Kavanaugh endorsement rescinded

  • Thread starter Thread starter on_the_hill
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Excellent post, @PetraG. I feel the same. You said it better.
Judge Kavanaugh said: This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades.

Well, Judge Kavanaugh, do not be surprised if another lesson that comes from this is “If you want to be confirmed by the Senate, don’t go in yelling at them and lecturing them about how to do their jobs.”

There are Senators there to defend them. Judge Kavanaugh ought to have let them do all the work in the unvarnished outrage department.
 
Last edited:
This is false. Most people are not saints. We will all defend ourselves and not simply accept attacks and turn the other cheek.
 
Oh, come on! Judges are expected to be dignified and exhibit self-control. I can tell you it’s not that hard, from experience. I’m not a judge, but I testified for seven HOURS in a civil case in which I was the plaintiff. The defense attorney tried to attack me on every front, but I never even FELT rattled. It’s not that hard to keep your cool and your dignity and treat an adversary with respect UNLESS you are prone to belligerent outbursts in the first place.
You are my new hero.

Now, tell us: Were you vilified in the press and media across the country? Did you have death threats against your family? Was your character savagely impugned? Did late night comedians treat you and your entire family with contempt? Was the room full of glaring and spiteful individuals? Was Alyssa Milano there death-staring at you? Were you accused of raping and possibly attempting to murder someone? Did you feel abandoned by many whom you assumed would come to your defence?

Civil case, you say? For six hours? On EVERY front?

Kavanaugh’s was NOT a “civil” trial, in every possible sense of the word.

I could say a whole lot more, but this is supposedly a “civil” forum, and my entire future is not hanging on a thread so I have absolutely nothing to lose by staying civil, but threaten my family and my life and “civil” is not what you will get.

Like I said, you are my new hero for your inflexibility, and your ability to “exhibit self-control” and the fact that you unabashedly promote your salient features through self-advertisement and aggrandizement.

When I need someone to stand with me against savage attack, please don’t be offended that my short list won’t include your name.

I will consider you, however, should I need to appear in a civil court. Clearly, I can count on you to remain unruffled and unravelled. That does count for something.
 
This is false. Most people are not saints. We will all defend ourselves and not simply accept attacks and turn the other cheek.
No, it’s true. Many people can remain calm and dignified.
 
Well, he did get into a bar fight. Threw a glass of ice water in a man’s face. Seems he has a very short fuse.
It is alledged that he got into a bar fight. I don’t know the particulars about that except for that.
No, he went into a public hearing acting like a man whose entire reputation had been shattered by salacious accusations.
Not one who wants to give evidence that he can be counted on to keep control of himself under even the most trying of situations when the dignity of his office and the offices of others depends on it.

If he felt the necessity that he express his rage was more important than being seated on the US Supreme Court, well, it’s his reputation and that is his call. I’m saying I don’t think he helped the case that he is a good candidate for nomination. Sorry.
 
40.png
ConstantLearner:
Excellent post, @PetraG. I feel the same. You said it better.
Judge Kavanaugh said: This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades.

Well, Judge Kavanaugh, do not be surprised if another lesson that comes from this is “If you want to be confirmed by the Senate, don’t go in yelling at them and lecturing them about how to do their jobs.”

There are Senators there to defend them. Judge Kavanaugh ought to have let them do all the work in the unvarnished outrage department.
Feckless individuals need a good lecturing now and then.

feckless​

adjective

feck·less | \ ˈfek-ləs \

Definition of feckless

1 : WEAK, INEFFECTIVE She can’t rely on her feckless son.

2 : WORTHLESS, IRRESPONSIBLE a feckless maneuver that could only serve to strengthen the enemy
 
Feckless individuals need a good lecturing now and then.
OK, well, telling job applicants to lecture down to Senators during their very public job interviews isn’t the world’s best advice.

Just sayin’.
 
Last edited:
40.png
ConstantLearner:
Well, he did get into a bar fight. Threw a glass of ice water in a man’s face. Seems he has a very short fuse.
It is alledged that he got into a bar fight. I don’t know the particulars about that except for that.
Finally, someone who can distinguish fact from whatever else is being bandied about.
 
Civil case, you say? For six hours? On EVERY front?
No, seven hours, and I was called every evil thing the defense could come up with, some of them so extreme they caused the people assembled in the courtroom to laugh out loud.

Thank you for not including me on your short list. I would not be a good advocate for you since we don’t see life in the same way.
 
Last edited:
OK, well, telling job applicants to lecture down to Senators during their very public job interviews isn’t the world’s best advice.

Just sayin’.
Yup, and Senators who don’t seem to know what their job really entails should be lectured down.

They aren’t competent nor responsible merely because they have the title Senator in front of their names.

Presumption is a fault and Kavanaugh called them on it.

presumption​

noun

pre·sump·tion | \ pri-ˈzəm(p)-shən \

Definition of presumption

1 : presumptuous attitude or conduct : AUDACITY

2a : an attitude or belief dictated by probability : ASSUMPTION

b : the ground, reason, or evidence lending probability to a belief

3 : a legal inference as to the existence or truth of a fact not certainly known that is drawn from the known or proved existence of some other fact
 
Let’s contrast Judge Thomas’ reaction when he had his turn before the Senate Committee:


He was obviously angry and even disgusted, but he was extremely dignified in his own self-defense.

(By the way, I would point out that neither a black nor a woman could get away with the lack of self-control exhibited by Judge Kavanaugh. He played right into the stereotype that a lifetime of privilege has given him a sense of entitlement to behave in ways that others clearly cannot.)
 
Last edited:
@harrystotle, you can omit the dictionary definitions from here on out. They are really not needed.
 
Last edited:
Well, there IS a police report about it. Or do you think the police made the whole thing up? I think a police report is pretty good documentation that it happened.
This may be so, but I have to admit that I have not read any of it and don’t feel comfortable accepting 2nd-hand summaries at face value. It is the world we live in.
 
Thank you for posting that, @PetraG. It does show that some people can be attacked in the most vile manner and still be dignified and polite.

I’ve always liked Clarence Thomas even though his politics are a little more conservative than mine. He has my respect, and I’m always interested in his opinions.
 
Last edited:
This may be so, but I have to admit that I have not read any of it and don’t feel comfortable accepting 2nd-hand summaries at face value. It is the world we live in.
I understand.
 
How is that different? He called what they were doing disgusting. He accused them of being a racist lynch mob. Sorry, I don’t see a difference with Kavanaugh’s statement. Zip. Nada. If anything you’ve proven that any man that’s been personally attacked has not been ‘impartial’ towards his attackers but has told them right off to their faces, senators or not.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Justice Thomas stated it was a “hi-tech lynching,” which is pretty powerful stuff even if said in a calm manner.
 
Last edited:
How is that different? He called what they were doing disgusting. He accused them of being a racist lynch mob. Sorry, I don’t see a difference with Kavanaugh’s statement. Zip. Nada.
You seem to have a closed mind and think Kavanaugh can do no wrong. Thomas never raised his voice, never interrupted anyone, sat and spoke in a dignified and controlled manner. Kavanaugh didn’t do those things.
 
Last edited:
You seem to have difficulty understanding ‘impartial’. So it’s just the raised voice that bothered you now, no longer his supposed inability to be impartial towards the very people attacking him?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top