Kavanaugh Hearing

It does seem overtly political and maybe fabricated, but I think the blowback on the Democrats if she didn't show would be more extreme than if she stood up and repeated her story. They don't want to look like they were bringing up a fake news sex victim, which is what it will be spun as. The GOP would be off the hook and get their confirmation. If she testifies then it puts the pressure back on the Republicans to either dump their guy or potentially lose big with women in November. Democrats win either way. I can't see why they wouldn't be pushing her to stand up there before the committee unless I am missing something.

 

You know, you didn't point to a single example of his words being twisted. Media Matters didn't call him a misogynist, but said he has "promoted disturbing views about women," and he certainly has said that women should be dominated by men.
It said he wrote an anti-black piece, in which he wrote that his "white guilt" had died because his bike was stolen and he was convinced a black person took, even though he had no evidence whatsoever.
Here's a good piece about that column:
Conservative Certain Black Guy Stole His Bike

And your "likely a reference to something we are not privy to" excuse is simply that. Is there a time in your life that you believed women should be hit regularly?

 

Why would trump ever nominate Merrick Garland? He'll simply nominate another anti-abortion right winger who doesn't have as many skeletons in his closet (and I'm not just talking this accusation). It's what he should have done in the first place, but trump being trump he had to turn the right wing selection knob to "11".

 

If being anti-abortion was the only criteria Trump probably would have nominated Amy Coney Barrett. Pardon the crude language, but my guess is that Trump decided to nominate Brett Kavanaugh to cover his ass. In his writings Kavanaugh has suggested that US v. Nixon, the decision that ultimately required Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes was wrongly decided. Kavanaugh has also suggested that a sitting president should be immune from investigation.

Brett Kavanaugh suggested court was wrong to force Nixon to turn over Watergate tapes
Supreme Court nominee has argued presidents should not be distracted by investigations and lawsuits

Edit: If Kavanaugh's nomination is withdrawn, either by Trump or Kavanaugh himself, Amy Coney Barrett will almost certainly be the nominee. She's a woman; she would probably receive a rating of "well qualified" from the ABA; and most importantly, she is extremely anti-abortion and almost certainly would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

Well done in demolishing your earlier argument saying Judge was smeared.

 

IIRC, Coney Barrett's interview didn't go well with Trump. Personally, I'd be quite happy with Hardiman. I think he'd get through a lot more easily than the other options. Might even end up with some Dem votes (say a 55-45 or 60-40 margin). I think things would be more contentious with Coney Barrett, and she's a riskier pick for Republicans imo.

 

Agree although my guess is that Trump probably would not nominate Hardiman based on his decision in the following two cases:

Considering that immigration or more specifically anti-immigration is the one issue that really endears Trump's base with the Dear Leader, I don't think that Trump would risk nominating a justice who may not be in lockstep with him on that issue.

 

Eh, if it were a deal breaker, I don't think he'd have been the runner up.

 

If you really think that’s what Trump was trying to do here, he did a really shitty job of it. Kavanaugh was mentioned as one of the two most likely picks for a President Romney.

Look at the analysis of Kavanaugh before he got nominated and the left felt obligated to stroke out over him - he’s not hard right by any stretch of the imagination. That’s why I’m a little confused by how strongly the left is opposing him - if they succeed, I suspect they’re probably going to get the sort of angry-Trump replacement nominee who would make Kavanaugh look like David Souter by comparison.

 

Which is what makes the whole "fake news political gamesmanship" theory so nonsensical. It's not like if Kavanaugh goes down in flames the Democrats get to nominate the next man up. It's all but guaranteed that Trump will nominate someone just as conservative as Kavanaugh. Even if the confirmation is delayed past the midterm, and the Democrats by some miracle take the Senate, there's zero chance the Republicans end the session without confirming a new justice.

So, what do the Dems gain with their supposed master plan to fabricate a sexual assault story? Not a whole lot. At most they give the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves with their usual awfulness towards women. On the other hand, the Dems certainly have a lot to lose if it comes out that they manufactured the story. And for that matter, it's not like the Dems have ever been good at keeping their shenanigans secret (much to their electoral chagrin). See Sanders, Bernie, for Exhibit A of that sad story.

Seems a lot more plausible that the Dems simply seized on an opportunity that presented itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Kavanaugh is another Alito. Let's stop trying to pass him off as a Kennedy or even a Roberts. The left was going to strongly oppose any conservative. Kavanaugh is a conservative through and through.

 

Begs the question about what is mainstream conservatism vs the hard right?

 

I might have misread that second quote, but it seemed like he ruled in favor of the immigrants.

 

I read an article that said the far left base who believed the "he's gonna overturn Roe" hype on TV were upset with the pols for not opposing Kavanaugh more strongly. So the stepped up attacks were to appease the base ahead of the election.

 

Let us take a brief walk down memory lane to July:

I know the comeback: now you're going to post 538's "where do they fall" chart. You know, the one that you said this about back in July:

Now then, what was I saying about the analysis before people felt obligated to stroke out over him again?

 

I was wrong in July (and likely before that). I thought of him as more like Roberts because of a few noteworthy opinions. With the spotlight put on him recently, it has thrust more of his opinions into the limelight. After reading those, I see him as more of an Alito.

 

I'm also entirely unconvinced that Kavanaugh or Coney Barrett would overturn Roe. They'd weaken it, but I don't see it being overturned. People said the same thing about Souter back in the day, and boy were they wrong. It's fearmongering. I have much bigger issues with Kavanaugh that lead me to strongly prefer Hardiman.

 

As I said then, I still suspect he's somewhere in the range between Roberts and Alito.

But pretty much anywhere on that range, including both ends, falls squarely in the "kind of judges who pretty much any generic Republican president would have nominated" range, also known as the mainstream right.

There are folks on Trump's list who would probably qualify as being well to the right of mainstream judicial conservatism. But Kavanaugh decidedly is not one of them (and to be honest Gorsuch, who also isn't, is probably closer to qualifying for that distinction than Kavanaugh is and didn't draw anywhere near this level of opposition).

That's my broader point - this isn't some "far right, end of the world nomination" unless you view pretty much anyone to the right of Breyer and Kagan as being something of a radical.

 

Do you happen to know the party affiliation of this Ms Smith? What was there to gain in 1999? When did Ms Smith come forward with the allegation? Wasn't it many years afterward the supposed event took place?