🏀 KuBuckets Archive

Read-only archive of KuBuckets.com (2013-2025)
CNN != Fox
Oct 06, 2018 12:38 PM #1

Saw this highlight this morning on CNN:
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/10/05/opinions/gop-outplayed-dems-opinion-zelizer/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Famp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org%2Fv%2Fs%2Famp.cnn.com%2Fcnn%2F2018%2F10%2F05%2Fopinions%2Fgop-outplayed-dems-opinion-zelizer%2Findex.html%3Famp_js_v%3D0.1%26usqp%3Dmq331AQICAEoAWABaAA%25 ↗

Also, I noticed that CNN did not show the Senators speeches about Kavanaugh yesterday, nor did Fox.

It seems that CNN is not helping the Democrats. They screwed up the presidential election by making people believe a Clinton win was a foregone conclusion and they're screwing the Democrats now by saying they were outplayed. If anything should be clear at this point in American 2 party politics, it is that PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU TELL THEM. Fox isn't news but it sure as hell is effective Republican propaganda. Any loyal Fox viewer eats sleeps and sh-ts the same rhetoric, ingests it wholesale and never picks at their food.

CNN isn't like that. Here we see CNN saying the Democrats were outplayed, but the fact is the Democrats did the right thing. As the Democrats who voted no in red states said, history will be the judge. They voted no on an unfit candidate, knowing that the Republicans would slam him though.

And this should be their platform, they do the right thing, and that should be echoed by CNN not as a losing position but as the long, consistent play, their brand. Except CNN isn't a puppet for the Democrats. In fact, I'm not sure they're even on the same side.

Oct 06, 2018 12:56 PM #2

Note, i'm not for state run media, or news with an agenda. . But I think CNN should just be the Fake News opposite of Fox at this point. The fact that they aren't, makes me wonder where their interests truly lie.

I can dream of a tomorrow without either. But not a tomorrow with just one.

EDIT: yes I contradict myself below. I guess what I'm saying is that I have no interest in State run media. But it's what we have in Fox. I don't know how it can be fixed.

Oct 06, 2018 07:17 PM #3

Love your basketball takes, but your politics are delusional. CNN is dragged kicking and screaming to calling a spade a spade. I've quit distinguishing Democrats from the Left or even the far left because they've become one and the same.

You want proof, just look at the Dem Senators behavior, the lefty kooks storming through screaming and yelling and crying in the halls of Congress and the violent street activity of the fascist "Antifa" brownshirts.

All one and the same with barely a sliver of difference. ( If you think I go too far see Maxine Waters and others encouraging violent, loud opposition everywhere and a Bernie bro tried to assassinate Congressional Republicans almost killing Rep Steve Scalise).

Avenatti, the porn lawyer, is talking about a run for the White House in 2020 as a Democrat. His stupidity and over the top contributions to the current political circus have some wondering if he isn't a Trump plant.

But really, Democratic behavior is actually making Trump look like the epitome of decorum and fair-mindedness. Even I find that almost unbelievable, but it's true...so true that Trump-hating CNN is even recognizing it and having to speak truth to their Democratic Masters.

Oct 06, 2018 07:24 PM #4

@approxinfinity Dems were definitely outplayed, but mostly outplayed themselves. It is perfectly fair for CNN to discuss that process. I have seen articles in other sites on a similar theme. Remember, the lesson goes back to the election itself. I vehemently disagree that CNN should limit its analysis to those things that support Dems, but in this case not publishing this piece would hurt Dems -- they need all the help they can get in figuring out where their strategies have gone wrong.

Oct 06, 2018 10:20 PM #5

@approxinfinity being perfect is an impossible task. Having a few beers in high school and trying to get laid, does that make you unfit? He did not rape her, she said as much.....

Oct 06, 2018 10:38 PM #6

!alt text ↗

lol

Oct 07, 2018 12:03 AM #7

@Marco I never locked the door with my buddy in the room, tackled a girl who was unaware of my intentions and put my hand over her mouth when she screamed, did you?

Oct 07, 2018 12:34 AM #8

@approxinfinity and neither did Kavanaugh. Do you have a means of seeing the past like Harry Potter?

Oct 07, 2018 12:36 AM #9

I will say will be more fun hanging out with my buds here when we can be arguing over the starting five of a National Championship season!

Oct 07, 2018 12:37 AM #10

Not that I don't enjoy a good honest give and take on politics and culture or even religion. Maybe we'll leave sex out of the mix if you Lefties will let us. 😂

Oct 07, 2018 12:46 AM #11

@Bwag

@Marco said that Kavanaugh was just was a horny guy trying to get laid, insinuating that whatever happened to Ford didnt matter provided no rape occurred. We both know that's not true. The things he was accused of are not okay if they did happen.

Oct 07, 2018 01:16 AM #12

@mayjay Fox is basically state run media at this point. Why shouldn't CNN do the same thing? Take the talking points from the Democratic party and just run with them 24/7, just Fox does for the Republicans
party. Neither network is invested in deep journalism. Why not give up the ghost of integrity and just be the soulless trashy counterpoint to Fox News? It is their destiny.

Oct 07, 2018 01:19 AM #13

@approxinfinity wait.. is your take that CNN is not a talking mouth for the left?

Oct 07, 2018 01:21 AM #14

@Woodrow I'm saying they don't have the same close relationship with the Dems like Fox has with the Republicans. FOX would never ever say the Republicans were outplayed if the situation were reversed. They'd say how they the Republicans were screwed by the evil Democrats or whatever.

Oct 07, 2018 03:07 AM #15

@Woodrow You might not realize it, but the far left of the Dem party is constantly trashing MSM outlets almost as much as The Donald does. By their theory, MSM gave way too much fawning attention to Trump's campaign and elevated him to first the Repub nomination, and then to the White House. Same with the Morning Joe hosts--vicious comments about them for interviewing Trump early on before they all enemyzed each other (if that isn't a word it should be). (BTW, I think @approxifinity is just advocating CNN moving further or more consistently left to offset Fox--I don't place him among the rabid group of haters I described above.)

If you have followed my posts over time, you will recall that I have often pointed out how Dems turn on each other in elections while Republicans seem to be able (lately, at least) to rally together for an ovarching goal. Witness the Graham transformation from early campaign "Trump can go to Hell" to Trump sycophant today. Compare to Dems driving Franken out of the Senate.

Oct 08, 2018 03:00 PM #16

The problem is that we have lost the ability to look at things objectively.

On another thread @Bwag said Kavanaugh was more of a centrist. That's flatly untrue. Kavanaugh is conservative. We can argue about his fitness and have differing opinions. We shouldn't be debating whether or not he's conservative, because he very clearly is. However, saying that Kavanaugh is a centrist moves the lines because if Kavanaugh is viewed as a centrist, it makes justices like Alito and Roberts look more liberal, and makes progressives like Kagan look like extremists.

Think of it in terms of a weightlifting class.

If the average person in my weightlifting class can bench press 100 pounds, someone that can bench 75 pounds is a little below average, and someone that can bench 125 pounds is above average. That's simple enough. That also means that someone that can bench 150 pounds seems pretty strong and someone that can bench 200 pounds is basically Hercules in that group.

If you move the averages, though, things change. Let's say my group now is a bunch of NFL linebackers. The same guy that looked like Hercules because he could bench 200 pounds in the 100 pound average group now looks like a weakling surrounded by NFL guys that are benching 250+ pounds with ease.

I didn't change the strength of the guy that could lift 200 pounds. He can lift the same 200 pounds. I just changed the comparison. He went from being well above average to being well below average.

The GOP is doing the same thing. They are changing where the middle is perceived to make anyone to the left of that seem extreme, thereby pulling the country further right by arguing that the middle is actually tilted heavily towards conservatism.

Oct 08, 2018 05:43 PM #17

@approxinfinity Fox has more diversity than CNN for sure. See Juan Williams for one, and I'm not talking race at all. I still call CNN the Clinton News Network going back to the 90's.

Oct 08, 2018 05:45 PM #18

@approxinfinity I'd say CNN is the Democrats media dept. So what we have here is a failure to commicate!

Oct 08, 2018 05:46 PM #19

@mayjay but the Mainstream Media was playing to the Democratic/Clinton strategy because they didnt believe Trump could win or would even stick in the race.

Then they realized he had gained solid footing and had to switch gears.

Oct 08, 2018 06:20 PM #20

@justanotherfan I'd say i see more accurately. And when you read news accounts, how often do you see "Far Left" as a characterization of an individual versus the labeling of individuals as 'Far Right'? I would warrant a guess it's upward of 90-10 ratio. All that to say, general perception is definitly skewed by mainstream media & cultural organs.

1) Kavanaugh was chosen because he had wide spread bi-partisan support (until it was no longer convenient) and by Centrist I dont deny he falls within the Originalist stripe, but that doesn't equate specifically go Conservative politics, while I'll admit it supports a conservative (little 'c') approach

2) Many on the Right did not favor Kavanaugh except for the non-controversial nature of the pick, the exception being his extensive documentary trail was of some concern (because Democrats...as was seen in resulting circus)

3) The fact that his extensive documentary trail was not sufficient for Dems to derail him I place as Evidence #1 of my "Centrist" designation - and I do believe i also called him 'Center-Right" as well. This is what led to the 11:59 Dem strategy -held in reserve- of false, political, character assassination.

4) Even all said and done, many Conservatives are banking, hoping agai st hope, that this viscious smear campaign has so infected him that, despite his history and declaration, he'll becime a more reliable Conservative jurist in mold of Thomas. They are thanking the crazy Dems for potentially making that a reality.

All that said, we will all see over time.

It must also be noted that it is the centrist/liberals of the Republican caucus (ie. Graham, Collins) that led the support of Kavanaugh not the Conservatives. This is telling and here's why: the dirty, political hit made against "one of their own" brought a new realization to the broader Republican caucus that it wasn't just about the excesses of Trump, and if Dems could so viscioulsly malign and smear such a decent more middle of the road person, then where do they end up in that politics as personal destruction environment. Re-watch Graham's lambaste in that light and it tells you everything.

I've hated Graham and McCain for quite a while ( won'tgo into that here, now) but this has been eye-opening for me in a way you can't imagine. I follow politics closely, and until this last week I had no idea that Grham was 1) unmarried and 2) that there could be rumors that he was gay. Hmmmm...how did I find that out this week? Because when he stepped off the reservation of one of the Left's ie Dems favorite Republicans, and was so effective in exposing their evil deeds, the cultural gate-keepers of 'liberal' culture started outing him with homosexual taunts. Now if that isnt hypocrisy of a whole new order, just wow! It's power and control, and Democrats are seeing their levers of control being eroded and it's a fight to the death by any means necessary.

See you in November! Guess that has both political and basketball implications!

Next.

Oct 08, 2018 06:39 PM #21

@Bwag Living here in SC since 2006, it has been amusing to see Graham try to fight off the "he is too liberal" attacks when almost everyone knew that it was the rumors about him being gay that really were driving the RW animus against him.

Oct 08, 2018 06:40 PM #22

@Bwag

When I am defining Kavanaugh as conservative, I am doing so based on his rulings, which are heavily conservative. I am not basing this on talking points or the politics involved in the hearings.

There are several websites out there that predict SCOTUS rulings by examining all of the justices previous rulings and score them based on that. Kavanaugh consistently scored as the most conservative or second most conservative judge on the D.C. circuit (his former court).

Kavanaugh scores as more conservative than Scalia ideologically (in the chart below, Scalia would have landed just slightly to the left of Alito and Gorsuch).

!0_1539024334699_upload-9c146888-3243-4aa9-9c8b-c0eca01848fb ↗

That chart is the one I was referencing earlier. The article ↗ that I pulled that from is actually from this summer, so it pre-dates the political fallout from the accusations. Even then, the estimation was that while Kavanaugh's writing style was similar to Alito, he was probably more conservative than both Alito and Gorsuch, and his record suggests he falls only slightly left of Thomas.

As you can see from the chart, he's pretty far to the right, more so even than either Ginsburg or Sotomayor are to the left.

Again, if you want to cite a centrist, it was Kennedy (slightly left of center). Roberts is more moderate, but certainly on the conservative side of the spectrum.

Kavanaugh was expected to be either the second or third most conservative judge on the bench, depending on if his rulings land closer to his ideology score or his writing score. Either way, he would not have been a centrist. Perhaps his rulings land him in the cluster with Alito and Gorsuch - solidly conservative, but not extremely so like Thomas. That's still not centrist.

I will repeat - I am not saying that Kavanaugh having a conservative record is a bad thing for him specifically. I'm just saying that you cannot say that a judge with his record is a centrist because that is flat out untrue.

Call him what he is - a conservative judge.

Oct 08, 2018 06:47 PM #23

The Truth will set you free ↗

[link text](

Enough said moving along.

Oct 08, 2018 08:29 PM #24

@approxinfinity I didn't say that he was just a horny guy trying to get laid, come on.... Do you really believe that he ran a gang rape scheme? If so, that is a bigtime opinion, and I do mean opinion.

Oct 08, 2018 09:16 PM #25

@Marco

Don't Worry Marco

@approxinfinity feels that you judge a person with no evidence. It doesn't matter. As long as you accuse. that is all that matters.

It doesn't matter that if all the people even the best friend of the accuser denied of any preparty meeting. It doesn't matter that the second lady that claimed a rape changed her story on media, and that the ones she claimed were there. One is dead and another denied even knowing the accuser.

It doesn't matter. All that matter is that you accuse.

Its the new Lib justice. Well until it's one of their own. Then they'll be singing a different tune. Look at Booker a Dem he admitted to sexual abuse. Yet he gets to judge others. Crazy.

Oct 09, 2018 02:25 AM #26

@justanotherfan exactly. There is no objectivity. I find this deeply depressing. Plenty of half baked nonsense masquerading as fact, or even rational opinion. Where are the rational conservatives? The ones that say what Justice Stevens said about Kavanaugh? Why cant I find more of that in real life?

Oct 09, 2018 02:37 AM #27

@mayjay I some how missed all that, and I follow pretty closely. My beef is that he had his head up MCCains, well I won’t go there given the new information.

I lost all respect for McCain with McCain-Feingold and his incumbent protection racket attack on 1A...and his stupidity to see the unintended consequences of that. I guess I pegged them then what now migt be called deep state tactics.

I always thought Graham had a failure of backbone after his role in the Clinton impeachment deal, when Republican Senators cut the legs out from under the House “prosecutors “, but that’s going back a ways.

Oct 09, 2018 02:43 AM #28

@justanotherfan thanks for the reference, I’ll take a look. I based my take more from commentariat versus an attempt at deep analysis. That said, I’m always wary of sources when it comes to putting people on a political scale.

For example, I put Nazis on the left with their related Socialist brethren. In that manner I ascribe more to libertarian model than the modern scholastic re-writers.

Oct 09, 2018 02:45 AM #29

@approxinfinity it’s true that the frontal lobe breaks down with age. Justice Stephens, God bless his doting soul.

Oct 09, 2018 02:48 AM #30

@approxinfinity is this the kind of rationality you want!!0_1539053488422_A6562271-9BBB-4D25-AB52-4778B477A7D3.jpeg ↗

Oct 09, 2018 03:07 AM #31

@Bwag actually no, I said "rational conservative", I know the concept may be hard to understand. Try again?

Oct 09, 2018 03:13 AM #32

@approxinfinity funny how you just dismiss that picture. There is shit like that all social media from nut job liberals.

Oct 09, 2018 03:20 AM #33

@Woodrow my previous post about this - /topic/7864

Oct 09, 2018 03:22 AM #34

Finding trolls on the left in response to my post does not justify the lack of rationality on the right, it confirms it.

Oct 09, 2018 03:41 AM #35

approxinfinity said:

@justanotherfan exactly. There is no objectivity. I find this deeply depressing. Plenty of half baked nonsense masquerading as fact, or even rational opinion. Where are the rational conservatives? The ones that say what Justice Stevens said about Kavanaugh? Why cant I find more of that in real life?

Objectivity? You have no evidence yet you presume our new supreme justice is guilty? Really?

Oct 09, 2018 03:47 AM #36

Interesting story... ↗

Oct 09, 2018 03:57 AM #37

@DoubleDD I believe he should have been disqualified based upon temperament, partisanship, and lying about being of drinking age when he wasn't and attempting to downplay the extent of his drinking. I stated so. But again you demonstrate that you don't care what I individually think, you've lumped me into a group you can program your counterpoint against (see my link a few posts up).

Oct 09, 2018 04:14 AM #38

@JayHawkFanToo

The former Washington, D.C. bureau chief for CNN ripped the media for its extreme bias, misreporting, and low standards as they joined the Democratic party in launching an all-out assault to stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the nation's highest court.

The fact that your conservative "news" source Daily Wire ( est. 2015) claims that Sesno ripped the media for "standards as they joined the Democratic party in launching an all-out assault to stop Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh" is frankly misreported BS itself, as it is insinuating that Sesno stated this as opinion. I watched the piece and this was not close to his quote. So hungry are we for counterpoint that we eat up BS.

Can you call out this Daily Wire site for having low standards when in fact their standards are not for impartial news but rather weaponized information masquerading as fact?

I feel like a broken record.

Oct 09, 2018 04:18 AM #39

@approxinfinity I agree w/you. He lied about the definitions in his yearbook, boofing, Devil's Triangle, and FFFFF. The way he talked to ms Klobuchar was so rude, I was really taken back. Have you ever blacked out? Was he suppose to question her? Was he the best we could do? They never released all his info and had a very limited investigation. How do you not find that he started a bar fight, in 6 investigations? A guy was treated in the ER. Did anyone read the letter he wrote to his cohorts to secure the beach rental house for beach week? Investigations found or didn't find what they wanted. There were witnesses never contacted, why? I know why.

Oct 09, 2018 05:58 AM #40

approxinfinity said:

@DoubleDD I believe he should have been disqualified based upon temperament, partisanship, and lying about being of drinking age when he wasn't and attempting to downplay the extent of his drinking. I stated so. But again you demonstrate that you don't care what I individually think, you've lumped me into a group you can program your counterpoint against (see my link a few posts up).

I wish I could believe you. I really do. Yet you keep speaking of him as guilty. Even though evidence shows it's not so. If you want to move the goal posts I'm cool, but I'm totally against ruining a persons life over one persons testimony. A testimony that even the accusers best friend won't even confirm, and even denies. Please make me believe.

Oct 09, 2018 08:43 AM #41

@DoubleDD Oh I do think he did what he is accused of. And i think the investigation was artificially restricted. But thats not why I think he should be disqualified. I think the bar is even higher than "not having committed sexual assault" as to whether someone should be a justice on the highest court in the Judicial branch. Things like "not a partisan hack" and "not a belligerent d--k" and "not a liar" are the kinds of things I'm looking for.

Oct 09, 2018 08:51 AM #42

@DoubleDD here's a comprehensive list regarding who said what about Kavanaugh:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-witnesses.html ↗

Can we please stop with the one accuser/detractor fantasy? It's infuriating. Pretending certain people don't exist is not a good sign regarding how this Justice will rule.

Oct 09, 2018 11:41 AM #43

@DoubleDD Actually, the best friend doesn't deny it; she just didn't remember but had no reason to. She said she believes Ford. Four of Kav's college friends (including his roommate), however, do not believe his testimony and expressly accused him of perjury.

You can decide you do not care what he is accused of perjuring himself about, but that doesn't mean those who knew him best didn't accuse him. Just be intellectually honest and admit that you think it doesn't matter if he lied to the Senate about his drinking and his behavior while drinking.

Oct 09, 2018 02:18 PM #44

Speaking of moderate Republicans, Nikki Haley resigned today, unfortunately.

Oct 09, 2018 02:23 PM #45

?s=21

They also ran a story on Kavanough throwing ice!

Oct 09, 2018 02:30 PM #46

@Woodrow Legitimate news is not fabricated based upon what "half the country is thinking". The news is the news.

From a Fox News perspective of "the news as a weopon", this guy's comment begins to make more sense.

Oct 09, 2018 02:35 PM #47

@approxinfinity HAHA OK!! I hope liberal keep doing what they do. Let me know how that works out!

Oct 09, 2018 02:36 PM #48

Woodrow said:

?s=21

They also ran a story on Kavanough throwing ice!

Throwing ice that sparked a bar fight where someone ended up in the hospital and someone else went to jail.

Kavanaugh showed his temper and character in his hearing when he started yelling at Democratic senators. Last month, some on this board mocked Serena Williams for being a loser and throwing a tantrum at the US Open when she yelled at an umpire.

!0_1539095889640_upload-57a99f5d-8f22-411d-9e89-54e05c1ffa9b ↗

Oh wait, that was you. Hmmm...

Guess tantrums are okay for SCOTUS justices, but not for pro tennis players. Noted.

Oct 09, 2018 02:38 PM #49

justanotherfan said:

Woodrow said:

?s=21

They also ran a story on Kavanough throwing ice!

Throwing ice that sparked a bar fight where someone ended up in the hospital and someone else went to jail.

Kavanaugh showed his temper and character in his hearing when he started yelling at Democratic senators. Last month, some on this board mocked Serena Williams for being a loser and throwing a tantrum at the US Open when she yelled at an umpire.

!0_1539095889640_upload-57a99f5d-8f22-411d-9e89-54e05c1ffa9b ↗

Oh wait, that was you. Hmmm...

Guess tantrums are okay for SCOTUS justices, but not for pro tennis players. Noted.

I

Oct 09, 2018 02:39 PM #50

@justanotherfan Wait... You think these two are the same thing?

If so then it's not really worth my time responding but I will.

Oct 09, 2018 02:50 PM #51

@Woodrow

Yes, I think it's worse to spark a bar fight than yell at a referee/umpire as a competitor during a sporting event.

Yes, I think it's worse for a federal judge to yell at Senators during a Senate hearing than it is for a competitor in a sporting event to yell at a referee/umpire.

Perhaps we differ on that. If so, you are obviously entitled to your own opinion on that.

Oct 09, 2018 02:59 PM #52

When actions result in a bloody head and an ER trip, there is no comparison. There could have been charges. Funny how that wasn't found in ALL those investigations.

Oct 09, 2018 03:04 PM #53

I think it is funny that people are acting like if they were in the same position as Kanvanaugh they would just sit there and be calm. Is that the ideal situation sure. However, when people are attacking you and everything you have worked your entire life for then sometimes emotions get the best of you. That is life. I am going to go out on a limb and say that has happened to everyone. Obviously not on this platform or scale but it is human nature. It is just another example of liberals nitpicking every little thing. As I said keep doing what you are doing and let me know how it works out. See last election.

As for Serena it is not remotely even close to the same situation. 99% of the people in sports agree she was getting her ass kicked and threw a tantrum. These two things are not even in the same realm of being connected. Keep reaching.

Oct 09, 2018 03:09 PM #54

Crimsonorblue22 said:

When actions result in a bloody head and an ER trip, there is no comparison. There could have been charges. Funny how that wasn't found in ALL those investigations.

There could have been charges but there was no probable cause.

Oct 09, 2018 03:09 PM #55

@approxinfinity I feel like she was a bright light in the White House. She was stable! She could tell trump what to do.

Oct 09, 2018 03:11 PM #56

@Woodrow not if you want to be on the highest court. You can't attack other people who are not attacking you. She was calm and he side stepped her questions.

Oct 09, 2018 03:44 PM #57

@approxinfinity

You always seem to indicate than when any non-liberal source publishes something it is misrepresenting facts but when CNN or other liberal publications do it they are telling the truth even when CNN has had to walk back or correct stories numerous times recently because they were misrepresented or incorrectly reported. Your double standard is dizzying, to say the least.

Now, you say that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed because of his temperament...let me ask you this, if you are ever in a position like Kavanaugh and someone from your HS days makes an unfounded and unverifiable accusation that you know is not true, how upset would you be and how hard would you defend yourself? I don't know about you abut I would defend myself vigorously.

Now, here is another ↗ that you can judge for yourself that explains the entire fiasco. There is a link to the recording so you don't have to believe me or rely on anyone else misreporting. I can almost predict your answer will be...do you believe me or your lying ears? :smile:

Oct 09, 2018 03:51 PM #58

Woodrow said:

I think it is funny that people are acting like if they were in the same position as Kanvanaugh they would just sit there and be calm. Is that the ideal situation sure. However, when people are attacking you and everything you have worked your entire life for then sometimes emotions get the best of you. That is life. I am going to go out on a limb and say that has happened to everyone. Obviously not on this platform or scale but it is human nature. It is just another example of liberals nitpicking every little thing. As I said keep doing what you are doing and let me know how it works out. See last election.

As for Serena it is not remotely even close to the same situation. 99% of the people in sports agree she was getting her ass kicked and threw a tantrum. These two things are not even in the same realm of being connected. Keep reaching.

If I get stopped by the police and falsely accused, you better believe I am expected to maintain my composure, even though my livelihood and freedom would be in jeopardy if I am wrongly accused of a crime.

Judge Kavanaugh was not in jeopardy of going to jail because the statute of limitations was up. He wasn't even necessarily in a position to lose his current federal judgeship. The only question was whether or not he would be elevated to the Supreme Court, and he lost his composure.

So YES, I absolutely expect him to maintain his composure, particularly as a professional with DAYS to prepare (this was not in the heat of the moment). He knew he was going to be in that hearing and he could have (and should have) chosen his words and decorum to fit that situation. That is what is expected from people within the legal profession, and as someone being elevated to the highest court in the land, that is an automatic expectation.

I would bet he would not find it acceptable for a defendant to come into the Supreme Court yelling at the justices even if they were falsely accused and were appealing. They would be expected (and required) to maintain an appropriate level of decorum while in the courtroom, REGARDLESS of what they were accused of. I have seen people physically removed from hearings for behaving the way Judge Kavanaugh did.

We should not expect less of a SCOTUS justice.

He's on the court now, so it is irrelevant as to whether he conducted himself appropriately in his hearing. But it does very clearly show a double standard that you are applying, unless you think it is appropriate for defendants to scream at prosecutors and judges in the courtroom when they actually are on trial for their freedom and livelihood.

If so, as I said before, we disagree on that point, but you would not be applying a double standard, so you would be consistent in that respect, which is understandable at least.

Oct 09, 2018 03:54 PM #59

He's a JUDGE. He had time to PREPARE. Instead he put on his clown shoes and danced for Trump. Embarrassing tbh. He got pushed through as expected and the SC is the worst it has ever been. So yay! GOP party!*

*And yes, Dems helped.

Oct 09, 2018 03:54 PM #60

@JayHawkFanToo you can't attack another person like he did! If the senators didn't tell him to apologize after the break, he probably wouldn't have. He lost votes over that and did cause an investigation, although that was a sham too.

Oct 09, 2018 05:32 PM #61

@Crimsonorblue22

Yep. Every investigation that clears Kavanaugh is a sham. Got it.

If the FBI investigation was such a sham, why is it the Senator Feinstein wanted it classified so no one else would see it?

Now, if your husband or one of your kids is ever in a similar situation where an uncorroborated, very serious, 35 year old allegation is brought up against him and that you all know to be false, what would you advice them to do? Sit there like potted plant and take the savage attack or fight vigorously to clear his reputation and good name? I don't know what is in your heart or mind so I don't pretend to know what you would do...I only know what I would do. Are you familiar with the "A sack full of feathers" story? This is exactly what happened and regardless of how many investigations clear him, Kvanaugh's name will forever be tarnished.

Oct 09, 2018 07:34 PM #62

@JayHawkFanToo I don't see how any of us could "know" what our spouses did or did not do years before we met.

I'm still waiting for any evidence of fabrication by Dr Ford, since the post-vote narrative has advanced from "compelling but not corroborated" all the way to "hoax" in The Great Leader's estimation. And his opinion is all that matters to the deplorables, as witnessed by his own ability to deflect the accusations against him by over 15 women. Of course, his lies don't matter.

I remember Republicans were all in a lather about trying to discover $100,000 in alleged "parked trading" by Hillary in the 90's. I even got to spend a half week combing through over 20,000 pages of commodity documents to respond to Senator Faircloth of NC, without finding her name once. Yet pretty extensively documented hundreds of millions in tax cheating by Trump Capone doesn't even raise an eyebrow. And then there is the evil of lying about Lewinsky, regarding which Kavanaugh scripted for Starr two dozen explicit questions to ask Clinton seeking to discover precisely how many penetrations occurred in the oval office. Meanwhile, Trump lies about affairs, lies about hush money, lies about his own words in a videotaped interview, etc. etc. etc.

Just admit it: if it's a Republican, you don't give a shit.

Oct 09, 2018 07:37 PM #63

@mayjay hey, who you calling a ho?! Just kidding ;)

You corrected the typo. Haha

Oct 09, 2018 07:39 PM #64

@approxinfinity Sorry, fixed the one I saw before seeing yours!

Oct 09, 2018 07:40 PM #65

@approxinfinity Things move fast around here. Who can keep up?!!!

Oct 09, 2018 08:24 PM #66

@JayHawkFanToo my husband died at a young age and my boys aren't that old. I can tell you that they would never ever talk to a lady that way. They would never write those sexual terms down anywhere for people to see. If they were under oath they wouldn't lie about those sexual terms. It seems like the whole world knew those words, 'cept @mayjay and me. They are not rich frat boys that have had everything handed to them. No beach weeks! They are far from perfect, but they respect other people. If there is an investigation we do have lots of witnesses, I hope they talk to them!

Oct 09, 2018 09:33 PM #67

@mayjay

You have got ot admit that professor Blasey Ford stretches the limits of credibility to a point where her entire testimony is suspect.

Her story has changed repeatedly to fit the new information available and no one dares call the proverbial "the emperor has no clothes" for fear of being labeled anti-women or as the hosts from the show The View called anyone that doubts her story a racist...really? racist?

Just about every detail of her testimony has changed starting from the assertion that it happened in the mid 80s when she was in her late teens to 1982 when she was 15 when she realized Kavanaugh would have been in college at the time. She does not remember how she got there or how she got home and apparently left her best friend with men that allegedly tried to rape her; this defies logic. Back then there were no cell phones and she has no explanation whatsoever. The Bethesday Chevy Chase area is very large and you generally cannot walk from one place to another.

I don't know if you are familiar with Bethesda- Chevy Chase area. My family moved to Bethesda in 1971 and stayed there until the late 90s when they sold the house. I personally lived in Bethesda during the early 70s and I am very familiar with the area and the prep school environment having my sister attended Ursuline Academy (now closed) in Bethesda in the late 70s early 80s and my younger brother went to St John's College HS in Washington DC in the early 80s or right around the time of the alleged incident; all my nephews attended Gonzaga HS in DC and DeMatha HS. While these are very exclusive schools, they don't even come close to Holton Arms which is the most expensive women's prep school in the DC area with a tuition of $54K per year and whose famous alumni include Susan Ford, daughter of then President Ford who was famous (or infamous) for being rude to her secret service detail and continuously sent them on fast food runs; it is even more expensive than Sidwell Friends HS (where the Obama kids went). The only prep school more expensive is St. Albans (where Al Gore went) which has a tuition of over $60k per year. So, this is not like she was a girl from the wrong side of the tracks that was groped by a rich kid and could not get justice. If you attend Holton Arms, your parents are loaded and I mean LOADED and extremely well connected otherwise you just don't get in.

The polygraph that you cited early is a joke by any standard. She was asked to hand write a statement which she changed several times crossing numbers and fact and replacing with others. The two questions asked were:

  • Did you write that statement?
  • Do you believe it to be true?

Really? That is it? No probative questions that would determine the veracity or lack thereof of her allegations were asked; she does not even remember if the process was being video taped. The favorable treatment by the rent-a-polygrapher made they referees calling Duke game look like pikers.

The boyfriend she dated for 6 years indicated she did not have any fear of flying and even flew small propeller planes for travel around the world. He also indicated that she never mentioned any thing about the alleged assault and also indicated she coached a friend on how to pass polygraphs. Se has co-authored a paper on retrieving memories using hypnoses, an area that is highly controversial and known to be extremely unreliable.

As far as her alleged post traumatic issues, she never had any while finish her last two years in high school and conveniently showed up years later in college. Here therapist notes which she shared with Washington Post but would not share with the Senate show different key details than those in her story. She indicated that in 2012 she wanted to install a second door for security due to her ongoing issues but permit records from her home town showed that the remodeling permit was issued in 2008 and the second door was designed to give separate access to an area of the house she wanted to rent. So much for that.

Also, her friend that would not corroborate her story was contacted by her attorneys and pressured to change her testimony and the most she did was to indicate that as a friend, she believed that something might have happened to her at some place in time but would still not corroborate the party in question and still denied even knowing Kavanaugh, let alone being in a very small party with him

Here is a nice summary ↗ in USA Today, by no means a conservative publication.

All the information cited above can be easily verified via google search.

As an attorney you must be dismayed when now the accuser is to be believed and the accused is presumed to be guilty and it is the job of the accused to prove a negative, something that cannot be done. This is not how it is supposed to work.

BTW, Blasey Ford has now indicated she is stopping all proceeding and does not want Kavanaugh impeached or removed, WOW.

Oct 09, 2018 10:09 PM #68

Crimsonorblue22 said:

@JayHawkFanToo my husband died at a young age and my boys aren't that old. I can tell you that they would never ever talk to a lady that way. They would never write those sexual terms down anywhere for people to see. If they were under oath they wouldn't lie about those sexual terms. It seems like the whole world knew those words, 'cept @mayjay and me. They are not rich frat boys that have had everything handed to them. No beach weeks! They are far from perfect, but they respect other people. If there is an investigation we do have lots of witnesses, I hope they talk to them!

I am sorry about your husband but you missed my point. I was just using an example that could happen to any man in today's environment.

Like I said, what do you think you would do if 20 or 30 years from now someone makes allegations about one of you kids when you know they are not capable of that and never have been before...because you know how they were raised. Would you tell them to not defend themselves?

As far as words on yearbook is nothing more than non-sense. I chose not to be in my HS or College yearbook because a lot of what was written, particularly in HS, was pure nonsensical braggadocio and I found it to be silly and I wanted no part of it.

People that act that way towards women do not stop and every woman that has worked for him has supported him and indicated they have never see him be anything other than a perfect gentleman. This does not match at all the image of Kavanaugh that they expect us to believe.

As far as being rich frat boys, read my post to @mayjay. She attended the most exclusive women's HS in the Washington DC area just like Kavanaugh and as far as having everything handed to him, finishing at the top of his class in HS and College is not something that was handed out to him, it is something that he worked hard to achieve, particularly at a top Ivy League school.

I just don't get why people want to destroy somebody's career and reputation just because he was appointed by Trump. Sotomayor and Kegan are a lot farther to the left than Kavanaugh is to the right and while many republicans did not vote for them, they did it for ideological reasons and did not try to personally destroy them either.

Look at this video ↗ to get a different perspective along the lines of what I was talking.

Oct 09, 2018 10:15 PM #69

@JayHawkFanToo you missed my point! He lied! My kids wouldn't under oath! That nonsense you speak of, he lied about, under oath, so stop talking to me about it!

Oct 09, 2018 10:22 PM #70

Crimsonorblue22 said:

@JayHawkFanToo you missed my point! He lied! My kids wouldn't under oath! That nonsense you speak of, he lied about, under oath, so stop talking to me about it!

With all due respect, that is your opinion and mine is different and what you call non-sense, some of us call it facts. Again, read my post to @mayjay and read the link I provided, she has lied and lied and lied...pardon me...her recollection has changed...when new information became available that did not fit her original or even the modified narrative and yet I don't hear a peep about it from you. Selective indignation much?

Oct 09, 2018 10:30 PM #71

@JayHawkFanToo selective? You never say anything about HIS lies, he is the one trying to get a job. You called it nonsense!

Oct 09, 2018 11:32 PM #72

Crimsonorblue22 said:

@JayHawkFanToo selective? You never say anything about HIS lies, he is the one trying to get a job. You called it nonsense!

I am not sure what your HS or college experience was but my friends and I, at both places, had a number of expressions that were unique to our group and unless you were familiar with how the expression originated you would not know what we were talking about. I can give you a number of examples and some of them are something we would not mention in mixed company, only among ourselves. As free spirited as we were in the 70s and 80s we were still respectful of women.

Here is an example we are all familiar. Jaybate used to post all this empty posts with only the words "back fill" until it was pointed out to him what the slang meaning of the word was. I honestly do not think he intended it that way but it happened.

So, at least Kavanoaugh seems to have a somewhat plausible explanation for those 3 word that you seem to obsess over; however, you don't seem at all concerned about all the...shall we say "discrepancies" in her testimony. There is plenty of evidence to prove that she flat out lied in her testimony.

You seem to think that women are incapable of lying or filing false charges but it happens a lot more often than you think, particularly since the federal government has made extremely difficult for an accuser to defend himself against these allegations in college campuses. Here is a link ↗ that provide some details, here ↗ is a another.

Frankly, her whole story has come unglued and in many ways she is as much a victim of the liberals as Kavanaugh was.

Oct 09, 2018 11:34 PM #73

Crims probably wasn't from an area with a RAPE CULTURE at parties, I'll bet that much. :)

Oct 10, 2018 12:12 AM #74

Lol on plausible explanation! Did you know twice as many rapes were reported last year as the year before on the KU campus. But you are in luck, DeVoss has a new policy that would bolster the rights of students accused of assault, harassment or rape. Feel better, mr always right, no matter how you treat other people? Leave me alone.🙏

Oct 10, 2018 12:46 AM #75

@JayHawkFanToo Nice fictional account of the process. I will just point out four things:

First, you are still ignoring Kavanaugh's 4 friends who swore he lied.

Second, I do not, in fact, have to reach all those same conclusions you have reached that you say I "must." And, of the two of us, as I have pointed out before, only one has training and experience as a lawyer or was a judge--and "that warn't you, Elmer." So your comments about what I have to realize as a lawyer and judge are pure crap. Frankly, you should stop it because your "legal analyses" are just embarrassing.

Third, see number 2.

Fourth, see number 3.

Oct 10, 2018 01:40 AM #76

JayHawkFanToo said:

Here is a nice summary ↗ in USA Today, by no means a conservative publication.

All the information cited above can be easily verified via google search.

Margot Cleveland, Opinion contributor to USA Today.

Margot Cleveland is a self described conservative Catholic law clerk who also writes for the Washington Examiner and The Federalist.

This piece is as about as unbridled a conservative opinion piece as you'd find in her other haunts.

Surprise! Conservative opinion writers are everywhere.

Oct 10, 2018 01:55 AM #77

@approxinfinity didn’t you cite a NYT article earlier in this thread? Or is it only opionated if a conservative cites something?

Oct 10, 2018 01:57 AM #78

@Woodrow he was saying that USA Today was "by no means a conservative publication", presumably to highlight that even liberal media has to admit [insert conservative talking point here], or something to that effect. The point is that this is false logic, as the author of the opinion piece he quoted is deeply embedded in conservative media. We've seen this faulty logic before, just keeping it real. Don't want my conservative buddies blind to how theyre being seduced by their conservative media.

Oct 10, 2018 02:32 AM #79

@mayjay

Nice try but no cigar. The article I cited on USA Today summarizes pretty much what I posted...and the article was written by a lawyer, and a woman at that, so, she must not be nearly as smart or knowledgeable as you and likely a woman hater to boot.

As far as stating that the presumption of inocence which is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system is flawed analysis which I believe is what you said since that was the only legal issue I mentioned, then you must believe the accuser is presumed to be telling the truth and accused is presumed guilty that would true only in totalitarian countries such as Cuba or North Korea or maybe the military system operates that way although I seriously doubt it does. I just don’t know how to answer that.

I am sure you are familiar with the Blackstone's formulation which is the principle that:

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",

...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

Historically, the details of the ratio have varied, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence has remained constant.

From Wikipedia...

While compiling his highly influential set of books on English common law, William Blackstone expressed the famous ratio this way:

“All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.”

This variation was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century. It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.

Other commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin Franklin stated it as, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".

I just find it interesting that you let your bias cloud your judgement and turn it into something personal. I am not going to resort to personal attacks.

Oct 10, 2018 03:01 AM #80

approxinfinity said:

Don't want my conservative buddies blind to how theyre being seduced by their conservative media.

...and I don’t want my liberal buddies blind on how they are bring played by practically the entire MSM.

BTW, you forgot to mention that Margot Cleveland is also an adjunct law instructor at Notre Dame. Also, similar analysis by “legal experts” are all over, on all sides of the spectrum. The truth is that with each passing day and now that emotions are down, her testimony looks less and less credible. As I mentioned before, I believe that both Ford and Kavanaugh were used as pawns by politicians and they are both victims.

Oct 10, 2018 03:03 AM #81

approxinfinity said:

@DoubleDD Oh I do think he did what he is accused of. And i think the investigation was artificially restricted. But thats not why I think he should be disqualified. I think the bar is even higher than "not having committed sexual assault" as to whether someone should be a justice on the highest court in the Judicial branch. Things like "not a partisan hack" and "not a belligerent d--k" and "not a liar" are the kinds of things I'm looking for.

[link text](

We are so quick to judge the accused but we don't even look at the accuser?

Oct 10, 2018 03:13 AM #82

@JayHawkFanToo I was not only addressing your USA Today post. I was also referring generally to all of your posts on this subject.

As to this last vomitus vomitus, your flaw lies in assuming that criminal justice standards should apply to determining whether someone has the character, record, history, intellectual ability, reputation, integrity, and temperament to merit being on the Supreme Court. The issue always is whether the candidate meets the highest standard in each area, not whether any allegations against the candidate require enough proof to dispel any reasonable doubt with a perfunctory 5 day investigation that specifically excludes interviews with either the complainant or the candidate.

Oct 10, 2018 03:13 AM #83

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/27/gop-senators-outside-ford-questioner-mistake-849246 ↗

Oct 10, 2018 03:25 PM #84

Crimsonorblue22 said:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/27/gop-senators-outside-ford-questioner-mistake-849246 ↗

It was a bad strategic move to bring in the prosecutor to question Ford, but not allow her to also question Kavanaugh. If this were a criminal proceeding, there would be a question of whether it was fair and appropriate to change who was doing the questioning since the GOP opted to use her to question Ford, but not Kavanaugh.

Since this wasn't a criminal proceeding, there's no violation, but it was bad optics.

Oct 10, 2018 03:59 PM #85

@justanotherfan When I was a commodity judge, I swore the witnesses all together at the beginning and then conducted my own questioning topic by topic, jumping back and forth between witnesses as necessary to pin down particular points. It was extremely effective in figuring out what happened.

I was very frustrated watching the hearing, chafing at the bit as I waited for any questions designed to actual uncover facts previously not stated. The Dems totally blew their 50 minutes of available cross-examination of Kav, preferring to posture and speechify. The Repubs' designated questioner also wasted her flow on unimportant details (who paid for the polygraph? who cares? Any confusion could easily be due to not having gotten a bill yet!) obviously preselected and designed to raise red herrings. She should have focused on what the weaker answers revealed, and shifted to impromtu questions.

But Senate hearings are not designed to bring out new information. They are used now to posture, preen, and attack.

Oct 10, 2018 05:18 PM #86

!alt text ↗

Oct 10, 2018 09:04 PM #87

mayjay said:

@JayHawkFanToo I was not only addressing your USA Today post. I was also referring generally to all of your posts on this subject.

As to this last vomitus vomitus, your flaw lies in assuming that criminal justice standards should apply to determining whether someone has the character, record, history, intellectual ability, reputation, integrity, and temperament to merit being on the Supreme Court. The issue always is whether the candidate meets the highest standard in each area, not whether any allegations against the candidate require enough proof to dispel any reasonable doubt with a perfunctory 5 day investigation that specifically excludes interviews with either the complainant or the candidate.

I believe that when possible I have cited sources for my posts and even a cursory Google search can verify the rest. I have not made any legal arguments other than to mention that the presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of our legals system; you don't need to go to law school to learn that. you learn it in middle school civics class.

More directly to your ad-hominem argument, The ABA unanimously gave Kavanaugh its highest well qualified rating.

Its published criteria explain what this means for a Supreme Court nominee:

"A Supreme Court nominee should possess an especially high degree of legal scholarship, academic talent, analytical and writing abilities, and overall excellence. The ability to write clearly and persuasively, to harmonize a body of law, and to give meaningful guidance to trial courts, circuit courts and the bar for future cases are particularly important skills for a Supreme Court nominee. . . . To merit the Committee’s rating of “Well Qualified,” a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The rating of “Well Qualified” is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement."

...which exactly addresses all the points you raised and he met all the criteria. As you know, there have been a number of studies that have determined a bias by the ABA against Republican nominated candidates for the many positions in which it provides ratings, so an unanimous well qualified rating is even more impressive.

Maybe you should take up your issue withe the ABA. SMH.

By the way, if the Democrats wanted a longer investigation, Feinstein should not have waited 6 weeks to release the information just before the vote in a very transparent move to delay the process which we now know was the plan all along. I know you will say that Professor Ford wanted it kept confidential but when she contacted the Washington Post and shared information with them all bets should have been off. You can't have it both ways, demand privacy while providing information to the press. It is right up there with Corey "I am Spartacus" Booker who made a spectacle of himself by stating that he was risking expulsion by releasing classified documents when he had been informed the night before the documents had already been made public and no longer classified. The Democrats shot themselves on the foot...repeatedly...and have no one to blame but themselves.

Oct 10, 2018 09:17 PM #88

@JayHawkFanToo Good point on the ABA. Of course, they announced that they were reevaluating the rating in light of the temperament he displayed at the hearing, but they were not going to get that done before the vote. Probably another reason the Committee rushed to completion.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410130-american-bar-association-re-opening-kavanaugh-evaluation-due-to-temperament ↗

So, the ABA and Justice Stevenns both felt that Kavanaugh's behavior warranted stepping back to reconsider. Both had previously approved him. And all I have ever said is that the whole mess deserved more extensive investigation and consideration. (If I was on Feinstein's staff or a Dem member of the committee, I just don't recall it, so I don't know why you keep trying to pass their actions off on me.)

Oct 10, 2018 10:07 PM #89

@mayjay

In the same letter the ABA indicated that the "original rating stands."

There was lot of pressure on the ABA to issue the letter but in the end is just -much ado about nothing- and the rating will stand.

While many consider his demeanor/temperament not what they expected, an equal or greater number saw it as the sign of an innocent man, wrongly accused and vigorously defending his reputation and good name. Different strokes for different folks.

Oct 11, 2018 02:36 PM #90

JayHawkFanToo said:

@mayjay

In the same letter the ABA indicated that the "original rating stands."

There was lot of pressure on the ABA to issue the letter but in the end is just -much ado about nothing- and the rating will stand.

While many consider his demeanor/temperament not what they expected, an equal or greater number saw it as the sign of an innocent man, wrongly accused and vigorously defending his reputation and good name. Different strokes for different folks.

As I said before, I can understand where people come from with innocent man wrongly accused being upset.

However, I struggle with that because I don't think those same people would give that level of benefit to an actual criminal defendant facing actual prison time if they were to behave that way in an actual court of law.

That defendant would have a right to a presumption of innocence, but they would not be allowed to yell at the prosecutor and judge. They might get one warning, but more likely, that type of behavior would cause them to be held in contempt of court!

Kavanaugh is a judge. He knows this. It was, at the very least, poor decorum.

If you want a comparison, compare Kavanaugh's behavior to that of Clarence Thomas during his hearings. Thomas maintained his composure. Kavanaugh did not. Simple as that. I doubt many conservatives would argue that Thomas not screaming during his hearing means he wasn't an innocent man. Instead, it shows that someone can maintain their composure and dignity in that setting, in spite of the allegations facing them.

Oct 11, 2018 02:51 PM #91

@justanotherfan Thomas did however play the race card, saying he was on the receiving end of a "high tech lynching". In my mind, that was in the same ballpark of impropriety as Kavanaugh saying it was a "revenge job by the Clintons" though not as bad as Kavanaugh's threat of "what goes around comes around", even if Thomas had a bit more composure in his presentation.

Oct 11, 2018 02:55 PM #92

approxinfinity said:

@justanotherfan Thomas did however play the race card, saying he was on the receiving end of a "high tech lynching". In my mind, that was in the same ballpark of impropriety as Kavanaugh saying it was a "revenge job by the Clintons" though not as bad as Kavanaugh's threat of "what goes around comes around", even if Thomas had a bit more composure in his presentation.

I don't agree with what Thomas said during those hearings. However, he maintained his composure. I don't agree with Clarence Thomas much, at all, but he at least acted like he understood how to behave in a Senate hearing. It's a low bar, to be sure.

Oct 11, 2018 03:11 PM #93

@JayHawkFanToo I know I've been on the warpath the last couple weeks. You've let me say my piece and tried to rationalize where the other side is coming from. I don't agree with the rationale, but I appreciate your moderate temperament in the face of several pretty passionate liberal leaning individuals [even if we are justifiably so ;)]

Oct 11, 2018 06:09 PM #94

Well, here's where we get to see whether Fox is actually state-run media ( do whatever the President wants) or just practically state run media (driven by ratings, journalistic integrity be damned):

https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-will-look-into-fox-news-decision-to-stop-broadcasting-trump-rallies ↗

Oct 12, 2018 01:03 AM #95

@approxinfinity I agree that CNN has done lots of damage to democrats. They simply took off their mask of objectivity, and revealed they were completely, utterly corrupted in the tank for democrats. No doubts, no semblance, or even hint, or even a whiff of anything remotely suggesting any objectivity on any level. The modern day Pravda. I wouldn't be the least surprised if the DNC didn't send them a daily talking points memo to direct them what to report .No doubt CNN has done alot to fire up, and solidify the republican base.

A little bit like the Federal Reserve is doing with our interest rates. For 7 years of the Obama Administration, the Fed Reserve didn't raise interest rates 1 time. Now, in Obama's final year, they did raise interest rates a quarter of a point. Since Trump was elected, the Fed has raised interest rates 7 times. 7 times. Here's a blurb I found interesting from a deplorable website:

"CNBC reported in December 2015 that President Obama oversaw “seven years of the most accommodative monetary policy in U.S. history” (from the Fed). The Fed Funds rate was at zero for most of Obama’s time in office. Finally, in December 2015 after the Fed announced its first increase in the Fed Funds rate during the Obama Presidency.

The only Fed Funds Rate increases since 2015 were after President Trump was elected President. The Fed increased the Fed Funds Rate now seven times.

The Fed Funds Rate greatly impacts the economy:

Lower interest rates usually spur the economy by making corporate and consumer borrowing easier. Higher interest rates are intended to slow down the economy by making borrowing harder.

Increases in the Fed Funds Rate increase the cost of borrowing and the largest borrower in the world is the US government. With $20 trillion in debt, a 2% increase in interest payments equals $400 billion in annual interest payment increases or nearly a half a trillion dollars!

President Obama benefited from the lowest possible interest rates possible for seven of his eight years and in spite of this, nearly doubled the US Debt from $10 trillion to nearly $20 trillion. With no rate increases in interest rates, President Trump would arguably have a balanced budget to date. (Although the short term implications may not dictate this, the long term implications are clear.)

President Trump knows this and he previously stated that he is not happy with the Fed raising interest rates and killing the economy.
Last week with the DOW reached all-time highs, consumer confidence hit all time highs and unemployment hit its lowest rate in 50 years.

The Fed then announced they would raise rates some more!

The Fed’s Jerome Powell said at a meeting in Boston:

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said Tuesday he sees no need to drop the central bank’s current gradual approach to raising interest rates.

Powell said the combination of steady, low inflation and very low unemployment shows the country is going through “extraordinary times.”

The markets almost immediately responded and in spite of the great news on the stock markets and jobs, the markets declined. Another Trump rally – another Fed interest rate block!
Yesterday as the market shed over 800 points, President Trump said the Fed has “Gone Crazy”. He really disagrees with what the Fed is doing.

The Deep State and the Fed don’t care about the American worker or taxpayer. It’s all about power. If they can tank the economy, decrease American’s 401ks and increase interest payments on the massive Obama debt, then they win.
The only thing stopping President Trump from balancing the US Budget and keeping the economy on fire is the Fed’s rising rates. Trump’s right again and again – the Fed’s actions show it favors the left. The Fed has gone crazy!"

Oct 12, 2018 01:18 AM #96

@approxinfinity You own NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, every newspaper in America, every university, the entire school curriculum( along with the teachers) of every student in America, practically every movie star, every major movie studio, and you are worried over the bias of Fox News? You can't watch a movie, a sit-com, a rock concert, a sporting event w/o seeing some form of progressive propaganda displayed...and God forbid you try to watch an awards show...and Fox News must be stopped, right? Look, I don't watch Fox News very much, but this country damn sure needs Fox News just for the fact that it isn't parroting this nation wide socialist dogma that is shoved down our throats 24 hours a day/ 7 days a week. I've been on this earth nearly 58 years, and I've never seen anything like it. But the problem we have with America is we have Fox News, right?...I am really sorry, but I just can't wrap my head around that one, my friend...I try not to wade into this because I'm a reformed conservative, but I just couldn't help it.

Oct 12, 2018 10:21 AM #97

@KUSTEVE Jay Powell is a Trump appointee and a Republican. Trump bookends criticism of the Fed with statements about not having direct contact with Powell and having a hands off relationship because he wants to play both sides. He wants people to trust the autonomy of the Fed, but he wants people to feel that the success of the economy was only tempered because the Fed raised interest rates. To suggest that the Fed had a partisan agenda that "favors the left" when Powell is in fact Trump's man seems to me to be incorrect, and a validition of why Trump is playing you with his fake criticisms of the Fed.

Regarding Fox News, they are doing a nice job of making you believe theyre a beacon of conservative truth thats fighting not to be snuffed out by the mean nasty liberals all around them. The truth is that they've been the number one primetime Network for 28 straight months! The world is progressive and nothing is fair? The problem as I see it is that no conservative news source with more journalistic integrity has made a play in the TV news space and they've allowed Fox to dominate.

Here are the ratings for July by network

Top 10 for July 2018 – Prime Time

Fox News (2,406,000)

MSNBC (1,663,000)

HGTV (1,360,000)

USA (1,344,000)

History (1,115,000)

Discovery (1,075,000)

Hallmark Channel (1,024,000)

Investigation Discovery (1,010,000)

TBS (999,000)

CNN (891,000)

Oct 12, 2018 01:52 PM #98

@approxinfinity ABC News - 10 million

                         CBS NEWS - 10 million

                         NBC NEWS - 10 million

                         NY TIMES - ?

                         Washington Post - ?

                         Every paper in the country....????

                         Every local tv station in the country

Fox has 3 million...you probably have 300 million in one form or another. How many likes does a Taylor Swift have on her Youtube video? a 100 million? You have Facebook cutting off around 90% of all conservative content. You have Twitter shadow banning every post that doesn't kowtow to the progressive agenda. You have Google effectively burying all criticism against democrats, and highlighting every critique against conservatives in their search results. You have "fact check" organizations like Politi-fact that reek bias, and are used to advance dubious claims all the time. If someone happens to disagree with Global Warming on YouTube or Facebook, they run a disclaimer underneath the story to attack the veracity. This isn't trying to eliminate "fake" news, this is fascism.

You've already won...conservatives are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They haven't taken Trump out yet, so the Fed Reserve is simply going to crash the economy to take him out, which is why they've raised interest rates 7 times in the past 2 years. Like I said, you've already won. My question to progressives is...do you realize what you've won?

Oct 12, 2018 01:59 PM #99

@KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?

Oct 12, 2018 02:01 PM #100

@KUSTEVE by "deck chairs", you mean the House, the Senate, the Judiciary and the Executive branch?

Oct 12, 2018 02:02 PM #101

@approxinfinity And that's the most insidious part of it.

Oct 12, 2018 02:06 PM #102

@KUSTEVE lol seriously? What proof do you have that Jay Powell is deliberately undermining Trump?

Oct 12, 2018 03:11 PM #103

@KUSTEVE

You do realize that part of the reason that the Fed did not raise rates during the Obama presidency was that the economy was in recession when Obama took office, and then was in recovery through 2015. Raising interest rates during the recession or recovery period would have spurred another recession, likely tanking the economy again.

In other words, the conspiracy theory you point out was actually just sound economic policy to aid the recovery. This is not deep state conspiratorial action to hurt the Trump presidency. President Obama took office at the beginning of a recession and oversaw a careful economic policy to end the recession and begin the recovery.

However, economic policy also states that you cannot keep the rates low forever. At some point they must increase. President Trump has touted the recovery. Now he has to deal with the economic policy that comes with it - rising interest rates.

President Trump cut taxes last year to jolt the economy. However, he now has to follow that up with sound economy policy to encourage gradual growth. Cutting taxes or cutting interest rates isn't a forever solution to economic growth because there is a limit to how much you can cut those things.

Additionally, President Trump may have other motivations for complaining about interest rates. His businesses have hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to various banks. As the interest rate rises, Trump businesses also see their debt servicing rise (the cost they pay on their interest to keep their loans current). Because some of Trump's debt stems from bankruptcy settlements, he cannot default further without potentially losing his companies and assets to his creditors.

There are competing interests here. The Fed has to start raising rates because they were as low as they could go during the recession and recovery, and are still lower than they probably should be. Businessman Trump has companies that will see their debt service costs skyrocket as interest rates rise - a quarter point increase on hundreds of millions of dollars in loans gets very expensive very quickly.

The Fed has to run economic policy for the nation, not for Trump businesses.

Oct 12, 2018 03:35 PM #104

There still is no reason to raise the rate numerous times in such a short span of time.

Oct 12, 2018 03:54 PM #105

@approxinfinity

We all have our opinions and as I have always indicated they cannot be right or wrong because they are just that, opinions. Now, when we have actual facts it is different because they tend to speak for themselves and even then, different people see them differently.

Oct 12, 2018 04:11 PM #106

approxinfinity said:

@KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?

You have to admit that lot of appointments don't turnout the way it was expected.

Looking at SCOTUS appointees:

William Brennan, appointed by Eisenhower as a conservative and left as a veritable liberal icon.

Harry Blackmun, appointed by Richard Nixon was supposed to be a conservative appointee to reign the Warren Court and became quite the liberal including taking the lead in the Row-V- Wade case.

Byron White, appointed by Kennedy as a liberal justice ended up being a fairly conservative justice.

John Paul Stevens, appointed by Ford ended up being quite the liberal justice, same as David Souter appointed by Bush.

Lewis Powell, appointed by Nixon who had written extensively in favor of business had quite the turnaround.

Earl Warren, appointed by Eisenhower became the patron saint of the liberal jurisprudential revolution.

The same is true for lots of others appointed to high positions based on their record only to act quite the opposite. Do you think Trump does not regret appointing Sessions as head of the Department of Justice?

Just because Trump appointed Powell does not mean he agrees with what he is doing or that he anticipated he would do what he is doing. Trump has stated he does not agree with the actions of the Fed/Powell but as an independent agency there is not much he can do at this time.

Oct 12, 2018 04:25 PM #107

JayHawkFanToo said:

approxinfinity said:

@KUSTEVE You do agree that Jay Powell runs the Fed, is a Trump appointee, is a Republican, and is the person who makes the final call on the interest rates, right?

You have to admit that lot of appointments don't turnout the way it was expected.

You make an interesting point on SCOTUS appointees not being "what they were expected to be." The SCOTUS is supposed to evaluate the case before them and rule on that.

Conservatives often focus on outcomes when they look at a nominee - they want someone to overturn Roe v. Wade or rule against gay marriage, for example.

Oftentimes, however, cases turn on application of the facts to the law. Roe was decided not because abortion is a fundamental right, but because privacy is a fundamental right. There's a fundamental right that an individual should be able to make decisions for themselves regarding their body/health, etc. Its right there in the Roe opinion.

Same applies for gay marriage - the state cannot deny it because of equal protection under the law.

So when the SCOTUS ruled on those things, they were ruling that you, as a person that is against abortion, cannot be forced to have an abortion by the government just as much as someone that may want an abortion cannot be prevented from getting one by the government because the government cannot invade your privacy. The ruling wasn't a one way street. It runs both ways. The government cannot force you to do one or the other because you have a right to privacy to choose for yourself.

The government cannot decide that homosexual couples are not allowed to marry just the same as the government cannot prevent mixed race couples from marrying because that is outside the government's view. As long as you are of age to enter into a contract, you can legally marry whomever you want, and the government cannot prevent it. Again, its not a one way street.

If the only outcome you seek is the application of law in a fair and unbiased way, you land on those results every time. If, however, you want a specific outcome (abortion ban, gay marriage ban, etc.) then justice cannot be blind. That's also a two way street.

Oct 12, 2018 06:40 PM #108

@justanotherfan

I did not comment on the merits of lack thereof for any specific case since I did not want to make it a political or any other type of issue, that was your take.

I simply indicated that oftentimes appointed/nominated individuals turn out to be quite different than expected, with the head of the Fed being one...tha's all.

Oct 12, 2018 07:08 PM #109

@justanotherfan pointed out the tax cuts. With those adding 1.5 to 2 trillion to a hyper economy, the Fed could well have had a good reason for a series of rate increases.

Oct 12, 2018 08:48 PM #110

@JayHawkFanToo

Fair point.

I guess my point is that justices shouldn't be liberal or conservative - they should evaluate the facts of what's in front of them and rule accordingly, not rule based on a preferred outcome.

Oct 13, 2018 03:55 PM #111

@approxinfinity for rationality on the Right, it's simple - there was not one iota of proof that Kavanaugh was ever even at a party with Prof Ford.

It's therefore completely rational to completely dismiss the charges as totally baseless and false. It's so clear, even a liberal like Susan Collins could figure it out.

Oct 13, 2018 03:59 PM #112

@approxinfinity and how is any of that relevant - I don't buy the charge that he lied about any of it?

Move the goal posts much? From rape attempt to serial rapist to "lied about drinking in HS? Is that rational?

Oct 13, 2018 04:01 PM #113

@Crimsonorblue22 how would you respond to a charge that you were a serial, canaibal mass murderer? Those Dem Senators deserve to be shamed. They were shameful.

Oct 13, 2018 04:04 PM #114

@justanotherfan

I agree. Justices, just like any other judge, should follow the Constitution which is the ultimate law of the land. If the people feel the Constitution needs to be updated/changed there is a process that must be followed and cannot be arbitrarily changed by activist judges that choose to interpret it in a manner that fits a political agenda and contrary to that intended explicitly or implicitly.

Oct 13, 2018 04:09 PM #115

@approxinfinity you believe, but on what basis, man?

The only basis for anyone's belief in his guilt that I've seen is an additional belief that he lied in his denials. Or an additional charge that he wasn't suffienciently deferential to his crazy Senatorial accusers.

What facts an evidence do you have that support Ford's accusation?

Oct 13, 2018 04:19 PM #116

@JayHawkFanToo nice recap.

Oct 13, 2018 04:27 PM #117

@Crimsonorblue22 I don't think he lied. I think that is the belief of those already disposed against him.

As a matter of fact, there are now documents of folks there, that his definition of terms were true to that group and time.

Where is the evidence that shows that's not true.

But more importantly, this is in effect an argument over how one pronounced "Poh - Tate - Oh" or "Poh - Tot - Oh" back in his HS days. Which is effect to say, it is completely stupid, irrelevant argument given we have a good 20 years of very public service and public evidence of his relationships with people.

Oct 13, 2018 04:34 PM #118

@mayjay and so is it your professional opinion that an unbutressed 35 year old accusation outweighs the volumes of 20 years very public evidence of upstanding behavior?

Oct 13, 2018 04:39 PM #119

@justanotherfan but then again, the Judge wouldn't be hurling outrageously false allegations at the defendant.

Oct 15, 2018 04:35 PM #120

@Bwag

If a defendant behaved that way in court towards anyone - a witness, the prosecutor, the alleged victim, their own attorney, the judge, someone in the gallery, etc. - they would be held in contempt.

Attempting to justify Kavanaugh's behavior that way simply isn't true. No matter what the accusation is, you are expected to conduct yourself with a certain level of professionalism and decorum.

If you have followed the news on exonerated defendants (i.e., people that went to prison for crimes they did not commit), you will notice that even during the appeals process, they conduct themselves with decorum - and these are people that are PROVEN to have been falsely accused. Yet at no point can they behave the way Judge Kavanaugh did without putting their entire appeal in jeopardy.

There is an expectation and Judge Kavanaugh fell well short of that in his hearing, and it simply does not matter whether the allegations were true or false. His level of conduct should have remained at a certain level, and it did not.

Oct 15, 2018 10:01 PM #121

@justanotherfan

You have a very one side view of events and your comparison is a straw man argument. Many on your side have argued that it was not a court of law and it cannot be compared to one.

In any case, in a real court of law the defense attorneys would be objecting to most of what he was asked as it was hearsay and a real judge would caution the prosecutor to move one or risk being held in contempt.

Kavanaugh behavior was not any different to that of many defendants in court that get in shouting matches with prosecutors.

I believe you compared Kavanaughs demeanor with that of Thomas before but they both have different personalities with Thomas being a very reserved individual that would not get excited but his words were every bit as biting as those of Kavanaugh.

Maybe Kavanaugh should have taken a page of the Hillary playbook and proclaimed...What difference at this point does it make? Of curse there was plenty of recent and corroborated evidence that she lied...and people actually died, compared to 36 year old unsubstantiated allegations against Kavanaugh...Hillary got away with it, right?

Oct 16, 2018 12:27 AM #122

@JayHawkFanToo Hearsay? I think your class on evidence was woefully inadequate. Where do you see hearsay issues in the questioning of Kav?

Oct 16, 2018 01:43 AM #123

@JayHawkFanToo

Can you define hearsay under the rules of evidence without looking it up?

Oct 16, 2018 03:14 AM #124

@justanotherfan If he can I would be shocked! I know I could define hearsay, but the rules of admissibility (the exceptions and exclusions) always required careful review even back when I was practicing.

In a couple commodity fraud cases, this one jerk attorney kep objecting to my questions of the plaintiff regarding what promises he said the defendant broker had made. "You are asking for hearsay, Your Honor!" Probably about 6 objections until I finally threatened to kick him out of the case and default his client as a sanction.

People think hearsay is any quote people testify about. Drives me nuts to watch virtually any legal show.

Oct 16, 2018 04:38 PM #125

@justanotherfan

Unverified or uncorraborated information?

Oct 16, 2018 06:04 PM #126

@JayHawkFanToo Not at all close. It has nothing to do with verifiabilty of an allegation (although the history of the hearsay rule's exceptions and exclusions are largely based on assumptions about likelihood of accuracy).

Hearsay is an out of court statement (by a Declarant) offered (in testimony by a Witness in court) to prove the assertion contained in the statement. E.g., Witness testifies that Declarant stated that the car was going fast. Hearsay? Yes, if offered to prove that the car was going fast, and if it is, normally it would be inadmissible if it doesn't fall into an exception (here, it might be that Declarant said it as he jumped out of the way, and it might be admissible as an "excited utterance". If the Declarant was talking 2 weeks later, maybe not admissible because statements made after reflection are not "excited" utterances.)

If Declarant is the opposing party to the side offering the witness, Declarant's statement would be offered as an admission, and then it comes in as an exclusion to the rule. Exceptions are hearsay that is allowed; exclusions are things that look like hearsay but are not hearsay because of their purpose in the proceeding, i.e., who said it and why is it offered. (I still get exclusions confused because the list of exceptions is so long.)

In this example, if it is offered only to prove the Declarant could speak (not the speed of the car), then it is not hearsay, just ordinary testimony, and it comes in.

In my cases I mentioned before, the customer was testifying that certain promises were made to him about no-risk profits to be made if he opened the account. The customer was not saying that the statements by the broker were true (just the opposite!), only that the fraudulent statements were made. Thus, no hearsay. (Incidentally, hearsay was totally admissible in my proceedings anyway due to the type of forum).

There are lots of exceptions for certain documents, business records, self-certified official records, dying declarations, statements against interest, prior testimony, etc, all depending on the circumstances. Some depend on unavailability of the Declarant as well.

Kav's testimony in response to the questions would have been fully admissible with regard to anything he said or did previously. Had he been on trial, the other complaining women besides Ford (since she directly testified, everything she said was admissible) would have had to testify to get their written statements in unless the defense stipulated to the admission of written testimony (and no atty would stipulate to that because of no cross-examination). Kav's own letter to his fellow beach bums and his calendar were admissible because he prepared them.

Now you have a glimmer, just a glimmer, of how much more complicated the hearsay rule is than common usage makes it sound. "He said, she said" cases have to do with who is more believable, and nothing to do with hearsay, if both "he" and "she" testify.

Oct 16, 2018 09:37 PM #127

@mayjay

Would it be better to say citing facts not in evidence? Most of Dr. Ford's testimony was uncorroborated since she did not even remember when or where it happened, how she got where she thinks it happened or how she got home afterwards and her testimony of the events was disputed by ALL the witnesses she named including her best friend. Other portions were also shown to be plain false...lots of information on the subject readily available via a quick Internet search so you don't have to take my word for it.

I am sure you remember what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously said that he could not use words to describe pornography but "I know it when I see it." Likewise, many of us non-lawyers perhaps cannot or should not use legalese to describe a smear campaign or its components but like Justice Stewart...we know it when we see it.

Of course you will disagree but that is OK, I am aware what your idea of double standard is. Amazing how you concentrate on little insignificant details and yet ignore the elephant in the room, no pun intended.

Oct 16, 2018 10:02 PM #128

@JayHawkFanToo You are arguing with someone else, apparently. I have trashed the Dem senators and discussed at length factors both against and for the credibility of Ford. You called Ford's accusation hearsay, and, just like your misapplication of the presumption of innocence, it was just flat wrong. When you try to sound like a lawyer and are flat out wrong, you will get called on it. Then admit it, and move on. You really should have plenty of practice by now.

Wrong also is your assertion about Ford's allegations being not in evidence. Yes, they were. Her written submissions and her sworn testimony are evidence. You might not believe them, and you might legitimately contend there is little independent proof. However, that does not make them not evidence. And I still have not seen any independent evidence that supports the contention that her story was fabricated. As have thousands of others, I found Kav's testimony evocative of a high school kid who, caught breaking into a car, immediately lashes out trying to bully his questioners into submission, ranting about being picked on, inventing imaginary conspiracies, and lying about ridiculous things all the while.

We agree that Pelosi's office and others mishandled it. But while you think that means Ford's allegations and the others should be dismissed, I have always simply advocated a deeper investigation, which you and your ilk have resisted because of the need to fill the seat expeditiously, ironic since your heroes blatantly disregarded their constitutional duty by obstructing the very same process in 2016.

And you have the gall to accuse me of having a double standard?

Oct 16, 2018 11:07 PM #129

@mayjay

Double standard? Absolutely. you indicated that comparing a political statement by Swift who was lauded by the MSM and Hollywood was not the same as a political statement by Kanye who was savaged by the same MSM and Hollywood. If this is not a double standard I don't know what is. BTW, the candidate Swift endorsed lost 8 point since her endorsements and now trails by 14 points and what was a tossup race is now a safe republican seat...so much for that.

Now, Pelosi was not involved much in the process other than peripherally and it was Feinstein who screwed it up. Like I said, if the democrats ...and you...really wanted a more complete investigation they should have acted way ahead of time on the information they had at hand instead of holding on for 6 weeks and waiting until the day before the vote to bring it out and once the FBI did the aditional investigation they tried to have it classified so no one would see the results. This much is obvious that the strategy was to bring out an accusation and then delay, delay, delay until after the November elections with the hope of capturing the Senate and denying Trump the nomination; there are contemporaneous recordings of democrat strategists saying exactly this (posted link before) and just before the accusation was finally made public. Even liberal Icon Ruth Batter Ginsburg ↗ thought it was highly political show.

"Kathleen Parker, a conservative-leaning columnist for the widely-considered liberal Washington Post, wrote this week that Ginsburg called the Kavanaugh hearings "a highly partisan show," and that the latest tactic from the Democrats is "embarrassing to anyone with a conscience and a grown-up brain."

Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

Now, if a liberal nominee would have defended him or herself vigorously against uncorroborated accusations, you probably would have applauded and indicated he or she was right to try to clear his or her good name. For every person that believes he was too aggressive I can show you at least one or more that agrees with him.

No question Americans get it and got it. Every poll I have seen afterwards blames the democrats and particularly Feinstein (up to 75%) for the entire fiasco. What a month ago seemed like a certain win for the democrats and control of the senate, now it looks like the republicans will not only maintain the majority but might actually increase it. We will find out soon enough.

Keep in mind that this approach was tried before by the democrats with Bork (when it worked) and then Thomas and now Kavanaugh when it did not work. Recently, the republicans have opposed very liberal candidates like Sotomayor and Kegan, but they did it on ideological grounds,as they should, and did not use character assassination to do it. Good chance that Trump gets to nominate one more justice; it will be interesting to see what the democrats do then.

Oct 16, 2018 11:34 PM #130

I get Pelosi and Feinstein confused and got it wrong obviously.

We will let you have the last argument. If you are able not only to ignore what I have said about virtually everything, but also to know what I will think or say about other things, there is no need for me to waste time actually doing my own discussing.

Oct 18, 2018 05:36 PM #131

Never fight a land war in Asia, Never eat yellow snow, Never cheer for Duke and Kentucky and never get into an argument about law with lawyers and judges when you're neither of those. That's good advice.

Oct 18, 2018 07:13 PM #132

@wissox Us lawyers are more fun worrying about things that never could possibly happen in the real world.

Like this: Homeless guy buys a 6-pack of beer and a lottery ticket at the local convenience store, slurring his words and having trouble getting his money out of his pocket during the transaction. He stumbles on his way out the door, tripping over the fold-down doorstop, and bumping into a pregnant woman who pushes him aside on her way in. She is unharmed but, concerned Homeless might be hurt, she turns to watch his progress in the parking lot. As she watches, he knocks over a sign that has a banner sttached. The banner lands on the Pregnant Woman's unattended car, which catches fire from the hot exhaust pipe, demolishing it and igniting 53 gallons of gas stacked next to it by the Clerk that he is planning to steal after this, his last day of working there. Homeless, who was still disoriented after bumping into the pregnant woman, gets too close to the blaze and his pants catch on fire, which, fortunately, he is able to extinguish with his beer. As he crosses the street, Clerk sees he has dropped a piece of paper. Clerk calls to him. Homeless turns around and is vaporized by an 18-wheeler going by. The stress of the explosion causes Pregnant Woman to go into labor 2 weeks early. Meanwhile, the paper turns out to be Homeless's lottery ticket, which later proves to be worth millions of dollars.

So, the question is, who is liable for the damage to the grill and radiator on the 18-wheeler?

Oct 18, 2018 08:08 PM #133

@mayjay Hmmm, that sounds like a fun one to solve. I remember you a couple years back said you used to have questions in law school like a guy is ending it all by jumping off a building. On his way down, someone in an apartment building fires their gun which strikes the guy as he passes his balcony. Coroner discovers a gun shot wound which actually killed the man, not the fall which of course would have killed the man. Can he be charged with murder/manslaughter or whatever?

I sometimes have Walter Mitty moments where I imagine myself in some role. I've thought I'd like to be a cop only for this moment. I question a guy who I suspect having drugs. He says to me "Man I don't got no drugs". I promptly place him under arrest for confessing to having drugs. He protests to which I say, "Too bad you didn't learn about double negatives because you literally just confessed to having drugs." How would that hold up in court?