Where is the evidence ? For him to be a virgin, there literally can't be any evidence unless somebody actually watched him (which would be very terrible).
As far as swearing to God goes and being non-drinking and church going, these are things you argue while selecting the class president not a supreme court judge. Why isn't there any talk of his past judgements ?
Ramirez, Swetnik allegations are not credible. They too have no corroboration.
While I've seen plenty of people decry Rachel Mitchell's letter to the Republican Senators as "political", I have yet to see anyone refute the content of that letter. (https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-prosec...)
There isn't an honest prosecutor who could get an indictment, let alone a conviction.
Did you even watch it?
For a while I thought maybe she was assaulted in some way and was completely confused about when it happened and who was involved, but after the polygraph comments were refuted by her ex-boyfriend that sealed the deal for me -- it's almost axiomatic that because of her field of study she would be well informed on the subject, her denials to Ms. Mitchell seemed odd, but it appears clear now that she in fact did lie about it. That's not a minor detail, it's a very big deal.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/02/rachel-mitche...
Has he been proven guilty of Ford’s allegations? No, he will very likely never be.
Has he done something that should bar him from being a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice? Very much so and can conclusively be proven. Lying on the stand[0] is something not allowed for anyone, but most assuredly shouldn’t be allowed to slide for Supreme Court justices, IMHO.
[0] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh...
You literally cannot in any way prove anything he said was a lie.
BTW, I'm not asserting that it is impossible that reasonable people might listen to his testimony and think he was lying. Calling something "proof" is a very different thing.
My reading is that the GOP is making a big deal out of this because it looks really bad for them if Kavanaugh gets voted off. And furthermore, they run the risk of not being able to confirm a republican judge after the midterms (and we're not even sort of pretending the court is nonpartisan anymore...)
Mostly they want to be re-elected, and they want to feed their shrinking base lots of red meat to inspire a bigger turnout. As I said, if Ted Bundy on the court could do that for them, they’d try to make it happen.
Second, the notion of "republican candidates" or "republican justices" (Stevens was not a conservative, or right leaning, he simply happened to be appointed by a republican president) as justices on the supreme court shows an absolute misunderstanding of the purpose of the institution.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the court betrayed by this comment. The court is supposed to be non-partisan and not beholden to politicians. The left has cranked up the smear machine in response to every Constitutionalist judge nominated to the court since (and including) Clarence Thomas -- it only appears "republican" or "democrat" because republican presidents appoint judges more often who respect the Constitution as it was written and democrat presidents appoint judges more often who believe the Constitution should be rewritten through the misuse of the judiciary.
Kavanaugh will be a party line vote, and a lot of it will be reaction to the left wing of the senate's behavior in the judiciary committee. note that the right does not, in general, do this -- Kagen, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg were all significant majority votes in spite of their political ideology differences.
Elections have consequences (that's a quote from President Obama), and Constitutionalist judges are being nominated. The smear machinery is going to be brought against any Constitutionalist judge, no matter who it is, because of the political controversy over Roe v. Wade, which is in reality what this entire confirmation circus at this point is about.
At this point the US Senate has in essence abdicated its role in advice and consent to the President and turned confirmations into a political farce -- that's not how it's supposed to be, no matter what political ideology one may hold.
You're projecting. People do care. Republican voters at large, don't, and consequentially think that nobody else does. This isn't a "but the democrats are the same!" kind of thing. That "smear machinery" you talk about was not there during Gorsuch's nomination. We're talking about someone who's not qualified to be judge, and if he were an ultra-liberal, he would not be any more qualified.
Please take a hard look at what you just said in your post and think about how crazy and indoctrinated you sound. You're literally dismissing what an ex-supreme justice has to say on the matter of who is qualified to be on the supreme court.
And yes I do understand the nonpartisanship of the supreme court. cf my comment here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18149174). But if it's nonpartisan, why is the GOP so intent on electing this guy, of all people? Not a more competent republican, not a more competent democrat, or independent. This guy.
Again I have to stress this: I have no horse in this race. If the US burns, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. I'm watching from the outside, how people fall for propaganda; kinda like you watch North Koreans fall for propaganda, because that's all they hear, all they see, all the time.
Be more curious and open minded... that either scares you (and that should make you think), or it doesn't, and if so, go for it. Be the north korean who takes the risk.
Those organizations have no authority or credibility anywhere. Democrats care about what they say this week because they align with their political ideology -- which as I said should not be a factor in this discussion. Read carefully what I actually wrote.
Many people who want justices on the court who follow the Constitution disagree with Justice Stevens. That's just the way it is, and Justice Stevens was never a Constitutionalist Justice. You misunderstand him, believing him to be a "republican judge" when the concept of such a thing should not exist.
Those who hate Kavanaugh's "politics" are likely to get what they asked for if they are successful in keeping him off the court. Judge Barrett is so far to the right of him she makes him look like a communist -- and the knives are already out for her because she's a Catholic.
Judge Kavanaugh is actually somewhat of a moderate, if you read his decisions. He's simply unlikely to vote to keep Roe v Wade, and he's replacing the swing vote on that issue that has kept it in place for the last 20 years or so, and thus the knives have to come out -- Gorsuch wasn't quite so controversial (although they tried with him as well), because he was replacing an already conservative justice. In fact, Gorsuch is probably a bit less so than Scalia was. Scalia was a consensus builder, but he was famous for his absolute dedication to the doctrine that the Constitution is a dead document and it means exactly what it says and nothing further.
What Brett Kavanaugh's former classmates, or a bunch of law professors, have to say on the matter is indeed irrelevant for most things. But it is relevant here.
Just like you would want to listen to computer security experts when talking about computer security laws.
I mean, I see what you're saying, and yes I agree with you that either way there's no free PR for those with "opposed political values" these days. But it's still relevant.
> You misunderstand him, believing him to be a "republican judge" when the concept of such a thing should not exist.
I want to clarify my earlier statements, and this goes for Stevens as well as Kavanaugh. When I say "Republican judge", I mean "Judge appointed by republicans, with an implicit political calculation that they will uphold pro-republican decisions". This is what has become of the court and there's no pretense around it anymore, and why I was saying in my initial post that I find it sad.
But if we agree that nonpartisanship is important, then I do not understand how you defend the actions of a man who, instead of addressing allegations in a calm and composed way, cried, yelled, and blamed "the democrats" for "a revenge for the clintons". How the fuck is that nonpartisan?
Maybe you've never been accused of something like what Judge Kavanaugh was accused of. In general, his defense was relatively rational and composed for what it was. And the comments about the democrats and the Clintons was probably correct -- he knows where all the bodies are buried on that front having been in the Bush White House.
The whole thing has been a democrat hatchet job from the day he was nominated.
I'm not a democrat or a republican by the way -- I think in general most of the people in the government from both parties tend to be power hungry narcissists.
There was a great deal of pushback on him even before he was nominated. The knives were out for whoever it was going to be -- it wouldn't have mattered who it was, they already had their strategies for all of the ones on the list.
And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing. I like the Constitution and I prefer that Justices appointed to the Supreme Court actually follow it. That's my ideology.
What's craziest to me is that, with some rare exceptions, Supreme Court appointments used to be pretty nonpartisan (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nomi...). And now we're talking about a confirmation that will fail/pass by most likely one vote. And this... doesn't raise any eyebrows. It's fine if he gets confirmed, it's fine that the GOP got rid of the 60-vote rule for Gorsuch, everything is fine and dandy. He'll "follow the constitution".
> And I'm not sure what "cult" you think I'm representing.
I'm saying the way you talk, in other posts, is very cultish. Make of that what you will. Someone told that to me once and it made me seriously rethink the way I talked to people, and what kind of media I was ingesting.
Supreme Court Nominations used to be non partisan, and one might note that there is one party that made them not so.
The 60 vote rule was removed by Reid when the democrats had control -- for all other federal appointments. The republicans merely adopted the rule he put in place for SCOTUS appointments as well.
I don't have much of a post history here, so not sure where you're coming from.
If these two had been swapped, the same thing would have been happening to Gorsuch now and you would have been wondering how come Kavanough had been confirmed before and why there is no better candidate now?
I couldn’t agree more.
1) He is not entitled to this seat. If you were interviewing a candidate who had allegations of any kind (sexual assault, stealing, unethical behavior in general), wouldn't you prefer to interview and hire someone else? Kavanaugh isn't some brilliant legal scholar that we should be so lucky as to have on the bench. This isn't supposed to be a criminal investigation. We shouldn't be arguing the semantics of whether what he's done is perjury. It's not supposed to be close. Nominees to the Supreme Court are supposed to aspire to a higher level of ethics, candor, and rationality (and not emotional exposition). The charges level against him, and the nonpartisanship that is supposed to be the foundation of the Supreme Court, should have made whichever party nominated him immediately withdraw his name and submit as an alternative any of the dozen or more judges with unassailable careers and personal records.
2) He made bare his partisanship with his railing against the Democrats' agenda and his conspiracy theory about how Democrats were out to get him because of some ill-conceived idea of our loyalty to the Clintons. Regardless of charges leveled against him, and regardless of their actual partisan beliefs, nominees to the Supreme Court are supposed to do their best in their confirmation hearings and for the entirety of their time on the bench, to convey a nonpartisan commitment to the interpretation of the Constitution and the American legal framework. He abandoned all this with his attacks on the left and his aggressive, disrespectful responses to the Senators who were interviewing him.
Yes, Republicans hold all the cards and can do what they will. They could ram him through now, after the midterms, or even let Trump do it in a recess appointment. But, the SCOTUS to this point has had an air of nonpartisanship and civility about it that has all but evaporated from every other part of public discourse, and Republicans are trying now to throw away the last bit of integrity left on the Supreme Court.