(evil laugh) I'm not worried about the hearing on Thursday because Trump fires Rosenstien on Thursday morning just before the hearing. Then Solicitor General Francisco announces to the media that he is ordering a halt to the Mueller probe until he has been briefed on it. The media is going to go so completely insane and unsure of what to cover, it all turns into sh*tshow. Next thing they know, Kavanaugh is confirmed, Francisco has ended the Mueller probe and locked the report in his desk drawer. Trump campaigns on having a roaring economy, two SCOTUS appointees, and lack of proof of Russia collusion. He keeps asking huge crowds whether they are tired of winning yet. Republican hold both the House and the Senate and Thomas retires next year to open up a spot for Comey Barrett. (evil laugh)
Please give me Jim Ho as a Thomas replacement over Barrett. Barrett’s a blank slate other than abortion. Ho is the 46 year old firebrand who has been an appellate judge for a year and in that time managed to lament how today’s government “would be unrecognizable to the founders,” complain about a trial court trying to silence clergy from expressing their opposition to the “moral tragedy” of abortion, and chastise judges for treating the Second Amendment as a second class right and complain of making hoplophibia into policy while analogizing the 1968 Gun Control Act’s ban on the interstate transfer of handguns to a hypothetical ban on the interstate sale of books. Barrett can have RBG’s seat whenever it opens.
I don’t know if Kavanaugh ever acted inappropriately with a woman, but i agree that regardless of the outcome here, we don’t need to be attacking the accusers. (Unless of course we come to learn they were purposefully lying)
Who could seriously object, we would just be replacing Clarence Thomas with a guy whose judicial philosophy is pretty much exactly that of the man he clerked for and would be replacing? Plus it's about time we have an Asian American justice. I hope Democrats wouldn't seriously think of trying to keep a wise Taiwanese American guy off the Court.
I'll venture a guess and say somebody with the last name Kavanaugh. That's why I'm laughing a bit at the Coney Barrett threat. Nobody has a great idea of where she stands. The reality is that the Supreme Court changes a lot of people. IMO, the greater the judicial record, the less likely you're going to get a surprise.
Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Allegations: Not Backed by Evidence | National Review "I have two questions for readers. First, does the truth matter? Second, can the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility?" NO and probably not. This has always been aimed at Collins and Murkowski, and it looks to be working. Call it identity politics or good politics, the Dems, and Schumer in particular, are to be respected, not admired for their Machiavellian commitment to cudgel with all the available tools necessary to win a tactical victory. I worry that this By Anymeans Necessary, short term mindset, ensures a long term defeat for our children's children. I have'nt heard either side talk about the SSN, Medicare, or the Deficit elephant in the room. Just as Greece and Spain earned their hard austerity, so too are we.
That's the reason I haven't ever been too gung-ho on the idea of Barrett. I think it's reasonably likely she would be a vote to overturn Roe, but I think she's a huge wild card on most of the issues I personally want someone to be to the right on. All other things being equal, I think a Thomas clerk is more likely to be reliably conservative than a Scalia clerk, and even amongst the recently confirmed judges there are folks who have a lot more clear records than she does. Now, misreading it isn't only a GOP phenomenon - I think Kagan is probably a good bit more moderate than Obama thought she would be too - but there are definitely options out there who I think are much less risky picks than a former law professor whose main conservative credential is "she's really, really Catholic."
Also very interesting: A noteworthy NYT reporter agrees with Ronan Farrow that the NYT didn't run the story, not because it wasn't credible, but because the second accuser chose to speak exclusively to the New Yorker.
Agreed... by the committee... It's fairly easy to just keep accusing Kavanaugh of stuff... and just stall and stall and stall...
Well that’s a different take on his high school days. I’d think that would be pretty risky to claim if not true.
It also doesn't address his accusations. It's like being accused of armed robbery and claiming as your defense, "I didn't murder anyone." Neither of his accusers say he had sex with them. And he can't play the choir boy based on what we know about his drinking habits.
