The attacks against Kavanaugh have been ridiculous. It is the
anti-constitutionalists against the Constitutionalists.
"No documents that show Kavanaugh's personal views have been withheld.
"NoNamesAccepted - how in the world do you know that? I got to
really know. Do you have an inside source that has access to those documents?
If they are just benign documents he "touched", why withhold them? Its
called transparency. Just like Clinton should have done."And
when Democrats announce the total opposition to the nominee before his name is
even released, they lose all credibility to demand more of anything."Need I remind you - Merrick GarlandThere is moral high
ground here.... really? This is what bugs me about the new generation of
"conservatives". Very short memories. Exactly how much credibility is
there saying that Kavanaugh is uniquely being treated unfair when Garland was
denied even a hearing. If you disrespect the other parties nominee....
don't be surprised when the other side does the same thing back.Yes, I know..." it all started with Bork"... except it didn't.
This snarky game has been doing on a long time by both parties. Claiming
otherwise is not an accurate reflection of history. This is not the
conservatism I used to know.
Did you forget, Michael, that he may also be guilty of sexual assault? That
certainly doesn't make him "better" imho; but far, far worse.
@Nate "Cory Booker's "Sparticus moment" will be long
remembered, and not to his benefit."Maybe, but maybe not.
There's a good chance in the future we will see Kavanaugh was rammed down
our throats by the thoroughly corrupt Trump administration. A lot of stuff will
come out later and Booker will look pretty good. But we'll still be stuck
with Kavanaugh to our great regret.
@unrepentant progressive : "At least he got a hearing. Did Merrick Garland
get a hearing? "Whatever your personal preferences, I suspect
Garland and his family are quite relieved to have simply been denied a hearing
and a vote/confirmation rather than to be "Borked" with scandalous false
allegations designed only to provide cover for the ultimate outcome anyway:
Voting no on purely political, partisan reasons.Anyone who complains
about Garland, without honestly admitting Democrats started the modern era of
politicizing judicial nominations simply isn't dealing with reality.Until the early 1900s, confirmation hearings were private, held in
executive sessions lest a nominee be publicly harmed. Until the mid 1900s,
nominees often did not even appear personally. And from then until the mid-80s,
hearings were decent. The Democrats changed all that with Robert Bork; and were
well rewarded with Kennedy and a generation of activist judges instead.But now, turnabout is fair play. Kennedy resigned knowing full well the GOP
has the WH and the Senate and that Reid's "nuclear option" is in
effect. We will have a conservative/textualist/originalist on the court.That's life.
@UtahBlueDevil: "But the fact that Republicans sealed so many of his
documents to keep them out of the process just made it impossible to
know."How many of his documents were sealed? Vs how many
documents he merely touched as a clerk, passing them from one desk to
another?Come on, be honest and drop the liberal party line.No documents that show Kavanaugh's personal views have been withheld. He
has sat on the Federal Appeals bench for over a decade. He has been prolific in
writing both concurring and dissenting opinions. All are public. Hundreds of
thousands of additional pages of private work have been turned over.All that have been withheld are documents that reveal nothing about
Kavanaugh's personal views, but that might be used to taint him via
association with the evil Bush administration and its widely supported policies
of war and interrogation following 9/11. Only much later did it become trendy to
attack those policies.And when Democrats announce the total
opposition to the nominee before his name is even released, they lose all
credibility to demand more of anything. If it won't change their minds,
they have only dilatory reasons for demanding it.
Judge Kavanaugh is in the present. There is no substantiated challenge to his
integrity or judicial qualifications. Reminiscing about Merrick Garland or a
putative event during Kavanaugh's high school are the height of a
disingenuous deflection. The president, like him or not and I don't, can
nominate justices for the SCOTUS.
Cory Booker's "Sparticus moment" will be long remembered, and not
to his benefit. Whenever people think of him, they will laugh just a little bit.
One of those small things that sink a political career.
Maybe Kavanaugh ought not be the victim of the political. Maybe he should.At least he got a hearing. Did Merrick Garland get a hearing? Or did
the party of trump jump at the opportunity to turn the Supreme Court into a
bastion of conservative power for a generation or more?To accuse
Democrats of a one sided battle over the inconsistencies of Mr Kavanaugh, his
obvious political leanings and his inability to be frank with the public is
rather hypocritical to say the least.
It used to be "in this post 9/11 world we live in". Many believed
things could not get worse. They did."Each political side has
chosen to live in a post-truth world" is a very sad commentary about the
world we now live in. Fact is I don't have an opinion about Kavanaugh,
because I don't trust many sources any more. The White House has
absolutely no credibility. It has turned "alternative facts" into a
fine art. And the Democrats turn to hyperventilating over even the most benign
event. Neither has much credibility in my book. Kavanaugh may be
a wonderful and just man.... he could. But the fact that Republicans sealed so
many of his documents to keep them out of the process just made it impossible to
know. Very disappointing.