The Independent State Legislature Doctrine

[dislaxxic]

Collaboration after the fact of confirmation may not stop an impeachment proceeding.

Will Judge Kav recuse himself from any case brought by, or joined by, a liberal interest group on behalf of a client?

He has clearly shown himself to be a primitive, militant partisan.

..

[Bandito]

Collaboration after the fact of confirmation may not stop an impeachment proceeding.

Will Judge Kav recuse himself from any case brought by, or joined by, a liberal interest group on behalf of a client?

He has clearly shown himself to be a primitive, militant partisan.

..

You nervous I see? It is over for you and the Democrats. America will rise up and vote RED in November. People aren't stupid. Democrats are the issue. Not Brett Kavanaugh. He has an impeccable record and is an amazing person. He called y'alls bluff and now Ford is probably headed to prison for lying under oath.

[jhu72]

Wired Magazine has an interesting article about Kavanaugh supporters using the Trump 2016 campaign infrastructure to support the Great Pretender. It is a bit long.

[ggait]

and make no mistake, this was done for political reasons. No other justice has ever faced this level of scrutiny. and I doubt many of the ones currently sitting on the SCOTUS could survive this gauntlet.

Come on Hoo. That's way way way overstated.

Gorsuch got confirmed with virtually no static only a year ago. He's just as white, entitled, conservative, Fed Society etc. etc. etc. as Kav is. Heck, he was a couple years behind Kav at Gtown Prep!! They are basically clones. Alito got through just fine; so did Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor. Garland, of course, is the one who didn't get through...

And even if Kav would go down, he'd get replaced by one of the other 20 conservative Fed Society types on Trump's list. None of this happens if Kav doesn't have some issues in his past.

Totally fair to consider if it is OK to confirm Kav if he did these things. Also totally fair to try to figure out if these things from 35 years ago can be proven or at least partly corroborated. This is a shirt show only because the pols couldn't handle these perfectly legit concerns in a fair and reasonable manner.

I think it would be great for the country if Flake et al called BS on the faux investigation and declined to vote at this point. They asked for a week investigation, not a weak investigation. If they insist on a valid process, I'm fine if Kav gets confirmed. If Kav gets jammed through on this basis, a House investigation of Kav becomes Benghazi II.

[jhu72]

I think the horse got out of Hoodats barn when Mitch pulled his little stunt with Garland. Not trying to re-litigate that sorry episode, and without being able to go back to LP to research, can Hoo perhaps refresh our memory as to his position then? Can you apply your bolded text to that episode?

..

surely, even through your partisan goggles, you can see that there is a difference between refusing to hold hearings or a vote and methodically attempting to destroy a person's reputation - simply because you disagree with his judicial approach???

Does that mean it is ok to destroy a person's reputation for some other reason? Does your "rule" apply to Presidents, how about Senators, etc., or just judges? Where does it stop?

Who is the judge of what constitutes "destroying a person's reputation"? Are there cases where destroying a person's reputation is justified?

[tech37]

Who is the judge of what constitutes "destroying a person's reputation"?

Those with supporting/credible facts.

[jhu72]

It is now pretty clear the FBI investigation was not intended to do a meaningful investigation and the fault lay with the White House. Only 10 people interviewed, and only 6 known to the public. Those known to the public were, with the possible exception of Mark Judge, not likely to have added anything substantial to the information already known. The other 4 are more interesting, probably Kavanaugh's mom, his wife and two daughters.

[MDlaxfan76]

I think the horse got out of Hoodats barn when Mitch pulled his little stunt with Garland. Not trying to re-litigate that sorry episode, and without being able to go back to LP to research, can Hoo perhaps refresh our memory as to his position then? Can you apply your bolded text to that episode?

..

surely, even through your partisan goggles, you can see that there is a difference between refusing to hold hearings or a vote and methodically attempting to destroy a person's reputation - simply because you disagree with his judicial approach???

Does that mean it is ok to destroy a person's reputation for some other reason? Does your "rule" apply to Presidents, how about Senators, etc., or just judges? Where does it stop?

Who is the judge of what constitutes "destroying a person's reputation"? Are there cases where destroying a person's reputation is justified?

What I don't get, when I talk with those in my family who I know are intelligent folks, and with those on here who are typically well-reasoned and I assume also are intelligent and well-read, is how they think that Kav could not have simply said, "Yes, I drank way too much back in my youth, did and said stupid things, but I have no recollection of these specific incidents or any other time like them that would constitute sexual assault. If I ever did anything remotely approaching such, I was unaware and I'm deeply distressed and sorry anything I did ever hurt anyone. I've tried to live my life as an adult as someone who cares about others, who respects and supports women, both in my personal and my professional dealing. I stand by that record 100%.

Yet, these folks seem to think he couldn't have said that and been confirmed.

Instead, they ignore the clear lies and shadings of the truth, the squirmy avoidance of having to actually answer questions directly and honestly in a way that, while embarrassing perhaps, would be truthful for sure.

The whack jobs and the pure hardball politico's, yup, I get it.
But it's really disconcerting when the reasonable folks seem so disconnected with the plain reality before us.

[Bandito]

It is now pretty clear the FBI investigation was not intended to do a meaningful investigation and the fault lay with the White House. Only 10 people interviewed, and only 6 known to the public. Those known to the public were, with the possible exception of Mark Judge, not likely to have added anything substantial to the information already known. The other 4 are more interesting, probably Kavanaugh's mom, his wife and two daughters.

Of course Democrats are beside themselves with the findings. They thought for sure he was a GANG RAPIST bang

[jhu72]

Who is the judge of what constitutes "destroying a person's reputation"?

Those with supporting/credible facts.

Who makes that decision, who decides what is credible, you?

[jhu72]

It is now pretty clear the FBI investigation was not intended to do a meaningful investigation and the fault lay with the White House. Only 10 people interviewed, and only 6 known to the public. Those known to the public were, with the possible exception of Mark Judge, not likely to have added anything substantial to the information already known. The other 4 are more interesting, probably Kavanaugh's mom, his wife and two daughters.

Of course Democrats are beside themselves with the findings. They thought for sure he was a GANG RAPIST bang

Morning 6 millimeter.

[DMac]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
"Yes, I drank way too much back in my youth, did and said stupid things, but I have no recollection of these specific incidents or any other time like them that would constitute sexual assault. If I ever did anything remotely approaching such, I was unaware and I'm deeply distressed and sorry anything I did ever hurt anyone. I've tried to live my life as an adult as someone who cares about others, who respects and supports women, both in my personal and my professional dealing. I stand by that record 100%.

That's all it would have taken for me. As has been mentioned, I would have been one of those who couldn't pick out Barf in a picture of two before this mess, had no bias (don't care about the D & R thing), no reason to question his honesty, integrity, or character. Sure didn't feel that way after watching and listening to him though. All he had to do was say what you suggest he should have said. He brought this stuff on himself.

[Bandito]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
"Yes, I drank way too much back in my youth, did and said stupid things, but I have no recollection of these specific incidents or any other time like them that would constitute sexual assault. If I ever did anything remotely approaching such, I was unaware and I'm deeply distressed and sorry anything I did ever hurt anyone. I've tried to live my life as an adult as someone who cares about others, who respects and supports women, both in my personal and my professional dealing. I stand by that record 100%.

That's all it would have taken for me. As has been mentioned, I would have been one of those who couldn't pick out Barf in a picture of two before this mess, had no bias (don't care about the D & R thing), no reason to question his honesty, integrity, or character. Sure didn't feel that way after watching and listening to him though. All he had to do was say what you suggest he should have said. He brought this stuff on himself.

He didn't bring anything onto himself. This is a political hit job that backfired so much that he will be the next Justice of the SCOTUS and the Republicans win in the midterms. This was a complete whiff by the Democrats. Republicans are fired up about the circus that is the Democrat Party. He told the truth under oath. He has passed now 7 FBI background checks and one investigation. He answered over 1300 written Questions. When is enough enough? Just admit it. He won. You lost

[tech37]

Who is the judge of what constitutes "destroying a person's reputation"?

Those with supporting/credible facts.

Who makes that decision, who decides what is credible, you?

Certainly not you.

It's why we have presumption of innocence, due process, etc., in this country. Of course you know all this 72...what's your point?

[Bandito]

All of you complaining about Kav drinking. I am curious what you think of this Obama video? Video can be found in the link below
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36649/ob ... n-saavedra

Obama Admits Heavy Drinking, Drug Problems As An 'Adolescent' In Rare Video Footage




In light of the recent attacks on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over his alleged drinking in high school and his having thrown ice at someone in a bar, a rare video clip of then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama has surfaced that shows the 40-year-old admitting that while he was a "young boy" and an "adolescent" he drank "a six-pack in an hour" in between classes, got in fights, was a "thug," and used illegal drugs.

The February 2001 biographical interview was made by The History Makers, who interviewed Obama about everything from his favorite color to describing his adolescent behavior to defining what he wanted his legacy to be.


While discussing his adolescent behavior, Obama said, "I was a thug for a big part of my growing up," adding that he was "mischievous."

"I didn't take school that seriously," Obama continued. "I got into fights. I drank and did —and consumed substances that weren't always legal."

Obama noted that some of his behavior "was self-destructive," saying, "I might have drank a six-pack in an hour before going back to class, things like that."

The clip validates other statements made by Obama, who has admitted to using cocaine and marijuana during his high school years.

Democrats are such hypocrites.

[runrussellrun]

The FBI has reaffirmed Kavanaugh’s virginity.

I invented common law divorce for wife #1. The precedent (whataboutism) of lack OF consumating a marriage and such. It ain't called a "seven year itch" for nothing.

Very saddened that Kav lied about being drunk so often. Very rare for the early 80's. Now, he will just remain a guard for the pretends loveable PAC's. Because, only R's use PAC and dark money? TAMATS

[MDlaxfan76]

Anyone on here have an issue with kids getting drunk and stupid in their youth (other than whatever danger that may have been for themselves or others)?

Anyone on here want to claim they themselves never did anything stupid and/or dangerous, especially when adolescent and drunk?

I don't hear either from any posters on this thread.

At least on this thread, that's not the standard anyone is saying we should hold people accountable to, whether for President or for SCOTUS or for Senate, or whatever job.

Just be honest about your youthful mistakes. Learn from them. That's the standard.

For instance, people get TS security clearances all the time who've done various things earlier in their life that are embarrassing...but they need to be honest and open about those errors and not be at risk of repeating them or be potential blackmail targets.

For a SCOTUS position we should, at a minimum, expect 100% integrity and respect for the oath taken to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Fail that test, though, and move on to the next nominee.

[jhu72]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
"Yes, I drank way too much back in my youth, did and said stupid things, but I have no recollection of these specific incidents or any other time like them that would constitute sexual assault. If I ever did anything remotely approaching such, I was unaware and I'm deeply distressed and sorry anything I did ever hurt anyone. I've tried to live my life as an adult as someone who cares about others, who respects and supports women, both in my personal and my professional dealing. I stand by that record 100%.

That's all it would have taken for me. As has been mentioned, I would have been one of those who couldn't pick out Barf in a picture of two before this mess, had no bias (don't care about the D & R thing), no reason to question his honesty, integrity, or character. Sure didn't feel that way after watching and listening to him though. All he had to do was say what you suggest he should have said. He brought this stuff on himself.

Yup. It's the coverup, like always. And like always, there is a reason for the coverup!

I would never have voted for him in any case. The RvW is a minor issue for me, not for young women however. I am more concerned about his positions on personal surveillance, Net Neutrallity, government use of GPS to track people, without a warrant, his citizens united stance, etc. He is woefully wrong on pretty much all issues associated with emerging technologies. If confirmed he will surprise many of his supporters as to how he is going to get into their lives and limit their freedom.

[DMac]

All of you complaining about Kav drinking. I am curious what you think of this Obama video? Video can be found in the link below
https://www.dailywire.com/news/36649/ob ... n-saavedra

Obama Admits Heavy Drinking, Drug Problems As An 'Adolescent' In Rare Video Footage




In light of the recent attacks on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over his alleged drinking in high school and his having thrown ice at someone in a bar, a rare video clip of then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama has surfaced that shows the 40-year-old admitting that while he was a "young boy" and an "adolescent" he drank "a six-pack in an hour" in between classes, got in fights, was a "thug," and used illegal drugs.

The February 2001 biographical interview was made by The History Makers, who interviewed Obama about everything from his favorite color to describing his adolescent behavior to defining what he wanted his legacy to be.


While discussing his adolescent behavior, Obama said, "I was a thug for a big part of my growing up," adding that he was "mischievous."

"I didn't take school that seriously," Obama continued. "I got into fights. I drank and did —and consumed substances that weren't always legal."

Obama noted that some of his behavior "was self-destructive," saying, "I might have drank a six-pack in an hour before going back to class, things like that."

The clip validates other statements made by Obama, who has admitted to using cocaine and marijuana during his high school years.

Democrats are such hypocrites.

Bart should take note of this. Youthful indiscretions are forgiven by most, particularly when forthcoming, honest, and people of integrity own up to them (see MDlaxfan's suggested response).

[runrussellrun]

seriously - you must have grown up in the '90's??? No one's parents gave a rat's behind where they were in the 80's. All parents in the 80's cared about was (a) if they were "good" parents - your grades and (b) if they were bad parents - that they didn't get a call from the police at 2 in the morning......

Totally.

Animal House was released in 1978, Porkys was 1981. Plenty of stuff in those movies that would not pass muster today.

One thing that hasn't much been commented on in this affair. Think about the massive amounts of drunk driving that was going on with these 80s suburban HS kids!! Legal drinking age in many places was still 18. And where it was 21, enforcement was incredibly lax as compared to today. I never had or needed a fake ID for my underage drinking. No Ubers back then.

Drunk driving was a pretty standard behavior back in that day. Drunk teen car crashes were regular occurrences back then. My HS had several of those, including one fatal one. Different world than today.

Brett Kavanaugh was NEVER of legal drinking age until 1986, as Maryland bumped the law up to age 21 in the year of our casper the pretend ghost 1982.
Terp football games, you could walk into them carrying a handle of rum. By 1985 the trooper were patting you down for ziplock baggies of rum.