Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Hopefully, Kavanaugh and Ford are not treated “equally”

The idea is for equitable for candidates. The committee has to make judgements about what they hear form references. But there is no responsibility for equity between candidate and reference, si I am not sure why you would go there.

I think that treating job applications like job applicants is just.

Reviling job applicants In the media and saving serious allegation until the last minute when it could have been quietly and effectively investigated earlier without creating the media storm to try to destroy reputations, family relationships, and careers is not JUST.

This is what comes to mind for me…

Luke 6:22-28

22 "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!
23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.
24 "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
25 "Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
26 "Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
27 "But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

Kavanaugh is Catholic and tries to live his faith. On that account he is being cast out and reviled. He and his family have not responded in kind but, instead, prayed for those who revile them.

On Jesus’ terms, Kavanaugh is blessed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We have heard she has a fear of flying, and a claustrophobia leading her to want to have 2 front doors.

However, she has been living in dorms and houses with only one door for decades, as well as flying to many different places.

Does this make sense to you?

Lots of people fly who are afraid of flying. People put up with their fears as long as they can.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

dvdjs:

HarryStotle:

Hopefully, Kavanaugh and Ford are not treated “equally”

The idea is for equitable for candidates. The committee has to make judgements about what they hear form references. But there is no responsibility for equity between candidate and reference, si I am not sure why you would go there.

I think that treating job applications like job applicants is just.

Reviling job applicants In the media and saving serious allegation until the last minute when it could have been quietly and effectively investigated earlier without creating the media storm to try to destroy reputations, family relationships, and careers is not JUST.

This is what comes to mind for me…

Luke 6:22-28

22 "Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and revile you, and cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of man!
23 Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.
24 "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
25 "Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. "Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.
26 "Woe to you, when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
27 "But I say to you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

Kavanaugh is Catholic and tries to live his faith. On that account he is being cast out and reviled.

That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is he is being found unfit for the job of Supreme Court because of his lack of respect for the truth and his blatant partisanship when applying for a position that is supposed to be neutral in that respect.

 

[HarryStotle]

That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is he is being found unfit for the job of Supreme Court because of his lack of respect for the truth and his blatant partisanship when applying for a position that is supposed to be neutral in that respect.

Yes, but that “another interpretation” rests entirely upon the allegations of ONE woman, without corroboration and contrary to the character witnesses of dozens of Kavanaugh’s colleagues and years of highly ethical behaviour on his part.

Would you throw your husband, your child or your best friend under the bus on those same terms?

 

[meltzerboy2]

That depends on whether Dr. Ford is merely AFRAID of flying or actually has a PHOBIA with regard to flying. I don’t know which it is. If the former, you are correct; if the latter, she would not be able to fly.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is he is being found unfit for the job of Supreme Court because of his lack of respect for the truth and his blatant partisanship when applying for a position that is supposed to be neutral in that respect.

Yes, but that “another interpretation” rests entirely upon the allegations of ONE woman, without corroboration and contrary to the character witnesses of dozens of Kavanaugh’s colleagues and years of highly ethical behaviour on his part.

If that was not enough, his behavior at the hearings, disrespecting Senators and partisan rants, is enough to disqualify him for a position that is supposed to be non-partisan and objective in his decisions. After hearing his rant about how this is all a Democratic hit job, how could any Democrat expect him to rule fairly in a case that involved a Democrat? Indeed how could anyone expect him to rule objectively in a case that involves sexual assault?

 

[HarryStotle]

Lots of people fly who are afraid of flying. People put up with their fears as long as they can.

Yes, but after years of flying and many trips “putting up” with her fears, to suddenly use it as an excuse for why she couldn’t testify against Kavanaugh – who she says tried to rape her, and who she would be steadfastly opposed to having on the Supreme Court – one would assume she would “put up” with that fear of flying one more time rather than use it as an excuse for not testifying.

She seems to be highly selective regarding her capacity to “put up” with the fear, especially given that she claimed what Kavanaugh did to her was so traumatic.

We would expect her to fly to the moon on rocket ship if she was so deadly serious about trying to stop him.

But no, fun and frolic is sufficient to overcome her fear, but showing courage to stop a man she alleges tried to rape and murder her, just doesn’t rise to the level of overcoming that phobia. Her priorities are revealing.

The incongruence should stick in her throat. Perhaps, that is why she had such trouble speaking at the hearing?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

That is one interpretation. Another interpretation is he is being found unfit for the job of Supreme Court because of his lack of respect for the truth and his blatant partisanship when applying for a position that is supposed to be neutral in that respect.

Yes, but that “another interpretation” rests entirely upon the allegations of ONE woman, without corroboration and contrary to the character witnesses of dozens of Kavanaugh’s colleagues and years of highly ethical behaviour on his part.

If that was not enough, his behavior at the hearings, disrespecting Senators and partisan rants, is enough to disqualify him for a position that is supposed to be non-partisan and objective in his decisions. After hearing his rant about how this is all a Democratic hit job, how could any Democrat expect him to rule fairly in a case that involved a Democrat? Indeed how could anyone expect him to rule objectively in a case that involves sexual assault?

Again, you are begging the question. If it indeed was a political hit job and Kavanaugh is in as good a position as anyone to know that it was, then his indignation is justified and calling those Dems who orchestrated it out would be the right and correct thing to do. Jesus called the Pharisees much worse.

As to cases of sexual assault, there is a distinction to be made between an allegation and the truth. The Dem side seems to have completely forgotten that distinction, so they are far less likely to be objective in any case involving sexual assault. Their default is the presumption of guilt, which goes against the very ground of civil society and order.

You, a scientist, ought to know better.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Do we know for sure, according to her testimony, why Dr. Ford suddenly had a change of heart and came forward to testify against Kavanaugh? I recall she said it was her civic duty despite her fears. But what exactly does this mean? In other words, does this mean it was all right for her to see Kavanaugh continue his political career as a judge and remain a law professor and a coach so long as he did not gain access to the SCOTUS?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If that was not enough, his behavior at the hearings, disrespecting Senators and partisan rants, is enough to disqualify him for a position that is supposed to be non-partisan and objective in his decisions. After hearing his rant about how this is all a Democratic hit job, how could any Democrat expect him to rule fairly in a case that involved a Democrat? Indeed how could anyone expect him to rule objectively in a case that involves sexual assault?

If it indeed it was a political hit job and Kavanaugh is in as good a position as anyone to know that it was, then his indignation is justified and calling those Dems who orchestrated it out would be the right and correct thing to do.

No, he has no privileged information that others in government or even in the public do not know on whether this was a “Democratic hit job.” He is making a judgement based on the same information we all have. Therefore his judgement is a highly partisan opinion. He clearly believes the Democrats are evil and need to be opposed, and we can expect him to do just that if a case comes before him. He has lost all credibility as an objective non-partisan jurist.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Haven’t the Democratic senators revealed their thoughts and feelings about Kavanaugh at the hearings by means of the questions they have asked Kavanaugh, even BEFORE the testimony of Dr. Ford? Let’s not pretend these hearings are non-partisan, nor that most of the PRESENT judges on the Supreme Court are apolitical, whether of Democratic or Republican political persuasion. The testimony of Dr. Ford does, however, put the icing on the cake for most of the Democrats, I think. True, saying this is a “Democratic hit job” is strong language and reminiscent of Clarence Thomas’ statement regarding Anita Hill’s testimony that the hearing was a “hi-tech lynching.” Perhaps Kavanaugh is taking a page from Thomas’ playbook since Thomas was confirmed, despite the fact Kavanaugh probably realizes these are different times.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, I would not deny the partisan motives behind the Senators on this committee. In some sense, this is a Democratic hit job because it is the Democrats who have introduced this witness. But having Kavanaugh come right out and rant about the partisanship when he should be trying to stay above it all and give the impression of impartiality shows a lack of judicial demeanor. The thing it, from the reports I have heard, he has never acted this way before. He has been pretty good at displaying a level of detachment from the cases before him. So we have to wonder if is now going to take this past week and store it up in his memory do “get even” with the Democrats the next chance he gets to pay them back for their attacks. I would not be surprised if he did that.

 

[Victoria33]

No, he has no privileged information that others in government or even in the public do not know on whether this was a “Democratic hit job.” He is making a judgement based on the same information we all have. Therefore his judgement is a highly partisan opinion. He clearly believes the Democrats are evil and need to be opposed, and we can expect him to do just that if a case comes before him. He has lost all credibility as an objective non-partisan jurist.

It is a bit more than that, all of those who have accused him seem to be Democrats, I don’t know if all are say in regards to Ms. Swetnick. Also, Diane Feinstein recommended the lawyers she used and those lawyers are Democrats and perhaps Democrat activists. Dr. Ford herself has been to anti-Trump rallies and appears to be a Democrat and has had involvement with the abortion industry, perhaps even profiting from it from the studies of RU-486.

Yes, I repeat Feinstein apparently recommended the Democratic lawyers who apparently, did not answer in any way, when the judicial committee offered to meet Dr. Ford privately and at her convenience, even meeting in California.

Yeah, everything is equal alright. We all have the same information. How dare he say such things and he probably does have more information.

Refeerence, we do seem to know Feinstein recommended the lawyers.

Gregg Jarrett: In Kavanaugh battle, are Ford's lawyers representing her, or the Democrats?

Did Ford attorneys Katz and Banks not make it clear to their client that she could avoid the nightmarish scenario that unfolded in Thursday’s hearing?

www.foxnews.com

If the Dr. Ford side is not biased with obvious motives, I don’t know what bias is.

 

[Victoria33]

Righteous anger, the man has had his good name trashed over nothing according to many people.

 

[humbleseeker]

his behavior at the hearings, disrespecting Senators and partisan rants, is enough to disqualify him for a position that is supposed to be non-partisan and objective

I think it’s duplicitist to claim the Supreme Court is a non-partisan entity. It might have been organized as a neutral branch but it’s decisions have been shaped by politics.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/blame-the-left-for-making-the-supreme-court-too-political/amp/

“The over-politicization of the Court can be traced to the Left’s acceptance of a “living Constitution” idea that undermined the rule of law and let loose the dogs of political warfare in the arena the founders intended to be least political.”

 

[dvdjs]

Reviling job applicants In the media

I am not a fanof the media circus. But in that regard it should be noted Kavanaugh hired an entrenched Republican media consulting firm to manage his candidacy. I think that information regarding a caniddate should be made public, so that Senators can be properly held accountable for their votes.

I think that there are a variety of reasons that people have developed opposition to Kavanaugh. I think that few if any have come to that perspective on account of the Son of Man. It is not the least bit clear why on would suggest such a thing, which really goes far too far.

 

[Theo520]

We have heard she has a fear of flying, and a claustrophobia leading her to want to have 2 front doors.

However, she has been living in dorms and houses with only one door for decades, as well as flying to many different places.

Does this make sense to you?

Nope, it doesn’t. You get a panic room or a good rear exit. You don’t open a second entry point, a few yards from where your assailant might be waiting.

 

[Annie]

Well, that’s not quite what I meant…

 

[pnewton]

I think it’s duplicitist to claim the Supreme Court is a non-partisan entity. It might have been organized as a neutral branch but it’s decisions have been shaped by politics.

I cannot image anyone thinking otherwise, be it Kavanaugh, or Sotomayor.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

If that was not enough, his behavior at the hearings, disrespecting Senators and partisan rants, is enough to disqualify him for a position that is supposed to be non-partisan and objective in his decisions. After hearing his rant about how this is all a Democratic hit job, how could any Democrat expect him to rule fairly in a case that involved a Democrat? Indeed how could anyone expect him to rule objectively in a case that involves sexual assault?

If it indeed it was a political hit job and Kavanaugh is in as good a position as anyone to know that it was, then his indignation is justified and calling those Dems who orchestrated it out would be the right and correct thing to do.

No, he has no privileged information that others in government or even in the public do not know on whether this was a “Democratic hit job.” He is making a judgement based on the same information we all have. Therefore his judgement is a highly partisan opinion. He clearly believes the Democrats are evil and need to be opposed, and we can expect him to do just that if a case comes before him. He has lost all credibility as an objective non-partisan jurist.

Nonsense. He ALONE is in a position to know, with absolute certainty, his own innocence. That is “privileged information,” is it not?

He isn’t making a judgement about that based on the same information we all have.

Additionally, you have no idea, unless you are a Washington insider, what Kavanaugh knows from friends and allies embedded in that society.

No, we do not have access to the same information that he does.