sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

What I hear no one saying is that this whole process has revealed Kavanaugh to be not very bright. I hear him speak and he just sounds robotic and simplistic in his thinking. He doesn't sound like an intellectual, he sounds like the product of privileged grooming. How he handles this situation should be revelatory in his ability to see the big picture, offer a wise perspective, and speak to principles rather than self or party interest. Instead, he speaks in little half-truths and weasely little explanations and gross PR moves like kissing his daughter or sitting the loyal wife by his side. Ads on TV, interviews on FOX, the support of anonymous donors, and coaching sessions at the White House? Why are we allowing this and who is falling for this crap?

This is supposed to be one of our nine brightest minds who oversees justice and paves the way for American ideals, not a rigid, black and white thinking partisan hack. Raping aside, his capacity should be a disqualifier. We've got much sharper legal minds.

---

That moment when he refused to acknowledge the Parkland father and just kind of glared at him dumbly seems pretty relevatory about his general attitudes.

---

Can you post the entire clip and provide the context please? Are you deliberately misleading or naive?

---

Which part do you think absolves him here?

Honestly asking. That looks like a reasonably full clip to me, shown from multiple angles.

---

This was orchestrated to make Kavanaugh look bad...
1). I hope to play a role in ensuring that this man does not become the next Supreme Court Justice. https://t.co/6oC7OPlyB8

Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) September 3, 2018

Here is the photo of me trying to shake Kavanaugh's hand. https://t.co/5MtQxq5wza

Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) September 4, 2018

I invited @Fred_Guttenberg to sit in the audience at today's hearing because the Supreme Court affects the lives of real people. He knows firsthand how Brett Kavanaugh's extreme views on guns could lead to more massacres. Thank you Fred, for honoring your daughter.

Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 4, 2018

2)
https://twitter.com/RajShah45/status/1037046732310360064/video/1

... This was orchestrated.

---

1. Yes, imagine that, something in a political process was "orchestrated." The last Democratic SCOTUS nominee didn't even get a hearing because of something that was "orchestrated." If Kavanaugh can't handle a little politics, then maybe he's in the wrong line of work.

2. Kavanaugh is still responsible for his own responses to public interactions, "orchestrated" or not. I'd say his response here was less than adequate.

3. The idea that security intervened before Kavanaugh had a chance to shake Guttenberg's hand doesn't hold water if you watch the video (even the one you posted). But thanks for posting the spin from Donald Trump's deputy press secretary. I'm sure that wasn't orchestrated at all!

---

Nobody here has stated 'that security intervened before Kavanaugh had a chance to shake Guttenberg's hand.'

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

blungld said:

---

What I hear no one saying is that this whole process has revealed Kavanaugh to be not very bright. I hear him speak and he just sounds robotic and simplistic in his thinking. He doesn't sound like an intellectual, he sounds like the product of privileged grooming. How he handles this situation should be revelatory in his ability to see the big picture, offer a wise perspective, and speak to principles rather than self or party interest. Instead, he speaks in little half-truths and weasely little explanations and gross PR moves like kissing his daughter or sitting the loyal wife by his side. Ads on TV, interviews on FOX, the support of anonymous donors, and coaching sessions at the White House? Why are we allowing this and who is falling for this crap?

This is supposed to be one of our nine brightest minds who oversees justice and paves the way for American ideals, not a rigid, black and white thinking partisan hack. Raping aside, his capacity should be a disqualifier. We've got much sharper legal minds.

---

That moment when he refused to acknowledge the Parkland father and just kind of glared at him dumbly seems pretty relevatory about his general attitudes.

---

Can you post the entire clip and provide the context please? Are you deliberately misleading or naive?

---

Which part do you think absolves him here?

Honestly asking. That looks like a reasonably full clip to me, shown from multiple angles.

---

This was orchestrated to make Kavanaugh look bad...
1). I hope to play a role in ensuring that this man does not become the next Supreme Court Justice. https://t.co/6oC7OPlyB8

Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) September 3, 2018

Here is the photo of me trying to shake Kavanaugh's hand. https://t.co/5MtQxq5wza

Fred Guttenberg (@fred_guttenberg) September 4, 2018

I invited @Fred_Guttenberg to sit in the audience at today's hearing because the Supreme Court affects the lives of real people. He knows firsthand how Brett Kavanaugh's extreme views on guns could lead to more massacres. Thank you Fred, for honoring your daughter.

Sen Dianne Feinstein (@SenFeinstein) September 4, 2018

2)
https://twitter.com/RajShah45/status/1037046732310360064/video/1

... This was orchestrated.

---

1. Yes, imagine that, something in a political process was "orchestrated." The last Democratic SCOTUS nominee didn't even get a hearing because of something that was "orchestrated." If Kavanaugh can't handle a little politics, then maybe he's in the wrong line of work.

2. Kavanaugh is still responsible for his own responses to public interactions, "orchestrated" or not. I'd say his response here was less than adequate.

3. The idea that security intervened before Kavanaugh had a chance to shake Guttenberg's hand doesn't hold water if you watch the video (even the one you posted). But thanks for posting the spin from Donald Trump's deputy press secretary. I'm sure that wasn't orchestrated at all!

---

Nobody here has stated 'that security intervened before Kavanaugh had a chance to shake Guttenberg's hand.'

---

You linked to a Twitter post that did.

ducky23 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Julie Swetnick comes forward:

Julie Swetnick, a client of attorney Michael Avenatti, alleged in a signed statement released Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would drink to excess and "engage in abusive behavior" toward teenage girls while he was in high school.

In an explosive statement released by Avenatti, Swetnick said in the 1980s, she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and Mark Judge to get teenage girls "inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys."

"I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room," she said in the statement. "These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh."

Swetnick alleged she became one of the victims of "one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes."
She did not allege that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick/1431133002/

Which of the Kav-boys on here is still supporting his confirmation to the Supreme Court?

---

This may not be aimed at me , but I'm waiting for the Thursday hearing to make final judgment.maybe. It seems to me if you keep having other women make credible claims about sexual attacks (I could care less about a flashing prank in college), the guy is toast and should pull his nomination. You may need to have cupcakes comment since he has taken a stronger position on Kav.

---

I think it's a total smear job, but, then again, where there is this much smoke there is probably a fire. Meaning, regardless of whether or not he actually did most of the alleged things, he probably drank excessively and participated in some taboo stuff. To what degree, we don't know. His blanket denial shows he has not been forthcoming about his high school days and frosh year of college. It's sad all the way around. Nominate someone else and move on. Hopefully, this guy's career isn't ruined over what is being alleged he was involved in (to what degree?) 35 years ago. I wonder if the dems used these same tactics on George W. they could have knocked him out. Obviously, it didn't work on Trump :/ who has obvious character flaws.

---

I'm asking this in all honesty, when you say "smear job" what exactly does that mean?

Ok, if you're upset about Difi's timing with the first allegation, fine. I don't necessarily agree that Difi did anything necessarily wrong or nefarious, but fine. I can at least see a reasonable argument.

but what about the following two allegations? how is this a "smear job"? are you implying that the democrats are somehow involved in these two allegations? if so, how? do you think these women are democrat operatives? do you think they are being paid? do you think they are just lying (and in one case, lying under penalty of perjury?) exactly why are the democrats beings blamed for two women coming forward with allegations?

I just keep hearing that there is blame on both sides? besides Difi's lets say questionable judgment, what else have the democrats done wrong in this process? be specific. i guess you can say that keep wanting to delay the process, but in light of these allegations, is asking for an investigation really that unreasonable?

---

Absolutely disagree with DiFi's timing on the groping just as I disagree with her grandstanding Guttenberg during the hearings to make Kav look bad. Then the tactics - get the FBI to investigate before we sat more! It's not fair! You are making her a victim again! She demands Kav testify first! Kav is going to overturn every law that protects women from men! He will put back women's rights 50 years! He will make abortion illegal. Then, a few women that he may have wronged in the past contact the dems or their sleazy attorneys and create or exaggerate stories that make him look bad and then He's like Bill Cosby...!!!

"According to an anonymous complaint sent to Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Kavanaugh physically assaulted a woman he socialized with in the Washington, D.C. area in 1998 while he was inebriated."

"The sender of the complaint described an evening involving her own daughter, Kavanaugh and several friends in 1998."

"When they left the bar (under the influence of alcohol) they were all shocked when Brett Kavanaugh, shoved her friend up against the wall very aggressively and sexually."

"There were at least four witnesses including my daughter." The writer of the letter provided no names but said the alleged victim was still traumatized and had decided to remain anonymous herself."

This from the man who wanted specific and explicit details about Bill Clinton's consensual BJ. Well in '98 he wasn't in HS any longer. He was Ken Starr's assistant, planning to destroy Clinton.

Clinton survived, Kavanuagh won't. Irony, karma, yada, yada...

okaydo said:

---

I know this is wrong to say, but I really hope there is no hearing tomorrow....because I have a lot of work, and I need to finish it to watch Goff take on the Vikings at 5:30, and -- if a day like today is distracting -- then tomorrow will be even more distractinger.

---

Okaydo, you ain't getting jack squat done tomorrow.

Dr. Ford with a seven-page statement. Who will turn this into a one-pager with pictures for the reading-disabled president to digest?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna913581

Why's it always the ones that claim to love the Lord so much that end up being the biggest scumbags? And this guy was the one the Christian Coalition had all their hopes on?

A man reported that he and another buddy kicked Brett and Mark's asses in Rhode Island after their female acquaintance was sexually assaulted by them, allegedly.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

A man reported that he and another buddy kicked Brett and Mark's asses in Rhode Island after their female acquaintance was sexually assaulted by them, allegedly.

---

Newport, RI? God, preppies are the worst.

WaPo article on teenage partying in the 80s, with vignettes or quick personal recollections. Blew up a few brain cells thinking about this.

"I remember thinking, 'Ugh, this is bad'": Scenes from teenage party life in the '80s

Quote:

---

Michelle Talbert: We had great parties back then. The turntables and speakers would just come out, and the dancing and smoking and drinking would begin.

Kristin McCracken: We drank grain alcohol mixed with Kool-Aid. I just remember it being red. . . . I remember those nights hanging out and laughing with my girlfriends. We were listening to "Purple Rain" and "Born in the U.S.A." I just remember feeling that we were invincible.

Ken Flask: A common [story] was, oh, you know, she was passed out so they would lift up her skirt and look at her. I don't think I ever heard a story specifically of a rape, but certainly things you would consider nowadays sexual assault.

On Thursday, two teenagers from the 1980s will find themselves in a very adult setting: a hearing room in the U.S. Senate, where elected officials will decide the country's future by probing what happened in their distant past at an alcohol-fueled suburban house party, the descriptions of which has awakened memories for a generation.

The adolescents of the '80s are now adults reaching the highest rungs of power, prompting an interrogation of the forces that shaped them. The sex-crazed high jinks of "Porky's" and stoner truancy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" reigned at the box office even as the "Moral Majority" held sway in politics. A vision of abstinence ("just say no") collided with a culture of excess ("Welcome to the Jungle"). Fraternities doubled their ranks even as the drinking age was raised state by state. Donald Trump was on the cover of Time, extolling his ethos of "pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after," while young women and men were just beginning to craft a language to describe their interactions in dim hallways and dark bedrooms, when one drink became two, or three or four.

---

Once is random. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern. Four or five times plus, the guy has a major problem. He's not supreme court material.

I wonder if at this point the republicans would be open to making a compromise with the democrats.

Something along the lines of the republicans pulling kav's nomination then the democrats give the republicans a list of moderate judges that they guarantee will receive a fast track approval.

I mean obviously, this wouldn't be ideal for the republicans. But at least they know they can get someone thru before the midterms and it may also allow them to save their hold of the senate.

It seems much better than what's about to come. Because this is heading towards worst case scenario territory for the republicans where they won't be able to get anyone thru and they lose the senate.

Another Bear said:

---

Once is random. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern. Four or five times plus, the guy has a major problem. He's not supreme court material.

---

Or as they say about Bill Cosby, PUDDIN'!

ducky23 said:

---

I wonder if at this point the republicans would be open to making a compromise with the democrats.

Something along the lines of the republicans pulling kav's nomination then the democrats give the republicans a list of moderate judges that they guarantee will receive a fast track approval.

I mean obviously, this wouldn't be ideal for the republicans. But at least they know they can get someone thru before the midterms and it may also allow them to save their hold of the senate.

It seems much better than what's about to come. Because this is heading towards worst case scenario territory for the republicans where they won't be able to get anyone thru and they lose the senate.

---

Doubt it with Trump. My sense is will be the more conservative Barratt, even if has to be a lame duck vote.

ducky23 said:

---

Something along the lines of the republicans pulling kav's nomination then the democrats give the republicans a list of moderate judges that they guarantee will receive a fast track approval.

---

You can wish for that if you want, but that isn't going to happen.

The Republicans supporting Kavanaugh have joined an elite club:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/newsone.com/3317134/seven-celebrities-support-bill-cosby/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-harvey-weinstein-defenders-20171013-story.html%3foutputType=amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.northjersey.com/amp/899886002


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/12/matt-lauer-receives-unexpected-support-from/amp/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/08/business/media/gretchen-carlson-lawsuit-roger-ailes-defenders.html

wifeisafurd said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

I wonder if at this point the republicans would be open to making a compromise with the democrats.

Something along the lines of the republicans pulling kav's nomination then the democrats give the republicans a list of moderate judges that they guarantee will receive a fast track approval.

I mean obviously, this wouldn't be ideal for the republicans. But at least they know they can get someone thru before the midterms and it may also allow them to save their hold of the senate.

It seems much better than what's about to come. Because this is heading towards worst case scenario territory for the republicans where they won't be able to get anyone thru and they lose the senate.

---

Doubt it with Trump. My sense is will be the more conservative Barratt, even if has to be a lame duck vote.

---

Agreed. Barrett is the smart choice at this point. But the window to get her thru (even if it's in a lame duck session) is closing very quickly.

So they would have to drop kavanaugh now. But I just don't see that happening. They've seemed to want to go all in with him, which is fine by me. Not my problem.

sycasey said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

What if (which looks more likely with Murkowski folding)

---

What makes you think Murkowski has "folded?" All I can find are noncommittal statements like in the below:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/murkowski-key-swing-vote-in-kavanaugh-confirmation-signals-support-for-accuser-fbi-probe.html

(Sharing a Fox News article so as not to be accused of liberal bias.)

---

It was in an article that came through my inbox, which I didn't read at all carefully - so, probably My Bad; but I'm thinking that, if the article was somehow correct, the recent flood of new, credible, grosser and many years later [when he was working the Ken Starr investigation - which really WAS an absolute shower (see Terry Thomas)] may well have caused her to re-think her position. I mean, unlike President Munchausen, she's actually sane, right?

oski003 said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Julie Swetnick comes forward:

Julie Swetnick, a client of attorney Michael Avenatti, alleged in a signed statement released Wednesday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh would drink to excess and "engage in abusive behavior" toward teenage girls while he was in high school.

In an explosive statement released by Avenatti, Swetnick said in the 1980s, she witnessed efforts by Kavanaugh and Mark Judge to get teenage girls "inebriated and disoriented so they could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys."

"I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room," she said in the statement. "These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh."

Swetnick alleged she became one of the victims of "one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes."
She did not allege that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-michael-avenatti-julie-swetnick/1431133002/

Which of the Kav-boys on here is still supporting his confirmation to the Supreme Court?

---

This may not be aimed at me , but I'm waiting for the Thursday hearing to make final judgment.maybe. It seems to me if you keep having other women make credible claims about sexual attacks (I could care less about a flashing prank in college), the guy is toast and should pull his nomination. You may need to have cupcakes comment since he has taken a stronger position on Kav.

---

I think it's a total smear job, but, then again, where there is this much smoke there is probably a fire. Meaning, regardless of whether or not he actually did most of the alleged things, he probably drank excessively and participated in some taboo stuff. To what degree, we don't know. His blanket denial shows he has not been forthcoming about his high school days and frosh year of college. It's sad all the way around. Nominate someone else and move on. Hopefully, this guy's career isn't ruined over what is being alleged he was involved in (to what degree?) 35 years ago. I wonder if the dems used these same tactics on George W. they could have knocked him out. Obviously, it didn't work on Trump :/ who has obvious character flaws.

---

I'm asking this in all honesty, when you say "smear job" what exactly does that mean?

Ok, if you're upset about Difi's timing with the first allegation, fine. I don't necessarily agree that Difi did anything necessarily wrong or nefarious, but fine. I can at least see a reasonable argument.

but what about the following two allegations? how is this a "smear job"? are you implying that the democrats are somehow involved in these two allegations? if so, how? do you think these women are democrat operatives? do you think they are being paid? do you think they are just lying (and in one case, lying under penalty of perjury?) exactly why are the democrats beings blamed for two women coming forward with allegations?

I just keep hearing that there is blame on both sides? besides Difi's lets say questionable judgment, what else have the democrats done wrong in this process? be specific. i guess you can say that keep wanting to delay the process, but in light of these allegations, is asking for an investigation really that unreasonable?

---

Absolutely disagree with DiFi's timing on the groping just as I disagree with her grandstanding Guttenberg during the hearings to make Kav look bad. Then the tactics - get the FBI to investigate before we sat more! It's not fair! You are making her a victim again! She demands Kav testify first! Kav is going to overturn every law that protects women from men! He will put back women's rights 50 years! He will make abortion illegal. Then, a few women that he may have wronged in the past contact the dems or their sleazy attorneys and create or exaggerate stories that make him look bad and then He's like Bill Cosby...!!!

---

The difference is that Cosby just THOUGHT he was privileged (to do the equivalent of what Young Kavanaugh and his buddies did), which he may have been - until Karma bit him. Young Kavanaugh actually WAS privileged to do those things, as a matter of cultural approbation pertaining to his set. Karma is a b. . . . .

Another Bear said:

---

WaPo article on teenage partying in the 80s, with vignettes or quick personal recollections. Blew up a few brain cells thinking about this.

"I remember thinking, 'Ugh, this is bad'": Scenes from teenage party life in the '80s

Quote:

---

Michelle Talbert: We had great parties back then. The turntables and speakers would just come out, and the dancing and smoking and drinking would begin.

Kristin McCracken: We drank grain alcohol mixed with Kool-Aid. I just remember it being red. . . . I remember those nights hanging out and laughing with my girlfriends. We were listening to "Purple Rain" and "Born in the U.S.A." I just remember feeling that we were invincible.

Ken Flask: A common [story] was, oh, you know, she was passed out so they would lift up her skirt and look at her. I don't think I ever heard a story specifically of a rape, but certainly things you would consider nowadays sexual assault.

On Thursday, two teenagers from the 1980s will find themselves in a very adult setting: a hearing room in the U.S. Senate, where elected officials will decide the country's future by probing what happened in their distant past at an alcohol-fueled suburban house party, the descriptions of which has awakened memories for a generation.

The adolescents of the '80s are now adults reaching the highest rungs of power, prompting an interrogation of the forces that shaped them. The sex-crazed high jinks of "Porky's" and stoner truancy of "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" reigned at the box office even as the "Moral Majority" held sway in politics. A vision of abstinence ("just say no") collided with a culture of excess ("Welcome to the Jungle"). Fraternities doubled their ranks even as the drinking age was raised state by state. Donald Trump was on the cover of Time, extolling his ethos of "pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after," while young women and men were just beginning to craft a language to describe their interactions in dim hallways and dark bedrooms, when one drink became two, or three or four.

---

That last paragraph - - - could be Fitzgerald

---

ducky23 said:

---

I wonder if at this point the republicans would be open to making a compromise with the democrats.

Something along the lines of the republicans pulling kav's nomination then the democrats give the republicans a list of moderate judges that they guarantee will receive a fast track approval.

I mean obviously, this wouldn't be ideal for the republicans. But at least they know they can get someone thru before the midterms and it may also allow them to save their hold of the senate.

It seems much better than what's about to come. Because this is heading towards worst case scenario territory for the republicans where they won't be able to get anyone thru and they lose the senate.

---

I keep saying this (maybe I'm wrong), but: You're too optimistic. It takes a lot of effort and energy to mount an opposition like this; and most lawyers (who have, after all, entered a fairly safe profession) don't have this degree of skeletons in their closet. I keep bringing up Rehnquist (predictably one of the worst Supreme Court Justices of all time - especially morally) getting confirmed, after the Democrats had shot their wad on Bork - despite an ex-U. S. Attorney (and then highly respected establishment attorney) having testified that Rehnquist had led a gang of thugs who went around Arizona intimidating Hispanic voters (by hook or by crook). I remember Hatch not even getting through the questioning of Brosnahan's memory, when Brosnahan interrupted him, and said the equivalent of: "Oh no, senator. If there was the slightest doubt in my mind, I wouldn't have come 3,000 miles to say this. I'd much rather be at (naming a then-famous restaurant across from his office in San Francisco).

Didn't any of these young ladies have fathers and/or brothers willing to make things right with these cowardly Topsiders wearing pu$$ies? That's the way my family rolls and word gets out around on that.

And if you want to view the Kavanaugh Affair through the lens of Mushroom Dick's base, here is a selection of comments to a Daily Mail story on Kavanaugh's troubles:

"Here are the November 4 2020 poll numbers. Trump 59% Dems 41%."

"Liberals, you forget who is in power. It is not you. Your false accusations are meaningless. They will be met with defeat."

"The question is not whether Judge Kavanaugh did anything. The real questions are ...Will the democrat character assassination succeed ? Will the democrat defamation of character succeed ? We are witnessing a diabolical attack on a truly fine man."

"Myself, and 30 people I personally know, can't wait to vote for this LION again in 2020! MAGA - TRUMP always swinging, always tough, always common sensical, LOVE this man, right down to his yellow lion's mane! "

"Senate Democrats have shown themselves to be evil incarnate. The whole World sees through their dirty tricks. How could anybody with a brain vote for these despicable people?"

"Finally we have a president who is fearless and fights back! How many years have we waited for this!!"

mikecohen said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

I wonder if at this point the republicans would be open to making a compromise with the democrats.

Something along the lines of the republicans pulling kav's nomination then the democrats give the republicans a list of moderate judges that they guarantee will receive a fast track approval.

I mean obviously, this wouldn't be ideal for the republicans. But at least they know they can get someone thru before the midterms and it may also allow them to save their hold of the senate.

It seems much better than what's about to come. Because this is heading towards worst case scenario territory for the republicans where they won't be able to get anyone thru and they lose the senate.

---

I keep saying this (maybe I'm wrong), but: You're too optimistic. It takes a lot of effort and energy to mount an opposition like this; and most lawyers (who have, after all, entered a fairly safe profession) don't have this degree of skeletons in their closet. I keep bringing up Rehnquist (predictably one of the worst Supreme Court Justices of all time - especially morally) getting confirmed, after the Democrats had shot their wad on Bork - despite an ex-U. S. Attorney (and then highly respected establishment attorney) having testified that Rehnquist had led a gang of thugs who went around Arizona intimidating Hispanic voters (by hook or by crook). I remember Hatch not even getting through the questioning of Brosnahan's memory, when Brosnahan interrupted him, and said the equivalent of: "Oh no, senator. If there was the slightest doubt in my mind, I wouldn't have come 3,000 miles to say this. I'd much rather be at (naming a then-famous restaurant across from his office in San Francisco).

---

It's not whether they can find someone qualified enough to get thru, it's whether they have the time to get someone thru.

At best, if they drop Kav tomorrow, they maybe can get someone thru before lame duck session. That's a huge if. It would have to be super fast and I don't see that happening.

If the senate flips and they try to get someone thru lame duck session, the republicans could choose to do that, but they'll take a huge political hit.

If let's say they stick w kavanaugh and get fbi investigations and what not and delay it another 2-4 weeks, then they are toast of the senate flips.

mikecohen said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

What if (which looks more likely with Murkowski folding)

---

What makes you think Murkowski has "folded?" All I can find are noncommittal statements like in the below:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/murkowski-key-swing-vote-in-kavanaugh-confirmation-signals-support-for-accuser-fbi-probe.html

(Sharing a Fox News article so as not to be accused of liberal bias.)

---

It was in an article that came through my inbox, which I didn't read at all carefully - so, probably My Bad; but I'm thinking that, if the article was somehow correct, the recent flood of new, credible, grosser and many years later [when he was working the Ken Starr investigation - which really WAS an absolute shower (see Terry Thomas)] may well have caused her to re-think her position. I mean, unlike President Munchausen, she's actually sane, right?

---

If I had to read the tea leaves on Murkowski, I think she's probably a no. Remember, though she does caucus with Republicans, she originally lost in the Republican primary in Alaska, then ran as an independent write-in candidate in the general election and won. Her political future is based on her being the centrist, moderate representative of her home state. Following the Republican party line and voting for an unpopular SCOTUS nominee would badly hurt that image.

ducky23 said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

I wonder if at this point the republicans would be open to making a compromise with the democrats.

Something along the lines of the republicans pulling kav's nomination then the democrats give the republicans a list of moderate judges that they guarantee will receive a fast track approval.

I mean obviously, this wouldn't be ideal for the republicans. But at least they know they can get someone thru before the midterms and it may also allow them to save their hold of the senate.

It seems much better than what's about to come. Because this is heading towards worst case scenario territory for the republicans where they won't be able to get anyone thru and they lose the senate.

---

I keep saying this (maybe I'm wrong), but: You're too optimistic. It takes a lot of effort and energy to mount an opposition like this; and most lawyers (who have, after all, entered a fairly safe profession) don't have this degree of skeletons in their closet. I keep bringing up Rehnquist (predictably one of the worst Supreme Court Justices of all time - especially morally) getting confirmed, after the Democrats had shot their wad on Bork - despite an ex-U. S. Attorney (and then highly respected establishment attorney) having testified that Rehnquist had led a gang of thugs who went around Arizona intimidating Hispanic voters (by hook or by crook). I remember Hatch not even getting through the questioning of Brosnahan's memory, when Brosnahan interrupted him, and said the equivalent of: "Oh no, senator. If there was the slightest doubt in my mind, I wouldn't have come 3,000 miles to say this. I'd much rather be at (naming a then-famous restaurant across from his office in San Francisco).

---

It's not whether they can find someone qualified enough to get thru, it's whether they have the time to get someone thru.

At best, if they drop Kav tomorrow, they maybe can get someone thru before lame duck session. That's a huge if. It would have to be super fast and I don't see that happening.

If the senate flips and they try to get someone thru lame duck session, the republicans could choose to do that, but they'll take a huge political hit.

If let's say they stick w kavanaugh and get fbi investigations and what not and delay it another 2-4 weeks, then they are toast of the senate flips.

---

My same Mantra: The greatest likelihood is that the Senate DOESN'T flip, and they get someone through the lame duck session; and, as to taking a huge political hit 2 years later: Two years is a long time to gather the Kochs and the Russians and the Adelmans and Wall Street and the current successors to Lee Atwater / Karl Rove et al., to enhuse those tens of millions who voted for Trump in 2016, and continue to suppress opposition votes all over the place, to avoid that.

sycasey said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

sycasey said:

---

mikecohen said:

---

What if (which looks more likely with Murkowski folding)

---

What makes you think Murkowski has "folded?" All I can find are noncommittal statements like in the below:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/murkowski-key-swing-vote-in-kavanaugh-confirmation-signals-support-for-accuser-fbi-probe.html

(Sharing a Fox News article so as not to be accused of liberal bias.)

---

It was in an article that came through my inbox, which I didn't read at all carefully - so, probably My Bad; but I'm thinking that, if the article was somehow correct, the recent flood of new, credible, grosser and many years later [when he was working the Ken Starr investigation - which really WAS an absolute shower (see Terry Thomas)] may well have caused her to re-think her position. I mean, unlike President Munchausen, she's actually sane, right?

---

If I had to read the tea leaves on Murkowski, I think she's probably a no. Remember, though she does caucus with Republicans, she originally lost in the Republican primary in Alaska, then ran as an independent write-in candidate in the general election and won. Her political future is based on her being the centrist, moderate representative of her home state. Following the Republican party line and voting for an unpopular SCOTUS nominee would badly hurt that image.

---

Good point. We'll see. But remember, they voted overwhelmingly for Sarah Palin.

ducky23 said:

---

I wonder if at this point the republicans would be open to making a compromise with the democrats.

Something along the lines of the republicans pulling kav's nomination then the democrats give the republicans a list of moderate judges that they guarantee will receive a fast track approval.

I mean obviously, this wouldn't be ideal for the republicans. But at least they know they can get someone thru before the midterms and it may also allow them to save their hold of the senate.

It seems much better than what's about to come. Because this is heading towards worst case scenario territory for the republicans where they won't be able to get anyone thru and they lose the senate.

---

Republicans compromise!?!!?!?!?!

Republicans don't compromise, even before Trump. And they won't even think of it after Trump.

Even if somebody like John Boehner is/was open to compromise, his base wouldn't let him do it.

It's all or nothing.

Here we go...

Someone in the background was taking photo with his smartphone and the phone case has a Cal logo. Anyone also saw that?