I think partisan comments by judges are bad, which is why RBG apologized. (Has Kavanaugh apologized?)
But in my view, what makes Kavanaugh’s comments independently disqualifying is not that they were sharply partisan, but that they were Alex Jones level conspiracies. Revenge “on behalf of the Clintons”? That’s tin-foil hat stuff.
He apologized to Klobuchar:
I do wonder how much of that statement he released via Twitter was written by him vs her. I suspect he had a heavy hand in it, and did his best to gin up a lot of controversy with it, but that’s just a guess.
Kavanaugh also wound it all up with, “what comes around goes around.” I don’t remember RBG threatening to get back at Trump, or her detractors, or anyone for that matter, for anything.
Actually, after that “wound it all up” bit, he went on to say this:
Yeah, that isn’t super reassuring.
For that one remark. I’m SO proud of him! :rolleyes:
He’s a habitual liar (doesn’t matter if he manages to stay just this side of perjury), he’s a generally nasty person, he’s got a serious self-control problem, he’s embraced a nutso conspiracy theory, and as Ravenman says, he’s clearly got scores to settle, which he has hinted that he might well do from the bench.
He should not be a judge, let alone a Justice. The refusal of Republicans to step back and see if they might have a saner, cleaner candidate is pathological. There are two possibilities:
Or:
I think you mean “credible and probably accurate accusations, in response to which he lied repeatedly and offensively.”
You think wrong.
Side note: Do you still think Swetnick’s statement is “probably accurate”?
Yeah, I should have said: “credible and probably accurate accusations, in response to which he went off on an unhinged drunken rant filled with lies and insults.”
Avenatti just sent another witness statement (not Swetnick) to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/1047226356831059970 (link contains the tweet, which contains the email to Senate and attached statement)
Basically, the same as Swetnick, without the gang rape allegations - states Kav was not a choir boy in his high school years. This witness, who’s name is redacted, claims Kav spiked the punch to get girls drunk so they could be abused, says he drank a lot/incoherently, and says she knows he was sexually active in high school - she has first-hand knowledge. She also knows of other witnesses.
Personally, I’d prefer these witnesses vetted by a newspaper, but it’s out there all the same.
Not at all. Her statement was a “fair characterization” of the country. She had the right to say it. It was not a rant or a lie. And she was not applying for a job. She has already been through her confirmation, and has the job. He doesn’t. They are different people under different conditions.
Calm down, Brett!
Your questions are exactly why confirming a judge with a political bias is a BIG DEAL. And no amount of whataboutism has anything to do with the direct attack that Kavenaugh launched on half the panel - even when, in the case of Klobuchar, the Senator wasn’t doing anything other than asking reasonable questions in a polite manner.
I watched Kavenaugh say that Democrats were carrying out a secret agenda by the Clintons to destroy his family. You did not see that, that’s fine.
You seem to embrace whataboutism as the only tool in your drawer on this issue, so let me ask you if you see these statements are being pretty much interchangeable:
“This man [Trump] is a pathological liar. He doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies.”
“A Democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil… This grotesque, character assassination will dissuade confident and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country and as we all know in the political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around… You’ve tried hard. You’ve given it your all. **No one can question your efforts and your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family **will not drive me out.”
What were the five words that immediately followed Scalia’s quote you just provided? That context is important for answering your question about his judicial temperament.
trump trolls the country. If you respond as an intelligent american you are accused of partisan “hate”. This is the road to serfdom, newly paved and with rest stops, all named after republican pols.
I see them both as examples of political bias by members of the judiciary.
Something like “but I’m not a king” or “I am not a king”.
You do realize that contentious partisan like cases are not the norm of the docket of cases that SCOTUS reviews don’t you? For the period of 2000 - 2016, only 19% of the cases heard by SCOTUS ended in a 5-4 split. The most common result was 9-0.
b’duh tshhhhhh!
Why was I expecting a rimshot sound after this?
More evidence of Kavenaugh’s lies:
In last week’s hearing, Sen. Chris Coons asked Kavanaugh “whether you’ve ever gotten aggressive while drinking.” Kavanaugh replied, “I think the answer to that is basically no.” He pressed Coons for details—“What are you talking about?”—and went on: “ ‘No’ is the basic answer, unless you’re talking about something where—that I’m not aware of, that you’re going to ask about.” Kavanaugh seemed hesitant, leaving open the possibility that Coons might know of an incident Kavanaugh couldn’t recall. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh chose to say no.
I guess he “forgot” about that bar fight he was involved in.
I can’t find it now, but I saw an article that Ramirez had 20 classmates who wanted to talk to the FBI about the time Kavenaugh assaulted her, and the FBI had talked to precisely ZERO of them.
Wonder what a Republican with actual principles will do with this information.