Kavanaugh, drunk, party boy and confirmed liar under oath for the SC

[Leo Lyons]

"unopened stationery notes to counsel for Dr. Ford from women who wanted to enter the hearing room but were not allowed to enter the hearing room,"
So they claim. They're lying. As I said, watch her facial expressions and her body motions; the shifty eyes, the slipping in and out. What's a congresswoman doing at a senate hearing..

Great cut and paste leo, but So what?
So what? Take a guess.

[billy.pilgrim]

"unopened stationery notes to counsel for Dr. Ford from women who wanted to enter the hearing room but were not allowed to enter the hearing room,"
So they claim. They're lying. As I said, watch her facial expressions and her body motions; the shifty eyes, the slipping in and out. What's a congresswoman doing at a senate hearing..

Great cut and paste leo, but So what?
So what? Take a guess.

So weird that you can guess, assume, indict, and convict after seeing a closed envelope, but go full dumbass in waiting for even more evidence that kavanaugh is unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice. Some crap about his assumed innocence guarantees his appointment because - what? there isn't time - bull
As if his petulant antics, his attacks on the questioning Senators, his sense of entitlement as somehow superior and his repeated outright lies all on display during his under oath testimony aren't enough evidence to convince all but ... the dishonest?, or liars? I really don't know how fucked up a person has to be to see him as fit.

[Vrede too]

The envelope has become a favorite rightwing screeching meme. Never mind that the stated explanation makes perfect sense and that there is NOTHING conceivably nefarious that couldn't have been delivered in private. Leo Lyons fails logical investigation, again.

A congressWOMAN is a citizen, too, has reason to demonstrate solidarity with her constituents, may be considering a Kavanaugh impeachment effort that would start in the House as was just discussed back on page 4, and there's a 1 in 3 chance or better that she was a victim of sexual assault, herself. Leo Lyons fails common sense, again.

[Leo Lyons]

So weird that you can guess, assume, indict, and convict after seeing a closed envelope,
So weird that you can guess, assume, indict, and convict after hearing only one side of a testimony. Those are not my assumptions; I only posted the video and added my personal comments on her actions after handing off the envelope.

but go full dumbass in waiting for even more evidence that kavanaugh is unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Either you're full dumbass dense or you've got a piss-poor memory; or both. What part of my saying I don't support Kavanaugh are you having a problem comprehending? I never said I support his nomination; I said I support finding the truth. Whether he's fit or not is not for you to decide because you're having knee-jerk party-loyalty pains, and you're blindly like a sheep.

Some crap about his assumed innocence guarantees his appointment because - what? there isn't time - bull
Uhh..there's this little thingy called the constitution and presumed innocence that comes into play, despite this not being a trial.
You dipwissles are only following party loyalty, not common sense; oh wait, never mind...

As if his petulant antics, his attacks on the questioning Senators, his sense of entitlement as somehow superior and his repeated outright lies all on display during his under oath testimony aren't enough evidence to convince all but ... the dishonest?, or liars?
And you know, (despite his arrogant attitude) without a shadow of a doubt, that he's spoken repeated outright lies? You were there the day of the 'alleged' assault? You were there at the hearing and could see and hear into his mind?

I really don't know how fucked up a person has to be to see him as fit.
You could have stopped at "I really don't know". I've said before I'm not con or lib, but in these forums I'm following, and in real life, the level of hatred, trashy language, and name-calling from the liberal/Dem side far outnumbers that I've heard from any cons.

[Leo Lyons]

The envelope has become a favorite rightwing screeching meme.
It's not a meme, it's an actual video with full shifty body language and a "did anybody see me?" look on the Rep's face.
I know body language and facial expressions; I've seen many.

Never mind that the stated explanation makes perfect sense and that there is NOTHING conceivably nefarious that couldn't have been delivered in private. Leo Lyons fails logical investigation, again.
Yes, that was the ''stated explanation" and of course it makes sense that "NOTHING conceivably nefarious" was involved to those who had Brett convicted long before the hearing began. "Women who wanted to enter the hearing room but were not allowed to enter the hearing room" Give me a break! What was the prosecutor supposed to do once he looked at the note he didn't bother to glance at to see what it was? Demand that the judiciary panel allow outsiders into the hearing? Why was she so huffy and puffy to make a hasty exit once the "list of names" was delivered? If Vrede had any logic-making capabilities, or common sense, he failed miserably.

A congressWOMAN is a citizen, too, has reason to demonstrate solidarity with her constituents, may be considering a Kavanaugh impeachment effort that would start in the House as was just discussed back on page 4, and there's a 1 in 3 chance or better that she was a victim of sexual assault, herself. Leo Lyons fails common sense, again.
Did you know you could save up to 15% on your car insurance by switching to GEICO?

[Leo Lyons]

Lest We Forget

[billy.pilgrim]

Lest We Forget

Talk about tired old bullshit that has nothing to do with kavanaugh.

Try this leo



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -metoo-era

[Vrede too]

The people that knew Ted best, the voters of MA and not just Dems, kept electing him over and over. Otoh, the one time that other American Dems got to vote on him in primaries, they rejected him. So, it's not only “tired old bullshit”, it's stupid and desperate.

Brett Kavanaugh Thinks Undocumented Workers Aren’t Really Employees Under The Law
A dissent from Trump’s Supreme Court nominee cuts to the heart of immigration, workers rights and Supreme Court precedent.

... During a 2008 labor dispute, a federal appeals court ruled that Agriprocessors had to bargain with a group of workers at a Brooklyn distribution facility who had voted to unionize. But Kavanaugh penned a dissent siding with Agriprocessors, arguing that most of the employees in the election were ineligible to unionize because they were undocumented.

... the Agriprocessors case ― in which Kavanaugh staked out a lonely, hard-line position even relative to other Republicans ― offers a unique window into the judge’s thinking on immigration, workplace rights and even Supreme Court precedent....

The workers at Agriprocessors had voted to join the United Food and Commercial Workers union in 2005. They apparently had good reason to do so. “We were treated like garbage,” one former truck driver at the facility told the Forward in 2008. “We were doing a lot of work for not a lot of money. And if we said anything, we got fired immediately.”

... It’s long been policy in the U.S. to extend basic protections to workers regardless of their immigration status. The idea isn’t to reward those who came here illegally; it’s to protect the working standards of everyone. If undocumented workers can’t unionize, then scummy employers have an added incentive to hire and exploit them. That would not only make it harder for native-born workers to land jobs, it would drive down pay and working conditions across entire industries.

The Supreme Court understood those implications when it ruled in the 1984 case Sure-Tan Inc v. NLRB that the National Labor Relations Act applies equally to undocumented workers. “If an employer realizes that there will be no advantage under the NLRA in preferring illegal aliens to legal resident workers, any incentive to hire such illegal aliens is correspondingly lessened,” the court wrote in its decision.

Given that ruling and the long history of granting undocumented workers fundamental protections, an administrative law judge determined that the Agriprocessors workers were employees and had a legal right to unionize. When Agriprocessors refused to acknowledge the union, the three-member labor board reached a unanimous decision ordering the company to sit down and start bargaining. Two of those board members were Republicans.

Agriprocessors appealed the board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where a three-judge panel affirmed the labor board’s decision; Kavanaugh was the dissenter.

He wrote that the Immigration Reform and Control Act trumped the Supreme Court’s earlier determination in the Sure-Tan case that undocumented workers were covered by the law. He concluded that the pro-union votes by the undocumented workers ― that is, 17 of the 21 workers who cast ballots, according to the Forward ― may have unfairly “diluted or overridden” the votes by “the legal workers.”

One of his fellow judges all but mocked the logic in Kavanaugh’s dissent, that once it became illegal to hire undocumented workers due to immigration law, the definition of “employee” under labor law changed, too. “[T]his does not logically follow,” Judge David Tatel wrote, “as an example illustrates: ‘Because it’s not cold outside, it’s not snowing. It is now cold outside, therefore it must be snowing.’”

Wilma Liebman, one of the former labor board members who ruled against Agriprocessors, said Kavanaugh’s dissent suggests he’s “very skeptical if not disdainful” of administrative determinations made by agencies like the NLRB. It also shows a willingness to take on Supreme Court precedent, she said.

“What Kavanaugh has done is really go out on a limb,” Liebman said of the dissent. “I guess the fear with this particular issue is, does he get [Justice Samuel] Alito, does he get [Justice Clarence] Thomas to go along with him and revisit what might be thought of as established precedent?”

Kavanaugh’s reading of the law comes with serious economic implications. If it prevailed, employers could hire undocumented workers knowing that if they organized and voted in favor of joining a union, the election results would be thrown out. And his logic could easily apply to other critical workplace statutes, including the minimum wage and overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If undocumented workers were no longer “employees” under the law, employers would have much less to fear by committing wage theft and undercutting pay for everyone.

In fact, Agriprocessors was accused of doing exactly that. Just months after the appeals court’s ruling, federal immigration officials raided the company’s Iowa plant and detained nearly 400 undocumented workers. Many of them complained of brutal hours, unpaid overtime and unsafe conditions in the plant. At least 20 were underage.

“Management there found a way to further the definition of exploitation,” said Mark Lauritsen, director of the UFCW’s food processing and packing division, who was around for the battles with Agriprocessors. “They were doing things you’d think were banished from the workplace a long time ago.”

Agriprocessors was sold in 2009, the same year that Sholom Rubashkin, who ran the company’s Iowa operations, was convicted of bank fraud and money laundering. He received a 27-year prison sentence. The White House commuted Rubashkin’s sentence last year, saying it was too severe for his crimes. (As a developer, Trump himself once employed some 200 undocumented Polish immigrants who demolished the Bonwit Teller building in Manhattan in substandard working conditions.) ...

Whatever one thinks of the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh remains a serial liar and anti-American extremist.

[Leo Lyons]

Talk about tired old bullshit that has nothing to do with kavanaugh.
But everything to do with double standards.

Try this leo
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -metoo-era
Tired old bullshit that has nothing to do with allegations against Kavanaugh

Your turn.

[Leo Lyons]

The people that knew Ted best, the voters of MA and not just Dems, kept electing him over and over. Otoh, the one time that other American Dems got to vote on him in primaries, they rejected him. So, it's not only “tired old bullshit”, it's stupid and desperate.
As the late, great Forrest Gump once said, "stupid is as stupid does". "One time that other American Dems got to vote on him in primaries".

ONE TIME. How soon to forget that Kennedy was a drunk, a womanizer, was cheating on his wife with Mary Jo that early morning he wrecked his car and killed her (walking away to leave her to die), oh wait..that was just that one time.

The point is, as you are well aware, is that Kennedy went on to to be a career politician; shining in the eyes of the Dems, but now a Repub judge with unpopular bench decisions is being ACCUSED of SEXUAL ASSAULT and the same lily-white Democratic party is hanging him out to dry with NO PROOF so far of his guilt. Let the investigation proceed, if he's guilty, it'll come out. Again, my stance is guilt or innocence; not who is going to be next seated on SCOTUS.

Whatever one thinks of the sexual assault allegations, Kavanaugh remains a serial liar and anti-American extremist.
Of course. He's a Republican, and there are no bad Dems.

[O Really]

So Leo, why are you having a hard time defending Kavenaugh on his own merits instead of having only "butwhatabout..."
And while we're at it, "double standards" are bad only when you have two or more people, within the same facts and circumstances, being evaluated differently for the same action. If you want to do buwhatabouts and double standards, you can compare Kavenaugh's treatment with other Supreme Court candidates who have been accused of similar actions or who have similar records. Or, you could compare his treatment to the nomination of Merrick Garland, even though as far as we know Garland doesn't have personal controversy. You cannot logically compare his treatment to anyone not nominated for the Supreme Court because the facts, circumstances, and conditions are all different.

[Leo Lyons]

So Leo, why are you having a hard time defending Kavenaugh on his own merits instead of having only "butwhatabout..."

Again, I'm not defending Kavanaugh. I'm defending the principle of the 14th. Amendment.

[GoCubsGo]

SNL nails it

Michael Che of “Saturday Night Live” wants to know why Judge Brett Kavanaugh is still under consideration for the Supreme Court.

During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Kavanaugh raised his voice and appeared to tear up as he attempted to fend off allegations of sexual assault and heavy drinking.

“I just want to remind everybody that all this yelling and crying happened at this dude’s job interview,” Che said during the “Weekend Update” segment. “Typically, when you’re asked about a sexual assault and your drinking problem at a job interview, you don’t get the damn job.”

He added:

“I don’t know if Mr. Kavanaugh actually has a history of assault or if he actually has a drinking problem, but I do know that he might. And you shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court if you might. You shouldn’t be on the ‘People’s Court’ if you might.”

Later in the segment, Che wondered aloud why the GOP was so insistent on pushing Kavanaugh through.

“Why does it have to be him?” Che asked. ”You can’t just pick another dude from your Illuminati lizard meetings? Are Republicans so pro-life that you don’t even have a Plan B for this?”

[Vrede too]

... Later in the segment, Che wondered aloud why the GOP was so insistent on pushing Kavanaugh through.

“Why does it have to be him?” Che asked. ”You can’t just pick another dude from your Illuminati lizard meetings? Are Republicans so pro-life that you don’t even have a Plan B for this?”

Like Leo Lyons, they are desperate to salvage something out of how badly they screwed up by nominating and then electing POSPOTUS. They know that:
There is no time to confirm someone else before the midterms;
That they are almost certain to lose the House, and may even lost the Senate in a year when they should have made Senate gains;
That a lame duck confirmation after the midterms will look really bad for them;
That their voters and funders demand an extremist SCOTUS. A rational, patriotic con with respect for the institution won't do;
That Dolt .45 and they have fucked up so royally they'll never have another chance to seat an extremist;
That there's a strong chance of more criminal prosecutions of people close to Putin's Agent Orange, including even family members, and possibly of impeachment, and that only an extremist SCOTUS would get in the way;
That a rational, patriotic con SCOTUS won't support their racial, religious, gender and sexual orientation bigotry;
That they lost most Americans years ago on the issues and that the only things that have kept them in power are dark money, gerrymandering, massive voter suppression and even Russian assistance. Rather than respecting democracy and reforming, this is their last gasp attempt to impose their hateful extremism for a long time into the future.

[O Really]

So Leo, why are you having a hard time defending Kavenaugh on his own merits instead of having only "butwhatabout..."

Again, I'm not defending Kavanaugh. I'm defending the principle of the 14th. Amendment.

OK, although everybody else is talking about Kavenaugh. Anyway, here's the 14th - what part do you you think needs defending?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

[Vrede too]

Hmmmm,that applies to criminal process. This is a job interview, and that's different.

Plus, the 14th Amendment doesn't state that at all. In fact:

... the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. The case of Coffin v. United States (1895) established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes. See also In re Winship.

The 14th, as anyone that knows anything about US slavery and race already knows, merely extends those rights already enjoyed by white males like Kavanaugh to the males from other races.

Plus, as O Really said back on page 3 and you remain too slow to comprehend, the presumption of innocence prevents unjust punishment. There is nothing about it or anywhere else in the Constitution that guarantees one a right to the most important non-elected job in America. If not confirmed, Kavanaugh will still be an appeals court justice, having suffered no constitutionally precluded punishment at all, none.

If at that time he is criminally charged by Maryland or D.C. or he's impeached by Congress, the implied presumption of innocence right will come into play before he can be punished.

You fail middle school Civics and Logic, utterly, as well as, ironically, the very basics of criminal law.

[Vrede too]

Kavanaugh’s Yearbook Page Is ‘Horrible, Hurtful’ to a Woman It Named

Kavanaugh lied about what was said and what it meant.

Here’s where Kavanaugh’s sworn testimony was misleading or wrong

Brett Kavanaugh misled the Senate under oath. I cannot support his nomination.

Leaving aside the sexual assault claims, the extremist philosophy and the un-judicial hyper-partisanship, why are cons so insistent on installing a liar and criminal perjurer?

According to SPLC these are the swing votes:

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Phone: (202) 224-2523

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Phone: (202) 224-4521

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Phone: (202) 224-3954

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Phone: (202) 224-6665

There had been a couple of wavering Dems besides Manchin, but I guess they're now anti-Kavanaugh. So, it comes down to getting Manchin and 2 Repubs to vote 'No', or losing Manchin and getting all 3 Repubs to vote 'No'. It remains a long shot, but a month ago there didn't seem to be any doubt.

I wonder what would have happened if McCain had lived? Even if he was too sick to travel, his non-vote would have affected the calculations.

I'm not calling, but I posted the numbers that SPLC sent in case y'all want to.

[billy.pilgrim]

Talk about tired old bullshit that has nothing to do with kavanaugh.
But everything to do with double standards.

Try this leo
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -metoo-era
Tired old bullshit that has nothing to do with allegations against Kavanaugh

Your turn.

Nope. Bret lied last week, Bret showed his temper last week, Bret acted immature last week

Kennedy git drunk, had a wreck, someone died, he didn't go to prison - same as almost everyone else at the time.

Yet you still won't answer the even bigger double standard about how prohibition ain't a nickel's different than the current drug laws. Just builds an underworld full of money, dealers, runners, guns, cops, prisons, and death.

[billy.pilgrim]

So Leo, why are you having a hard time defending Kavenaugh on his own merits instead of having only "butwhatabout..."

Again, I'm not defending Kavanaugh. I'm defending the principle of the 14th. Amendment.

It's a job interview, no one is trying to send mr petulance to jail.

His drunken deviant sex life is as relevant as is his inability to control his emotions.

[Leo Lyons]

Nope. Bret lied last week,
We don't know that for sure. An investigation is shortcoming. If he lied, then it goes from there

Bret showed his temper last week, Bret acted immature last week...It's a job interview, no one is trying to send mr petulance to jail....His drunken deviant sex life is as relevant as is his inability to control his emotions.
Bret showed his emotions. That shows he cares for his family's anguish. You'd probably show your emotions too. As for his "drunken deviant sex life" that is an outright lie; do you have a citation for that claim?

Kennedy git drunk, had a wreck, someone died, he didn't go to prison - same as almost everyone else at the time.
If you're a Democrat? Is that an "everyone else is doing it" get out of jail free card?

Yet you still won't answer the even bigger double standard about how prohibition ain't a nickel's different than the current drug laws. Just builds an underworld full of money, dealers, runners, guns, cops, prisons, and death.
double standard? I can't tell you much about Prohibition other than religion, government greed, and special interest had a big hand in it. It was before my time; not on my list of must reads. Anything deemed illegal is going to create an underground source, big money, murder, and imprisonment. Always has, always will. Special interests, usually people in political power, are mainly responsible for the "drug war" failures.

You needn't worry though, there's plenty enough to go around, it's just going to cost you more. There's the biggest bitch!