WWTBAM Bored

If you think anger while defending oneself against grotesque charges diminishes one's ability to interpret, evaluate, uphold constitutional law, you're a liar or a sociopath. That would disqualify 99.9 percent of anyone holding a job. Be fucking serious, ___wits.

Beebs52 wrote:If you think anger while defending oneself against grotesque charges diminishes one's ability to interpret, evaluate, uphold constitutional law, you're a liar or a sociopath. That would disqualify 99.9 percent of anyone holding a job. Be fucking serious, ___wits.

The issue isn't just his anger. It's the purely partisan nature of his anger. How can he be expected to rule impartially on, say, a gerrymandering case after that outburst? --Bob

Beebs52 wrote:If you think anger while defending oneself against grotesque charges diminishes one's ability to interpret, evaluate, uphold constitutional law, you're a liar or a sociopath. That would disqualify 99.9 percent of anyone holding a job. Be fucking serious, ___wits.

Over 99.9% of the public are disqualified from consideration as Supreme Court Justices for a whole lot of reasons. If Kavanaugh were working at McDonalds, he would have been fired on the spot for his tirade and no one would have said a word about it. We should expect the best conduct from our Supreme Court justices. It's called judicial temperament.

As one judge put it:

To be a good judge and a good umpire, it’s important to have the proper demeanor. Really important, I think. To walk in the others’ shoes, whether it be the other litigants, the litigants in the case, the other judges. To understand them. To keep our emotions in check. To be calm amidst the storm. On the bench, to put it in the vernacular, don’t be a jerk. I think that’s important. To be a good umpire and a good judge, don’t be a jerk. In your opinions, to demonstrate civility—I think that’s important as well. To show, to help display, that you are trying to make the decision impartially and dispassionately based on the law and not based on your emotions. That we’re not the bigger than the game…There’s a danger of arrogance, as for umpires and referees, but also for judges. And I would say that danger grows the more time you’re on the bench. As one of my colleagues puts it, you become more like yourself—and that can be a problem.

That judge was Brett Kavanaugh.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... -partisan/

Most people aren't being railroaded politically during a job interview, nor participating in a kangaroo trial.
And, you are lying or insane if you try to spin again. Or, craven, disingenuous, creepy. Good luck with that. No. Really.

I believe Kavanaugh was under the influence of alcohol during his rant and questioning. Several of his statements have already been proven false to boot, e.g. that he got into Yale with no help; in fact, he was a legacy admission.

Bob Juch wrote:I believe Kavanaugh was under the influence of alcohol during his rant and questioning. Several of his statements have already been proven false to boot, e.g. that he got into Yale with no help; in fact, he was a legacy admission.

My kids were OU legacies and could have been denied. but they were good students.Legacy means nothing. If you're a shit student you're denied. Did your kids apply to your college?

Beebs52 wrote:Most people aren't being railroaded politically during a job interview, nor participating in a kangaroo trial.
And, you are lying or insane if you try to spin again. Or, craven, disingenuous, creepy. Good luck with that. No. Really.

A kangaroo trial would be one in which the fact finders aren't interested in a full and fair investigation to get at the truth, but insist on reaching a preordained outcome without investigation. It's true that describes one side of Thursday's hearing, but that side was Kavanaugh's. --Bob

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opin ... insburg.ht
ml
Too funny

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Most people aren't being railroaded politically during a job interview, nor participating in a kangaroo trial.
And, you are lying or insane if you try to spin again. Or, craven, disingenuous, creepy. Good luck with that. No. Really.

A kangaroo trial would be one in which the fact finders aren't interested in a full and fair investigation to get at the truth, but insist on reaching a preordained outcome without investigation. It's true that describes one side of Thursday's hearing, but that side was Kavanaugh's. --Bob

A kangaroo trial is what the dems are orchestrating right now. Even before the results of the 7th investigation are known. Grow up, bob-tel, for God's sake, grow up.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:Most people aren't being railroaded politically during a job interview, nor participating in a kangaroo trial.
And, you are lying or insane if you try to spin again. Or, craven, disingenuous, creepy. Good luck with that. No. Really.

A kangaroo trial would be one in which the fact finders aren't interested in a full and fair investigation to get at the truth, but insist on reaching a preordained outcome without investigation. It's true that describes one side of Thursday's hearing, but that side was Kavanaugh's. --Bob

A kangaroo trial is what the dems are orchestrating right now. Even before the results of the 7th investigation are known. Grow up, bob-tel, for God's sake, grow up.

The Democrats are not the ones trying to limit the scope of the FBI investigation (supposedly, they still haven't talked to Dr. Ford and may not because of orders from the White House). Grow up, Flock, for God's sake, grow up.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:A kangaroo trial would be one in which the fact finders aren't interested in a full and fair investigation to get at the truth, but insist on reaching a preordained outcome without investigation. It's true that describes one side of Thursday's hearing, but that side was Kavanaugh's. --Bob

A kangaroo trial is what the dems are orchestrating right now. Even before the results of the 7th investigation are known. Grow up, bob-tel, for God's sake, grow up.

The Democrats are not the ones trying to limit the scope of the FBI investigation (supposedly, they still haven't talked to Dr. Ford and may not because of orders from the White House). Grow up, Flock, for God's sake, grow up.

How long should it go? A year? I'm looking forward to the investigations into the Supreme Court, Judiciary Committee, Senate and House. Popcorn all around.

Beebs52 wrote: How long should it go? A year?

I wish you and Flock would make up your minds. Are the Democrats trying to railroad Kavanaugh in a kangaroo trial or drag things out forever? The answer seems to change from post to post.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: How long should it go? A year?

I wish you and Flock would make up your minds. Are the Democrats trying to railroad Kavanaugh in a kangaroo trial or drag things out forever? The answer seems to change from post to post.

The "trial" was last week lest you have forgotten. Stop being such a silly billy.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I believe Kavanaugh was under the influence of alcohol during his rant and questioning. Several of his statements have already been proven false to boot, e.g. that he got into Yale with no help; in fact, he was a legacy admission.

My kids were OU legacies and could have been denied. but they were good students.Legacy means nothing. If you're a shit student you're denied. Did your kids apply to your college?

Are you saying being a legacy has absolutely nothing to do with admission?

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:I believe Kavanaugh was under the influence of alcohol during his rant and questioning. Several of his statements have already been proven false to boot, e.g. that he got into Yale with no help; in fact, he was a legacy admission.

My kids were OU legacies and could have been denied. but they were good students.Legacy means nothing. If you're a shit student you're denied. Did your kids apply to your college?

Are you saying being a legacy has absolutely nothing to do with admission?

If you're a shit student it does. Grow up.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: My kids were OU legacies and could have been denied. but they were good students.Legacy means nothing. If you're a shit student you're denied. Did your kids apply to your college?

Are you saying being a legacy has absolutely nothing to do with admission?

If you're a shit student it does. Grow up.

Kavanaugh testified that he got into Yale solely because he was a good student. So that's a lie?

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Are you saying being a legacy has absolutely nothing to do with admission?

If you're a shit student it does. Grow up.

Kavanaugh testified that he got into Yale solely because he was a good student. So that's a lie?

So let's dissect the statement. Do you actually really want to? If he was a retard he wouldn't be there. Grow up.

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Are you saying being a legacy has absolutely nothing to do with admission?

If you're a shit student it does. Grow up.

Kavanaugh testified that he got into Yale solely because he was a good student. So that's a lie?

I do not have the transcript before me, but my recollection is that he stated that he got into Yale Law School because of grades et al. It was part of the questioning from the senator from Hawaii, including the funny little bit about whether Yale or Georgetown had the best law school. Ivy League law schools are famous for limiting the admissions for students from the undergraduate school. Are you alleging a legacy law school admission?

Appa23 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Beebs52 wrote: If you're a shit student it does. Grow up.

Kavanaugh testified that he got into Yale solely because he was a good student. So that's a lie?

I do not have the transcript before me, but my recollection is that he stated that he got into Yale Law School because of grades et al. It was part of the questioning from the senator from Hawaii, including the funny little bit about whether Yale or Georgetown had the best law school. Ivy League law schools are famous for limiting the admissions for students from the undergraduate school. Are you alleging a legacy law school admission?

He went to Yale College as well. I'm not sure which was the subject of the discussion.

Perhaps I could have gotten into Yale as a legacy too. Not only did my father go to school there (but for management courses paid for by the Navy), but Elihu Yale is my 1st cousin 9x removed.

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:If you think anger while defending oneself against grotesque charges diminishes one's ability to interpret, evaluate, uphold constitutional law, you're a liar or a sociopath. That would disqualify 99.9 percent of anyone holding a job. Be fucking serious, ___wits.

The issue isn't just his anger. It's the purely partisan nature of his anger. How can he be expected to rule impartially on, say, a gerrymandering case after that outburst?

Uhh, it's only Democrats who are grotesquely attacking him!

Then there's Hilz talking about judicial temperament while talking about believing women's stories during an interview. Can any of yas see the irony? Ever? Is she senile?

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:If you think anger while defending oneself against grotesque charges diminishes one's ability to interpret, evaluate, uphold constitutional law, you're a liar or a sociopath. That would disqualify 99.9 percent of anyone holding a job. Be fucking serious, ___wits.

The issue isn't just his anger. It's the purely partisan nature of his anger. How can he be expected to rule impartially on, say, a gerrymandering case after that outburst?

Uhh, it's only Democrats who are grotesquely attacking him!

Well, no. It's the woman who testified persuasively that he attempted to rape her. And I wouldn't call her testimony grotesque. I'd call it her bravely deciding to perform her civic duty.

And let's not forget, this wasn't Kavanaugh's spur-of-the-moment response to questioning. It was his opening statement. He had days to reflect upon it and prepare it. Framing this as a partisan attack was a considered decision on Kavanaugh's part -- even Clarence Thomas never went that far. --Bob

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:If you think anger while defending oneself against grotesque charges diminishes one's ability to interpret, evaluate, uphold constitutional law, you're a liar or a sociopath. That would disqualify 99.9 percent of anyone holding a job. Be fucking serious, ___wits.

The issue isn't just his anger. It's the purely partisan nature of his anger. How can he be expected to rule impartially on, say, a gerrymandering case after that outburst?

Uhh, it's only Democrats who are grotesquely attacking him!

That may be true on screens, Esto. I don't know what "grotesquely attacking" means, but two local Republicans (that I know of) have called Sen. Gardner and urged him to vote No. I guess that's not grotesquely attacking.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:The issue isn't just his anger. It's the purely partisan nature of his anger. How can he be expected to rule impartially on, say, a gerrymandering case after that outburst?

Uhh, it's only Democrats who are grotesquely attacking him!

That may be true on screens, Esto. I don't know what "grotesquely attacking" means, but two local Republicans (that I know of) have called Sen. Gardner and urged him to vote No. I guess that's not grotesquely attacking.

I used the words grotesque charges if that helps at all to clarify. I'm sure presumption of inno....oh never mind. It doesn't really matter anymore.

Bob78164 wrote: It's the woman who testified persuasively that he attempted to rape her. And I wouldn't call her testimony grotesque. I'd call it her bravely deciding to perform her civic duty.

And let's not forget, this wasn't Kavanaugh's spur-of-the-moment response to questioning. It was his opening statement. He had days to reflect upon it and prepare it. Framing this as a partisan attack was a considered decision on Kavanaugh's part -- even Clarence Thomas never went that far. --Bob

The situation of Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearing was not directly comparable to the current attacks on Kavanaugh. For one thing, Thomas was accused by a single accuser of sexual harassment, not sexual assault (nor "violent forcible rape," to use the words of Bob###.) As I recall, the major part of the complaint by Anita Hill was that Thomas had used distasteful language with a sexual association in what he characterized as joking. (I've never claimed to know what went on in either Hill's or Thomas' head at the time, but I too cringed the first time I saw "pubic hair" and "Coke can" linked together in print. I also was old enough to recognize that some people with
multiple accomplishments and great dignity were sometimes capable of making off-color, adolescent, and unfunny remarks.

At any rate, Hill's accusations were not followed by a cavalcade of other women who might have said, "Wait until you hear the awful things he said to me!", and his nomination was confirmed.

I believe that women, particularly staunch feminists, learned much from that episode in history, and we are witnessing the results of those lessons. I have more to say on that, but it will have to wait until I have more time.