Should a high School incident be relevant 35 years later?

[Elysian]

well I'll bite

You say perjury, please point out specifics where K perjured himself

Anyone who believes the persecution of K is about justice is delusional.
The "plaintiff" accused K of being basically a stupid 17 year old, and when asked to provide proof she names 3 separate people who all deny it. People she named.

As Schumer said 23 minutes after K's nomination he'll "resist K with everything he's got", and also said K does not deserve the presumption of innocence. What a fucking nozzle, but not a surprise.

This about payback for Garland, and also the left is frankly scared to death the Supreme Court will no longer make up "rights" out of thin air.

Interesting that Joe "bite me" Biden started the practice of never confirming a SCOTUS nominee in the last year of a President's term.

LOL, payback is a bitch. Time for the Republicans to play hardball and vote K in.

Kavanaugh lied under oath about the stolen Dem emails, he lied under oath about his involvement in the GWB torture policy, and it can still be argued he lied about his involvement with Judge Pryor's nomination.


Those "rights out of thin air" were done under conservative courts. They aren't "out of thin air." If this were about payback for Garland, why would they have waited till Kavanaugh? Gorsuch sailed through confirmation.

Also, no one denied anything, they "don't recall."

[gwb72tii]

Should someone who perjures himself multiple times be a SCOTUS justice? Perjury IS a crime, and he had already perjured himself before any allegations came out.

well I'll bite

You say perjury, please point out specifics where K perjured himself

Anyone who believes the persecution of K is about justice is delusional.
The "plaintiff" accused K of being basically a stupid 17 year old, and when asked to provide proof she names 3 separate people who all deny it. People she named.

As Schumer said 23 minutes after K's nomination he'll "resist K with everything he's got", and also said K does not deserve the presumption of innocence. What a fucking nozzle, but not a surprise.

This about payback for Garland, and also the left is frankly scared to death the Supreme Court will no longer make up "rights" out of thin air.

Interesting that Joe "bite me" Biden started the practice of never confirming a SCOTUS nominee in the last year of a President's term.

LOL, payback is a bitch. Time for the Republicans to play hardball and vote K in.

[z31maniac]

Should someone who perjures himself multiple times be a SCOTUS justice? Perjury IS a crime, and he had already perjured himself before any allegations came out.

Nope.

My desire for "innocent until proven guilty" is in no way an endorsement of BK.

[Elysian]

Nope, your own words.

It's pretty clear that you think regardless if he committed the crime, he should be excluded from consideration. Whatever issues you have with him are not germane to this particular discussion, since it's about this allegation.

And my point is that if he didn't commit the crime, it should be inadmissible. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Should someone who perjures himself multiple times be a SCOTUS justice? Perjury IS a crime, and he had already perjured himself before any allegations came out.

[cale]

Oh you're ready to play again?

Bruh, I hate the left and the right AND the vocal minorities that seem to rule both of them these days.

What common sense are you speaking of? What exactly is your point?

Pick a side already, tiki torch or ski mask.

[Schnitzer318is]

I hate the left and the right AND the vocal minorities that seem to rule both of them these days.

Amen.

[mrsleeve]

.

And my point is that if he didn't commit the crime, it should be inadmissible. Why is this so hard to grasp?

Because it's a trump Nomination, and its replacing a shifty swing swing seat to a staunchaly conservative one.

It's a trump did it so it's wrong. The man. Could reach into a flooded river and put out 14 babies in a single motion and still be berated for it by the far left

[z31maniac]

The point isn't that he should be prosecuted, it is that he may have committed this crime and SCOTUS isn't a right.

Nope, your own words.

It's pretty clear that you think regardless if he committed the crime, he should be excluded from consideration. Whatever issues you have with him are not germane to this particular discussion, since it's about this allegation.

And my point is that if he didn't commit the crime, it should be inadmissible. Why is this so hard to grasp?

[z31maniac]

you realize this hearing was set up by the right, right?
the left asked for an investigation, the right wanted to rush to the hearing.
i get you hate "dems" and i can't blame you, but lets use some common sense.

Oh you're ready to play again?

Bruh, I hate the left and the right AND the vocal minorities that seem to rule both of them these days.

What common sense are you speaking of? What exactly is your point?

[saucers]

OMG! A college student admitted sometimes he had too many beers! NO WAI! THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!

And the point about the crime, is ENTIRELY the point. You're essentially saying that crime or not, an accusation should hold weight. Which is absolutely bonkers to me.

Are you really this incensed with blind hatred for anything on the right, you want to rid the US of "innocent until proven guilty" or the 6th Amendment?

you realize this hearing was set up by the right, right?
the left asked for an investigation, the right wanted to rush to the hearing.
i get you hate "dems" and i can't blame you, but lets use some common sense.

[parkerbink]

OMG! A college student admitted sometimes he had too many beers! NO WAI! THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!

And the point about the crime, is ENTIRELY the point. You're essentially saying that crime or not, an accusation should hold weight. Which is absolutely bonkers to me.

Are you really this incensed with blind hatred for anything on the right, you want to rid the US of "innocent until proven guilty" or the 6th Amendment?

I said nothing of the kind. To the contrary, I said without the allegations he does not belong. Reading comprehension, get you some.

The man has lied about his positions on several important issues the court will face.

The man has lied about his behavior as a young man. The man went to a job interview and poked his interviewers in the eye and is acting like he is entitled to this position.

This is about Brett K. It is not about anything else and B.K. does not belong on the Supreme Court.

[z31maniac]

Sure but what if they can't? Are you ok with a lifetime appointment for a guy that clearly has several issues?

I'm not talking about the sexual allegations. I'm talking about the fact he clearly had a serious drinking problem and is lying about it.

I'm talking about saying he has no issues with Roe but clearly does, etc.

OMG! A college student admitted sometimes he had too many beers! NO WAI! THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!

And the point about the crime, is ENTIRELY the point. You're essentially saying that crime or not, an accusation should hold weight. Which is absolutely bonkers to me.

Are you really this incensed with blind hatred for anything on the right, you want to rid the US of "innocent until proven guilty" or the 6th Amendment?

[parkerbink]

This exchange on it's own is disqualifying for a Supreme IMHO.

This process is a job interview, you don't talk back and ignore questions and put them back on the interviewer at a job interview.

Brett Kavanaugh likes beer, but not questions about his drinking habits

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-likes-beer-but-not-questions-about-his-drinking-habits/

[parkerbink]

Problem is he's lied about all manner of things, from stolen Dem emails to the meaning of well known words and phrases. He's crafted this alternate reality, and frankly isn't a believable person. He doesn't belong on the SCOTUS for that, without even touching these allegations.

I agree.

Pretty sure he said he did not attend partys on weekdays as parents and friends worked. In fact I believe he explicitly said he and his friends would often have a few beers after workouts.

You wouldn't want to lie about his lie would you.

If he does not end up getting the nomination you know Trump will nominate Amy Barret who has a more conservative record the BK. Tread lightly Democrats. You may end up getting what you wish.

Not sure what you are alleging. What lie am I lying about?

Also, at this point, Trump was going to appoint whoever he wanted, without a shitstorm like this (and even this might not prevent it) he's going to push through whoever he wants.

I'm not a Democrat, I'm someone that can see the shitshow for what it is. That Republicans can overlook any and all manner of bullshit this administration spews is scary indeed.

Congratulations, Republicans you have what you wanted and it is coming home to roost.

[naplesE30]

She said Brett, Judge & P.J. were at the party. He said he never drank on weekdays. This is a Thursday and he names all three.

hmmmmmm

Pretty sure he said he did not attend partys on weekdays as parents and friends worked. In fact I believe he explicitly said he and his friends would often have a few beers after workouts.

You wouldn't want to lie about his lie would you.

If he does not end up getting the nomination you know Trump will nominate Amy Barret who has a more conservative record the BK. Tread lightly Democrats. You may end up getting what you wish.