OFFICIAL: Kavanaugh Hearings Thread

[protectionist]

Trump even stated there should be some kind of punishment for women who have abortions.
In Context: Transcript of Donald Trump on punishing women for abortion

Women who get abortions needlessly, and just for their own convenience are killers. Trump was right. There should be some kind of punishment for them.

 

[Tilly]

Dr. Ford's testimony was infallable

Infallible? Seriously?
I don’t even know what to say to such blatant (wilfull?) idiocy!

You're not on a FOX NEWS facebook page here. This is a political board with big boys and girls, and talking in platitudes will get you nowhere. Be specific about what you are talking about.

I was specific I quoted your statement that ‘Fords testimony was infallible’.

So you weren’t joking???

How the hell can anyone’s testimony be infallible (that’s the correct spelling btw little boy) when they can’t even provide a date nor a location??? And that’s just for starters!

You are a prize idiot for claiming such a ridiculous thing, imho.

 

[The Purge]

Over the last year or so, we have seen allegations against men on both sides of the isle, and across every industry. In all instances the men did a litany of denial's, including Trump, and in all cases the women ended up being the truth tellers, and the men were found to be lying.

This insured that Brett Kavanaugh would be swimming upstream against a river of suspicion. Dr. Ford's testimony was infallable, and Brett Kavanaugh continued to deny.

Republicans are in a corner on this issue. The Republican party already has a serious issue with women voters. 7 in 10 women view Trump unfavorably, and the party itself doesn't hold up much better. Why Republicans didn't choose a woman SCOTUS nominee to get themselves out of the mud with women, exemplifies an astounding lack of foresight.. But this party has a long history of misogyny, and old habits & ideology--lead by old white men- are difficult to correct.
Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

This is the second annual women's march in Washington D.C, January 20, 2018.

More Than 4,000 Women Say They Want to Run for Office Since Trump's Election

It's unfortunate that it took 2 women cornering Jeff Flake in an elevator today, to get him to change his mind and demand an FBI investigation into these allegations prior to confirming. This is what Dr. Ford wanted all along (prior to testifying.) Which leads one to think that she believes there is something that the FBI is going to find on Brett Kavanaugh.
Christine Blasey Ford Wants F.B.I. to Investigate Kavanaugh Before She Testifies

Surprisingly even a FOX NEWS poll suggests support of Kavanuagh is down, especially among women.
Fox News Poll: Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination

If Republicans had just confirmed Kavanaugh without an investigation, that would have been, most certainly, the final nail in their coffin with women in this country.

Women are the largest voting block in this country today. They are the power house in the voting booth.

A sleeping giant has awoken!

1st Womans March, Washington D.C. January 20, 2017--the day after Trump was inaugurated. Click thsi link and scroll through the many pages of pictures (start on page 20) & you will probably find your home state here.
Woman's march pictures

yes, you have sacrificed due process on the alter of abortion that was never even threatened.

As a woman, thank you for lending legitimate credence to the argument that women are too emotional to be allowed to vote...

The U.S Supreme court made a decision on Roe v Wader 45 years ago. It was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade and it's been considered a right leaning court ever since.

I know that Republican GOP candidates like to play paddy feet with abortion activists. In fact one of Trump's and others campaign promises in 2016 was to appoint U.S. Supreme court justices so you could rid the constituion of Roe v Wade once and for all.

What you don't know, is that both Niel Gorsuch and Brett Kavanuagh have already run the Democrat gaunlet under G.W.Bush. In 2006 Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and while they denied a lot of G.W;s nominee's they confirmed both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to Federal District appeals courts.

What you don't know, is that during confirmation hearings, Niel Gorsuch is the first nominee in my memory that stated Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

In fact here are the Democrats that voted to confirm both Niel Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh in 2006.

The only reason Democrats tried to block Gorsuch, is simply because they were angry that Republicans didn't give Obama's last nominee (Merrick Garland) an up or down vote.

You're campaigning on abortion actually was the reason that Mitt Romney lost in 2012.
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

The U.S. Supreme court has decided that you have no right to interfere into the personal, very private decisions that women and their families make. Roe v Wade is a U.S. Supreme court decision that is here to stay, and it never belonged on a political platform. By continually campaigning and talking about it, you are insulting the intelligence & integrity of the largest voting block in this country--WOMEN.

So why are you worried?

You arent worried a sexual predator and functioning alcoholic might become a SC justice? Let me guess. Youre a repub?

Why? Is Hillary in contention for the job?

 

[keepitreal]

It is now most obvious why Judge Kavanaugh recorded and kept that calendar from his youth... GOD KNEW THAT HE'd NEED it at this time! His earthly father set the example for him, and Judge Kavanaugh followed that example. Nothing happens by accident. It is pure providence.

The liberals in this country have been shown to be the EVIL ones. They will stop at nothing to prevent what they feel is a threat and anyway contrary to their values, opinions, and deeds...

I do not like the Senator from NEW JERSEY. He is a hack of the worst kind. I'm from New Jersey and I should know. But I would never try to destroy his character through innuendos and things that may have happened when he was a teenager. I wonder if the Senator from New Jersey's background would stand up to such scrutiny. He is a creep.

It is now most obvious why Judge Kavanaugh recorded and kept that calendar from his youth... GOD KNEW THAT HE'd NEED it at this time! His earthly father set the example for him, and Judge Kavanaugh followed that example. Nothing happens by accident. It is pure providence.

I could not agree with you more!

How that slipped my mind, about the calendar, is beyond me, but...
When he revealed that he has kept a diary calendar,
since the 9th grade, just like his father had done...
I went berserk...what are the odds

 

[Tilly]

Dr. Ford's testimony was infallable

Infallible? Seriously?
I don’t even know what to say to such blatant (wilfull?) idiocy!

You're not on a FOX NEWS facebook page here. This is a political board with big boys and girls, and talking in platitudes will get you nowhere. Be specific about what you are talking about.

Since you obviously don’t know what the word infallible means, since it certainly cannot be applied to Blasey Frauds testimony no matter how partisan you are, and nor do you know how to spell it, let me help you out:

infallible
ɪnˈfalɪb(ə)l/
adjective

1. incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
   "doctors are not infallible"
   synonyms: unerring, error-free, unfailing, faultless, flawless, impeccable, perfect, true, uncanny, precise, accurate, meticulous, scrupulous;

 

[Asclepias]

Over the last year or so, we have seen allegations against men on both sides of the isle, and across every industry. In all instances the men did a litany of denial's, including Trump, and in all cases the women ended up being the truth tellers, and the men were found to be lying.

This insured that Brett Kavanaugh would be swimming upstream against a river of suspicion. Dr. Ford's testimony was infallable, and Brett Kavanaugh continued to deny.

Republicans are in a corner on this issue. The Republican party already has a serious issue with women voters. 7 in 10 women view Trump unfavorably, and the party itself doesn't hold up much better. Why Republicans didn't choose a woman SCOTUS nominee to get themselves out of the mud with women, exemplifies an astounding lack of foresight.. But this party has a long history of misogyny, and old habits & ideology--lead by old white men- are difficult to correct.
Seven in 10 Women Have Unfavorable Opinion of Trump

This is the second annual women's march in Washington D.C, January 20, 2018.

More Than 4,000 Women Say They Want to Run for Office Since Trump's Election

It's unfortunate that it took 2 women cornering Jeff Flake in an elevator today, to get him to change his mind and demand an FBI investigation into these allegations prior to confirming. This is what Dr. Ford wanted all along (prior to testifying.) Which leads one to think that she believes there is something that the FBI is going to find on Brett Kavanaugh.
Christine Blasey Ford Wants F.B.I. to Investigate Kavanaugh Before She Testifies

Surprisingly even a FOX NEWS poll suggests support of Kavanuagh is down, especially among women.
Fox News Poll: Record number of voters oppose Kavanaugh nomination

If Republicans had just confirmed Kavanaugh without an investigation, that would have been, most certainly, the final nail in their coffin with women in this country.

Women are the largest voting block in this country today. They are the power house in the voting booth.

A sleeping giant has awoken!

1st Womans March, Washington D.C. January 20, 2017--the day after Trump was inaugurated. Click thsi link and scroll through the many pages of pictures (start on page 20) & you will probably find your home state here.
Woman's march pictures

yes, you have sacrificed due process on the alter of abortion that was never even threatened.

As a woman, thank you for lending legitimate credence to the argument that women are too emotional to be allowed to vote...

The U.S Supreme court made a decision on Roe v Wader 45 years ago. It was a right leaning court that gave us Roe v Wade and it's been considered a right leaning court ever since.

I know that Republican GOP candidates like to play paddy feet with abortion activists. In fact one of Trump's and others campaign promises in 2016 was to appoint U.S. Supreme court justices so you could rid the constituion of Roe v Wade once and for all.

What you don't know, is that both Niel Gorsuch and Brett Kavanuagh have already run the Democrat gaunlet under G.W.Bush. In 2006 Democrats were the majority in the Senate, and while they denied a lot of G.W;s nominee's they confirmed both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to Federal District appeals courts.

What you don't know, is that during confirmation hearings, Niel Gorsuch is the first nominee in my memory that stated Roe v Wade is precedent in the Constitution, meaning set in stone to you.
Gorsuch to Feinstein: Abortion ruling is 'precedent'

In fact here are the Democrats that voted to confirm both Niel Gorsuch & Brett Kavanaugh in 2006.

The only reason Democrats tried to block Gorsuch, is simply because they were angry that Republicans didn't give Obama's last nominee (Merrick Garland) an up or down vote.

You're campaigning on abortion actually was the reason that Mitt Romney lost in 2012.
The GOP's woman problem goes beyond Trump
Gender Gap in 2012 Vote Is Largest in Gallup's History

The U.S. Supreme court has decided that you have no right to interfere into the personal, very private decisions that women and their families make. Roe v Wade is a U.S. Supreme court decision that is here to stay, and it never belonged on a political platform. By continually campaigning and talking about it, you are insulting the intelligence & integrity of the largest voting block in this country--WOMEN.

So why are you worried?

You arent worried a sexual predator and functioning alcoholic might become a SC justice? Let me guess. Youre a repub?

Why? Is Hillary in contention for the job?

I hope that sleaze bag is not going for SC. Shes barely better than Drumpf.

 

[keepitreal]

Dr. Ford, though nervous, was surprisingly well prepared, and did a good job of reciting the facts as she remembered them in a logical and respectful manner. Judge Kavanaugh, by comparison was angry, loud, disrespectful, and at times went off message to attack those who dared question him. His lashing out at Democrats and partisan rantings won't score many points with the general public,

Yeah...surprisingly well prepared, surprisingly composed
for someone who is so traumatized, still 37 years later,
and is being called a liar!

Her initial version of events didn't make sense,
and her edited version of events, is still full of inconsistencies!

She remembers what has traumatized her all these years,
but, not where the trauma took place...yeah, right

She says she went to use the bathroom,
which was up on the second floor...
How would she know where the bathroom was,
unless she already knew or had to ask someone

She stated the stairway was narrow, leading up to the washroom,
and after she locked herself in the washroom,
she heard them leave the bedroom,
heard them pin balling off the walls going down the stairs,
and when she didn't hear them come back up the stairs,
she left the bathroom, ran down the stairs,
through the living room and out the door

She heard them leave the bedroom,
she heard them bouncing off the walls,
going down the stairs, listened to see,
if they'd come back up the stairs....

Well, in order for either of them
to push her into the bedroom,
and since she claims both were together,
when she was pushed into the bedroom,

means, they both had to be right behind her
as she was walking up the stairs, to the washroom...
she did not hear them directly behind her?

She claims 4 boys were there...
3 she named, 1 she did not, none whom she called a friend
The 1 girl she named, claimed was there, and said was her friend,
wouldn't remember her running through the living room,
out the door...wouldn't wonder what happened...
wouldn't call her to ask her why she ran out of the house?

How does jumping on a bed
cause people to tumble off the bed?

How does someone who was so drunk,
he was bouncing off the walls on the staircase,
become capable of jumping onto a bed, not once, twice?
He can't walk but, he can jump...yeah, ok

How was she able to break free and run out of the room,
if the door was locked, without first unlocking the door?

What happened to him pinning her down,
and trying to take her clothes off, from the inside out?

Oh yeah, doesn't make sense
since people only have 2 hands, not 4

First she said she didn't tell anyone,
but, did mention it to her husband,
though, not in detail...

The details came out in couples counseling,
her husband remembers her mentioning Brett's name,
but, his name is never mentioned in the therapists notes

Brett had ever right to be angry and loud.
I don't blame him for lashing out at Democrats

I was cheering him on
and was happy to see him defend himself,
in the manner in which he did

For someone who has been so traumatized,
been called a liar, had her family uprooted,
she should have been angry, loud, distraught,
and wanted to face Brett, one on one

She will get hers

which is why the FBI should of found these things out, but he refused a long with the GOP men.

which is why the FBI should of found these things out, but he refused a long with the GOP men.

Omg....are you always this stupid
or are you just making a special effort today?

Seriously...Do you ever wonder what life would be like
if you would've had enough oxygen at birth?

Honestly...If your brain were made of chocolate,
it wouldn't fill a M&M!

Now

 

[forkup]

Well if you agree that those are the rules then don't bemoan when they are followed. I also find it interesting that you both concede that you are partisan but now seem to want to blame the Democrats for you being that way? I think that rather a convenient excuse. Can you point to something particular the Democrats did that made you decide that anything goes?

when have the liberals followed their own rules when the repubs did it "in return"?

the biden rule. lame duck cant nominate. when done to obama "this is different". right did bullshit in return following a left rule.

nuclear option.

and now all this.

-First the Biden Rule. Biden made a speech 3 months later in the election year then when Scalia's seat was opened. There was NO opening at the time. It wasn't a self serving speech. It was in fact a reaction to the Clarence Thomas nomination. It's simply an excuse that Mcconell used to justify holding the seat. In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year. In fact you will not find a SINGLE instance were Democrats held up a SCOTUS nomination for even half as long as the GOP did.
-The nuclear option was the other example. I actually think it was a bad precedent. On the other hand the GOP made it clear in no uncertain terms that if Obama wanted judges in the courts he would have to do it over their dead bodies.
- This thing is an entirely different beast. Again Democrats did NOT make the accusation. Someone else did. Wether or not you believe her is one matter. But asserting that it is unfair seems again self serving.
- You know, I have been thinking about this and I have actually a pretty good idea.Pull Kavanaugh, Trump nominates Garland. Democrats if they win restore the filibuster for all judicial nominees and the balance will be restored.

im not about to reward their behavior.

Ah so you like this political bare knuckle fighting better? At some point someone needs to take responsibility for stopping this cycle of," they do this, so we do that."

100% agree and good point.

but if this were done, to me, validates their behavior and they will do it again.

Really, in this scenario both sides would give up something. Republicans would not appoint a right wing judge but a centrist and Democrats would give the Republicans the ability to block what they consider left wing judges. The make up of the court would be again what it was, meaning evenly split, with Garland replacing Kennedy.

 

[forkup]

Well if you agree that those are the rules then don't bemoan when they are followed. I also find it interesting that you both concede that you are partisan but now seem to want to blame the Democrats for you being that way? I think that rather a convenient excuse. Can you point to something particular the Democrats did that made you decide that anything goes?

when have the liberals followed their own rules when the repubs did it "in return"?

the biden rule. lame duck cant nominate. when done to obama "this is different". right did bullshit in return following a left rule.

nuclear option.

and now all this.

-First the Biden Rule. Biden made a speech 3 months later in the election year then when Scalia's seat was opened. There was NO opening at the time. It wasn't a self serving speech. It was in fact a reaction to the Clarence Thomas nomination. It's simply an excuse that Mcconell used to justify holding the seat. In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year. In fact you will not find a SINGLE instance were Democrats held up a SCOTUS nomination for even half as long as the GOP did.
-The nuclear option was the other example. I actually think it was a bad precedent. On the other hand the GOP made it clear in no uncertain terms that if Obama wanted judges in the courts he would have to do it over their dead bodies.
- This thing is an entirely different beast. Again Democrats did NOT make the accusation. Someone else did. Wether or not you believe her is one matter. But asserting that it is unfair seems again self serving.
- You know, I have been thinking about this and I have actually a pretty good idea.Pull Kavanaugh, Trump nominates Garland. Democrats if they win restore the filibuster for all judicial nominees and the balance will be restored.

im not about to reward their behavior.

Ah so you like this political bare knuckle fighting better? At some point someone needs to take responsibility for stopping this cycle of," they do this, so we do that."

100% agree and good point.

but if this were done, to me, validates their behavior and they will do it again.

And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.

 

[Mindful]

 

[protectionist]

And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.

How does the word "credibly" get into this ?

 

[Asclepias]

And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.

How does the word "credibly" get into this ?

Drumpf used that word in describing Fords testimony. Ask him.

 

[protectionist]

Drumpf used that word in describing Fords testimony. Ask him.

Trump or no Trump, nothing about what she said was credible. And if any paid-off posers come along now, it will be too late. They'll get waterboarded.

 

[Asclepias]

Drumpf used that word in describing Fords testimony. Ask him.

Trump or no Trump, nothing about what she said was credible. And if any paid-off posers come along now, it will be too late. They'll get waterboarded.

Are you calling Drumpf a liar? Forget the one he said about Mexico paying for the wall.

 

[Mindful]

Why now?

And not during the last 30 years?

That is the question.

 

[forkup]

And it validates what? First both sides have done plenty of shit they shouldn't. If your honest about it, the reason the GOP is in such a hurry is that if they hold the nomination until after the midterms and they lose the senate they are afraid the Dems will play the same dirty politics they played with Garland. Secondly you still haven't established to me that objecting to someone who is credibly accused of sexual assault is unfair to begin with.

How does the word "credibly" get into this ?

Well, not even Kavanaugh himself during his testimony dared to suggest Ford was not credible. Not one GOP member suggested she was not credible. The words used were compelling and credible if I'm not mistaken. Credible is another word for believable. Doesn't mean it's true, but simply believable.

 

[Asclepias]

Why now?

And not during the last 30 years?

That is the question.

Might be she didnt want to be raked over the coals only for Kav to get off on a misdemeanor even if his parents didnt protect him since one was a judge and the other was a well known attorney.

 

[forkup]

Why now?

And not during the last 30 years?

That is the question.

Because in sexual assault cases it often works like that. Look at it from the victims side. Someone assaults you when you are 15. You don't report him, like so many people don't. 30 Years later you see the president putting this guy on the shortlist for the Supreme Court as being particularly high qualified. I can imaging a now middle aged women being wronged in such a way being sufficiently angered by that development to speak up.

 

[Mindful]

Why now?

And not during the last 30 years?

That is the question.

Because in sexual assault cases it often works like that. Look at it from the victims side. Someone assaults you when you are 15. You don't report him, like so many people don't. 30 Years later you see the president putting this guy on the shortlist for the Supreme Court as being particularly high qualified. I can imaging a now middle aged women being wronged in such a way being sufficiently angered by that development to speak up.

It seems to me it's not about that. Those are secondary reasons.

The main aim is to prevent the judge from taking office. And to ultimately bring down the President. It's been that way ever since the Election results. Every week, something new.

 

[forkup]

Why now?

And not during the last 30 years?

That is the question.

Because in sexual assault cases it often works like that. Look at it from the victims side. Someone assaults you when you are 15. You don't report him, like so many people don't. 30 Years later you see the president putting this guy on the shortlist for the Supreme Court as being particularly high qualified. I can imaging a now middle aged women being wronged in such a way being sufficiently angered by that development to speak up.

It seems to me it's not about that. Those are secondary reasons.

The main aim is to prevent the judge from taking office. And to ultimately bring down the President. It's been that way ever since the Election results. Every week, something new.

You asked the question of why 30 years later someone would speak up. I have what I consider a perfectly plausible explanation for that. Not for nothing the testimony that Ford gave was very specific on the timing when she stepped forward. She gave easily verifiable information to establish it to be true. If it was simply a political hit job why did she know to step forward on this particular nominee? She is a psychology professor not a fortune teller. I'm not even considering that people around Ford have given statements that they knew about the allegation years before he was even put on that shortlist.