Reasons For or Against Kavanaugh's Confirmation

[Nous]

On another thread the venerable @Revoltingest asked the venerable question as to whether anyone has changed his/her mind about confirmation of judge Kavanaugh due to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. I wanted to address the question under separate cover here in order to not mix the topics too much.

I did not oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to the hearing, having read a couple dozen of his opinions and unsurprisingly finding nothing terribly objectionable in them, even though I vehemently disagree with a significant percentage of them. I don't like that he has premised some of his opinions on extra-Constitutional principals rather than case law.

My reconsideration about confirming him has less to do with Dr. Ford's testimony at the hearing than his testimony and behavior. I believe Ford, I do not believe she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else (she apparently named Kavanaugh in this assault years ago, and knew he and Mark Judge were drinking buddies in high school; there is no rational reason to conclude that she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else). Of great importance in assessing her credibility, I cannot discern that she has any incentive to lie or be deceptive on this matter. Indeed, she has everything to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward with her allegations. I am well aware of cases where a woman has lied about a sexual assault, even to the point that charges were brought. In those cases, the woman had great incentive to fabricate such allegations, and, further, had a history of large deceptions or very odd behavior. Ford does not resemble any of that, as far as I know.

In contrast, Kavanaugh has overwhelming incentive to deny all allegations of sexual misconduct, including possibly being subject to felony charges and impeachment from the bench.

The following points are some of the reasons I oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation at least as of today.

(1) As of right now, Trump and the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee have prevented the public and the rest of the Senate from having the information necessary to assess Kavanaugh's credibility in his testimony at the hearing on Thursday. For instance, we do not have sworn statements from Mark Judge clarifying his submitted letter. Judge should have testified at the hearing. The Committee should have secured sworn statements from other implicated persons. Reputable media report and quote multiple sources who contradict Kavanaugh's claims about his alcohol consumption in college. These reports, if true, impeach Kavanaugh's testimony, and we need such information in order to assess Kavanaugh's credibility.

The FBI investigation currently occurring may resolve all questions about his credibility, but unless and until that happens, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

(2) Several of Kavanaugh's statements in his testimony were apparently false or deceptive. For instance, his claims about the "drinking age" in Maryland when he was a senior in high school were evidently false--the minimum age to purchase alcohol in Maryland was raised to 21 at the end of his junior year when he was 17. Obviously this cannot be assumed to be a mere mistake about when a law was changed, as he knew he didn't walk into store and purchase beer in high school. To intentionally misrepresent under oath one's past illegal behavior is emphatically inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore he should not be confirmed.

(3) Kavanaugh's claims in his opening statement about the hearing being the product of a grand well-funded conspiracy involving "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" were baseless and outlandish, far beneath the dignity of the office he is seeking. I have never known any sitting judge make such comments publicly, much less under oath, much less while seeking a higher position. Justice Roberts has repeatedly assured us that the robes the members of the Court wear are black, not red or blue. And while that is not always strictly true, it is a praiseworthy and necessary goal. Kavanaugh has demonstrated the color of his robe is indelibly red, tinged with strange shades of paranoia. It doesn't belong on the Court.

(4) Kavanaugh's opposition to an FBI investigation in order to assess his and his accusers' credibility only raises suspicion about his credibility. A nominee who is unwilling to request an investigation necessary to determine credibility should not be confirmed.

(5) I am also concerned about what is in the many documents relating to Kavanaugh that the Committee is hiding.

So I say naw to Kavanaugh.

Other arguments for and against his confirmation are encouraged.


(Just to try to head off a couple of tactics commonly encountered in such discussion: No accuser is on trial, and accusations against a nominee to the Court need not meet the standard of a criminal case. And in case Lindsay Graham is reading this, it will not ruin Kavanaugh's life for him to remain in his current position on the Circuit Court. Lots of beer-loving sexual predators would love such a job.)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My opposition to K it twofold.

1) The Legislative Body forced a vote to impeach Bill Clinton strictly based on the fact he lied to Congress during an investigation. Which is illegal, and thus the impeachment vote.

We have clear evidence that K has lied, multiple instances, in his testimony to the Senate.

Since he is not yet ensconced in the Supreme Court? If lying to the Senate Investigative Committee is sufficient to trigger an Impeachment Vote?

Lying to the Senate is sufficient to reject him as Supreme Court Justice.

2) K's demeanor and comportment during the testimony last week, is demonstrative of a severely unstable personality.

If K was a female? There would be massive outcry from the Right, that he was hysterical, unfit, and worse.....

Sauce For The Goose, and all that.

Throwing a temper tantrum on National TV makes him absolutely unsuited for the Highest Court in the Land.

 

[Quetzal]

Kavanaugh has demonstrated the color of his robe is indelibly red, tinged with strange shades of paranoia. It doesn't belong on the Court.

This for me is really what cemented my opposition. He didn't even try to hide his political bias.

 

[Regiomontanus]

On another thread the venerable @Revoltingest asked the venerable question as to whether anyone has changed his/her mind about confirmation of judge Kavanaugh due to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. I wanted to address the question under separate cover here in order to not mix the topics too much.

I did not oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to the hearing, having read a couple dozen of his opinions and unsurprisingly finding nothing terribly objectionable in them, even though I vehemently disagree with a significant percentage of them. I don't like that he has premised some of his opinions on extra-Constitutional principals rather than case law.

My reconsideration about confirming him has less to do with Dr. Ford's testimony at the hearing than his testimony and behavior. I believe Ford, I do not believe she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else (she apparently named Kavanaugh in this assault years ago, and knew he and Mark Judge were drinking buddies in high school; there is no rational reason to conclude that she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else). Of great importance in assessing her credibility, I cannot discern that she has any incentive to lie or be deceptive on this matter. Indeed, she has everything to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward with her allegations. I am well aware of cases where a woman has lied about a sexual assault, even to the point that charges were brought. In those cases, the woman had great incentive to fabricate such allegations, and, further, had a history of large deceptions or very odd behavior. Ford does not resemble any of that, as far as I know.

In contrast, Kavanaugh has overwhelming incentive to deny all allegations of sexual misconduct, including possibly being subject to felony charges and impeachment from the bench.

The following points are some of the reasons I oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation at least as of today.

(1) As of right now, Trump and the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee have prevented the public and the rest of the Senate from having the information necessary to assess Kavanaugh's credibility in his testimony at the hearing on Thursday. For instance, we do not have sworn statements from Mark Judge clarifying his submitted letter. Judge should have testified at the hearing. The Committee should have secured sworn statements from other implicated persons. Reputable media report and quote multiple sources who contradict Kavanaugh's claims about his alcohol consumption in college. These reports, if true, impeach Kavanaugh's testimony, and we need such information in order to assess Kavanaugh's credibility.

The FBI investigation currently occurring may resolve all questions about his credibility, but unless and until that happens, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

(2) Several of Kavanaugh's statements in his testimony were apparently false or deceptive. For instance, his claims about the "drinking age" in Maryland when he was a senior in high school were evidently false--the minimum age to purchase alcohol in Maryland was raised to 21 at the end of his junior year when he was 17. Obviously this cannot be assumed to be a mere mistake about when a law was changed, as he knew he didn't walk into store and purchase beer in high school. To intentionally misrepresent under oath one's past illegal behavior is emphatically inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore he should not be confirmed.

(3) Kavanaugh's claims in his opening statement about the hearing being the product of a grand well-funded conspiracy involving "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" were baseless and outlandish, far beneath the dignity of the office he is seeking. I have never known any sitting judge make such comments publicly, much less under oath, much less while seeking a higher position. Justice Roberts has repeatedly assured us that the robes the members of the Court wear are black, not red or blue. And while that is not always strictly true, it is a praiseworthy and necessary goal. Kavanaugh has demonstrated the color of his robe is indelibly red, tinged with strange shades of paranoia. It doesn't belong on the Court.

(4) Kavanaugh's opposition to an FBI investigation in order to assess his and his accusers' credibility only raises suspicion about his credibility. A nominee who is unwilling to request an investigation necessary to determine credibility should not be confirmed.

(5) I am also concerned about what is in the many documents relating to Kavanaugh that the Committee is hiding.

So I say naw to Kavanaugh.

Other arguments for and against his confirmation are encouraged.


(Just to try to head off a couple of tactics commonly encountered in such discussion: No accuser is on trial, and accusations against a nominee to the Court need not meet the standard of a criminal case. And in case Lindsay Graham is reading this, it will not ruin Kavanaugh's life for him to remain in his current position on the Circuit Court. Lots of beer-loving sexual predators would love such a job.)

Yes, 3) on your list in particular gives me pause about Kavanaugh. He acts too partisian and does not seem to have the temperment nor good judgement (no pun intended!) for a spot on the USSC.

Also, Dr. Ford came across as very credible. I believe her.

 

[sun rise]

My issue is two-fold.

One, in an alternate universe where Merrick Garland's nomination was treated as all others have been in the past, I would have given the same consideration to the current nominee. But since the right does not care about virtue, preferring power, my reaction is to say that "you started it. We'll end it because we are not weak patsies."

Second, and maybe stronger, is Kavanaugh's naked partisan, paranoid rant. To me he's a lying political hack who would use being a Justice as a platform to issue political opinions, not ones based on the law.

Add to that his lying about his drinking etc when he was young. If he had come out and admitted that once, like a lot of us, he was young and stupid and did things he bitterly regrets doing, I would have cut him slack for his honesty. And that for the reason that I did utterly stupid things when I was young that I now regret. To deny his regret would be to deny my own. But of course he did not do that.

But add together both the right's naked use of power over all other considerations and his lying and I'm not only opposed to his nomination but am contributing money to Democratic candidates which I've not done for a long, long time.

 

[fantome profane]

My main objection to Kavanaugh has always been his extreme view of executive power. And during the first round of questioning he was extremely evasive on this and other matters.

And this was before the accusations of sexual assault and misconduct.

During that hearing we saw more dishonesty and evasion. We saw not only political bias but wild paranoid delusional conspiracy theories. He is not only unfit to be on the Supreme Court, he is unfit for the job he has now.

 

[Valjean]

I suspect he's a Powell.

 

[sealchan]

On another thread the venerable @Revoltingest asked the venerable question as to whether anyone has changed his/her mind about confirmation of judge Kavanaugh due to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. I wanted to address the question under separate cover here in order to not mix the topics too much.

I did not oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to the hearing, having read a couple dozen of his opinions and unsurprisingly finding nothing terribly objectionable in them, even though I vehemently disagree with a significant percentage of them. I don't like that he has premised some of his opinions on extra-Constitutional principals rather than case law.

My reconsideration about confirming him has less to do with Dr. Ford's testimony at the hearing than his testimony and behavior. I believe Ford, I do not believe she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else (she apparently named Kavanaugh in this assault years ago, and knew he and Mark Judge were drinking buddies in high school; there is no rational reason to conclude that she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else). Of great importance in assessing her credibility, I cannot discern that she has any incentive to lie or be deceptive on this matter. Indeed, she has everything to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward with her allegations. I am well aware of cases where a woman has lied about a sexual assault, even to the point that charges were brought. In those cases, the woman had great incentive to fabricate such allegations, and, further, had a history of large deceptions or very odd behavior. Ford does not resemble any of that, as far as I know.

In contrast, Kavanaugh has overwhelming incentive to deny all allegations of sexual misconduct, including possibly being subject to felony charges and impeachment from the bench.

The following points are some of the reasons I oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation at least as of today.

(1) As of right now, Trump and the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee have prevented the public and the rest of the Senate from having the information necessary to assess Kavanaugh's credibility in his testimony at the hearing on Thursday. For instance, we do not have sworn statements from Mark Judge clarifying his submitted letter. Judge should have testified at the hearing. The Committee should have secured sworn statements from other implicated persons. Reputable media report and quote multiple sources who contradict Kavanaugh's claims about his alcohol consumption in college. These reports, if true, impeach Kavanaugh's testimony, and we need such information in order to assess Kavanaugh's credibility.

The FBI investigation currently occurring may resolve all questions about his credibility, but unless and until that happens, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

(2) Several of Kavanaugh's statements in his testimony were apparently false or deceptive. For instance, his claims about the "drinking age" in Maryland when he was a senior in high school were evidently false--the minimum age to purchase alcohol in Maryland was raised to 21 at the end of his junior year when he was 17. Obviously this cannot be assumed to be a mere mistake about when a law was changed, as he knew he didn't walk into store and purchase beer in high school. To intentionally misrepresent under oath one's past illegal behavior is emphatically inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore he should not be confirmed.

(3) Kavanaugh's claims in his opening statement about the hearing being the product of a grand well-funded conspiracy involving "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" were baseless and outlandish, far beneath the dignity of the office he is seeking. I have never known any sitting judge make such comments publicly, much less under oath, much less while seeking a higher position. Justice Roberts has repeatedly assured us that the robes the members of the Court wear are black, not red or blue. And while that is not always strictly true, it is a praiseworthy and necessary goal. Kavanaugh has demonstrated the color of his robe is indelibly red, tinged with strange shades of paranoia. It doesn't belong on the Court.

(4) Kavanaugh's opposition to an FBI investigation in order to assess his and his accusers' credibility only raises suspicion about his credibility. A nominee who is unwilling to request an investigation necessary to determine credibility should not be confirmed.

(5) I am also concerned about what is in the many documents relating to Kavanaugh that the Committee is hiding.

So I say naw to Kavanaugh.

Other arguments for and against his confirmation are encouraged.


(Just to try to head off a couple of tactics commonly encountered in such discussion: No accuser is on trial, and accusations against a nominee to the Court need not meet the standard of a criminal case. And in case Lindsay Graham is reading this, it will not ruin Kavanaugh's life for him to remain in his current position on the Circuit Court. Lots of beer-loving sexual predators would love such a job.)

I just want to point out here that this is all going to reflect on the Republicans and they are the one's who need to think about what sort of example they are showing if they allow anything but a reasonable investigation to happen. Already Kavanaugh is polarizing in the sense that he is a conservative (nothing wrong about that) but also that this marks the completion of the Republican effort to create a conservative majority. If they put Kavanaugh through and later there is growing evidence that he is a teenage sexual offender, then the Republicans will take all the heat. Do they want that heat?

Given this great tipping point, they should see the great wisdom of not only allowing a thorough investigation but also allowing the process to pass over the election day (if it needs to). Memories of their stunt with Obama's last nominee plus the reason they gave for that delay (well, we need to see what the American people have to say at the next election) just sets them up to look like partisan players. You can only play to your base for so long before it bites you. The greater portion of America is not any one party but about equally three parties Republican, Democrat and Independent. If you play to heavily to one you create stronger "enemies" of the others.

 

[Nakosis]

On another thread the venerable @Revoltingest asked the venerable question as to whether anyone has changed his/her mind about confirmation of judge Kavanaugh due to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. I wanted to address the question under separate cover here in order to not mix the topics too much.

I did not oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation prior to the hearing, having read a couple dozen of his opinions and unsurprisingly finding nothing terribly objectionable in them, even though I vehemently disagree with a significant percentage of them. I don't like that he has premised some of his opinions on extra-Constitutional principals rather than case law.

My reconsideration about confirming him has less to do with Dr. Ford's testimony at the hearing than his testimony and behavior. I believe Ford, I do not believe she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else (she apparently named Kavanaugh in this assault years ago, and knew he and Mark Judge were drinking buddies in high school; there is no rational reason to conclude that she has mistaken Kavanaugh for someone else). Of great importance in assessing her credibility, I cannot discern that she has any incentive to lie or be deceptive on this matter. Indeed, she has everything to lose and nothing to gain by coming forward with her allegations. I am well aware of cases where a woman has lied about a sexual assault, even to the point that charges were brought. In those cases, the woman had great incentive to fabricate such allegations, and, further, had a history of large deceptions or very odd behavior. Ford does not resemble any of that, as far as I know.

In contrast, Kavanaugh has overwhelming incentive to deny all allegations of sexual misconduct, including possibly being subject to felony charges and impeachment from the bench.

The following points are some of the reasons I oppose Kavanaugh's confirmation at least as of today.

(1) As of right now, Trump and the Republican majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee have prevented the public and the rest of the Senate from having the information necessary to assess Kavanaugh's credibility in his testimony at the hearing on Thursday. For instance, we do not have sworn statements from Mark Judge clarifying his submitted letter. Judge should have testified at the hearing. The Committee should have secured sworn statements from other implicated persons. Reputable media report and quote multiple sources who contradict Kavanaugh's claims about his alcohol consumption in college. These reports, if true, impeach Kavanaugh's testimony, and we need such information in order to assess Kavanaugh's credibility.

The FBI investigation currently occurring may resolve all questions about his credibility, but unless and until that happens, Kavanaugh should not be confirmed.

(2) Several of Kavanaugh's statements in his testimony were apparently false or deceptive. For instance, his claims about the "drinking age" in Maryland when he was a senior in high school were evidently false--the minimum age to purchase alcohol in Maryland was raised to 21 at the end of his junior year when he was 17. Obviously this cannot be assumed to be a mere mistake about when a law was changed, as he knew he didn't walk into store and purchase beer in high school. To intentionally misrepresent under oath one's past illegal behavior is emphatically inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore he should not be confirmed.

(3) Kavanaugh's claims in his opening statement about the hearing being the product of a grand well-funded conspiracy involving "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" were baseless and outlandish, far beneath the dignity of the office he is seeking. I have never known any sitting judge make such comments publicly, much less under oath, much less while seeking a higher position. Justice Roberts has repeatedly assured us that the robes the members of the Court wear are black, not red or blue. And while that is not always strictly true, it is a praiseworthy and necessary goal. Kavanaugh has demonstrated the color of his robe is indelibly red, tinged with strange shades of paranoia. It doesn't belong on the Court.

(4) Kavanaugh's opposition to an FBI investigation in order to assess his and his accusers' credibility only raises suspicion about his credibility. A nominee who is unwilling to request an investigation necessary to determine credibility should not be confirmed.

(5) I am also concerned about what is in the many documents relating to Kavanaugh that the Committee is hiding.

So I say naw to Kavanaugh.

Other arguments for and against his confirmation are encouraged.


(Just to try to head off a couple of tactics commonly encountered in such discussion: No accuser is on trial, and accusations against a nominee to the Court need not meet the standard of a criminal case. And in case Lindsay Graham is reading this, it will not ruin Kavanaugh's life for him to remain in his current position on the Circuit Court. Lots of beer-loving sexual predators would love such a job.)

Just step by step as I have time to review your reasons,

1. Judge made a signed statement, it's a felony to provide false statements in an investigation from what I've read. Having Judge testify does nothing legally to hold him any further accountable. Also I don't blame him for not wanting to become part of the circus.

2. The law about drinking just recently changed at the time. Maybe he wasn't aware of it. Or maybe he was and his memory is confused about exactly when.

3. The activist who confronted him in the elevator was part of the Center for Popular Democracy. This is a group the is funded by the likes of Soros. Soros is well know for his attempts to manipulate the politics of countries. So IMO, it's not unreasonable to see this as part of a conspiracy to undermine the Republican party.

4. I'm not sure about 4 yet I mean as far as Kavanaugh's reasoning except that their is no real reason to think at this point an FBI investigation will turn up anything new. However it does provide additional time for Democrats to find other ways of stalling the vote. The purpose of this event for the Democrats seems to be to try and stall until the midterms in the hopes the Democrats will take control of the Senate.

5. I don't know what they are hiding. Could be irrelevant to the case or not. While people are free to speculate as to the reason, I don't see a lack of information as a reason to decide one way or the other at this point.

 

[Mindmaster]

This for me is really what cemented my opposition. He didn't even try to hide his political bias.

Or is it that he's just not hiding his beliefs and values?

Certain moral, spiritual, or professional values are going to indelibly make you appear somewhere in the political spectrum but it's not all so cut and dry. It's likely that his values are his own, and the party just seems to line up. Presuming he's down with everything on the Republican platform is projecting to some degree -- no one lines up like this, in reality.

Anyway, who here, being presented of information of Kavanaugh's innocence, would support him? Yeah, probably not many, because muh Republican. To me, he's innocent until proven otherwise and I'm not worried about the partisan angle because it's like saying, "Oh, we've appointed our party picks before and now we're mad that you did." It's hypocritical -- as if a Democratic President is ever going to nominate a Republican 99% of the time. It's your party's job to win that Presidential race to get their picks; this just mounts to whining after the defeat which is nothing that I respect. I think the FBI investigations are a huge waste of time because they'll not change the vote.

Anyway, I'm far less worried about conservative versus liberal picks -- conservatives want to keep things the same mostly, liberals want to jack everything up. I don't know if I want people doing that at the SCOTUS level where much of the decision making, historically, is based on previous rulings.

 

[Mindmaster]

Other arguments for and against his confirmation are encouraged.

I don't believe Ford, but that's because she hasn't presented any evidence beyond her fragmented as **** memory. Basically, any detail you could remember or need to know about this seems to be a big black void in her mind. That doesn't leave me with much to accept or believe.

We've all had terrible experiences at one point or another in our lives and we certainly remember the where, when, how, who, and what happened. I've received more information from 3rd parties in conversation about other people's tragedies than she knows of her own. So, Occam's Razor, she's probably faking it.

That doesn't make Kavanaugh someone you can't criticize on his own merits or perceived lack thereof, but the Dems didn't bother. Anyway, most of his "antics" are nothing more than a typical youth of the time would have been involved in. People seem to forget how their <21 year old mind used to function. Fortunately, I don't suffer from this deficiency. It was all about getting laid, drinking, hobbies, and sweating some seriously underpaying jobs. So, the short of it to me is -- the Dems are mad because he wasn't a square and that doesn't fit their mental idea of SCOTUS justice. What does that have to do with him now? Nothing... Judge Kavanaugh has undoubtedly grown up by now.

So the arguments are:

1) Let's not nominate him because I trust Ford. Even though there is no reason to do so, at least by evidence.

2) Let's not nominate him because of youthful exuberance. Even though most people grow out of this, and no doubt so did he.

3) Let's not nominate him because of information that is confidential or being kept from the public. It's obvious there is information that cannot be given because the government has a fundamental duty to protect citizens.

4) Let's just go with Republican, and stop prancing about as if there is something that's going to change if Kavanaugh was completely exonerated.

 

[pearl]

My reconsideration about confirming him has less to do with Dr. Ford's testimony at the hearing than his testimony and behavior

I agree 100%. It is his temperament along with his transparent bias that makes me believe he is not Supreme Court material.

"Perhaps we didn't do too good a job teaching the importance of preserving democracy by an enlightened civic discourse," he said. "In the first part of this century we're seeing the death and decline of democracy."

Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy on Discourse Over Kavanaugh: We're Seeing the Death and Decline of Democracy

 

[Regiomontanus]

Just step by step as I have time to review your reasons,

1. Judge made a signed statement, it's a felony to provide false statements in an investigation from what I've read. Having Judge testify does nothing legally to hold him any further accountable. Also I don't blame him for not wanting to become part of the circus.

2. The law about drinking just recently changed at the time. Maybe he wasn't aware of it. Or maybe he was and his memory is confused about exactly when.

3. The activist who confronted him in the elevator was part of the Center for Popular Democracy. This is a group the is funded by the likes of Soros. Soros is well know for his attempts to manipulate the politics of countries. So IMO, it's not unreasonable to see this as part of a conspiracy to undermine the Republican party.

4. I'm not sure about 4 yet I mean as far as Kavanaugh's reasoning except that their is no real reason to think at this point an FBI investigation will turn up anything new. However it does provide additional time for Democrats to find other ways of stalling the vote. The purpose of this event for the Democrats seems to be to try and stall until the midterms in the hopes the Democrats will take control of the Senate.

5. I don't know what they are hiding. Could be irrelevant to the case or not. While people are free to speculate as to the reason, I don't see a lack of information as a reason to decide one way or the other at this point.

As for 1), not quite. His lawyer submitted a statement, signed by Judge, that had the latter's resonses on itit - but written by the lawyer. That is not the same as giving direct replies to questions under oath. What is he trying to hide anyway? It seems to me that any fair impartial observer would agree that he should be questioned directly (which is finally happening).

 

[sealchan]

Although there is plenty of motivation on the part of the Democratic party to not approve this nomination...there is no evidence that the Democrats have organized any hidden attempts at derailing this nomination. The fact that elected Republican officials have said that there is goes against the credibility of the party as a whole at this point. They are like Dhritrashtra and Duryodhana...they do not fully understand how they are furthering their own destruction. The Right is diving right into a hole at this point.

 

[sealchan]

I want to know more about July 1, 1982.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Perhaps we didn't do too good a job teaching the importance of preserving democracy by an enlightened civic discourse," he said. "In the first part of this century we're seeing the death and decline of democracy."

Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy on Discourse Over Kavanaugh: We're Seeing the Death and Decline of Democracy

Ever since I began watching government, democracy (the kind we have) has always
been threatened. Many think it's gotten worse, but I don't think so. Even when things
have been less rancorous, largely ignored threats were pressing, eg, diminished right
to a jury trial, massive increase in imprisonment, Nixon being pardoned by Ford.
We've survived those, & I'll go out on a limb to say that we'll survive Trump's reign.
The odds are on my side.
Anyone want to bet against me on this?

 

[LuisDantas]

I suspect he's a Powell.

What?

 

[sealchan]

Ever since I began watching government, democracy (the kind we have) has always
been threatened. Many think it's gotten worse, but I don't think so. Even when things
have been less rancorous, largely ignored threats were pressing, eg, diminished right
to a jury trial, massive increase in imprisonment, Nixon being pardoned by Ford.
We've survived those, & I'll go out on a limb to say that we'll survive Trump's reign.
The odds are on my side.
Anyone want to bet against me on this?

I'm with you...scared, but with you.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So the arguments are:

1) Let's not nominate him because I trust Ford. Even though there is no reason to do so, at least by evidence.

2) Let's not nominate him because of youthful exuberance. Even though most people grow out of this, and no doubt so did he.

3) Let's not nominate him because of information that is confidential or being kept from the public. It's obvious there is information that cannot be given because the government has a fundamental duty to protect citizens.

4) Let's just go with Republican, and stop prancing about as if there is something that's going to change if Kavanaugh was completely exonerated.

You left out the fact he LIED Under Oath -- about multiple things -- before a Senate Investigation.

That is illegal. If we can vote to impeach a SITTING president because of such a lie?

We can CERTAINLY not put in a proven liar for Supreme Court.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Although there is plenty of motivation on the part of the Democratic party to not approve this nomination...there is no evidence that the Democrats have organized any hidden attempts at derailing this nomination. The fact that elected Republican officials have said that there is goes against the credibility of the party as a whole at this point. They are like Dhritrashtra and Duryodhana...they do not fully understand how they are furthering their own destruction. The Right is diving right into a hole at this point.

Exactly! The opposition is absolutely NOT hidden. It's clear, and in plain sight.