Renzatic on 26/9/2018 at 19:07

---

I'm sorry, but anyone who believes anything that comes out of 4Chan is a Grade A Prime Rib Gigglefuck.

nickie on 26/9/2018 at 19:16

---

I was surprised that when he saw the world stage laughing at him (today/yesterday), he reacted in a very gracious manner, I thought. Just about the first time he's not made me feel ill. Obviously he spoilt it later. But at the time, I was quite impressed at how he handled it.

There have been a couple of comments from 'pundits' recently wondering why, if this is all just a Democrat smear campaign, people didn't see fit to do the same to Gorsuch. I know there was some filibustering or whatever but no-one came out to accuse him of this kind of thing. And he went to the same school as Kavanaugh.

uncadonego on 26/9/2018 at 21:46

---

Make up your mind.

jkcerda on 26/9/2018 at 22:40

---

listen here Unca, if I don't fly off the handle and jump to conclusions that suit ME I will NEVER get any exercise and that could literally kill me, do you want me to die? do you hate me that much? what does a mexi midget need to do to get some loving around here?

if he gets confirmed and is GUILTY of the charges Ford has brought up then that would IMHO trigger a blue wave as conservative women might sit it out.
now keep in mind there are plenty other nasty allegations against him as well. to a degree the man is tainted and this will follow him & his family for years to come even if found not guilty.
polls can be as biased as you wish, so I don't buy them unless I like what they say.........

heywood on 26/9/2018 at 22:50

---

I recall Gorsuch getting accused of plagiarism, which was debunked. Not the same thing obviously.

One difference is that Kavanaugh was nominated just a few months before one of the hottest midterm elections I can remember.

Another difference is that Gorsuch was replacing Scalia, therefore he wasn't shifting the balance of the court.

A third difference is Senate rules. It used to be that a filibuster or threat of filibuster would stop a nomination, so a Senate minority with at least 40 votes could block a nomination if they really, really wanted to. For most of our history, the minority party used this power sparingly. That changed with the 108th Congress (2003-2004). The filibuster became a common tactic used to block large numbers of judicial nominations by Bush and Obama. The obstructionism eventually led to "nuclear option" rule changes in 2013 allowing a simple majority to force a confirmation vote for all but Supreme Court nominees. The rules were changed again last year to extend the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominees. The change was made because Democrats were blocking the Gorsuch nomination in revenge for Merrick Garland. If they hadn't done that, they would still have the filibuster option on the table now.

A fourth difference is #metoo



As we're learning more from various news reports, it's starting to sound like the teenage Kavanaugh was a stereotypical heavy drinking, hard partying sports jock who objectified women and only wanted to "score". When I attended high school in the 1980s, guys like that were practically glorified. I definitely don't believe his claims of being a lilywhite altar-boy type. If he had fessed up to some misconduct while a drunken teenager and the pattern of behavior ended there, I probably wouldn't hold it against him 35 years later. But if he's lying to us now, that's a different story. There's not enough information yet to pass judgment on his accusers, but regardless I don't want to see him confirmed because I don't want the court to move to the right on social issues.

EDIT: I just want to make clear here that I'm referring to the Ford allegations per the Marist poll, and I would extend this to the Ramirez allegations as well. The gang rape accusations from Avenatti (which I haven't dug into yet) are an entirely different matter. I couldn't support a nominee for any judicial position who took part in that.