MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

A Short Response to Eugene's "Judicial Temperament" Post

Further thoughts on why Kavanaugh's testimony is disqualifying.

In his post here on the VC ("My Thoughts on the 'Judicial Temperament' Criticism of Judge Kavanaugh") giving his reasons for not signing onto a law professors' letter urging rejection of Kavanaugh's nomination because of his testimony at the hearings, Eugene Volokh wrote:

I hope that, before you sign on to the letter, you imagine how friends of yours would react if they were accused of a heinous crime that they did not commit -- and this was done on national (international) television, with undoubted partisan motivation (and I happily acknowledge that both the Democrats and the Republicans are being partisan here). ... "Painful," which is the adjective the letter uses, does not begin to describe it. I can't imagine how I would keep my composure in such a situation, even if I (like Judge Kavanaugh) were a judge who had a decade-long reputation of calm and politeness during the ordinary work (including the controversial work) of a court. ... Would I be "temperate" if faced with such public accusations? Courteous? Impartial? Would I really refrain from anything that might be called "inflammatory," and be sure never to "interrupt[]"? Would you?

Is this what we have come to? We see someone being subjected to unbearable, unearned, televised humiliation and disgrace. In front of his family. Of his young daughters. Of his and their friends. Of colleagues. Of the nation and of the world. And when he verbally lashes out in anger, we say, "Aha! You're not qualified, because you reacted to this dire, extraordinary provocation precisely the way normal human beings would"? Have we so lost any empathy?

I respectfully disagree with Eugene's point. It's not just a case of "refraining from anything that might be called 'inflammatory'." It is a case, as I suggested in an earlier posting, of having transformed a difficult but sober discussion of a complicated issue into a partisan brawl. He had lots of help; as Eugene says, "both the Democrats and the Republicans are being partisan here." Right - but we expect our politicians to be partisans, and we can forgive them a fair bit of partisanship. But not our judges. He did not have to give vent to his rage and further poison our poisoned politics; it's not as thought it was a spur-of-the-moment lashing out that he might subsequently walk back. This was a planned assault, and it will transform - and not in a good way - the way people will look at him (and the Court) forever should he be confirmed.

The question is not, as Eugene puts it, "would I do the same thing in the same circumstances?" The question is "If I did the same thing in the same circumstances, and vented my rage in that way, would I be entitled to confirmation of my nomination for a seat on the Supreme Court." For the sake of the Court, the answer is "no."

Plus, he lied under oath. At least, so it seems to me. About the "small things" in the long-ago past: the meaning of "boof," the meaning of "Devil's Triangle," the references to "Renate" in the Yearbook, his propensity to drink. Maybe you found his explanations persuasive; I did not. It's probably not proof of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt; this isn't a criminal trial, and Kavanaugh's liberty is not at stake in a confirmation vote, this is about whether he moves from the second-most important court in the land to the most important court in the land.

I have plenty of empathy for him; I can certainly understand not wanting to to expose his family to some pretty unattractive things about his behavior as a young man that maybe they weren't familiar with. I can understand that. I think many people - myself included - would give him him a pass had he just said "I was a jackass in high school and college and did a lot of things I'm ashamed of" and left it at that, answering whatever questions might come his way as truthfully as possible. But he didn't do that. He made up explanations for all of them. And lying under oath is lying under oath. The precedent - that you can be confirmed for a seat on the highest court even though you may well have committed perjury - is a terrible one, and one that will do deep damage to the country and its institutions in the future.

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.

  • bernard11||

    Yes.

    He also lied about the stuff he got from Manuel Miranda, and likely about knowing what Kozinski was up to.

    And the committee helped him lie. Grassley is a disgrace.

  • susancol||

    The author criticize Kavanaugh for supposedly "transforming [some mythical sober inquiry] into a partisan brawl" while entirely oblivious to the fact that it ALREADY WAS A PARTISAN BRAWL, with plenty of bad faith questions (and interruptions) being hurled (at Kavanaugh). Kavanaugh cannot be blamed for the pre-existing brawling.

  • Slocum||

    +1. And it wasn't a partisan brawl because of the way the hearing was run -- the whole thing was a partisan hit job from the beginning, with the Democrats sitting on and hiding the accusation only to leak it at the 11th hour with the expectation of delaying the vote past the midterms. CBF was lawyered up with attorneys recommended to her by Feinstein who certainly abetted CBFs patently false claim that fear of flying prevented her from coming to Washington as well as in the false claim that CBF was unaware of the offer to interview her in California. Lies which, of course, were intended to further the goal of running out the clock There was never ANYTHING remotely non-partisan about this process (during the hearing or beforehand).

  • eyesay||

    Untrue: "the Democrats sitting on and hiding the accusation." Only one of the 10 Democrats on the Committee did anything describable as "sitting on and hiding": Feinstein, who didn't have permission from Dr. Blasey to reveal it. Dr. Blasey's going public released Senator Feinstein as well, who played by the book. If you blame Dr. Blasey for not coming forward sooner, remember there now at least thousands of personal stories from victims of sexual assault who did not come forward for many years, including now Connie Chung. If Dr. Blasey's attorney was recommended by Sen. Feinstein, so what? Even if Dr. Blasey's testimony could have been heard three or four days earlier, how is that "running out the clock" in a year of 365 days, after Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley refused to hold hearings on Merrick Garland, leaving a seat open for almost a year? Dr. Blasey might be telling the truth, so how would you have made the process more non-partisan? I'll tell you how I would have made it more non-partisan. I would have subpoenaed Mr. Judge and others identified, had their testimony, and let the chips fall where they may. Republican leadership didn't do that, which shows that the partisan bias is coming from the Republicans, not the Democrats.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "It's not tribalism when we do it!"

  • Careless||

    Dr. Blasey's going public released Senator Feinstein as well, who played by the book.

    Except it was leaked either from Feinstein or what's her name, Ford's House rep first

  • damikesc||

    Hell, didn't RBG --- who had no excuse for it --- excoriate Trump before the election?

    But a guy getting pissed about BEING ACCUSED OF RAPING PEOPLE --- yeah, that's a step too far.

  • NToJ||

    "Hell, didn't RBG..."

    Yes, and she was roundly criticized for it, even by people who agreed with her comments. As a result, she said:

    "On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. . . Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."

  • damikesc||

    Funny, I've seen her lionized as a hero with a hagiographic biopic released after the fact.

    Odd.

    I guess she sure learned her lesson with that harsh condemnation that nobody made.

  • NToJ||

  • damikesc||

    Comservatives are far harsher on Kavanaugh.

  • mlwjr||

    By your logic she should have been removed. Not criticized

  • damikesc||

    Indeed. Impeach Ruth, right?

  • Leo Marvin||

    "By your logic she should have been removed."

    Only if you think the standard for opposing a nominee for SCOTUS should be the same as for impeaching a sitting judge/justice. I don't.

    Based on his lies and partisanship I'd vote against elevating BK to SCOTUS. I wouldn't vote to remove him from the D.C. Circuit.

  • damikesc||

    Lies are never noted and partisanship is not apologizing for a crime he did not commit.

  • damikesc||

    Only if you think the standard for opposing a nominee for SCOTUS should be the same as for impeaching a sitting judge/justice. I don't.

    Shouldn't somebody already there be held to a higher standard than somebody not there yet?

  • NToJ||

    "Shouldn't somebody already there be held to a higher standard than somebody not there yet?"

    I wouldn't think so. You'd be doing further murder to political norms if you encouraged the Senate majority to lie in wait and kick off their least favorite jurist for any improvident remark. If Kavanaugh isn't put on the court, the President will still get to nominate someone, and the Republican Senate will still get to vote on them. I doubt you want a rule that would allow a majority Democratic Senate to impeach the conservative justices for making partisan statements. (Although sitting justices should not make partisan statements.)

  • damikesc||

    I wouldn't think so. You'd be doing further murder to political norms if you encouraged the Senate majority to lie in wait and kick off their least favorite jurist for any improvident remark.

    The Left is openly calling for this, mind you.

    And if she won't recuse herself from all cases involving Trump due to her openly expressed disdain for HIM, then why not?

    I doubt you want a rule that would allow a majority Democratic Senate to impeach the conservative justices for making partisan statements.
  • NToJ||

    I think there is danger in removing sitting SCOTUS justices that doesn't apply to nominees. Kavanaugh's op-ed today comes close to a similar apology, although I think he's got a ways to go. In any event, what makes you think I wouldn't trade RBG for a new conservative justice? I think she's strong on statutory interpretation and week on constitutional law.

  • Perseus`||

    If Kavanaugh were to give an apology for his partisan mudslinging similar to that of RBG, would that be enough, or more likely, would his opponents move the goal posts? I'm guessing the latter.

  • NToJ||

    His WSJ did some work, for me. Not enough, but it was a step in the right direction. I interpreted it as apologizing for his demeanor, rather than to the partisan bullshit. But I'll keep an open mind if he goes further.

    The problem for him, at this point, is that he's just damaged goods. The country will be better off if we get another highly qualified conservative justice. Whether that's unfair to Kavanaugh is of no moment to me.

  • AtR||

    The next highly qualified conservative justice can be just as easily damaged as this one.
    "You're so gullibly, MacFly."

  • Careless||

    Yes, and she was roundly criticized for it, even by people who agreed with her comments.

    Where did David Post, who clerked for her, do so? I know I was reading Volokh then, and he was posting here then. Pretty sure that didn't happen

  • NToJ||

    I don't recall Post criticizing Ginsburg for her comments. But I think he's a never Trumper and, as you noted, her former clerk (twice), so I'd be surprised if he did.

  • Careless||

    Can Democrats like Post be "never trumpers"? I don't think that's a thing. It's a term for people who would otherwise vote for Republicans

  • NToJ||

    He's at Cato. I think libertarians can be never trumpers but I feel like we're splitting hairs. My point was that it's unsurprising that David Post would not have criticized RBG since (1) he clerked for her; and (2) he is open about being unsupportive of the President.

  • NToJ||

    "Kavanaugh cannot be blamed for the pre-existing brawling."

    He can be blamed for not rising above it, which is what many of us expect from SCOTUS justices.

  • damikesc||

    He was accused of RAPING people.

    Maybe you WOULD have no issues with that, but that speaks more of you than him.

  • NToJ||

    Of course I'd have issues with it. I'd be angry. That would make it more important to rise above the fray, because the pointless partisan shots don't make him look more innocent.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    It wasn't about looking innocent. If he sat and took it, he wouldn't be appointed.

    By turning the democrats political vitriol back at them he gained the backing of the right and that will ensure they vote for him. If he sat there like a wimp and didn't take the fight to the opposition he loses republicans.

    I'm not saying it was the correct move from a moral point, but from a political view it was by far the correct move.

  • eyesay||

    Res ipsa loquitur: you raise a false dilemma: have a tantrum or sit and take it. He could have thanked the committee for its diligence in hearing all evidence, even evidence he considers confused or unfair, thanked rather than criticized and denounced the loyal opposition for doing its job ("Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clear my name, which I will do today"), and presented his case in a sober and dignified manner. When he was asked difficult questions, he could have answered them instead of changing the subject, lying, or flipping them back on the asking party, as he did in non-answer to a lot of questions. (He lied when he said other witnesses confirmed his denials. He lied when he said there were no entries on his calendar that matched the events described by Dr. Blasey. That's just two of 31 lies and counting.) From a political view it was the wrong move ... unless he really did assault Dr. Blasey, in which the correct move would be to fess up, withdraw his nomination, resign his post, and go to work for the Heritage Foundation, where he can be happy for the rest of his life.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Pure nonsense. He didn't throw a tantrum, but threw crap back at crap. I hold proggies and conservatives to the same standard. This notion that one ideological point of view should be held to a higher standard is pure nonsense.

    He also never lied, again pure nonsense.

    I doubt you have been to lawyer school, not one of the witnesses Ford said was there, even her best friend, had any recollection of the event.

    I'm no fan of Trump, but I am starting to understand why progressives hate him. He won't take the crap like Bush did, he fights back. This idea that anyone who isn't a progressive should have to behave differently is absurd.

  • NToJ||

    "By turning the democrats political vitriol back at them he gained the backing of the right and that will ensure they vote for him."

    And damaged his ability look like an impartial SCOTUS justice in the process. If getting the job is more important than him to the impartiality of the Court, that's not flattering to Kavanaugh. My point is that if Kavanaugh cares about the institution, he shouldn't care about not getting on it.

    I sense we agree based on your last sentence.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    So he is like Kagan, or any progressive nominee. You read any of her decisions ? She doesn't even begin to apply the law, but is a pure progressive justice.

    Why should only conservatives hide the truth ?

    I'm not a fan of some conservative judicial legal potions, but at least guys like Scalia could argue them, Kagan doesn't even try, she just states the proggie position.

    In lawyer school, Scalia was actually fun to read, he could present the argument, even ones I disagreed with.

  • NToJ||

    Let me start by saying that I disagree with liberal constitutional theory. I am not a living constitutionalist. I think originalism is the only theory of constitutional interpretation. I think Kagan is actually pretty good at statutory interpretation. She agreed with Scalia about 75% of the time generally (and I assume they disagreed most often on constitutional issues). And even if I disagree with her constitutional theory, she's still probably thrown strikes on stare decisis grounds.

    I think you're overstating the case against Kagan. Even in the most recent term, she agreed with the conservative justices more than any of the liberal justices, and no two justices (from either side) disagreed with any other a majority of the time. See here.

    Why don't you just tell me which opinions you have in mind?

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Janus is a spectacular one. The level of legal weakness and gymnastics is impressive. Read her dissent, truly impressive level of stupid.

    "Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support. "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions /17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

    Yea, whether unions lose secure financial support shouldn't be a deciding factor for a legal decision. Granted, this was just one of her stupid points, but one of her standard.

  • bratschewurst||

    Did you actually read the Janus dissent? What about this part:

    'Justice Scalia, responding to the same argument as the majority's, may have put the point best. In a way that is true of no other private group, the "law requires the union to carry" non-members—"indeed, requires the union to go out of its way to benefit [them], even at the expense of its other interests." Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn, 500 U. S. 507, 556 (1991) (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). That special feature was what justified Abood: "Where the state imposes upon the union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them." 500 U. S., at 556.'

    Truly impressive level of stupid?

  • FlameCCT||

    Anymore than the "wise Latina" demonstrating her political partiality? Yet there she sits!

  • granite state destroyer||

    He was not accused of raping people. He is accused of sexual harassment at worst, and he was 17 and drunk in the first instance, 18 and drunk in the second. These are hardly "heinous" crimes. That is why Kavanaugh's overreaction is either a cynical play for political sympathy from the right or a genuine crazy emotional overreaction that should disqualify him.

  • FlameCCT||

    Wrong again! Hell, he's been lumped in with known serial sexual assaultists and rapists like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weinstein!

  • damikesc||

    Ford specifically accused him of rape. Porn lawyer client accused him of running gang rape circles.

  • Here for the outrage||

    This is the new alinsky from the progressives: make the other team live above and beyond any reasonable expectation

  • NToJ||

    I don't think the Supreme Court is "the other team".

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Don;t like the 4th Amendment huh ?

  • Here for the outrage||

    Well beyond the expectations of the supreme court. If it were within those bounds, I'd surely hear you protesting RBG being a partisan POS

    He's not my first pick but I'd prefer to not equate gang rape with drinking beer in order to get my way

  • damikesc||

    "Judge Garland, have you ever sped or raped babies? Its a yes or no question. Dont be evasive"

  • NToJ||

    Why is "No, of course not" an inappropriate answer?

  • damikesc||

    Why is "No, of course not" an inappropriate answer?

    He said no. Repeatedly.

  • WillDD||

    It's a waste of time protesting to Professor Post about RBG -- he was one of her law clerks.

  • NToJ||

    I don't think RBG is a POS, but I think her partisan comments were a mistake, and I was pleased when she apologized for them. What makes you think I'm an RBG fan?

  • FlameCCT||

    I'm curious, does RBG being drunk on the bench and/or during the State of the Union, disqualify her from continuing to sit on the bench?

  • Sarcastr0||

    And/or really making your assertion seem super-factual.

  • damikesc||

    RBG ADMITTED to being drunk for an SOTU speech.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    The wailing and tearing of garments will be something to behold if he is confirmed this weekend.

    I suppose the opposite will be true if he loses but of course Trump can still appoint someone else.

  • Seamus||

    If he is confirmed this weekend, I expect his opponents will not just rend garments, but will fill the streets with protests. We'll be lucky if there aren't windows smashed and cars burned.

    If he is voted down, on the other hand, I expect a lot of outraged grumbling from his supporters, and calls for the quick nomination and confirmation of Amy Barrett.

  • mad_kalak||

    No. If he's voted down, but he GOP picks up seats in the Senate, re-nominate him.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    If Kavanaugh is voted down, Trump should nominate Amy Barrett, then the GOP Senate Leadership should hold a full Senate vote without a committee hearing.

  • NToJ||

    "...Trump should nominate Amy Barrett, then the GOP Senate Leadership should hold a full Senate vote without a committee hearing."

    This makes a lot of sense, actually.

  • Don Nico||

    I like that. But nominating Barrett will unless a flood of anti-Catholic rhetoric about a mother of 7 kids (can you believe it, 7) who will want to force women to have children.

    I prefer Joan Larsen.

  • Onslow||

    "If Kavanaugh is voted down, Trump should nominate Amy Barrett, then the GOP Senate Leadership should hold a full Senate vote without a committee hearing."

    Refusing a hearing for Barrett would set a bad precedent. If a sitting Senator (e.g., Mike Lee, Ted Cruz) is nominated, custom is to move for straight up or down vote. That's the route I'd take, especially if Texans don't reelect Cruz and the GOP loses the majority.

    If the GOP retains or adds to its majority, and Kavanaugh isn't confirmed, then you can move fwd with Barrett. Save Kavanaugh for Ginsburg's seat.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "Refusing a hearing for Barrett would set a bad precedent."

    Why? How?

    I'm not talking about rejection by no action, I'm talking about moving for a straight full Senate up/down vote without holding a committee hearing.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    How does it set a bad precedent ? There is plenty of precedent for justices receiving no hearings, over a century worth.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Pass a Senate rule - no more committee hearings about nominees.

  • ||

    Too bad Trump doesn't have the balls to order the military to fire on liberals when they do their "protests." Nothing stops an angry moonbat better than a triple tap of a 5.56.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Shooting peaceful protesters is more a progressive thing, you know Maduro, Castro, the Kim's, you know....leftists.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Maybe, but from the "protests", you could tell he wasn't talking about peaceful protesters.

    He meant rioters.

  • bernard11||

    I don't think so, Brett.

    AWRP has consistently advocated violence against those he disagrees with,

  • Leo Marvin||

    Well, Brett, apparently he considers liberal protesters to be rioters by definition.

    It only took him 10 minutes to pull the rug out from under you. I guess now you know what it feels like to work for Trump.

  • NToJ||

    Do you think the President should order the military to fire on all "rioters", however defined?

  • ||

    The only peaceful protesters are on the right. Liberal "protesters" are violent rioters.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Shooting peaceful protesters is more a progressive thing, you know Maduro, Castro, the Kim's, you know....leftists.

    Jackson State . . . Kent State . . .

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib still can't get over his beloved trained government agents turning on their own.

    Carry on, soyboys.

  • Seamus||

    Kent State was not a peaceful protest. Barrages of rocks were being thrown. Maybe not as many as at the Boston Massacre or the Baltimore riot of April 19, 1861, but enough the validate my theory that when you throw missiles that cause jumpy young men whose government has given them deadly weapons to fear (reasonably or unreasonably) for their lives, then you are in the running for this year's Darwin Award.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    And, IIRC, recent evidence from audio recordings has shown that someone fired before the national guard did.

  • FlameCCT||

    Personally I would fire permanent dye paint balls or simunition at rioters, that way they can be identified days later.

  • RobinGoodfellow||

    You use that word, "peaceful." I don't think it means what you think it means.

  • Kazinski||

    Well that should settle it then. When people resort to violence to get their way, then they should get their way.

  • Krayt||

    His demeanor is certainly worthy of consideration when judging how truthful he is. But that is separate from a declaration it is disqualifyingly unjudicial per se, which is as much a foregone judgement from those opposed as his emotions are evidence of a healthy and proper reaction from those in favor.

    I just have to wonder about the next thing, currently being kept under wraps, that will be sprung out as vital for consideration, gosh, so important he should be rejected, (but not so important it should be released yet.)

  • Martinned||

    I don't know. Every day again we wake up to discover that some unstated norm of (American) politics, a pattern of behaviour observed for centuries, has been abolished by Trump and his posse. The thing about unspoken norms is that you don't really notice them until they're gone. No Supreme Court nominee has ever accused one of the major parties of a conspiracy/witch-hunt against them, so the issue of whether that should be disqualifying has simply never come up. What's next?

  • damikesc||

    Every day again we wake up to discover that some unstated norm of (American) politics, a pattern of behaviour observed for centuries, has been abolished by Trump and his posse.

    This is where examples are helpful to make a point.

    No Supreme Court nominee has ever accused one of the major parties of a conspiracy/witch-hunt against them

    How many were accused of raping somebody with no evidence required for it to be "believed"?

    But, hey, I'm sure allowing late accusations with no proof is just one of those norms that Trump killed off, amirite?

  • NToJ||

    "How many were accused of raping somebody..."

    One?

  • VinniUSMC||

    It's telling that you would truncate that quote. Evidence schmevidence.

  • damikesc||

    That "..." is duly noted.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "The precedent - that you can be confirmed for a seat on the highest court even though you may well have committed perjury - is a terrible one."

    The problem is, that precedent was already set by William Rehnquist who lied about his infamous memo, "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases.* Rehnquist claimed he was only playing devil's advocate when he argued that state-enforced segregation on the basis of race was constitutional, more than a little hard to believe because Rehnquist's actual "argument" was extra-constitutional--"it doesn't matter what the constitution says, the white folks run things in the South and they are going to run things their way". In 1996, as Chief Justice, Rehnquist argued, in a case about whether women should be admitted to Virginia Military Institute, that if Virginia had only established a separate but equal VMI for girls that would be constitutionally acceptable.

    More recently, Clarence Thomas was in a situation very similar to Kavanaugh's. He could have said "I acted like a boor, and should have apologized, but I never touched her physically and as her supervisor always treated her fairly." But of course he didn't.


    *So, yes, a sitting Supreme Court justice lied under oath prior to becoming Chief Justice. Interesting!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    So, your standard boils down to, "The accused is committing perjury if he denies he's guilty."

    That he may be innocent just isn't a possibility worth considering.

  • damikesc||

    Do I need to remind you that these are MEN being accused?

    Let's look at the author's examples of "perjury"

    Plus, it looks reasonably likely that he lied under oath. About the "small things" in the long-ago past: the meaning of "boof," the meaning of "Devil's Triangle," the references to "Renate" in the Yearbook, his propensity to drink.

    1) I am baffled as to where he got expertise on the slang used at that school at that time. He never explained where he got such info.

    2) See above.

    3) Also see above.

    4) He never once said he did not drink.

  • NToJ||

    "I am baffled..."

    We can see that. His explanations for boofing, devil's triangle, renate alumnus, etc. are nonsense. It's obvious nonsense.

  • damikesc||

    We can see that. His explanations for boofing, devil's triangle, renate alumnus, etc. are nonsense. It's obvious nonsense.

    Again, your apparent expertise in the slang used by his friends at the school at the time seems impressive. Where did you develop your deep well of knowledge of early 1980's DC prep school slang?

  • NToJ||

    From Kavanaugh's yearbook! WTF do you think he meant by "alumnius"? His own classmates (i.e. DC prep school students) know what it means.

  • mad_kalak||

    Did you even read the article you cited?

    "Four of the players in the "Renate Alumni" photo — Mr. Davis, Mr. Kane, Tim Gaudette and Don Urgo Jr. — said in a statement that they had "never bragged about" sexual contact or anything like that with Ms. Dolphin. The statement, issued by Jim McCarthy, a public-relations representative, said the yearbook's "Renate" references "were intended to allude to innocent dates or dance partners and were generally known within the community of people involved for over 35 years."

  • NToJ||

    "Two of Judge Kavanaugh's classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players' unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.

    ...

    ""Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Dolphin attended one high school event together and shared a brief kiss good night following that event [which she has since denied]," the statement continued. "They had no other such encounter. The language from Judge Kavanaugh's high school yearbook refers to the fact that he and Ms. Dolphin attended that one high school event together and nothing else."

    ...

    Michael Walsh, another Georgetown Prep alumnus, also listed himself on his personal yearbook page as a "Renate Alumnus." Alongside some song lyrics, he included a short poem: "You need a date / and it's getting late / so don't hesitate / to call Renate."

    ...

    Ms. Dolphin was aware that members of Judge Kavanaugh's clique were reciting that poem, according to a person familiar with her thinking. She told the football players that she found it offensive, believing it made her seem like a cheap date, and she asked them to stop."

  • mad_kalak||

    Yea, so, um....that showed he lied under oath how?

  • NToJ||

    I'm not saying it's perjury, but his answer was pointlessly evasive. I think he said it was meant as "admiration". Renate didn't interpret it as flattering, and nor would anyone else. Why do you think she was the only admired woman mentioned in several high school boys' yearbook? Because they were so admiring?

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "His own classmates (i.e. DC prep school students) know what it means."
    ...
    "Four of the players in the "Renate Alumni" photo...said the yearbook's "Renate" references "were intended to allude to innocent dates or dance partners and were generally known within the community of people involved for over 35 years."
    ...
    "Two of Judge Kavanaugh's classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players' unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests."

    So... which ones know what it means, and which don't?

    And why is it that the two players who disagree with Kavanaugh's interpretation are mention in paragraph 3 of the story, but the four who substantiate Kavanaugh's claime aren't mentioned until paragraph 15?

  • NToJ||

    The "allude to innocent dates or dance partners" is not credible, but even if it were true, it would not reflect well on the people mentioning it in their yearbooks. And those four said it through a publicist, if memory serves. That's 4 of 13, and the other quotes aren't flattering to her, either. Most of them have declined to comment.

    Renate didn't interpret it the way you have. Nor has any woman I've spoken with. Do you think she was the only woman these kids went on "innocent dates" or were "dance partners" with? Why do you think she's the one who gets mentioned by over a dozen of them? It's a joke about them all getting with her, even if getting with her for all boys' school prep kids was tame.

  • damikesc||

    I am awaiting your evidence and expertise. You failed here as was pointed out.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    The questions to Kavanaugh about "boofing", "devil's triangle", "renate", were much worse nonsense than Kavanaugh's answers.

    If you ask BS questions, expect BS for answers.

  • NToJ||

    No doubt about that. The Democratic Senators' lines of questioning were pathetic.

  • Ben of Houston||

    True, but he should have refused to answer the questions, not either lie or make up definitions (which, to be frank, could easily have been half-remembered from decades ago).

  • damikesc||

    Except there is still zero evidence he lied. Wishful thinking ain't evidence.

  • damikesc||

    Mind you, multiple people have verified Devils Triangle was, indeed, a drinking game.

  • eyesay||

    Mind you, multiple people have verified Devils Triangle was, indeed, a drinking game. [Citation needed]

  • eyesay||

    Mind you, multiple people have verified Devils Triangle was, indeed, a drinking game. [Citation needed]

  • damikesc||

    There are letters to the Judiciary Committee saying precisely that. Others here have seen them. I guess you missed it.

  • JesseAz||

    It is amazing watching liberals denote lies with 100% certainty on a subject that have almost no certainty about.

  • KevinP||

    This is nonsense. Slang and vernacular have huge variations across time and place.

    In the countries of the world that have a strong British influence, the word "fag" refers to a cigarette, without any sexual or homosexual connotation whatsoever. Strangers would think nothing of asking another if they "had a fag they could share".

    But this isn't the case in Canada, which is culturally influenced by the US in spite of its British heritage.

    A simple internet search finds that the word "boof" has had dozens of meaning, including anal sex but also farting.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Slang does not vary from classmate to classmate, and we have classmates saying it's all sex stuff.

  • damikesc||

    Slang does not vary from classmate to classmate? So, my black classmates calling themselves the "n" word was IDENTICAL to me, a white dude, doing so?

    Really?

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    There are also several classmates saying the "Devil's triangle" was a drinking game, and the Renate quote was innocent.

    And there's two BC alum who say that one of Kav's friends taught them the rules to "Devil's triangle."

  • JesseAz||

    Sarcastro filters his information to that which only agrees with his original premise. He didn't see your post 12.

  • NToJ||

    Do you think his yearbook was asking if his friend had farted yet?

  • damikesc||

    Maybe. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

  • Careless||

    His explanations for boofing, devil's triangle,

    Have been supported by other people from the same time and place. You know what hasn't been? All the accusations against him. Stop being a David Post.

  • NToJ||

    I don't find the boofing support credible. I'm willing to be persuaded on devil's triangle.

  • NToJ||

    Let me add: For those of us who played a lot of drinking games, it's just not credible that a person who played drinking games enough to write about it in their yearbook never blacked out or passed out.

  • Careless||

    lololol

  • Careless||

    you are not the center of the universe, NToJ

  • NToJ||

    I'm a subject-matter expert on drunks.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "I'm willing to be persuaded on devil's triangle."

    Pass.

    "Do you think his yearbook was asking if his friend had farted yet?"

    I honestly have no idea. I'm not sure why he would as his friend if he butt-fucked yet either. It could be an inside joke, he could have been mis-remembering, or he could be lying.

    But I'm certain it's not worth engaging in this much speculation about.

  • NToJ||

    "I'm not sure why he would as his friend if he butt-fucked yet either."

    Why? That was a pretty normal thing for high schoolers to discuss, when I was in high school.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "Why? That was a pretty normal thing for high schoolers to discuss, when I was in high school."

    Sure, but we all claimed had we'd done pretty much every girl in school in every way possible...

    ISTM that whatever they're talking about, it's clearly an inside joke, it's not like they're going to randomly ask each other about buttfucking in the yearbook.

  • jph12||

    "Why? That was a pretty normal thing for high schoolers to discuss, when I was in high school."

    And fart jokes weren't? You and I went to very different high schools.

  • Architect JS||

    Add to this;

    There was no internet back in 1982 to foment a uniformity of slang expression.

    I'm a bit younger than Kavanaugh- I've never heard of "Devil's Triangle" I googled it. Suddenly, we all have a consensus of what it means. That conclusion is BS.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Rehnquist never denied writing the memo. How could he? He denied that the memo reflected his actual thoughts. I think he's lying, because, as I've said, the memo offers an extra-constitutional argument, and what is the point of that other than that you believe it? An extra-constitutional argument can "decide" any case. Suppose the Rosenbergs were found innocent, and in response the Congress unanimously passed legislation finding them guilty, ordering their executions, and Eisenhower signed it. Would Rehnquist say "To hell with that bill of attainder stuff. People want them dead"? Would he make that argument as an intellectual exercise?

    Regarding Thomas, there was plenty of testimony from women other than Hill indicating that he liked to romance the ladies in a pretty explicit fashion. His own testimony, denying categorically the charges Hill made against him, even though he deliberately refused to watch her own testimony (which preceded hers), was unconvincing.

  • Martinned||

    Denying under oath that you're guilty is perjury, yes. It was when Clinton did it, and it was when Kavanaugh did it.

  • damikesc||

    What, PRECISELY, is Kavanaugh guilty of?

  • JesseAz||

    Clinton's lie didn't refer to his presumption of innocence...

  • Careless||

    I think you forgot to include a number of words in your post.

  • damikesc||

    More recently, Clarence Thomas was in a situation very similar to Kavanaugh's. He could have said "I acted like a boor, and should have apologized, but I never touched her physically and as her supervisor always treated her fairly." But of course he didn't.

    Except Hill ALSO provided no proof. Her story was about as sketchy as Ford's.

  • eyesay||

    Except that there were multiple witnesses that corroborated Anita Hill, but the Senate Judiciary Committee, then chaired by Democrat Joe Biden, did not call any of those witnesses.

  • damikesc||

    None that worked with them or that were there.

    Plenty contradicted her.

    As did her following him from job to job.

  • Brightly||

    They were weak witnesses, but yeah, this is FAR worse of a calumny circus than Thomas went through...

  • Careless||

    Hill at least could prove that she had been in the same room as Thomas. It's not even close to being as stupid a case.

  • Eddy||

    "we expect our politicians to be partisans, and we can forgive them a fair bit of partisanship. But not our judges."

    If only we could have nonpartisan judges like Samuel Chase, Salmon P. Chase, John Marshall, Roger Taney, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, etc. Those were the days!

  • WJack||

    This one is in the bag, let us hope for two more which will give this once great country a fighting chance against the globalist et. al.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You may not like the "two more" that seem destined to be installed in a few years.

    Just as you haven't liked the most recently 50 or 60 years of American progress, and are likely to dislike the next few decades of American progress.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • WJack||

    You best best hope your dreams do not come true. If they do you are apt to be terrified. The continued degeneration of Western Judeo - Christian values is not apt to end well for anyone.

  • mad_kalak||

    Rev thinks he will be the one in charge after the Revolution, when in actuality he's going to be the second in the gulag. They go after the true believers right after the opposition, because the true believer's disenchantment with the actual results of the Revolution is a danger to the regime.

  • DStraws||

    No the Rev doesn't believe that. There will be no revolution just the evolution of our political and economic systems to encompass our increasingly interconnected and interdependent world.

  • mad_kalak||

    I know, but it still has the same effect, and for the same reasons. Ask Jordan Peterson, or Brett Weinstein, (and others I'm sure) what happens to liberals who speak out in defense of liberal values.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Yea, actually Rev does believe that.

    Most who want utopia, whether they are waiting for Jesus to return or waiting for the revolution against Capitalism and freedom, want to be in charge as they know best.

    Anyone seeking a Utopian world isn't too worried about how they achieve it, however, it always ends up in the hands of a Stalin, a Kim, a Pol Pot, a Pinoche, a Chavez, etc and not long in the hands of the useful idiots.

  • KevinP||

    I don't think the Rev will even make it as far as the gulag. Antifa will just club his brains out on the street.

  • mad_kalak||

    I agree. They will Reginald Denny his ass, all while he sputters about how he is one of the good ones and on their side.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Well, this is a fine 'fantasize about RAK being killed but make it by evil liberals' party.

    You guys get weird when you're irritated on the Internet.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Not a fantasy, more a basic understanding of totalitarian progressive ideology in action. The left goes to far, most leftists rejoice when Chavez takes over Venezuela for example, assuming that now utopia will be reached. Soon, the happy fat guy has the military on his side and political prisoners are rounded up and millions flee the nation starving or are dying in the streets.

    Rev, and you, assume it will be different "this" time, and you are again wrong.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Rev, and you, assume it will be different "this" time, and you are again wrong.

    To the contrary, I expect things to continue along the traditional course, our liberal-libertarian alliance winning the culture war and shaping America's improvement while right-wingers moan incessantly and bitterly about all of this damned reason, science, tolerance, liberty, and progress.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Screw you, I'm not a revolutionary Communist, and I am not a fan of Chavez.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Nonsense, all progressives love revolutionaries. Hold your Che shirt up high and enjoy all the blood on your ideological hands.

  • mad_kalak||

    Reginald Denny is still very much alive, and to his credit, forgave at least one of his attackers.

    Fantasize about being killed? Naw, that's Right Wing Patriot, who actually wants to do the killing. Should Rev get his way, it would be more like watching the frog get stung by the scorpion.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The continued degeneration of Western Judeo - Christian values is not apt to end well for anyone.

    Sayeth the people who voted for Donald Trump?

    Your childish reliance on superstition is noted, and disdained.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Furthermore, speaking as an actual Democrat, I can point out that 1) Republicans denied President Obama's last opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice on purely partisan grounds; 2) Kavanaugh got his first break as basically a Republican hit man, working to shut down the Florida recount in the case that ultimately resulted in the Republican "Dirty Five" handing George Bush the keys to the White House; 3) While working in Ken Starr's Independent Counsel's Office, Kavanaugh claimed that they had a moral duty, not merely to investigate Clinton's crimes but to humiliate him publicly for being such a wicked man.

    Why should such a man have the "right" to be appointed a Supreme Court justice?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I didn't watch the hearings, and what little I read didn't mention any of those incidents. Were they mentioned? If not, apparently Dems would rather drudge up things which cannot be proven or disproven, falsifiable, or even contested in any rational manner, the better to enflame the press.

  • granite state destroyer||

    I think that the Dems cynically want Kavanaugh to be confiirmed. He will drive big fund raising dollars from upper middle class white women for the next 10 years.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "right" to be appointed "

    He doesn't. No one does. He was nominated and the Senate will decide, as the Constitution allows.

    Of course no one is arguing he has a "right". So burn that strawman.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Nobody has a right to be on the Supreme court, but nothing you mentioned would persuade anybody but a partisan Democrat that Kavanaugh was disqualified from being on it.

  • damikesc||

    Furthermore, speaking as an actual Democrat, I can point out that 1) Republicans denied President Obama's last opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice on purely partisan grounds

    Miguel Estrada laughs at your complaints about blocking judicial nominations for partisan reasons.

    2) Kavanaugh got his first break as basically a Republican hit man, working to shut down the Florida recount in the case that ultimately resulted in the Republican "Dirty Five" handing George Bush the keys to the White House;

    Yes, differing vote count standards for votes sounds completely on the up-and-up.

    Why do Democrats have such obsessions with delaying the inevitable?

    3) While working in Ken Starr's Independent Counsel's Office, Kavanaugh claimed that they had a moral duty, not merely to investigate Clinton's crimes but to humiliate him publicly for being such a wicked man.

    Can you link to him saying that? That is a new one.

  • JesseAz||

    1) The GOP never denied Obama's opportunity to nominate. He in fact did make a nomination. What they did refuse to do is give him advise and consent on it, which is one of their powers. Please learn how the Constitution works dummy.

    2) The Florida results were decided based on a declaration of equality. Gore attempted to pick and choose which counties to count. If he had agreed to a full state recount as originally proposed earlier, the courts wouldn't have stopped the last recount. Gore is to blame here. Learn actual facts dummy.

    3) Citation needed, my guess is you are as ignorant here as in 1 and 2.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    The most disqualifying thing Kavanaugh said: "What goes around, comes around."

    Let's hear his defenders put a saving construction on that one.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    That part did not bother me. That statement will be handy for those Democrats who care to engage with Republicans when Democrats regain the whip hand in a country whose electorate trends against the Republican-conservative electoral coalition every day obituaries are published.

  • Eddy||

    Those wacky Democrats, always wanting the whip hand, and seceding when they thought it might be taken away from them!

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "Let's hear his defenders put a saving construction on that one."

    Its an awesome statement. Hopefully he won't forget it.

  • mad_kalak||

    Yes, after all this, he won't be jawboned into flaking like Roberts.

  • KenveeB||

    That when you decide the new standard is going back 40 years to high school and if you can find anyone to make an allegation against you , it's true and you're disqualified regardless of whether or not it's TRUE, that same standard will be used against you and the people you support in the future. That when you decide to ruin a person's life because you don't like the person who nominated him for the job, you may find your own life similarly ruined. Quite simply, that the weapon you use today almost always ends up being turned against you and yours in turn.

    What's disqualifying about that?

  • damikesc||

    As pointed out, Reid nuking the filibuster is why Kavanaugh can be voted for.

  • eyesay||

    KenveeB, it is a lie to suggest that Senate Democrats "found" Dr. Blasey. Quite the opposite. She wrote a letter to her own member of Congress, who forwarded it to Sen. Feinstein. All of the women who have come forward with recollections (true or false) about Kavanaugh came on their own, not because Democratic politicians sought them out. Stop lying about this.

  • damikesc||

    Several said otherwise. Ronan Farrow reported otherwise.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Ginsburg wore her dissent jabot on the bench to protest the election, for crying out loud.

    And that's on the bench. I'm not sure to what extent we can demand non-partisanship from the nominee during the hearing.

    A credible interpretation of events is that one party tried to sandbag the nomination with a false rape allegation.
    And if a nominee believes that one party is sandbagging his nomination with a false rape allegation, surely he gets to say so, no?

  • Bubba Jones||

    Meh. She wears that any time she is in the minority.

    http://www.bustle.com/articles.....ccessories

  • TwelveInchPianist||

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Are you suggesting it was okay for Ginsburg to go partisan? If not, I suggest you ought to apply any reservervations you have about that alike to Kavanaugh.

  • EveryOtherUsernameWasTake||

    There was no chance Kavanaugh was going to get a fair shake no matter how he acted during the hearing. If he'd been calm and detached, the same people now saying he lacks judicial temperament would be saying he's a bloodless robot who lacks empathy and should be disqualified on that basis. Remember how people said Dukakis lost the 1988 election with his totally unemotional reaction to being asked in a debate whether he would want capital punishment for someone who had raped and murdered his wife?

    I won't claim to have been a big Kavanaugh fan even before this whole mess, but watching the Senate and the media basically play the "why do you keep hitting yourself" game with him like an obnoxious older brother reminds me why I'm so cynical about politics. As if I needed any reminder.

  • Tall Paul||

    I used to think that Professor Post was an independent thinker and therefore used to read his many of his commentaries. No more. He's clearly just another academic who can be easily swayed by social pressures
    from his fellow academics.

  • JesseAz||

    Post completely lost his mind in 2016, about November. Not sure what happened then... but...

  • Rigelsen||

    Post has always been a good leftist. Until 2016, however, that did not require one to be clinically insane.

    (Not sure I agree that he was always or ever an independent thinker. Unless that is only from the perspective that he tends to have different opinions than pretty much every other Conspirator on many matters. I've never known him to depart from the academic left consensus of the day, and I have been reading Volokh since about the very beginning. I wouldn't mind a pointer if I've missed something.)

  • Careless||

    Post was never anything but a partisan Democrat in his posts here. He had some posts where it didn't come up (those about history and soccer), though

  • Lee Moore||

    On what basis did you reach the conclusion that Post was a thinker, never mind an independent one ? Until Trump's election, when he acquired a new subject to foam about, roughly 100% of his posts were identikit rants against freedom of association - "Christians must be made to bake for gays !" - day in day out, week in, week out, month in, month out.

    At least Trump has saved him from being a monomaniac.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    " It is a case of transforming a difficult but sober discussion of a complicated issue into a partisan brawl."

    Are you serious? Not only was it a partisan brawl from nearly the start, but bringing out the rape accusations at the last minute was the partisan brawl equivalent of resorting to brass knuckles to the balls when you're about to lose.

    And hanging a perjury accusation on the details of what SLANG might have meant 36 years ago? Are you nuts?

  • Eddy||

    "I am shocked, shocked, to find politics going on in these hearings!"

  • Brett Bellmore||

    There's a difference between "politics", and attempting to personally destroy a nominee for political reasons.

    The whole reason Democrats oppose anybody who looks like an originalist is politics: They need the Court as a backstop to win what they can't at the voting booth.

    But they're not trying to defeat him on the basis that he doesn't hold Roe to be holy and untouchable, they're trying to do it by smearing him as a rapist. And if that's not beyond the pale, we might as well just hold that civil war right now.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "But they're not trying to defeat him on the basis that he doesn't hold Roe to be holy and untouchable, "

    Yeah, because they know they can't. The idea going in wasn't to defeat Kavanaugh on the basis of Ford's accusation.

    What they wanted was an open ended FBI investigation that would put off any action on Kavanaugh's nomination off until after the start of the next session in January in the hope that they would take control of the Senate in November.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    When the Repubicans wouldn't cooperate and put off further action on the nomination indefinitely, THEN they went for personal destruction.

  • Jason Cavanaugh||

    It's actually about what the slang did mean - not might have meant.

    It's also his lies regarding his drinking habits. It's his evasiveness. It's his lack of professional judgment in what he decided to say during his public testimony to Congress.

  • damikesc||

    It's also his lies regarding his drinking habits.

    Can you link to him saying OR writing he never drank?

    It's his evasiveness.

    Examples? Not answering questions that are insanely open-ended and looking for perjury traps?

    It's his lack of professional judgment in what he decided to say during his public testimony to Congress.

    So, you didn't like how he talked? Yup, that exceeds qualifications immensely.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "evasiveness"

    A lawyer being evasive. Unprecedented!!

  • NToJ||

    "Examples?"

    KLOBUCHAR: So you're saying there's never been a case where you drank so much that you didn't remember what happened the night before, or part of what happened.

    KAVANAUGH: It's — you're asking about, you know, blackout. I don't know. Have you?

    KLOBUCHAR: Could you answer the question, Judge? I just — so you — that's not happened. Is that your answer?

    KAVANAUGH: Yeah, and I'm curious if you have.

    KLOBUCHAR: I have no drinking problem, Judge.

  • NToJ||

    WHITEHOUSE: And did the world "ralph" you used in your yearbook…

    (CROSSTALK)

    KAVANAUGH: I already — I already answered…

    WHITEHOUSE: … refer (ph) to alcohol?

    KAVANAUGH: … the question. If you're…

    WHITEHOUSE: Did it relate to alcohol? You haven't answered that.

    KAVANAUGH: I like beer. I like beer. I don't know if you do…

    WHITEHOUSE: OK.

    KAVANAUGH: … do you like beer, Senator, or not?

    WHITEHOUSE: Um, next…

    KAVANAUGH: What do you like to drink?

    WHITEHOUSE: Next one is…

    KAVANAUGH: Senator, what do you like to drink?

  • NToJ||

    BLUMENTHAL: Well, calling someone an alumnus in that way, was actually interpreted…

    KAVANAUGH: Well, implying what you're implying what you're implying about…

    BLUMENTHAL: … by a number of your football friends at the time of boasting of sexual conquest. That's the reason that I'm bringing it up. And it conflicts…

    KAVANAUGH: Yes. No, it's false.

    BLUMENTHAL: … with…

    KAVANAUGH: You're implying that. Look what you're bringing up right now about her. Look what you're doing.

    BLUMENTHAL: … Mr. Chairman, I ask that…

    KAVANAUGH: Don't bring her name up.

  • NToJ||

    WHITEHOUSE: OK. And then after that is the word "alumnius." What does the word "alumnius" mean in that context?

    KAVANAUGH: I explained that in my opening statement. We — she was a great friend of ours. We — a bunch of us went to dances with her. She hung out with us as a group. The media circus that has been generated by this, thought (ph) and reported that it referred to sex. It did not. Never had any — as she herself said on the record, any kind of sexual interaction with her.

    And I'm sorry, how that's been misinterpreted and sorry about that, as I explained in my opening statement. Because she's a good person. And to have her named dragged through this hearing is a joke. And, really, an embarrassment.

  • damikesc||

    So, that is a lot of words to not prove anything. Way to go. You could've said "I got nothing" and saved the time.

    I'd be embarrassed, personally, to claim that I had evidence and then present THIS...but, hey, you go be you.

  • NToJ||

    Even Kavanaugh knows it's dodgy to answer a question with a question, when under questioning. That's why he apologized for it.

  • damikesc||

    Even Kavanaugh knows it's dodgy to answer a question with a question, when under questioning. That's why he apologized for it.

    When the question is utter bullshit, best to answer with a question. I'd prefer "Are you serious?", but I'm not a judge,

  • NToJ||

    I would discourage you from answering questions with questions when you've been accused of attempting to rape a person, and are being questioned about it.

  • NToJ||

    MITCHELL: What do you consider to be too many beers?

    KAVANAUGH: I don't know. You know, we — whatever the chart says, a blood-alcohol chart.

    MITCHELL: When you talked to Fox News the other night, you said that there were times in high school when people might have had too many beers on occasion. Does that include you?

    KAVANAUGH: Sure.

    MITCHELL: OK. Have you ever passed out from drinking?

    KAVANAUGH: I — passed out would be — no, but I've gone to sleep, but — but I've never blacked out. That's the — that's the — the allegation, and that — that — that's wrong.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Many folks find some of Kavanaugh's answers difficult to believe. Many folks also find some of Ford's answers, like her claim that she had one beer, difficult to believe. But her "one beer" answer certainly shouldn't disqualify her from a position of public truse.

  • NToJ||

    I'm not ready to say that making one lie under oath is permanently disqualifying from all positions of public trust. But in the context of a he-said she-said rape disagreement, I found Kavanaugh's evasiveness disqualifying, along with the utterly pointless partisan swipes he made. Even if he's innocent, the Court would be worse off for having him on it.

  • mad_kalak||

    Evasiveness, he categorically denied anything ever having to do with it (irregardless of how it likely didn't happen). His "evasiveness" was to how much he drank and what some slang in his yearbook meant. Sheesh.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Good thing you have no say in the matter isn't it ?

  • mad_kalak||

    Likewise, my friend, likewise.

  • NToJ||

    I'm a voter.

  • mad_kalak||

    You've a greater chance of winning the mega millions lottery than your individual vote meaning anything.

  • damikesc||

    Ford has been credibly accused of lying about coaching others on lie detector tests.
    She has demonstrably been proven to have lied about needing two doors in her home.
    She has lied about people who would corroborate her story.

  • damikesc||

    The evidence that he lied is...what?

    You're aware that drunk and blackout aren't, you know, synonymous, right?

  • NToJ||

    The evidence that he lied is that he lied. But the parts I'm quoting relate to evasiveness, because you asked for "Examples?" of his evasiveness.

    Have you ever been black out drunk? If not, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If you have been black out drunk, you know that people who get drunk also black out.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "you know that people who get drunk also black out"

    Not everyone.

    And certainly not all the time. Not even most of the time.

    Get drunk does not equal black out.

  • mad_kalak||

    He also said he got so drunk that he went to sleep. That's different from blacking out. I've been so drunk I decided to go take a nap, and everybody who's been to a house party has seen a drunk sleeping in the corner. If the wake up with a nudge, that's not "passing out" it's sleeping because alcohol is a depressant.

  • NToJ||

    People who get drunk, also black out, but not every time they get drunk. You've blacked out. You know how this works.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    And not everybody blacks out. This article says it happens in only 50% of drinkers.

  • NToJ||

    I can't access the study so I don't know how "drinkers" is defined. It wouldn't surprise me if the number were even lower if "drinkers" includes social drinkers. We're not talking about social drinkers, though.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Actually, I'm pretty sure most of us haven't blacked out. That takes some really determined drinking.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    People who get drunk, also black out, but not every time they get drunk. You've blacked out. You know how this works.

    It has to be exhausting, moving those goalposts around as much as you do.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    What does "people who get drunk also black out", mean?
    To black out is to lose time; to wake up and not know how you got where you are.
    I've been drunk plenty of times. I've been vomiting drunk a few times.
    I've never lost time.
    This is just another example of the pathetic depth to which the left has sunk.

  • NToJ||

    "What does "people who get drunk also black out", mean?"

    It means that people who get drunk black out. It means you wake up and someone says, "Do you remember doing X" and you say "I really don't." It happens to people who get drunk, often (but not always). If you've been "vomiting drunk" I am certain you have been black out drunk.

  • damikesc||

    Have you ever been black out drunk?

    Nope.

    If not, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If you have been black out drunk, you know that people who get drunk also black out.

    It's, admittedly, easy to forget that YOU are the universal standard of humanity. If YOU did it, by God, everybody did it.

    I've known plenty of drunks who didn't black out. My wife has done so several times, even being able to discuss what she did that night.

    Do you need some counseling for this apparent problem you have?

  • NToJ||

    damikesc, if your close social circle, including your wife, has "drunks" who have "done so several times" (you mean gotten drunk?) then you don't understand what the rest of us are talking about.

  • damikesc||

    Ive known one person, in my life, who got black out drunk.

    You indicate it is a fairly routine practice.

  • Don Nico||

    He story of "fear of flying was certainly a lie" Michell drew that one out.

  • Careless||

    KLOBUCHAR: I have no drinking problem, Judge.

    Casually slandering him, nice

  • Sarcastr0||

    Slander. You do know this is a legal blog, right?

    It isn't even a backhanded anything - after he rudely asked her if she had a drinking problem, she said no.

  • Jason Cavanaugh||

    Your strawman regarding whether he drank or not is going to be ignored - as are you in the future.

    When you honor an Oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, there is no such thing as a "perjury trap."

    Only liars have to worry about perjury traps.

    As to your other remarks, another person has kindly posted numerous examples of his evasiveness. None quite as bad as when he was asked whether he'd support an FBI investigation into the allegations, and Kavanaugh went off about how hard he worked in high school.

    Never answered that question.

    No, I did not like how he "talked" (spoke is the appropriate word). I do not consider someone fit to be a Judge when they put forth prepared testimony as partisan, and batsh** crazy as to be expected from the likes of Alex Jones. I prefer Judges who follow ABA guidelines on behavior, and have basic levels of professional judgment not to engage in partisan conspiracy theories in sworn statements before Congress.

    Don't expect any further wasting of my time by responding to your nonsense in the future.

  • JeffreyL||

    Only liars have to worry about perjury traps.

    I am pretty sure every single criminal defense lawyer in the United States would tell you unequivocally that this is totally untrue.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "When you honor an Oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, there is no such thing as a "perjury trap.""

    Now I know you're full of BS.

    You don't need to lie to be hit with a perjury charge, you just need a prosecutor who's willing to claim you lied. You don't even need to lie to be convicted, you just need to disagree with somebody else the judge or jury decides to believe instead of you.

  • Res ipsa loquitur||

    Obviously he never attended law school.

  • damikesc||

    Only liars have to worry about perjury traps.

    I am undecided if such naivete is cute or terrifying.

    None quite as bad as when he was asked whether he'd support an FBI investigation into the allegations, and Kavanaugh went off about how hard he worked in high school.

    You...actually BUY the old "If you have nothing to hide, then you should let the police search whatever they want" mentality? Wow.

    Michael Flynn had to plead guilty to a legitimate non-crime to avoid being ruined financially because he talked to the FBI. Even the agents said he wasn't lying to them. Yet, their higher-ups wanted him to suffer regardless.

    You need to wisen up.

    No, I did not like how he "talked" (spoke is the appropriate word). I do not consider someone fit to be a Judge when they put forth prepared testimony as partisan, and batsh** crazy as to be expected from the likes of Alex Jones.
  • Don Nico||

    "whether he'd support an FBI investigation"

    he had a strong reason to evade that question as answering would risk crossing the person who nominated him. Any answer put him in a no-win situation

  • Jason Cavanaugh||

    "Any answer put him in a no-win situation."

    Utterly false as to be laughable.

    If he didn't do it - as he insisted with childlike tantrums, then the FBI investigation could only possibly show that 1) They don't know - which leaves him in status quo, or 2) He didn't do it.

    One of those options clears his name, which I'd argue is a "win."

  • damikesc||

    Funny, the FBI investigation showed nothing happened...and the Left STILL claims he is a rapist.

    Weird. Nobody could've seen that outcome!

  • mad_kalak||

    Still waiting on some sort of confirmation on DC prep school slang in the pre-internet era and what it really means. Any contemporaneous written accounts? No. Than you're grasping at straws there.

    What lies about his drinking habits? Quote them.

    As for lack of judgement about being combative, meh. How would you react in the same situation? It was a catch-22 anyway. If he was stoic, they'd say his emotionless-ness means he's guilty. His righteous anger and occasional tears, showing genuine feeling, are then held against him as evidence of lack of fitness.

    What's worse, is that some Dems are now saying that even if he wasn't guilty, he will hold a grudge forever, and thus cannot be impartial. It's a no win situation my friend.

  • Bubba Jones||

    He said he drank too much.

  • PubliusVA||

    "It's actually about what the slang did mean - not might have meant."

    Has anyone offered any evidence about the *contemporaneous* meaning of those terms that calls Kavanaugh's explanation of what it did mean into question?

  • mad_kalak||

    Letter to Judiciary Comm. by Alum. of Georgetown Prep

    ...letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, a group of Georgetown Prep alumni confirmed Brett Kavanaugh's explanation of the term "Devil's Triangle," which he was asked about by the committee after it surfaced in his yearbook.

    The four alumni — DeLancey, Bernard Murray, and Quinn — clarified that the term "devil's triangle" refers not to a sexual act, as has been alleged by Kavanaugh's detractors, but rather to a drinking game they played in high school.

    "'Devil's Triangle' was a drinking game we came up with in high school. It was a variation on the game 'Quarters.' When we played 'Devil's Triangle,' four people sat at a table. On the table, three small glasses of beer were arranged next to one another to form a triangle. Each of the four participants took turns being the 'shooter.' The shooter attempted to bounce a quarter into one of the glasses," wrote the alumni.

    "We do not remember the exact origin of the name, but none of us used the phrase 'Devil's Triangle' in our yearbook to refer to any kind of sexual activity. To us, it was just a game with glasses in the shape of a triangle. If the phrase 'Devil's Triangle' had any sexual meaning in the early 1980s, we did not know it," the letter concludes.

  • bernard11||

    If you think that's the only reason to question Kavanuagh's truthfulness you're the one who's nuts.

  • damikesc||

    You arent providing much.

  • JesseAz||

    He feelz like kavanaugh is a liar, so that's Bernard's truth. What don't you get?

  • Joe_dallas||

    Open question -

    How many girls would drink beer at age 15 ?

    how many girls would drink beer at age 16? or age 17?

  • NToJ||

    A lot?

  • Joe_dallas||

    The reason for my question -
    Fords has given 2 different time lines for the alleged assault - mid 80's and late teens (therapist notes and WP) , then later changed to early 80's and 1982. So which timeline is the one to believe?

    She stated that she only had one beer, noting nothing remarkable about drinking the one beer (which to me implied that it was casual/ somewhat common for her to drink a beer).

    For most 15 year girls, beer tastes awful, so based on my experience (and comments from my daughters (age 25 & 30), Ford may be placing the event a few years earlier than when it actually happened. However, that creates a timeline problem in that Ford's and Kav's social circles are less likely to cross once Kav enters college.

    It is likely that there was an attempted rape, just by someone else

  • Sarcastr0||

    Sluts!

  • mad_kalak||

    Ford apparently was one, back before her sell-by date, if you believe *her* yearbook, and the boyfriend she cheated on in his public statement, which called her out on her lie about knowing nothing about polygraphs.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Wow, you sure are a peach.

  • mad_kalak||

    Meh, I have nothing against sluts, they are wonderful people every one of them, but nobody should ever wife one up.

    Don't you think it's strange that his sexual history, including his virginity, is open to public debate, but not hers?

  • Sarcastr0||

    nobody should ever wife one up.

    You are...not helping your case.

    I find it pretty ordinary that her sexual history has zero to do with the accusation or her credibility.

  • mad_kalak||

    I don't need to help my case, because I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, but indeed I am actually helping my case because it makes obvious your white-knightery.

    What makes a woman who has many sex partners a bad wife? You figure that one out on your own, but there's at least two reasons, proven by data, not anecdote. That doesn't mean you can't treat everyone with respect, without playing Galahad.

  • Careless||

    that was quite the statement.

    "I have no animus against her. Also, she cheated on me, then stole $600"

  • Careless||

    I mean, I'd be pissed if that had happened to me and then I saw her lying her ass off in front of Congress, but come on, man

  • mad_kalak||

    I wonder how David Post would respond if put in a similar situation. Not any better than Kavenaugh, I suspect. Well, David, how would you react, let's hear it.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I'm sure whatever story you make up would totally be verified.

  • mad_kalak||

    No offense, but I don't care what Sarcasto says in response to me asking Post to walk a mile in another man's shoes, I want Post to have the intestinal fortitude to speak up for himself.

  • Sarcastr0||

    My issue is Post-independent;

    Your comment suspects something about someone you do not know in a situation that will never exist.

    Fill in the blanks all you want; the only utility is your own self-validation.

  • mad_kalak||

    Meh. Hypothetical situations, even with historical figures, and seeing how people react to them, is what makes literature a human universal.

    Hypothetical situations is how we get through our day. Our thoughts "die" so we don't have too. Before we do some difficult or interesting thing, we play out scenarios in our heads, and (hopefully) choose from the best for optimal results. Running Post through a hypothetical situation where he was charged with possession of child porn (unjustly we later find out, but at first he seems guilty) and asking him how he would respond is both fair and perfectly normal. It's also what we ask of our leaders before we choose them. How would you, candidate X, response to North Korea launching a missile at Japan.

    So, in sum, you're usual routine of holding up a mirror here and accusing people of projection doesn't fit as well as you think it does.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You don't know anything about the man, so your hypothetical is GIGO.

  • damikesc||

    I'm sure whatever story you make up would totally be verified.

    Why would it need to be?

    The tales about Kavanaugh weren't.

  • Ryan Frank||

    the meaning of "boof," the meaning of "Devil's Triangle"

    Really? These are the first two on the list of "lies"?

  • David Brayton||

    As pointed out by others, the Federalist Society has a list of at least twenty other judges that are as equally qualified as Kavanaugh, but they haven't fibbed/lied under oath, don't have serious sexual assault allegations against them, and seem to be able to withstand the slings and arrows that may be tossed at them in a more judicial manner.

    Why are Republicans pushing so damn hard for Kavanaugh? Leave him on the DC Circuit and nominate someone else.

  • Ryan Frank||

    "don't have serious sexual assault allegations against them"

    Neither did Kavanaugh until after his hearing.

  • mad_kalak||

    Because it would incentivize this type of behavior from the Dems if it worked, because we don't believe the accusers, and the man himself knows that if he stepped aside it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt when he says he's innocent.

  • NToJ||

    "...the man himself knows that if he stepped aside it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt when he says he's innocent."

    No it wouldn't.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Oh really.
    What would your spin be if he withdrew?

  • NToJ||

    That, in furtherance of his factual defense, he removed a significant motivation for lying. What spin would you put on it?

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    A fine example of what Howard Johnson called, "authentic frontier gibberish".
    But what 98% of people would think is either: "see, I told you he was guilty"; or, "well, the libs got away with it".

  • mad_kalak||

    NToJ: "No it wouldn't."

    *guffaws*

    Sure, sure, and I have this bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. It's a big, beautiful bridge, you'll love it.

  • damikesc||

    You're...kidding, right?

  • NToJ||

    No. If I was kidding I would say a horse walks into a bar and the bar tender says "Why the long face"?

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "Why are Republicans pushing so damn hard for Kavanaugh? "

    Why are Democrats pushing so damn hard against Kavanaugh?

    I mean if it was a slam dunk to get another confirmed, what's the point of "going to the mattresses" over him?

  • bernard11||

    I mean if it was a slam dunk to get another confirmed, what's the point of "going to the mattresses" over him?

    The point is that he is unfit to be on the court. Any court.

  • damikesc||

    So, impeach him from his current job, eh?

    Yeah, "just a job interview"

  • Toranth||

    If drinking and being evasive in your hearing is disqualifying, we'll need to impeach almost every Federal justice there is. Starting with Ginsburg (shows up drunk to professional events!), Breyer, Sotomayor, and Thomas.

    You propose an impossible standard, and simultaneously want to apply it only to one person. That's not a principle; that's political bullshit.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "evasive"

    Everyone learned from Bork that being vague [more accurate than "evasive "] and deflecting questions was the way to get confirmed.

  • damikesc||

    fibbed/lied under oath

    I wonder where you have your knowledge of the slang used at his school in 1983. Can you cite your expertise?

    don't have serious sexual assault allegations against them

    Kavanaugh doesn't either, mind you.

    Why are Republicans pushing so damn hard for Kavanaugh? Leave him on the DC Circuit and nominate someone else.

    "Why do you make me beat you, baby? You know when you sass me it makes me mad!"

    Why do you assume anything would have changed if ANYBODY else was chosen. Utterly uncorroborated charges are quite easy to unleash.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Because if the next nominee was any of the other men on that short list, sexual misconduct accusations will magically appear as soon as it becomes clear that the Dems can't defeat the nominee on policy/ideology grounds.

  • NToJ||

    Yes, they'll just magically find people from every nominees' past willing to testify under oath that the nominee sexually assaulted them.

  • mad_kalak||

    Yep, pretty much they are motivated partisans who know that the risk of being punished for lying is small, and the payoff for stepping up is big. The only way that it will stop, is if some of these people who lied, particularly that one who said Kavenaugh attacked someone on a boat, are punished for it.

  • NToJ||

    So go try and punish Ford. That doesn't mean Kavanaugh should also be on the Supreme Court.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I wouldn't say he's my ideal Supreme court justice, but if he doesn't end up on the Supreme court, last minute evidence free accusations of rape will be proven to work, and that leads us to an ugly place.

    He's not sub-optimal enough for me to want to end up in that place.

  • JeffreyL||

    I give you michael avenatti

  • Bob from Ohio||

    "magically find people"

    Why not? They did here.

  • DStraws||

    This only happened in your conspiratorial mind. Demonstrate that your inference is justified by citing the evidence of such a conspiracy. You know a paper trail, e-mail or text trail, phone call logs, or if your really lucky a witness that can confirm it. Otherwise its your paranoia rearing its ugly head.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    It doesn't require a conspiracy. Just an individual, motivated to fabricate a story, or conveniently change an old one, or someone delusional with a convenient delusion; a convergence of interests; and an unwillingness to look skeptically at decades old applications, because "we must believe the victims".

  • M.L.||

    Vast numbers of the general population are mentally ill enough to do things like this. That is an absolute fact, exacerbated by our "victim" culture. And most of the political activists screaming on the streets seem to be affected by mental illness.

    Of course, real abuse is also extremely widespread.

  • NToJ||

    The person came to them.

  • damikesc||

    Yes, they'll just magically find people from every nominees' past willing to testify under oath that the nominee sexually assaulted them.

    Ford lied through her teeth and won't get punished for it. Hell ,she's set for LIFE for doing so.

    I don't see criminal sanctions planned for the porn lawyer's whackjob client and God knows she hasn't uttered an accurate word yet.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    "It is a case of transforming a difficult but sober discussion of a complicated issue into a partisan brawl."

    As others have pointed out, it was already a partisan brawl. The Dems could have gone with the "I AM SPARTACUS" antics, or they could have gone with the #metoo sandbagging. But doing both was overplaying their hand.

  • bernard11||

    It was a partisan brawl from the day he was nominated.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    It was inevitable that the public confirmation hearings would eventually descend into partisan brawls (and the Kavanaugh nomination is not the first) as soon as the first one was held in 1912.

    The public confirmation hearings have NEVER been anything other than political circus/theater,

  • Don Nico||

    Exactly, bernard. There were never more than 10 votes in play.
    By the time that the hearings started. There were only 6 or 7 in play, with a distribution that broke for Kav. The D's had little chance to stop the confirmation save for brutal character assassination as late as possible. That is what happened.

    Some people believe in conicidences others don't.

  • KenveeB||

    "I think many people - myself included - would give him him a pass had he just said "I was a jackass in high school and college and did a lot of things I'm ashamed of" and left it at that"

    So he can only get a pass by admitting to the allegations but claiming it should be ignored? I would FAR rather have as a justice a man who vehemently denies committing attempted rape, even if he is more vehement than I would usually want from a judge, than a man who thinks that attempted rape is no big deal if a high school student does it.

  • NToJ||

    The "I was a jackass in high school and college and did a lot of things I'm ashamed of" need not mean rape. If he'd just said, "Yea, I blacked out, I dishonestly bragged about sexual conquest of Renate, I asked Mark Judge if he'd had anal sex," there wouldn't be questions about his honesty. The entire character plea was pointless. You don't have to be a prep school, church-attending saint to be a not-rapist.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    JFC. If he answered that way the howls would be tremendous. It would be considered "proof" that he did as alleged.

    Liberals are playing Calvinball, changing the rules as needed.

  • NToJ||

    Are you suggesting that if it is a true fact that Kavanaugh blacked out, he would be justified in lying about it to prove to Democrats that he wasn't a rapist?

    Blacking out occasionally, while drunk, does not make you a rapist. There's nothing wrong with that defense.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Except it's impossible to prove that Kavanaugh ever blacked out from alcohol consumption when he was in high school, there for denying it can't be shown to be perjury.

  • NToJ||

    I'm not ready to say he criminally perjured himself. I think he was dishonest in his sworn testimony. I believe he's blacked out before, and his claim to the contrary is flatly ridiculous.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "I believe he's blacked out before"

    On faith alone, as there is exactly 0 evidence to support that.

    Your belief on faith that he is lying is no reason to disqualify him.

  • damikesc||

    Are you suggesting that if it is a true fact that Kavanaugh blacked out, he would be justified in lying about it to prove to Democrats that he wasn't a rapist?

    Blacking out occasionally, while drunk, does not make you a rapist. There's nothing wrong with that defense.

    He did NEITHER.

    Why can't you grasp that?

  • NToJ||

    damikesc, Bob was saying that if Kavanaugh confessed to blacking out, the Democrats would respond poorly. The implication is that Kavanaugh should not make the confession, even if true. Bob's view of the world is that Kavanaugh should testify in whatever way mollifies the Democrats that exist in Bob's imagination.

  • Sarcastr0||

    But would there be traction on any of that, Bob?
    The redemption of character story is a tried and true American narrative. I dunno how it would have gone, but you are far to sure of your counterfactual.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Or it would be trumpeted to the heavens as proof he's unqualified for the court. I mean if you're going to go with naked accusations being disqualifying and differences in slang meaning as disqualifying then admitting to horrible things must obviously be disqualifying.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I'm not saying it's impossible, but you and Bob sure seem sure of how the counterfactual would go, relying only on your hatred of liberals as proof.

  • damikesc||

    The "I was a jackass in high school and college and did a lot of things I'm ashamed of" need not mean rape.

    You and your "side" would undeniably say it did. Then you'd demand a list of everything he did that he was "ashamed" of --- info about his childhood that is none of your damned business.

    If he'd just said, "Yea, I blacked out
  • NToJ||

    I deny that the counterfactual NTOJ you've imagined would behave in the way you've imagined.

  • damikesc||

    You're doing so HERE. I'm not sure why I'd assume THIS is an outlier.

  • Here for the outrage||

    no evidence still. got it

  • Rеv. Arthur I. Kirkland||

    Another worthless piece of crap "intellectual" globalist elitist who sees their precious judicial activism about to vanish into smoke. Just like the pathetic communist Bull Cow Somin. We the people have had enough of you.

  • Here for the outrage||

    I agree with you, something doesn't feel right

  • mad_kalak||

    Check the lower case "l" in the name. It's a parody account of the "real" Rev.

  • Bob from Ohio||

    Its more rational.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Mini-me is more rational.

    You're just a bitter old bigot.

    Everybody got problems.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    I thought the other account was a parody of this one.

  • mad_kalak||

    I'm still not sure if the "L" Rev is a parody account of a rational liberal, as it' Poe's Law in action, virtually every time he posts.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    This narrative that because he got pissed off, we need to conclude that he lacks the temperament to be a judge is total horseshit as anyone who has spent even one day in court knows.
    How pathetic the libs have become.

  • Leo Marvin||

    Who says "because he got pissed off, we need to conclude that he lacks the temperament to be a judge?"

    Not that I doubt you can find someone who did. But characterizing it as the view of "the libs?" That's what's pathetic.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    If you take a look away the tantrum meme, what do the libs have left?

  • Leo Marvin||

    For starters, what some libs find disqualifying, others don't. So imagining arguendo that libs are in fact of a single mind on this, then with the exception of:

    - assessing Ford's accusation as more credible than BK's denial;

    - believing BK lied on any number of occassions in his written and oral testimony;

    - finding BK's partisan, conspiracy mongering screed (which he didn't extemporize in a fit of anger, but read from prepared remarks) a disqualifying departure from the judicial norm of maintaining the appearance of impartiality; and

    - concluding that BK's rudeness to Amy Klobuchar and other dems on the Jud. Comm. -- not the anger, just the rudeness -- was a breach of judicial temperament;

    then yes, I suppose you're right. Other than those things, all we have is that he got angry.

  • Sarcastr0||

    I, for instance, agree with all of the above, and think he should be dinged for all of those (as Ginsberg was for her past failure on that account).

    But to me, only the second is materially sufficient to disqualify him.

    Although I would also vote against him based on his jurisprudence alone, so YMMV.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    "But to me, only the second is materially sufficient to disqualify him."

    Shouldn't you have to be able to prove he lied, as opposed to merely believing that he lied on blind faith?

  • Sarcastr0||

    I'd like it investigated because I'm not positive, but having read the back-and-forth, one side has witnesses, and the other has just appeals to trust.

    There is sufficient evidence Devil's Triangle is indeed a drinking game, but it looks more likely than not that at the very least the 2006 testimony, boofing, and the Renate bit are breezy lies, and his description of his drinking is damn close.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Sorry, in my opinion, you need something more than blind faith belief that he lied to justify an investigation into possible perjury. What the fuck happened to probably cause? Baseless belief is not probable cause.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You say it's blind faith, but there are classmates who have discussed his drinking, and boofing. And there are documents about 2006.

    What does probably cause have to do with this?

    The real blind faith is people who are sure they know what happened that night, and Ford is wrong/lying.
    No support of that other than made up suppositions about recovered memory or maybe hypnosis.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Documents about 2006 are not evidence about his drinking habits in 1982.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Yeah, the documents prove he lied about his work for the Bush admin in his last under-oath go-round with Congress.

    He sees the process as a brush-off formality where you go through the hoops even if you have to fudge the truth a bit. I forgive a lot, as noted above, but I don't think that kind of reflexive entitlement deserves to be Justice.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    I have no idea what happened that night, I firmly believe that no one who wasn't there that day (if we ever find out what day it was) will ever have any idea what really happened.

    And I don't see enough there to bother to care about it. It isn't worth investigating, it isn't worth talking about and it isn't worth disqualifying Kavanaugh from anything.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Glad you are not one of the legions who think Ford is crazy or a Dem plant or what-have-you.

    We still differ on the threshold for investigation, but all told that's a pretty minor detail compared to how many have told me I am there enemy who they're pretty sure wants them dead in the last few days.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    I can't believe I did this, but definitions 11 and 13 of "boof" on the Urban dictionary refer to flatulence, and they are dated long before the nomination. Is there way to change these dates or something else I'm missing?

  • Ryan Frank||

    No, people who write this crap just assume that you won't try to look up anything.

  • M.L.||

    Geez. Can you believe we are arguing about this?

  • NToJ||

    Do you think Brett/Mark were asking each other if they had farted, yet? Did you find any definitions for boofing for which this question would make more sense?

  • M.L.||

    *eats beans for lunch*

    "Have you boofed yet?"

  • Sarcastr0||

    Not quite yearbook-worthy, ML.

  • CrispyBacon||

    "Plus, it looks reasonably likely that he lied under oath. About the 'small things' in the long-ago past: the meaning of 'boof,' the meaning of "Devil's Triangle," the references to 'Renate' in the Yearbook, his propensity to drink."

    Asserting your tawdry assumptions as truth is worse than lazy when alleging perjury.

    Saying Kavanaugh "lied" about drinking is probably like saying he "lied" about overturning Roe (ymmv). He admitted to drinking and sometimes to excess. He admitted he drank and enjoyed plenty of beer.

    Slang isn't easy to pin down. As I noted on EV's post, "boof" was cited on urbandictionary with Kavanaugh's definition as far back as 2003. A dumb joke with that meaning would make more sense appearing in a yearbook of a 16 year old. "Devil's Triangle" can similarly have the more innocent meaning Kavanaugh asserts. You have no basis to assert it is a lie. The apparent affection for Renate, which Kavanaugh admitted, also evidences no lie. Teenagers make dumb, crass, and nonsensical jokes.

    Do you think nominees should be more disclosing about how they will actually handle cases? If you're concerned about a nominee's honesty, seems that's where it would be especially relevant.

    Eg: "Of course the Court can overturn Roe and I'd consider that, not saying I'm going to do it because it sure is mighty precedent, but I'm open to doing that."

  • theobromophile||

    If we were guessing at Kavanaugh's temperament as a jurist, this might be a valid point. But he's been on the bench for many, many years. We know what he is like with a gavel in hand. This isn't some situation in which we are magically seeing a different side of him; we know how he will treat appellants and his clerks. We know what kind of decisions he will write.

    Enough.

  • mad_kalak||

    +1

  • Trollificus||

    +1, Is the question whether or not a hate-filled Twitter mob AND the FBI can find something in your past you might misremember? And if so, at that point you are therefore unfit for SCOTUS, appeals courts, corporate executive, programmer, and so on down the line?

    Is that really the standard this asshole wants to uphold?? And he's a lawyer?

    Can't wait for 4chan to start digging into the life and times of the next Dem nominee.

  • M.L.||

    He did not "transform" anything into a partisan brawl.

    All he did was rightly castigate those who did turn it into a partisan brawl.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    And it appears that the "devil's triangle" really was a drinking game.

    According to his classmates... "'Devil's Triangle' was a drinking game we came up with in high school. It was a variation on the game 'Quarters.' "
    ...
    "Two other men who attended Boston College with one of Kavanaugh's Georgetown Prep classmates, Matthew Quinn, told the committee in a separate letter that they played "Devil's Triangle" in college after Quinn taught them the rules."

  • Eddy||

    I thought it was that place near Bermuda where all those airline pilots went down.

    Went down to a watery grave, I mean.

  • Trollificus||

    Is "watery grave" 80s prep school slang for "vagina"?? DON'T LIE ABOUT IT!!

  • M.L.||

    This is pure B.S. If the nominee was a flaming liberal, David Post and the other 1000 law prof signatories would be defending him (90% of law profs are liberals).

    RBG has made comments that are MORE partisan than Kavanaugh's (accurate) statements here. So how is it that Kavanaugh is bringing a new low and harming the court? Can somebody explain that? And where is the outrage from David Post and others re RBG?

  • WillDD||

    Post was an RBG law clerk. That's why you don't hear anything about it.

  • Sarcastr0||

    This is pure B.S. If the nominee was a flaming liberal, David Post and the other 1000 law prof signatories would be defending him

    When in doubt, just make stuff up based on a counterfactual.

  • Sarcastr0||

    RGB retracted her statement, and was condemned by no shortage of liberals at the time.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Of course, the problem is not that she said it, but that she meant it; and, ought therefore be required to recuse in any case in which the President is a party.
    Don't recall any libs recommending this.

  • Sarcastr0||

    And no one is arguing Justices everyone knows didn't like Obama have to recuse either. No one is arguing that Kavanaugh is bad simply because he doesn't like Democratic politicians.

    If you need to drastically change the standards for Supreme Court recusal for your argument to fit, you aren't making an argument, you're fitting your facts around a narrative.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    There is frequently a large difference in law and logic between an actual public utterance, and a sentiment allegedly harbored by "everyone" you dislike.
    I would have thought your law school curriculum would have covered that.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Not in a way material to Supreme Court recusal. Just like going hunting with a collateral party to a case is okay.

    Certainly there should be some opprobrium, and there was. Just like for Kav.

    FWIW, as I have posted over the last few weeks, I don't think Kav's Clinton conspiracizing or his lack of self control are disqualifying, but neither should be condoned either.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    Other than the fact that a large amount of the idiocy from the Dems and the media over the past 2 years stems directly from unquenchable bitterness over the fact that Hillary lost, I agree with you.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The impression I get (Internet sample bias alert) is that no one in the Dems likes Hillary except for the 70-year-olds actually working for the party. That is in keeping with the electoral results among Dems, I believe.

    But there is bitterness, the same bitterness about Trump winning as with Obama winning. Though considering how much more overtly partisan Trump has been (though more in word than in policy), I see the former bitterness as a bit more rational than the latter.

  • damikesc||

    The impression I get (Internet sample bias alert) is that no one in the Dems likes Hillary except for the 70-year-olds actually working for the party. That is in keeping with the electoral results among Dems, I believe.

    Explains all of the riots and protests over her not winning. Because they really didn't want her to win.

    But there is bitterness, the same bitterness about Trump winning as with Obama winning. Though considering how much more overtly partisan Trump has been (though more in word than in policy), I see the former bitterness as a bit more rational than the latter.

    Obama was insanely partisan. You just AGREED with him.

  • Bored Dad Is Bored||

    Professor,

    Let's say you are right? What conclusion should we reach about his judgeship on the appellate court? As you say, it's the second most powerful court in the land. What, if anything, should we (the public) demand for a Judge BK who is not confirmed or withdraws? What should the Senate do?

  • AmosArch||

    I guess now that the actual sex assault cases are falling apart this temperament issue is the goto argument. Its quite a sight seeing commentators and talking heads across the mediasphere switch over in real time. If you didn't know better one might think this was coordinated on some level rather than arising from some honest grassroots reasoning.

  • Sarcastr0||

    It's almost as though this is a very different situation from what you're talking about.

  • IgnatzEsq||

    A shorter response that accurately portrays Prof. Post's arguments:
    Volokh: Is this what we have come to? We see someone being subjected to unbearable, unearned, televised humiliation and disgrace. In front of his family. Of his young daughters. Of his and their friends. Of colleagues. Of the nation and of the world. And when he verbally lashes out in anger, we say, "Aha! You're not qualified, because you reacted to this dire, extraordinary provocation precisely the way normal human beings would"? Have we so lost any empathy?

    Post: YES.

  • Ben_||

    Never had it. Power is everything to such people.

  • Sarcastr0||

    Yeah, Post is all about unlimited power. That's why he became a law professor.

  • OtisAH||

    Laugh all you want but he's teaching our youth!

  • John||

    That a lawyer would be so foolish as to claim someone demenour while responding to such serious allegations tells us anything about their character or truthfulness is particularly disgraceful. Let's put Mr. Post on national TV and call him a rapist and see how he responds.

  • donojack||

    " I think many people - myself included - would give him him a pass had he just said "I was a jackass in high school and college and did a lot of things I'm ashamed of" and left it at that..."

    That was a joke, right? You would have given him a pass? Yeah.

  • Beldar||

    May a Sudanese brothel-owner specializing in underaged girls and boys accuse false you of being his best customer, Prof. Post, and may you maintain your composure during the sober discussion of that complicated issue. As I second-guess your demeanor on that day — and as I scrupulously ignore the entirety of your professional history in scrutinizing your demeanor — I promise not to hold your politics against you at all.

  • SteveMG||

    Is there any evidence in his professional capacity - especially on the Appeals Court - of "intemperate" behavior? These were exceptional circumstances - the man's life was going to be destroyed - and it seems to me to be incredibly unfair to judge a "man in full" based on these extraordinary conditions. What do his colleagues say about him? His students? Those who worked with him?
    Even assuming that his behavior was too confrontational - and it certainly was with several of the Senators - can be make any judgments about how he will act on the Court due to this event? How does one go from (A) He acted boorishly before the Judiciary Committee to (B) He will act boorishly as a Justice? And what does that mean even if it's true?

  • WillDD||

    Post should strongly consider the audience that Kavanaugh was addressing: Senators and Congressman. They routinely haul everyday Americans in front of their committees and treat them with a lack of courtesy, respect, & even contempt. Those people typically don't defend themselves, logically fearing that fighting back can only make things worse. It's all just grandstanding on the politicians' part--and, as Post acknowledges, that is simply their small, petty, and unserious nature.

    When Kavanaugh fought back, you could see that the biggest reaction on the Democrats' part was just the surprise in having anyone do so. They had called down the thunder, but then they got it. (Or, they had sown the wind, and reaped the whirlwind, if you want to go old school.) That's why they couldn't stutter out their feigned offense and shock until after the hearing. Kavanaugh had come prepared; they had not, and so they were not prepared to engage him.

    I'm not at all sure that when Kavanaugh testified before the Committee on that day, that he didn't think it was already a lost cause. But he wasn't going to let the libelers and slanderers have the final say. He knew that If he was defeated, the Democrats and the media would not continue any search for the truth. Holding his scalp in their hands, they would have found all the truth they had ever wanted.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Being known as Justice Bart O'Kavanaugh for 30 years is a small price to pay for quenching partisan ambition.

  • floridalegal||

    As typical for you, you overlook the obvious. Kavanaugh was tarred as a sexual predator who should be banned from coaching his daughter's basketball team. He was falsely accused of drugging girls and gang rape. THAT is a little more than a moniker of "Bart O'Kavanaugh" for 30 years. NO corroborating evidence for the charges of anything but drinking beer.

  • Trollificus||

    Really. All this shock and pearl-clutching over his "demeanor" when we have a lifetime of actual on-the-bench behavior to go by?

    Post is actually claiming to be all worried that Kavanaugh will exhibit behavior on the Supreme Court bench that he has never exhibited in his professional life? Right, buddy. You stand exposed as a partisan piece of shit: illogical, mean and amoral.

  • Trollificus||

    Really. All this shock and pearl-clutching over his "demeanor" when we have a lifetime of actual on-the-bench behavior to go by?

    Post is actually claiming to be all worried that Kavanaugh will exhibit behavior on the Supreme Court bench that he has never exhibited in his professional life? Right, buddy. You stand exposed as a partisan piece of shit: illogical, mean and amoral.

  • Trollificus||

    Really. All this shock and pearl-clutching over his "demeanor" when we have a lifetime of actual on-the-bench behavior to go by?

    Post is actually claiming to be all worried that Kavanaugh will exhibit behavior on the Supreme Court bench that he has never exhibited in his professional life? Right, buddy. You stand exposed as a partisan piece of shit: illogical, mean and amoral.

  • Trollificus||

    Really. All this shock and pearl-clutching over his "demeanor" when we have a lifetime of actual on-the-bench behavior to go by?

    Post is actually claiming to be all worried that Kavanaugh will exhibit behavior on the Supreme Court bench that he has never exhibited in his professional life? Right, buddy. You stand exposed as a partisan piece of shit: illogical, mean and amoral.

  • Trollificus||

    Really. All this shock and pearl-clutching over his "demeanor" when we have a lifetime of actual on-the-bench behavior to go by?

    Post is actually claiming to be all worried that Kavanaugh will exhibit behavior on the Supreme Court bench that he has never exhibited in his professional life? Right, buddy. You stand exposed as a partisan piece of shit: illogical, mean and amoral.

  • Trollificus||

    Really. All this shock and pearl-clutching over his "demeanor" when we have a lifetime of actual on-the-bench behavior to go by?

    Post is actually claiming to be all worried that Kavanaugh will exhibit behavior on the Supreme Court bench that he has never exhibited in his professional life? Right, buddy. You stand exposed as a partisan piece of shit: illogical, mean and amoral.

  • Trollificus||

    Really. All this shock and pearl-clutching over his "demeanor" when we have a lifetime of actual on-the-bench behavior to go by?

    Post is actually claiming to be all worried that Kavanaugh will exhibit behavior on the Supreme Court bench that he has never exhibited in his professional life? Right, buddy. You stand exposed as a partisan piece of shit: illogical, mean and amoral.

  • JonFrum||

    I suspect we're reaching the point where people start taking pot-shots.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Justice Bart O'Kavanaugh it shall be, unless the Republicans trip on their own dicks.

    And Justice Bart will be in the majority . . . so long -- and, I sense, only so long -- as Republicans continue to win federal elections. He who has the power shall choose the justices, and the number of justices.

    That point seems to favor Democrats, because Republicans are finding it more and more difficult to lash together a national electoral coalition for backwardness, ignorance, and intolerance as America continues to improve.

    Democrats should not get too cocky, though, about demographic projections for the American electorate's rural, white, intolerant, and religious elements.

    If conservatives ever perfect a machine that mass-produces cranky, old, half-educated, rural, easily frightened, white, southern, diffusely intolerant, economically inadequate, superstitious, disaffected, stale-thinking males -- and the Republican Party figures a way to register even a substantial fraction of those newly minted yahoos to vote -- the Democrats could have a real problem in a few years!

  • Eddy||

    "cranky, old, half-educated, rural, easily frightened, white, southern, diffusely intolerant, economically inadequate, superstitious, disaffected, stale-thinking males"

    Amazing, I have this image of the rev spouting this off without even a pause for breath.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Standing out on his front lawn, pantsless, with a beer in one hand.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    ...next to the jet ski he's had for sale for a year.

  • DRM||

    I'm perfectly willing to hear a "possible perjury in minor details before the Senate disqualifies people from high office" argument -- from anyone who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, because they felt she was disqualified from being promoted to the most powerful office in the land for possibly committing perjury in minor details in hearings before the Senate.

    So, if you didn't vote in 2016, or voted for anyone other than Clinton, go ahead, hit me with your best shot as to why you believe it is disqualifying for Kavanaugh.

    People who voted for Hillary Clinton, however, have pre-demonstrated that they don't actually believe that, and I'm not interested in for-argument's-sake sophistry.

  • Iation||

    It's very disappointing that so many smart people are so hung up on meanings of slang terms as used in the eighties. There really is no good way to know the meanings with which these terms were used in a certain school among a certain group of boys. The column "Perjury Update" by Charles C. W. Cooke in the National Review shows how the accusations of perjury are greatly exaggerated.

    If you have to go all the way back to high school and then rely on slang terms to make a case, maybe that is proof that Kavanaugh *is* extremely well-qualified.

  • Kazinski||

    It seems like a huge mistep for Kavanaugh to lie about boofing and the devil's triangle when there is a whole year book of people the press can track down and find what they meant.

    An LA Times reporter, who went to Georgetown Prep 10 years after Kavanaugh says it meant farting when he went there.

    Jake Tapper that noted Trump shill is reporting a classmate that claimed credit for inventing the devil's triangle in the yearbook says, he invented a drinking game.

    As the last hail Mary hits the dirt, the Anti-Kavenaugh brigade manages to beclown themselves by making "boofing" thier last best hope in detailing the nomination.

    Now the only thing you got left is that he drank more than he should in highschool and college.

    I'm going to go through the comments the last few days and make special note of the idiots that thought this was their best closing argument. And I'll bring it up frequently in my future replys when I call you all boofer boys.

    And that includes Post.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Well, misunderstands happen. Now that we know that Kavanaugh played "devils triangle" differently from Whitehouse, we can all just laugh about it and confirm him.

  • kampbell||

    Whitehouse is the poster boy for all those other SOB's in Congress who engaged, and probably still do, in the behaviors they are looking down their nose at Kavanaugh for. Why should the interpreter of the law be held to a higher standard than the one who makes the law? Why should the law makers be exempt from the laws they make? This is what's wrong with Congress; starting with Spartacus himself, the so-called law makers are among the lawless.

  • Sarcastr0||

    You won't find many on the left or the right against reining in Congress' aristocratic lawless mien. Though, of course, that doesn't get Kav off the hook.

  • Brightly||

    What should get him off the hook is that the alternative is far worse: the validation of this type of political gaslighting.

  • M.L.||

    l m a o

    They dun boofed, I tell you what.

  • dwshelf||

    The brawl started when Diane Feinstein chose to utilize an emotionally compelling but factually unverifiable story to destroy a human being in defense of political agenda.

    That's what the historic legacy of this hearing will be.

    And defenses will arise.

    As it worked, to the extent that it does work, it could be applied to any human being being confirmed for any job, regardless of his/her past behavior or qualifications.

  • floridalegal||

    All but the potential degree to his drinking, the rest of the items referenced/quoted are at best dubious of any lying or incorrect testimony. Urban legend alternative definitions are not common usage.

    "Plus, it looks reasonably likely that he lied under oath. About the "small things" in the long-ago past: the meaning of "boof," the meaning of "Devil's Triangle," the references to "Renate" in the Yearbook, his propensity to drink."

    Uncorroborated and unsubstantiated accusations by an accuser are different from evidence and corroborated statements from a victim.

  • AustinRoth||

    Let's see how you would react to having your entire life and career destroyed by blatent, partisan lies.

  • Leo Marvin||

    Better still, let's all beg the questiion.

  • JoeGoins||

  • M.L.||

    "Poor Kavanaugh. I empathize with him, I really do. But pointing out the millions of dollars in Democrat special interest groups was just too much politically inconvenient truth and that cannot be tolerated. Otherwise, I would have totally supported confirmation. Totally, I swear."

  • rajpe||

    David Post's comical thoughts rank up there with the brilliant insight that:

    "No one who has ever been a teenage boy is qualified for the Supreme Court."

    Personally, it gives me great comfort that Brett Kavanaugh can and did react like a human being.

  • Lasciata||

    Keep digging, you asshole. There's no bottom to your pit.

  • OtisAH||

    If his pit is bottomless, why does he need to dig at all?

  • Ellen B||

    I'm a grey-haired woman in her 60's (a "survivor" of the 70's) and I'm very concerned that this last minute, partisan, "unsubstantiated accusation" tactic may succeed.

    After all this, I honestly believe that if Kavenaugh gets the berth he'll serve in an astoundingly careful and thorough manner - and isn't that want We The People want in a judge?

    I just hope that if he is confirmed he isn't bullied away from the 'judicial independence' that he swore to bring to the court. There's plenty of jurisprudence that needs a shakedown, a rational challenge (Kelo, anyone?) - and there are issues like "tribal sovereignty" that SCOTUS has evaded for decades (a century) that are overdue for attention.

  • Ben_||

    I hope he is independent and thoughtful 98% of the time, and once in a great while, takes the occasion to blatantly stick it to the Democrats on some issue they care about very, very deeply.

  • Ben_||

    Why should anyone care about partisans pretending to know what slang terms referred to in 1982?

    The 2016 election turned a lot of mean and power-hungry, but otherwise mostly sane minds into a maze of funhouse mirrors with a laughing Trump projected on every wall. I wonder if they'll find a way out before the effect becomes permanent?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I don't think 2016 actually drove anybody around the bend. It just exposed that they'd been around the bend all along.

  • FlameCCT||

    You are full of male bovine excrement Post! Although that is what I've come to expect from your drivel.

    Now run along, back to your safe space on the Progressive Plantation.

  • TwelveInchPianist||

    Well, let's see... doctoring video to claim that Kav thinks birth-control is abortion didn't work...
    SPARTICUS

  • Rohlfinglaw||

    The burden of proof is probably not even a preponderance in a confirmation process ... more like significant doubt about fitness for the post.
    Perjury requires materiality and if teenage boys joked about deviant sex practices, his re-definition of those words (and I grew up in NoVA around the same time and never heard those expressions) is probably not material ot whether a drunken BK groped an inebriated CBF.
    BK is clearly fit for the post but loses that fitness if he groped CBF and lied about it.

  • Smooth Like a Rhapsody||

    I think this is where most Americans who care about this matter sit.
    And it's why the inertia of this issue is killing vulnerable Democrats.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The polls on Kav say otherwise, Smooth.

    IMO you're conflating GOP enthusiasm with the public at large.

    States with vulnerable Dem Senators aren't the same as Real America.

  • M.L.||

    60% of Americans thought Kav should be confirmed if the FBI didn't turn up any corroborating evidence re Ford.

    "37 percent of the 1,330 surveyed, registered voters supported Kavanaugh's confirmation. That figure rose to 57 percent after respondents were told that Ford's story remains uncorroborated . . . The proportion of respondents supporting Kavanaugh's confirmation increased further, to 60 percent, in the hypothetical event that the allegations remain uncorroborated following the ongoing, one-week FBI probe . . . 69 percent of voters agreed that the deeply partisan confirmation process has been a "national disgrace." . . . Seventy-five percent of respondents believe Feinstein should have turned over the letter to the Judiciary Committee immediately upon receiving it."

  • Sarcastr0||

    That is very cherry picked, ML. And you're smart enough to know that.

    The metric that matters, Kav's approval, is underwater as of yesterday.

  • Brightly||

    A Media blitz of the type we've seen will do that, honest or not.

    And how does Kavanaugh's approval rating "matter"?

  • Krayt||

    342 comments and counting!

    If only expressed outrage disualified opinion-making in other arenas!

  • Michael Cook||

    Looks like maybe BK sneaks by on to the court. That leaves Dems muttering impeachment while frantically busy trying to figure out how to use their mainstream media main weapon to better effect next time.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Trump is cautioning that China and Russia will be trying to meddle in this election and in the coming 2020 election by subtly subsidizing issues that favor Democrats. The supposed reason would be that China is very unhappy over their hugely advantageous former trade arrangement with the USA becoming undone, as well as growing confrontation in the South China Sea.

    Russia is unhappy over a lot of things, most recently Israel embarrassing Russia by tricking Syria into shooting down an advanced surveillance maritime surveillance airplane with eleven Russians on board. Putin is undoubtedly annoyed by Democrat anti-Russian bluster, but he knows that at the end of the day Dem bluster is stupid-fog for the Dem base but Dem policy will be as accommodating to Moscow as it was during the Obama years, when Russia and its allies easily obtained all they desired and Dem lobbyists and the Clinton Foundation prospered.

  • deserving_porcupine||

    I think it's pretty clear now he *didn't* lie about the "little things" in the yearbook.

  • kampbell||

    You are correct that this was not a criminal trial but the accepted standard of proof related to personnel matters in the Federal government is preponderance of evidence. That does not exist here. In order to credibly say that he lied you would have to be a direct witness to the events about which you claim he lied. Short of that you only have your beliefs to rely on and it's a given that people believe what they want to believe.

  • Marshal||

    About the "small things" in the long-ago past: the meaning of "boof," the meaning of "Devil's Triangle," the references to "Renate" in the Yearbook, his propensity to drink. Maybe you found his explanations persuasive; I did not

    Did you evaluate RBG, EK, and SS to have told the truth when they claimed to not prejudge cases involving RvW? If we're going to set a standard against lying shouldn't we apply it in meaningful contexts instead of limiting it to high school yearbooks and personal smears?

    And by the way you're been proven wrong on two of these three.

  • Sarcastr0||

    The reason is that testimony about one's internal attitude is impossible to evaluate, and these factual statements about what words mean are not.

    Man, that's some weak whattaboutism.

  • Leo Marvin||

    I haven't checked recently, but I noticed a while back that you stopped posting to your blog. DId you replace it with something else? Also, what's your Twitter ID?

  • Sarcastr0||

    I don't post on twitter, but yeah the blog became too time consuming. I post on here and on Something Awful's Freep thread these days. My screen name there is the same as here.

  • Chili Dogg||

    So what did these words mean in 1982 in Maryland? Citations, please.

  • EZepp||

    Given RGB's partisan comments regarding our new president, I expect you are calling for her impeachment. You have any links we can review?

  • eatapc||

    Well said. Thank for that response to a very flawed opinion piece.

  • BrotherMovesOn||

    FREEP? I can't tell if you are being sarcastr0ic or not; quick check on that site and it sure looks, um, non-mainstream. That Lazamataz guy sure sounds like fun at parties though.

  • BrotherMovesOn||

    FREEP? I can't tell if you are being sarcastr0ic or not; quick check on that site and it sure looks, um, non-mainstream. That Lazamataz guy sure sounds like fun at parties though.

  • Cyto||

    You are suffering from temporary insanity. Come back and re-read your post in about 2 or 3 years. You will be appalled at your thinking.

    It takes a special type of mental gymnastics to say that Kavanaugh transformed the proceeding into a partisan mess by his response. That's just nuts. The "partisan mess" part happened when a bunch of professional partisans decided that they were going to lose on the merits, and then lose on partisan appeals so they decided to go with a smear campaign. That's the "partisan mess" moment. Not "nuh, uh! I totally didn't do that!"

    Next, your supposition that Kavanaugh is guilty of perjury because of definitions of slang terms from more than 30 years ago is idiotic. You cannot suppose that you have the slightest clue what a bunch of teens in 1982 Washington meant. Slang is of a time and of a place. I'm of that time, but not that place. I never heard either term, but butt-chugging was most definitely not a thing at that moment in time, so that definition is off the table. And we had loads of terms for a 3 way that we weren't going to have, but "devil's triangle" was never one of them.

    And saying "I never was a blackout drunk" is not the same as saying "I never got totally hammered". I don't think he ever denied getting totally hammered.

    The only nits I've found to pick are "Ralph club" meaning he got food poisoning and "alumnus", which sounds like kids being mean, not like a bunch of gang-bangers.

  • Amadeus 48||

    Totally agree with your comment, Cyto. David Post is channeling Jerry ("Jabba") Nadler, never a good place to be.

    For what it's worth, when I was in college in the late 60s, "boofer" was slang for a fart.

  • Brightly||

    I'm glad I"m hearing this from a source I respect at VC, but I disagree.

    Was Kavanaugh's outburst partisan? Yes. Was it unjudicial? Yes. Does it matter? Not compared to the alternative.

    The entire Kavanaugh affair was the most distinct exercise in political Gaslighting i have ever heard of. He was falsely accused and the allegations against him were pursued in bad faith at every step. When resistance was shown, more fake accusations were piled on. His reputation was permanently stained, his family was threatened, and discourse took a new low in this country initiated by the actions of his opponents. So he spoke out in anger directly against those who were attacking him.

    Fake allegations and injury: check
    striking harder when the victim fights back: check
    Denying the the injury done to the victim and blaming them for the whole thing over a comparably small error:

    check!

    This is the very model of a pattern of abuse and we should not validate it. Denying him the Supreme Court because of a mistake of candor simply gives the leftist one more pretense to reject the the legitimacy of a Judge they wouldn't have accepted anyway. So what? After all, they don't accept Gorsuch.

    Denying him the appointment would have given a blessing to the pattern of abuse the Democrats have used. It would have been enshrined as a new, accepted norm.

  • Chili Dogg||

    Most of his basis for saying Judge Kavanaugh (JK) should not be seated on the Supreme Court is that he did not go into explicit detail about comments in his *high school yearbook*! He accuses JK of perjury but has no evidence (kinda like Dr. Ford). He rejects Kavanaugh because JK didn't say "'I was a jackass in high school and college and did a lot of things I'm ashamed of' and left it at that"! Like the Democrats would have let him simply say that and stop at that admission. They would have badgered him about it and spun it into "He is admitting, in so many words, that he raped her, but he's not honest enough to say it."

    I was reminded of the story about the emperor who had no clothing. Kavanaugh pointed it out when he described how the Democrats tried to screw him over. Sorry, no one should roll over for that kind of abuse. The author probably wouldn't either, if it were him in the bright spotlight. I'm glad JK pointed out the truth that so many in the media wouldn't.

    As for his temperament, this author thinks JK's reaction to his mistreatment outweighs his 26 years on the bench in which he was praised for his temperament, the ABA's highest rating, the approval of other attorneys and judges on both the Left and the Right, etc. No, really.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online