Kavanaugh Hearing

I didn't say him being a belligerent drunk proved anything.

I did say that with other evidence it could be a piece of the puzzle that would be considered in a case - especially a civil suit looking at preponderance of the evidence.

And it is definitely more relevant than somebody saying some stupid expletive phrase. If the accused is cited as being drunk at the time of the alleged attack, just the impact of drinking makes sexual assault an increased likelihood. If the accused is also cited by multiple other parties as being a frequent belligerent drunk, it is a relevant piece of the puzzle, and a jury would consider it, along with everything else brought to them.

 

News Flash: More than 500 Law Professors are liberal. No cite necessary.

 

Good lord. How obtuse can you be?

You know that drunk the noun is a person fitting the description of drunk the adjective.

At least I hope you understand that. Don't want to take anything for granted here.

 

February 12, 1965, Naked Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to multiple women. It is a matter of state record.

 

How about honesty and humility. One can tell the truth about their past they find humiliating but still come off as a decent human being. But that only happens if you are completely honest with some contrition of past actions that may have hurt someone. For example, the Renate Alumnae. Had Kavanaugh explained honestly what this meant, that he had lied about being a member to impress his friends, and he regrets his braggadocious behavior and any harm that he has done to Ms. Dolphin, not only would I and most people would have believed him, most would have forgiven him.

So either he lies under oath to maintain a persona of choir boy, or he tells the truth. I'd prefer the truth. Especially from someone who is up for a SCOTUS Judge nomination.

 

What the hell is a "perjury trap"?

I don't hold his silly HS yearbook quotes against him. He held those quotes against himself... that's why he lied about them. He didn't want the public to see what he was like in HS. And he also wanted to create a public misperception of what the witness affidavits said.

Nobody made this dude lie his ass off. He chose to lie his ass off.

I hold his lying against him. And his behavior in the hearing... which he would never have tolerated from someone in his court... and his wildly paranoid partisan rant, which shows him likely incapable of acting as an impartial arbiter of the law.

 

Yep. His choice was to tell the truth ("I was a high schooler. We made immature jokes. This is what it meant . . . .") or lie. It seems that you are admitting that he lied. I'm not sure how you could argue lying under oath doesn't disqualify him from SCOTUS.

Well, if you think he lied while under oath and still would vote for him, yea, you're a bad person. If you don't care about his partisan rant, you may not be a bad person, but you certainly do favor party over country.

 

All of this. Well put.

 

I was arguing on the assumption that Kavanaugh meant what you and other leftists claim he meant...

No, I don't favor party over country....

 

The next time Democrats nominate a female justice...

Republicans should have the green light to ask her about every sexual partner she's had... whether she's contracted any STDs...

It doesn't matter if it's relevant... All that matters is whether she'd lie about it... If she does, or she forgets some, she shouldn't be fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.



For the record, I don't think that should actually happen... that's evil... and two wrongs don't make a right... but you've no right to complain after what you've put Kavanaugh through.

 

Just be aware, when a lib in here disagrees with you, you automatically become hyper partisan and always favor party over country.

 

Well, for whatever reasons, you favor someone who lied repeatedly in these confirmation hearings, is accused of also lying in both his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings, and behaved inappropriately including a wild partisan rant.

Doesn't sound like USSC material.

And there are plenty of other conservative judges who are USSC material, so this just doesn't make sense.

How about we move on with a qualified judge who doesn't lie under oath and otherwise compromise the institution?

 

And it didn't matter when Clinton perjured himself in a sexual harassment case. They all wanted him to remain leader of the free world. Party over country.

 

The Clinton impeachment was almost entirely politically motivated...

It wasn't about Lewinsky... even for Republicans... just like this isn't about Ford...

 

It's okay to blatantly lie under Oath.. you just gotta have a (D) next to your name.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Clinton should not have lied under oath, and his punishment should have been greater. Maybe even removal from office.

In this case, lying under oath means Kavanaugh is not SCOTUS material. His partisan rant is further evidence as such. His nomination should have been pulled already and since it has not, I hope the Senate votes no. His actions under oath are not becoming of a person looking for a seat on the highest court in the land. Plenty of other conservative judges out there that are more worthy of being called a Supreme Court Judge.

 

If she goes on MSNBC and says she never had sex, feel free to do so. She opened the door by doing that.

 

You can't equate the two scenarios.

In Clinton's case, you have one sworn legal deposition where he clearly states he did not sleep with Gennifer Flowers. In an another subsequent sworn deposition, he states that he did sleep with Gennifer Flowers. There is no getting around that one. He perjured himself and was thus rightly held accountable for said perjury. There's no getting out of that one. Even for the guy who coined the phrase "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

In Kavanaugh's case you have his sworn testimony against what some of his high school classmates claim that certain terms best suited for urban dictionary mean. That's not perjury. There is not a single conviction of perjury in American history given those circumstances, because it isn't perjury. It's that simple.

So don't give me the "two wrongs don't make a right" spiel. These aren't equals or anything resembling such.

 

I'm not entirely sure what this means:

 

You complain about how he's been treated and about a perjury trap, but if a lawyer and judge (educated at Yale!...as he reminded everyone) cannot avoid one when all he had to is be honest--and as azcat said contrite, that's on him. He handled it terribly yet will probably get the nomination anyway.