Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's no 'presumed innocent' when it comes to a job interview.
I mean, the last time I had an interview and shouted at all the hiring managers, went on and ON about how much I loved beer; and finally just sullenly refused to answer a question - I didn't get the job.
Neither should Bart .
Who is Bart? Kavanaugh's first name is Brett.
The last time you had an interview were you slandered and were you, your family and career placed in jeopardy? Did you receive death threats? Did they bring in someone to state false accusations?
The last time you had an interview were you slandered and were you, your family and career placed in jeopardy? Did you receive death threats? Did they bring in someone to state false accusations?
Ask his good friend Mark Judge who Bart O'Kavanaugh is.
No, I didn't receive death threats. Ford did.
I didn't have someone testify falsely against me. Ford did.
And yet she managed NOT to have a tantrum worthy of a two year old that missed his nap.
There's no 'presumed innocent' when it comes to a job interview.
I mean, the last time I had an interview and shouted at all the hiring managers, went on and ON about how much I loved beer; and finally just sullenly refused to answer a question - I didn't get the job.
Neither should Bart .
Once again (and as many times as I deem necessary), that hearing was NOT a "job interview"! the "interview" portion was OVER! That hearing was, IMO, a blatant attempt at "GUILTY until you prove you are innocent", a railroad job if there ever was one. Sure, it supposedly was an attempt to get at the truth, but we all knew it was an exercise in futility because neither side had any real proof. No evidence at all!
Again, IT WAS NOT A JOB INTERVIEW! It was a futile attempt to railroad a good man on the flimsiest of evidence: She said it happened; no witnesses, no evidence, no police report ever filed. If she had presented her testimony in front of a Grand Jury in D.C., she would have had to go West of the Mississippi to get away from the laughter!
Amy Barrett would have definitely been more conservative on the Supreme Court. I think Kavanaugh has a very good chance of being like Kennedy, the swing vote.
Never. Thomas was angry and hardened by what he went through w/Anita Hill, who was certainly telling the truth, and become more dogmatically far right over the years. Not that he's contributed anything to the court. He is clearly the GOP's bow to diversity. Further, I've always believed he is a black man who wished he'd been born white. The chip on his shoulder and psyche is deep.
NEVER WILL KAVANAUGH BE IMPARTIAL.
He will be Thomas redux - only far more angry and active.
Remember what he said - "what goes around, comes around."
No, Kavanaugh will never be a swing vote. Never.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Retired Justice Stevens just came out publicly to voice his opposition to Kavanaugh's appointment to the SCOTUS! Stevens said Kavanaugh's behavior at the hearing is unacceptable for a Justice.
As I've repeatedly stated, a 36 y/o allegation should never have been made public - many teenagers and college kids are stupid - and shouldn't be made to pay for it their whole lives.
The process has been ugly.
That said, had this irrelevant allegation not been made public, we would never have learned of what Kavanugh is truly made.
Pettiness, entitlement, extreme r-wing bias. He will be a stooge for Trump and r-wing ideologues.
He is clearly not a big enough man of character or integrity to put this behind him.
Would that the Senators heed Justice Stevens' words.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 10-04-2018 at 05:55 PM..
You are right. They will not forget that this metoo madness can ruin the lives of their fathers, brothers and sons.
When you pick your fight be careful. This idiocy is going to backfire, all right. On the Democrats. When you elevate to the highest level in the land a decades old accusation from someone obviously needing to see hr Psychiatrist, AGAIN, and has memory LAPSE, AGAIN, and back it up by third party hearsay and references to people that were never there, you pay.
No matter your political vent, if I was anyone slightly left of Dick Cheney I'd be scratching my head on what anyone with a law degree was thinking. And your sex doesn't matter.
The fight should have been long before this basket case, case. And it should have been called out long ago, IF we had any real "journalists' left in North America.
Yes, parameters, as in the focus of the investigation is on the accusation, not what he wrote in his yearbook for example, or if a witness did not pay their taxes.
Unlike the current Mueller investigation that has no parameters, and anything that comes up, gets investigated and charges if needed.
Years ago in the early nineties before digital media really got going the State Of Washington aired this "Human Rights" complainant that SOMEHOW made it all the way to a televised State Capital hearing. She was quite obviously by then a complete whack job.
Have we come to the process meaning more than the evidence?? The use of the process as a "vehicle" to character assassinate? I have to 'splain this somehow to my kid, and I have a US poly sic. degree, and I'm reaching...…..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you've just guaranteed Trumps' re-election
