Search the Lounge


« Fellowship Opportunity: The Petrie-Flom Center and Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics Fellow-in-Residence | Main | Linda Ronstadt »

September 21, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


One is sure the Democrats would find something to use against Barrett.

Yesterday, a Senator pledged that Democrats will, if Kav is confirmed and the Dems obtain the "gavel," continue to "investigate" the claims against Kav (for what reason, one wonders, as most Democrats have declared that the accusations are true), presumably for the purpose of impeachment.

Indeed, if one "believes" the "accusations," then there is no point in any investigation or hearings. The "accusations" are unclear and unstated publicly by the accuser, but the "belief" of all those have declared their "belief" abides: There is faith for these persons that whatever the "accusations" may actually be, the "accusations" are, without more, true.

Thus, for legal scholars, the issue is clear: is it appropriate to declare "accusations" true ("I believe her"), and should investigations and hearings and the like accordingly be unnecessary (at least, when the accused is a republican, white man)? Or, should we conduct a "show trial" where all the Democratic members of the jury have declared the "accused" guilty before the trial begins? Is this the conduct most consistent with a legal scholar's concept of justice? Is this what a legal historian has learned from history is the appropriate way to handle such matters?

These are the issues, IMHO, that the article above might have taken on ... but, instead, is it not much more satisfying to dream about the day when Kav will "implode" and his life will be ruined?

Isn't that much more fun?


Kirsten Gillibrand‏ @SenGillibrand · Sep 19

Below, copied tweets from the above account:

“Denying Dr. Ford an FBI investigation is silencing her. Forcing her into a sham hearing is silencing her. And pushing through Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation is silencing her.”

"The fundamental questions we must answer right now:

Do we value women?
Do we believe women?
Do we give them the opportunity to tell their story? To be heard?
Will we ensure they get the justice they deserve?

We must fight to be a country that answers, “Yes,” every time."

"I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

She’s not asking for extraordinary measures; she’s asking for basic fairness.

I hope that every woman in America is paying close attention to what is happening in the U.S. Senate right now."

Glad Gilibrand is my Senator

Relax with your pearl clutching anon. Even if Kavanaugh is blocked, there will be plenty of so called "liberal" law professors or other elite bar members (Chua, Katyal, etc) ready to shill in the Times, Post and WSJ saying just how smart, charming and nice of a carpool-parent or great of a boss the replacement nominee was to their well-credntialed child when the child was a law clerk for the nominee, so the rest of us should shut up. Sure organizing a labor union might be more difficult for you blue collar plebs, and while I may be as equally upset about Chevron Deference going away (but I'll live, since it won't impact either my family or me), but you should've see his serve in Nantucket!!


ON the chance that GGIMS isn't Sy, Carswell, Scott, Athlete, Brett, etc., et al., it is noted:

"wow. you really put me in my place."

ALso noted, you forgot to mention Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, who didn't base his support of the Kav nomination on any of the irrelevancies you cite, at least insofar as I heard his rationales. Perhaps you didn't forget to mention him.


Gillibrand‏, now their is a giant of the Senate.



So this is the playbook. At the eleventh hour, pull out some accusation that goes back decades and cannot be proven or unproven and use it to try to destroy someone.

I have no idea who is telling the truth. Only two people and maybe were so drunk, even they don’t. I reserve judgment until more comes out, if there is more to come out.

Regardless of your politics, I would hope most are seriously concerned about the breakdown of our system. Seems the ends justifies the means is all that matters.

Dems remember you will be back in power again and your nominees will be vulnerable to the same tactics. Who in their right mind would become a nominee for anything or a priest for that matters.


I think you overestimate the chances this will implode. The Senate Republicans remain furious about how this was handled by the Democrats - even if you say turnabout is fair play after Garland they won't take this lightly. And beware of reports that the person making these charges will show up on Wednesday - she seems to think that the Senate offer was another negotiating step, not a final offer. I continue to think that she'll insist on her terms for Wednesday (testifying second, no one except Senators) and the Senate will refuse, leading to a hearing where Kavanaugh testifies without her, and is then voted out of committee along a party line vote. The action will then move to the Senate floor, where presumably the Democrats will set up some sort of event to televise these accusations, and the question will become how a half-dozen Senators will vote.

Brett Kavanaugh Macho Macho Man Association of America

It's real simple. A normal guy, when he finds a girl he likes, he asks for her phone number. He doesn't rape her. The only reason this guy got anywhere is because he is an aggressive asshole. He has a violent, dark soul.

Brett Kavanaugh Macho Macho Man Association of America

One more thing, In my jurisdiction, he is guilty of child sex abuse. The evidentiary coberation is the outcry to an independent therapist years ago. Almost like a VSI.

A Believer in the Goodness of Americans who won’t allow this person to become a Supreme Court judge

Where is the FBI? They can verify that the ink used on these calendars are from 1982 or whenever. I have no doubt the “tits and clits” club were able to find some calendars in their parents or grandparents’ attics. Then let the FBI compare the handwriting to handwriting that is from school reports and see if this same. We have already found that
this boys club (the one Kavanaugh has told to lie to their wives about what they were doing — FBI, what did they do that was important to conceal from their wives? They have met for many nights, according to sources, to help their bud out, was one of them his bud in the group caught on video stating “no is yes and yes is anal.” Aren’t these wonderful findings for his daughters to find out, which they will. And who knows what else. Then since we have discovered he is a liar, aren’t the Republicans on this committee afraid that his answers are lies and once he gets the cushy, lifetime job of Supreme Court Judge, he will vote quite differently. Justice Warren, anyone? Oh, they voted for Clarence Thomas knowing — how in the world could they not — he had sexually abused woman and look what a blumbering, non contributor he is. I don’t blame him for keeping his mouth shut.

Please, FBI, examine these calendars and handwriting. This man recalled nothing significant that could hurt him in these hearing and at the last moment he is expecting us to believe a 17 year old (which people are saying he was so young and immature at this time and he’s a changed man and mature now and out behind childish ways) KEPT a calendar of his activities. And, if he did, he was smart enough not to write “going to yet another party where I will be so drunk I cannot be held accountable.” This man better hope his daughter doesn’t ever run into a “mini me” because, as we all know, we sure never told our parents that we went to a party at 15 and drank alcohol and were around boys who were — his words — hard drinkers.


As usual, "progressives" are their own best representatives.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad