Finally remembered who Lyndsey Graham reminds me off
Kavanaugh accuser breaks silence about sexual misconduct allegations, UPDATE 9/26 5th ACCUSER & MORE
- Thread starter lightbright
- Start date
I swear the universe must be aligned. Everybody been clowning little Lindsey.
Even the dude on Real Time tonight brought up the Blanche reference in reference to him. lol
Except that he didn't even get his dick wet
"Lindsey needs the stabilizing presence of his dead boyfriend."
I don't watch realtime but
Brett can't sleep. 24/7 new cycle man. Something could drop at 3am and he wakes up with a knife to his johnson with his wife talking about"Who's Kim?"
The rest of those republicans sleeping like babies. Flake pushed that elevator button more times than Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween 2 and still managed to squirm out of that one.
Can't wait for Real Time.
There's a whole where the "door close" button used to be from him pushing it so hard !!!!
.
If they found out that he grabbed his mom's pussy as he was being born and charged him with assault, I'd be aaight widdit….
.
.
Jeez you been sleeping ...… for months too....they just made her an MSNBC contributor today.....think she works on the editorial board of the NYT....
.
you're out of your fucking mind....you coming out as a sexual assaulter? You don't fucking know when a woman is telling you no? ....sick ass fuck...
.
probably did considering how much incest porn genetic mutations watch.If they found out that he grabbed his mom's pussy as he was being born and charged him with assault, I'd be aaight widdit….
.
.
You should check out his content and format. I don't think he is doing podcasts right now, he just moved and has another baby on the way. Some of his stuff is online on youtube tho...
https://www.youtube.com/user/bccofilms
Fuck y’all for making me google this news anchor the old bgol would have posted her pics by now
Wait hold up I ain't been following this..
You saying this dude was doing the same thing The Coz is locked up for...
And he out here with one foot in the door of becoming a supreme court justice....
This can't be correct...
No fuckin way
He’s way more likely to get caught perjuring himself.
Rate These Kavanaugh Faces: From Boofed to Let Me Speak to Your Manager
1. Yes, this is the face I make when I dance.
2. Did someone put seasoning on my chicken?
3. Why is this woman talking to me without handing me a beer?
4. Why are you asking me relevant questions? Can’t you see that I’m white?
5. You didn’t tell me that there’d be black people here.
6. Hulk mad! Wait... why am I not turning green?
7. Senators, the legal precedent established in the landmark 1993 Doggystyle case clearly states: “It ain’t no fun if my homies can’t have none.”
1. Yes, this is the face I make when I dance.
2. Did someone put seasoning on my chicken?
3. Why is this woman talking to me without handing me a beer?
4. Why are you asking me relevant questions? Can’t you see that I’m white?
5. You didn’t tell me that there’d be black people here.
6. Hulk mad! Wait... why am I not turning green?
7. Senators, the legal precedent established in the landmark 1993 Doggystyle case clearly states: “It ain’t no fun if my homies can’t have none.”
Isn't there talk of him possibly runnin for prez in 2020?
At Times, Kavanaugh’s Defense Misleads or Veers Off Point
The combative nominee was compelled to answer questions he clearly found embarrassing or offensive. What emerges is the image of a skilled lawyer who, when pressed on difficult subjects, sometimes crafted responses that were misleading, disputed or off point. When asked about his alcohol consumption in high school, he said his classmates were “legal to drink” in their senior year, even though the legality of the drinking was not the issue (and, in fact, he could not legally drink because the age was raised to 21 before he even turned 18).
Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly testified that three people had exonerated him of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her during a gathering of teenagers outside Washington in the summer of 1982. “Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers,” he said on Thursday, punctuating his statement with an extra “refuted.”
This is misleading.
While it is true that the three people did not corroborate Dr. Blasey’s account, they did not “refute” it either. Dr. Blasey had said that two of them were in the house, and one of them was in the room at the time of the alleged assault.
Excessive Drinking
Judge Kavanaugh portrayed himself in his testimony as enjoying a beer or two as a high school and college student, but not as someone who often drank to excess during those years. “I drank beer with my friends,” he said. “Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out,” he said.
This is disputed.
His statements are at odds with how some of his classmates remembered him. In interviews before his testimony, nearly a dozen college classmates of Judge Kavanaugh’s said they recalled him indulging in heavy drinking, some saying it went beyond normal consumption. (To be sure, a smaller number of classmates said his drinking was unexceptional.)
Reached after the hearing, Lynne Brookes, an undergraduate classmate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, said she believed he had “grossly misrepresented and mischaracterized his drinking.”
“He frequently drank to excess,” she said. “I know because I frequently drank to excess with him.”
A Display of Affection
A substantial portion of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was devoted to discussing his 1983 senior yearbook. In one entry, he described himself as a “Renate Alumnius,” referring to Renate Schroeder, now Renate Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic school. A number of his football teammates had similar entries. Judge Kavanagh said: “That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”
This is disputed.
Four of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates, including Sean Hagan, said the notion that the phrase was meant affectionately did not ring true. They said that Judge Kavanaugh and his friends often made disrespectful sexual comments about Ms. Dolphin, and that the understanding at the time was that the many yearbook references to her were boasts about sexual conquests.
On Monday, Judge Kavanaugh’s lawyer told The Times that the “Renate Alumnius” note referred to a school event that he and Ms. Dolphin attended, after which they “shared a brief kiss good night.” Ms. Dolphin responded that they had never kissed.
On Thursday, Judge Kavanaugh steered away from the idea that the yearbook reference had any sexual connotations. “We never had any sexual interaction,” he said.
After his testimony ended, Mr. Hagan wrote on Facebook: “So angry. So disgusted. So sad. Integrity? Character? Honesty?”
Yearbook Lingo
Judge Kavanaugh’s yearbook page included the entries “Judge — Have You Boofed Yet?” and “Devil’s Triangle.” On Thursday, he said that “boofed” meant “flatulence” and that “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game in which three glasses were arranged in a triangle.
This is disputed.
“Boofed” in the 1980s was a term that often referred to anal sex, and that is how Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates said they interpreted his comment. They said they had never heard it used to refer to flatulence.
His Social Circle
Asked about the intersection of his and Ms. Blasey’s friend groups, Judge Kavanaugh said: “When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools — Stone Ridge, Holy Child, Visitation, Immaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Blasey did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms, and she was a year behind me.”
This is disputed.
Judge Kavanaugh’s implication is that students at Holton-Arms, an all-girls school, didn’t mingle much those who attended Georgetown Prep. Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates said on Friday that this was not true and that Holton-Arms students were routinely present at parties with Georgetown Prep boys.
“Holton-Arms was definitely part of our social scene,” Mr. Barbot said. Another Georgetown Prep alumnus who was in Judge Kavanaugh’s class said, “Holton was as much a sister school as the others.”
Spying on Democrats
During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, Judge Kavanaugh said that when he worked in the White House of George W. Bush, he was unaware that a Republican staffer had stolen documents about judicial nominations from the computer servers of Democratic lawmakers. He maintained that receiving the documents did “not raise red flags” because “information sharing was common.”
This is disputed.
Documents released by the National Archives show that Manuel Miranda, the Republican aide, had sent Judge Kavanaugh several of the stolen files between 2002 and 2003. One email chain released by the Archives describes wanting to meet at Mr. Miranda’s house so that Judge Kavanaugh, who was a White House lawyer working on judicial confirmations, could receive “useful info” about two Democratic senators.
Mr. Miranda told The Times that he had never informed Mr. Kavanaugh about the computer servers. Democrats say the documents show that Judge Kavanaugh must have been aware that the information he was receiving from Mr. Miranda was stolen from Democratic computers. Emails from Mr. Miranda to Judge Kavanaugh included remarkable detail about Democratic plans, and some were marked as “highly confidential” or “intel.”
But Judge Kavanaugh offered a more benign interpretation, saying that he merely assumed at the time that Mr. Miranda had received the information from friendly Democratic staffers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html
The combative nominee was compelled to answer questions he clearly found embarrassing or offensive. What emerges is the image of a skilled lawyer who, when pressed on difficult subjects, sometimes crafted responses that were misleading, disputed or off point. When asked about his alcohol consumption in high school, he said his classmates were “legal to drink” in their senior year, even though the legality of the drinking was not the issue (and, in fact, he could not legally drink because the age was raised to 21 before he even turned 18).
Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly testified that three people had exonerated him of Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations that he sexually assaulted her during a gathering of teenagers outside Washington in the summer of 1982. “Dr. Ford’s allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a longtime friend of hers,” he said on Thursday, punctuating his statement with an extra “refuted.”
This is misleading.
While it is true that the three people did not corroborate Dr. Blasey’s account, they did not “refute” it either. Dr. Blasey had said that two of them were in the house, and one of them was in the room at the time of the alleged assault.
Excessive Drinking
Judge Kavanaugh portrayed himself in his testimony as enjoying a beer or two as a high school and college student, but not as someone who often drank to excess during those years. “I drank beer with my friends,” he said. “Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out,” he said.
This is disputed.
His statements are at odds with how some of his classmates remembered him. In interviews before his testimony, nearly a dozen college classmates of Judge Kavanaugh’s said they recalled him indulging in heavy drinking, some saying it went beyond normal consumption. (To be sure, a smaller number of classmates said his drinking was unexceptional.)
Reached after the hearing, Lynne Brookes, an undergraduate classmate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale University, said she believed he had “grossly misrepresented and mischaracterized his drinking.”
“He frequently drank to excess,” she said. “I know because I frequently drank to excess with him.”
A Display of Affection
A substantial portion of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony was devoted to discussing his 1983 senior yearbook. In one entry, he described himself as a “Renate Alumnius,” referring to Renate Schroeder, now Renate Dolphin, who attended a nearby Catholic school. A number of his football teammates had similar entries. Judge Kavanagh said: “That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.”
This is disputed.
Four of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates, including Sean Hagan, said the notion that the phrase was meant affectionately did not ring true. They said that Judge Kavanaugh and his friends often made disrespectful sexual comments about Ms. Dolphin, and that the understanding at the time was that the many yearbook references to her were boasts about sexual conquests.
On Monday, Judge Kavanaugh’s lawyer told The Times that the “Renate Alumnius” note referred to a school event that he and Ms. Dolphin attended, after which they “shared a brief kiss good night.” Ms. Dolphin responded that they had never kissed.
On Thursday, Judge Kavanaugh steered away from the idea that the yearbook reference had any sexual connotations. “We never had any sexual interaction,” he said.
After his testimony ended, Mr. Hagan wrote on Facebook: “So angry. So disgusted. So sad. Integrity? Character? Honesty?”
Yearbook Lingo
Judge Kavanaugh’s yearbook page included the entries “Judge — Have You Boofed Yet?” and “Devil’s Triangle.” On Thursday, he said that “boofed” meant “flatulence” and that “Devil’s Triangle” was a drinking game in which three glasses were arranged in a triangle.
This is disputed.
“Boofed” in the 1980s was a term that often referred to anal sex, and that is how Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates said they interpreted his comment. They said they had never heard it used to refer to flatulence.
His Social Circle
Asked about the intersection of his and Ms. Blasey’s friend groups, Judge Kavanaugh said: “When my friends and I spent time together at parties on weekends, it was usually with friends from nearby Catholic all-girls high schools — Stone Ridge, Holy Child, Visitation, Immaculata, Holy Cross. Dr. Blasey did not attend one of those schools. She attended an independent private school named Holton-Arms, and she was a year behind me.”
This is disputed.
Judge Kavanaugh’s implication is that students at Holton-Arms, an all-girls school, didn’t mingle much those who attended Georgetown Prep. Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s former schoolmates said on Friday that this was not true and that Holton-Arms students were routinely present at parties with Georgetown Prep boys.
“Holton-Arms was definitely part of our social scene,” Mr. Barbot said. Another Georgetown Prep alumnus who was in Judge Kavanaugh’s class said, “Holton was as much a sister school as the others.”
Spying on Democrats
During his confirmation hearings earlier this month, Judge Kavanaugh said that when he worked in the White House of George W. Bush, he was unaware that a Republican staffer had stolen documents about judicial nominations from the computer servers of Democratic lawmakers. He maintained that receiving the documents did “not raise red flags” because “information sharing was common.”
This is disputed.
Documents released by the National Archives show that Manuel Miranda, the Republican aide, had sent Judge Kavanaugh several of the stolen files between 2002 and 2003. One email chain released by the Archives describes wanting to meet at Mr. Miranda’s house so that Judge Kavanaugh, who was a White House lawyer working on judicial confirmations, could receive “useful info” about two Democratic senators.
Mr. Miranda told The Times that he had never informed Mr. Kavanaugh about the computer servers. Democrats say the documents show that Judge Kavanaugh must have been aware that the information he was receiving from Mr. Miranda was stolen from Democratic computers. Emails from Mr. Miranda to Judge Kavanaugh included remarkable detail about Democratic plans, and some were marked as “highly confidential” or “intel.”
But Judge Kavanaugh offered a more benign interpretation, saying that he merely assumed at the time that Mr. Miranda had received the information from friendly Democratic staffers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html
Not convinced that Murkowski, Collins, and Flake will tow the line. Hell, it could be other GOP Senators as well and Turtle Mitch knows it.
Murk and Collins needed cover.. Flake gave it to them which is why they will vote no on Kavanugh confirmation when the fbi report is dropped and coroberates Dr Fords story..
Straight up, I think they found something. Something recent, something far less disputable, something unrelated that they know someone has or can put hands on. The way reporters talk about the GOP reacting and on their phones seems like more than just Flake backpedaling to be backpedaling.
And Trump wouldn't suddenly be calling for a reopening if he thought they could slide this through. He all but high fived Kavanaugh after his testimony, so why would he shift course? Yeah, he's inconsistent as all get out, but he also knows when to cut bait.
I could be wrong, though, and it might just be Flake and a few others trying to bully some favors out of people. But that's a hell of a dice roll if something actually turns up. People act like the FBI was infallible in checking him out, but they were likely only looking a little under the surface. Who knows what a deeper probe might uncover?
And Trump wouldn't suddenly be calling for a reopening if he thought they could slide this through. He all but high fived Kavanaugh after his testimony, so why would he shift course? Yeah, he's inconsistent as all get out, but he also knows when to cut bait.
I could be wrong, though, and it might just be Flake and a few others trying to bully some favors out of people. But that's a hell of a dice roll if something actually turns up. People act like the FBI was infallible in checking him out, but they were likely only looking a little under the surface. Who knows what a deeper probe might uncover?
Damn the American Jurist Review.. Put out an Editorial saying that only are they withdrawing their endorsement but his nomination should be withdrawn. Jesus... how can he even go back to to the bench.
The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today clearly demonstrated both the seriousness of her allegation of assault by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the stakes of this question for the whole country. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusation and emphasized in his testimony that the opposition of Democratic senators to his nomination and their consequent willingness to attack him was established long before Dr. Blasey’s allegation was known.
Evaluating the credibility of these competing accounts is a question about which people of good will can and do disagree. The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth. If Dr. Blasey’s allegation is true, the assault and Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of it mean that he should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country. While wepreviously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaughon the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.
If this were a question of establishing Judge Kavanaugh’s legal or moral responsibility for the assault described by Dr. Blasey, then far more stringent standards of proof would apply. His presumption of innocence might settle the matter in his favor, absent further investigation and new evidence. But the question is not solely about Judge Kavanaugh’s responsibility, nor is it any longer primarily about his qualifications. Rather it is about the prudence of his nomination and potential confirmation. In addition to being a fight over policy issues, which it already was, his nomination has also become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.
Somewhere in the distant past, at least before theword “Borked” was coinedto describe a Supreme Court nomination defeated by ideological opposition, Senate confirmation hearings might have focused on evaluating a nominee’s judicial character or qualifications as a legal thinker. But that time is long past. Many cases decided by the Supreme Court itself and thus also presidential nominations to that body (and the Senate hearings that follow) are now thoroughly engaged in deciding “policy by other means.” Neither the country nor the court are well served by this arrangement, but refusing to recognize it does nothing to help reverse it.
When Republican leaders in the Senate refused even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, they were not objecting to his qualifications or character but to the likely outcome of his vote on the court were he to be confirmed. When Senate Democrats were mostly united in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well in advance of any hearings (and before any rumor of Dr. Blasey’s accusation was known), they were using the same calculus. While regrettable in both cases, such results are,as we have said before, the predictable outcome of the fact that “fundamental questions of social policy are increasingly referred to the court for adjudication as constitutional issues.”
What is different this time is that this nomination battle is no longer purely about predicting the likely outcome of Judge Kavanaugh’s vote on the court. It now involves the symbolic meaning of his nomination and confirmation in the #MeToo era. The hearings and the committee’s deliberations are now also a bellwether of the way the country treats women when their reports of harassment, assault and abuse threaten to derail the careers of powerful men.
While nomination hearings are far from the best venue to deal with such issues, the question is sufficiently important that it is prudent to recognize it as determinative at this point. Dr. Blasey's accusations have neither been fully investigated nor been proven to a legal standard, but neither have they been conclusively disproved or shown to be less than credible. Judge Kavanaugh continues to enjoy a legal presumption of innocence, but the standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court is far higher; there is no presumption of confirmability. The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.
If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman’s report of an assault. Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country. Even if one thinks that Dr. Blasey's allegations are not credible, demonstrating them not to be would require further investigations and testimony. This would include calling additional witnesses and assessing further allegations against Judge Kavanaugh from other women, to which Republicans on the committee have been unwilling to commit and which would be divisive in any case.
There are many good reasons to support the nomination of a qualified judge who is committed to a textualist interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Over time, such an approach may return the question of abortion to the states, where it belongs given the Constitution’s silence on the matter, and where a more just and moral outcome than is currently possible under Roe v. Wade may be achieved. Restoring such a morally complex question to the deliberation of legislators rather than judges may also bring the country closer to a time when confirmation hearings can truly focus on the character and qualifications of the nominee rather than serving as proxy battles over every contentious issue in U.S. politics.
We continue to support the nomination of judges according to such principles—but Judge Kavanaugh is not the only such nominee available. For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson.
https://www.americamagazine.org/pol...ors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn
The Editors: It is time for the Kavanaugh nomination to be withdrawn
Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today clearly demonstrated both the seriousness of her allegation of assault by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh and the stakes of this question for the whole country. Judge Kavanaugh denied the accusation and emphasized in his testimony that the opposition of Democratic senators to his nomination and their consequent willingness to attack him was established long before Dr. Blasey’s allegation was known.
Evaluating the credibility of these competing accounts is a question about which people of good will can and do disagree. The editors of this review have no special insight into who is telling the truth. If Dr. Blasey’s allegation is true, the assault and Judge Kavanaugh’s denial of it mean that he should not be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the credibility of the allegation has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and even if further investigation is warranted to determine its validity or clear Judge Kavanaugh’s name, we recognize that this nomination is no longer in the best interests of the country. While wepreviously endorsed the nomination of Judge Kavanaughon the basis of his legal credentials and his reputation as a committed textualist, it is now clear that the nomination should be withdrawn.
If this were a question of establishing Judge Kavanaugh’s legal or moral responsibility for the assault described by Dr. Blasey, then far more stringent standards of proof would apply. His presumption of innocence might settle the matter in his favor, absent further investigation and new evidence. But the question is not solely about Judge Kavanaugh’s responsibility, nor is it any longer primarily about his qualifications. Rather it is about the prudence of his nomination and potential confirmation. In addition to being a fight over policy issues, which it already was, his nomination has also become a referendum on how to address allegations of sexual assault.
Somewhere in the distant past, at least before theword “Borked” was coinedto describe a Supreme Court nomination defeated by ideological opposition, Senate confirmation hearings might have focused on evaluating a nominee’s judicial character or qualifications as a legal thinker. But that time is long past. Many cases decided by the Supreme Court itself and thus also presidential nominations to that body (and the Senate hearings that follow) are now thoroughly engaged in deciding “policy by other means.” Neither the country nor the court are well served by this arrangement, but refusing to recognize it does nothing to help reverse it.
When Republican leaders in the Senate refused even to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, they were not objecting to his qualifications or character but to the likely outcome of his vote on the court were he to be confirmed. When Senate Democrats were mostly united in opposition to Judge Kavanaugh well in advance of any hearings (and before any rumor of Dr. Blasey’s accusation was known), they were using the same calculus. While regrettable in both cases, such results are,as we have said before, the predictable outcome of the fact that “fundamental questions of social policy are increasingly referred to the court for adjudication as constitutional issues.”
What is different this time is that this nomination battle is no longer purely about predicting the likely outcome of Judge Kavanaugh’s vote on the court. It now involves the symbolic meaning of his nomination and confirmation in the #MeToo era. The hearings and the committee’s deliberations are now also a bellwether of the way the country treats women when their reports of harassment, assault and abuse threaten to derail the careers of powerful men.
While nomination hearings are far from the best venue to deal with such issues, the question is sufficiently important that it is prudent to recognize it as determinative at this point. Dr. Blasey's accusations have neither been fully investigated nor been proven to a legal standard, but neither have they been conclusively disproved or shown to be less than credible. Judge Kavanaugh continues to enjoy a legal presumption of innocence, but the standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court is far higher; there is no presumption of confirmability. The best of the bad resolutions available in this dilemma is for Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination to be withdrawn.
If Senate Republicans proceed with his nomination, they will be prioritizing policy aims over a woman’s report of an assault. Were he to be confirmed without this allegation being firmly disproved, it would hang over his future decisions on the Supreme Court for decades and further divide the country. Even if one thinks that Dr. Blasey's allegations are not credible, demonstrating them not to be would require further investigations and testimony. This would include calling additional witnesses and assessing further allegations against Judge Kavanaugh from other women, to which Republicans on the committee have been unwilling to commit and which would be divisive in any case.
There are many good reasons to support the nomination of a qualified judge who is committed to a textualist interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Over time, such an approach may return the question of abortion to the states, where it belongs given the Constitution’s silence on the matter, and where a more just and moral outcome than is currently possible under Roe v. Wade may be achieved. Restoring such a morally complex question to the deliberation of legislators rather than judges may also bring the country closer to a time when confirmation hearings can truly focus on the character and qualifications of the nominee rather than serving as proxy battles over every contentious issue in U.S. politics.
We continue to support the nomination of judges according to such principles—but Judge Kavanaugh is not the only such nominee available. For the good of the country and the future credibility of the Supreme Court in a world that is finally learning to take reports of harassment, assault and abuse seriously, it is time to find a nominee whose confirmation will not repudiate that lesson.
https://www.americamagazine.org/pol...ors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn
Similar threads
