SCOTUS Watch

[hepcat]

Looks like a reply.

Looks like snark.

and your reply to YK wasn't?

[Sepiche]

Look guys, you wanted an investigation, now you got one - maybe. Let's wait and see.

I think the push back is that none of us have any confidence that the investigation will be given the time or resources to be conducted in any way that is meaningful.

But I agree, let's wait and see. It's certainly a better outcome than his confirmation simply being pushed through. We've gone from the very narrow chance that the vote fails to a wider variety of chances that could derail the confirmation.

Yup, this. Don't get me wrong, this is potentially better than ramming him through, but there are ample reasons to be cautious.

And I'll reiterate something I've said before... Republicans have only themselves to blame for this mess. They knew some of this stuff was out there, or they wouldn't have come out with that letter trying to exonerate Kavanaugh so quickly. All they needed to do, and should still do, is pick someone else who would still happily overturn Roe v Wade, but isn't an accused sexual assaulter.

Another inconvenient fact Republicans are overlooking in trying to paint this as a Democratic hit job: Neil Gorsuch. Democrats had far more reason (Merrick Garland) to make up allegations and try to derail his nomination, but that didn't happen because, despite being a Republican, Neil Gorsuch was apparently not an attempted rapist, and because of that even got some Democratic votes.

[Grifman]

I for one do not want an investigation. There will be no justice for Ford, and that's the only reason to go forward with an investigation.

Grif, he's clearly not SCOTUS material. No investigation required.

Yet people are supposed to hang their hopes on an investigation? Ridiculous.

He's a lying partisan hack with neither the impartiality or presence of mind for the job.

When was the last time a nominee created this kind of split? Do you lay that at the feet of the Dems being unreasonable? It's because he's a terrible candidate for the highest office in the land. An office that once he's there the only way off is retirement or death.

But sure, let's investigate further, because up until now he's been an ideal nominee.

He would have sailed through and been approved except for two things:

1) Dems feel that a SC seat was stolen under Obama (rightfully so)
2) Dems feel that this will shift the balance of the court (true)

Otherwise, he would have been approved by the Senate. You say he's clearly not SCOTUS material, yet the ABA approved of him with their highest category, and that's not a conservative organization by any means. You may not like him, but he's more the result of prior Republican actions and bad timing.

[El Guapo]

ABA called for the vote to be delayed today, BTW.

[Sepiche]

You say he's clearly not SCOTUS material, yet the ABA approved of him with their highest category, and that's not a conservative organization by any means. You may not like him, but he's more the result of prior Republican actions and bad timing.

Ahem.
ABA, Yale Law School dean call for FBI probe into Kavanaugh allegations, delay in confirmation

The American Bar Association called on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday evening to halt the confirmation vote for Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, saying it should not move forward until an FBI investigation into the sexual assault allegations against him can be completed.

“The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI,” ABA President Robert Carlson wrote in a letter to Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the committee’s top Democrat.

This is also ignoring his lies under oath and the temper tantrum he threw yesterday. Both of which would be disqualifying for any other candidate in living memory.

[Skinypupy]

An interesting development, Mark Judge will cooperate with FBI investigation.

Probably figures it's safe to crawl out from under his rock now.

[GreenGoo]

Grif, just watch the guy in action, then tell me how he's got what it takes.

We're *still* waiting for the documentation the GOP are hiding.

You're dreaming if you think he would have sailed through at any other time.

[El Guapo]

This whole mess is giving me PTSD from the health care vote.

[Alefroth]

I'm afraid what we're going to get is a hamstrung, time-constrained farce of an investigation. One that will almost certainly produce no conclusive results, particularly in regard to he said/she said. Then when it's time for a vote, Flake et al can vote aye with a clean conscience because they did their "due diligence" with this kangaroo court.

Sounds like a plan.

Smells like a troll.

[Pyperkub]

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity...

... And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

Applies to yesterday quite well.

[Alefroth]

This whole mess is giving me PTSD from the health care vote.

WWJMD?

[El Guapo]

This whole mess is giving me PTSD from the health care vote.

WWJMD?

It's just too bad that McCain bequeathed Lindsey Graham to Trump in his will.

[stolen from FB]

[GungHo]

Look guys, you wanted an investigation, now you got one - maybe. Let's wait and see.

I think the push back is that none of us have any confidence that the investigation will be given the time or resources to be conducted in any way that is meaningful.

But I agree, let's wait and see. It's certainly a better outcome than his confirmation simply being pushed through. We've gone from the very narrow chance that the vote fails to a wider variety of chances that could derail the confirmation.

Yup, this. Don't get me wrong, this is potentially better than ramming him through, but there are ample reasons to be cautious.

And I'll reiterate something I've said before... Republicans have only themselves to blame for this mess. They knew some of this stuff was out there, or they wouldn't have come out with that letter trying to exonerate Kavanaugh so quickly. All they needed to do, and should still do, is pick someone else who would still happily overturn Roe v Wade, but isn't an accused sexual assaulter.

Another inconvenient fact Republicans are overlooking in trying to paint this as a Democratic hit job: Neil Gorsuch. Democrats had far more reason (Merrick Garland) to make up allegations and try to derail his nomination, but that didn't happen because, despite being a Republican, Neil Gorsuch was apparently not an attempted rapist, and because of that even got some Democratic votes.

This is what I've been thinking too...not that logic and reason have any place in all of this madness. Seems obvious to anyone that doesnt have a hard right pole up their ass that this isn't a 'conspiracy theory' or 'smear campaign'. Political gamesmanship? No doubt there's some of that, but as you correctly point out the Garland delay was the worst bit of political gamesmanship ever, so yeah pot meet kettle. Boo fn hoo.

[Scoop20906]

I tried to give Kavabro the benefit when this happened that he was surprised but now the handshake exchange shows the contempt this POS is capable of.

[Blackhawk]

One thing to note is that, while the investigation is happening, it is restricted to, “current credible allegations." That means that not all of the allegations made will investigated (I'm guessing that Trump or the committee will choose which are 'credible' - probably just Ford), and that new allegations that crop up will be off limits.

[Kurth]

Look guys, you wanted an investigation, now you got one - maybe. Let's wait and see. There are a number of former high school and college classmates that have made public statements regarding Kavanaugh's testimony regarding his lack of veracity. Maybe some will come forward after they've seen his testimony and had a chance to reflect. Let's see what happens. You shouldn't get what you asked for, and then start whining about it. You start looking like Republicans

Agreed. It almost sounds like many who were calling for an FBI investigation are now lamenting the fact that the FBI investigation they called for may not turn up any corroborating evidence of the assault. Even if this investigation is "limited in time and scope," if conducted fairly and above board, it should present the opportunity to question Judge and the other purported witnesses to test their recollections. I'm not optimistic that's going to change the landscape of evidence we have in a meaningful way, but better to have gone through the exercise than not.

This is really what I was trying to say previously. I'm all for an FBI investigation and the consideration of additional evidence, but, so far, I haven't really seen anything that suggests we're likely to get any closer to the truth at the end of it.

But either way, we can't call for the investigation and then pre-judge is as flawed if it doesn't turn anything up.

Also, is the FBI really filled with people right now who are all that interested in going out of their way to help Trump? Seems to me they've been on the receiving end of a lot of shit from him. Isn't there a chance they'll take their mandate to investigate and make the most of it?

[Holman]

If the investigation is limited strictly to what can be known about Summer 1982 and Dr. Ford, that's one thing.

If it goes to the multitude of classmates and associates attesting widely to Kav's heavy drinking despite his denials, and to the questions around his handling of stolen Dem emails, and to his lies about his activities in the Bush administration, and etc etc etc, that's another.

I can kind of guess where the limits will be drawn.

[YellowKing]

The problem is that the people who have the most vested interest in the FBI turning up nothing are also the ones creating the rules of the game. We can all hope that the FBI, as an independent body (and one with no love for Trump) will perform a thorough job. However, they are going to be constrained by those same made-up limitations.

I don't think anyone is upset that the investigation is going to occur. But I think there's understandable skepticism about how fairly it will be conducted. Let's face it - it's not like any Republicans have given us to reason to believe they're interested in getting to the truth of anything.

[Kurth]

If the investigation is limited strictly to what can be known about Summer 1982 and Dr. Ford, that's one thing.

If it goes to the multitude of classmates and associates attesting widely to Kav's heavy drinking despite his denials, and to the questions around his handling of stolen Dem emails, and to his lies about his activities in the Bush administration, and etc etc etc, that's another.

I can kind of guess where the limits will be drawn.

Agreed that the investigation is going to be limited to Dr. Ford's accusations and the relevant time period surrounding the alleged assault. But I don't think that's unreasonable under the circumstances. There's no way the FBI is going to redo the entire background check at this point, nor should they. And why would we think they haven't already talked to classmates and associates about his partying back in high school? Again, based on his own admissions that he drank in high school and sometimes drank too much, I see those as established facts.

What's not established are the facts surrounding Dr. Ford's allegation that Judge Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault. That should be the focus of the FBI's work. I'm not hopeful, but if the FBI can shed some light on that, maybe we actually can get closer to the truth of what happened.

[Alefroth]

Look guys, you wanted an investigation, now you got one - maybe. Let's wait and see. There are a number of former high school and college classmates that have made public statements regarding Kavanaugh's testimony regarding his lack of veracity. Maybe some will come forward after they've seen his testimony and had a chance to reflect. Let's see what happens. You shouldn't get what you asked for, and then start whining about it. You start looking like Republicans

if conducted fairly and above board, it should present the opportunity to question Judge and the other purported witnesses to test their recollections.

Only if they want to be questioned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/p ... check.html

WASHINGTON — The renewed F.B.I. background check of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh over allegations of sexual assault will be relatively limited, relying on voluntary interviews and document production.

Former prosecutors said that because it is not a criminal investigation, F.B.I. agents will not be able to get search warrants or grand jury subpoenas compelling witnesses to testify or hand over documents. Witnesses and others can refuse to cooperate, though talking to an F.B.I. agent is often a powerful motivator to tell the truth.

[Chaz]

If the investigation is limited strictly to what can be known about Summer 1982 and Dr. Ford, that's one thing.

If it goes to the multitude of classmates and associates attesting widely to Kav's heavy drinking despite his denials, and to the questions around his handling of stolen Dem emails, and to his lies about his activities in the Bush administration, and etc etc etc, that's another.

I can kind of guess where the limits will be drawn.

Agreed that the investigation is going to be limited to Dr. Ford's accusations and the relevant time period surrounding the alleged assault. But I don't think that's unreasonable under the circumstances. There's no way the FBI is going to redo the entire background check at this point, nor should they. And why would we think they haven't already talked to classmates and associates about his partying back in high school? Again, based on his own admissions that he drank in high school and sometimes drank too much, I see those as established facts.

What's not established are the facts surrounding Dr. Ford's allegation that Judge Kavanaugh committed a sexual assault. That should be the focus of the FBI's work. I'm not hopeful, but if the FBI can shed some light on that, maybe we actually can get closer to the truth of what happened.

I want the investigation. I'm not sure what else it's going to uncover, but with new information and lines of inquiries, I hope it'll be something. Yes, they already investigated, but without the info we have now, they wouldn't have known to talk to these people about these things. Did they talk to Mark Judge before? I assume not, or we would have heard about it. Did they ask about a small, apparently innocuous weekday drinking gathering? Probably not, why would they? Will they turn up anything now that they have some dots to try and connect? I don't know, but I think it's worth finding out.

The cloud that's going to be hanging over the whole thing is the way we got here. If the GOP and Democrats had both collectively said "We should have this looked into by professional investigators", then I think everyone would be happy to accept the results, whatever they were. What actually happened is that the GOP made it super dee duper clear that they had no interest in an investigation happening at all, and really, really didn't want to do one. They were only forced to when one of their members made a last minute demand and forced them too. The FBI is embarking on this investigation with the rules, and administration of the FBI itself, set by the very party that was fighting tooth and nail to avoid doing the investigation at all.

Will that have a material effect on the outcome and findings? I have no idea. I sincerely hope that the people overseeing the investigation, and conducting it, will do a thorough, unbiased job, giving it their full effort, and with all the resources they need. But the cloud that'll be hanging over this is the possibility that the GOP hamstrung the investigation, because they never wanted to do it in the first place.

[GreenGoo]

Agreed. It almost sounds like many who were calling for an FBI investigation are now lamenting the fact that the FBI investigation they called for may not turn up any corroborating evidence of the assault.

As long as we can agree that he has shown his true colours throughout the nomination process, and that those colours are not those that should be sitting in the highest court in the land, I don't really care what you do with the investigation.

Unless the FBI is free to do a complete criminal investigation. Then we can talk. But that's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing, you've got a week that likely comes with strings, heavy strings, attached.

Investigate to your heart's content. Or don't. What do I care? What does *anyone* care?

It's a 35 year old crime that is impossible to prove barring corroborating eye witness accounts. This is true of many sexual assaults, whether they are hours old or 35 years old. Ford has had her say, which is all that she could have hoped for, given the nature and age of the crime. She will get nothing else from an "investigation". So who are we doing an investigation for? To what end? What could they possibly find that we don't already know, assuming an extremely narrow focus with heavy restrictions?

Kavanaugh has been judged by his GOP peers and they were decidedly "meh" on the whole thing. An investigation isn't going to change that, because an investigation isn't going to reveal anything that we don't already know.

What an absolute farce.

[Fretmute]

What an absolute farce.

That’s our new national motto.

[GungHo]

Spitballing here but...does this actually end up hurting the Dems more than the Rs? If the investigation happens earlier then it's entirely possible Kavanaugh isn't nominated, but it playing out this way he gets to claim victim status WITH an investigation that, as many believe, won't show anything new and Kavanaugh is confirmed. Rs get to have their cake and eat it, too. And while there still may be outrage on the left, particularly among women, is it muted bc the Rs can show an investigation and claim it was a political hit job?

Interesting article on the Daily Intelligencer that I'm not sure if someone linked earlier but summarizing it says the Dems could lose the battle and win the war...that still true?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... berts.html

[Fitzy]

Spitballing here but...does this actually end up hurting the Dems more than the Rs? If the investigation happens earlier then it's entirely possible Kavanaugh isn't nominated, but it playing out this way he gets to claim victim status WITH an investigation that, as many believe, won't show anything new and Kavanaugh is confirmed. Rs get to have their cake and eat it, too. And while there still may be outrage on the left, particularly among women, is it muted bc the Rs can show an investigation and claim it was a political hit job?

I think it’s going to hurt. Unless the investigation turns up proof, or something new and surprising (spoiler alert: It’s won’t), all it’s going to do is give cover to the Republicans and allow red state Democrats an easy yes vote. I hope I’m wrong, but it feels like it’s going to take the air out of the ballon going into the election.

[Defiant]

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

[Holman]

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

This is part of why McConnell hated to see Kavanaugh named as Turmp's top pick.

They had huge difficulties confirming him for lower positions. They knew this wouldn't be smooth sailing. Hence the drive to steamroller it through before Dems could get traction.

[Defiant]

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but two pollsters, prior to the testimony on thursday, showed a lot of support by Republicans for confirming Kavanaugh even if he did assault Ford.

54% of Republicans believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if the accusations prove to be true

NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll on Brett Kavanaugh

But among Republicans, a majority—55 percent—thought a proven allegation of sexual assault does not disqualify Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court.

The Economist/YouGov poll

Maybe they just thought the accusation was completely false, and so they dismissed what the question was actually asking, but still....

[Defiant]

Every time Ford and Kavanaugh dodged a question, in one chart

It's pretty striking, the difference between the two.

[Kurth]

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

Interesting article. I didn’t know his prior confirmations were such a fight, although I’m not surprised given his background.

Two points to keep in mind, though: (1) the ABA downgraded him the first time over perceived bias, but in the 12 years he’s been on the bench since, it seems to have been convinced this isn’t actually an issue; and (2) this recent request from the ABA is all about the assault allegations and due process, not bias.

In the end, I’m past caring about Kavanaugh’s bias or the fact he was a Ken Starr warrior back in the day. I can live with that, as much as it sucks. What I can’t live with - but will likely have to - is the thought that we may put someone guilty of sexual assault on the Supreme Court, or that we may disqualify someone from sitting on the Supreme Court because of an uncorroborated allegation of sexual assault that took place 36 years ago.

[Holman]

A sane, deliberative Senate could entirely bracket the allegations and still reject Kav on his lies and demonstrated temperament.

[Smoove_B]

It's a sad commentary on our system when I wake up on a Saturday and I'm relieved to see that Mitch McConnell didn't try to hold some type of confirmation vote at 3am this morning.

[Defiant]

[Kurth]

A sane, deliberative Senate could entirely bracket the allegations and still reject Kav on his lies and demonstrated temperament.

That’s entirely true. I’m just past the point where I hold out hope for a sane deliberative Senate. And we’re well past the point where Kavanaugh’s bias is the thing to preclude him from the Supreme Court.

[Unagi]

How about perjury?

Like if Boofing isn't really flatulence and the Devil's Triangle isn't just Quarters. for silly examples.

[Zaxxon]

Nice of you to use 'if,' for presumption of innocence and all, but there's no 'if.' It's clear from his own yearbook that boofing cannot possibly refer to flatulence in the yearbook context, for example.

[Unagi]

And there is no Quarters game called Devil's Triangle...

I'm just saying, even if it's (seemingly) trivial, if he's able to perjure himself so quickly on those points -- that should be disqualifying alone.

[GreenGoo]

A sane, deliberative Senate could entirely bracket the allegations and still reject Kav on his lies and demonstrated temperament.

+1.

It's a false narrative that he's a good pick with a single accusation holding him back.

a). He's clearly willing to lie to get what he wants
b). He believes the best way to handle partisanship is more partisanship
c) privileged white male claims victim status to get what he wants, indignant that anyone would question his right to it.

Maybe he is an alcoholic. Save the intervention for after the job interview. I've got plenty of sympathy, but I'll withhold it until I'm sure he hasn't been hired to drive the American justice bus. That's more important right now.

I don't think he's evil, which is a bit of a straw man, but he is certainly evidencing amoral behaviour, which should be a huge warning sign for anyone willing to pay attention.

[Kurth]

And there is no Quarters game called Devil's Triangle...

I'm just saying, even if it's (seemingly) trivial, if he's able to perjure himself so quickly on those points -- that should be disqualifying alone.

I have no doubt he’s lying about the extent of his partying and making shit up to try to make the yearbook idiocy less idiotic. I don’t care so much about that, because I don’t really care that he was drinking and partying in high school. Does it make him less credible as a witness, especially when compared to Dr. Ford? Definitely, and I do think it has importance in that respect. But I don’t find the lying/misleading on those points to be disqualifying on their own.

[Unagi]

And there is no Quarters game called Devil's Triangle...

I'm just saying, even if it's (seemingly) trivial, if he's able to perjure himself so quickly on those points -- that should be disqualifying alone.

I have no doubt he’s lying about the extent of his partying and making shit up to try to make the yearbook idiocy less idiotic. I don’t care so much about that, because I don’t really care that he was drinking and partying in high school. Does it make him less credible as a witness, especially when compared to Dr. Ford? Definitely, and I do think it has importance in that respect. But I don’t find the lying/misleading on those points to be disqualifying on their own.

He's under oath. To become a lifetime Supreme Court Justice. I find the lying/misleading on those minor points to be a MASSIVE red-flag of what else he's likely willing to lie about, etc.

Under Oath - Supreme Court Justice. No room for lying or misleading of any sort, IMO.