Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:49 pm
Per the NYT, the FBI is only allowed to interview four people. Not included in that list: Ford and Kavanaugh. What a sham.
Octopus Overlords
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
SCOTUS Watch
Page 69 of 157
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:13 pm
I've read conflicting reports about the FBI investigation, so it's not clear to me if Trump backtracked on limiting it (and how much he backtracked) or if he's bullshitting the way he so frequently does.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:28 pm
Lindsey Graham vows to hold the real villains accountable.
As the FBI starts interviewing people who could have witnessed the alleged sexual misconduct by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Senate Republicans are calling for an investigation to hold Democrats accountable for what they say has become a divisive and unnecessary public debate over sexual misconduct allegations leveled against Kavanaugh.
Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican on the Judiciary Committee who has become the voice of GOP outrage over Kavanaugh’s treatment, called for a probe of who leaked a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the committee’s ranking Democrat, from California psychologist Christine Blasey Ford. Ford alleged in the letter that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were in high school but asked that her complaint be kept confidential.
Ford stated again during her gripping testimony Thursday before the committee that she had not wanted to go public with her account, adding that she only went on the record after reporters from numerous news organizatons, tipped off to her letter, had visited her home and workplace.
“Somebody betrayed her trust for a political purpose,” Graham said Sunday morning on ABC’s This Week. “We’re going to do a wholesale, full-scale investigation of what I think was a despicable process to deter it from happening again.”
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:51 pm
No problem. He's got a week, and can only talk to 4 people. The 4 people will be selected at random from a hat.
It's a big hat.
It's a big hat.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 7:57 pm
When it comes to Trump, the correct answer is always bullshitting.Defiant wrote: Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:13 pm I've read conflicting reports about the FBI investigation, so it's not clear to me if Trump backtracked on limiting it (and how much he backtracked) or if he's bullshitting the way he so frequently does.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:06 pm
Heaven forbid there be clear, concise communication coming out of the top levels of your government.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:13 pm
Just like Rod's alleged firing, "conflicting reports" allows the administration to look innocent while then vilifying the media for spreading disinformation. We're collectively being played.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:39 pm
It's absolutely gaslighting. Another benefit is that if you can't nail him down, it's slightly harder to notice that he's an idiot that has no clue what he's doing. Yelling a lot helps too.
The American people deserve better than this, no matter their political leanings.
The American people deserve better than this, no matter their political leanings.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:49 pm
I’m not so sure about that after what I’ve witnessed from fellow citizens the past couple years.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:52 pm
Y'know who ought to have a say in the advise & consent process? Sitting justices. Ask those eight people if they can work with the new guy or gal for the rest of their lives. Their opinions wouldn't even have to be made public, but they ought to be able to weigh in behind the scenes at least. I wonder if the GOP would be determined to die on this hill if their boy Roberts told them "No. Just no."
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:57 pm
You have to wonder if Roberts heard his 'the Clinton did me wrong' screed and just launched into a Picard double face palm.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:03 am
Matt Damon? C'mon. Just imagine Ferrell saying "I still like beer" in his confused/defiant mode.ImLawBoy wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:41 am So, Will Ferrell pretty much has to play Kavanaugh on the SNL cold open this week, right?
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:04 am
Nah, I'm too busy imagining Dave Thomas playing Kavanaugh.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:56 am
Oh man. Are we sure Kavanaugh isn't actually Dave Thomas in an extended bit? Watch out for a Rick Moranis looking character to emerge during the investigation.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:33 am
I enjoyed that when I watched it earlier. I like the bit at the end, where even if you throw out everything about sexual assault, Kavanaugh demonstrated that he's completely partisan and is itching to slap some Liberal ass once he's on the Big Bench.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 pm
After seeing sickening video after video of Kav's testimony, I'm left wondering how this sniveling, entitled prick got to even be a federal judge, much less to be in line for a SCOTUS seat. Jesus, we have sunk low. OTOH, I can't name a single other federal judge, much less know one, so maybe they're all Animal House archetypes.
Seriously, he can't even PRETEND to be an unbiased-ish, level-headed candidate? I know he was grilled for hours on end, and that takes a mental toll, but so did a lot of others before him, and didn't come across as COMPLETELY unfit to sit on the bench, just based on demeanor and overt behavior shown during his crying/sniffling Alex Jones-esque ranting. And the obvious lying under oath. That's kind of important.
The overt partisanship I am actually ok with, because that just exposes what has to be the worst kept secret in DC...that SC picks/nominations are ACTUALLY supposed to be non-partisan. It was an unstated fact since I don't how long (that would be interesting to find out though - "when did picking obviously partisan SCOTUS nominees become a thing?")
Seriously, he can't even PRETEND to be an unbiased-ish, level-headed candidate? I know he was grilled for hours on end, and that takes a mental toll, but so did a lot of others before him, and didn't come across as COMPLETELY unfit to sit on the bench, just based on demeanor and overt behavior shown during his crying/sniffling Alex Jones-esque ranting. And the obvious lying under oath. That's kind of important.
The overt partisanship I am actually ok with, because that just exposes what has to be the worst kept secret in DC...that SC picks/nominations are ACTUALLY supposed to be non-partisan. It was an unstated fact since I don't how long (that would be interesting to find out though - "when did picking obviously partisan SCOTUS nominees become a thing?")
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 pm
Been frustrating to watch my conservatives acquaintances all claim that Kavanaugh was only emotional because he was "being attacked" by the big mean libruls, and that such behavior could never possibly carry over to how he conducts himself on the bench.Paingod wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:33 am I enjoyed that when I watched it earlier. I like the bit at the end, where even if you throw out everything about sexual assault, Kavanaugh demonstrated that he's completely partisan and is itching to slap some Liberal ass once he's on the Big Bench.
Yeah, sure it won't.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:28 pm
To be fair, conservatives also rationalized that Trump would become responsible and presidential once he took office. And that's exactly what happened.Skinypupy wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 pmBeen frustrating to watch my conservatives acquaintances all claim that Kavanaugh was only emotional because he was "being attacked" by the big mean libruls, and that such behavior could never possibly carry over to how he conducts himself on the bench.Paingod wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:33 am I enjoyed that when I watched it earlier. I like the bit at the end, where even if you throw out everything about sexual assault, Kavanaugh demonstrated that he's completely partisan and is itching to slap some Liberal ass once he's on the Big Bench.
Yeah, sure it won't.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:40 pm
Easy answer. The Federalist Society. That's their mission.Carpet_pissr wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:26 pm After seeing sickening video after video of Kav's testimony, I'm left wondering how this sniveling, entitled prick got to even be a federal judge, much less to be in line for a SCOTUS seat.
Their own website:The organization plays a central role in networking and mentoring young conservative lawyers. According to Amanda Hollis-Brusky, the author of Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution, the Federalist Society "has evolved into the de facto gatekeeper for right-of-center lawyers aspiring to government jobs and federal judgeships under Republican presidents."
Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:55 pm
Question for those who watched the hearing Thursday - in his opening statement, Kavanaugh declared that the whole thing was the Clinton's revenge (or words to that effect) - did any Senators have him clarify these remarks, asking for evidence or anything, or did it just slide by?
It occurs to me that if he made this accusation without any proof, it is even more evidence on how bad a Judge he is, and will be.
It occurs to me that if he made this accusation without any proof, it is even more evidence on how bad a Judge he is, and will be.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:17 pm
He also said that the Democrat senators' questions at his previous hearing were an embarrassment. He didn't provide specifics when questioned. I think Kavanaugh gets all his news from Fox opinion pieces.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:17 pm
Just slid by, which was frustrating. Most of the Democrats spent their five minutes either trying to nail him down on the FBI investigation thing (more than one going down this route was especially frustrating), or trying to get him to give concrete answers on his high school character. To those second types of questions, his responses were to either lie outright, or come back with "HOW DARE YOU" or "I don't know, have you?"
I get that five minutes isn't very much time, and makes it much easier for him to filibuster, but I really wish anyone had asked him about the blatant partisanship in the opening. Of course, he would've pivoted back to "well, look at my record." That would've revealed a solid far right record, but proving that would've taken longer than the five minutes allowed, so I guess I understand why they didn't. Maybe.
I get that five minutes isn't very much time, and makes it much easier for him to filibuster, but I really wish anyone had asked him about the blatant partisanship in the opening. Of course, he would've pivoted back to "well, look at my record." That would've revealed a solid far right record, but proving that would've taken longer than the five minutes allowed, so I guess I understand why they didn't. Maybe.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:28 pm
To be fair, without the FBI investigation, the GOP might well be voting to confirm Kavanaugh tomorrow, and pressuring him on why he wouldn't want an FBI investigation to clear that up is part of why it's happening (or at least, why Flake has made it happen). Also, trying to pin him down on specific issues from his high school time, prompting him to lie, has created another mine field for him. It's basically impossible at this point to prove that he assaulted Dr. Ford. But it's possible to show that certain things that bolster her account are true (his drinking habits, his behavior while drunk, etc.) are true or false, and that he lies when being asked about those things is about as good evidence as one can hope for at this point.Chaz wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:17 pm Just slid by, which was frustrating. Most of the Democrats spent their five minutes either trying to nail him down on the FBI investigation thing (more than one going down this route was especially frustrating), or trying to get him to give concrete answers on his high school character. To those second types of questions, his responses were to either lie outright, or come back with "HOW DARE YOU" or "I don't know, have you?"
I get that five minutes isn't very much time, and makes it much easier for him to filibuster, but I really wish anyone had asked him about the blatant partisanship in the opening. Of course, he would've pivoted back to "well, look at my record." That would've revealed a solid far right record, but proving that would've taken longer than the five minutes allowed, so I guess I understand why they didn't. Maybe.
So, like, setting up two minefields that could derail his nomination when given five minutes per Senator isn't a bad showing.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:29 pm
It occurs to me that this is the sort of thing you say when you know 1/2 the people interviewing you are irrelevant, and the relevant half have already decided to hire you before the interview process *and* you know the relevant people hate the irrelevant people.Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:17 pm He also said that the Democrat senators' questions at his previous hearing were an embarrassment. He didn't provide specifics when questioned. I think Kavanaugh gets all his news from Fox opinion pieces.
It also occurs to me that this is the sort of thing you say when you are unequivocally, unapologetically partisan without even the facade of neutrality.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:32 pm
Which is, effectively, the last thing we need in a Supreme Court Justice.GreenGoo wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:29 pmIt occurs to me that this is the sort of thing you say when you know 1/2 the people interviewing you are irrelevant, and the relevant half have already decided to hire you before the interview process *and* you know the relevant people hate the irrelevant people.Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:17 pm He also said that the Democrat senators' questions at his previous hearing were an embarrassment. He didn't provide specifics when questioned. I think Kavanaugh gets all his news from Fox opinion pieces.
It also occurs to me that this is the sort of thing you say when you are unequivocally, unapologetically partisan without even the facade of neutrality.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:34 pm
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:17 pm He also said that the Democrat senators' questions at his previous hearing were an embarrassment. He didn't provide specifics when questioned. I think Kavanaugh gets all his news from Fox opinion pieces.
That is a spiteful of not vengeful vow of an obsessed and self confessed villain. That hit me in even more the Clinton conspiracy rant.“You sowed the wind,” he said, and “the country will reap the whirlwind.”
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:38 pm
To be fair, it is the age of stigginit. He's a man of the times.Pyperkub wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:32 pm Which is, effectively, the last thing we need in a Supreme Court Justice.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:41 pm
I wonder how he would rule in the pending case on whether or not the libs should be owned.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:43 pm
pwned? Or like Kanye says, owned?El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:41 pm I wonder how he would rule in the pending case on whether or not the libs should be owned.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:46 pm
Regardless of what happens here, this whole circus has been a good argument for legalizing prostitution. 
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:04 pm
My mixed group of Irish and an American in Ireland were confused by this too. My conclusion was that they had talking points they wanted to hit for their own reasons. We were openly talking about how he was openly 'Republican' and seemed slightly unhinged and defiant. When Graham went on his tirade people were like 'how do you live with these people representing you?' Which my answer was he doesn't - my rep is the bald, black guy. And he didn't impress me very much either. As an aside, I've seen him speak in person on several occasions and he usually is impressive. I just don't think he found a good footing throughout this process.Chaz wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:17 pm Just slid by, which was frustrating. Most of the Democrats spent their five minutes either trying to nail him down on the FBI investigation thing (more than one going down this route was especially frustrating), or trying to get him to give concrete answers on his high school character. To those second types of questions, his responses were to either lie outright, or come back with "HOW DARE YOU" or "I don't know, have you?"
I get that five minutes isn't very much time, and makes it much easier for him to filibuster, but I really wish anyone had asked him about the blatant partisanship in the opening. Of course, he would've pivoted back to "well, look at my record." That would've revealed a solid far right record, but proving that would've taken longer than the five minutes allowed, so I guess I understand why they didn't. Maybe.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:16 pm
Booker, I assume? Yeah, he's got a habit of falling into speechifying. Which is great in some settings, and less great when you're trying to get someone to answer questions within a tight time window. The people on the committee that generally did better were the ones that took a lawyerly approach.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:20 pm
Exactly - but no one was really challenging him. I get that they really were trying to get him to slip on the high school stuff but he said some really crazy shit. It would have been nice to just push on that a bit more harshly.Chaz wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:16 pm Booker, I assume? Yeah, he's got a habit of falling into speechifying. Which is great in some settings, and less great when you're trying to get someone to answer questions within a tight time window. The people on the committee that generally did better were the ones that took a lawyerly approach.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:29 pm
Pending? I've been in liberal hell for two years.El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:41 pm I wonder how he would rule in the pending case on whether or not the libs should be owned.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:51 pm
Now Trump is talking about all the "trauma" Kavanaugh has gone through. For a bunch of tough guys who think liberals are pussies, the GOP sure gets their feelings hurt a lot.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:54 pm
Trump has also been pretty off-brand on Kavanaugh's drinking.YellowKing wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:51 pm Now Trump is talking about all the "trauma" Kavanaugh has gone through. For a bunch of tough guys who think liberals are pussies, the GOP sure gets their feelings hurt a lot.
The president used his press conference for various freeform political observations. Trump’s main takeaway from Kavanaugh’s testimony, which was intended to establish that the judge drank in moderation, was that Kavanaugh was a borderline alcoholic. Trump noted, “I was surprised by how vocal he was about the fact that he likes beer.” And also, “I really do believe that he was very strong on the fact that he drank a lot.” And he drove home the very off-message conclusion, “He did have difficulty as a young man with drink.”
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:04 pm
Trump is no fan of alcohol since his brother's death I gather.El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:54 pm
Trump has also been pretty off-brand on Kavanaugh's drinking.
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:07 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 4:08 pm
The issue is that Kavanaugh was testifying about how he was a moderate drinker at the time (and now), never got black out drunk, didn't drink to excess, etc. Which is part of saying "this couldn't have happened, because I never got blackout drunk". So Trump getting up and saying "boy, it sure sounds like he drank a lot when he was young!" isn't really helping out his boy.