[MD]

Discuss the current nominee here:

[Plantagenet]

I like him.

He's really smart and he is a great skier and aces the double black diamond runs in Colorado.

He sounds like a heck of a guy.

Cheers!


Here come da judge! Here come da judge!

[MD]

That's a nice skill. I was able to do that also, bitd.

How about philosophical position? Decision record? Stance on interpreting the constitution?

[Plantagenet]

The Atlantic Magazine just published a very positive article about judge Gorsuch. They described him as a "Jeffersonian", i.e. a strong advocate for personal freedoms like freedom of speech They say he would have no problem in standing up to Trump if Trump tried to infringe on personal liberties.

jeffersonian-on-the-supreme-court

The Atlantic is a pretty predictably liberal magazine. The fact that they would write a positive article about judge Gorsuch is notable. The Ds are so bitter that Merritt Garland didn't get voted onto the Supreme Court last year that they are off on another one of their partisan witchhunts trying to smear Judge Garland, but perhaps there will be a few liberals---like those at the Atlantic Magazine----who will stay calm and make an honest appraisal of Judge Gorsuch and his many positive traits.

Cheers!

[KaiserJeep]

A decade ago when Gorsuch was nominated by GW Bush for the Federal 10th Circuit Court of appeals, he was vetted quite extensively and confirmed by one of the few unanimous Senate votes for a judicial nominee. In the Senate in 2007 there were 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and two Independents who always caucused with Democrats. The vote was 100 to 0 to confirm Gorsuch, although he had been nominated by a Republican POTUS.

Nothing much has changed, other than the court seat for which he is nominated. I see this as the purest expression of Legislative meddling in judicial politics in the last several decades.

[Cog]

Well if this information could have come forth two months ago, it could have been thoroughly investigated privately, sparing both Ford and Kavanaugh from ruined reputations. Not that anyone seems to care about that anymore.

[Plantagenet]

. It could have been completely false information to begin with.

Perhaps it is.

But nonetheless the Senate Judiciary committee has scheduled a hearing for tomorrow on the Ford accusation. Obviously this all could have been done months ago if Feinstein hadn't sat on the info until the hearings were almost over. Feinstein's failure to turn over all relevant information to the judiciary committee is bizarre and it has led some to call for her censure.

call-for-senate-to-censure-diane-feinstein

censure Feinstein

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

this information... could have been thoroughly investigated privately sparing both Ford and Kavanaugh from ruined reputations. Not that anyone seems to cares about that anymore.

??????

The Ds clearly care very much about that.

Their intent from the beginning was to ruin Kavanaugh's reputation, and you have to give them credit for being ruthless enough to do it.

The Rs, on the other hand, seem to think they are running some kind of impartial investigation. While the Ds have no compunction about smearing Kavanaugh, the Rs aren't nearly as willing to defend him.

Oh well....lets see if Ford has the nerve to show up tomorrow and make her claims under oath.

Cheers!

[Cog]

Oh I know the game the Dems are playing here. Which is why they didn't do this two months ago. They wanted maximum exposure no matter who gets destroyed in the process. They don't even care if it's Ford that goes down for perjury. She is simply a tool.

[vtsnowedin]

The latest charge from the strippers lawyer has his client say.

Swetnick claims she first met Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge sometime between 1980 and 1981 at a house party in the Washington, D.C., area and "attended well over ten house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the years 1981-1983 where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present."

She goes on to claim: "On numerous occasions" she witnessed Kavanaugh engage in "overly aggressive [behavior] with girls and not taking 'No' for an answer. This conduct included the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent."

My first question is if a girl attended one such party and observed any of the charged behavior why did she ever attend a second much less several parties with the same participants. ???

[Outcast_Searcher]

The latest charge from the strippers lawyer has his client say.

Swetnick claims she first met Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge sometime between 1980 and 1981 at a house party in the Washington, D.C., area and "attended well over ten house parties in the Washington, D.C. area during the years 1981-1983 where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present."

She goes on to claim: "On numerous occasions" she witnessed Kavanaugh engage in "overly aggressive [behavior] with girls and not taking 'No' for an answer. This conduct included the fondling and grabbing of girls without their consent."

My first question is if a girl attended one such party and observed any of the charged behavior why did she ever attend a second much less several parties with the same participants. ???

+1

My first thought.

My second was if she was sure girls were being RAPED at such parties by trains of boys, etc., as the CNBC article I read on this claimed she said, then why in the hell didn't she report this to the cops, the school dean, the campus cops, or at least her parents?

To me, this witness seems completely incredible.

[Cog]

Swetnick was also represented by Katz in a sexual harassment suit some years ago. Katz, by I'm sure pure coincidence, is currently representing Ms. Ford.

[dissident]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbjJ9iZ8PE0

Another fake witness. She was in college and went to high school gang rape parties on a regular basis. How the f*ck was she a victim? She must have been one of the perps organizing these parties. So much glee that she produced a "sworn affidavit" without any specifics about Kavanaugh.

This circus of the absurd is what you get when the MSM is biased towards one party. The accusers and their lawyers should be getting shredded by real journalists with serious questions. Not SJW retardation about how questions are blaming the victim. Swetnick should be arrested for rape since she was in a substantially older age bracket than the alleged high school participants.

[Cog]

Dershowitz, a legal law professor, made an interesting observation last night on Fox news. He said it was a mistake for the Republicans to use a sex crimes prosecutor to question Ford. Dershowitz said you really want a defense attorney who is skilled in cross examination.

A defense attorney knows how to trip up and eviscerate a witness who is using false testimony. In a couple hours we will see if the professor is correct.

[Plantagenet]

I've heard snippets of Ms. Ford's testimony on the radio. The women sounds like a nut job. Her voice is all quavery and she....is.....so......afraid. What is she so terrified about? Her recovered fake memory that Brent Kavanaugh kissed her and touched her boobie 38 years ago? This is just pathetic.

A truly weird moment came when she testified that she made the people who built a house for her put in two front doors because of her terror over Brent kavanaugh. Apparently she is so deluded she thinks that Brent Kavanaugh is going to come in one door----and she will run out the other.

This woman needs psychiatric help---not a Senate hearing.

And the Ds pretend to believe every word she says? And the whole country is convulsed over this nut job's claims? Ohmigosh.....we're in worse shape then I thought we were.

Cheers!

[yellowcanoe]

I've heard snippets of Ms. Ford's testimony on the radio. The women sounds like a nut job. Her voice is all quavery and she....is.....so......afraid. What is she so terrified about? Her recovered fake memory that Brent Kavanaugh kissed her and touched her boobie 38 years ago? This is just pathetic.

Her story is believable in the sense that it allegedly happened at a period in time where a handsome, athletic man could get away with taking advantage of women. However, the fact that it is a recovered memory greatly reduces her credibility. I do feel bad for women who were sexually assaulted many years ago and were not able to do anything about it at the time. However, I also feel bad for a man who is accused of such an act many decades later as the accusers memory of what exactly happened and by whom may be quite different than what actually happened. This is why most jurisdictions have a statute of limitations on criminal charges.

[jedrider]

I'm not feeling sorry for the man. At this point, if he was present, then he is guilty of misrepresenting what had happened. IMO, that is the greater offense. Liar, is that the word for it?

I'm adding this link as a reference: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-yale-women_us_5bac5776e4b082030e78204d

IMO Kava-naught as Supreme Justice: FAIL!

[Newfie]

This is a personal touchstone for me. Some years ago my Wife and I were having a hard go of things. We are deeply committed to one another and that we were in such rough shape together speaks to the degree of difficulty we were experiencing.

In one argument she said something that just exploded in me. For most it would have been a deal breaker. I am absolutely, completely, 100% sure of what she said. Period. It was a very traumatic moment for me. And for her also.

That said, my Wife is honest and fair to a fault. The most honest and fair person I’ve ever encountered. I am 100% certain of that.

Ever since that time she vehemently claims she did not say what I know she said.

So there you have it, some 15 years ago we had a incident where we were both present, it was traumatic, it is vividly etched in our minds. And we recall it very differently. We have recalled it differently from virtually the time it happened.

At least one of us is wrong. Probably both. We have to put that aside and move on.

[Plantagenet]

There is something called the "statute of limitations" in criminal trials.

The reason that we have a statute of limitations is that people can't really remember what happened 38 years ago, and its impossible to prove things one way or the other when the events are that far in tha past..

The Ds want us to abandon very basic principles of American democracy, such as the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty and make a judgement on the basis of how we "feel" about it all. They want mr. and Mrs. American to say, Gosh...I feel sorry that Ms. Ford is a neurotic mess, so lets destroy Kavanaugh's life.

Right. Thats about as un-American as it gets.

Sheeesh!

[Newfie]

I didn’t see or hear the show except for about 2 minutes of Kavanaugh, he didn’t look to good. I was getting my hunting license and the gentleman had it in the tube.

So what’s the verdict? Who won?