With allegations surfacing that he attempted to rape a female peer during high school at a party one night

It’s good practice to put “uncorroborated” between “With” and “allegations. That’s important.

(because like most allegations of a sexual nature, it’s hard to “prove” something when there are usually only two people involved or when you refuse to speak to those who did witness any of the allegations).

True of many crimes, actually. When an individual does not levy charges immediately, evidence starts to become hard to find, nebulous, and eventually just fades away. As we have seen.

A very credible, poised and scared woman publicly faced the Judiciary committee.

Yes, she was.

Then, an angry, entitled, whiney man face the Committee by suggesting playing sports, being a good student, going to Yale, hanging out with his friends and working out meant he couldn’t have done what was claimed.

Catch-22. There’s no way to credibly prove a negative. “You did too”, levied by a credible person, is always going to appear more credible than “I did not” even if the credibility level is equal. So, let’s just leave that aside for a moment.

My ongoing surprise is that Kavanaugh was not MORE animated, MORE pissed, and even MORE angry than he was. Personally, I would have told my husband to make liberal use of terms like “bastard” and “bitch”. Kavanaugh clearly believed that his family was being victimized by a political game, kicked off by the fact that in a rather amazing dereliction of moral duty, Senator Feinstien held the letter until such time that (in her belief) it would exact maximum political damage. I can only hope that her behavior in all this (holding the letter, recommending the attorneys to Dr. Ford, who then clearly acted in the Democrat Party’s best interests and not in Dr. Ford’s) leads to some sort of censure for her. Because if it does not, this is going to happen again, and again, and again.

Needless to say, this confirmation is not going the way President Trump or the Republican majority in the Senate had hoped.

It certainly didn’t go the way the Democrats had hoped, either. Kavanaugh was supposed to be withdrawn, allowing the Democrats to then play the “McConnell Card” (its too close to the election to approve another nominee”), and then if they won the Senate, they could play the “Garland Card” (run out the clock on the Trump Presidency).

Amazingly, the GOP grew a pair. While being gracious to Dr. Ford and extending to her the opportunity to speak to Congress, it was found that several communications sent to her, offering her the opportunity to be interviewed in privacy (which would have happened anyway, had Sen. Feinstien handled all this through regular orders), had been withheld by her (Democrat) lawyers (or, Dr. Ford was lying, one of the two). This immediately informed the GOP that what they suspected, that they were being orchestrated into this big public hearing, was true.

And from then on, this has been a political power play where truth takes a back seat to party politics. And it is not the GOP who put it there.

Congress and the President are now putting the integrity and objectivity of the Supreme Court, our third branch of government, into question, possibly more than ever before. They are doing everything in their power to put a man on the Court who will be forever tainted and will in turn forever taint the Court.

Nonsense. Even if the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are true (and he simply doesn’t remember), the best way to predict the future rulings of a Judge is his past rulings. And there is nothing in there that does not represent a high level of fairness, adherence to precedent, adherence to principle, and respect for the law.

And the world is watching, horrified. Many of us are wondering “why is this the hill you want to die on?” There are a number of other equally qualified, equally conservative judges who could be easily appointed to the Court. So why this fight? Why this nominee?

First off, let’s dispense with your straw man. Kavanaugh’s legal opinions are so highly regarded that others cannot be said to be “equally qualified”. He is the best. If you wish to retract the word “equally”, however, I would have no quibble.

Secondly, nobody’s dying on any hill, here, although the GOP will trade two years in the electoral doghouse (that’s as long as any of these dustups remain in the memory of the voters) for a 30 years SCOTUS seat all day long. Keep in mind that Anita Hill was followed by the “Year of the Woman” in the 1992 election, followed by a GOP wave election in 1994.

But, now, let’s get at the real issue here. Why this fight? Well, the Democrats picked it, simply put. If this had been raised by Feinstein when the letter was received (three weeks after the Kavanaugh nomination) to a confidential session of the SJC, the chances are VERY HIGH that Kavanaugh would have been withdrawn. McConnell didn’t want him, because he knew his extensive bench record and political jobs were going to create trouble in confirmation.

But, the Dems wanted the withdrawal closer to the election, for the aforementioned reasons. So, they held the letter, and that turned this into a political power play for which Kavanaugh’s qualifications (or problems) are now irrelevant.

If you’re a Democrat, and you seem to be, your anger should be vented at your own party. Because even though you had a disqualifying document in hand, the way you played it virtually assured Kavanaugh of confirmation.

This judicial appointment should no longer be viewed by any political party lens. The consequences are so much greater.

Something you should have reminded Sen. Feinstein of before she turned the Judiciary hearings into the Jerry Springer show.

It is now about whether Judge Kavanaugh can be an impartial arbitrator on the bench, after his display at his hearing last Thursday, spouting conspiracy theories about liberals out to get him.

Look back at his judicial record; that will allay your fears. Further, cases are not stamped “Democrat” or “Republican” when they reach the Court; the vast majority of cases are not decided along party lines.

any reasonable person SHOULD be concerned about the display of angry partisanship and conspiracy from Judge Kavanaugh on Thursday. This is no longer a media or political leadership talking point of convenience.

Any reasonable person should realize that had Kavanaugh appeared in response with a “judicial temperament”, then he would have been criticized for having no soul. His family, mother, father, wife, and young daughters have been targeted by left wing agitprop nutjobs as a function of all this. He has every right to be pissed, and to express that in front of the people who had it in their power to handle all this in a different way.

While that anger may be warranted on his part in light of the allegations, a certain temperament is a key trait lawyers and judges alike are required to hold. This could have been articulated in a much more tempered manner,

See above.

The Supreme Court expanding the powers of the President, especially one that has spent two years disregarding the rule of law, policy, procedure, precedent, and thinks he can do anything with a waive of his hand, is a dangerous precedent to set now, and for future presidents.

And if you make that case before any judge in the land, counselor, they’d tell you stop engaging in hypotheticals, and then they’d instruct the jury to ignore your hyperbole. The POTUS does at times disregard all those things, in his tweets, and verbally. Some of that can be attributed to the fact that he is not a politician, which to his supporters is a feature, not a bug. But when you look for actual instances where any of these things has actually happened, you come up with a big zero. Why? Because the rule of law works in our country, and compared to the rule of law, Trump is a flea sitting on the ass of an elephant. He is not a threat to anything, over the long term. (Other than the peace of mind for some. I ignore his tweets and rants, and I highly advise you to do the same.)

And the fact the Presidency and Congress have diminished those two branches of government as much as they have already is the only basis I need for the pit in my stomach over what may happen next if the Court falls to the same fate.

It’s a little late for this virtue signalling. Congress has been ceding authority to the Executive since the Bush I presidency.

If they want their power back, all they have to do is start passing laws. You’re concerned about rights of privacy? Amend the constitution. Abortion? Pass a law which, in some form, makes it legal nationwide.

Is that easy? No. Its HARD. It’s SUPPOSED to be hard. You have to COMPROMISE. But this is the crux of our governmental problems, here:

Back in the 1960’s, the Left realized that they didn’t have to compromise on anything, if they could get the Court to give them whatever they wanted. But then, the Court makeup changed. By the 1990’s (the GOP are slow learners), the Right realized that two could play at that game. Hence, the “heat” over a SCOTUS seat.

This Court is going to be a deciding factor as to what kind of country your kids will live in.

ONLY TRUE IF CONGRESS LETS THEM. The reason you see the SCOTUS is so important is because you’ve given up on your own legislators, which means you’ve given up on democracy.

Remember, when the SCOTUS rules, that’s not an exhibition of democracy. That’s an exhibition of authoritarianism. It means that WE haven’t been able to decide through the legislative process what’s right or what we want, and so we’re tossing it back onto nine unelected, unaccountable individuals to tell us what to do.

(Shakes my head). And the left thinks TRUMP is the authoritarian? :-) The left has no problem with authoritarianism, as long as the like the authority.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.

Data Driven Econophile. Muslim, USA born. Been “woke” 2x: 1st, when I realized the world isn’t fair; 2nd, when I realized the “woke” people are full of shit.