Can Democrats actually stop the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh?

[drad_dog]

@kenobi_65

Just in case you didn’t notice upthread, HurricaneDitka isn’t a drinker.

For some reason I had the idea he was ex law enforcement. I don’t expect naivete of such a person, but that’s my bias I guess.

[drad_dog]

@HurricaneDitka

See Lance Turbo, here’s a poster that understands how to add a little nuance to his posts. Notice the word “virtually”? That’s how it’s done.

And to answer the question: if “get out” means something like bar-hopping or getting falling-down drunk, then no, I do not. I’d be one of the tiny sliver of adult American males that has not experienced an alcohol-induced blackout in his lifetime.

Never met any of those kinds of people ever either? Is this Barney Fife? See, this is not good for democracy right here.

[kenobi_65]

In a new Washington Post article, several of Kavanaugh’s Yale classmates express disagreement with the “choir boy” image that they felt Kavanaugh tried to portray in the Fox News interview:

Liz Swisher, who described herself as a friend of Kavanaugh in college, said she was shocked that — in an interview focused largely on his high school years and allegations of sexual misconduct — he strongly denied drinking to the point of blacking out.

“Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him. I watched him drink more than a lot of people. He’d end up slurring his words, stumbling,” said Swisher, a Democrat and chief of the gynecologic oncology division at the University of Washington School of Medicine. “There’s no medical way I can say that he was blacked out. . . . But it’s not credible for him to say that he has had no memory lapses in the nights that he drank to excess.”

But Brookes, Ramirez’s roommate for a year, said she was present one night when Kavanaugh participated in an event with his fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon. Brookes said she believes there was “no way” he remembered all of the behavior she observed that night, when fraternity brothers pushed pledges to get “ridiculously drunk” and do “ridiculous things.”

Brookes said she remembers seeing Kavanaugh outside the Sterling Memorial Library, wearing a superhero cape and an old leather football helmet and swaying, working to keep his balance.

He was ordered to hop on one foot, grab his crotch and approach her with a rhyme, Brookes said. He couldn’t keep balanced, she said, but belted out the rhyme she’s remembered to this day: “I’m a geek, I’m a geek, I’m a power tool. When I sing this song, I look like a fool.”

“It’s a funny, drunk college story that you remember — at least, I remember,” Brookes said. As she tracked his career over the years, and his rise in the federal court system, she said, “I thought it was so funny to think that’s the Brett who sang that song.”

The article does also include quotes from a high school classmate, and a college classmate (basketball player Chris Dudley), indicating that they drank with Kavanaugh, but never saw him out of control or blacking out.

[HurricaneDitka]

@drad_dog

Never met any of those kinds of people ever either? Is this Barney Fife? See, this is not good for democracy right here.

The answer to your question is in post #3400

Now, about your last sentence: do you mean that me not being an alcoholic is “not good for democracy”?

[AK84]

Joe Biden on FBI

Keep the merits of this thing aside, I had to laugh, since this would be soundbyte number 2 from Biden’s past which the GOP would use in a judicial nomination.

(As an aside the two judicial nominees against whom the “Biden Rule” was actually used before Garland, ended up on the SCOTUS. Guess which ones).

[I_Love_Me_Vol.I]

@Acsenray

I don’t drink either. Is blacking out an inevitable result of binge drinking? I was under the impression that it was a specific physiological reaction that not everyone experienced as a result of alcohol consumption.

I’ve heard some people define blacking out as “not remembering events after a certain amount of drinking”. I’ve heard others define it as “passing out after drinking”. But neither one of those necessarily occurs with binge drinking. One could binge drink an amount that doesn’t cause blackout drinking.

[iiandyiiii]

The TV just reported that Ford will present sworn statements from an additional four friends of hers that she told about the attempted rape over the last several years.

[BobLibDem]

@HurricaneDitka

I suspect he’s trying to get yet another delay in the vote. That’s the Dem strategy here: delay, delay, delay.

As Judge Garland will attest, this delay is nothing and is infinitely morally superior to the Republican strategy of obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

Republicans know that this is their last chance to put in a Neanderthal on the Supreme Court. Evidently they figure that never controlling the Senate again is a price worth paying to get him on the Court.

[RTFirefly]

And the “female assistant” (Mitch McConnell’s words) who will question Ford is apparently a hyper-fundie prosecutor from Maricopa County, AZ named Rachel Mitchell.

It turns out one of the only at-length interviews Mitchell has ever done is with a publication put out by the far right ‘fundamental baptist’ organization Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI), an organization closely tied to Bob Jones University and espousing a range of hyper-traditionalist views on gender, sexuality and sexual ethics.

The content of the interview isn’t particularly controversial. It’s just that it’s not the sort of publication you’d be interviewed by unless you were well into that world.

Fucking clown show, this is.

[Richard_Parker]

@RTFirefly

And the “female assistant” (Mitch McConnell’s words) who will question Ford is apparently a hyper-fundie prosecutor from Maricopa County, AZ named Rachel Mitchell.
The content of the interview isn’t particularly controversial. It’s just that it’s not the sort of publication you’d be interviewed by unless you were well into that world.

Fucking clown show, this is.

This is guilt by association. There are many ways she could have come to be interviewed by them, and as you say the interview is fine (if anything it shows she is reasonable and informed).

I understand the criticisms, but I still think having her do the questioning is good on net.

[iiandyiiii]

@iiandyiiii

The TV just reported that Ford will present sworn statements from an additional four friends of hers that she told about the attempted rape over the last several years.

More about this:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/detailed-letters-friends-recall-years-old-conversations-with-blasey-ford-about-alleged-attack

“Three of professor Christine Blasey Ford’s friends and her husband have given her attorneys detailed letters describing the date, time, place and context of conversations they had with her when she told them about her alleged sexual assault at the hands of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.”

The timing ranges from 2013 to 2017.

[AK84]

31-35 years later. And hearsay for truth to boot.

[elucidator]

Not about proof, not about guilt or innocence. Its doubt. And doubt gets magnified by the importance of the decision. And that’s not a question of justice.

You’re gonna hire a babysitter to guard the only possessions that matter. You have a candidate, but some worrisome rumors are attached. Do you sit down and think, well, there’s no real evidence here, no fingerprints, DNA, eight by ten color glossies. Can’t really prove it! So, sure, I’ll take a chance…

Like Hell you will.

[RTFirefly]

@Richard_Parker

This is guilt by association. There are many ways she could have come to be interviewed by them

Publications like that aren’t looking to interview mainstream experts; they’re looking to interview people that have the same worldview.

[madmonk28]

Agreed. At the very minimum, you would slow the decision making process down to thoroughly investigate the matter before making such an important decision, but the Republicans are doing the opposite, speeding the process up before we find out more.

[RTFirefly]

@AK84

31-35 years later. And hearsay for truth to boot.

Whatever. The guy’s a liar. He lied about Trump when he was introduced; he lied about his hard-drinking days in his Fox interview; he’s surely lied about the Manny Miranda hacking; it sure looks like he lied about a raft of stuff during the Bush years.

Since the lying about his HS/college drinking was just this week, the 31-35 years is so-what.

[Cheesesteak]

@AK84

31-35 years later. And hearsay for truth to boot.

But 1-4 years before now, which suggests that she’s not making up the story as a result of this nomination.

[AK84]

@Cheesesteak

But 1-4 years before now, which suggests that she’s not making up the story as a result of this nomination.

He is only mentioned by name in one of them; after his name was mentioned.

[RTFirefly]

@madmonk28

Agreed. At the very minimum, you would slow the decision making process down to thoroughly investigate the matter before making such an important decision, but the Republicans are doing the opposite, speeding the process up before we find out more.

Last I heard, the schedule seemed to be:

1. Hold a committee vote Friday morning (lots of time there to assimilate and discuss Thursday’s testimony before voting!)
2. Debate on the Senate floor over the weekend, then vote.

At this point, I think it’s both a rush before any more shoes drop, and a rush to get Kavanaugh into that SCOTUS photo op on Monday.

[Dinsdale]

@suranyi

None of this matters. It’s increasingly clear that the Republicans will vote to confirm him into office, no matter the evidence against him, damn the consequences. It’s their Hail Mary pass.

Yeah - I guess this suggests why I am not more worked up by this than I am. In my book, the charges against Clarence were far more significant and better supported - yet he’s been making bad decisions for some time now…

Add in that the Dems screwed things up by losing the election. I’ve long held that, even if you can’t convince yourself of any other reason to vote, the Supremes is an unavoidable issue. So the people to blame for Kavanaugh are anyone who voted for Trump, anyone who voted Green, and anyone who didn’t vote. To a large (not unrestricted) extent, the winner gets to name Supremes.

Interesting, how quickly the goalposts move, tho, isn’t it? Almost quaint to think how recently a couple of tokes would disqualify someone…

A quote upthread distinguished between blackouts and memory lapses. Haven’t drunk in the past 15 years, but am mildly curious as to what the difference is.