• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Kavanaugh sworn in

his anger was evident the entire time. It doesn't matter why you're there or what you're being accused of. You are conducting a job interview in front of the Senate. You want a seat on the most important court in the country. A lifetime appointment. Compose yourself. Answer the questions. Don't vomit out Clinton conspiracy theories. Don't display favoritism.

it is grounds not to vote for him. Many didn't.

The format was NOT job interview. The format was a trial. Prosecutor, plaintiff, defendant. A show trial I suppose (since there was no verdict, although the prosecutor Mitchell did release an unofficial verdict, which said not only could she not bring a trial, it would not meet the standards of a civil trial or even get her a search warrant. https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/#)

Normal job interviews don't include false rape allegations.
 
treezy z said:
The format was NOT job interview.

conducting ones self as if in a job interview with professionalism is the frame of mind i'm pretty sure mal3volent is pointing to.

those here changed the title of the thread for several reasons, one of the reasons why is to get the focus of conversation on topic for the sake of the conversation itself. another to point out how it is applicable to handling ones self in a court of law. professionalism, dignity, respect and not making a mockery of ones self nor the judicial system. a matter of perspective if you will. these people are not judge, jury and executioner but fine folks discussing topics with opinions and information.

treezy z said:
Normal job interviews don't include false rape allegations.

yes they do. whether they are false or not, whether convicted or not; job interviews where a background check was obtained can deny you the opportunity for the job (based on what the job is and level of tolerance of criminal activity for said position being offered). you have vehemently spoken of this "false accusations" but only credit it to unfairness instead of real world applications. more cherry picking.
 
The goalposts have moved a huge amount. The "temperanment" thing is not a serious argument, it went from "rapist" to "drank 6 beers" to "temperanment."

If he was calm, cool, and collected during the show trial the reason for him not to be seated would be "he is too calm, he must be hiding something."
 
I would expect anyone to be angry at the situation.

What is wrong with being emotional?

Why are ppl expected to be emotionless robots these days?

I would have expected both to be pretty emotional, one having been put under the spotlight telling the universe something she alleged wouldn't believe her and the other seeing something he allegedly would have forgotten about happening as a kid allegedly.


This was sprung on him a few weeks prior, if he had any inkling about this particular alleged incident or expected something like this then he would have been cool and calm like she allegedly was.


Time will tell about what he will do as a Supreme Court judge, Americans do know how to protest and fight back.
 
The goalposts have moved a huge amount. The "temperanment" thing is not a serious argument, it went from "rapist" to "drank 6 beers" to "temperanment."

If he was calm, cool, and collected during the show trial the reason for him not to be seated would be "he is too calm, he must be hiding something."

to react instead of remain cool, calm and level headed in order to think rationally and behave appropriately is the exact opposite of what is expected in a court of law and job interview. both are pleading cases of sorts on why what kind of judgement should be passed and why one should get the job.

zeph brings up a valid point. it is only human to be emotional. acting overly so is interrupting the proceedings of both and more appreciated in events like jerry springer.

the temperament thing is progressive, it is part of understanding what is being presented in order to better understand the defendant. try not to look at your feet while walking, you get too caught up in minor details and miss the view.

follow the bouncing ball, don't try to throw it.
 
I saw the first few minutes of his response, not teh whole thing so I dunno about how heated he got but he didn't seem like a tantrum chucking brat.

Being accused of a sexual assault and being the "bad guy" would be a different perspective to being the victim, she clearly did nothing wrong assuming the scenario was true (it probably was, teenagers + drinking = trouble). The proceedings are not really run at a time frame that suits us but one that suits him. He could have been told to get on with it by the panel.

I am not American but have a lot of American mates, a lot of them do tend to get louder and gesticulate like he did, I'm not saying Aussies dont as we do as well but I think Americans are still more used to the whole "I just be cool and calm ni matter what" emotionless and somewhat insincere facade put on by public figures.

Smile, appear genuinely concerned, unfazed by any situation .

Obama seemed like that, either he was putting on a public front or he really was a possible Vulcan.
 
He has years of experience as a judge where his temperanment wasn't an issue, it would have been brought up well before the show trial.

No matter what happened that day he would be attacked for something, it's obvious with how ridiculously the goalposts have moved.
 
The format was NOT job interview. The format was a trial. Prosecutor, plaintiff, defendant. A show trial I suppose (since there was no verdict, although the prosecutor Mitchell did release an unofficial verdict, which said not only could she not bring a trial, it would not meet the standards of a civil trial or even get her a search warrant. https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/rachel-mitchells-analysis/3221/#)

Normal job interviews don't include false rape allegations.

The Republicans brought in the "prosecutor". It was just a woman asking questions.

You're blowing this all out of the water.
 
Have you had a job interview that included an accuser (who made it up?)

Nope, don't work, never going to. Lovely little socialist welfare state we have going on. Soon we'll be just like Europe. No guns, no jobs, and all the free gov't cheese you can eat.

I assume if I was going to have a job interview that paid $244,000 per year and involved being on a very public nine person court that was the top court of law in the entire country perhaps yeah, I'd expect something like that.
 
Former George W. Bush advisor Mark McKinnon was on Morning Joe today. He said W. would always say, "Don't dance in the end zone. Act like you've been there before." #beersforbrett, the "I'm not tired of winning" tweet from Lindsey Graham and the tweet from Sarah Sanders saying "Instead of a Supreme Court under Hillary Clinton..." seems antithetical to that. And that last one - since when is the Supreme Court under a president? Isn't the judiciary supposedly independent? I found myself wondering this morning why I've been avoiding watching the news and that question was answered this morning, while watching the news.
 
It may very well be ungenerous. I've never seen this fella before to appreciate his deep insights and solid foundations upon which he speaks. I also don't go to a comedy network for my news, nor opinions. This isn't a jab at you, please don't take it as such. It's an honest admission on my part of where I do, or do not, get my limited view of news from.
no worries. it's defo. not news - just one guy's opinion.

alasdair
 
Brett Kavanaugh just hired the Supreme Court's first all-women law clerk team

The newly confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already fulfilled one of his promises.

After weeks of contentious hearings, the Senate voted to confirm the polarizing nominee Saturday evening. And Kavanaugh was already on the job Sunday morning with the court's first-ever all-women team of law clerks by his side, The New York Times reports.

Even before sexual assault allegations rocked his confirmation process, concerns swirled around Kavanaugh's stance on women's right. Specifically, Democratic senators feared he would provide the court with a conservative majority that could facilitate the rolling back of Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh tried to counter those concerns at his first round of confirmation hearings, touting how "no federal judge ... has sent more women law clerks to clerk on the Supreme Court than I have." He also said he had four female law clerks ready to work for him "on a moment's notice," which would make him "the first justice in the history of the Supreme Court to have a group of all-women law clerks."

I'm sure some will spin this as a temporary effort to erase the accusations. But Kavanaugh's track record on hiring women stands as a statement on it's own merit, prior to his S nomination.


In His First Day On The Job, Kavanaugh Hired As Many Black Law Clerks As RBG Has In Her Entire Tenure

ustice Brett Kavanaugh has hired a black law clerk for his new chambers at the U.S. Supreme Court, matching Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s record of African-American clerkship hiring during her tenure on the nation’s highest judicial tribunal.

With his first clerkship hires, Kavanaugh also set a gender composition record, an apparent attempt to buck the high court’s hiring patterns, which tend to favor white, male graduates of elite law schools.

Since joining the high court in 1993, Ginsburg has hired over 100 law clerks, just one of whom is black.

Ginsburg’s hiring practices have been criticized for decades. During her 1993 confirmation hearings, GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah asked Ginsburg if a court might reasonably conclude that a small business in a majority black city that hired 57 white employees and zero black employees over a period of years was discriminatory. Ginsburg dodged, before Hatch pointed out that was in fact her own record of clerkship hiring in her 13 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

“I will try harder, and if you confirm me for this job my attractiveness to black candidates is going to improve,” Ginsburg replied, to much laughter throughout the hearing chamber.

Kavanaugh’s new clerks are Shannon Grammel, Megan Lacy, Sara Nommensen and Kim Jackson. These hires set a record in a second respect: Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court justice to hire an all female class of clerks.

A 2017 study published in the National Law Journal found that 85 percent of all Supreme Court clerks between 2005 and 2017 were white, and approximately two-thirds were male.

While finding the first link, I came across this one. Not sure what the big point is in comparing him to RBG other than she is one of the favorite justices among Democrats, I suppose? I do like that the article points out the scarcity of women, and of blacks, among SC clerks in an effort to give perspective. So, he's beating the averages on hiring of blacks (25% hired over 15% available), but it's a damn small sample set on his part. Positioning it against RBG seems like propaganda spin to me. Though, I suppose the hiring of an African American is also a means of making it clear he isn't one of the deplorable racist Trump supporters being hated by liberals? The hiring of 100% women (over 33% available) seems like a reach to make a statement, but it seems he had this list ready prior to the accusations.
 
How are Soros' donations any different than the Koch brothers' or any billionaires'? It's not like he is hand-selecting or even involved in who is protesting. The article you posted even states that protestors are not paid, only organized by foundations that accept money from Soros' foundations.

Did I say I liked the Koch brothers, ever? Fuck the Koch brothers.
 
lol - trump was right about 1 thing!

how many more to go, after all his lies and mistruths, before he's even? :)

it says everything that his being right about something is in any way noteworthy.

alasdair
 
So he donated to groups that organize protests...and some are making it seem like they were all in a dark room somewhere coordinating the whole thing? Is that basically it? Woah, earth shaking stuff there.

Maybe we should forget the NYT story about Trump being a fraud, and how he just put a partisan, unstable, sexual predator on the Supreme Court.
 
Top