Supreme Court of the United States

[Sour Masher]

chance, you dont see these words? "because you dont get that point was the 2500+ law professors...."

I am unable to get you to see the easiest of points, so i again conclude we are speaking different languages. ABA President or Yale Law were or werent partisan wasnt focus and wasnt claim, they were throw ins, like the retired SC judge who is against kavanaugh appointment, 1st time in living memory thats happened. point was about 2500+ law professors who are largely focused on pov of law above partisan, though undoubtedly there exists varying levels of partisan all over spectrum in what is essentially majority of legal education field and then i threw in 2 individuals, and i can continue to throw in say, Washington Post editor, 1st time in 30 years he has opposed the SC nomination as his position is regardless of party, as long as a judge is of sound mind and qualified he should be ok'd.

I give. NM.

Thanks for fighting the good fight here. I like hearing Chance's perspectives, and he often brings the facts. But it is frustrating, Chance, that you are cherry picking the points you think bolster the claim that all criticism of Kavanaugh is partisan.

1. Are you really saying that 2500+ law professors, a number I assume represents a significant number of the total of law professors in this country, are all making this claim for partisan reasons, even though they haven't done this for previous conservative candidates for the SC?
2. In your worldview, is it impossible for a liberal to offer a fair negative opinion of a conservative or vice versa? I think many people are capable of that, despite that being an underlying assumption to many conservative posters here. There are people speaking out against Kavanaugh's temperament that had held their tongues about the sexual assault allegations, that have never spoken out about a nominee like this before. Is it possible that you are only dismissing the concerns about Kavanaugh's blatant partisanship and temperament, because he is a conservative judge? Would you also embrace what he said and how he said it if he were an unabashed liberal being put up by Obama? Or would you have seen his conduct differently in that case? Why deny that many respected professionals in his field believe Kavanaugh is unfit, independent of his sexual assault cases? Why does that not matter to you?

[dslaw]

...Kavanaugh dug a new hole, from being so unhinged and partisan with fringe pov, the whole revenge for the Clintons, and beware what goes around comes around, and the whole I like beer stated over again, have you blacked out, I wanna know, in response to him being questioned. this speaks to this guy cant be counted on as not carrying out a petty revenge agenda rather than weigh the law as a judge.

This is where he lost me. The "He said, she said" I was willing to give him slack until we could get more information one way or another. But before the FBI was even asked to investigate Kavanaugh flew off the rails. This is the guy we want on the SC? I can see 8 justices asking pointed questions of lawyers pertaining the to case being argued and Kavanaugh asking "Did you vote for the Clintons? Are you a left wing nut job?"

[DMT]

Thanks for fighting the good fight here. I like hearing Chance's perspectives, and he often brings the facts. But it is frustrating, Chance, that you are cherry picking the points you think bolster the claim that all criticism of Kavanaugh is partisan.

1. Are you really saying that 2500+ law professors, a number I assume represents a significant number of the total of law professors in this country, are all making this claim for partisan reasons, even though they haven't done this for previous conservative candidates for the SC?
2. In your worldview, is it impossible for a liberal to offer a fair negative opinion of a conservative or vice versa? I think many people are capable of that, despite that being an underlying assumption to many conservative posters here. There are people speaking out against Kavanaugh's temperament that had held their tongues about the sexual assault allegations, that have never spoken out about a nominee like this before. Is it possible that you are only dismissing the concerns about Kavanaugh's blatant partisanship and temperament, because he is a conservative judge? Would you also embrace what he said and how he said it if he were an unabashed liberal being put up by Obama? Or would you have seen his conduct differently in that case? Why deny that many respected professionals in his field believe Kavanaugh is unfit, independent of his sexual assault cases? Why does that not matter to you?

Because he cares about winning, and that is all.

[Fresno Bob]

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."

we would have just called that "quarters"

[frae]

Flake predictably will vote yes. If Collins is a yes none of the rest of this matters as Manchin will go along and lock up his seat, but if Collins votes no we are in a whole new world. I still think Collins is a yes who is just enjoying all the media attention.

[B-Fly]

If Murkowski and Collins both vote 'no', along with Heitkamp and McCaskill, I think that sends a very strong message to women, from women...regardless of where Flake and Manchin land and whether Kavanaugh is confirmed.

[revo]

If Murkowski and Collins both vote 'no', along with Heitkamp and McCaskill, I think that sends a very strong message to women, from women...regardless of where Flake and Manchin land and whether Kavanaugh is confirmed.

Murkowski just said she's a No.

Collins is holding a press conference at 3pm.

Murkowski also voted no on the cloture vote, which went 51-49 -- so which Dem voted No? Manchin?

[Judge Jude]

If Murkowski and Collins both vote 'no', along with Heitkamp and McCaskill, I think that sends a very strong message to women, from women...regardless of where Flake and Manchin land and whether Kavanaugh is confirmed.

if they vote no based not on temperament but only on the completely uncorroborated allegation, than it sends a strong message all right - but not the one you are thinking of.

I fully expect in 2021 to be on here cautioning against overreaction to unsubstantiated claims against a Democratic SCOTUS nominee who has someone from 35 years ago make a claim. it's worthwhile, I think, for everyone on the left to picture that scenario. the claim should be taken seriously, but we can't torpedo nominations based on lack of any sort of proof - especially when cartoonish corroborations like subsequently-disproven (unless I hear otherwise) claims like "he LIED about Devil's Triangle being a drinking game!" are supposed to win the day.

at some point, a lot of people - I hope - are going to realize that chasing high school yearbook buffoonery was juvenile and ridiculous.

the temperament issue is different. I have major objections to Kavanaugh's opening speech, even under the trying circumstances. I would have insisted on an apology, and imo his "went too far " Op-Ed today still isn't enough for me on that front.

[frae]

Murkowski just said she's a No.

Yep and Flake said something like baring something big he is a Yes. So here we are Sen Manchin and Sen Collins. For the political theater I want Collins to be a No, but her actions and words during this make me think she will be a Yes. Manchin has tried to draw this out to find political cover, but imagine if Collins is a No and he is caught with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar. From the stand point of his own political life the right vote is yes. In my mind the right vote for any Democrat against this candidate is No. I so want Collins to announce as a No and get almost 24 hours of non stop Joe Manchin watch.

[nots]

if they vote no based not on temperament but only on the completely uncorroborated allegation, than it sends a strong message all right - but not the one you are thinking of.

I fully expect in 2021 to be on here cautioning against overreaction to unsubstantiated claims against a Democratic SCOTUS nominee who has someone from 35 years ago make a claim. it's worthwhile, I think, for everyone on the left to picture that scenario. the claim should be taken seriously, but we can't torpedo nominations based on lack of any sort of proof - especially when cartoonish corroborations like subsequently-disproven (unless I hear otherwise) claims "he LIED about Devil's Triangle!" are supposed to win the day.

at some point, a lot of people - I hope - are going to realize that chasing high school yearbook buffoonery was juvenile and ridiculous.

the temperament issue is different, and I have major objections to Kavanaugh's opening speech. I would have insisted on an apology, and imo his "went too far " Op-Ed today still isn't enough for me on that front.

Great post JJ. The pendulum will swing the other way on this at some point.

[frae]

if they vote no based not on temperament but only on the completely uncorroborated allegation, than it sends a strong message all right - but not the one you are thinking of.

I fully expect in 2021 to be on here cautioning against overreaction to unsubstantiated claims against a Democratic SCOTUS nominee who has someone from 35 years ago make a claim. it's worthwhile, I think, for everyone on the left to picture that scenario. the claim should be taken seriously, but we can't torpedo nominations based on lack of any sort of proof - especially when cartoonish corroborations like subsequently-disproven (unless I hear otherwise) claims "he LIED about Devil's Triangle!" are supposed to win the day.

at some point, a lot of people - I hope - are going to realize that chasing high school yearbook buffoonery was juvenile and ridiculous.

the temperament issue is different, and I have major objections to Kavanaugh's opening speech. I would have insisted on an apology, and imo his "went too far " Op-Ed today still isn't enough for me on that front.

The fact that he had to write an Op Ed should be more than enough to see his temperment should disqualify him.

I'll bet my life savings the next Democratic nominee after all this is a woman unless the party feels the owe Garland a real shot.

[nots]

The fact that he had to write an Op Ed should be more than enough to see his temperment should disqualify him.

I'll bet my life savings the next Democratic nominee after all this is a woman unless the party feels the owe Garland a real shot.

Yes and no IMO. The guy was called a gang rapist and drug dealer. Is it really fair to criticize him for over reacting a bit to that if it isn’t true? It wasn’t a good look for him, but I think it’s somewhat understandable.

[frae]

Yes and no IMO. The guy was called a gang rapist and drug dealer. Is it really fair to criticize him for over reacting a bit to that if it isn’t true? It wasn’t a good look for him, but I think it’s somewhat understandable.

No one that I can remember on the Senate Judiciary Committe acused him of being a gang rapit or a drug dealer. The press covered accusations made against him. The Senate called a hearing and talked about Dr. Ford's accusation and the calendar he provided. If you can't handle this situation by remaining calm I don't think you should sit on the highest court. You should be above reproach, defend yourself but do it in a way that shows you have the right temperment for the court. He gave a partisan opening speech and acted like an entitled teenager when being questions by some Senators particulary Klobuchar.

[DMT]

No one that I can remember on the Senate Judiciary Committe acused him of being a gang rapit or a drug dealer. The press covered accusations made against him. The Senate called a hearing and talked about Dr. Ford's accusation and the calendar he provided. If you can't handle this situation by remaining calm I don't think you should sit on the highest court. You should be above reproach, defend yourself but do it in a way that shows you have the right temperment for the court. He gave a partisan opening speech and acted like an entitled teenager when being questions by some Senators particulary Klobuchar.

Anyone excusing his temperament during his confirmation is a blind partisan.

[nots]

No one that I can remember on the Senate Judiciary Committe acused him of being a gang rapit or a drug dealer. The press covered accusations made against him. The Senate called a hearing and talked about Dr. Ford's accusation and the calendar he provided. If you can't handle this situation by remaining calm I don't think you should sit on the highest court. You should be above reproach, defend yourself but do it in a way that shows you have the right temperment for the court. He gave a partisan opening speech and acted like an entitled teenager when being questions by some Senators particulary Klobuchar.

It was referred to in passing.