John Paul Stevens: Don’t Confirm Brett Kavanaugh

As I have written previously, I have long been a huge admirer of former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens — not just for being a fellow Cubs fan.  However, I was surprised to see that Stevens broke a long-standing uwritten rule of former and current justices not to speak on pending nominations or confirmations. According to The Palm Beach Post, Stevens spoke publicly at an event with a retirement group that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. The event was described as “closed” so it is not clear that Stevens realized that he would be quoted, but it was obviously a large crowd setting. Stevens said that the anger and language used by Kavanaugh raises serious questions of his temperament.  

Stevens said “I thought [Kavanaugh] had the qualifications for the Supreme Court, should he be selected. I’ve changed my views for reasons that have no relationship to his intellectual ability … I feel his performance in the hearings ultimately changed my mind.”

I have previously criticized Kavanaugh for some of his language and his tenor, particularly his reference to Democratic Senators and the Clintons.  Many people view the withholding of the allegations as a “hit job,” as he stated, but he should have left such political analysis to others.  As a judge, he should have known better than let these circumstances trigger such emotive outbursts.

Having said that,  I do not believe that the temperament of Kavanaugh can be judged from this one, unique circumstance. He was accused, among other things, of leading a virtual rape gang in high school. That would leave most people rather ticked and angry.

Putting aside our assumptions as to temperament, there should be no question about the need for former justices to stay out of the politics of confirmation. Indeed, it was a curious moment and subject for Stevens to break from his long observance of this rule.  He is breaking a long tradition of avoiding comments on political matters in order to criticize a nominee for commenting on political matters.

Clearly, Stevens is not required to avoid such commentary but it undermines the Court for current or former members to be seen as participating in the debate for confirmations.  Like Kavanaugh, his points made be correct but he is not the proper messenger.

233 thoughts on “John Paul Stevens: Don’t Confirm Brett Kavanaugh”

  1. Trump’s ratings having climbed precisely due to the unprofessional and blatantly partisan MSM, “victim” protestors, Hollywood “stars”, the Womyn’s March and the commie lefty clowns in the Senate spewing forth all of their “rage” these past several weeks

    Thank you Dianne, Cory and Kamala (despite her being a bar exam flunky)

    Trump’s approval jumps to 51 percent

    Trump Approval Index History
    Date 05-Oct-18
    Approval Index -1
    Strongly Approve 38%
    Strongly Disapprove 39%
    Total Approve 51%
    Total Disapprove 48%

  2. I don’t what 98 year old geezers think about anything. Stevens graduated from Law School when Harry Truman was POTUS and he was a SCOTUS judge for 35 years. He is the definition of “Out of touch”.

    1. you get to that age, you just dont give a crap about rules anymore I guess

      he has had a lot of great opinions but this was not one of them

  3. Let’s see now: we have Justice Stevens, no longer on the Court, who is being chastised by Turley for commenting about the unfitness of Kavanaugh, and we have Bart Kavanaugh publicly and falsely accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of organizing opposition to him. Stevens is no longer on the Court, but he’s supposed to keep his mouth shut, but Kavanaugh covets a SCOTUS seat, and it’s OK for him to engage in an emotional outburst falsely accusing Democrats and the Clintons of procuring false testimony against him? It’s OK for him to play coy when asked whether his nickname is “Bart”? It’s OK for him to be rude to Senators?

    I’ve asked before, and I’ll ask again: what did Dr. Ford stand to gain by coming forward, and where’s the proof that she was recruited to lie by the Clintons, Democrats, or anyone else? Even more fundamentally, where’s the proof she’s lying? Friends of Kavanaugh who say they don’t recall the party or the incident are not exonerating him, but there’s plenty of other people who knew him then who have valuable information. Why won’t Republicans let these people speak or allow the FBI to interview them? Why won’t the Republicans let Democrats see the hundreds of thousands of documents about Kavanaugh that they are hiding? Why won’t Republicans release the secret FBI report of the 9 persons they spoke with? Why is any of this OK?

    Turley, if you’re worried about the SCOTUS, you should be. Allowing someone who is demonstrably unfit onto the Court, hiding documents he wrote or which are about him, refusing to consider the testimony of people who have credible evidence that Kavanaugh lied to get onto the SCOTUS, all for political reasons, and all to protect an unfit person who lost the popular vote and who may have committed crimes, should alarm you. A normal reaction to this should be disgust.

    You Trumpsters out there keep equating quality men who have been Presidents, like Lincoln, JFK, FDR and others with the reality TV show huckster draft dodger, tax evading crook who colluded with a hostile foreign government to cheat to win. Trump does not deserve the title “President”. He’s not anywhere near the same league as other Presidents, including crooks like Nixon, who at least served his country. Now, we have Kavanaugh, a conniving partisan misogynist liar who wants the title “Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America”. He also doesn’t deserve this title. True Americans will never let him forget it, if he somehow gets shoved onto the Court anyway.

    1. Natacha, the four people she named as present, including her friend Leland Keyser, didn’t recall the gathering. Apply occam’s razor: it never happened. Leland Keyser does’t recall ever meeting Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, no one has yet attested that they introduced Christine Blasey to Brett Kavanaugh or anyone else in his circle of friends. She claims to have known Christopher Garrett, who says he has ‘no knowledge relevant to her claims’. She doesn’t appear on BK’s 1982 calendar. Occam’s razor: she didn’t actually know these people.

      1. Bart denied drinking heavily in high school, or being belligerent when drunk. He wouldn’t admit being called “Bart”, but there’s proof in his own handwriting. There are multiple witnesses who said he lied about these things. The Bart letter refers to a raucous party planned for Beach Week, including drunkenness to the point of vomiting. The issue isn’t whether he drank in high school and college, or even whether he drank to excess, but whether he lied about these things. Then, there’s the sexual references, all of which Bart denies. It stinks and so does he. He could have dismissed all of these things by arguing that he was young, dumb and full of (you know the rest), but he didn’t: he chose to lie. What else would he lie about?

        Who cares what Leyland or anyone else does or doesn’t recall about the assault matter? Corroboration or lack thereof is not dispositive. The issues are Bart’s credibility and his temperament: his willingness to lie under oath to get what the wants. His display of temper and lashing out at Senators questioning him in their Constitutional duty to “advise and consent” is disqualifying in and of itself. Then, there’s his partisan political accusations against the Clintons and Democrats. He has warned: “what goes around comes around.” Look at the sheer number of legal experts, conservatives and even a former SCOTUS justice who all say he should not be confirmed. We can’t have someone sitting on the SCOTUS with a political agenda, who lacks the temperament required of a judge, and who lied to get to the SCOTUS.

        1. anon,

          There is corroborating evidence. It’s just not examined by the FBI. It’s like saying: my keys are on the table, Then the FBI says, well I looked for them in the refrigerator and they weren’t there so they aren’t anywhere. Case closed. And Senators call this thorough! This whole process has been appalling. It’s been an exercise in ignoring evidence, evidence which is readily available should anyone care to look for it.

          What I find remarkable is how “liberal” and “conservative” have nearly opposite meanings from what they used to connote. Now “liberals” are pro-war. WTF??? Meanwhile, “conservatives” love a guy who has and will further gut the Constitution. Neither “liberals’ nor “conservatives” care for reality or facts. This scares me a great deal.

          Black Agenda Report has an excellent article on this situation written by Margaret Kimberly. (Oct. 3) I’d link to it by it won’t come through.

          We are so going down.

          1. There is corroborating evidence. It’s just not examined by the FBI.

            There is none, Jill. No amount of fantasizing by you is going to conjure it up. Chrissy names 4 other people present. All of them deny any memory of the event and one, adding a Maraschino on top, says she has no recollection of ever having been acquainted with a Brett Kavanaugh. She names a 5th person who she says introduced her to his circle. He said he knows nothing relevant. Who else is going to ‘corroborate’ her account but the people she named?

            1. Jill writes, “There is corroborating evidence.” One expects that sentence to be followed with credible evidence but Jill like so many others keeps repeating the same think absent the evidence. DSS, you have provided credible evidence that what Ford said was innaccurate yet these guys go on with the same rants over and over again. One has to wonder how they survive in the normal world. Maybe when self interest is at stake they give up this lunacy.

        2. You keep on spinning like a top to avoid the core question: there is no evidence these two people have ever been acquainted. No old Polaroids, no diary entries, no calendar entries, no personal testimony, no circumstances where they were likely to have met. Nothing. What does that suggest? This is Chrissy FanFiction.

          That aside, the counselor’s notes to not jibe with her letter to Eshoo. It isn’t a trivial issue. The number of ‘attackers’ differs, the time frame differs by about 3 years, and she mentioned no names to the counselor.

          Corroboration or lack thereof is not dispositive.

          It had better be in most circumstances, particularly when charges are lodged 36 years after the fact.

          1. How do you know what the 40+ witnesses who volunteered to give statements to the FBI have? Do you know they don’t have calendars, photos, or other evidence?

            Setting all of that aside, what is your answer to the lack of temperament and proof of political bias since proven by Bart himself? What’s in the 100,000+ pages that Democrats aren’t allowed to see? What are they hiding and why?

            1. How do I know? Because there aren’t 40 witnesses who can corroborate or refute her account. There are five witnesses.

              Now, you might just have 40 people with ugly (if stale) gossip about BK. Some of them might even have been acquainted with him. You’re kind of 1 for 3 on that front so far. Again, don’t think Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer were leading with their weaker entries. They couldn’t even locate passable hearsay.

    2. “I’ve asked before, and I’ll ask again: what did Dr. Ford stand to gain by coming forward…”

      Why do it?
      (1) stop reversal of Roe v Wade
      (2) hurt Trump

      What is there to gain?
      (1) see “why do it?”
      (2) acclaim of half the country and all of CA
      (3) inevitable book deal and go fund me

      1. Ivan: where’s your proof that Dr. Ford had any of these goals as an agenda? Where’s your proof she lied? Lack of corroboration does not establish lying. The “go fund me” was for her legal fees, not for her. She’s successful, and doesn’t need money. She’s not gone on talk shows or given interviews, although she no doubt would be welcome. You speak of “acclaim”. Have you seen the attacks by Faux News? Wait. I know the answer to that one.

        1. Diane writes: “Faux News”

          It must really eat at your ilk that Fox News routinely, consistently and flagrantly leads the cable news ratings in all segments while CNN languishes.

          Q: Where are all the Lefties when you need them?
          A: Aborting their BFFs just like they do to unborn children.

          1. This particular ‘Anonymous’ is Natacha, not Diane. Diane is canny and deceitful. Natacha is verbose and histrionic. She’s also dishonest, but mostly lying to herself.

        2. We can all see that reading comprehension isn’t your thing.

          The question you asked was: “I’ve asked BEFORE and I’ll ask again, what does Dr Ford have to gain?” You wanted an answer and I gave it to you.

          Personally, I am convinced she’s lying but the burden of proof is on the accuser and she failed miserably.

        3. Anonymous – if Chrissy’s attorney’s are working pro bono, they do not expect to be paid, therefore the $1 million in the various GoFundMe accounts is Chrissy’s. Since Stanford is a VERY liberal institution her testimony will get Chrissy promoted to full professor. Is there a book deal in the offing? Who knows.

          I will take her at her word that she wanted to remain anonymous and got screwed over by either DiFi and/or her staff. However, once in the lists, she went full tilt. And it now appears she was stage managed. And it appears she perjured herself. Rachel Mitchell did an excellent job of setting her up for the committee to charge her with perjury and exposing the holes in her story.

          1. IIRC, she’s only had adjunct positions at Stanford. Her appointment is at ‘Palo Alto University’, which is a holding company which includes a juco and a stand-alone professional school for clinical psychologists.

    3. You said, “I’ve asked before, and I’ll ask again: what did Dr. Ford stand to gain by coming forward. . .”

      Yes, you did ask before on September 28, 2018, at 10:20AM, and I answered you. My Goodness, but you have short term memory problems. Or, you are just a partisan shill, who wants to pretend there are no other possible motives. Either way, here is you a refresher, a copy and paste of what I said to you then:

      You asked, ” I ask again: what would be her motivation to come forward and to lie? What does she stand to gain? Where is the proof that she is motivated by anything other than her civic duty, as she claims?”

      Possible Reasons:

      1. She is an Attention Whore;

      2. She is lying for political reasons, because she thinks Democrats are holy, and Republicans all devils;

      3. Money;

      4. For 15 minutes of fame;

      5. To get a spot speaking at the Democratic Convention;

      6. She is mentally ill.

      7. Self importance.

      You could just as well ask some ding-a-ling who falsely confesses to a crime why they do it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

        1. Well, you’re the detective. My money’s on 2 and 7 and possibly 1/4. I see zero evidence of mental illness. Her life has been quite orderly.


    “EVEN AS BRETT Kavanaugh inches closer toward his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, congressional Democrats are making a last-ditch attempt to bring attention to the nominee’s potential perjury, including about his role in the warrantless surveillance programs of the post-9/11 Bush White House.

    “Dozens of members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter Thursday to President Donald Trump committing to leverage subpoena power in an effort to investigate the full record of Kavanaugh’s time in the White House for evidence of perjury. House Democrats will have subpoena power if they retake the lower chamber in the midterm elections, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who will likely chair the House Judiciary Committee should that happen, has already promised to investigate any credible allegations of perjury if Kavanaugh is confirmed.”

    1. Good. The crazy left will keep reminding everyone how loco they are. It’s as if they have no understanding of how their own actions will play out. Like an infant.

    2. and we promise not to vote for them ever again
      im a republican but know a lot of dems. and i have voted for plenty here and there over the years. i have given money to democrats too. good ones.
      they were or are all socalled red state dem types, pretty conservative group overall.

      there is one in this mix who just lost my vote. i wont say his name. or her name. that person has curried favor with republicans and stayed away from antagonizing voters about trump. but that person may have just taken a turn the wrong way and may have just lost a seat that would have been easily won. come election day we’ll be sure and try and take it away.

    1. Kavanaugh will be too busy with his work on the Supreme Court. He’ll let the prosecutors handle Avenatti, Swetnick, et al.

    2. ha what a fool that avenatti
      he’s pointing up what a lot of people understand full well:
      American defamation law has no teeth. might as well not even be law anymore, lying and defamation are the coin of the realm

    1. a couple may have voted him forward but will vote opposite on final vote. watch and see if you know who “Flakes” out

  5. Dear Fake Conservatives. You will rue this vote someday. You don’t want a person who honors the constitution. You don’t want a person who honors his oath. You don’t care about evidence. You support the unitary executive. You are the nu-conservative. Thank you Jesus!

    P.S. Keep up the good work on denying the people hurt in 9/11 their just compensation. You should be so proud now.

      1. Not so much…the evidence is and always will be there. That it was denied the opportunity to be put on the books at this time….ask yourself why and who ultimately benefits. Meanwhile, Trump continues to strip this land of every decent progress made over the past 100 years or so.. Go back to your brethren…

        1. You said, ” Meanwhile, Trump continues to strip this land of every decent progress made over the past 100 years or so..”

          Would it be asking too much of you to elaborate. You know, give a little detail or something.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

        2. Former FBI Agent Monica McClain was with Ford when she composed the letter. She was also prepped by Ford to pass a poly. She used to be affliated with Schumer. Do the math girl. Ford’s lawyers are Clinton cronies. Put that in your evidence file and two and two equals four.

    1. You don’t want a person who honors the constitution.

      If you had five justices who ‘honored the constitution’ Jill, this is what you’d have:

      1. The entire edifice of decision which purported to evaluatestatutory legislation (not executive actions) according to congruence with the ‘equal protection’ clause of the 14th amendment would be blown up.

      2. All precedents incorporating what’s known as ‘substantive due process’ would be trashed.

      3. All decisions erasing the distinction between inter-state and intra-state commerce (and between commerce and production) would themselves be erased.

      4. stare decisis would protect the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some ancillaries. Beyond that, targets the size of elephants among federal agencies whose pedigree does not antedate 1933.

      5. Judicial intervention in apportionment and redistricting decisions: circumscribed and rooted in the guarantee clause.

      6. Judicial decrees demanding civil service exams be gutted or eliminated for reasons of race-patronage: gone.

      Federal civil rights laws would have to be far more circumscribed, as would occupational safety law and the bevy of federal labor laws apart from federal civil rights law. There would be some recission in consumer protection law and the general run of health-and-safety law as well.

      1. And, of course: Griswold, Roe & Doe, Casey, Romer, Lawrence, and Obergefell gone gone gone.

  6. Well, to start off, Stevens isn’t all that smart. He thought a couple of f*gg*ts sodomizing each other is of equal value to society as a man and woman having the kind of sex that makes babies.

    That being said, the elite class has way too high an opinion of and affinity for phony and tactful speech as opposed to someone just saying how the cow ate the cabbage in plain and simple language. I think maybe the basis for that is the same thing that caused the Old Catholic priests to mumble around in Latin, which none of the peasants understood – to make the topic seem over the head of everyday people.

    IMHO, that is the basis for a lot of the animus against Trump. He just comes out and says things without much regard to what the elite expect. An elite might say that a person is perhaps working under false assumptions, whereas Trump would simply call the same person a liar.

    Brett was pissed off and I don’t blame him. Screw what Stevens thinks.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. The left will not reevaluate their views based on truth. They stick with whatever helps their cause, right or wrong and thus this will further endear Stevens to them, but for the rest of society many will look at that remark and remember him in a lesser way than they otherwise would have.

    2. “He thought a couple of f*gg*ts sodomizing each other is of equal value to society as a man and woman having the kind of sex that makes babies.”

      My husband and I keep trying to have babies but one of us is not cooperating.
      Don’t know it till you try it, Squeeky. We hope you get laid soon. 😘

      – two joyful, conservative gays

      1. Keep trying. Who knows in this day and age enough about one another that no one can know for sure what will happen. 🙂

      2. Yeah, cause you know step families work out sooo well. And step families is the only kind of family you two dudes can have. Do yourselves, and the children of the world, a favor, and just party and whoop it up and and don’t drag any poor little kids into your life.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      3. Hey, conservative gays – did you see Time, USA Today and other news outlets reporting on Oct. 2, 2018 that the Trump admin has ordered the State Dept to stop issuing visas for the same sex spouses?

    3. Squeaker

      Your encouraging, no doubt heart-felt voice of moderation is music to members of the Property Party.

  7. When Kavanaugh appeared on the Martha MacCallum show, viewers complained that he was too stoic for the accusations made on him. They said he needed to come out guns a blazing like Judge Thomas if he had a chance to change public opinion. So he did, and I admired his opening speech, But, alas, he gets re-evaluated as not having a good judicial temperament. Give me a break! He can’t win for losing. Now they are asking for a new candidate. To ruin a man’s life, then cast him aside would be criminal. Let the man get the job he deserves and has practiced for his whole life. One troubled woman cannot ruin a man’s lifetime career at her whim.

    1. Supposedly Trump called Kav after the Martha McCallum interview and told him that the wimpy, teary performance wasn’t impressive; that he needed to show some anger and indignation, which is what someone would feel if he were wrongly accused (or effectively feigning being wrongfully accused). So Kav goes back and displayed anger, but he went overboard and misdirected it. It came out kind of odd and scattered. It didn’t seem natural. But that doesn’t really matter to me. I’m a practical person, and I believe Kav is more centrist that some of the right-wing extremists are hoping for. He came of age in the 1980s, in liberal Montgomery County, MD. He isn’t going to try to return the U.S. to the 1940s, and era he has no knowledge of and no interest in.

        1. I have no idea who Diane is, or whether said person even exists outside your delusional system. This is to, “I haven’t showered, shaved or changed my crusty shorts in a week because I’m obsessed with Blasey-Ford” Pillory.

  8. Obviously the court itself is partisan, as well as this judge. Next Ginsburg will be saying something as she is a flaming feminist. If this judge had been watching this orchestrated smear job from the beginning, instead of piling on like some mob rule protestor, he should have some compassion for a fellow judge up for the same position. After all, it could happen to one on his side some day, but I doubt it as Republicans are civilized people. He was lucky he got voted in during less partisan times.


  9. “[T]here should be no question about the need for former justices to stay out of the politics of confirmation.” Rubbish.

    He has as much a right to express an opinion as do you. The future credibility of the Court is an issue he understands, and the potential damage Kavanagh’s confirmation may do the Supreme Court is something he is uniquely qualified to address and could well exceed the imagined damage caused by his exercising his right to express an opinion. Given your unqualified defense of speech by employees of colleges — regardless of how odious or irresponsible — objections to speech by a retired leader of the judiciary is blithe hypocrisy. He owes you nothing.

  10. Chucky Boy Schumer is now speaking on the Senate Floor. He has his eye glasses way down his nose.
    Dianne Feinstein just got done. If you translate her last name from German it means fine stone in English. She is not a fine stone.
    For now on I am voting RepubliCon or perhaps Independent.

  11. Kavanaugh stood up and defended himself and his family. I like what he did and I think a lot more of him for doing that.

  12. Prior SC Justice Stevens was likely taking a nap when Kavanaugh’s children had to be escorted out of the hearings. He also forgot that ” long-standing uwritten rule” strated by Professor Turley. Maybe he forgot reporters were around. I think we can forgive him for his lapse in good judgement at the age of 98.

    1. Even at 98, he clearly understands the stakes — and said what needed to be said.

      1. He tarnished his reputation without having any impact. For all you know at 98 he might understand the stakes for cultural Marxists but not those that believe in individual freedom.

    1. I believe the number of law professors who joined in the petition for Kavanaugh’s withdrawal is now over 2,400. His confirmation will taint every SCOTUS decision for years to come.

      The American people overwhelmingly demand that Trump nominate a SCOTUS Justice with integrity. While 60% of Caucasians back Kavanaugh, the rest of the US is firmly opposed to his confirmation, and the Senate should listen to these voices, chief among them, former Supreme Court Justice Stevens.

      I have about had it with the “unwritten rules” that the GOP inconsistently applies, and I am far from alone in this opinion. Stevens voice rang with authority and truth, something Republicans no longer seem to admire, or require, in their leadership.

      1. I believe the number of law professors who joined in the petition for Kavanaugh’s withdrawal is now over 2,400.

        How many of those so called law professors signed a petition for Judge Kavanaugh to withdraw prior to the allegations by Ford?

        1. There was no petition prior to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s (still very credible, despite the Trump/FBI whitewash) accusations. I am sure many of the admittedly liberal law professors in our country opposed his candidacy from the start for partisan reasons, but did not feel compelled to act until two or more serious (and still credible) allegations were lodged against Kavanaugh.

          The law professors who endorsed the petition are employed by accredited law schools, and joined in their opposition to Kavanaugh’s confirmation by the American Bar Association, Yale Law School, the Jesuit Society, and many other individuals and Associations which formerly backed this entirely flawed and demonstrably unfit candidate. Dishonesty cannot be accepted in a Supreme Court Justice. It will render every decision where Kavanaugh is the deciding factor as suspect for all time.

          1. In a 5-4 or 6-3 decision, how is it determined which of the 5 or 6 was the deciding vote?

            1. Any vote where Kavanaugh seemed to make a difference, especially on a controversial subject. I have had my fill of boorish oafs for the day though, OLLY, so please do carry on without me.

                1. I think Stark is Natacha struggling to sound like a normal human being.

                  1. I’ve been considering which alias Stark is related to. Not as loco as Natacha but is along the same hyperbolic lane where proof is non existent. I wonder how many of the frequent posters of the loony left there really are. It seems their use of aliases is extreme. It has made intellectual debate impossible.

                    1. Haha. “Intellectual debate.” As if. Sorry to inform you, but one would have to give two sh*ts about what some wackjob, conspiratorial paranoid thinks about anything before engaging in a “debate” with any of you gullible rubes, dupes, klan wannabees, pocket-traitors or grifters on the make. So in the mean time, keep up with your ridiculous circle-jerk by regurgitating the patent nonsense you heard from hannity’s latest breathless announcement. Ruminate on this: what is that ticking sound?

                      this is to “I’m dense as a stump, but still proud to one of the hardy 36%ers” allan / allen

                    2. Marky Mark Mark – just because you throw a lot of words together and call it a word salad, does not make it an intellectual argument. I think once, that is right, just once, have you actually put forward an intellectual argument.

                    3. Mark M. is back to his word processor to write the same things over and over again. Has that little room you sit in become claustrophobic or did the women bosses throw you out for awhile so they could freshen the air?

                2. Agree. Apparently Stark isn’t accustomed to having her *ahem* logic challenged.

                  Any vote where Kavanaugh seemed to make a difference, especially on a controversial subject.

                  Translation: Any vote where Kavanaugh is joined in the majority opinion…period.

                3. Actually, I am just not interested in your pseudo-intellectual circle jerk, but do carry on with your narcissistic ramblings and offensive assumptions, as usual.

                  1. Lari, you sound like a pervert that is only able to engage in sexual innuendo.

                    1. “What an a$$…”

                      Yes, you have to be Hollywood or a good impersonator. It’s hard to find people that are as stupid as you. Keep it up fool.

          2. ” It will render every decision where Kavanaugh is the deciding factor as suspect for all time.”

            You are going to have to learn to live with it since the left is dishonest and doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong. They flirt with one idea after another as each idea fails.

            The basis of the left is identity politics. Identity politics is a genteel way of describing cultural Marxism which divides the world into two classes, the oppressed and the oppressor. At various times the actual subclass changes between race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc.. In the case of Kavanaugh it is his race and sex among a few other things. Thus the left attacks him not on his judicial merits rather his immutable characteristics that he was born into. The left stinks and you should know that.

        2. I bet they are all Democrat law professors. Also, the ABA gave Kavanaugh the highest recommendation but supposedly rescinded it, according to one D senator. BUT, the letter he presented was a personal letter from a rogue member of the ABA and not signed or condoned by the ABA. So that was another lie the D senators tried to put out there.

    2. why only 500? we could find a thousand leftist law profs. but i have a little marxist in me too. So i would like to see how they would hold up in a rural production facility a la Pol Pot, digging ditches for one bowl of soup a day, and so forth.

      a better way for them to advance the proletariat than wagging their forked tongues

    1. Sorry, I overstated. He has been accused of being a serial sexual abuser. Dr. Ford indicated that he was stumbling drunk, so it was unlikely that he could have performed a rape, unless he used a finger (fffff).

      1. bettykath – unless you have the co-operation of the “victim” those one piece bathing suits are like a chastity belt. Think of this visual. You have one hand on the girl’s mouth. The girl has a dress on over her one-piece swimsuit. Now, imagine him first lying on her and getting her dress off. Then, with one hand getting the swimsuit off. Cannot be done. You need the co-operation of the female to get that darn swimsuit off. 😉

  13. To claim Judge Kavanaugh’s demeanor and temperament during the confirmation hearing was not befitting someone seeking a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land is bullsh!it.

    Judge Kavanaugh had the requisite background investigation done and the committee spent I believe 3 days examining him and his judicial record before concluding that hearing. No one even hinted that his demeanor and temperament weren’t suited for the court. It was only after this confirmation hearing that the allegations made by Ford became public. That is when this process shifted from reviewing a Judge for a lifetime appointment on SCOTUS to reviewing a man for acceptability in civil society. That is when the full weight and force of the Democrats, their base and media allies went on the attack of the man and not the judge.

    Brett Kavanaugh, the son, husband and father was not defending himself just in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday. He was effectively on trial in front of the world, having to defend his entire life story against those that had already convicted him. This wasn’t a review of the character and opinions of a judge. This was a character assassination attempt of a man suddenly finding himself in a wholly un-American legal position of guilty until proven innocent. For a man that had spent his entire career defending our constitution to suddenly find himself subject to an unconstitutional standard had to be quite unnerving. So what is Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s real crime? He is a President Trump nominee that will be filling the so called swing seat that opposes the progressive’s administrative state. In short, he’s not the activist judge the Left needs to legislate from the bench.

    1. Olly

      Hitler is not here, but he said that supporting a facilitator like BK is the (far) right thing to do.

  14. Kavanaugh just apologized in his letter to the editor because he knew he went a bit overboard. That said, Kavanaugh was and has been accused of some of the most horrific crimes a person could be accused of in our day. My question is, should he act like a robot with dead emotion to such a thing. He called it like he saw it…a political hit job from the left (Dems) and the Clintons, who are always up to their old dirty tricks. How would anyone respond to such unprecedent comments as being called a gang rapist and by Sen. Booker as being “evil”. They are not trying to destroy Kavanaugh’s professional career, they are trying to destroy him and his family personally. John Paul Stevens should have known better than to judge the man based upon a very intense, unprecedented situation. Even judges on the bench loose their cool when people do or say outrageous things during court proceedings.

    1. Let’s not forget Da Nang Blumenthal claiming Kavanaugh would be a stain on the Supreme Court. You remember him, don’t you. The man who claimed to have been in combat but wasn’t.

Comments are closed.