"I Know Brett Kavanaugh, But I Wouldn't Confirm Him"

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If I were a senator, I would not vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

These are words I write with no pleasure, but with deep sadness. Unlike many people who will read them with glee—as validating preexisting political, philosophical, or jurisprudential opposition to Kavanaugh’s nomination—I have no hostility to or particular fear of conservative jurisprudence. I have a long relationship with Kavanaugh, and I have always liked him. I have admired his career on the D.C. Circuit. I have spoken warmly of him. I have published him. I have vouched publicly for his character—more than once—and taken a fair bit of heat for doing so. I have also spent a substantial portion of my adult life defending the proposition that judicial nominees are entitled to a measure of decency from the Senate and that there should be norms of civility within a process that showed Kavanaugh none even before the current allegations arose.

This is an article I never imagined myself writing, that I never wanted to write, that I wish I could not write.

The article is from The Atlantic, which may scare off some of the more conservative posters on this forum, but it's written by a fellow of the Brookings Institution who has known Kavanaugh for a long time and often spoken highly of him. Most of the points in it have been made in various places here before, but it's nice to see them all tied up together, and I feel that it encapsulates my feelings on the matter pretty well.

Full Article Here
 

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Nice opinion. And I disagree with his assessment. When someone attacks your character, you are entitled, indeed required, to play offense. If he hadn't done so, he'd be answering questions about why such a tepid response, if you're so innocent??? I'm proud that the man has a backbone, as Justice Thomas does, as all the Constitutionalists have. You go, Your Honor.
 
Upvote 0

Saucy

King of CF
Supporter
Jul 5, 2005
46,663
19,814
Michigan
✟831,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I just keep remembering Chuck Schumer saying they will oppose Trump's nomination of Supreme Court judge by 'any means necessary.' I remember the day Trump was going to announce who his pick was and protestors were already outside of the Capital. They had professionally-made signs with his name on them. That said they were ready to oppose the nominee and had pre-made signs for everyone on Trump's list before they were even nominated.

During the last hearing, it was revealed the Democrats have already created websites and have URLs prepared to oppose the next judge Trump might appoint.

I witnessed the circus that the Democrats turned the hearings into. They NEVER gave Kavanaugh a change. They DID call him evil and lied to the American people, saying he will murder millions of people. They said he would repeal Roe vs. Wade, when he already stated he considered it set law. They made up these lies to stir up their base.

They staged protests and outbursts during the hearing. Protestors who were removed from the building were captured outside receiving money. All the chaos during the hearing was coordinated by the Democrats.

Kavanaugh hearing chaos coordinated by Schumer, top Dems

Even after sitting with every member of the Senate personally, and 4 days of hearings, and three months after being nominated, the Democrats pull a fast one. Right before it's time to vote, someone leaks that there's an accusation against him. And by golly, several more in rapid succession keep hitting, one more ridiculous than the next.

There are massive holes in Dr. Ford's story. The third accuser just this morning walked back several of her accusations. The New York Times wouldn't even print several accusations because they just weren't credible. The person who made up the yacht story recanted and apologized for making a mistake.

So, why in the world would I believe any Democrat at this point? When were they ever reasonable during this entire process? All they care about is stopping Trump's nominee. They're already prepared to take down the next person, whoever it may be, in case this doesn't work out.

I'm sorry, but I have rolled my eyes every single liberal media outlet decrying the same ridiculous things over and over again.

There is zero evidence against Kananaugh. An accusation means NOTHING at this point. And if it's true and it really did happen, the Democrats have CHEAPENED the whole process. From ridiculous Spartacus moments to outright lies and stalls from the left, I do hope Americans were paying attention and saw through all the noise and fake outrage.
 
Upvote 0

Gigimo

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2015
2,635
1,235
Ohio
✟96,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The article is from The Atlantic, which may scare off some of the more conservative posters on this forum, but it's written by a fellow of the Brookings Institution who has known Kavanaugh for a long time and often spoken highly of him. Most of the points in it have been made in various places here before, but it's nice to see them all tied up together, and I feel that it encapsulates my feelings on the matter pretty well.

Full Article Here

Sounds like his friend is a fool.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Willie T
Upvote 0

Aryeh Jay

Gone and hopefully forgotten.
Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
15,312
14,321
MI - Michigan
✟498,114.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
I just keep remembering Chuck Schumer saying they will oppose Trump's nomination of Supreme Court judge by 'any means necessary.' I remember the day Trump was going to announce who his pick was and protestors were already outside of the Capital. They had professionally-made signs with his name on them. That said they were ready to oppose the nominee and had pre-made signs for everyone on Trump's list before they were even nominated.

During the last hearing, it was revealed the Democrats have already created websites and have URLs prepared to oppose the next judge Trump might appoint.

I witnessed the circus that the Democrats turned the hearings into. They NEVER gave Kavanaugh a change. They DID call him evil and lied to the American people, saying he will murder millions of people. They said he would repeal Roe vs. Wade, when he already stated he considered it set law. They made up these lies to stir up their base.

They staged protests and outbursts during the hearing. Protestors who were removed from the building were captured outside receiving money. All the chaos during the hearing was coordinated by the Democrats.

Kavanaugh hearing chaos coordinated by Schumer, top Dems

Even after sitting with every member of the Senate personally, and 4 days of hearings, and three months after being nominated, the Democrats pull a fast one. Right before it's time to vote, someone leaks that there's an accusation against him. And by golly, several more in rapid succession keep hitting, one more ridiculous than the next.

There are massive holes in Dr. Ford's story. The third accuser just this morning walked back several of her accusations. The New York Times wouldn't even print several accusations because they just weren't credible. The person who made up the yacht story recanted and apologized for making a mistake.

So, why in the world would I believe any Democrat at this point? When were they ever reasonable during this entire process? All they care about is stopping Trump's nominee. They're already prepared to take down the next person, whoever it may be, in case this doesn't work out.

I'm sorry, but I have rolled my eyes every single liberal media outlet decrying the same ridiculous things over and over again.

There is zero evidence against Kananaugh. An accusation means NOTHING at this point. And if it's true and it really did happen, the Democrats have CHEAPENED the whole process. From ridiculous Spartacus moments to outright lies and stalls from the left, I do hope Americans were paying attention and saw through all the noise and fake outrage.

I just keep remembering Mitch McConnell saying they will oppose Obama's nomination of Supreme Court judge by 'any means necessary.' I remember the day Obama was going to announce who his pick was and protestors were already outside of the Capital…

Wow, it really does work both ways…
 
Upvote 0

Dan the deacon

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2018
823
386
65
Perry
✟28,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just keep remembering Mitch McConnell saying they will oppose Obama's nomination of Supreme Court judge by 'any means necessary.' I remember the day Obama was going to announce who his pick was and protestors were already outside of the Capital…

Wow, it really does work both ways…
Such happens and works if you are in the majority. It.does not work when you are in the minority. So.then you add lies hoping to sway enough of the majority..I doubt it will work this time. The majority will prevail.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Saucy
Upvote 0

Saucy

King of CF
Supporter
Jul 5, 2005
46,663
19,814
Michigan
✟831,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I just keep remembering Mitch McConnell saying they will oppose Obama's nomination of Supreme Court judge by 'any means necessary.' I remember the day Obama was going to announce who his pick was and protestors were already outside of the Capital…

Wow, it really does work both ways…
Completely different and you know it.
 
Upvote 0

Dan the deacon

Well-Known Member
Jul 10, 2018
823
386
65
Perry
✟28,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just keep remembering Mitch McConnell saying they will oppose Obama's nomination of Supreme Court judge by 'any means necessary.' I remember the day Obama was going to announce who his pick was and protestors were already outside of the Capital…

Wow, it really does work both ways…
They didn't oppose. They just didn't bring it up for a vote. That is the majorities option.
 
Upvote 0

Gigimo

Well-Known Member
Dec 6, 2015
2,635
1,235
Ohio
✟96,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just keep remembering Mitch McConnell saying they will oppose Obama's nomination of Supreme Court judge by 'any means necessary.' I remember the day Obama was going to announce who his pick was and protestors were already outside of the Capital…

Wow, it really does work both ways…

You mean these protesters?

iu
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,775
17,081
✟1,389,801.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Cavanaugh had a right to be angry and defend himself...however, I agree with the author's assessment on this point:

But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Even after sitting with every member of the Senate personally, and 4 days of hearings, and three months after being nominated, the Democrats pull a fast one. Right before it's time to vote, someone leaks that there's an accusation against him. And by golly, several more in rapid succession keep hitting, one more ridiculous than the next.

There are massive holes in Dr. Ford's story. The third accuser just this morning walked back several of her accusations. The New York Times wouldn't even print several accusations because they just weren't credible. The person who made up the yacht story recanted and apologized for making a mistake.

So, why in the world would I believe any Democrat at this point? When were they ever reasonable during this entire process? All they care about is stopping Trump's nominee. They're already prepared to take down the next person, whoever it may be, in case this doesn't work out.

I'm sorry, but I have rolled my eyes every single liberal media outlet decrying the same ridiculous things over and over again.

There is zero evidence against Kananaugh. An accusation means NOTHING at this point. And if it's true and it really did happen, the Democrats have CHEAPENED the whole process. From ridiculous Spartacus moments to outright lies and stalls from the left, I do hope Americans were paying attention and saw through all the noise and fake outrage.
Did you even bother to read the article? The author doesn't base his opposition to Kavanaugh on the accusations, but on his conduct in the face of them and his partisan statements during the hearing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Saucy

King of CF
Supporter
Jul 5, 2005
46,663
19,814
Michigan
✟831,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Cavanaugh had a right to be angry and defend himself...however, I agree with the author's assessment on this point:

But I cannot condone the partisanship—which was raw, undisguised, naked, and conspiratorial—from someone who asks for public faith as a dispassionate and impartial judicial actor. His performance was wholly inconsistent with the conduct we should expect from a member of the judiciary.
What about the wholly partisan attacks from the left? Should we expect all Democratic senators on the committee to retire now? Especially Feinstein, who leaked the letter, or Booker and his wild behavior? Booker is the one who called him evil. Should we strip him of his position because his behavior wasn't befitting a sitting Senator? The guy has decades of even temperament judiciary work behind him. He wasn't an acting judge during that hearing. He was defending his name and his life. There's a difference.

If he hadn't acted at all, they would've said different things about his temperament that disqualified him. No matter how he acted, it wouldn't have been good enough. Getting passionate and defending yourself against wholly partisan attacks doesn't disqualify him in the least.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Saucy

King of CF
Supporter
Jul 5, 2005
46,663
19,814
Michigan
✟831,860.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Did you even bother to read the article? The author doesn't base his opposition to Kavanaugh on the accusations, but on his conduct in the face of them and his partisan statements during the hearing.
It doesn't matter what it is. The very partisan people against him are acting no different. No matter how he acted, they would've said he doesn't qualify.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What about the wholly partisan attacks from the left? Should we expect all Democratic senators on the committee to retire now? Especially Feinstein, who leaked the letter, or Booker and his wild behavior? Booker is the one who called him evil. Should we strip him of his position because his behavior wasn't befitting a sitting Senator? The guy has decades of even temperament judiciary work behind him. He wasn't an acting judge during that hearing. He was defending his name and his life. There's a difference.
This makes no sense. The senators are not members of the judiciary branch and are not expected to be impartial arbiters. Kavanaugh was absolutely expected to conduct himself like a judge at the hearing - it was part of the interview process for the highest court in the country.

If he hadn't acted at all, they would've said different things about his temperament that disqualified him. No matter how he acted, it wouldn't have been good enough. Getting passionate and defending yourself against wholly partisan attacks doesn't disqualify him in the least.
Passionately defending himself isn't the problem. Passionately defending himself by lashing out in a partisan manner is the issue here. He could have easily defended himself in a passionate manner without spouting conspiracy theories and making partisan attacks. And I'm not sure how you could possibly know what the reaction would have been had he used a different approach.

It doesn't matter what it is. The very partisan people against him are acting no different. No matter how he acted, they would've said he doesn't qualify.
The author of the article was extremely supportive of Kavanaugh right up until the hearing and took quite a bit of public flack for his support. Have a read through his twitter if you don't believe me. Or just read the article. It'll take you five minutes.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,775
17,081
✟1,389,801.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What about the wholly partisan attacks from the left? Should we expect all Democratic senators on the committee to retire now? Especially Feinstein, who leaked the letter, or Booker and his wild behavior? Booker is the one who called him evil. Should we strip him of his position because his behavior wasn't befitting a sitting Senator? The guy has decades of even temperament judiciary work behind him. He wasn't an acting judge during that hearing. He was defending his name and his life. There's a difference.

If he hadn't acted at all, they would've said different things about his temperament that disqualified him. No matter how he acted, it wouldn't have been good enough. Getting passionate and defending yourself against wholly partisan attacks doesn't disqualify him in the least.

Saucy: What about the prior US Supreme Court Nominees who lashed out in a highly partisan manner? Oh wait, that hasn't happened until now.

Kavanaugh needs to own his behavior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Getting passionate and defending yourself against wholly partisan attacks doesn't disqualify him in the least.

He’s interviewing for a position where political impartiality is essential. For him to not be able to control his demeanor and even pretend to be impartial in the senate is certainly disqualifying. He’s trying to become a Supreme Court Judge, not a politician.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums