Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced that he would retire

[monir]

Holy cow,....this is not in the bag for Kavanaugh. A televised testifying session about rape in the upcoming is having second thoughts on the mind of at least two GOP senators. Exciting Monday.

[Archon_Wing]

It's okay, since being a rapist is better than being a supporting abortion if you ask people.

[The Green One]

I will honestly be shocked if this accusation has any actual effect at all on the vote. Most of the people in Washington don't give a flying frick about this. Only how it affects their own agenda. History has proven this in the past.

[OH&S]

^
Anita Hill v2.0?

[MeoTwister5]

This was never really about the truth. This is all politics. The two individuals in the center of this circus, whoever is the one telling the truth, are just pawns on a bigger stage. It's just sad that allegations of sexual assault, again whether or not it's true, is being used as the weapon of choice in this battleground.

[The Green One]

It's beyond sad. The behavior is disgusting.

[monir]

Originally Posted by The Green One

I will honestly be shocked if this accusation has any actual effect at all on the vote.

It absolutely has if you are a moderate GOP senator and/or you just can't stand Trump even though you align yourself as GOP. Case in point:

Trump Agrees to Open ‘Limited’ F.B.I. Investigation Into Accusations Against Kavanaugh

Jeff Flake from Arizon called for the delay in vote in favor of a FBI investigation. Mind you, Trump trashed Jeff Flake several times in the past. Flake also isn't running for reelection because of Trump.

If the Dems' takes the senate in this midterm in an unlikely scenario, they would successfully block GOP from nominating another Judge. ...just like the GOP did for Obama's pick.

[OH&S]

This may all be disgusting political warfare but I find it absolutely riveting. On one hand despite an exemplary testimony by Ford, the fact remains that none of this is corroborated; and at least part of Kavanaugh's opening testimony did make you want to at least hear him out. On the other hand when your hear him out, all you hear is a lying hypocritical political hack.

Make no mistake, Kavanaugh demonstrably lied in his hearing; this much is easy to verify. And the Republicans know it.

What I didn't expect was there to actually be an FBI investigation into this. Especially after all that posturing by the Republicans and Kavanaugh. To see the ABA and Yale Law come out in favor of an FBI investigation is crazy.

And to think, none of this would have happened if Trump had just chosen another judge like his previous appointee, Neil Gorsuch. Goddammit, the Repbulicans have the majority. How incompetent would they have to be to not find such a terrible candidate?

[monir]

Originally Posted by OH&S

How incompetent would they have to be to not find such a terrible candidate?

I know I'm stating the obvious...

but,

That's because GOP is now Trump's party. Whatever tune he plays, the typical Republican will join regardless of what it is. Common sense did not elect Trump. GOP party still holds the belief Trump phenomenon has no end in sight, so it's best to ride that train. You oppose Trump and you're left behind, i.e. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker.

Btw, Donnie also tweeted about the FBI investigation:

Just started, tonight, our 7th FBI investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He will someday be recognized as a truly great Justice of The United States Supreme Court!

[OH&S]

^
I suppose that question was a bit rhetorical. But your reasoning makes sense if not for one thing: Trump has already appointed Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS. That means from the beginning, he could have nominated a judge who is politically aligned to the Republicans without any skeletons in his closet aside from what was already evident in his career and the Democrats wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Why choose and stick with such an obviously volatile option this close to the mid terms where the approval of the judge will have an impact on the outcome (whether it be Republicans or Democrats).

Though again, take these questions as rhetorical because the Right in Australia are just as stupid.

[monir]

Originally Posted by OH&S

^
I suppose that question was a bit rhetorical. But your reasoning makes sense if not for one thing: Trump has already appointed Neil Gorsuch to the SCOTUS. That means from the beginning, he could have nominated a judge who is politically aligned to the Republicans without any skeletons in his closet aside from what was already evident in his career and the Democrats wouldn't be able to do anything about.

The reasoning behind that appointment, as speculated by few, is that Kavanaugh will decide against indictment just in case Muller comes up with something sensational against Trump. Kavanaugh's past stance has been that a sitting president should not be indicted for any criminal wrong doing.

I love our politics.

[OH&S]

^
It sounds like Kavanaugh is an extremist.

Not gonna lie, I kinda love your politics as well.

[Jaden]

I don't really get it. The republicans could have shoved Kavanaugh in by now, but instead of taking the easy win and going on with their lives, they keep masochistically edging themselves for another week or hearings and another week of investigations etc etc.. Will they finally blow their load after this one?

From what I gather, Kavanaugh is a bit of a neo-con, who was all for the Bush era police state stuff. Is that not in vogue anymore for Republicans?

[monir]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I don't really get it. The republicans could have shoved Kavanaugh in by now, but instead of taking the easy win and going on with their lives, they keep masochistically edging themselves for another week or hearings and another week of investigations etc etc.. Will they finally blow their load after this one?

That's because the Republicans believe if they push through this nomination in the face of this allegation it may exacerbate their unpopularity with the women voters. With midterms so near, they can't take the risk. You also have to factor in the fact they probably did not have the vote to push through Kavanaugh even in a party-line vote after the 4 senators (3 Gop and 1 Dems) had a closed door meeting at the conclusion of Dr. Ford's testimony. The biggest hint toward that assessment was when Jeff Flake comes out asking for a FBI investigation. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are the two WOMAN-senator who just cannot ignore a testimony by another woman for obvious reasons. So I truly believe along with Jeff Flake, there was a good chance one of the two woman-senator (or both) wouldn't have gone forward with the party-line votes.

Btw, you had me at blowing loads.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by monir

If the Dems' takes the senate in this midterm in an unlikely scenario, they would successfully block GOP from nominating another Judge. ...just like the GOP did for Obama's pick.

My understanding is this delay only keeps Kav off the SCOTUS docket for next year, but doesn't guarantee that his confirmation vote gets delayed until next year.

Originally Posted by OH&S

On one hand despite an exemplary testimony by Ford, the fact remains that none of this is corroborated

Don't give any weight to right-wing talking points. None of this is proven, but it's all very much corroborated. The worst part is that Kav himself said this long, long after it was corroborated. Not a good thing when a Judge doesn't know law like that.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by GDB

Don't give any weight to right-wing talking points. None of this is proven, but it's all very much corroborated. The worst part is that Kav himself said this long, long after it was corroborated. Not a good thing when a Judge doesn't know law like that.

My mistake then. But the FBI investigation should make things crystal clear regardless.

[Toukairin]

The following Kavanaugh/Pulp Fiction mashup is going viral on the internet.

YouTube

https://youtu.be/kurKyCAhhmQ

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

My favorite part was when Jules talked down on Lindsey Graham. "I don't remember asking you a goddamn thing!"

[GreyZone]

Just going to casually throw this in:

People might say that Kavanaugh has to recuse himself from anything related to Democracts due to his "open bias" against them during his hearing. But a certain precedent shows us that that is not necessary, because another SC judge did something similar, but it seems everyone just forgot and the SC judge in question never recused herself.

I am talking about Ginsburg. While in office she openly criticised Trump while he already was the Republican Nominee. Guess what, afterward she didn't recuse herself from any decision involving Trump.

With that precedent set all SC judges have essentially open season for making political, partisian statements, it's just that people pretend all this never happened and it's my guess why the media are... relatively silent on Kavanaugh calling out the Dems. If Ginsburg never said what she did, this would have probably become the main talking point on every news station other than Fox News.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by OH&S

My mistake then. But the FBI investigation should make things crystal clear regardless.

Should it? How exactly does the FBI prove anything conclusive in favor of either side in a case that is dozens of years in the past? The FBI can follow some leads but if you think that at the end they will come out with proof that points directly at Kavanaugh, you're delusional.

-

As for the hearing itself, it was the usual disgrace by the republicans. Their (all-male) panel initially refused an FBI investigation, hired an outside prosecutor to grill Ford but cut her off when it was time to question Kavanaugh, repeatedly apologized to him about his treatment and his reputation, tried to tear apart Ford's testimony while unfailingly believing every word of Kavanaugh. Lindsey Graham in an angry fit called it the most unethical sham he had seen in his career. Senator Graham seems to have forgotten to take a look at the current administration or what happened when Obama nominated a candidate for the supreme court.

The only reason that there is an investigation now is because Jeff Flake for once criticized something and then didn't immediately vote for it nonetheless.

All in all this is just the latest page in an ongoing circus that will see no winners.

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Should it? How exactly does the FBI prove anything conclusive in favor of either side in a case that is dozens of years in the past? The FBI can follow some leads but if you think that at the end they will come out with proof that points directly at Kavanaugh, you're delusional.

I'm not betting money that the FBI will be able to find directly corroborating evidence against the specific allegations against Kavanaugh regarding Ford and Ramirez.


I do think there's a very real chance that the FBI could conclude that Kavanaugh perjured himself on some very important points while under oath during the hearing though.

Hearings transcript

COONS: So let me, if I can, return to a line of questioning my colleague was on before, which was about whether you’ve ever gotten aggressive while drinking or forgotten an evening after drinking.

KAVANAUGH: Those are two different questions. I’ve already answered the second one. As to the first, I think the answer to that is basically no. I don’t know really what you mean by that, like, what — what are you talking about?

COONS: Well, the — the reason I…

KAVANAUGH: I guess. I mean, I — I don’t mean it that way, but “no” is the basic answer, unless you’re talking about something where — that I — I’m not aware that you’re going to ask about.

Meanwhile, one of Kavanaugh's classmates and drinking buddies from Yale.

Spoiler:

In the New Haven, Connecticut, police department report, a man named Dom Cozzolino said Kavanaugh had thrown ice on him and Kavanaugh's friend Chris Dudley had thrown a glass that hit him in the ear.
"The argument between the two started when Mr. Cozzolino stated that Brett Kavanaugh threw ice at him for some unknown reason and he then got hit in the ear with a glass," the report says.
----------
Chad Ludington, a former classmate of Kavanaugh's, has said Kavanaugh did not tell the truth about his drinking in his testimony Thursday to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In Ludington's statement released Sunday he also mentions an altercation involving Kavanaugh: "On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man's face."


Ludington told CNN's "Cuomo Prime Time" anchor Chris Cuomo that the altercation happened after a UB40 concert, when he and a group of friends were drinking at Demery's.


They were sitting near a man who they thought looked like the lead singer of UB40, Ali Campbell, and were trying to figure out whether it was him, Ludington told Cuomo.


The man noticed Ludington, Kavanaugh and the others looking at him and -- according to Ludington -- aggressively asked them to stop.


Ludington told Cuomo he initially remembered Kavanaugh then threw his beer at the man, but recently found out from the report that there were ice cubes in the thrown drink.


"We weren't drinking water, so it must've been some sort of mixed drink," Ludington told Cuomo.


The man next then "took a swing at Brett," Ludington continued, and then they were "two guys fighting -- that was all very quick."


Dudley then took his drink and "proceeded to smash it up against the guy's head," Ludington recalled.


There was some shouting, and then the police showed up, Ludington said. They looked around and asked questions, he said, and then Dudley was put in a squad car and taken to jail.

To me it seems like a pretty bloody big deal if Kavanaugh perjured himself about this. Both because his assertion that he never was violent while drunk is a fairly big part of his character defense against the sexual assault allegations. And also because perjuring yourself under oath is a felony.