It’s hollow to criticize him for giving in your words, a weasely answer to Harris because you’ve already concluded on him. Even if his response to Harris was perfectly adroit, he’d still be fatally flawed because he accepted the nomination, right? Any criticism is hollow after that.
So far, I have seen no evidence that he publicly boasts of his work with Ken Starr and his futile pursuit of Vince Foster’s murderer, AKA The Whore of Babylon.
So, there is that to his credit, right there! Otherwise, you might think he was just another Republican operative specializing in ratfuck politics, getting his payday.
Maybe we should be grateful G. Gordon Liddy didn’t have a law degree…
Huh? Because I think his answer was weaselly, then that means any other criticism is hollow? Or because I think it’s dishonorable for him to accept the nomination (barring a few circumstances), then any other criticism is hollow? I don’t follow.
I read posts by elucidator and others that make a strong case that Kavanaugh is hardly competent to serve as judge let alone on the highest bench, that he is probably a perjurer, that he is a right-wing hack (as the repentant hacker Brock tells us). Clearly he was selected for one specific reason — he’s the judge most likely to go easy on a criminal President.
Yet (laugh-out-loud) on this message board Kavanaugh’s supporters (as well as the Doper happy to take the most pedantic side of any issue) seem to want to base their case on whether some random message board rummy who skimmed an article thought “The List” of 25 was the “The List” of 11. :smack: [sarcasm] Oh, that has so very very much to do with whether 50 Gopmonsters will or should stand up and renounce all their principles.
Potus and His Supporters — starring the Three Stooges. One has to laugh; it hurts too much to cry.
Bone seems to be saying that you have already decided against him, therefore you have no right to continue to criticize him. If that’s what he means, it’s pretty damn weird, though.
Is that really the link you wanted to post? No matter. It was still kinda funny. But I’m not sure why you posted comments about Kavanaugh’s competence level from 12 - 15 years ago. I am someone who, like you, is approaching his golden years and I know it’s said about us that “time flies”, but 15 years? That’s a lot of flying!! 
Don’t flatter yourself, amigo. No one is “basing their case” on the error you made. Maybe you didn’t notice, but some of us have been participating in this discussion for many pages before you even posted here.
I am referring to the latter as it relates to this:
Essentially, you believe Kavanaugh is disqualified because he accepted the nomination in the first place. That means that any other criticism is simply theater to try and make hay. Even if he was perfect in every other way, you’d think he was disqualified. That’s why criticism from folks like Harris, Booker, or essentially anyone else who had already made up their mind is easily disregarded. So what he gave a weasely answer to Harris - it’s all theater anyways. The questions don’t matter, only the votes matter and in that regard, all the questions from detractors can be ignored.
One wonders why Republicans even bother with hearings, then.
Oh, right, they don’t always, do they? Do you think McConnell shivved Garland because he was so sure Garland would lose, or because he was afraid he might win? That’s OK, you needn’t bother, we both know. We all know.
You offered us the Gold Standard of the ABA, I merely genuflected in respect. Still, you maintain your position that Mr Kavanaugh presents the very finest of American jurisprudence? Wait, that’s not quite fair, since you never actually said that.
Want to say it now? What a proud moment for the Republican Party!
PS: “Golden years”, my ass.
Liddy attended Fordham University School of Law, where he made the law review. He earned his degree in 1957, and after his sting in the FBI went into private practice. He became an assistant district attorney in Dutchess County, New York, in 1966 and his job with the Committee to Re-elect the President was as general counsel.
During his stint in prison, he sued the warden and won, appearing pro se, over safety conditions in the prison.
I will go to the river, and perform the ancient Romanian ritual of self-abasement, accompanied by a chorus of bitter virgins, intoning dirges of woe and humiliation.
Amazes me that y’all can spend 500 posts sniping at each other over this thread. The nomination was never in any serious jeopardy at any point, unless some Republican Senator decides to commit political suicide (I’m not expecting it). If they had actually found something serious in their investigation, then perhaps there might be a problem. But given the standard for what it takes to actually, you know, Bork a nomination, that hasn’t happened here.
The fact that Democrats remain butt-hurt about what happened to Judge Garland simply doesn’t change the fact that Judge Kavanaugh is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Would he be MY choice? No. But, then, President Trump didn’t bother to ask me. 
I qualified that assertion with a few later posts, but I don’t see how this makes any sense at all either way. If Harris or Booker asks a good question that reveals something new about Kavanaugh, then it’s entirely reasonable to discuss this and make judgments and opinions about it. You can disregard them for any reason you like, but that we have made other judgments and opinions doesn’t strike me as a coherent reason to ignore any and every question from Harris, Booker, et al, and any and every answer Kavanaugh gives to those questions.
I would have settled for you getting wapped across the back of the hand with the Sister Mary Elephant Memorial Ruler, but whatever tickles your pickle, chief.
ETA: Bricker: Nice Google-Fu there.
It’s like having a trial after a guilty sentence has been pronounced. Sure the kangaroo court could be fun for spectators, but everyone knows it’s a farce.
I don’t see how when the process is still ongoing. People might ask questions to try and reveal information to convince others. Why wouldn’t that be reasonable?
Sure, but who’s going to answer the question, take the chance of revealing truth? Maybe Susan Collins, the Amazing Spineless Woman, has a question to get some clarity on the Roe stuff. She says she was solidly reassured, he seems to say Absitively Posolutely Sorta Kinda Maybe We’ll See.
Can he get away with more weaseling? The “Prolife” forces are ordering the champagne, pro-choice people are appalled. We got any data on which one is bigger? Might want to check that.
I am far more worried about a president subcontracting his cognitive processes in this regard to the federalist society than I am the particular shortcomings of any particular nominee that emerges from that.
You don’t think Obama listened to outside interest groups when considering who to nominate?
I think he listened to a lot of groups, including Republicans as he nominated someone that they recommended in Merrick Garland. But, then again, he was president of all Americans and not his base.