This circus is the ultimate culmination of it.
We have someone who has been investigated by the FBI six times, and somehow, they never stumbled over any evidence of him drugging and raping women. Either they’re too incompetent to continue to exist as an investigatory body, or this is all bullshit.
In his Fox News interview, he described how these smears are affecting his and his family’s life, seemingly sincerely. So we have two theories that fit the facts: He is sincere and innocent, or he is a sociopath who has been fooling people for decades by merely seeming like a kind, upright man of the highest probity while having a secret life of being a drunken rapist.
Guess which way I’m going with both theories?
Just take the vote. And I hope there’s a huge backlash against Democrats at the polls in a few weeks.
[Update a couple minutes later]
“She’s not credible. Not at all.”
Yes, while in college, she attended high-school parties at which she was aware that the boys were drugging the girls and gang raping them, but she personally avoided drinking anything, and didn’t warn any of the girls. And she’s totally honest. That’s the best the Democrats have.
Riiiiggght.
[Friday-afternoon update, after the hearing on Thursday]
Jim Treacher: I believe she believes this happened.
So do I, or at least I’m willing to believe it. As he notes, the Republicans screwed up by allowing this be about lying, and credibility. The fact that she believes it happened, of course, does not mean that it happened; memory is a funny thing, and she’s had lots of therapy and encouragement from Democrats to nourish the belief that it was Kavanaugh.
"I believe her claims that I did this. I'm sure she believes that I did. She is mistaken." https://t.co/bJ0eTrc8ut
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 28, 2018
[Bumped]
[Saturday-morning update]
Take a roll call; it’s important to know where senators stand.
[Update a while later]
Yes, the Republicans shouldn’t have delayed the vote.
Whether the accusations are true or false, the FBI is corrupt, politically partisan and thoroughly incompetent. I thought that had been well established by now.
This is a consequence of the Lifetime channel and the Law & Order franchise telling women for decades that they are most likely to be raped by upper-class white men.
There’s something else at play, too, that I can’t quite put my finger on. From this guest blog post: Why I Didn’t Report My Assault, the quote that stuck out to me the most (emphasis mine):
The whole thing may be worth a read, because the situation itself may sound familiar to some, if not many, but here’s what I can’t wrap my head around. If it’s serious enough to call it rape, and rape is a crime, then why is it only serious enough to report if the alleged rapist runs for office? Why not report it now?
Contrast that with this blog post from a privileged white male elected official: The Inherent Culpability of Maleness, which contains the following graf that gets to the heart of what scares me as a privileged white male:
Running for office has become a “no-holds-barred” opportunity for smear, even at the local level (city, school board, etc). If I ever run for office, what demons are hiding out waiting for the chance to smear me?
Of the few drunken encounters I had in and after college, do one-night-stands count as assault? If I was also drunk, it was at her place, and I woke up at her place the next morning without either of us expressing any regret, does that count? Does a drunken encounter count as assault if I later ended up in a consensual relationship with that person? Which of the drunken encounters during the relationship count as assault (because apparently that, too, is a thing about which I now need to worry)?
I don’t have the answers to most of these questions. I don’t think society has a clear answer on them, either, and I just hope that the conversation reaches a sane conclusion sooner, rather than later.
Put away men and women who prey on other men and women. Teach men and women that it is wrong to hold keg parties, invite underage people (of either sex), and take them into rooms to take advantage of them. And, quite honestly, it wouldn’t hurt to stop idolizing that behavior in movies and TV by creating heroes out of guys like Stifler from ‘American Pie’ and Barney Stinson from ‘How I Met Your Mother’.
Apparently one cannot emphasize within a blockquote…
The emphases I wanted to pull from that first quote were: “I don’t think I ever will,” and “someday my rapist ran for office or for any other serious significant leadership role like a Supreme Court nomination, I would publicly say something.”
It’s a cognitive dissonance that I cannot honestly resolve.
It may be an issue with my stylesheet. I see the emphases here.
I see it in Firefox on Android, but it’s hard for me because of the base font.
“Either they’re too incompetent to continue to exist as an investigatory body, or this is all bullshit.”
Embrace the power of “and.”
Watch the exchange between Feinstein and Kavanaugh. She almost broke down in tears because she knows he is innocent and how horrific the Democrat’s deliberate assassination attempt is.
Just like Obama’s Spygate was the end cap to the most corrupt presidency in modern American history, the carefully crafted deceit to frame Kavanaugh as a gang rapist is the most underhanded political action in modern political history if not ever.
I believe that you give to much credit: DiFi’s teary-eyed look was self-pity for Di-Fi. Here she is in the sunset of her political career and she is forced, the indignity!, into a Banzai! charge on Kavanaugh. All of the dirty deals that she had made to get to that position have a price. The Leftists have called on her IOU’s: lead the charge into the enemy camp waving Ford like a bloody shirt and do it now!
I managed to miss most of it all, and from the little I heard, very grateful for what I missed. I did hear that a PhD Psychiatrist knows very little about polygraphs, didn’t remember 100% who paid for the polygraph, didn’t remember exactly what date it occurred, but did acknowledge it happened near BWI airport, because that was convenient for her as she was travelling for a grandparents funeral.
Oh, and she was unaware that the Committee offered to travel to her to save her from flying, as she has a fear of flying.
I’ve been a juror in an aggravated sexual assault case. I’ve seen the evidence necessary to convict a person of such a heinous crime. Not only is Ford not presenting such evidence; she’s not even consistent with facts not so long ago.
It is a shame this matter wasn’t investigated privately and confidentially when it was first made known to a member of the committee. Nobody needed to go through this if not for ethically deficient DiFi.
Ford did look sympathetic but there was nothing of substance in her testimony. It wasn’t just the memory of her past that was flawed but she didn’t even know how her lawyers were getting paid or how she was going to get money from all the GoFundMe campaigns that are raising her money.
When the Democrats questioned BK, they didn’t even ask about the alleged event they accused him of. They demanded he ask for an FBI investigation, and he repeatedly told them it would lead to the exact same situation of him and Ford testifying before the committee. They asked him about his drinking in an effort to get him to say he sometimes didn’t remember things so they could claim he didn’t remember what he did to Ford. That didn’t work. They also asked about the crazy conspiracy theories from his hs yearbook and it turns out the crazy things twitter made up weren’t true.
They never asked him about the alleged event. How could they when their own witness couldn’t provide any details and the claimed witnesses all denied the event took place?
Opps! Had another comment but accidentally hit the back button and posted without reading.
Everyone needs to watch the whole thing for themselves. The reports I have read in the media have often outright lied about what took place. Our media is a disgrace for participating in the dirtiest political act in the modern era.
I don’t know about going back to watch it all. What I caught was mostly at lunch, and was exactly the moment the Republican counsel asked about the polygraph. I thought that was gold, but then I learned that in the larger scheme, the counsel’s questioning was boring and seemed ineffectual. Again, I thought it was amazing she got her on all the items I mentioned earlier.
I did hear parts of a replay of Kavanaugh’s opening statement, which I heard just after hearing the last 40 minutes of his testimony. Boring stuff to me really. Enough for me to understand the angle the Democrats were trying to take, and likewise the Republicans, but his comments were exactly what I expected from someone with his background hit with these charges.
I can’t say I don’t understand the FBI stuff. If nothing else, it provides more delay. However, I didn’t get that HW Bush did more with it, but then as a casual news observer, I know the FBI was given CBF’s information and they responded there was nothing much to do with it and gave it back. I thought the Republicans were smart in conducting their investigation, as it both explained to their supporters why they delayed, showed they really did care about what CBF had to say, and that they had more information than just a he said / she said, but that her story still isn’t convincing. I think that was necessary for the Lindsey Graham’s and now Flake’s vote in the committee. Collin’s seemed to early figure she was the Democrat’s mark, and did a great job of not falling for it.
I’ll agree, you have to watch it all to appreciate your point, wodun, that they didn’t ask about the events. The Democrats never cared about his side. They wanted so hard to paint Republicans as not caring about CBF, but they never realized how many people just saw the Democrats never caring about BK’s possible innocence. If they, as I hope, suffer in the mid-terms; I think this will be a major factor. What I took away is that if it mean gaining and retaining power; Democrats will gladly jettison the Bill of Rights. And really, they do have a history of doing exactly that against tribes that were not in their favor, from Jim Crow laws to Japanese Internment; Dems are quick to deny rights for their gain.
It is a lot to watch and no one really has time for it, which is why the media is so effective in twisting the portrayal away from reality.
I did hear parts of a replay of Kavanaugh’s opening statement,
The first part where he broke down was really powerful. I am not sure if just hearing it is enough since so much was communicated through his body. I don’t know how anyone could watch that and come away thinking he did the things the Democrats are accusing him of.
After he became composed, the questioning became much more typical with the exception of Feinstein. That is a good exchange to watch because she almost started crying because she knew she was destroying an innocent man. Same is true for the other lady, she almost broke down too.
“I don’t know how anyone could watch that and come away thinking he did the things the Democrats are accusing him of.”
TL/DR: You’ve never witnessed someone drunk enough to be aggressive and stupid, but so drunk that they can’t remember the next morning?
Long version: Here is my story: it was late at night my freshman year of college, and I was in the astronomy club, so I had the privilege of using the university’s 12 inch refractor (not reflector) in the dome, which was a big deal. An upper classman who was also in the club staggered into the dome. He was complaining about something or other and then he took a swing at me. He was very drunk, and I avoided getting punched by just being nimble until he went away. The next time I saw him, he had no recollection at all of trying to punch me. Because I was a nerd from a nerdy family with nerdy friends, this was my very first experience with an angry drunk person, so it made a huge impression on me.
Him: didn’t remember anything. He was flabbergasted when I told him that he repeatedly tried to punch me.
Me, now: All these years later, I can’t rccall why he was angry in the first place, nor many other details, like the walk home from the observatory, but I’ll never forget my surprise at his weird combination of clumsiness and aggression.
TLDR bob: “Someone else once did something bad; therefore Kavanaugh is guilty”
TLDR wodun: “Kavanaugh’s not the someone”
TLDR Leland: “I heard bob got drunk and had his way with logic, but didn’t remember it the next morning.”
Wodun, I tried to answer your question. If you think Leland’s summary of my answer is valid (or even logical) in any way whatsoever, please let me know.
I demand Rand launch an investigation into whether bob is drunk commenting, and until that can be done, bob should be suspended from commenting. Any time limit on completing the investigation would be arbitrary.
Rand,
Your position is that Dr. Ford may believe her testimony, but that she may be in error because memory is a funny thing. I’d say the same could be true of Judge Kavanaugh – he may believe his testimony, but memory is a funny thing – particularly when alcohol is involved. And that answers Wodun’s question – how could any Democrat believe he did what he is accused of, and it also addresses something you said above:
Rand: “So we have two theories that fit the facts: He is sincere and innocent, or he is a sociopath who has been fooling people for decades by merely seeming like a kind, upright man of the highest probity while having a secret life of being a drunken rapist.”
A third theory is that he is sincere and certainly not intentionally covering up anything as serious as an assault, but that he genuinely doesn’t remember it even though it did happen.
And a fourth theory is that this is true of Dr. Ford: she is sincere and certainly not lying about anything as serious as an assault but she genuinely doesn’t remember it correctly.
Rand, do you agree?
Yes, all four of those theories are possible. I think the most likely one is that someone did this to her, and for various reasons, some of them recent, she’s convinced herself it was Kavanaugh. No one else has come forward with a credible accusation that he assaulted them, over decades, and sexual predators don’t do it just once.
I know may bloggers will ban people for trying to put words in their mouths. Bob the liar is a good candidate for that as I’ve stated before. He just keeps on with his propaganda.
Have you no shame, Bob-1?
Eric Weder, I carefully quoted Rand and Wodun using cut-and-paste, and not out of context, etc. I restated Rand’s position accurately, as far as I can tell. I have no idea what you are complaining about.
Rand said: “Sexual predators don’t do it just once.”
I hope the following comment is sufficiently science-minded and non-partisan, as that’s my intent. I wonder if that’s true for teenagers. For more prosaic activities, it is true — for example, when driving, teenagers take risks that they won’t ever take again as adults. As for why, you can speculate about the brain continuing to develop into people’s 20s, or you can just talk about how with experience comes maturity and wisdom. I’ve never studied sexual predation, so I don’t know about it, but in my experience, teenagers do various transgressive things they simply wouldn’t do when they are a bit older.
Well, if that’s the case, given his apparently spotless record over three decades since, he shouldn’t be kept off the court for something stupid he did when he was seventeen.
“he shouldn’t be kept off the court for something stupid he did when he was seventeen.”
My first reaction was “Rand, that’s a reasonable position.”
But lets stop and think for a moment: Are there any stupid impulsive things done by a 17 year old which *are* disqualifying for the Supreme Court? If pinning someone down and groping them is not disqualifying, what about rape? What if a nominee rapes someone at 17, gets away with it, and then leads an exemplary life afterward? I bet most people would say “glad he was a good person afterward, but a rapist shouldn’t be on the court no matter how well qualified otherwise.”
If being a rapist at 17 is disqualifying despite excellent behavior afterward, then why is pinning someone down and groping them and trying to remove their clothing not disqualifying? Please note: Like you, I’m not saying Kavanaugh did any such thing, and like you, I’m just thinking about whether it would be disqualifying if he did.
I’m not trolling and I’m not trying to arouse anyone’s ire.
Pinning someone down and groping them, even attempting to remove their garments, while teenage, inexperienced, and drunk, is not rape. I said something stupid, not something evil.
Understood.
I think part of the MeToo movement that you find especially unjust is that idea that unproven accusations can ruin someone – I get that from reading your blog and I’m very sympathetic to that.
But another part of the MeToo movement is the idea that pinning someone down, groping them, and trying to remove their clothing *is* evil. Not rape, but really really evil. And other similar unwanted sexual moves are also considered evil. That moral certitude is why people across the country (and the world) are fired up right now about Weinstein and other powerful men in the news for unwanted sexual advances.
drunk bob writes all this while Cory Booker, uninvited groper of underage breasts, questions Kavanaugh from Booker’s spartan senate seat. And nobody is investigating Karen Monohan’s allegations, so we are left without a standard for Representatives. We do know Presidents can’t shutdown the government to get blowjobs from interns, and they’ll even be offered blows from the media, so long as they promise to support abortion. I think #MeToo is all about abortion and very little about stopping evils.
By the way, one of the leaders of #MeToo and Weinstein accuser once boasted about having sex with a minor below the age of consent. That information came out shortly after her husband committed suicide.
This show wasn’t about evidence. Both sides knew there was no evidence…nothing new would be revealed.
The Dems goal was to make Ford look sympathetic and therefore cause people to want to reject NK. And also to giv e guys like Manchin some rationale for not voting for BK: in his state to not vote for BK unless you had a good reason mean you lose your election.
On the GOP side it became clear to me that the objective – the schwerpunkt or main effort – was to discredit the Democrats. And the people tasked with that were essentially the GOP senators though BK helped.
The GOP knew they didn’t really have to discredit Ford all that much – the 4 inconsistencies at the start and the exposure of the “fear of flying” lie was sufficient. So they didn’t go after her hammer and tongs.
But they went after DiFi and the rest of the Democrat scumbags. This they did with a vengeance. I would say successfully.
If they now maintain enough spine to vote BK in, it will mean an electoral Red Wave. Or at least no Blue Wave. This is because they showed the voters they too are willing to fight.
And it seems that after McCain’s passing, Lindsey Graham grew a pair.
Ford did look sympathetic but there was nothing of substance in her testimony. It wasn’t just the memory of her past that was flawed but she didn’t even know how her lawyers were getting paid or how she was going to get money from all the GoFundMe campaigns that are raising her money.
When the Democrats questioned BK, they didn’t even ask about the alleged event they accused him of. They demanded he ask for an FBI investigation, and he repeatedly told them it would lead to the exact same situation of him and Ford testifying before the committee. They asked him about his drinking in an effort to get him to say he sometimes didn’t remember things so they could claim he didn’t remember what he did to Ford. That didn’t work. They also asked about the crazy conspiracy theories from his hs yearbook and it turns out the crazy things twitter made up weren’t true.
They never asked him about the alleged event. How could they when their own witness couldn’t provide any details and the claimed witnesses all denied the event took place?
While I’ll agree that Ford looked sympathetic to the more casual participant; to me she didn’t look like a PhD Professor of Psychology, which is the one thing evidence supports about Ford’s life. I can’t imagine being that meek and being able to guide post-graduates. You might could obtain the PhD, but then teach? I don’t think so.
With that bias, she came across as an actor playing a role. I will say, particularly based on her response about not knowing the committee’s willingness to travel to her; she may actually be an unwitting actor. That is, she was trained by Katz. And I certainly think Katz and co prepped their witness, because other than the pure value of delay; why else risk the truth coming out about fear of flying. It was easy to disprove it, and it happened. But that did buy a few more days to train CBF on what to say and when.
After all, do I believe Katz, recommended by DiFi, shared notes with the Dem committee members to prepare the answers for the questions they would ask? Yes, yes I do. They did it for the primary and general debates; why wouldn’t they do it now?
The fear-of-flying thing is easy, “Yes, I am fearful of flying but it is my civic duty to confront my fear blah,blah blah.”
The goof on her part was where she kept talking and added “It would have been my preference that I give my testimony back home . . .” prompting the question “You mean you didn’t know that this was offered to you” that caused her attorneys to get really uneasy and hiss “attorney-client privilege!”
That is where she departed from the witness prep. That is where it is highly likely she outright perjured herself. Her attorney(s) was(were) indeed notified of the offer by the Committee and can howl “attorney-client privilege” about answering whether they passed this info to their client.
I am saying that fear-of-air-travel is a subjective thing that can be subject to gradations. Whether you were told or not told that you could give your testimony without getting on an airplane is a simple true/false yes/no answer.
And no, this is no small “perjury trap” question — it speaks to whether the witness was sincere about her personal experience or is serving as a partisan hack to delay to confirmation process for political purposes.
The fear-of-flying thing is easy
Yes, except she has been flying around all over the place recently and in the past. She doesn’t really have a fear of flying.
The goof on her part was where she kept talking and added “It would have been my preference that I give my testimony back home . . .”
Yes. That’s the part were I actually LOL. It seems pretty clear now that Debra Katz was lying to a government official, but I doubt Mueller would raid her offices.
She hung her head so that her hair covered her face as she sobbed to hide the fact there were no tears.
I have interacted with several professors of psychology and she is sadly typical of the breed. They are almost without exception neurotic flakes.
As for them being unable to teach graduate students, there’s a reason the mean time to complete a PhD is about 9 years.
DiFi should be impeached for her scurrilous actions, and if she isn’t the House and Senate should both be voted out completely. No incumbent should be returned no matter what the resulting makeup would be. This is just unacceptable, or should be to the American people.
I don’t think members of Congress can be impeached. I think the remedy, is censure at best, and then (horrors) her voters. She actually is up for re-election in CA, but her opponent, because of the insane CA primary system, would be worse.
No, they can not be “impeached”, but there is a mechanism called Expulsion from the United States Senate.
It also requires a super majority vote…
Leland: “I heard bob got drunk and had his way with logic, but didn’t remember it the next morning.”
I don’t think Bob has ever gotten to first base with logic.
I agree. Logic always manages to safely elude bob.
TL/DR: You’ve never witnessed someone drunk enough to be aggressive and stupid, but so drunk that they can’t remember the next morning?
That wasn’t a summary of my comment or your quote of it.
I don’t know how anyone could have watched that man break down and then think he was guilty of gang rapes, sticking his dick in a lady’s face in public, or trying to rape and kill someone. Everyone knows these are false charges and that is what makes the Democrats so heinous.
BK isn’t the object that you can place all of the bad things that have happened in your life. Your problems with a co-worker don’t magically get transferred to BK. The term for that is scapegoat.
I have witnessed people do any number of things when drinking but not everyone I have seen drinking blacks out, is aggressive, or is violent, much less automatically a rapist because they drank beer in college. Guess how many people drank beer in college? How many people drink beer out of college? Are they all violent rapists?
According to Ford, she was drinking the night this alleged event took place. Does that automatically mean that she doesn’t remember? If the event did happen, could it be radically different than how she is portraying it due to a faulty memory due to time and alcohol?
There is ZERO evidence to back up her attack against BK and there is evidence that refutes it. This is a blatant political attack because this is the only way Democrats can prevent the swing of power on SCOTUS. They can’t do it legitimately so they try and do it in the most despicable way possible. The other allegations the Democrats brought forward show the entire thing is a political hit job.
You want to believe a claim that lacks credulity but consider if you are wrong. If you are wrong and this is all a constructed attempt to destroy a man’s life, what does that mean ethically? Is it not raping this man and his family?
But another part of the MeToo movement is the idea that pinning someone down, groping them, and trying to remove their clothing *is* evil. Not rape, but really really evil.
Again, there is zero evidence of this. Look at all the women who knew/know BK who have come out defending him. Look at how he has conducted his life. Look at how the people who actually know him talk about him. The Democrats and their media have created a scapegoat to stand in place of an actual human individual.
Why is it that the Democrats and their media portray him in a way that is totally at odds with reality? Do you expect us not to see that this is a carefully crafted deceit? Democrats pull this crap all the time and you shouldn’t expect people to continually fall for it.
People making false accusations about things like this have no right to lecture anyone about morality. By all the evidence, BK is the one that led a moral life. He did all the things we want our kids to do growing up and achieved excellence both academically, professionally, and in his private life. Assassinating this man and his family is a crime against the very fabric of our country.
Wodun, I guess you are pretty worked up, because I don’t think you’re reading what I’m writing. I’m having a civil conversation with Rand about hypotheticals, one which certainly allows for the possibility that Judge Kavanaugh is completely innocent. Maybe we’ll have a better exchange some other day about some other issue.
Bob, does innocent until proven guilty mean anything?
If it is a good idea for our legal system, then it is a good idea for confirmation hearings. In fact, that is the standard that should be used in almost every situation, and when one hears that such a standard is not being used, the strongest possible argument in favor of that change should be required.
Not just trust Clinton until proven guilty, don’t trust Kavanaugh if anyone denigrates him.
David,
If your comment is really about a legal principle,, and not just about partisan politics in the Kavanaugh nomination, then talk to me about jail. People are held captive in jail to ensure that they go to trial. Sometimes bail is denied. Other times, bail is offered, but the jailed person can’t afford to pay it (but of course, their wealth or lack thereof has no bearing on their innocence.)
Have a look at this page:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption+of+innocence
Here’s an excerpt:
“… no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court.”
Is that the kind of discussion do you want to have? If yes, great. If not, lets talk about job interviews, and in particular, Judge Kavaaugh’s job interview.
What do you think of the following piece?
https://qz.com/work/1401422/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-innocent-until-proven-guilty-doesnt-apply-to-job-interviews/
This was not a “job interview.” It was a malignant slanderous inquisition.
“Job Interview”. Bob what an incredible piece of work you are. Trying to imagine a marginally-functioning human watching this circus and concluding “This job interview is really interesting.” And utterly failing.
You are so far off the deep end that any meaningful engagement is impossible. All I can think of is a helpful suggestion that whatever meds you’ve been prescribed to assist you with your “nerdy nerd from a nerd background trying to fit in” issues might need re-evaluation.
So can I permanently prevent you from ever having a job again by following you to employers and telling them that you are a rapist while presenting no evidence?
It is a legal proceeding but not a judicial one. BK and Ford are testifying before congress and can be charged with crimes that arise in them giving testimony.
Claiming it is just a job interview is a way to play the its serious its not serious game. The stakes couldn’t be higher, its serious.
For those who want a summary of the link I provided, the key point of the article is that for the Senate’s role in advising and consenting to the President’s Supreme Court nominee, the benefit of the doubt should go to the Supreme Court itself, , not the nominee. (1)
This is rather similar to picking a baby sitter. I’ll try to be fair to anyone interested in the job, but I love my children too much to use the criminal standard regarding presumption of innocence. It is true that a babysitter’s chances of getting hired by me could be squashed by a false accusation, but in cases where I hear someone (certainly someone like Dr. Ford who at least seems to believe what she is saying) , I probably won’t take the chance, and that’s just tough luck for the babysitter. The benefit of the doubt goes to my children.
(1) I think that’s interesting, because you could argue that the benefit of the doubt should go to the President. But the general principle of checks-and-balances suggests otherwise.
We’re all going to enjoy this new game of being able to torpedo an excellent nominee with mere decades-old accusations, with no evidence or corroboration. I can’t wait to use it when a Democrat wants to make an appointment.
Don’t hold your breath. They’re not called the stupid party for no reason.
Your babysitter excuse is just another variant of the Heckler’s Veto.
I’m not sure why the law and core American values regarding the law go out the window when the question is whether or not someone is qualified to be on the highest court in the country.
Rand,
I’m against partisan torpedoing nominees. But for the conversation, consider the end game to that. The country is split between those who lean toward each party, and if it was really hard to get a nominee past the opposition party, what would happen?
I think you’d end up with nominees who are centrists. Would that be so bad?
I don’t know what you mean by “centrist,” but probably. I want someone who cares about the Constitution, and isn’t going to legislate from the bench. We won’t get anything resembling that from the Democrats.
Your answer epitomizes why I read this blog. Thank you.
I assume nominees like Anthony Kennedy & David Souter would be examples of the sort you’d rather not end up with.
Yes, though Souter was worse than Kennedy. Republicans are notoriously bad at making SCOTUS picks that don’t “evolve” to the left after ascending to the bench. Democrats never make the mistake of choosing someone who will go against the own policy preferences. Of course, part of that was caused by having unprincipled squishes like elder and younger Bush in charge.
Just to be clear: that wasn’t snark. You gave me something to think about.
I honestly don’t know much about Merrick Garland, but he was held up an example of what happens when Democrats try to pick someone conservatives could live with. When I google “Merrick Garland” and “Centrist”, I get phrases like ” “a penchant for judicial restraint “
Yes, a lot of Democrats had to hold their noses over Garland, and he’d have never been nominated if they’d controlled the Senate. But he’s no Constitutional conservative.
BK is a centrist. The relative quality of the candidate has nothing to do with the actions of the Democrats. It literally does not matter who the Republicans put forward, they will all be treated the same.
You are confusing the actions of the Democrats with reactions. They are not reactions but rather a deliberate strategy to attack the other party and gain control over the levers of power.
Try looking at things from a different perspective and then deconstruct the false paradigm the Democrats have created for you.
“I think you’d end up with nominees who are centrists. Would that be so bad?”
The ONLY criteria is whether or not the prospective judge absolutely adheres to the Constitution as written. Their personal views are not important so long as that one criteria is met.
Arguing about centrists is a distraction.
Gregg, I don’t think so. More importantly, you don’t think so. either. For example, I bet you believe that knowledge of previous Supreme Court decisions is essential. I bet we could come up with a long list of attributes of a Supreme Court justice really must have.
But beyond all that, there is a reason why Souter and Kennedy would disagree with Scalia and Thomas, and it wasn’t that two of them knew the Constitution better than the other two.
They certainly had a different understanding of it, and one that didn’t comport with that of the people who wrote it.
“Gregg, I don’t think so. More importantly, you don’t think so. either. For example, I bet you believe that knowledge of previous Supreme Court decisions is essential. I bet we could come up with a long list of attributes of a Supreme Court justice really must have.”
Still trying to tell me what I think eh?
You’re trying to change the topic. The topic is does a SC nominee’s political views (leftist, centrist, rightist) matter?
No doesn’t matter.
ALL that matters if if their judgements adhere to the Constitution.
I’m having a civil conversation with Rand about hypotheticals
I don’t think I am being uncivil but I am worked up. Notice how you not wanting to have the conversation because I am upset about the situation is similar to how BK is being treated? He got upset at being called a rapist and the destruction of his life and family that comes with that accusation, so he isn’t being civil and doesn’t have the temperament for SCOTUS.
On the contrary, if he fights for the constitution the same way, he is perfect for SCOTUS. We need judges who defend the constitution and our laws from those who seek to fundamentally transform the country by hook or crook.
Also at play is the narrative that this is serious enough to ruin a man’s life and prevent him from getting on SCOTUS but not serious enough to get upset over or require any sort of evidence backing up the Democrats attacks. Heck, they are even saying drinking alcohol in college is disqualifying when RBG is known to drink wine and Hillary is a fall down drunk.
It is not hypothetical that BK is innocent. It is assumed. And unless and until someone comes up with some real proof, Bk is innocent.
It is a simple concept, Bob-1.
OK, one last thing.
This is also a Kafka trap. When BK is accused of drugging girls and gang raping them, raping and trying to kill girls, and sticking his dick in a lady’s face in public and then gets angry about the accusation, Democrats say he is unfit to be on SCOTUS because of how he reacted.
Might as well throw him in a river and if he floats he is guilty and if he sinks he is innocent. This is all so transparent I can’t believe there are Timmies falling for it.
OT: Glad you got your site fixed. For the last two months whenever I came to this site (home page), all I could see was an article from ~07/28.