Supreme Court of the United States

[Judge Jude]

why not a "bro high 5, devils triangle" smiley?

so 4 HS buddies of Kavanaugh have come forward, by name, to say Devil's Triangle was a drinking game. 2 others said they went to Boston College, and one of the 4 taught them the drinking game in college. if Devil's Triangle instead was a sex game, and many knew it, then these guys are going to get pounded by the reverberations. then again, this whole saga has been bizarre from start to finish.

i have noted before the power of the dual echo chambers. this is a mainstream CNN story. if this is the only place you see it referenced - that's bad. does anyone have to believe it? no. but if you otherwise wouldn't even HEAR about it, then you live in a bubble. I hope that's not a controversial observation. same is true of mainstream stories that aren't slam dunks for Kavanaugh. most right-wingers won't learn about those stories either, I assume. that is one sorry state of affairs.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/georgetown-prep-devils-triangle/index.html

Washington (CNN)Four alumni from Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's high school said in letters to Congress on Thursday that a disputed term in Kavanaugh's high school yearbook referred to a drinking game, as Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee, and not to sexual activity.

The 1983 yearbook for Georgetown Prep has drawn scrutiny during Kavanaugh's confirmation process, with attention paid in part to the phrase "devil's triangle." The phrase has sexual connotations, but in last week's nationally televised hearing, Kavanaugh said "devil's triangle" was a drinking game akin to "quarters."

The four, DeLancey Davis, Bernard McCarthy, Jr., Paul Murray and Matthew Quinn, said while they did not remember where the name came from, none of them used it in the yearbook "to refer to any kind of sexual activity."

"To us, it was just a game with glasses in the shape of a triangle," they wrote. "If the phrase 'Devil's Triangle' had any sexual meaning in the early 1980s, we did not know it."

[chancellor]

There was also Wonderboy further back. And Bhob, of course.

J

Wonderboy was almost as polite as B-Fly, say like Sour Masher with appreciably shorter posts.

[cardboardbox]

Strategically, are the Republicans better off letting Flake (on the way out) and 1 other vote NO and use the delay to pressure right wingers to come out?... OR, vote Kavanaugh in and watch as the circus of allegations and outrage continue to haunt them?

I believe better off if Kav gets borked. Look at the polling, conservatives/trump supporters are pissed off that democrats would practice character assassination to this disgusting degree without a shred of evidence. They correctly understand this is just a tactic to keep Trump from getting his nominee on the court and they correctly understand that democrats are hoping to take the senate and refuse to confirm any nominee for the next 2 years. If Kav isnt on the court before the election, suddenly we are looking at a much smaller enthusiasm gap between left and right.

[cardboardbox]

Wonderboy was almost as polite as B-Fly, say like Sour Masher with appreciably shorter posts.

lol I was going to say about the same thing. Imagine if frae posted 50 times a day and was even more polite. Imagine b-fly in tights. That was wonderboy.

[Sour Masher]

For the true wonks out there, is the assumption that Kavanaugh gets through? Depressing, if so. If he does, does that energize Dems enough for them to take the Senate? That is still a long shot either way, right?

[Judge Jude]

- I do think he will get through, for better or for worse.

- Senate odds for Ds has dropped from about 1 in 3 to 1 in 4 of late. I think it was frae who had a very astute analysis a page ago.

- Menendez is a wild card in NJ. he's a D incumbent in a D state, and the negative commercials from both contenders are dialing it up already to an eventual 11 come Election Eve. NJ has tons of corruption still, but the voters tend to like to vote out (or convict) the ones who get caught. Menendez's winning defense on his trial was "so I got tons of favors from a guy that I did a lot of favors for - so what of it?" is, well, not a good look. but he's the default leader as tie goes to the runner. the R has to topple the statue, and that's not easy. as Revo would know, they vote early and often in Menendez's home turf of Hudson County.

[nots]

For the true wonks out there, is the assumption that Kavanaugh gets through? Depressing, if so. If he does, does that energize Dems enough for them to take the Senate? That is still a long shot either way, right?

Fox is reporting that Sen Daines of MT will not be at the vote on Saturday costing the GOP one vote. I am not sure this is a done deal yet.

[chancellor]

For the true wonks out there, is the assumption that Kavanaugh gets through? Depressing, if so. If he does, does that energize Dems enough for them to take the Senate? That is still a long shot either way, right?

Oh, it ain’t over until it’s over. But McConnell wouldn’t go to cloture if he didn’t have the votes for that, but that still allows for 24-48 hours of pure political theater to follow.

I differ with CBB and TW on the impact. If McConnell delivers, he will fire up the base. If he does not, I think a lot of voters walk.

[Sour Masher]

Does it mean anything to Kavanaugh supporters that former SC Justice John Paul Stevens, who served for 35 years says Kavanaugh's temperament alone should disqualify him? Or does the fact Stevens wasnt ultra conservative automatically mean he is just saying that for political reasons (he was Republican appointed, if that matters)? I don't think it would be fair to assume that of him, especially since he thought Kavanaugh was qualified before his performance, and he should know as well as anyone what sort of temperament it takes to be on the SC.

ETA: I guess you could dismiss him for being 98, if you want to find another reason, but he seems to still have his faculties. It seems like an important addition to the list of thousands of law professors who also think Kavanaugh's temperament should disqualify him. It seems especially noteworthy given that I can't think of another example of a former justice weighing in on the unfitness of a current candidate to be appointed.

[Judge Jude]

Does it mean anything to Kavanaugh supporters that former SC Justice John Paul Stevens, who served for 35 years says Kavanaugh's temperament alone should disqualify him? Or does the fact Stevens wasnt ultra conservative automatically mean he is just saying that for political reasons (he was Republican appointed, if that matters)? I don't think it would be fair to assume that of him, especially since he thought Kavanaugh was qualified before his performance, and he should know as well as anyone what sort of temperament it takes to be on the SC.

I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter, but describing Stevens as not "ultra conservative" seems a stretch. I mentioned once before that the Ds haven't added a SCOTUS pick who has failed to dutifully toe the party line in more than 50 years. There have been 5 or 6 R picks in that span who turned out to be pretty liberal to varying degrees.

as I have said, as an independent not only does that not bother me, but I am disappointed that no D pick seems to have had a maverick notion (Kagan at least here and there will surprise you).

the expectation is that if need be, the MT Senator will simply fly back to DC on Sunday and make his vote. I despise McConnell as much as I do Pelosi, but both are good at counting the votes.

[frae]

lol I was going to say about the same thing. Imagine if frae posted 50 times a day and was even more polite. Imagine b-fly in tights. That was wonderboy.

I don't know if this is a complimet or not lol. I hadn't posted in here or the sports bar in forever, but politics will suck me back in all the time.

[Sour Masher]

I'm not a Kavanaugh supporter, but describing Stevens as not "ultra conservative" seems a stretch.

OK, but even if you label him a liberal judge, does that automatically taint his opinion? I cannot think of another time a former justice said this about someone. He seems like he would not have said it about Kavanaugh before seeing how he gave that opening statement and handled questioning. It suggests to me that it isn't just political bias to suggest Kavanaugh's did not appear fit for the position with his performance. Even if ye was just performing for Trump's benefit, which I believe he was, it was a bad look.

[Judge Jude]

OK, but even if you label him a liberal judge, does that automatically taint his opinion?

no. but he's also 98


meanwhile, another weird one if anyone was into the "July 1, 1982 is the attempted rape night" angle, from Politico:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/04/kavanaugh-confirmation-calendar-ford-870982

"Christine Blasey Ford would have ruled out a key date that both Republicans and Democrats have examined in evaluating her sexual assault claim against Brett Kavanaugh, had the FBI contacted her for its inquiry, according to a member of her team.

The July 1, 1982, entry has come under heightened scrutiny as the Senate considers Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh, based largely on a gathering on that date that the judge listed in his calendars......

a member of Ford’s team said the California-based professor — who was not interviewed by the FBI for its inquiry — “would have told them that she never considered July 1 as a possible date, because of some of the people listed on his calendar who she knew well and would have remembered.”

“She would have also told the FBI that it was just a regular summer night for everyone else who was there,” the member of Ford’s team added. “There would have been no reason for them to remember it.”

............

(like I said, kind of a weird story. I STILL wish the FBI digged deeper and they delayed the vote a week. but if any of the new stuff holds up, then the Rs are blundering with a quick vote if further scrutiny only would have improved Kavanaugh's hand. as noted, though, maybe they want the bloodiest win possible. wait too long, and if it becomes less controversial, maybe less manic enthusiasm at the polls.)

[frae]

For the true wonks out there, is the assumption that Kavanaugh gets through? Depressing, if so. If he does, does that energize Dems enough for them to take the Senate? That is still a long shot either way, right?

I am going to say Kavanaugh gets confirmed. This is all just grandstanding now, Manchin will go where Collins and Murkowski go and I just can't see them both flipping now.

So onto the election, there are a lot of moving parts, but the senate map was never working for the democrats this cycle and the series of things that have to go just perfect is almost unchaged in my mind by Kavanaugh. I don't want to get too deep in the weeds, but most of the red states have trended a little toward the R's with this news cycle, but they were big Trump states and you need to let this noise settle before you know where the polls really moved. If you want to hold out hope for a way the Dems wint the senate the path is Tester, Manchin, Mennedez Donnely Nelson, McKaskil, Rosen, Sinema and lose Heitkamp. Beto loses too. Read those states as a Democrat and think how unlikely that is to happen in a normal political environment. We are only even having this discussion because of Trumps unfavorables and a motivated base.

I disagree with Chance that if Kavanaugh is confirmed that this will be better for Republicans. Happy people tend to be less motivated in my expreience than really angry people. I am not saying it swings back beyond where we were in early September, but I think that is where we get back to, but I don't think it changes the Senate.

The House is a lot more interesting. It is really interesting if you want to politically nerd out. Most of the races ID'ed as lean or toss up are actually in state that have Senate races that are not compettetive. So you are stalking about districts where the senate seems out of play. These aren't all traditionally swing districts besides some redrawn districs it is almost exclusively +R districts that are in play. Now some are stadard swing districts, but again this is deep in the weeds and more just for fun to look at.

As of today I'd say Democrats pick up 32 seats in the house and the result of the Senate is a net 0 gain. 2020 is going to be brutal, can't wait.

[Sour Masher]

Geesh, Frae, do you work the maps for one of the 24 hour news networks? If not, you should! I follow this stuff enough to get mad and frustrated, but you really are a wonk. Thanks for the 411. Not what I'd hope for, but I must be swayed by the level of knowledge you have of this. I mean, I get the sense that the 32 and zero numbers aren't just guesstimates, but based on some strong nerd math .