On 9/29/18 12:46 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/29/18 8:27 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a result
of her experience 36 years ago.Â* She then went on to acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to conduct
the testimony in California.Â* He said the committee would fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen. Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.Â* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.Â*Â* He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from FordÂ* they were in violation of some codes of
conduct governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they could
be subject to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump "resist"
movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by Dianne Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.Â* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front of the
Senate Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony, but the
political screed he offered during it should be something that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on women, on the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire facias
or impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.


The Senate Democrats ... and basically all the Democrats who have joined
in the campaign to destroy him, obstruct his confirmation and, as
Schumer said last July, "to use any means" to block him aren't supposed
to act that way either.Â* Kavanaugh's comments didn't emerge until the
Dems in their sleazy antics attempted to destroy him and his family, not
based on past judicial positions, but on his personal life based on some
very questionable claims by a women regarding events that occurred while
they were in high school.

Harry, your party is continuing a move away from all the traditional
values in this country.Â* They are being dumped for only two purposes.

Power and control.



U.S. Senators and Representatives are political, and therefore it is not
unusual for them to act political on whatever the issue at hand is.
Kavanaugh is a federal judge, auditioning for a promotion. He is not
supposed to be political during the audition or afterwards. He is
supposed to be apolitical. This is not to say a judge cannot have firm
beliefs, but he is supposed to leave those unspoken. He disqualified
himself with those partisan statements and with his utter refusal to
answer a number of questions.

Your boy Trump is the one destroying traditional values and institutions
in this country. You just chalk his insanities and inanities up to
"Trump being Trump."

The rest of your screed was nonsense, so I didn't bother to regurgitate it.




If you d not say Ginsburg and the other SCOTUS are not political, you are
either stupid or lying.


Oh, sure, Bilious...please provide some cites of Associate Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg making partisan political statements while on the bench,
as Kavanaugh did

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 12:59:25 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a result
of her experience 36 years ago.Â* She then went on to acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to conduct
the testimony in California.Â* He said the committee would fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen. Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.Â* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.Â*Â* He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from FordÂ* they were in violation of some codes of conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they could be subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump "resist" movement.

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:01:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a result
of her experience 36 years ago.Â* She then went on to acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to conduct
the testimony in California.Â* He said the committee would fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen. Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.Â* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.Â*Â* He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from FordÂ* they were in violation of some codes of conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they could be subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump "resist" movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by Dianne Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.Â* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front of the Senate
Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony, but the
political screed he offered during it should be something that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on women, on the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire facias or
impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.

As a wise man said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are
not out to get you". (alternatively credited to Joseph Heller and
Henry Kissinger)
I saw a man who was surprised and frustrated by a partisan attack on
him that seems to have no provable basis in fact.
If this nomination does go down, I would not mind seeing him drag Ford
and Feinstein into civil court and let them prove this was not just a
politically motivated assault on his character.


You might not mind it, but absent malice, Kavanaugh, a public figure,
would get nowhere with a civil suit alleging libel or slander. It would
be close to impossible for Kavanaugh to prove malice.

Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

I doubt he would do it but you can sue anyone for anything even if the
objective is nothing but to get them under oath answering questions
and proving their allegations. You may not have "malice" in the case
of Ford, assuming she can demonstrate this was not just a political
move but Feinstein was certainly malicious in the way she handled
this. I also understand congress people are expected to be malicious
political hacks so she has the perfect defense.

I really think the democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot
here tho. Kananaugh may be the least objectionable of the 3 on your
core issues. You will have a hard time "Borking" 2 candidates in a
row.

In article ,
says...


Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

It's strange how these Republicans don't see the **** storm
they're bringing on this country. Don't they know that
putting a partisan hack on SCOTUS will irreparably harm it?
Don't they know that this guy WILL be impeached?
Only thing I can figure is they are unknowingly exhibiting a
"death struggle." I wish it was amusing. It's not.

On 9/29/18 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:01:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a result
of her experience 36 years ago.Â* She then went on to acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to conduct
the testimony in California.Â* He said the committee would fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen. Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.Â* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.Â*Â* He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from FordÂ* they were in violation of some codes of conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they could be subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump "resist" movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by Dianne Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.Â* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front of the Senate
Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony, but the
political screed he offered during it should be something that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on women, on the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire facias or
impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.

As a wise man said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are
not out to get you". (alternatively credited to Joseph Heller and
Henry Kissinger)
I saw a man who was surprised and frustrated by a partisan attack on
him that seems to have no provable basis in fact.
If this nomination does go down, I would not mind seeing him drag Ford
and Feinstein into civil court and let them prove this was not just a
politically motivated assault on his character.


You might not mind it, but absent malice, Kavanaugh, a public figure,
would get nowhere with a civil suit alleging libel or slander. It would
be close to impossible for Kavanaugh to prove malice.

Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

I doubt he would do it but you can sue anyone for anything even if the
objective is nothing but to get them under oath answering questions
and proving their allegations. You may not have "malice" in the case
of Ford, assuming she can demonstrate this was not just a political
move but Feinstein was certainly malicious in the way she handled
this. I also understand congress people are expected to be malicious
political hacks so she has the perfect defense.

I really think the democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot
here tho. Kananaugh may be the least objectionable of the 3 on your
core issues. You will have a hard time "Borking" 2 candidates in a
row.


I don't see Kavanaugh as dumb enough to try to sue Dr. Ford or Senator
Feinstein. And of course if he went after them in a lawsuit, he would be
subject to being questioned, too, and not as sweetly as he was by the
Republicans on the Committee. Further, if he were as evasive as he was
during the hearings, he'd be cited for contempt.

I wouldn't bet either way at this time on the outcome of Kavanaugh's
attempt at confirmation. He certainly doesn't have the demeanor or
restraint one might expect of an Associate Justice but, of course, this
is the age of Trump in which those judicial attributes do not matter.

On 9/29/18 4:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

It's strange how these Republicans don't see the **** storm
they're bringing on this country. Don't they know that
putting a partisan hack on SCOTUS will irreparably harm it?
Don't they know that this guy WILL be impeached?
Only thing I can figure is they are unknowingly exhibiting a
"death struggle." I wish it was amusing. It's not.




The Repubs are afraid to tell their Emperor he isn't wearing any clothes.

On 9/29/2018 4:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 14:01:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 12:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:08:01 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 9/29/18 7:38 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

During Ford's testimony she said something that I thought was odd
but I wasn't smart enough to understand what it meant.

It was when Ford was being asked about her fear of flying and
she acknowledged it, blaming it on "claustrophobia" as a result
of her experience 36 years ago.Â* She then went on to acknowledge
however that she has regularly flown often in spite of this.

But that's not the odd part.

She was asked why she didn't accept Grassley's offer to conduct
the testimony in California.Â* He said the committee would fly to
her instead of her having to fly to WashDC. The offer was made
in consideration of her claimed fear of flying and the delay
it imposed on the whole process.

In her testimony Ford expressed surprise that Grassley had made that
offer. She said she was "unaware" of it and thanked Sen. Grassley.

That's strange.

A lawyer I heard last night addressed this.Â* He said that
Grassley had sent three letters to Ford's attorneys regarding
the offer to have the committee come to her rather than she
come to WashDC.Â*Â* He said that if her attorneys had withheld
those letters from FordÂ* they were in violation of some codes of conduct
governing their responsibilities. As her attorneys they could be subject
to being disbarred for unethical behavior.

Interestingly, at least one of the attorneys ... the woman ... is a
known political activist and participates in the Trump "resist" movement.

According to the lawyer, she was recommended to Ford by Dianne Feinstein
after Ford sent Feinstein the "confidential" letter regarding her
claimed sexual abuse by Kavanaugh.

I am telling ya.Â* You just can't make this stuff up.


Whatever. Hopefully, Dr. Ford's public testimony in front of the Senate
Judiciary Committee works out for the best.

It didn't occur to me until after Kavanaugh's testimony, but the
political screed he offered during it should be something that
completely disqualifies him from the federal bench...in any judgeship.
He blamed his delay in confirmation on the Democrats, on women, on the
Clintons, on politics. He sounded like Trump. A federal judge isn't
supposed to be political and isn't supposed to behave that way. He's
really Trump's boy. He should be subjected to a writ of scire facias or
impeached for expressing those partisan thoughts.

As a wise man said "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are
not out to get you". (alternatively credited to Joseph Heller and
Henry Kissinger)
I saw a man who was surprised and frustrated by a partisan attack on
him that seems to have no provable basis in fact.
If this nomination does go down, I would not mind seeing him drag Ford
and Feinstein into civil court and let them prove this was not just a
politically motivated assault on his character.


You might not mind it, but absent malice, Kavanaugh, a public figure,
would get nowhere with a civil suit alleging libel or slander. It would
be close to impossible for Kavanaugh to prove malice.

Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

I doubt he would do it but you can sue anyone for anything even if the
objective is nothing but to get them under oath answering questions
and proving their allegations. You may not have "malice" in the case
of Ford, assuming she can demonstrate this was not just a political
move but Feinstein was certainly malicious in the way she handled
this. I also understand congress people are expected to be malicious
political hacks so she has the perfect defense.

I really think the democrats may be shooting themselves in the foot
here tho. Kananaugh may be the least objectionable of the 3 on your
core issues. You will have a hard time "Borking" 2 candidates in a
row.



That's not the objective. They've got the delaying process down pat.
They want to block Kavanaugh and then delay any replacement long enough
for the mid terms plus 2 months. Technically there may be time to
rush another nominee through the process but unlikely because all the
jerks in WashDC want to get home and get into heavy campaign mode.

On 9/29/2018 4:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

It's strange how these Republicans don't see the **** storm
they're bringing on this country. Don't they know that
putting a partisan hack on SCOTUS will irreparably harm it?
Don't they know that this guy WILL be impeached?
Only thing I can figure is they are unknowingly exhibiting a
"death struggle." I wish it was amusing. It's not.





Funny. The best thing for this country is a reasoned SCOTUS with
a conservative list. (boating term for "tilt").

Impeach him after he's installed? Be serious. Those are only
threats being circulated by Dems to further dissuade any of their
own and even some Republicans from voting "aye" on his confirmation
but also in preparation for the mid-terms and their respective images
back home.

You know ... the usual ... "Fake News".

The Democrat Party has turned into a sleazy, dishonest and disgusting
party. I wish it was amusing. It's not.

In article ,
says...

On 9/29/2018 4:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

It's strange how these Republicans don't see the **** storm
they're bringing on this country. Don't they know that
putting a partisan hack on SCOTUS will irreparably harm it?
Don't they know that this guy WILL be impeached?
Only thing I can figure is they are unknowingly exhibiting a
"death struggle." I wish it was amusing. It's not.





Funny. The best thing for this country is a reasoned SCOTUS with
a conservative list. (boating term for "tilt").

Impeach him after he's installed? Be serious. Those are only
threats being circulated by Dems to further dissuade any of their
own and even some Republicans from voting "aye" on his confirmation
but also in preparation for the mid-terms and their respective images
back home.

You know ... the usual ... "Fake News".

The Democrat Party has turned into a sleazy, dishonest and disgusting
party. I wish it was amusing. It's not.

Funny. The Democrats didn't nominate a sniveling drunk liar
to SCOTUS. In case you didn't notice, he's a Republican
nominee. Why can't the Republicans find a clean nominee?
Believe me, if this sorry excuse for a jurist gets on the
court, any ruling where he's a deciding vote will be
considered dirt. And if the Dems take the House he will be
impeached for lying to Congress, and rightfully so.

On 9/29/18 5:16 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/29/2018 4:32 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Kavanaugh's tempermental outburst should be enough to do him in...hell,
he doesn't have the temperment to serve as a judge in any court.

It's strange how these Republicans don't see the **** storm
they're bringing on this country.Â* Don't they know that
putting a partisan hack on SCOTUS will irreparably harm it?
Don't they know that this guy WILL be impeached?
Only thing I can figure is they are unknowingly exhibiting a
"death struggle."Â* I wish it was amusing.Â* It's not.




Funny.Â* The best thing for this country is a reasoned SCOTUS with
a conservative list.Â* (boating term for "tilt").



You mean, the best thing for corporations, the wealthy, the enemies of
rights for minorities, workers, women, et cetera.