Supreme Court

The Kavanaugh Nomination Fight Has Pulled Us Further Into a Partisan Quagmire

The Supreme Court confirmation fight is a preview of things to come.

|

Sipa USA/Newscom

Senate Republicans are moving ahead with voting on Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination; a floor vote could occur as soon as tomorrow.

Is this wise? Necessary? Or just another tactical partisan maneuver in a political era increasingly defined by them? My worry is that there is no good answer, and that because of how both parties have acted, we are hurtling toward a long-simmering crisis of institutional and political legitimacy that can no longer be avoided.

The case for proceeding quickly with a vote following yesterday's sexual assault hearing goes something like this: Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, both gave their testimonies and answered questions, and both came across as human and believable. While some questions remain about both of their stories—Is Kavanaugh being truthful about his teenage drinking? How did Ford get home after the evening in question?—it is likely that further investigation would not reveal much more than we already know, which includes sworn written statements from all the named parties said to be present on the night of the alleged assault. Perhaps Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh friend who Ford alleges was in the room at the time of the assault, could be compelled to testify and offer further details, but he has already denied recalling any such event under penalty of perjury, and if called he would most likely take the fifth, providing no new information. At this point what we know is what we are going to know, and however imperfect our knowledge is, it is all we are going to have. Senate Republicans should schedule a vote, and see what comes of it.

The case for postponing the vote, and perhaps withdrawing Kavanaugh's nomination, is that in fact there is still more we could possibly learn: not only from Judge, but from, say, Ford's parents and family, who have offered just a few terse statements of generic support, and could presumably provide recollections about her as a teenager. With further investigation, we might even learn more from Ford herself, who offered to speak with committee investigators and to sketch a floor plan of the house where she says the assault took place. Without falling down the rabbit hole of Google-maps enabled doppelganger theories, it would then presumably be possible to compare that sketch to the floor plans of the people she says were in attendance, which might provide a little more detail about the location of the alleged event than we have now. Speaking of details, more than a few people have expressed skepticism about Kavanaugh's essentially innocent descriptions of some of the activities noted in his yearbook—"boofing," "devil's triangle," "Renate alumni." And then there is the calendar entry in Kavanaugh's datebook that appears to describe a midsummer night of weekend drinking with friends, who include not only Judge but another individual who was reportedly dating Ford at the time. The prosecutor Republicans brought in to ask their questions touched on this entry briefly at yesterday's hearing—but was then cut off by GOP lawmakers. There are simply too many unanswered questions, too much doubt about what did or did not happen, in this view, to move forward right now.

Compounding the matter are real questions of institutional legitimacy. Republicans spent much of yesterday attacking Democrats for their handling of Ford's story: Ford was connected with her lawyer through Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office prior to the allegations becoming public, Ford was unaware of GOP offers to interview her in California (presumably because her lawyers did not adequately relay that offer), and the eventual leak of the existence of the document that turned out to be Ford's story most likely came from a Democratic source (although both Feinstein and the reporter on the initial story have denied it was her). Because Democrats mishandled the process in a manner designed to confer partisan advantage, many Republicans now argue that they have no choice but to move forward with a confirmation vote; to do otherwise would hand Democrats a victory for playing dirty pool, and to ensure that the nomination process is a poisonous, partisan free-for-all for a generation to come.

The Democratic rejoinder is that Republicans were the ones who escalated the nomination process wars when they refused to hold a vote on President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. To move forward now, with so much outrage and uncertainty, would not only put an asterisk by Kavanaugh's name and all his future decisions. Because of the large influence of any single Justice, especially one replacing the Court's longtime swing vote, it would jeopardize the legitimacy of the entire court for years. Perhaps forever.

I find myself at least partially convinced by all of these arguments—and not completely satisfied by any of them. That is precisely the trouble.

Yes, Democrats mishandled Ford's allegation, but now that it is public, their errors shouldn't give Republicans a pass to simply hold a hearing, nod, and then proceed as planned. Yes, Republicans escalated the Senate's procedural cold war with their tactical refusal to vote on Garland, but that doesn't let Democrats off the hook for their own errors, strategic and otherwise. And yes, it would be helpful and good to know more about both Ford's story and Kavanaugh's teenage years, but even if somehow we could, I am not at all sure, based on the bipartisan grandstanding in yesterday's hearing and the overall tenor of the fight so far, that we actually would.

Which is to say that when it comes to Kavanaugh's confirmation, there is no easy way to escape from on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand oblivion, no possibility of resolving the matter in a way that most parties deem fair and reasonable. There is no avoiding the presumption of bad faith.

So this will almost certainly be decided on the basis of raw, winner-take-all political power, for its own sake, rather than on anything that resembles an attempt at compromise, and it has already set the stage for many more similarly ugly and degrading showdowns in the future. Regardless of the outcome, Kavanaugh's nomination has pulled our nation further into the quagmire of crude partisan power politics. Welcome to the abyss.

NEXT: A Way Out of the Kavanaugh Debacle

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No. The Democrats have chosen to pull us further into a partisan quagmire. This was a choice. Not a passive voice event of fate.

    1. It was an orchestrated, stupid and shortsighted choice. The Dems went full retard for what exactly?

      1. The Dems went full retard for what exactly?

        A base full of retards?

      2. RESIST by any means necessary

        Seriously their plan is to delay past midterms, Sens retale senate and keep court 4-4 until 2020.

        1. After what they did to Garland that is exactly what they should do. If Democrats win gain the Senate in November they need to hold open any vacancies til we have a Democratic president.

      3. Same reason they dressed in sheets and murdered people before. They hate people who aren’t like them.

        1. The Klan is on a mission from God, just like Al-Quaeda is on a mission from Allah! This is what the First Amendment is supposed to protect, right? “The coercive exercise thereof?”

      4. To protect Feinstein from a challenge from an even crazier leftist?

        1. To protect Feinstein from a challenge from an even crazier leftist?

          Her only competition is Kevin de Leon, another Democrat who has had some pretty damned credible sexual assault allegations leveled against him just within the last year or so.

          He’s no communist, but he’s about as corrupt a swamp creature as is to be found in the CA legislature.

          So, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there’s no good outcome for 2018 CA Senate race.

          1. Yes there is. I’m voting for De Le?n. If he wins, the California delegation has zero seniority.

      5. Haven’t they already prevented him from taking a seat in the Supreme Court session starting in October?

        That’s a plenty big enough win, particularly if things come to a head between Trump and the Deep State.

    2. 1. If it wasn’t for partisanship, then we never would have heard from Blasey Ford but she was credible and I believe her. Thank God we are getting an investigation; it won’t matter what we think today.
      2. Kavanaugh and Graham showed partisan rage — the opposite of what Reason stands for. It’s not a good look for Graham but politicians sometimes do that.
      3. Kavanaugh does not get a pass for doing the same thing. He was dishonest about his past and disqualified himself with his rant. Kavanaugh directly impugned a political party and the Clintons. Not the merits of a case that Democrats brought to the court or even a liberal policy position, but the politics of that party. What judge has ever acted like that and why would anyone trust such a judge to be a neutral umpire — calling balls and strikes — in future cases?

      1. “What judge has ever acted that”…?.let’s see, one who was accused of being an attempted rapist by a batty SJW who just happened to remember an un corroborated incident that probably exists only in the twisted recesses of her mind at a very opportune time for the D scum on the judiciary committee.

      2. Yeah man Kavanaugh should just sit there and take people destroying his name in front of his friends, family, and colleagues. Who would not want that? And an FBI witchunt investigation to boot? Yeah sounds like a great deal.

        Now we can pass judgement on the partying and filandering of a teenager from over 30 years ago. I for one applaud someone getting fucked up and partying as a teenager because that is what teens are supposed to do and it is what most well adjusted teenagers did. Fuck this new Puritanism bullshit.

      3. If it wasn’t for partisanship, then we never would have heard from Blasey Ford but she was credible and I believe her. Thank God we are getting an investigation; it won’t matter what we think today.

        Sure she was credible, in the sense that she firmly believes her own false memories. Her testimony and history also shows that she is a deeply disturbed woman, because no rational, sane human behaves like her.

        What judge has ever acted like that and why would anyone trust such a judge to be a neutral umpire — calling balls and strikes — in future cases?

        He didn’t speak as a judge, he spoke as a father and husband who was the target of an attempted character assassination and a witch hunt. And good for him for being outraged and speaking out.

        1. And if he DIDN’T get angry, the same poster would’ve held THAT against him too.

      4. You say:

        Kavanaugh directly impugned a political party and the Clintons. Not the merits of a case that Democrats brought to the court or even a liberal policy position, but the politics of that party. What judge has ever acted like that and why would anyone trust such a judge to be a neutral umpire — calling balls and strikes — in future cases?

        Well, right off the bat, I can think of 2 SCOTUS judges right now, Ginsburg & Kagan who both spouted support for the LGBT agenda & both performed same-sex marriages in public & therefore should’ve recused themselves from hearing the Obergefell v. Hodges case…..Even worse for Komrade Kagan who is proud of her profoundly “Queering” Harvard Law School during her stint as the Dean!

      5. https://tws.io/2y021Dm

        https://www.weeklystandard.com/ john-mccormack/ was-blasey-ford-at-a-july-1 -1982-party-with-kavanaugh

        So much for the July 1 party as a refuge.

        7 guys

        One of them one she dated.

        If the 4th, unnamed, guy is someone she dated, then her memory is such crap that nothing she says can be valued.

        Oh, and Timmy’s house was 11 miles frmo the country club, which is not “nearby”

  2. I knew Suderman would be here to cry about losing this.

    1. I did too. Suderman just wants a broken system where whenever the Demcorats throw a tantrum the Republicans give them what they want in the name of everyone getting along. It is what people on this board often call “the bipartisan fusion party.”

      Beyond that, politics is supposed to be a partisan quagmire. Different groups of people in a country this large don’t agree on a lot of things. The entire purpose of having a Republic is for those deferences to be settled via the democratic process. That can’t happen if elected officials stop representing the interests of their supporters in the name of everyont getting along. To quote a famous man “elections have consiquences”. They are supposed to have consiquences. If they don’t, then people’s votes and interests don’t matter.

      What Suderman and his ilk wants is a bipartisan rule by top men whereby politicians get elected by voters and then are expected to tell those voters, whomever they are, to go fuck themselves and go along with whatever the “bipartisan consensus” is. That is not a healthy democracy or any kind of sustainable politcal system.

      What is healthy is what is happening here with each side standing up for the choices and interests of their supporters and the side with the most votes winning.

      1. I think there’s truth in both stances, in that I think one of the things that causes the mindless, passionate partisanship that we see is the notion that politics is about Right and Wrong, rather than, for example, whether water from the CA Delta belongs to the farmers or to the salmon fishers. One is not Good and the other is not Evil – it’s just two different economic interests who want to use the same water and have to negotiate with one another.

        But enough people have come to think of politics as being about having the Perfect Vision for How Things Should Be, and you are either for Good, or you are against Good and therefore are Evil that rather than anything like good faith negotiation we get his hyperventilating partisanship that goes nowhere.

        1. Yes. I didn’t mean to imply that no one should ever compromise. But, the point of a compromise is to advance whatever interests you are charged with representing the best way possible. You compromise because it allows you to get something when the alternative is gridlock and getting nothing. Such compromises are healthy bi-partisanship and are essential to a properly functioning republic.

          But that isn’t the kind of bi-partisanship Suderman is talking about. He is not talking about everyone taking half a loaf. He is talking about a bipartisanship as an end in itself. It is not finding common ground or giving the other side something so your side can get something. It is whereby you just stop caring about the interests of your supporters and go along with whatever the Washington consensus is. Suderman’s bi-partisanship is just having elections to give Democratic legitimacy to whatever the top man Washington consensus is.

          1. “But that isn’t the kind of bi-partisanship Suderman is talking about.”

            You should maybe let the author express their own opinion on the topic, instead of assigning him your own interpretation of his words as the opinion he actually holds.

            The tactics you use here are the biggest part of the reason that our politics are a partisan dumpster fire right now. Everyone wants to take the worst interpretation of everything someone says, and misrepresent people they disagree with instead of letting everyone share their opinions on their actual merits.

            As for your apparent love for the adversarial system, solving problems is not a team sport.

            1. ECD, will an investigation change a single Democrat vote?

              Will the people demanding one accept a week (evidence is ALREADY showing they will not)?

              So, again, WHY do it? This was not a good faith attempt to learn anythin.g The GOP took Ford far more seriously than she warranted and the Dems didn’t take her or Kavanaugh seriously at all.

        2. Also, we were talking the other day about Ford or Kavanaugh being more “elite”. I didn’t realize that Ford teaches at Standford. I thought she taught at some other school out there. So, I take it back. You are right, they are both effectively “elite”.

        3. Who is more likely to have a Utopian View of how things should be? The left, who never met a government intervention they didn’t like, or the Right, who hem and haw about what they should do?

          1. And that does appear to be the dividing line; as someone tweeted about Kavanaugh a few days ago, she described him as “a very capable man who will dissolve the modern regulatory state with great efficiency” and that was essentially why the Senate should listen to Ford and not confirm his nomination.

            Of course she said it like it was a bad thing, but I take it as the best possible endorsement [not that it is necessarily true, Kavanaugh sucks on Fourth Amendment for example]; do we want more government regulation as the answer to everyone’s problems, or do we believe more in individual responsibility and initiative? That is what divides Democratic Socialists [as more of them are calling themselves and describing as the “future of the party”] and conservatives and libertarians. I think it is an irreconcilable difference. We will eventually be two [if not more] nations as this growing divide may well accomplish what the Civil War did not.

            1. Not to abutiere patientia nostra, but does the 4th Amendment currently stop the Klan from searching inside women for nationalizable. potentially God-fearing fetuses?

          2. Who is more likely to have a Utopian View of how things should be?

            No offense, but I find the question quite silly. I’m talking about the view of politics as a struggle between Good and Evil. Your argument seems to be that this only affects one side, the Evil one.

          3. Neither of them is particularly trustworthy when given the power to decide how things should be-they spend beyond their means and both are given with fits of trying to enforce how other people live.

            You have to take everything on a case by case basis. At first I disliked Kavanaugh because he has a bad record when it comes to invasions of privacy. He’s generally a supporter of the government spying on its own citizens. If his nomination were about that, I’d neglect him.

            The left has instead made the main issue of his nomination an unfounded accusation of sexual assault. The accuser cannot corroborate the date, cannot tell us where the assault took place, and the only witnesses who could corroborate her story don’t remember ever being with her in that group. She’s expecting us to have unwavering faith in her personal memories when, as a psychologist, she should know better than a layman about the fallibility of memory. It’s an accusation without proof and carefully timed for the greatest political benefit, and I can’t violate the principle of presumption of innocence when it comes to ruining a man’s life.

            1. I can’t violate the principle of presumption of innocence when it comes to ruining a man’s life.

              And this is where the atmosphere of hysteria poisons the whole proceeding. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a criminal standard for locking someone up, not for approving someone for the Supreme Court.”

              We would never say “better to fill the Court with 9 rapists than to suffer one non-rapist not getting on the Court.”

              But we all know that the personal stakes for Kavanaugh are much higher than “not getting on the Court,” and that’s where it starts to seem unjust.

              I don’t want Kavanaugh on the court. I think he’s a self-righteous elitist douche-bag with very concerning views on Executive Privilege and the 4th Amendment. But I don’t think he and his family’s lives should be destroyed, and these really are the stakes.

              1. How about innocent until she can recall a single god damned thing that is verifiable outside her own head. Somehow every single one of those details, whether 36 years ago or two weeks ago, is met with a variant of “I don’t recall”.

                1. I’m not saying her story should be accepted without skepticism. I’m saying the partisan right-wing stance that an “innocent until proven guilty” standard should be applied is not really appropriate to a SCOTUS confirmation. “He may not be a rapist” is good reason not to throw someone in jail, but it’s not a good reason to put someone on the Supreme Court.

                  My point is that the current atmosphere has made it considerably less simple than that, because the consequences for Kavanaugh, as unsympathetic as he may be, are much more than “failed to achieve the height of his profession due to some doubts about his character” but rise instead to “will forevermore be referenced in mainstream media as the serial gang-rapist that Trump tried to put on the SCOTUS because Republicans hate women.”

                  1. I think it’s a different consideration, that being there is no more filibuster so what will be the standard for blocking nominations going forward? If this was allowed to be the pretext, the court would necessarily be dissolved as confirmation becomes impossible.

                    Democrats could have hammered him on the 4th, seriously they should have, but they chose clown show and character assassination which can not be allowed to stand.

                    1. Agreed^^^^^^I’d much rather have more of a skeptic of statism like Gorsuch than Kavanaugh, but compared to affirmative action Kagan or the unwise Latina at least the 2nd is safe for a while.

                      I wonder if Team Red realizes their people will probably say “fuck it” if they cave without a good reason and they’ll get slaughtered in a month. I pull for a stalemate so they can beat each other over the head and leave the rest of us the fuck alone, but the prospect of the Retards running the D’s now having total control is a recipe for economic disaster.

                  2. I’m saying the partisan right-wing stance that an “innocent until proven guilty” standard should be applied is not really appropriate to a SCOTUS confirmation.

                    What makes you think that that’s the “partisan right wing stance”? If these allegations had come out early on during the nomination process and found to have even a whiff of credibility, Kavanaugh would have been dropped from consideration and no “right winger” would have complained.

                    My point is that the current atmosphere has made it considerably less simple than that, because the consequences for Kavanaugh

                    This isn’t about the personal consequences for Kavanaugh. It is about giving Democrats the tool to manipulate the nomination process through character assassination and lies. That must not be permitted.

                    ut rise instead to “will forevermore be referenced in mainstream media as the serial gang-rapist that Trump tried to put on the SCOTUS because Republicans hate women.”

                    That may be what the Democratic base believes. I suspect that a large part of the US population will see this for what it is: reprehensible behavior by Democrats and so-called feminists. Democrats likely miscalculated if they think this will help them with elections.

                    I used to be a Democrat until 2016, and this just reinforces my utter contempt for what the Democratic party has become.

              2. And this is where the atmosphere of hysteria poisons the whole proceeding. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a criminal standard for locking someone up, not for approving someone for the Supreme Court.”

                Well, then let’s talk about another criminal issue, namely that Feinstein concealed for months knowledge of the attempt rape of a minor and prevented an orderly FBI investigation.

                If Feinstein had communicated this information early on, chances are that either the FBI would have concluded that Ford is a mentally unstable woman with false memories, or that the allegations might have merit and the nomination would have been dropped quietly. Neither Ford, nor Kavanaugh, nor the nation would have to have undergone this ordeal.

              3. I don’t want Kavanaugh on the court. I think he’s a self-righteous elitist douche-bag with very concerning views on Executive Privilege and the 4th Amendment. But I don’t think he and his family’s lives should be destroyed, and these really are the stakes.

                Exactly. THIS standard is one where we can rest assured nobody will do anything ever again except Democrats, who are never held to this standard. This is destructive and vicious and makes people like me wonder why bother with voting since it won’t matter? Why NOT pursue violence? Mobbing Flake led to him changing his vote. Should conservatives not do the same?

          4. A very wise man said this over 80 years ago & it rings more true than ever!

            “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

            ? G.K. Chesterton

        4. rather than, for example, whether water from the CA Delta belongs to the farmers or to the salmon fishers. One is not Good and the other is not Evil – it’s just two different economic interests who want to use the same water and have to negotiate with one another.”

          Hate to tell you this but the fish over water is political, Fish & Game of California only allows so many salmon to be allowed to grow. they only collect the eggs at minimum levels to keep the salmon population down so that they can continue to interfere with both fishing and farming industries. they allow millions of eggs to not be hatched. it a crime our government is committing to its own people for some bizzare reasons no one can understand why other than for ultimate control

          1. Hate to tell you this but the fish over water is political

            I don’t see how this disagrees with what I said, but point taken.

        5. rather than, for example, whether water from the CA Delta belongs to the farmers or to the salmon fishers.

          that never was about salmon fishers. It is about whether gaia the god of the earth is supreme, or someone/thing else.

          If it WERE about salmon or salmon fishers, the judge would have let them, when they came back a year later, implement their plan to erect screens, much like are emplaced at dams, to keep the little tiny Delta smelt out of the pumps and thus not make fishburger out of them all day every day. It would have let the water flow to the San Joaquin Delta famers, AND preserved the pwitty wittow fishies for the looney judge. EVERYONE would have won. but now, California’s HUGELY profitable Bread Basket has turned into largely a wasteland. I’ve seen the tens of thousands of almond and orange trees pushed over with big equipment and left to dry out half standing. No water for them, because it MUST go for the fishies…. that COULD have been preserved elsewise.

          No, its all about WHO will control.. the socialist wlrkd government democrats, or the small guys who just want to be left alone to make a living.

          1. Look deeper than the sexual assault charges in this situation… they are just the frosting on the cake, something over which EVERYONE will get offended. WHAT!!! A JUDGE who pushed himself on a young girl when HE was a young boy? Well, come ONNNNNN folks, we had a PRESIDENT who is absolutely PROVEN to have fully raped a number of women, then together with his wife destroyed the lives of the female victims. Sorry, I ain’t buying the nose in the air “integrity” meme of the dems pressing this assault non-incident.

            No, what this is REALLY about is that everyone can look into Judge Kavanaugh’s record on his stance on firearms….. so far, its been at best a 5-4 split on any signficant firearms case. The disarming dems are all too well aware HE tip the court toward recognising our right to arms. WHY did SCOTUS decline to hear the last half dozen gun rights cases? WHAT difference would a judge like Kavanaugh make in deciding cert on the next few, and they ARE coming down the pike as states like Hawaii, California, Maryland, New Jersey continue to deny rights to arms. Kavanaugh will almost certainly want to hear these cases AND vote in favour of the simple meaning of that Second Article of Ammendment. Dems are near apopleptic at the thought of our right to private arms being upheld by the highest court in the land. This Ford/assault charade is a cover for their REAL fear.

            1. The fear is over federally legalized & federally subsidized abortion!

      2. Partisanship like you describe is fine as long as we respect each other. That is no longer the case, both sides view each other as pure evil, and they create political firestorms to wipe up the anger and outrage of their partisan supporters. The vast majority of voters despise this win at ALL costs politics. Where destroying peoples reputation, lives and careers is just a tool to winning. It may temporarily satisfy one sides frustration, but at the cost of building more spite and anger on the other side. Most the partisans in this country have lost all sight of doing what they view as best for the country and are instead wanting the total destruction of the other side. The more they wipe up the passions and anger of their supporters the more everyone else looses.

        1. Partisanship like you describe is fine as long as we respect each other. That is no longer the case, both sides view each other as pure evil

          Wow, your thinking is thoroughly infested with this bullshit division of politicians and the US population into “two sides”.

          Most the partisans in this country have lost all sight of doing what they view as best for the country and are instead wanting the total destruction of the other side.

          Libertarians and conservatives don’t want “to do what’s best for the country”. We just want to be left alone and voluntarily and privately do what’s best for ourselves, our families, and our communities.

          Talking about “doing what’s best for the country” already means that you are a progressive, an authoritarian, and a collectivist. And you bet that makes libertarians and collectivists angry with you.

  3. Nope.com.

    As everyone said, this is not a Criminal case, it is an administrative case. We are following an administrative process to determine whether or not this guy is fit to serve. That administrative process had ample time for investigation and research. Some members of that administrative process failed to use their time effectively. They sat on potentially important information and only released it at the end of the process.

    Sorry, but a lack of urgency (or ethics) on one party’s account does not constitute a crisis on the other party. Yes, we could spend months or years on the administrative proceedings, following every single lead down an infinite rabbit hole. But everyone knew the time limit that bounded this process. That includes the people who felt they had damning info that would sink the candidate. They tried and failed to sink the candidate. The process is over, time to move on.

    1. I think it’s also ridiculous to ask the sorts of things the Democrats were asking-how often did you drink? Were you a sloppy drunk? Did you drink too much and throw up? None of those things would make him a rapist.

      And in order to contradict him on those points, we’d be calling witnesses of everyone who went to his high school in the 1980s and asking them about details which are 30 years old to verify minor details, which don’t tell us anything about his judicial record or what kind of a person he is. Ford has done her best to make her accusations both uprovable and unfalsifiable, so instead we’d be having an inquisition about high school antics 30 years later, which is ridiculous and prudish.

      1. I am not sure how she remembered stuff in such vivid details. I do not remember anything that happened to me in any significant sequential detail from even a year ago, I just see random memories jumbled together. Maybe traumatic events have a tendency to sear themselves in your memory, but I have my doubts. I have had bad things happen to me before but those memories disappear too.

        I think her story is possibly true but just as likely suffused with regressed fiction like alien abduction stories.

        1. I am not sure how she remembered stuff in such vivid details.

          It’s easy to cite thoroughly unverifiable details.

          She cannot say where or when it happened. Therefore, literally nothing she says can be disproven. So, her details are meaningless gibberish.

    2. As everyone said, this is not a Criminal case, it is an administrative case.

      However it is a criminal matter making false statements under oath. And should the accusations be proven to be false, should the response be to nervously guffaw at the baseless accusation? That the matter was never important enough to bring up during all the years Kavanaugh solely decided the fates of hundreds of people, setting precedent that is now part of the body of law, but this, this is a field too far?

      Further, should thousands of people write their senators stating Feinstein committed unpure acts against their person, do you think she’d agree to the ethics investigation and a congressional hearing? Sure, I can’t remember the exact dates nor can I name any witnesses, but it happened. Scouts honor.

      This is now much bigger than a confirmation hearing and regardless of what happens with Kavanaugh, I am much more interested in a complete investigation as to whether this administration function followed the letter of the Senates rules and possibly some new rules put in place.

      1. Feinstein and any co-conspirators should be investigated for traumatizing Dr. Ford, and exploiting her difficult and fragile emotional situation. Once again, the party that brags about representing women has shamelessly thrown another under the bus.

  4. The case for postponing the vote, and perhaps withdrawing Kavanaugh’s nomination, is that in fact there is still more we could possibly learn: not only from Judge, but from, say, Ford’s parents and family, who have offered just a few terse statements of generic support, and could presumably provide recollections about her as a teenager.

    Mr McArdle thinks her parents might say “she came home bruised, bloody, and crying but we did nothing then and said nothing during the whole process”? Their opinion of her as a kid isn’t really relevant.

    1. Why couldn’t they say something in the last ten days? Everyone else on the planet has. I would think that anyone who could corroborate her story would have come forward. Is that unreasonable?

      1. So what do you say?

        The one who, late in HS went off the rails. You were prepared for drinking, but not the dope and sex. At some point you get an intervention. She has some emotional damage but she’s still your daughter. She gets straight, goes West to school and everthing seems normal.

        You’re 80 when the news says a very prominent guy did shit to her. Your first thoughts are How can she tell?‘ and ‘Oh no Chrissy, you don’t understand‘ And then you hate: that time, the drugs, the promiscuity, the time when a normal little girl lost part of herself. But’s what’s done is done.

        So what would you say when the reporters call?

        “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” … he added: “I think any father would have love for his daughter.” —Washington Post

        1. “I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs and so on,” … he added: “I think any father would have love for his daughter.” –Washington Post

          Conversely, it sounds like he thinks (knows) she’s full of shit and has already gone into defensive mode, because he’s seen behavior throughout her life completely consistent with her casting herself as a victim and inventing imaginary trauma (though not on this scale previously) – without regard for whom it might injure.

          1. Taking the easy way out, I’ll say she does have trauma. Speech patterned, recent-memory loss, constant self-correction of details, a PhD psychologist oblivious to her own confirmation bias, etc. I’ve seen this before and I believe she has a cognitive disability.

            I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m giving her a slightly different motivation. I’m not discounting her obvious fear and hatred of Trump and therefore Kavanaugh. But she truly believes what’s she’s claimed, and facts don’t deter her belief.

            But parents love their children, and you have to sympathize with her family under the circumstances.

            1. Taking the easy way out, I’ll say she does have trauma. Speech patterned, recent-memory loss, constant self-correction of details, a PhD psychologist oblivious to her own confirmation bias, etc. I’ve seen this before and I believe she has a cognitive disability.

              She may have that. But false memories don’t even require that. Everybody has false memories; they are a normal part of the human condition. People’s biases and experiences just happen to shape what kinds of false memories they tend to develop, whether it’s false memories about your 10th birthday party, your last job interview, a bad date, or an alien abduction.

              1. “But false memories don’t even require that. Everybody has false memories”

                Perhaps, but we don’t have to go so far in this case. Normal memories, even false, should be coherent with their adjacent, true or false, memories. The boys Ford named lived miles from her home, one or two hours walk; one house suggested is 8 miles for hers.

                In Ford’s narrative she went from swimming at the club to this house party, went upstairs, got pushed into a bedroom, onto a bed and assaulted, ran out of the room when the boys fought, and went home. Yet what Ford actually relates is she had been swimming at the club, then she was at this house, she was upstairs, she got pushed into the room onto a bed and assaulted, she ran from the room, and she was home. At its core she can only say she was pushed into the room onto a bed and assaulted, tried to scream, music was turned up, and she ran from the room.

                Other details of Ford’s story ?trying to make eye contact to gain sympathy during the struggle? are incongruent as well. All the people she alleges were there have denied it point blank. The physical record reveals a narrative that is not believable. You can call it false memory, but the disassociated elements point to delusion, hallucination, or recalled dream.

                And yes, it all gets processed in the hippocampus!

    2. Didn’t her parents specifically not sign the letter saying they believed her?

  5. Ford was unaware of GOP offers to interview her in California (presumably because her lawyers did not adequately relay that offer)…

    There’s an argument to be made that Ford’s attorneys were not representing her interests.

    1. That would be a shocking revelation. But a credible assertion.

    2. People tend to serve the interests of whoever is paying them.

      1. Something I keep in mind whenever I visit Reason.

      2. However it is an ethical standard of the legal profession (I know) that any issue must be transmitted to the person being represented as that person has the final decision on all issues. Any offer, even an insulting one, must be passed on to the person. The lawyer is not to make a decision for the client and avoid informing the client of the issue needing a decision.

        It would appear her legal representation violated the standards and should be reported to the bar association of whatever state holds their license. Of course that isn’t likely to happen as it doesn’t serve the interests of those who used Dr. Ford. Not to mention the lawyers likely would each claim “I thought the other(s) had informed the client.”

      3. Good point. Just learned that Ford has two GoFundMe pages. One apparently set up by her lawyers to help pay for her “security” has a total of $200,000.00 USD. The other, set up by “friends and neighbors”, has stopped accepting donations with a total of a bit over $528,000.00.

        So, as Jonathan Turley asks, do people think they are paying for the political activity they want when they contribute to these funding efforts? Does this encourage people to try for their “payday”? Is this, indeed, pay for accusations? Whatever it is or does, Ford’s Feinstein recommended attorneys committed in the hearing that they are working pro bono, so that $728,000.00 plus swag is all Ford’s (and is it taxable as income? Gifts? Enquiring minds want to know.).

    3. How shocking that lawyers working for someone for free might have an agenda beyond the interests of that person.

      1. Even if you’re paying them, do they really represent your interests, or their paycheck?

  6. The Democratic rejoinder is that Republicans were the ones who escalated the nomination process wars when they refused to hold a vote on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

    Which is their legal right and within the rules. No hearing = rape accusations?

    1. Going to be interesting how the GOP retaliates on the next Dem nomination. About the only thing I’m certain of is that the nominee will be far more partisan and more clearly a party hack, which will make for fertile grounds.

      1. Do they get any more partisan than RBG and Sotomayor?

        1. Kagen?

          1. Is she the short, fat one who always votes the progressive way or the short, fat one who always votes the progressive way?

            1. “This decision is bad because it hurts Unions, and I like Unions.”

            2. She’s the one with no judicial experience that was easily confirmed since all they had was her pinky swear that she’d be super serious about the job.

      2. This akin to retaliating for sniping with chemical warfare.

      3. Going to be interesting how the GOP retaliates on the next Dem nomination.

        While I don’t like it — they have to destroy the person. Rake them thru the mud relentlessly. Democrats have never had to face what they have demanded the Republicans face.

        They. Must. Suffer.

    2. The Republlican rejoinder is tbst the man who nominated Merrick Garland voted to deny a floor vote for Samuel Alito.

      1. The Republlican rejoinder is tbst the man who nominated Merrick Garland voted to deny a floor vote for Samuel Alito.

        Or that the Dems were WAY less concerned about denying a vote to Estrada solely because he was Hispanic.

  7. “a floor vote could occur as soon as tomorrow.

    Is this wise? Necessary? Or just another tactical partisan maneuver in a political era increasingly defined by them?”

    Both wise and necessary. Wise because the whole Senate hearings have been a circus on a bed of bullshit. End it.
    Necessary because that’s what happens in the Senate, they vote on stuff.

    1. Necessary because that’s what happens in the Senate, they vote on stuff.

      Article II.

      It didn’t used to be political until McGuffin hacks like Suderman turned appointing a judge, and everything else, into the Empire crushing the Rebellion and Axis v. Allies combined… or politicians did and the media abetted them.

      1. It has always been political. Everything the Senate does is inherently political.

        It became a circus when the Senate started routinely holding public committee hearings on every nominee, but that happened back in 1946.

        You can’t take politics out of the process, but there are things that could be done to make it less partisan and less of a circus.

        1. Every nominee gets a vote from the full Senate. The committees don’t get to decide if or even when the vote happens. If the full Senate holds a confirmation vote while the relevant committee is dawdling, to bad for them.

        2. End the public confirmation hearings. If the committee wants to bring the nominee in for an interview in a closed session fine, but there is zero reason and even less benefit to allowing the committee members make public speeches about the nominee.

        2B. If you absolutely insist on public hearings the rules for those hearings need to change drastically.
        2B1. The full Senate vote is scheduled before the hearings start and the committee doesn’t get to reschedule the vote. This gives them a hard deadline.
        2B2. No speeches by committee members during the public hearings.
        2B3. As part of preventing speech making, only the committee chair and senior minority member get to ask questions of the nominee. The length of individual questions will be limited to prevent speeches in the form of a ridiculously long question.
        2B4. It’s a job interview. The committee doesn’t get to call other witnesses.

        1. It has always been political. Everything the Senate does is inherently political.

          It became a circus when the Senate started routinely holding public committee hearings on every nominee, but that happened back in 1946.

          Agreed. I think there’s some issue with how synonymous or overlapping you consider the words ‘political’ and ‘circus’ to be. Point #2 drives at the heart of what I was saying. If no one had said Kavanaugh would single-handedly strangle Roe v. Wade to death, I don’t think Ford would’ve “remembered” dick.

          1. To be sure, she doesn’t remember dick, just a murderous hand.

  8. “There are simply too many unanswered questions, too much doubt about what did or did not happen, in this view, to move forward right now.”

    This is Tony level stupid. You had your fucking chance, and you lost.

    1. It’s insulting how stupid they are to think everyone else is that stupid.

    2. Why are you sucking Republican tit? This is a libertarian website. I realize libertarians are not first in a line of activists to fight against rape culture, but I’m curious whether you even realize you’re just acting like a partisan cunt.

      1. “Why are you sucking Republican tit?”

        Why are you bitching about it admitted partisan?

        Oh right, you’re sandy down there.

        1. Because I’m only partisan because one side, and not the other, is apocalyptically evil and stupid.

          If both sides were the same level of evil and stupid, I’d pretend to be above it all too. Only I’d do a better job of it than you.

          1. And we have reached full stupid with the Tony comment.

      2. Rape culture… Like rap videos?

    3. By Suderman’s logic, every future democrat nominee can be stopped by just accusing them of something horrible. Evidence is totally voluntary. That will be enough to shut down their nomination until we have enough answers. Enough means the most partisan Republican in the media, say Sean Hannity, is 100% sure it didn’t happen. Then we can move on with the vote.

      1. and by vote you mean next accusation.

    4. “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

  9. The conflicting sworn statements from Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh means one of them is lying and this conflict creates the basis for an FBI inquiry. It’s as simple as that.

    1. Ford made an allegation with no evidence. It’s as simple as that.

      1. There’s plenty of evidence. Ford had personal knowledge of who Kavanaugh was friends with. She knew Mark Judge. She established that she did come into contact with Kavanaugh and Judge. That’s evidence. Her claims line up with the other evidence that establishes that Kavanaugh and Judge were heavy drinkers and close associates. How would she know Judge and Kavanaugh unless she crossed their paths when she was younger. She made the allegations against Kavanaugh years ago. More evidence that discounted any conspiracy defenses. There’s tons of evidence. Ya’ll are like those monkeys with their hands over their ideas.

        1. Eyes not ideas.

          1. Why are you still using this sockpuppet shreek?

        2. “That’s evidence”

          Not of an assault.

          “Her claims line up with the other evidence that establishes that Kavanaugh and Judge were heavy drinkers”

          That’s not evidence.

          “How would she know Judge and Kavanaugh unless she crossed their paths when she was younger.”

          Ah, it makes sense now, you know exactly nothing about this.

          1. Establishing opportunity to commit the crime is a necessary element and that was established here. She knew Judge. Did you know Judge? No you didn’t. You could not prove or establish that fact. She can and has established that she personally interacted with Kavanaugh and Judge. How would she know them unless she had interacted with those two?

            1. “Establishing opportunity to commit the crime is a necessary element and that was established here”

              No it wasn’t. No time, date, or location was given. Were you adequately informed, you would know that she could have gained her knowledge socially, and may never have actually met him.

              You have nothing.

            2. Don’t you have a communist dictatorship to defend somewhere?

            3. “Establishing opportunity to commit the crime is a necessary element ”

              necessary, but not by itself sufficient.

              1. necessary, but not by itself sufficient.

                Woefully insufficient. Means, motive, and opportunity make for a strong suspect a possible to likely conviction, not a guarantee of guilt. But, then again, I’ve never been to a job interview where I had to establish anybody’s guilt or innocence.

                1. By this standard, any man who ever had the opportunity to be alone with a woman is subject to accusation based on the standard of evidence.
                  Does a woman you know know you go running without a GPS? She can claim assault/exposure/rape.
                  Worse than the Spanish Inquisition.

            4. Establishing opportunity to commit the crime is a necessary element and that was established here.

              So, if two guys are friends, they are, therefore, possible rapists?

              This is your stance?

              Do you realize how idiotic that is?

              She knew Judge. Did you know Judge? No you didn’t.

              She hasn’t PROVED she did, either. She SAID she did. Crystal Mangum SAID the Duke lacrosse team raped her. Saying shit ain’t proving shit.

              She can and has established that she personally interacted with Kavanaugh and Judge.

              They both deny it. And she has no verification of her claim. So, know, she didn’t prove.

              How would she know them unless she had interacted with those two?

              1. Hell, his position makes the Salem Witch Trials look like a sober, considerate investigation.

        3. The only evidence is that all of thise she named at the party said it didn’t happen. But keep on gaslighting away jist in case the frackers run out.

        4. That’s not evidence that supports her claim. Do you understand the concept of evidence, you idiot?

        5. How else could she possibly know? She read the yearbooks and Judge’s book? She did a little research (I would hope that someone with multiple advanced degrees is capable of researching any subject or person which/who caught her interest)? She talked to other people who she knew who also knew Kavanaugh and/or Judge? There are lots of possible answers beyond those which you believe and neither you, I, nor the rest of the world will ever be likely to know the absolute truth. We can only believe what we wish to believe based on the lack of facts and evidence regarding what is an accusation of a criminal act 35 years ago.

        6. Ford had personal knowledge of who Kavanaugh was friends with. She knew Mark Judge. She established that she did come into contact with Kavanaugh and Judge. That’s evidence.

          1. How is ANY of it proof of RAPE?

            That is what you’re claiming.

            Her claim isn’t that Kavanaugh drank in high school. He doesn’t dispute it.

            She claims he tried to RAPE her.

    2. It does not mean what you say it does.

    3. No one will ever get to the truth of a 36 year old incident which wasn’t even remember until 32 years later under the guidance of a shrink whose sole interest was in getting more billable sessions.

      1. No one will ever get to the truth of a 36 year old incident which wasn’t even remember until 32 years later under the guidance of a shrink whose sole interest was in getting more billable sessions.

        Do you think “Holy fuck I’ve gotta be more careful no to do *that* again!” has crossed the mind of the shrink(s) or it’s full tilt “I helped the woman who helped bring down a SCOTUS nominee!”?

        1. That tweet is internet AIDS.

          1. Rich Cranium
            @S_D_Good
            ?
            Sep 27
            Replying to
            @Dana_Regev
            and
            @chrislhayes
            We witnessed today why men are obsolete. An impediment to meaningful progress.

            So disappointed and embarrassed.

    4. Now add in the other people who say she’s wrong and tell me again who the subject of the investigation should be…

      1. Investigate her! She’s asking for that. Put her claims to the test. Jesus fucking christ.

        1. Ok, that can be done after confirmation.

          1. Good. I’m fine with that.

            1. Fine, so you have no reason to oppose him being seated on the court then. Glad we cleared that up.

            2. Juggernaut|9.28.18 @ 12:08PM|#
              “Good. I’m fine with that.”

              As if anyone here gives a hoot.

          2. Republicans deserve to pick the Sup Ct justice and Democrats should pledge to honor that.

    5. The FBI doesn’t have a time machine, simple as that.
      There’s no probable cause for any action at all, simple as that.
      We have rules to prevent agencies like the FBI from open ended investigations based on no substance, simple as that.

      1. Let’s test Kavanaugh’s belief that Ford is part of some wider conspiracy to lie to Congress. Those are serious charges.

        1. Ok, that can be done after confirmation.

        2. Let’s test if he weighs the same as a duck.

        3. Juggernaut|9.28.18 @ 12:07PM|#
          “Let’s test Kavanaugh’s belief that Ford is part of some wider conspiracy to lie to Congress. Those are serious charges.”

          You’re a real laugh riot.

      2. Whatever those rules are, they didn’t prevent the FBI’s byzantine fiddling that started Mueller’s witch fishing operation.

    6. The conflicting sworn statements from Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh means one of them is lying

      No, it doesn’t. One or both could be mis-remembering, one or both could have misunderstood what actually happened, if anything did. She may have filled in details of the memory later that aren’t true. He may have been blacked out drunk without realizing it and honestly doesn’t think he did anything.

      There are quite a number of possibilities beyond “one of them is lying.” In fact, neither one struck me as showing any signs that they were lying.

      1. It is entirely possible that Ford was assaulted at some high school party and never reported it or talked about it and understandably forgot as much about it as she could only to see Kavanaugh after he was nominated and convince herself he was one of the guys who did it. Mistaken identity happens all of the time. Ford wasn’t sure who did this assault in 2012 when she told her marriage counselor about it. She couldn’t give any names of the guys who did it.

        Maybe she made the whole thing up. Maybe it happened and she has misidentified Kavanaugh. The only people on earth who could know if one of those things is true is Ford, if she made it up, or the guys who actually assaulted her, if she didn’t.

        1. It is entirely possible that Ford was assaulted at some high school party and never reported it or talked about it and understandably forgot as much about it as she could only to see Kavanaugh after he was nominated and convince herself he was one of the guys who did it

          This strikes me as very plausible. Her assertion that she’s 100% sure it was Kavanaugh and couldn’t possibly be mistaken is the thing that rang most false, and smelled most of lawyers telling her that she could be squishy on other things, but that she needed to be firm on that (and there’s really no risk in doing so, since it’s a subjective memory).

          But, in addition to not being sure where she was, how she got there, who all else was there (despite her swearing she hadn’t any drinks or drugs), who pushed her into the room, or, when you came down to it, who it was who was actually on top of her, her memory in general seems . . . unreliable.

          Again, I don’t think she was lying. I think she really does believe what she’s saying, as far as it goes, but I suspect what she wanted was just to toss this out there anonymously on the off chance that there might be some other accusations where this one would be a matter of “oh, look, here’s another one,” rather than be the main attraction itself.

          1. Being a hundred percent sure who was where doing what at a party 35 years ago is a bit rich to say the least, especially when you are talking about someone you barely knew.

            If it had come out that Ford and Kavanaugh were friends or had dated or maybe people remember him having the hots for her and her not being interested, I would have found her story much more believable. The fact that they didn’t seem to really know each other makes it unlikely he did it and makes her identification of him as the perpetrator very unreliable. How on earth could you know it was him when you barely knew him at the time?

            1. Yeah – and I felt like over the course of her testimony that it was more Judge that she knew, and from what I know of him I could plausibly imagine some scenario resembling what she recounted involving Judge and some other one of his friends that she assumed was Kavanaugh because she only sort-of knew him but knew he was friends with Judge.

              The real trouble is that so many hypotheticals would fit the facts as presented without making either one of them really “liars.”

              1. It is why you don’t look under this rock. The whole thing is absurd. You are never going to find out what happened to anyone’s satisfaction and therefore should not have considered it in the confirmation process in the first place.

          2. This strikes me as very plausible. Her assertion that she’s 100% sure it was Kavanaugh and couldn’t possibly be mistaken is the thing that rang most false, and smelled most of lawyers telling her that she could be squishy on other things, but that she needed to be firm on that (and there’s really no risk in doing so, since it’s a subjective memory).

            As was pointed out yesterday, I was on the edge about this until we got to the ‘argle bargle norepinephrine encoding, hippocampus, voila memories’ mumbo jumbo. She had lots of time to forget lots of stuff and did but she’s 100% sure it was Kavanaugh and 100% sure her mind works like a steel trap. A steel trap that catches the same animal 35 yrs. after it stepped in the trap.

            1. Yeah – I feel like she recognized that the 35-year-old memory was a really weak point where if she admitted to any fuzziness at all she would be dismissed and vilified, in the same way that I think Kavanaugh recognized that he needed to downplay his youthful drinking big-time because any admission that he might ever have drank enough to have lost full control or, god forbid, have blacked out it would have been the end of him.

              I don’t really blame either one in the circumstances, but her smoke-and-mirrors with her “expert testimony” corroborating her own account was sloppy and dishonest.

              But truth be told, I blame the lawyers and the politicians more than I blame her. Having been an academic in a former life, in my experience the typical 50-year-old professor is essentially still a child.

              1. Having been an academic in a former life, in my experience the typical 50-year-old professor is essentially still a child.

                Sounds like academics are academics everywhere you go.

        2. “Maybe she made the whole thing up. Maybe it happened and she has misidentified Kavanaugh.”

          Maybe Kavanaugh actually did it? It’s odd to me that you’ve left out that possibility.

          I find it hilarious that nobody who wasn’t there knows for sure… it’s impossible to know for sure. Yet every partisan in this thread claims that the version of the story that goes against their side can’t be possible… or simply omits it from the realm of possibility like you’ve done here.

          1. Maybe Kavanaugh actually did it? It’s odd to me that you’ve left out that possibility.

            It shouldn’t be odd. The problem with him actually doing it, is that it is so counter to the rest of his life. I find it nearly impossible to believe that anyone just molests one woman. I do not believe that anyone who does something like that once then goes on to be the boy scout that Kavanaugh appearently is such that they have dozens of women who worked with him and for him lining up in support of him and the Democrats literally being unable to come up with a single woman who ever knew him personally or worked with him who could say a bad word about him. They couldn’t even come up with a case of him hitting on anyone.

            And as for the other “allegations”, they were all from woman with no close connection to him and all self evidently absurd. So, yeah, I find the possibility of him having done this to be remote in the extreme and counter to everything I know about human behavior and criminal behaior in particular.

          2. Maybe Kavanaugh actually did it?

            Both of the situations described by “One or both could be mis-remembering, one or both could have misunderstood what actually happened, if anything did.” cover what you’re suggesting.

            It’s entirely possible that Kavanaugh mistook Ford for a girl he knew and as a ruse tackled her onto a bed and pawed at her as a joke. 35 yrs. later, he has no idea who Ford is and doesn’t recall a seemingly harmless ruse.

            But those sorts of things won’t be brought up or be considered because this was a job interview and not a trial.

            1. The stories about Kavanaugh being passed out in college didn’t indicate to me that he was a drunk, real drunks don’t pass out, it indicated to me that he was a lightweight who couldn’t handle his alcohol. So, maybe a drunken Kavanaugh pawed around on Ford thinking she was someone else and then being drunk never realized it was Ford and not who he thought it was.

              That is possible as well.

              1. And it is possible that she is lying

          3. Did you also find it hilarious when ENB ridiculed the idea that she could be mistaken this morning as just some cynical republican political ploy?

          4. every partisan in this thread claims that the version of the story that goes against their side can’t be possible… or simply omits it from the realm of possibility like you’ve done here.

            1. *sigh*

              Get over yourself.

              As mad.casual points out, Kavanaugh having actually done it is one of the possibilities I listed off. Further, what I was actually saying was that it could be the case, that neither one is lying even though they contradict each other in direct response to Juggernaut declaring that one of them must be lying.

              But I do find the notion that Kavanaugh committed deliberate sexual assault in the way that he is being accused of in this one case, and then never did so again in his life, and is now knowingly lying about it to be roughly as implausible as the notion that Ford is just making the whole thing up to serve the cause of Democratic Victory.

              1. I was replying to John. Get over yourself. My reply had nothing to do with you.

                His post included no scenario in which Kav might have actually done it.

                1. My mistake – I misread the threading. I thought you were being uncharacteristically dickish – you’re normally one of the more level-headed ones.

                  Apologies.

          5. Maybe he did. She has provided literally no evidence he did and I’m not one to just assume somebody is a criminal.

    7. I would love to see the results of an FBI investigation of a 1980’s high school party.
      Agent1: Rampant abuse of Aqua Net.
      Agent2: High School kids are annoying.
      Agent3: Wrapped it up!

  10. The Supreme Court confirmation fight is a preview of things to come.

    Believe it or not it was the Bork hearings that were a preview of things to come, what with private detectives digging through his trash and what not. And in fact, I remember an interview back in the 90s on NPR with someone who was a self-described liberal– I’m sorry I don’t remember who, but I do remember he said something that shocked me.

    When referring to the nasty politicization of Supreme Court nominee hearings, he said, “Admittedly, we started it” in reference to the Bork hearings.

  11. Suderman’s idea of good governance is the republicans caving to the democrats demands on pretty much every issue. It’s so predictable.

    1. What irritates me with both his and his wife’s writing is this incessant need to hold the republicans to a level of governance that they won’t apply consistently to the democrats. It’s like the democrats are this childish rogue that the republicans must shepherd around, they routinely deny the democrats of any agency or responsibility and expect the republicans to rise above. It’s so tiresome and hacky.

      1. The Dems lost elections, and as a result, lost the court. As you say, people like Suderman have been giving them cover for the extended tantrum they’ve been throwing. He should be imploring them to grow the fuck up.

        1. If the Democrats don’t like Republicans selecting justices for the Court, they should figure out a way to win back the Senate or the White House.

      2. They live in Washington DC and don’t want their house firebombed.

      3. Same with the budget.

        It’s always the GOP that ‘won’t cut spending’ never noting it is outside the realm of possibility that an Democrat might side with Amash and begin working us towards fiscal sanity.

  12. “The Democratic rejoinder is that Republicans were the ones who escalated the nomination process wars when they refused to hold a vote on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.”

    Does anyone recall how O-care was ‘approved’?

    1. Do they still teach “A switch in time saves nine” in schools these days, when FDR and the Dems threatened to pack the Court if the Court insisted on finding FDR’s assumption of dictatorial powers unconstitutional and the Court caved to the political pressure?

      1. I raise this question because I heard somebody mentioning on NPR that the stakes here are so high because if Kavanaugh is confirmed it will be the first time in 75 years that there will be a Republican-appointed majority on the Court. 75 years the Dems have had a majority and it’s horrifying to think such a long-established rule that the Dems will always hold the third branch might be overturned. Whatever happened to respect for tradition and custom?

        1. Whoever claimed that on NPR isn’t even close to accurate. There was, for example, a brief period in the early ’90’s (after Thomas had been confirmed) when 8 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices had been appointed by a Republican President: Rehnquist, Kennedy, Blackmun, Souter, Stevens, O’Connor, Scalia, and Thomas. The only exception at the time was Byron White.

          That’s not terribly surprising since there were Republican Presidents for 5 out of 6 terms between 1969 and 1993, and the one Democratic Party president during that timeframe (Carter) didn’t appoint any Supreme Court Justices.

          Prior to Kavanaugh, for example, the Court included 5 justices appointed by Republican presidents, and Kavanaugh would replace one of those justices (Kennedy).

  13. I’m not sure why Suderman is ringing his hands about this. Bipartisan collegiality is not the norm, not in this country nor through most of human history. We’re damn lucky we’ve only had one full-blown shooting conflict in the 1860s and a couple of other soft civil wars during the Progressive Era and the late 60s-early 70s. You don’t really know what’s going to spark the next one, but it typically starts with seemingly innocuous events that build up over a period of several years.

    The thing that Suderman doesn’t really want to accept is that people who literally hate his guts and want to see him silent and humiliated for his political beliefs, and outright dead if he resists their attempts to consolidate their power, aren’t going to be interested in appeals to compromise or public social harmony.

    1. Suderman longs for the days when there was bipartiship, ie when the democrats held insurmountable house and senate majorities and the republicans were relegated to a few powerless committee chairs.

      1. So what your describing is actually occuring in California right now and its not working well. It is working well if your a liberal and have control of everything

  14. My take is that a couple of drunken teenagers stumbled against each other and fell down on a bed, fumbled for a few seconds trying to get oriented, his hand probably bumped her bra in the process same as hers probably bumped his chest, they both got up, she left. Absolutely nothing sexual happened.

    And both were too embarrassed to ever mention it again.

    The difference is that her shrink, 30 years later, kept pushing for some deep inner memories of anything which might have led to spousal problems, and there was an ancient old forgotten memory just waiting to be expanded upon and fleshed out, with a shrink all too eager to grab on to anything validating her huge hourly bills and keep the patient coming back.

    1. I’ve often though the same thing. teenage horse play is now a criminal act because of this

    2. Or some sort of clumsy drunken attempt at proposition that disintegrated into embarrassment and hurt feelings.

      Wanting sex and being bad at obtaining it are pretty standard teenage boy traits

      Might be awful to experience but it doesn’t necessarily make him a would-be rapist

      1. I’m curious as to why anybody thinks even this much happened?
        What reason do we have to believe that there is a legitimate basis for her supposed memory?

  15. >>>Democrats mishandled Ford’s allegation

    how can you mishandle nothing?

    1. By giving it credence and treating it as true.

      1. right … they couldn’t have *properly handled* it either b/c it was nothing … was never going to be a thing

    2. ‘Mishandled’

      A euphemism for ‘sat on it until the very last possible moment’

      Because how else do you get things done?

  16. Yes, Democrats mishandled Ford’s allegation

    You can say that again.

    1. That….that.

  17. ” there is no easy way to escape from on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand oblivion”

    Sure there is: Is the man qualified based on his record as a jurist? Yes or no?

    Compare and contrast:
    –Antonin Scalia: wildly partisan, indisputably qualified as a jurist, confirmed 98-0
    –Robert Bork: wildly partisan, indisputably unqualified as a jurist, rejected 42-58

    Easy peasy…

    1. –Robert Bork: wildly partisan, indisputably unqualified as a jurist, rejected 42-58

      Easy peasy…

      well, not quite so easy peasy. Remember, Bork was Borked.

  18. Rosie O’Donnell exposed her private parts to me without permission.

    I have two witnesses who will testify to this assault on my senses.

    1. I was there. She did it.

  19. Kavanaugh was also called a liar on national TV by a Republican Yale classmate. She’s a contemporary witness with first hand knowledge she’s says Kavanaugh lied to the Senate about his drinking. That’s another basis for a criminal inquiry. Lying to the Senate is a crime.

    1. Reach harder.

    2. And Ford was also called a liar by a longtime friend.

      No one can ever prove what happened 36 years ago (or was it 37? she can’t even remember what year!).

      1. “And Ford was also called a liar by a longtime friend”

        And the people who were “present.”

        I don’t give a fuck about his drinking, it’s such a pathetic last ditch effort to hit him with something and it doesn’t deserve a second of consideration.

        1. Under communism, drinking is a crime

          1. In Soviet Russia, Harvey Wallbanger is sentence, not beverage.

          2. Under communism drinking is the only thing left to do

    3. You mean like saying it was 4 guys, no wait 2 guys, no wait 4 guys and a girl, no wait 4 guys and two girls.

    4. say Kavanaugh lied. Lets say in a parrallel universe where he admitted to drinking till he passed out or blacked out, what would say the narrative would be in that universe everything else equal?

    5. Juggernaut|9.28.18 @ 11:35AM|#
      “…She’s a contemporary witness with first hand knowledge she’s says Kavanaugh lied to the Senate about his drinking. …”

      Does it take tiny hands to grasp as such pathetically small straws?

    6. Wow! An accusation!

      The value of “an accusation” hit an all time low on Wednesday with the boat story. Civilized humans don’t usually go that low. It’s right in the strike zone for CNN and NBC news though.

    7. Kavanaugh never said he did not drink. Continue trying, though.

  20. You can, of course, point to where in the constitution it is required that the senate give a hearing on a nominee (see miguel estrada). You can’t? Oh.

    And of course you can validate that the democrats are so interested in learning the truth that they sat on this information for 2 months and only leaked it as a final act of desperation. Oh.

    And beyond Mark Judge you can point out where ANY corroborating witness statements or other evidence exists. Why did you fail to mention that every single witness named by ford refutes her claim? Well that’s inconvenient so down the memory hole it goes.

    Instead we get the typical “pox on both their houses” nonsense as a distraction from the fact that ultimately you think the ends always justify the means.

    Still waiting on your pearl clutching piece on keith ellision, btw.

    1. *points at nose*

      Well said.

    2. Yeah, for all of the whining about Garland, still a lack of regret about Estrada.

  21. The thing is, from a purely temperament and jurisprudence POV, BK is the *best* the democrats could expect. I don’t see President Not Hillary Clinton nominating lesser people going forward to no have a confrontation. In all likelyhood, he kept the MOAN (mother of all nominations) of a truly conservative woman in reserve for RBG replacement. After this fiasco, I don’t the the Dems being able to muster a real defense to that.

    Also, you can blame Harry F’ing Reid for this. Had he not needed to have a ‘Futile and Stupid’ gesture against Gorsuch, the Filibuster would still be here, and there is pretty much 0% chance the Republicans would have gotten 51 votes for the nuclear option to through it out.

    1. Next time, if the R’s still control the Senate they should skip hearings and just schedule a vote for the following Monday.

    2. “The thing is, from a purely temperament and jurisprudence POV, BK is the *best* the democrats could expect.”

      Kavanaugh is the best they could reasonably expect–if they don’t take the senate a month from now.

      They live in a world where the entire country is so upset about Trump being president, that they’re likely to take the senate in a landslide.

      I suppose the irony, here, is that their behavior during these confirmation hearings has been so bad, it makes their dream of taking the senate even less likely than it would have been otherwise.

      1. I have to agree with Ken Shultz. Like Maxine Watters and a few other Democratic idiots exhorting people to stalk, harass, and “shame” Republicans in public settings, this most recent vulgarity may cost them dearly. The “optics” of Mr. Kavanaugh’s response just may have opened the eyes of voters who have finally grown disgusted with incessant Democrat hatred and bullying. They may have cheered his response to Ms. Ford’s Crucible moment. Dems may reap what they’ve sown in the mid-term elections, and perhaps even in 2020. The Lake Oswego “Resistance” may end up breaking more windows at Starbucks in Portland. It’s what the truly righteous and virtuous do.

  22. Are we in bizarro-world ?
    Are there any libertarians left at this publication ?
    Are the writers here just afraid of being castigated as a right wing Trump mouthpiece ? (which frankly i can see as a serious concern, given the brutal retaliation for such an insidious crime)

    You don’t have to be a conservative to believe the 3-ring fuckshow that’s enveloped the nation was political theatre at its finest. Do you think we got our moneys worth ?

    Why are people writing for a so-called libertarian magazine sound like any partisan writer for any partisan publication ?

    Reason – reason = (fart noise)

  23. Ford was unaware of GOP offers to interview her in California (presumably because her lawyers did not adequately relay that offer)

    And apparently she is incapable of reading any of the multiple news stories which stated this as well. Perhaps the news only comes through the front door she doesn’t use versus the good one she does.

    1. she would of had to watch Fox news, which she probably wouldn’t being a good liberal, because the other outlets were excluding that info as well in order to make the GOP look like meanies

    2. She was too damn busy doing interview prep, practicing her valley girl voicing, getting her wardrobe re-styled and poll tested, and getting that new pair of glasses (no way in hell she wears those at Stanford.)

  24. If Kavanaugh is such an immoral degenerate, unfit for the highest court in the land, why aren’t any of his foes demanding he be removed from his current position on the 2nd highest court in the land? If the Dems haven’t thought through the consequences of him truly being guilty of the accusations, then they don’t really care about Blasey Ford, women or the truth.

    1. ^ ^ ^ ^

      Great point, but we all know answers to these questions.

    2. That they sat on the accusation for two months says they really never cared for Blasey Ford.

  25. “My worry is that there is no good answer, and that because of how both parties have acted, we are hurtling toward a long-simmering crisis of institutional and political legitimacy that can no longer be avoided.”

    Anyone care to parse this bloviation and suggest what it really means?
    Obo expected the Rs to act as if they were just part of the D party which wasn’t well-mannered; any opposition was ‘partisan’. As, BTW, it is supposed to be.
    Trump expects the Ds to act like the opposition party, and while their doing it at 150dB, I can’t see a crisis here. Maybe one day they will mature a bit and accept that the hag lost.

    1. What it means is that the democrats violated basic tenets and the standard way to avoid calling them out on that is to apply the typical “both sides do it” standard. But rest assured that when team red fucks up peter and the woke crowd will be there with their righteous condemnation with no equivocation.

      1. The Republicans are supposed to refuse to confirm a qualified nominee they support to allow for an investigation of 35 year old event that currently is a bare accusation with no corroborating evidence, even though that investigation could take months, would prevent their nominee from sitting on the court this term, might result in it being finished after the new Congress it sat in 2019 and with the Republican no longer in the majority, and is almost certainly not going to settle the issue to anyone’s satisfaction.

        Meanwhile, the Democrats are free to make last minute allegations about events that happened decades ago and be rewarded for doing so by the change to maybe retake the Senate before the invesigation is completed, thus killing the nomination or getting lucky and the investigation finding some other currently unknown wrongdoing on Kavanaugh’s part. But Suderman is totally not being a Democratic hack here. No, he is just really concerned about holding both sides to the highest standards.

  26. “It is likely that further investigation would not reveal much more than we already know, which includes sworn written statements from all the named parties said to be present on the night of the alleged assault.”

    And, yet, Suderman fails to point out the most pertinent fact from that testimony–that each and every party Ford says was present at the party have all sworn under penalty of perjury that the party never happened.

    That fact has nothing to do with partisanship, but if there’s a better reason to go forward with the confirmation, I can’t imagine what it is. Not only is there no evidence that the assault happened–all the testimony that might have corroborated the allegations has contradicted the allegations instead.

    By the facts, there is no way to go but forward, and that doesn’t have anything to do with partisanship. The only reasons not to go forward with the confirmation are partisan.

    1. Ken, do you think Suderman is capable of that level of reasoning or analysis?

      I don’t.

      1. Nevermind. I see your point below.

    2. How about this:

      I can’t believe either of them with 100% certainty because I wasn’t there. I simply don’t know what happened. Nobody knows.

      She has no evidence. She just has an accusation. Her support for that accusation is pretty friggin thin. Even the people she cites as being at the party weren’t. Even more so, there are holes in her testimony (e.g., her house was at least six miles from the party, and she has no idea how she got home) along with inconsistencies with her original story.

      He says it didn’t happen. He can’t prove it didn’t happen, which is probably close to impossible unless we have secret film of him and her that covers the entire first Reagan Administration. But nonetheless he can’t disprove the accusation.

      A rational non-biased person would think “there is nothing here that I can go with.” Otherwise all one has to do is accuse a nominee of something and that nominee was drop out. That isn’t rationale. We can’t decide SC nominees based on merit less accusations.

      This accusation should not be considered in deciding whether or not to confirm Kavanaugh. As Mitchell said, her case would get no traction in the legal system. That means it can’t be considered in good faith when deciding on this nomination. I wish anyone at Reason would stop pretending otherwise.

      1. ^ What he said

      2. I think no matter how traumatic the event she would remember walking six miles home.

    3. In a typical assault case the police would interview the accuser then all the accused and witnesses and if they all say it didn’t happen then that would be the end of the investigation. we already know what would be said since its been said so no reason for further investigation since there would be zero physical evidence from 36 years ago which would be needed for any he said/she said case. Unless she kept a stained blue dress but she has not produce one yet

  27. The Senate rejected Garlan for entirely political reasons. There was no downside to waiting until the election to see if the Republican won. The Senate didn’t owe Garland confirmation or even a confirmation vote. They had every right not to act on the nomination just like the Democrats had every right to stop confiriming Bush appointees in 07 and 08.

    How the Republicans in the Senate lawfuly exercising their authority to refuse to confirm a Presidential appointment to the Court and doing exactly what the Democrats would have done in the same situation is a rationalization for the Demcorats slandering an innocent man as a rapist is a mystery that is only solved inside Suderman’s fevered and partisan addled brain.

    1. The senate has a legitimate job in exercising its power not to confirm a justice–even if it wants to do so for partisan reasons. Whether they should reject a nominee for partisan reasons is a legitimate question. However, “Because Kavanugh is alleged to have sexually assaulted someone 35 years ago” is not a partisan reason–no matter how much Suderman and the Democrats wish to make it so. Meanwhile, the question isn’t whether Kavanaugh should be rejected for partisan reasons. The question is whether his confirmation should go to a full vote of the senate.

      1. “We don’t like your politics” is an entirely legitimate reason for the Senate to turn down a justice. The constitution is completely silent on the number of justices much less their qualifications. The Senate is under no obligation to confirm anyone. No confirming someone on the hope that your party wins the coming election that year and will appoint someone more to your liking if they do, is a completely appropriate reason for the Senate to refuse to confirm someone.

        And the Senate doesn’t owe anyone a vote either. “We won’t vote on this” is just another way of them saying “we are not confirming this guy”, which is their right. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Congress to consider something before rejecting it.

  28. Yes, Democrats mishandled Ford’s allegation, but now that it is public, their errors shouldn’t give Republicans a pass to simply hold a hearing, nod, and then proceed as planned.

    The Democrats did screw that up. So let’s essentially give them a do-over so that they can drag this thing out for as long as possible. For some reason or another.

    1. Because we’re telling ourselves fantasy stories ? where rewarding the Democrats’ evil tactics somehow won’t give them the incentive to repeat them or double down. In these stories, everything all magically works out.

  29. If an investigation is what you want why not get Ford to press charges in Montgomery County? That is far less of an ask than what you are asking for. If he’s found guilty impeach.

  30. I find Suderman’s take problematic. What is there left to investigate? Why delay further? The only reason to delay is to give the democrats more chance to come up with accusers (and they will all be deemed “credible” by Suderman and his ilk). Suderman brings up Gorsuch, but never a peep about removing the filibuster for democrat judicial nominees, how Bork was treated, or Thomas. Neither does he mention that this bullshit only seems to happen for republican nominees. Proof: Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed with a dozen or more republicans voting for them both. Does Peter really believe that either of them will really defend the constitution.

    But it is always both sides with the Reasoners. Never can the democrats be identified as the hard core statists they actually are. They think that by “playing it down the middle”, they are always being non-partisan. But to intentionally ignore or downplay absolute partisan thuggery is not being non-partisan. It is being lazy and a tool of wrong-doing. Grow a spine you wuss, Suderman.

    1. I don’t expect intellectual honesty from anyone at Reason anymore unless their names are Bailey, Doherty, or Sullum.

      1. Concur, they’re Reason’s three best writers.

        1. I don’t always agree with them. I often disagree with them.

          I respect their intellectual honesty. That’s something we used to assume around here.

          The idea was that reason has a libertarian bias, so we don’t need to be afraid of facts or logic–everyone else does. There’s a case to be made for using other things to appeal to other people–who maybe don’t care or understand how the logic thingy works–but if we can’t defend our positions with facts and logic, we should abandon them. That’s a big part of what intellectual honesty is about.

          I often don’t agree with Bailey. I’ve seen him change positions because he was persuaded by logic and new facts. There’s nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong. People who pick their positions first, refuse to change them for anything, and use whatever piece of crap is lying on the ground around them to justify it, those people should all be ashamed of themselves–certainly if they publicly call themselves libertarians.

          1. Agree, you should go wherever the evidence leads.
            Often the problem is what presuppositions or axioms you ground your worldview with and procede from.

            The Libertarian’s worldview is grounded in reason, natural rights, rule of law, the primacy of the individual over the collective etc.

            As far as I can determine, for the other side it’s pure power politics, behind the mask of “benevolence” there’s only a raging lust for power and an “anything is justified for the means to attaining our goals”, there’s no restraining principles there at all. The 20th century clearly shows what that leads to, hell on earth, a mountain of corpses and an ocean of blood.

      2. The new kid is pretty fucking awesome. Christian Britschgi|.

        1. Boehm appears decent too. Seyton… how can you be worse than robby?

      3. Stossel.

        The rest are iffy at best.

    2. Since 1980 there has been 22 years of Republican Presidents appointing justices and 16 years of Democrat Presidents appointing justices. During that time, Repubicans have appointed 9 justices and Democrats have appointed four. Every single Democratic appointee has come off without a hitch and been confirmed with significant numbers of Republicans voting for them. Only Republican appointees, Bork, Thomas, and now Kavanaugh, or 1/3rd of the R appointees ot the court are the subject of slander and partisan circuses.

      But, Suderman blames both sides for the breakdown in decorum.

      1. I guess the Republican’s failure to even consider the Garland nomination doesn’t count?

  31. It’s one thing for relatively new Reason staff (ENB and Robby, for example) to fail miserably at making reasoned arguments. Quite another to see Reason staff become impervious to facts and logic.

    “When REASON speaks of poverty, racism, the draft, the war, student power, politics, and other vital issues, it shall be reasons, not slogans, it gives for conclusions,” Mr. Friedlander wrote in the first issue, published in May 1968 and peppered with typographical errors and misspellings. “Proof, not belligerent assertion. Logic, not legends. Coherance, not contradictions. This is our promise: This is the reason for REASON.”

    http://archive.boston.com/bost….._magazine/

    Yesterday, we learned that all four of the witnesses Ford named at the party has sworn under penalty of perjury that the party never took place. Anything we believe that doesn’t take account of that fact is horseshit.

    1. Evidence doesn’t matter. Due process doesn’t matter. More feelings matters. This is what passes for supposedly rational and dispassionate reasoning around here.

    2. We have to weigh things like facts and evidence against other more nuanced considerations, Ken.

  32. The Obama Mommas of Reason are all in a dark, depressed, and foul mood today.

    That can only mean one thing: it is dawning on them that they have lost once again, like the capital L losers that they are. ROFLMAO!!!

    1. I think the left, and many on the right, for a few days there, thought Kav was out. Watching them sourpuss about this is like reliving Dejection 2016 all over again.

  33. The best coverage of this issue has been at National Review Online where both sides were considered and weighed up for coherence. About everywhere else; just incoherent emotional venting and blatant tribalismthrowing all due process and constitutional principles overboard.

    1. You’ll note that there hasn’t been a harsanyi piece here in a while. How curious.

      1. Yeah it is and I always read Harsanyi’s work, followed him for years now.

        I’m also looking forward to reading his new book on guns, due out in a few weeks: “First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun”

  34. Of all the retarded things in this entire retarded affair this point might want cake the most-

    Speaking of details, more than a few people have expressed skepticism about Kavanaugh’s essentially innocent descriptions of some of the activities noted in his yearbook?”boofing,” “devil’s triangle,” “Renate alumni.”

    The divining of yearbook entries written 35 years ago by 15-19 year olds is so so so so so so retarded.

    1. Needs more so.

    2. Just when you think Chapman and Dalmia set the bar for stupidity at reason, Suderman shows up and says “hold my beer”.

      1. I like beer.

      2. “hold my beer”

        Homey, please.

        It’s “hold my pinot gris”

  35. We have reached a new dumb as shit moment here.

    Its not the same as Joe McCarthy because in a lot of instances Joe was actually right.

    Its not the same as Thomas because Hill’s accusations were fairly recent but in regards to corroboration they were just as BS as Kavanaugh’s.

    1. I never beleived Hill, but her allegations were at least related to Thomas’ professional conduct. Trying to disqualify someone for things they did in high school short of being convicted of robbery and murder is really a new low for the Democrats.

      1. And I think even the ridiculous Stormy lawyer gang rape thing came up as “credible”. Seriously this is the dumbest shit moment ever. At least in my lifetime, 58 years.

    2. How do you compare this tot he accusations against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones?

  36. Christ, Booker is a blathering, incoherent windbag.

    1. Even the hardline Dem I’m talking to is sick of him and rolling her eyes into her skull.

  37. It’s not over gang. Donnelly just committed political suicide. He’ll need a new job come January,

    Not sure about Heidkamp who also has to vote yes to have any chance.

    Lets just say all Ds including Manchin and Tester. vote no. I think Tester will risk it I’m not sure Manchin will because he seems to support Kavanaugh and doesn’t seem to give a crap about being a part of the D group.

    That lease it up to Murkowski and Collins. I’m not even sure Collins is really an R. So it comes down to Murkowski. It’s not game over folks.

    1. If they turn him down, Trump can just send someone else up. And that person will likely be more militantly conservative. And will be confirmed by this Senate even if it is done in the lame duck session. The thing about stopping a nominee is that the public will only tolerate it once. It is virtually impossible to stop a nominee’s replacement.

      1. Haynesworth/Carswell?

        Bork(Douglas)/Ginsburg?

        1. Ginsburg is a good example. I forgot about that one.

          1. I forgot about that one.

            Must have been all the weed you smoked.

            1. Ginsburg would have been the most Libertarian justice in the history of the court. And they threw him out because he smoked with his law school class and instead we got Kennedy. That infuriates me to this day.

            2. I smoke two joints in the morning
              When I’m preparing lectures for class
              I smoke two joint in the afternoon
              It makes my contracts class go fast
              I smoke two joints when I’m reading
              Grotius’ Law of Peace and War
              I smoke two joints when I’m writing briefs
              And then I smoke two more

              ALTERNATE JOKE:
              I was going to serve on the Supreme Court
              But then I got high
              President Reagan thought I was the right sort
              But then I got high
              A former liquor lobbyist got my job (look it up)
              And I know why
              Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high

              1. Did you just make that shit up on the spot? Damn!

                1. When you have the original song as a template, it’s fairly easy adapt it to current events.

                  1. Everyone should try it sometime.

                    Though few can top The Batman variation on Jingle Bells.

                    1. Because I Got High starts funny ends morose.

                    2. I don’t even remember how it ended. I loved all the funny parts. That shrimp fried rice line has me in stitches just thinking about it to this day.

                    3. every time we hear it “yay!” then it gets to the part about the mva and the guy in the wheelchair for life and we’re all “awwww forgot about that”

        2. Wikipedia has this awesome account:

          “In 1882, Chester A. Arthur nominated Roscoe Conkling to serve as an Associate Justice after Ward Hunt resigned. Conkling was confirmed, and then declined the position.

          “After Conkling declined, Arthur nominated George F. Edmunds, who twice declined to serve. Arthur then nominated Samuel Blatchford, who was confirmed and accepted.”

          That was when you told someone they’d been appointed to the Supreme Court and they answered, “sorry, Mr. President, I have to wash my hair that night.”

          1. But by Taft’s time, he had the brains (at the time it seemed weird as fuck) to know that is the job you really want. He was so unhappy with the Presidency as a consolation prize he nearly ate himself into a grave with depression.

      2. Don’t agree. First some of the possible nominees may turn it down now. If this is OK, 35 year old un-corroborated accusations that ruin your life is the new normal many will say no thanks.

        I said this during the Moore fiasco. Yes, Moore was a creeper and a little weird in general but it was no OK for last minute corroborations even when folks forge evidence like yearbooks, because you know they are credible.

        Trump needs to get out to Montana and Indiana and rev up the Rs because some of these No;s could flip the election.

      3. This is what they should do. Turn him down and send up someone more conservative who drank less in high school for confirmation during the lame duck session.

  38. Tester is a No.

    1. Montana is a wierd state. So who knows. Manchin may figure he is done for anyway and just vote no to protect his post Senate job prospects.

      1. Aha! Suddenly my pessimism is spreading!

        Manchin is indeed the only one left standing. (Tester didn’t vote yes on Gorsuch incidentally.) Given no surprises of conscience from HM Drama Queen Flake, one more of Murkowski Collins and Manchin is still needed; I liked those odds until recently but maybe I‘m the one getting too optimistic for once.

        For what it’s worth, none of these people were ever part of the “swing votes” who were caucusing together last night. The only one of them who has decided so far is Flake, who has (so far at least!) announced Yes.

        1. I still think they will make it. But who knows. If they don’t, I won’t be shocked.

  39. He may be toast also.

  40. Elections have results. We won.

  41. “we are hurtling toward a long-simmering crisis of institutional and political legitimacy that can no longer be avoided.”

    Well, when government is inherently illegitimate the minute you lose elections, that’s a problem.

    Kinda undermines the whole point.

  42. There is a way out, but it would require what amounts to a small concession by Republicans, so it can probably never happen. The solution is to withdraw Kavanaugh, and appoint instead a different right wing justice. That could be accomplished without conceding anything to Democrats. Simply announce what ought to have been obvious to everyone?that after Kavanaugh’s antics during the hearing, too many GOP senators developed doubts about his judicial temperament, and about his ability to decide cases on a non-partisan basis. No need to name which senators.

    Then appoint Ted Cruz, or whoever you want. The Ds get no payoff for their alleged bad behavior, and the Rs get the court they think they are entitled to. Everybody gets the advantage of putting the Kavanaugh episode in the rear mirror. The nation gets the advantage of avoiding confirmation of someone who would probably become one of the worst justices of modern times. By now, that’s probably something you could sell to Democrats. They could then go out and campaign about Republican treatment of women. Everyone could rejoin their accustomed combat after the election.

    1. That is nice and all excepts that it leaves an innocent man, Kavanaugh, forever slandered and remembered as the guy who didn’t get on the Court because he is a rapist. If the Democrats had a legitimate reason for opposing Kavanaugh or any reason that didn’t involve slandering him as a sex pervert, violent drunk, you proposed solution would be fine. I have no great affection for Kavanaugh and think Supreme Court justices are vastly overrated anyway. So, there are literally hundreds of choices that would be just as good or better in my opinion than Kavanaugh.

      But the Democrats didn’t raise a legitimate objection. Instead, they slandered Kavanaugh. So withdrawing his name now would not only encourage this kind of nonsense in the future it would unfairly slander and ruin the career of an innocent man. So, withdrawing Kavanaugh should not be an acceptable option to anyone of good conscience, I don’t care if the replacement was Jesus himself.

      1. It’s already worked even if Kavanaugh squeaks in.So this will happen every time in regards to conservative R nominees. Note it is not a “both sides” thing. We’re at Reason after all so I had to clarify

        1. True but at least he gets on the court.

          1. He’s still got some more squeaking to do.

      2. John, if you look at my comment you will note I don’t slander Kavanaugh, nor assert his guilt, nor his innocence. Your first sentence begs the question, by assuming Kavanaugh’s innocence?the point in controversy.

        Question begging tends to come up when the conclusion in question is hard to support, and hard to refute. Not infrequently, commenters solve that by just assuming their preferred conclusion, and going on from there?which is what question begging is. If you do it, a lot of people will think you are wasting your time, and maybe their own. But it would be worse than time wasting if you ended up on the basis of your own illogical argument reinforcing your own faith in that preferred but still-unproved conclusion.

    2. There is a way out, but it would require what amounts to a small concession by Republicans, so it can probably never happen. The solution is to withdraw Kavanaugh, and appoint instead a different right wing justice.

      That’s not a small concession after this whole shitshow has taken place. The Rs aren’t going to go through all this again so close to the mid-terms.

      Then appoint Ted Cruz, or whoever you want. The Ds get no payoff for their alleged bad behavior

      Wrong. The payoff was supposed to be nuking Kavanaugh’s nomination to begin with. Like it or not, the Dems made their bed when they sat on this for two months and threw it on to the table like a grenade in an act of desperation.

    3. Stephen Lathrop|9.28.18 @ 12:50PM|#
      “There is a way out,…”

      A way out of what? The GOP seating a SC justice?

    4. So your “small concession” is to capitulate in full and start over for the current D Senators to slander another person as they continue to run out the clock?

    5. The solution is to withdraw Kavanaugh, and appoint instead a different right wing justice.

      Do you seriously think any justice will subject themselves to this kind of character assassination?

      The Senate first needs to work out better procedures for dealing with such accusations, together with tough penalties for misconduct like Feinstein’s.

    6. Stephen Lathrop|9.28.18 @ 12:50PM|#
      “There is a way out,…”

      Hey, bullshitter! You’ve been called on your bullshit. Care to respond, or just admit you’re a bullshitter?

  43. “Yes, Democrats mishandled Ford’s allegation, but now that it is public, their errors shouldn’t give Republicans a pass to simply hold a hearing, nod, and then proceed as planned.”

    Oh well, let’s let bygones be bygones and try extra hard to be nice and cordial.

    Fuck that shit.

  44. I think its down to:
    Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, Heidkamp

    Still need one.

    1. And for Flake to hold. Don’t count on Heidkamp I think.

      1. Flake will hold. His statement was pretty definitive. If Heidi votes No she loses. So we’ll see

        Ironically the No votes may give a bigger R majority come January. I think Donnelly is actually well done toast. Tester could possibly survive a No. Manchin might also. Collins can do anything she wants.

        Murkowski may not be so safe but voters forget.

        1. I can’t even fathom Donnelly. Like I’ve been saying, the thing that would make him and Manchin absolutely toast is if Kavanaugh gets exactly 49. They could have an outside shot if Kavanaugh gets through.

          1. Manchin is popular but he is mostly popular because he bucks the Ds at times. He can fly under the radar on some things but not this one. Yea I know Gorsuch is different than Kavanaugh but I don’t think it matters in WV.

            Donnelly is done either way Heidi if she goes No is done either way. I think Tester just made his race a toss-up. If Manchin votes No same will be the case in WV.

            If Kavanaugh is voted down by the two R ladies and one of these D’s Trump will have about 54 senators next term. Could get Amy Barrett through then.

        2. Tester would survive. Montanans are ridiculously conservative and typically loath to change what has become comfortable for them.

          1. Who knows why they like Tester in the first place.

            1. Like I said, he’s comfortable for them. It takes almost an act of God to vote a sitting Senator out of office regardless of where you are, but in Montana, that’s damn near a lifetime appointment.

    1. Cavorting with the enemy! How dare he!

  45. Yah, let’s postpone the vote to give the Democrats time to trot out more crazy broads with fake stories.

    1. And then we’ll need to investigate those. How can we tell if those are credible stories if we don’t investigate? Why is Kavanaugh so afraid of postponing for an investigation? Is he afraid of what the investigation might find? If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn’t fear a full investigate into every allegations, no matter how long it takes.

      Fuck Dick Durbin up his crotchety old ass.

      1. And then we’ll need to investigate those.

        The Senate needs to adopt firm procedures to deal with these accusations, procedures both about how they affect the timeline and how they are dealt with.

        (1) Accusations made after close of committee deliberations shall be referred to the FBI and state prosecutors for further action, if warranted, but not influence confirmation. If found true after confirmation, they shall lead to impeachment.

        (2) No accusations should be investigated in open Senate hearings. All investigations shall be carried out by skilled investigators.

        (3) Anybody who claims sexual misconduct shall be interviewed for all the details first, followed by a psychiatric evaluation, including an evaluation for the possibility of false memories.

        (4) Any report to the Senate shall be made by investigators and psychiatrists, not by the accuser.

  46. This coming Monday is the First Monday in October, the day on which the Supreme Court begins its session. So there is a reason for wanting it to have its full complement of nine judges by then. If the full Senate vote on Kavanaugh has not taken place by then, could the Supreme Court delay its opening session until it has?

  47. Flake is meeting with Dems. They’re out in the hall working on him as we speak. Grassley has called for a 1:30 vote, they’re not in the room; they’re out working on Flake!

  48. Current RCP Polls:

    Tester = +3 (it will get a little toasty)
    Donnelly = +5 (start applying for your next job, its over)
    Heidi = -1.6 (only a Yes will give her a chance)
    Manchin = +9.3 (maybe he can do whatever he wants but why make it close)

    1. Donnelly = +0.5, slipped a decimal on that, butter or butter and jelly on that toast

  49. Given Suderman’s curiosity about various elements of Kavanaugh’s calendar can we safely conclude that he thinks juvenile matters should result in lifetime effects?

    Does he apply this to everyone?

  50. It still up to McConnell to agree on this.

  51. Because of the large influence of any single Justice, especially one replacing the Court’s longtime swing vote, it would jeopardize the legitimacy of the entire court for years.

    The problem with your analysis here is the premise that this would be a bad thing.

    The Supreme Court has been elevated into an inherently anti-democratic super legislature for too long, and the only thing that’s going to make it possible to fix that problem is undermining its legitimacy. This particular situation is especially useful because it’ll undermine the Court with precisely the political-cultural faction that has done the most to promote it as the Final Decider on issue after issue.

  52. “The Supreme Court has been elevated into an inherently anti-democratic super legislature for too long…”

    You clearly have not a clue re the Supreme Court’s role.

    1. That description is not wrong. That is what SCOTUS is slowly turning into.

      I mean, there were TV ads in my area that were basically campaign-style ads, urging my state’s senator to vote for Kavanaugh. If SCOTUS judges are going to be treated like politicians and judges in name only, then maybe they should be subject to the same rules as politicians as well, including all the mud-flinging and dirty tricks which are a part of any political campaign. Sure these attacks against Kavanaugh were particularly vicious (gang rape? really?) but compare them to some of the allegations made against any of the actual politicians in DC. Obama, Trump, Hillary, etc., were all accused of some really terrible shit. Why should Kavanaugh the super-legislator be immune from such rules?

      1. The role of the Supremes is totally different from that of legislatures.

        1. In theory, yes. In practice, the distinction is blurring.

          1. You make the Supremes into quasi legislators and you can kiss the Constitution goodbye, totally and completely and utterly.

            1. They already are! I am with you that they *should not* be. But I also have to acknowledge reality here.

              1. We’re in a degraded state, no doubt, but the Constitution is still a considerable brake on those that would set fire to it and toss it in a dumpster.

    2. The Supreme Court’s correct role is to say, “The Constitution doesn’t say a single word about abortion, even indirectly, so it’s entirely a matter for the state legislatures, not constitutional law.” Deciding that abortion should be varying shades of legal based on a trimester scheme is not an exercise of the judicial power, but the legislative power.

      1. The US Constitution is silent on many specific issues, it’s role is to ensure all laws harmonize with the constitional principles it enumerates.

        1. The constitutional principles it enumerates isn’t the problem. The problem is the penumbra it emanates.

          Where are those documented?

  53. ^ ^

    “legislators”

  54. “The Republicans escalated the Senate’s procedural cold war with their tactical refusal to vote on Garland”

    Someone get Suderman a copy of the Constitution, stat.

    Article II doesn’t say the Senate is supposed to rubber-stamp every presidential nominee; it says the nominees require the “advice and consent” of the Senate before taking office.

    And since our society has been big on consent lately, that means a majority of the Senate must agree before the nomination can proceed.

    If the Democrats do block Kavanaugh I will consider it a triumph of dirty politics.

    What I won’t do is insinuate that it’s somehow against the rules. A Democrat-controlled Senate is under no obligation to confirm any of Trump’s nominees for any office.

    That’s not a failure of the system; its the system working exactly as designed.

  55. You know what would be useful in determining Ford’s veracity and temperament? Her social media for the last 6 years. Of course, she scrubbed it prior to sending the letters

    1. What would also be helpful would be questioning by a skilled FBI investigator, together with a psychiatric evaluation (and if her testimony tells you one thing, it’s that she isn’t entirely sane).

      The most likely root of this mess is false memories on her part, initially planted during therapy and then growing out of control.

  56. If you look at how the Senate Democrats have voted on Republican judicial nominations in the recent past it’s obvious their standard practice is raw political power. Check that “recent” past. Let’s say since the 1980s.

  57. The Kavanaugh Nomination Fight Has Pulled Us Further Into a Partisan Quagmire

    Just because Republicans and Democrats were fighting doesn’t make it partisan. The conduct of Democrats like Feinstein was reprehensible and beyond the pale of what should be tolerated within a liberal democracy.

    Hopefully, Feinstein will get censured and voters won’t fall for this crap from an increasingly desperate and toxic Democratic party.

    And Republicans need to get their act together. Grassley was out of his depth and bungled the whole process. There should be a procedure for these kinds of last minute accusations; the procedure should start with the FBI interviewing the accuser and, if appropriate as in this case, submitting them to a psychiatric evaluation.

  58. Peter should be made aware of the Power button on the Teevee remote.
    Kavanaugh could have ended the ordure-flinging by reassuring women voters that he is not a tool for bringing back the Comstock laws, instituting Saudi Sharia versions of separate but equal “rights” for women, nor overturning the Roe v Wade decision the Suprema Corte copied from those nasty individualist Libertarian candidates with their faithless spoiler vote. Ku Klux Christianity could then gracefully resume its 46-year-old pledge to enact a Constitutional Amendment to force them Jezebels to squeeze out cannon fodder and save the Caucasus from godless Race Suicide! And all would be sweetness and light in Pepperland.

    1. Holy smokes, Batman!

  59. All that needs to happen now is for RBG to retire or otherwise need to be replaced.

  60. C’mon Suderman, “Republicans were the ones who escalated the nomination process wars when they refused to hold a vote on President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland” is a half truth. For two centuries the Senate votes were nearly unanimous if the nominee was qualified. Even up to the time of RBG–check out her vote tally. It was the Dimms that started voting against nominees only based on a nominees’ perceived policy preferences. As for MG–it was the invocation of the Biden rule forbidding a lame duck POTUS from nominating somebody, which was invoked. This was not some new thing the GOP thought up. So, it seems to me that when the Dimms do something, the GOP must respond in kind or else be played for suckers. Turnabout is fair play. They should vote on BK–if he doesn’t get confirmed then let the POTUS appoint somebody else. Will the next person really be much different? No, and the Booker’s, Harris’s and Durbin’s of the world just look like fools. Getting drunk and acting stupid at a high school party at age 17, Ph-lease!!

  61. The Democrats could simply expand the Court to 11. It’s DEFCON 1 nuclear war on the Court.

    1. * when they get unitary control again *

  62. There is no good faith at all. A delay is pointless as the Dems will not accept it nor change their vote based on it.

  63. Mr. Suderman, what you are missing is that all of this is a non-claim. There is such a thing in the law as summary judgment, in which the allegations of the party proceeded against are assumed to be true, to ascertain just what the scope of the tort was. And, what must be done here is to separate Dr. Ford’s memory or characterization of the event from the event itself. If Dr. Ford had reported the incident 36 hours after it happened instead of 36 years, what a prosecutor would have is a misdemeanor assault. Although Dr. Ford expressed FEAR that she was to be raped or even killed accidentally, that does not change the actual essence of the offense. No rape occurred; Mr. Judge and whoever was there didn’t even get her clothes off. This by the doctor’s own testimony.

    Indeed, I could make a credible argument that she was not so much hurt by the “attack” as she was by the laughter and jokes the two assholes made at her expense while walking down the stairs. They treated her as a worthless thing, and she was 15 and just becoming a woman. My guess is that she probably ran down the stairs, ran past whoever was there, and ran all the way home — all 8 miles. That she cannot remember how she got home only causes more problems.

    What else does she not remember correctly?…

    1. The proper way for Judge Kavanaugh to have addressed a misdemeanor assault would be for him to admit he was an immature, seventeen-year-old asshole (from the “disaster” of his yearbook, we already know that’s true), and that such an incident simply is no counterbalance to three and a half decades of public service subsequently….

      But, the judge says HE was not there, and Mark Judge says HE never saw KAVANAUGH behave that way. When coupled with the other statements, e.g., Leland Keyser saying she does not even know Judge Kavanaugh, and there simply is nothing there. You look at Mark JUDGE:JUDGE Kavanaugh, and you realize that there probably is no more than a projection, substitution, and conflation of memory such as is common in PTSD/repressed-memory cases. I’m satisfied that Dr. Ford didn’t make it all up, but she simply does not have any support for the second boy being Brett Kavanaugh.

      Under those conditions, only Judge Kavanaugh’s motion for summary judgment would fail. Actual trial of the issue, could such be had 36 years after the fact, results in a directed verdict in his favor.

      The doctor has no presentable case. Except perhaps in the minds of Kennedy conspiracy theorists.

      You do not run confirmation hearings on anyone per the vituperations of Kennedy conspiracy theorists.

  64. Perhaps Mark Judge, a Kavanaugh friend who Ford alleges was in the room at the time of the assault, could be compelled to testify and offer further details, but he has already denied recalling any such event under penalty of perjury, and if called he would most likely take the fifth, providing no new information.

    Why would he need to take the 5th? Which is to say, what legitimate question could you ask of him that he hasn’t already answered?

    1: He and Kavanaugh have never partied with Ford
    2: He and Kavanaugh never sexually assaulted Ford
    3: He and Kavanaugh never sexually assaulted anyone else

    Once those questions have been answered, what other question can you ask, that is not merely asked for the purpose of violating Mark Judge’s privacy as punishment for getting in the way of your witch hunt?

    The case for postponing the vote, and perhaps withdrawing Kavanaugh’s nomination, is that in fact there is still more we could possibly learn:

    Yes, we could get every single bit of her therapist’s notes that discuss the supposed attack, and have her therapist testify, under oath, that what the investigators have is complete.

    How’d you miss that one?

    Ford’s parents and family, who have offered just a few terse statements of generic support, and could presumably provide recollections about her as a teenager.

    So we’re going to “slut shame” her?

    1. Surely you’re intelligent enough to figure out that the family’s “terse statements of generic support” asre because they think she’s lying.

      Which is an argument for having the vote, not an argument for dragging things more through the mud.

      Without falling down the rabbit hole of Google-maps enabled doppelganger theories, it would then presumably be possible to compare that sketch to the floor plans of the people she says were in attendance, which might provide a little more detail about the location of the alleged event than we have now.

      Oh, please. There’s 5 named people. Are you seriously claiming that one of them lived in a house that matches Ford’s story, and no one brought it up before now?

      Are you next going to see if Kavanaugh floats like a duck?

      Speaking of details, more than a few people have expressed skepticism about Kavanaugh’s essentially innocent descriptions of some of the activities noted in his yearbook?”boofing,” “devil’s triangle,” “Renate alumni.”

      So, what?

      None of that has anything to do with the Ford accusations. Unless you’re going to embrace the “Kavanaugh ran 10+ rape parties, and it never came out before now”, these questions are meaningless and irrelevant. (No, I don’t believe there’s actually anything there, and I think the people playing Captain Queeg over his yearbook are insane. I’m just pointing out that nothing there affects Ford’s claims).

      1. Suderman missed the boat with “it would then presumably be possible to compare that sketch to the floor plans of the people she says were in attendance”. Since all the alleged witnesses have already stated (under penalty of felony) they recall no such party, how would they generate a floor plan? Ford said she doesn’t know where the party was (but did remember drinking only one beer – selective memory there), how she got there, who invited her, how she got home, etc. All suggesting it’s a manufactured story to smear Kavanaugh. Plus the Democrats have a long history of making last minute sexual misconduct allegations against their political enemies. Well, because it’s so easy to manufacture them without any legal consequence. All it takes is a plausible story, without sufficient details (those pesky facts) to corroborate anything.

        If Suderman wants to complain about a partisan quagmire, the burden of proof and responsibility should reside with the accuser Democrats. If we’re going to do an FBI investigation, it should include a review of all the communications between Ford’s lawyers and Democrats (read Greg Jarret’s article on who the lawyers are working for). That the lawyers didn’t tell Ford that Grassley offered to interview her in CA privately, or who was paying their bills tells you a lot besides being an ethical violation.

        Certainly a search of Ford’s records, is also warranted to look for evidence to support, or disprove, the claim.

    2. And then there is the calendar entry in Kavanaugh’s datebook that appears to describe a midsummer night of weekend drinking with friends, who include not only Judge but another individual who was reportedly dating Ford at the time.

      Why yes.

      It also included three other guys, none of whom Ford mentioned.

      Since the latest version of Ford’s story only has four guys at the party, Kavanaugh’s calendar has six guys there, this party can’t be the party Ford is talking about.

      You know, it’s one thing to make the best case for a side. It’s entirely different to make that case by ignoring established details that blow serious holes in the case you’re trying to make.

      One might almost call that dishonest. Or shameful.

      Ford pulled out names of people she’d heard associated with Kavanaugh. The fact that he partied with those people does not provide any meaningful support for Ford’s claims, it just shows that yes, he partied with his friends.

    3. Ford is a liar. She lied when she said she couldn’t recall giving her therapist’s notes to a Washington Post reporter, she told that like in public, under oath.

      She told that lie because those notes contain information that would make it impossible to believe that Kavanaugh was the attacker, which means she can’t give them to the Senate.

      She isn’t willing to say “I gave them to a reporter for political gain, yo’re not on my side, so I’m not giving them to you”. So, instead, she lied under oath.

      Have the vote, and everyone who disagrees can go to hell. Because that’s where they belong

  65. What makes you think that partisanship has gotten worse in the last 200 years. Who has recently shot and killed who in a pistol duel over their political differences? Check history for the names Alexander Hamilton & Arron Burr, sir.

  66. Even if you believe Blassey-Ford (especially if you believe her), there’s little else more investigation even *could* turn up. By her own account, she told nobody about the incident until 30 years later. Her lifelong friend, who CBF says was at the party, does not remember it. None of Kavanaugh’s friends, who CBF named, remember it. Who else possibly could?

    But supposing through more digging, you might get to the point, where you have a date and a place where it’s possible that Blassey-Ford and Kavanaugh were together. That still could not prove attempted forcible rape. Perhaps a gathering happened but nobody but CBF remembers it because it was a big nothing that she’s blown up, over the years, into ‘the most traumatic event of her life’. That would explain why her memory is so bad for all the rest of the details (which is quite unusual for traumatic memories — usually the problem there is that all the details are ‘seared’ in memory).

    1. Three key elements appear to have been lost in the media’s response to the Ford-Kavanaugh soap opera:
      1. For a number of reasons, the alleged victim could be mistaken. Appearing in the hearing was not her idea.
      2. The alleged event would have taken place when the judge — if he was a party — and the alleged victim were minors.
      3. Mr. Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty. If he were to be found guilty, he would have several avenues of appeal. If he were a young black man, he would have that same right. The prosecutor who conducted the interview of the alleged victim reported that if she were handling the incident as a criminal case, she would not have found sufficient evidence — to that point — to justify an investigation and issue a search warrant, much less an arrest warrant for Mr. Kavanaugh. (Unlike Democratic politics, our legal system functions on empirical logic, not hysterics; despite Democrats’ antipathy, simply being white, male, and heterosexual does not make a person guilty.)

      Liberals complaining loudly about their “pain” or their “truth” does not create reality. The headline for the media’s response to the would-be hearing should have read:
      Democrats Bring Vulgarity to the Supreme Court.

  67. The civil war started when Republicans shot back at them.
    Damn those Republicans!

  68. “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
    –George Washington.

  69. I struggle with what Suderman thinks this path would resolve: “With further investigation, we might even learn more from Ford herself, who offered to speak with committee investigators and to sketch a floor plan of the house where she says the assault took place. Without falling down the rabbit hole of Google-maps enabled doppelganger theories, it would then presumably be possible to compare that sketch to the floor plans of the people she says were in attendance, which might provide a little more detail about the location of the alleged event than we have now. ”

    What we have from Ford, as I understand it, is a fairly generic floorplan of a house. So, if it matches at least one out of the roughly four homes to which we could compare, that strikes me as fairly unremarkable (particularly since we’re talking about people living in the same geographic area with similar socioeconomic status). And, since it sounds like her account includes at least one unidentified person, and some qualification on the question of there maybe being other there, the reply if the floorplan doesn’t match would be that her account could still be true but at someone else’s house.

  70. The problem with this article, is that it isn’t the nomination fight that’s put us into “a partisan quagmire”, instead it’s the fact that liberals, social conservatives, and crony capitalist RINOs have expanded government’s power to hammer individuals and subjugate our freedoms for their own desires and benefits, and have been increasing government control for the last 80 years starting with the SCOTUS caving into FDR and Republican embrace of the resulting expanding administrative state.

    It’s the increase in government control over our lives that’s led to the heated partisan quagmire while before government didn’t matter that much. The libertarian school of legal thought, to restore our freedoms, offers reconciliation, peace and harmony with less government force used against individuals. But liberals and social conservatives want to use government to mold us, while the establishments of both parties wants control of commerce where the money is to increase their power and wealth and fund their campaigns.

    In other words, Suderman is distracted by the nomination fight, as the cause of the partisan quagmire, rather than as a symptom of the real problem.

  71. ABC News websites regularly delete conservative views that contradict their narrative. Here is verbatim my posting regarding Kanye West that was deleted. You be the Judge.

    Removed
    An independent Black man dares to go off the Left plantation and the dogs (read: the media) are loosed. Oh, he’s mentally ill! Real reason: Any Democrat Presidential candidate needs 90% of the Black vote and no dissent is allowed. Kanye must be destroyed by toadies like Don Lemon and the water-carriers of MSNBC.
    Here’s something profound he said: “I won’t be controlled by racism.”
    Every Black person in America ought to pay attention to the reverse racism of the Left, especially those living in big cities controlled for decades by Democrats that are all disasters.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.