Spirit". Sexual assault is a different story. That is what he is being accused of. Not objectification. Sexual assault.

Your trolling is such a snooze. Makes me miss punk.

 

[Bocefish]

I think the people deserved to see what came of Al Franken's investigation and deserve to see what comes of Ellison's. Even though I lean lib, I'm ecstatic that groping a woman was enough to get rid of Al. It should be. The only difference between Kavanaugh and these two is that he's a judge.

Franken's groping was caught on tape.

Jimmy Kimmel was caught on tape doing similar shit on "The Man Show" years ago but now he's suddenly holier than thou damning others since becoming a father.

The whole lot is a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Bocefish]

If he couldn't march that ghoul of a war profiteer Feinstein up some gallows, I guess calling her out for her scam was the next best thing.

She couldn't even feign being surprised when called out about leaking the story at the most convenient time for her party.

Career politicians like her on both sides need to go!

 

[justjoinedtopost]

She couldn't even feign being surprised when called out about leaking the story at the most convenient time for her party.

Rumor has it she is as rock steady and composed as ever behind the scenes.

Career politicians like her on both sides need to go!

Here go two of them now...

 

[justjoinedtopost]

Asia Argento has admitted to statutory rape(no statute of limitations) and even the California DA is sitting on it for some reason.

Catching up on the details of that story, I see it appears Argento is (or at least was) accusing Bennett of attacking HER. But confusingly enough, she claims what he did wasn't rape. Baffling.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I've been watching some of the videos of the Ford/Kavanaugh testimonies, and a couple of things seem to stand out to me. Please bear with me while I verbalize some of this.

In Dr. Ford's testimony, she mentions scientific reasons why one cannot forget certain aspects or details. USA Today article on it.
However, it's widely known that eyewitness reports can be inaccurate and have lead to many cases of mistaken identidy. Scientific American Article.

Perhaps I missed it. But, of those who have come forth saying Kavanaugh did these things, were they sober? Or, were they under the influence as well because they were at the party as well? While there's many laws which are supposed to "protect" people from rape if they are inebriated, or under the influence of something, anyone with an altered state of mind introduces questionable evidence. Was it stated their frame of mind, and level of intoxication during them witnessing these acts?


While Dr. Ford claims that she is "100% certain" that Kavanaugh was there and did those things, is there a chance that she's remembering them incorrectly? Perhaps she is piecing together many different parts of the night in question, and actual events are different than she remembers? These events took place more than 35 years ago, and I could see how events could be remembered differently.


Please note, I'm not trying to defend Kavanaugh here. But, these are a couple of things that just stick out in my mind about the testimonies and trying to understand a little more.

 

[Yarrow]

I've been watching some of the videos of the Ford/Kavanaugh testimonies, and a couple of things seem to stand out to me. Please bear with me while I verbalize some of this.

In Dr. Ford's testimony, she mentions scientific reasons why one cannot forget certain aspects or details. USA Today article on it.
However, it's widely known that eyewitness reports can be inaccurate and have lead to many cases of mistaken identidy. Scientific American Article.

Perhaps I missed it. But, of those who have come forth saying Kavanaugh did these things, were they sober? Or, were they under the influence as well because they were at the party as well? While there's many laws which are supposed to "protect" people from rape if they are inebriated, or under the influence of something, anyone with an altered state of mind introduces questionable evidence. Was it stated their frame of mind, and level of intoxication during them witnessing these acts?


While Dr. Ford claims that she is "100% certain" that Kavanaugh was there and did those things, is there a chance that she's remembering them incorrectly? Perhaps she is piecing together many different parts of the night in question, and actual events are different than she remembers? These events took place more than 35 years ago, and I could see how events could be remembered differently.


Please note, I'm not trying to defend Kavanaugh here. But, these are a couple of things that just stick out in my mind about the testimonies and trying to understand a little more.

We will never know for certain if these allegations are true. That is the glaring and horribly inconvenient (often for the victims) thing with sexual assaults and rapes. It is a matter of personal opinion at this point if you believe or disbelieve Dr. Ford's testimony.

The issue most people seem to be focusing on is the he-said she-said bit... when there is clear videos taped 'evidence' every citizen is able to view or listen to if they choose to do so, that Brett is not a good choice as a SCOTUS. Sure it is associated with the assault allegations but it can be judged on it's own merits. His very poorly tempered, belligerent defense of himself in regards to the allegations from Dr. Ford that the nation witnessed a few days ago is enough to tell anyone he is not worthy of a lifetime job where we pay him to decide to uphold or change federal laws. Not only was his demeanor extremely unsavory for someone who needs to display the ability to remain calm and collected under pressure. He more than likely was caught relaying 'white lies' as well, those which can be corroborated much easier than a sexual assault allegation can. A Judge should under no circumstances lie under oath, no matter how small the lie. That is a pillar of our judicial system. To blatantly disregard that for ones own gain shows you have no respect for the laws you are supposed to uphold.

Many people are holding a SCOTUS nomination to their own personal standards for conduct, that is a mistake. Many remark, 'well, he's angry, I would act that way if I was accused wrongly of things!' That's great, I'm glad you know your own temperament, but that doesn't mean it's a good temperament for a Judge. Most people have no business being a SCOTUS and most people would not be able to remain measured and bi-partisan enough for the job. There are 9 people who can hold the position at one time. 9 people out of millions and millions. Someone else out there is a better choice.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Directly from The American Bar Association’s website.

Moral Code of Judical Conduct
Cannon One
-A judge shall uphold and promote the independence of the judiciary, shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Well on that point alone he’s completely disqualified from sitting on the bench at any level, much less the highest. But let’s continue anyway.

Cannon Two
-A judge shall preform the duties of judical offical impartiality, competently, and diligently.

Cannon Three
-A judge shall conduct the judges personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.

Cannon Four
-A judge or candidate for judical office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary.

Some other information to note if you watched the bulk of Kav responses during questioning. I’m not going to summarize it, it’s not that long. I do want to point out one part so it clear, “Additional research is needed. In the meantime we have indication, based on the research completed to date, that DARVO has deleterious impact on the credibility and well-being of victims exposed to it.”

Even if Doctor Ford is lying, this man is not fit to be on the Supreme Court. Or any court. Full stop.

 

[Bocefish]

Directly from The American Bar Association’s website.

Moral Code of Judical Conduct
Cannon One
-A judge shall uphold and promote the independence of the judiciary, shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

Well on that point alone he’s completely disqualified from sitting on the bench at any level, much less the highest. But let’s continue anyway.

Cannon Two
-A judge shall preform the duties of judical offical impartiality, competently, and diligently.

Cannon Three
-A judge shall conduct the judges personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.

Cannon Four
-A judge or candidate for judical office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary.

Some other information to note if you watched the bulk of Kav responses during questioning. I’m not going to summarize it, it’s not that long. I do want to point out one part so it clear, “Additional research is needed. In the meantime we have indication, based on the research completed to date, that DARVO has deleterious impact on the credibility and well-being of victims exposed to it.”

Even if Doctor Ford is lying, this man is not fit to be on the Supreme Court. Or any court. Full stop.

Not quite sure what you're saying because since passing the bar he's had an impeccable record from what I've heard. Are you referencing his hearing testimony or his pre-law days?

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Not quite sure what you're saying because since passing the bar he's had an impeccable record from what I've heard. Are you referencing his hearing testimony or his pre-law days?

I’d start reading at page seven. Most everything before is skimmable legal garb.

 

[Bocefish]

I’d start reading at page seven. Most everything before is skimmable legal garb.

Thanks for providing the link.

However, despite the few doubts about him being "fair & balanced," the bottom line from your link states:
A substantial majority of the Standing Committee believes that Mr. Kavanaugh is indeed qualified to serve on the federal bench.

SCOTUS was never intended to legislate and it's sad our country has politicized SCOTUS to the degree it has become.

 

[Yarrow]

Thanks for providing the link.

However, despite the few doubts about him being "fair & balanced," the bottom line from your link states:
A substantial majority of the Standing Committee believes that Mr. Kavanaugh is indeed qualified to serve on the federal bench.

SCOTUS was never intended to legislate and it's sad our country has politicized SCOTUS to the degree it has become.

Seems like a lot can change in 12 years. Unfortunately for Brett, this past week he showed the world his immovable and stubborn side.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

I was very tired so didn’t feel like throwing a whole bunch of links your way. Surprised no one has mentioned his answers when asked what was in his senior yearbook quote.

-a reference to the Devils triangle. Brett claims it was a drinking game like quarters. Long time definitions show it actually refers to a MMF threesum where the participants are laying in the shape of a triangle while giving each other oral. Interesting. Those of us leaning left don’t really care if he sucked a dick or whatever but seems like the repubs might find that a bit unsavory.

“Boofed” which Brett claims was referring to farting. Actually means, to put something up your ass usually in reference to drugs or booze. Well it was the 80s after all...

What about when a congresswoman asked him if he’d ever been blackout drunk? His response? “Have YOU?” Wow. I wonder what would have happened if Doctor Ford sat up there, spoke over people while dodging questions, make side remarks and blame the whole thing on a Clinton conspiracy.

If the judges moral code of conduct says “they shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety” This appears to be quite a bit of impropriety...

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Also, has anyone ever asked someone with a drinking problem about their drinking? Because that whole, “well you drink too!!!” defense is pretty commonly used when people are faced with the reality of their issues.

Getting blackout drunk is not normal no matter how much it seems to be normalized.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

We will never know for certain if these allegations are true. That is the glaring and horribly inconvenient (often for the victims) thing with sexual assaults and rapes. It is a matter of personal opinion at this point if you believe or disbelieve Dr. Ford's testimony.

The issue most people seem to be focusing on is the he-said she-said bit... when there is clear videos taped 'evidence' every citizen is able to view or listen to if they choose to do so, that Brett is not a good choice as a SCOTUS. Sure it is associated with the assault allegations but it can be judged on it's own merits. His very poorly tempered, belligerent defense of himself in regards to the allegations from Dr. Ford that the nation witnessed a few days ago is enough to tell anyone he is not worthy of a lifetime job where we pay him to decide to uphold or change federal laws. Not only was his demeanor extremely unsavory for someone who needs to display the ability to remain calm and collected under pressure. He more than likely was caught relaying 'white lies' as well, those which can be corroborated much easier than a sexual assault allegation can. A Judge should under no circumstances lie under oath, no matter how small the lie. That is a pillar of our judicial system. To blatantly disregard that for ones own gain shows you have no respect for the laws you are supposed to uphold.

Many people are holding a SCOTUS nomination to their own personal standards for conduct, that is a mistake. Many remark, 'well, he's angry, I would act that way if I was accused wrongly of things!' That's great, I'm glad you know your own temperament, but that doesn't mean it's a good temperament for a Judge. Most people have no business being a SCOTUS and most people would not be able to remain measured and bi-partisan enough for the job. There are 9 people who can hold the position at one time. 9 people out of millions and millions. Someone else out there is a better choice.

I think you're misinterpreting what I was posting about. I am not discounting anything else that is going on, nor am I trying to be in defense of Kavanaugh. I'm only raising questions on specific parts of the testimonies to help try and make things a little clearer for myself. I don't know enough about the case, just like everyone else. But, I am attempting to view and understand this by as much of a neutral and impartial basis as I possibly can.

IMO, far too many people have preconceived notions about this case for/against both Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. Most have never watched any of the testimony videos, and they are basing their positions on their favourite (and biased) sources of news. Whether it be CNN, MSNBC or Fox.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

Cannon Two
-A judge shall preform the duties of judical offical impartiality, competently, and diligently.

Cannon Three
-A judge shall conduct the judges personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.

Cannon Four
-A judge or candidate for judical office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity or impartiality of the judiciary.

Then by these three alone, most would be disqualified. Almost every person at that level is politically biased, otherwise they wouldn't be nominated by the sitting President. Name one President who has nominated a Justice from the other side of the political divide? This is why the SC Justice hearing process has become a circus show. One side doesn't want to lose power to the other when it comes to political views.

Also, for Two and Three, Sotomayor would have disqualified herself for making a statement in a paper she wrote about how "a wise Latino woman might reach a better conclusion in a case than a white man". If a white man would have said the opposite, he'd have been hung out to dry and lost the nomination. I don't care who says what, if you can replace one race/gender/demographic with another and it becomes an inflammatory and charged remark that others would have issues with, it's a problem. Discrimination, intolerance and bigotry doesn't just come from one sex or one skin color.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Discrimination, intolerance and bigotry doesn't just come from one sex or one skin color.

But when one sex and skin color has held the bulk of the social/political/economic power for most of history, their discrimination, intolerance and bigotry has a greater impact. Has the only real impact. A lasting, institutional impact that seems impossible to tear down.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

But when one sex and skin color has held the bulk of the social/political/economic power for most of history, their discrimination, intolerance and bigotry has a greater impact. Has the only real impact. A lasting, institutional impact that seems impossible to tear down.

"But" is nothing other than an excuse to make it acceptable to continue, only from another demographic. It shouldn't be tolerated from anyone, regardless of who says or does it.

 

[Yarrow]

I think you're misinterpreting what I was posting about. I am not discounting anything else that is going on, nor am I trying to be in defense of Kavanaugh. I'm only raising questions on specific parts of the testimonies to help try and make things a little clearer for myself. I don't know enough about the case, just like everyone else. But, I am attempting to view and understand this by as much of a neutral and impartial basis as I possibly can.

IMO, far too many people have preconceived notions about this case for/against both Kavanaugh and Dr. Ford. Most have never watched any of the testimony videos, and they are basing their positions on their favourite (and biased) sources of news. Whether it be CNN, MSNBC or Fox.

I didn't misinterpret you. I understand wanting to know and questioning details of what was said by both parties... I just think based on comments on Twitter, here, news articles, etc ... that people are getting too caught up in mulling about the details and what-if's of the assault. It isn't how we, the public at large, come to a logical conclusion about Brett's suitability for the job as a SCOTUS.

I'm not discounting the supposed assault at all. It's just information that we can't clearly ever judge because we don't have enough information. We can judge what we have seen and heard with our own two eyes during their testimony and questioning on Thursday. Perhaps the FBI investigation will clarify some more of the what-Iif's in regards to the alleged assault but until then - It was very clear Brett skirted questions, was combative, rude, and lied about many 'minor' details. If you lie under oath about minor things - you will more than likely lie about bigger things. Not to mention a Judge (or anyone) lying under oath is a huge no-no. Perhaps Dr. Ford lied too - which would be clearly wrong and carries it's own consequences if she is caught. However, we are here to judge Brett for the opportunity for a plush, lifetime position as a SCOTUS --- not Dr. Ford.

 

[Deleted member 37064]

I didn't misinterpret you. I understand wanting to know and questioning details of what was said by both parties... I just think based on comments on Twitter, here, news articles, etc ... that people are getting too caught up in mulling about the details and what-if's of the assault. It isn't how we, the public at large, come to a logical conclusion about Brett's suitability for the job as a SCOTUS.

I'm not discounting the supposed assault at all. It's just information that we can't clearly ever judge because we don't have enough information. We can judge what we have seen and heard with our own two eyes during their testimony and questioning on Thursday. Perhaps the FBI investigation will clarify some more of the what-Iif's in regards to the alleged assault but until then - It was very clear Brett skirted questions, was combative, rude, and lied about many 'minor' details. If you lie under oath about minor things - you will more than likely lie about bigger things. Not to mention a Judge (or anyone) lying under oath is a huge no-no. Perhaps Dr. Ford lied too - which would be clearly wrong and carries it's own consequences if she is caught. However, we are here to judge Brett for the opportunity for a plush, lifetime position for SCOTUS --- not Dr. Ford.

I think everyone in the hearings is lying to some degree or another, and I dislike how one side tries to let something slip while the other tries to crucify and lambaste. While I understand the need to be certain that a potential SC justice will have the demeanour required to sit on the bench, I think these proceedings have become more of a circus show than anything. Look at the information that Feinstein sat on for many days? Why didn't they release it right away? Of course, the Republicans are just as guilty.

Perhaps we need to require ALL senior position in Gov't at the Fed level (SC Justices, Senators/Representatives, and the President) go under a full investigation any time someone wants to run for or be nominated into these positions? That would eliminate a lot of BS and circus show antics politics have become. The same should also be done for the state level...

 

[JickyJuly]

Even if we write Dr. Ford's accusation off as a he said she said, that leaves a 50/50 chance what she said is right and a 50/50 for him being right. Seems like a generous split to give him after he did make some ridiculous lies under oath. Is that good enough for you? A 50% chance we don't have a predator on the SCOTUS (also ignoring Clarence Thomas)? If we add in the other women, giving them each the same 50/50 odds with Kav, he's left with a 12.5% chance of honesty. I'm not saying that's the same as zero. These were also my odds of getting 4 daughters. But, it's not a percentage worth taking a chance on. Why should we? He's not that special. Garland wasn't that special. Gorsuch slid in without ugliness. Trump had a decent looking short list. If he were meant to choose a SCOTUS judge alone, he wouldn't have to have approval. Back to the list and get better odds when you're messing with a job that tax payers pay to be done.

 

[Poison_Ivy21]

Did Brett really think none of his Yale classmates would come forward to correct him? What a narcissistic asshole.

"In recent days I have become deeply troubled by what has been a blatant mischaracterization by Brett himself of his drinking at Yale. When I watched Brett and his wife being interviewed on Fox News on Monday, and when I watched Brett deliver his testimony under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, I cringed. For the fact is, at Yale, and I can speak to no other times, Brett was a frequent drinker, and a heavy drinker. I know, because, especially in our first two years of college, I often drank with him. On many occasions I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.

I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges."

 

[Bocefish]

I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18- or even 21-year-old should condemn a person for the rest of his life. I would be a hypocrite to think so. However, I have direct and repeated knowledge about his drinking and his disposition while drunk. And I do believe that Brett’s actions as a 53-year-old federal judge matter. If he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences. It is truth that is at stake, and I believe that the ability to speak the truth, even when it does not reflect well upon oneself, is a paramount quality we seek in our nation’s most powerful judges."

I agree with what you're saying and in a perfect world, all politicians would follow through with what they promised in order to get elected. I have no doubt he did some dumbass shit in HS and college. To what degree his dumbassery stooped to will probably remain a mystery.

What concerns me more is his conduct since passing the bar and his record as a judge.