If this is the standard of evidence required to ruin a life no one is safe

Interesting that it is posted by MSNBC which they would only do if they thought it works against PDT.

And then there’s this:

UH OH, IT MUST BE BAD FOR THE DEMOCRATS:

AND NOW LET ME ADD THIS: Christine Blasey Ford ex-boyfriend says she helped friend prep for potential polygraph; Grassley sounds alarm. First para:

In a letter released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, seemingly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

And then lots more after that.

This entry was posted in American politics, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to If this is the standard of evidence required to ruin a life no one is safe

  1. Senile Old Guy

    Trump gets it right: “These are really evil people.”

  2. Goanna

    It’s like he says – ‘these are evil people.’

  3. candy

    Trump’s rallies are great. Entertaining, informative and he speaks to the crowd like speaking to his friends. He values his supporters and treats them like good friends.

  4. .

    Add Kamala Harris to the list* of people who need to be investigated, along with her staff.

    Electronic and paper comms, financials, CCTV, fingerprints, DNA…

    *Feinstein, Eshoo, Ford, Rameriez, Swetnick. Avenatti, Seidl…

  5. The Democrats are so desperate that they can’t see the folly of their actions and then they’ll be asking questions similar to that of a recent presidential candidate:

    What happened?

    After that it’ll be another Russian conspiracy.

  6. Infidel Tiger

    Binders of Lying Women.

  7. Leigh Lowe

    WATCH: President Trump mocks Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Trump’s Supreme Court pick Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, during rally in Mississippi

    OK.
    He knows the FBI are going to shit-can her.

  8. H B Bear

    Ford is turning out to be an Edsel.

  9. Tezza

    This will turn out very badly for the Democrats. What odds the Republicans keeping majorities in both houses, I wonder? What odds they increase their majorities?

  10. Hydra

    This will turn out very badly for the Democrats. What odds the Republicans keeping majorities in both houses, I wonder? What odds they increase their majorities?

    Odds of keeping both majorities are 3.75.

  11. Confused Old Misfit

    I am ashamed to say that I am related to people who support the Democrats with their time and money.

  12. Beef

    After that it’ll be another Russian conspiracy.

    Time to start declassifying the Russian docs, little by little by little….

    I think they’re all in shit Dot.

    FBI/DOJ have been on many cases trying to prove they aren’t corrupt, you just don’t hear about it because there are no more leaks. Any leak is on purpose, like the 4 differing versions of the Rosenstein visit to see Kelly.

    Obama and the Wookie are campaining to small halls. Unheard of… Why?

  13. calli

    seemingly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

    There’s no “seemingly” about it. It does contradict her testimony.

    Weasel words.

  14. Dot:

    Add Kamala Harris to the list* of people who need to be investigated, along with her staff.
    Electronic and paper comms, financials, CCTV, fingerprints, DNA…
    *Feinstein, Eshoo, Ford, Rameriez, Swetnick. Avenatti, Seidl…

    You missed Tony Abbott.
    Shirley he should be investigated?

  15. .

    No, but I do want to know what role he has in all of this, of course.

  16. a happy little debunker

    Just as in 1692, the only safe people are the ones doing the accusing.

    Poor Brett survived his trial by ordeal, the bucketing he copped and under the rules must now be burnt as a witch.

  17. Bad Samaritan

    Hydra (1.52pm). The important thing is the money, not the odds. Specifically the liabilities behind the money….

    Forget the Senate. The GOP already has that in the bag. It’s the House betting that needs analyzing, and it’s early days, but here goes….

    Currently there’s just on a million on the Senate betting at Betfair; about $400,000 on the GOP and about $600,000 on the Dems. There’s $400 (Four Hundred) on a tie. This “should” imply about $2.50 GOP and about $1.66 Dems….which is fairly close to what the odds currently are: $2.78 GOP, $1.57 Dems. However….

    The object of a bookie is to balance liabilities, not total bets on each side. A bookie would change the odds according to liabilities, but Betfair is not like this. It’s a market with no-one directing the odds, which means that liabilities are often way out of balance since many people are betting “with their emotions” and are also being mislead by the press. All in all, on “novelty events” the vibe leads to major mistakes, and these mistakes show up in the liabilities mis-match.

    So, the current situation is that those betting on the GOP will receive about $2.2 Million from those putting up the money if the GOP does win. The Dem backers will get about $500,000 from the people putting up the money (the possible liability) against their bets. A huge liability imbalance already, shows that the Dem backers are heading for a major skinning.

    All this aside, the general rule is that favourites carry the bigger liability (an imbalance but not dramatically so) in betting markets since it’s when favourites lose that bookies make their dough. Thus, this Senate market is doubly wrong in that there is a huge liability imbalance and the huge loss is if the “outsider” gets up. This can be put down to a very very ill-informed market, as was the case in the 2016 US election, and for Brexit, and for the 2016 Aussie election where Malcolm was the red-hot fav but barely got there.

    That’s all for now…

  18. .

    Impeach Eshoo and send out Kanye to campaign for Trump.

  19. Bad Samaritan

    Oops. This whole analysis applies to the House. The senate is in the bag!

  20. Tom

    Bad Samaritan
    #2830717, posted on October 3, 2018 at 3:26 pm

    Thanks. Great post for people aiming to make money from the November 6 election!

  21. Tom

    OldOzzie, thanks for posting the Trump video — filed for future ref. For some reason, I can’t play the video format Steve has posted above.

  22. Zatara

    “It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified this ought to be held very close and not.” “I think the investigation ought to be closely held,” she reiterated.

    No, the investigation results need to be full-on public knowledge so you bastards can’t come back after he is sworn in, ignore the findings, claim he is illegitimate and the court is compromised….. as you know damned well you plan to.

  23. Bad Samaritan:
    You may, or may not, remember the problems I was having with an online bookie (So called reputable firm) about trying to get back my money after they refused my bet?
    After going through ComBank trying to get them to refund, they have refused – saying Terms and Conditions – when those T&C don’t apply.
    Tried to get into my account today to see if the money was there.
    The claim is that my username and password are incorrect and won’t allow access. Link to change password hasn’t sent anything.
    Looks like consumer affairs is the next step.

  24. Luke

    It’s still a win for them. How many conservatives have just been turned off taking a job or stand that will bring on the ire of the Democrats because of what they have witnessed with this process?

    They know there will be another position within Trump’s term and they have just limited the number of applicants by their tactics. The process is the punishment.

  25. stackja

    Luke – Democrats believe that they don’t need to worry about consequences. Voters can decide.

  26. Iampeter

    If this is the standard of evidence required to ruin a life no one is safe

    Indeed. So the question is, how did the Republican, professional politicians all, allow the confirmation process to be so totally derailed by this nonsense and destroy the life of their nominee?

  27. Mother Lode

    I would hope that Kavanaugh has the temperament and opportunity to appreciate what happened in that rally.

    Firstly the very vocal recognition of his talents by the current President – a President of whom there can be no doubt that he will fight rather than capitulate for appearances.

    And secondly, and perhaps more encouraging, the unsolicited chant from the audience “We want Kavanaugh”. He has been subject for weeks, kept in a closed and closeted environment where his value has been dismissed persistently, and countless polls denouncing him in most horrid terms – it must at times feel like it is all there is. That reminder of the support that is actually out there would be very refreshing.

  28. Empire 5:5

    Indeed. So the question is, how did the Republican, professional politicians all, allow the confirmation process to be so totally derailed by this nonsense and destroy the life of their nominee?

    You assume they didn’t know this was coming. You assume the nominee wasn’t prepared for it. You assume what you see in the fakestream media is real.

    You do all this because your ego outperforms your intellect. You have the potential to be a useful commenter if you can find a way to align the two.

    Until then, heispenis.

  29. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    No wonder Sparticus is quitting- some of his kitchen appliances are probably spying on him, to see if he’ll say anything that can be twisted to seem controversial! No-one is safe, already!

  30. .

    Luke
    #2830768, posted on October 3, 2018 at 4:43 pm

    It’s still a win for them. How many conservatives have just been turned off taking a job or stand that will bring on the ire of the Democrats because of what they have witnessed with this process?

    They know there will be another position within Trump’s term and they have just limited the number of applicants by their tactics. The process is the punishment.

    Ford has lied under oath. Start the subpoena, indictment and impeachment process for the D’rat party cabal.

  31. Roger

    Trump’s rallies are great. Entertaining, informative and he speaks to the crowd like speaking to his friends. He values his supporters and treats them like good friends.

    Yes, he’s communicating to his voters, not the media – that’s the big difference compared with our leaders.

  32. RobK

    How many people would front up to hear an Australian Prime Minister rally?

  33. Roger

    Yes, he’s communicating to his voters, not the media…

    From his of Twitter to his rallies, Trump eschews the media as a filter for his message.

    How many people would front up to hear an Australian Prime Minister rally?

    They might if he had something direct to say!

    Trump’s pragmatism is driven by the goal of making American great again.

    Morrison’s pragmatism is driven by the goal of getting the Liberals re-elected.

  34. H B Bear

    From his of Twitter to his rallies, Trump eschews the media as a filter for his message.

    Trump has completely destroyed the American MSM. They are out of the game while he is around.

  35. Roger

    Trump has completely destroyed the American MSM. They are out of the game while he is around.

    Meanwhile, here, the Liberals back the ABC.

  36. stackja

    Menzies enjoyed rallies.
    Then TV arrived.

  37. Muddy

    no one is safe
    …until the prey realise that identifying as the hunted is not the only option.

  38. candy

    How many people would front up to hear an Australian Prime Minister rally?

    I’m sure the PM and opposition leader dream of it, RobK. I would think Trump is secretly admired by other world leaders. But Morrison and Shorten don’t have the personality, the conviction of beliefs or humour.
    Or anything much really in the way of charisma.

    They have the “tampon tax” being deleted, I guess. They seem excited about that. lol. The first achievement of the Morrison government.

  39. Iampeter

    You assume they didn’t know this was coming. You assume the nominee wasn’t prepared for it. You assume what you see in the fakestream media is real.

    Are you saying they did know this was coming and the nominee was prepared for this and they STILL managed to make a total mess of everything? Doesn’t that make my comment even more correct?

    Maybe instead of trying to insult me for some reason you should figure out what it is you’re trying to even say.

  40. candy

    Indeed. So the question is, how did the Republican, professional politicians all, allow the confirmation process to be so totally derailed by this nonsense and destroy the life of their nominee?

    I think they have handled it with respectfulness to the lady and in a dignified manner and letting the issue run its natural course. Encouraging the FBI investigation is logical and the right thing to do for justice to all parties.

  41. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Lock her up! Lock her up! LOCK HER UP!

  42. Oh come on

    It would be hilarious if Ford were charged with perjury and Trump pardoned her. That would be epic trolling. The best.

  43. H B Bear

    OK who triggered iampeter this time?

  44. mh

    Iampeter
    #2830821, posted on October 3, 2018 at 5:35 pm
    If this is the standard of evidence required to ruin a life no one is safe

    Indeed. So the question is, how did the Republican, professional politicians all, allow the confirmation process to be so totally derailed by this nonsense and destroy the life of their nominee?

    Peter, a combination of Republican incompetence by underestimating the grubbiness of the Democrats, having a RINO in Jeff Flake on the SenateCommitee, and a lack of courage exacerbated by knowing that almost the entire MSM will be on the Dems side.

    Trump is now rescuing the situation by stiffening the spines of the Republicans, and rallying the troops.

  45. Sunni Bakchat

    It really now looks as though Blasey Ford has used her training and experience as a psychologist to deceive the senate judiciary committee.
    Her behaviour in a psychological sense is very similar to the type of “coaching” lawyers engage in before trial.
    It is precisely the fact the evidence in this matter has been so poorly examined that we are where we are. Of course the obscuring of evidence was a key plank of the Democrat strategy.

  46. Leo G

    Posted on the Conservative Treehouse Blog:

    Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…
    It would appear that Ms. Blasey-Ford was with Ms. Monica L McLean, the retired FBI agent and former New York field office spokesperson, at the time she wrote the letter to Senator Feinstein.

  47. Adrien

    This guy fell off the top of a 347 floor skyscraper. On the way down the TieBots, AccFin Bots and Securobotthug Bots could hear him say; distinctly:: So far so good,

    So far so goo, sofarsogood sof sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood………………………………..arsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood sofarsogood…………………

    ……………………..
    Splat!

  48. Win

    The world is focussed on Brett Kavanaugh as a high school student .(As an aside just why was a 15 year old Bkasey Ford at drunken party when most 15 year olds at that time were home in bed . )
    Unfortunately I won’t be around but how will the occupants of the University safe spaces cope should they be subjected to the world wide vilification now being endured by Brett Kavanaugh and solely as a political ploy to destroy a President. Can we now expect a Holly wood block buster Destroying the Presidents Men?

    Sorry to hear Sparticus retirement.

  49. Sunni Bakchat

    A return to the Rule of Law by arresting persons “Doxxing” elected representatives and their staffers is the first step in repudiating the Democrats anarchic narrative.

    Below is Victor Davis Hanson’s ten rules of the new left in America. Every one of these rules needs to be sharply repudiated before the Culture War against the left is won;

    1. The veracity of accusations will hinge on the particular identity, emotions, and ideology of the accuser;

    2. Evidence, or lack of it, will be tangential, given the supposed unimpeachable motives of the ideologically correct accuser;

    3. The burden of proof and evidence will rest with the accused to disprove the preordained assumption of guilt;

    4. Hearsay will be a valuable narrative and constitute legitimate evidence;

    5. Truth is not universal, but individualized. Ford’s “truth” is as valid as the “Truth,” given that competing narratives are adjudicated only by access to power. Ford is a victim, therefore her truth trumps “their” truth based on evidence and testimony.

    6. Questionable and inconsistent testimony are proof of trauma and therefore exactitude; recalling an accusation to someone is proof that the action in the accusation took place.

    7. Statutes of limitations do not exist; any allegation of decades prior is as valid as any in the present. All of us are subject at any moment to unsubstantiated accusations from decades past that will destroy lives.

    8. Assertion of an alleged crime is unimpeachable proof. Recall of where, when, why, and how it took place is irrelevant.

    9. Individual accusations will always be subservient to cosmic causes; individuals are irrelevant if they do not serve ideological aims. All accusations fit universal stereotypes whose rules of finding guilt or innocence trump those of individual cases.

    10. The accuser establishes the conditions under which charges are investigated; the accused nods assent.

  50. Kurt

    So first the Democrats demand Kavanaugh is guilty until found innocent then they want to suppress the report that finds him innocent. Then they want us to treat the Ford allegations seriously. Unbelievable.

  51. OldOzzie

    Christine Blasey-Ford Friend In Delaware Was Career FBI Agent and Likely Together During Accusation Letter Construct…

    Ms. McLean is pictured above with the large pink handbag. This article confirms the location of Monica McLean in relationship to the numerous public record citations of her Delaware residence.

    Here’s where things get really interesting.

    Ms. Monica Lee McLean and Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford are life-long friends; obviously they have known each other since their High School days at Holton-Arms; and both lived together as “roommates” in California after college. Their close friendship is cited by Ms. Fords former boyfriend of six years.

    Ms. Monica McLean retired from the FBI in 2016; apparently right after the presidential election. Her current residence is listed at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware; which aligns with public records and the serendipitous printed article.

    Now, where did Ms. Blasey-Ford testify she was located at the time she wrote the letter to Dianne Feinstein, accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh?
    [Transcript]

    MITCHELL: The second is the letter that you wrote to Senator Feinstein, dated the — July 30th of this year.

    MITCHELL: Did you write the letter yourself?

    FORD: I did.

    MITCHELL: And I — since it’s dated July 30th, did you write it on that date?

    FORD: I believe so. I — it sounds right. I was in Rehoboth, Delaware, at the time. I could look into my calendar and try to figure that out. It seemed…

    MITCHELL: Was it written on or about that date?

    FORD: Yes, yes. I traveled, I think, the 26th of July to Rehoboth, Delaware. So that makes sense, because I wrote it from there.

    MITCHELL: Is the letter accurate? FORD: I’ll take a minute to read it.

    So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We’ve got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE…. Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein.

    Ms. Blasey-Ford and Ms. McLean, the BFF she coached on lie detector testing, together for the four days leading up to the actual writing of the letter. July 26th to July 30th.

    It would appear that Ms. Blasey-Ford was with Ms. Monica L McLean, the retired FBI agent and former New York field office spokesperson, at the time she wrote the letter to Senator Feinstein.

    That would certainly begin to explain quite a bit about who exactly was handling Ms. Ford; and how there would be an intentional effort, from a subject matter expert, on how to best position the attack against Brett Kavanaugh.

    Who better to help scrub the internet history, and know what processes and people to enlist in such preparatory work, than a retired lawyer who worked deeply inside the FBI?

    Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms. McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?

    Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael Bromwich, begin to make more sense?

    Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a different meaning or make more sense, now?

    Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE….. could it be that Mrs. McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor?

    Considering all of the embattled, angry, institutional officials (former and current); and considering the recently fired DOJ and FBI officials; and considering the officials currently under investigation; and considering the declassification requests which will likely lead to the exposure of even more corruption…. Could it be that these elements wanted to do something, anything to get back at the executive branch; and possibly change the tide?

    If so, and I think the likelihood is pretty good, doesn’t everything known just easily reconcile if you think of Ms. Blasey-Ford as a tool for those ideologues?

    If Ms Monica Lee McLean and her allies wanted to strike, she couldn’t be the visible face of the confrontation because she was retired FBI. It would be too obvious. She would need a patsy; a friend who could deploy the hit on her/their behalf. It would need to be someone she could shape, easily manage and guide etc. Someone who could be trusted, and at the same time would be trusting of them.

    It is quite likely Ms. McLean selected/recruited her life-long best friend, Ms. Blasey-Ford.

  52. Sunni Bakchat

    Brilliant post at 11:30am “Old Ozzie”.

    Lets investigate who were the close FBI associates of Miss McLean…………..

  53. Iampeter

    I don’t have a horse in this race either way since I think Kavanaugh is awful and unfit for the SC, I just don’t think someone’s life should be destroyed because of random accusations from highschool.
    Every day this drags out is another day of torture for the Kavanaugh family over literally nothing.
    There was no reason to have a hearing dedicated to this and there is no reason for any FBI “investigation” as there is nothing to investigate.
    Some random person accused him of random things that her own witnesses deny. How did this derail the entire process to such a degree?
    The fact that Republicans can’t seem to vote to confirm is just another example of how totally unfit for office these people are.

  54. OldOzzie

    Retired FBI Agent/DOJ Lawyer Ms. Monica McLean Attended Kavanaugh Hearing With Blasey-Ford…

    Earlier today we did a deep dive into the background of Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford’s life-long friend, Monica Lee McLean. We outlined how Ms. Ford and Ms. McLean grew up together; went to high school together; moved to California together; went to college together and were roommates together in California. [FULL BACKSTORY]

    After college Ms. McLean then took the bar exam in California and joined the DOJ as a lawyer for the FBI. Througout their lives Ms. Ford and Ms. McLean remained close friends and vacationed together etc. Ms. McLean worked with the FBI for 24 years retiring in 2016. Ms. Ford and Ms. McLean were together in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware when Ms. Ford wrote the accusatory letter toward Brett Kavanaugh which was sent to Senator Dianne Feinstein.

    Well, look who shows up in the hearing video walking in with Ms. Blasey-Ford when she delivered her testimony: [Video at 18:04]

    Yes, that’s Ms. Monica McLean arriving with Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford.

    Ms. Blasey-Ford and Ms. McLean being together for the writing of the letter on July 30th, and for the testimony that was an outcome of that letter on September 27th, presents an interesting question against the backdrop of the actual testimony.

    When asked about how Ms. Ford went about getting legal representation, Ms. Ford essentially responded she didn’t know what to do and had never been in a situation where complex political legal issues were part of her thinking. However, her life-long BFF was not only a lawyer – she was a career lawyer within the Department of Justice and as legal counsel for the FBI had specific insight into exactly these issues.

    You could say, Ms. Monica McLean was/is a subject matter expert on exactly the issue that Ms. Ford was facing.

    So why did Ms Ford give such a disingenuous response to the question?

  55. wozzup

    The left habitually says anything, and does whatever it takes to get their hands on power. Only a week ago they were arguing “This is not a criminal investigation against Kavanaugh, so due process is not required”. Now they are arguing “This is a criminal matter so a proper FBI investigation is essential”.
    Does anyone really ever believe what they say?
    Though in a perverse way it may end up being true – there well might be criminal charges brought against Ford if it can be shown she was lying under oath. Something which is looking increasingly likely as her story unravels.

  56. Sunni Bakchat

    Following on from “OldOzzie” at 1:32pm.

    It turns out that Ford’s Lawyer, Miss Cohen acted for Bill Clinton in his sexual assault defence against Paul Jones.

    As always its the tribe you belong to, not the truth, when you’re of the left.

  57. I am bespoke

    I don’t have a horse in this race either way since I think Kavanaugh is awful and unfit for the SC–Imp

    Why?

  58. Tim Neilson

    It turns out that Ford’s Lawyer, Miss Cohen acted for Bill Clinton in his sexual assault defence against Paul Jones.

    As always its the tribe you belong to, not the truth, when you’re of the left.

    Actually there’s nothing sinister about a lawyer acting sometimes for the accuser and sometimes for the accused.

    The ideal of access to justice requires that lawyers should represent clients without pre-judging or making value assessments. That’s to ensure that the unpopular aren’t denied a fair go. E.g. you wouldn’t want all the best lawyers in this field refusing to act for accused because they’d pre-judged that the woman must be believed.
    Conversely, because some women genuinely are assaulted, you wouldn’t want those lawyers refusing to act for accusers.
    Sure, some lawyers specialise in defence work or plaintiff work, but often that’s not the case.

    In essence that’s also why confirming Kavanaugh is so important.
    The rule of law and separation of powers requires that judges can’t be punished for making unpopular decisions. (“Natural justice” in the technical sense requires that the unpopular can get someone competent to present their case and that their case will be heard by a judge who won’t be bullied by a lynch mob into deciding against them.)
    The flip side is meant to be that judges make decisions according to law, by means of applying precedent and logic to the facts.
    That is, they shouldn’t abuse their unaccountable status to inflict their own social, economic and political views undemocratically on the public. Which of course is exactly what “progressive” judges have been doing for decades.
    Which is why the Democrats are incandescent with fury at the prospect of a Supreme Court where a majority of judges actually follow the law.

  59. Sunni Bakchat

    Thanks to “Tim Neilson” at 3:10pm for the legal lecture.

    Having spent many years at university studying law i’m well aware of your argument. The point is that Cohen is a self-righteous, politically motivated, scumbag lawyer.

    This matter has been defined by the lack of proper legal process and a bending of the rules. Cohen is of the Left and that is where her loyalties lie despite the nobility of the profession you give her the benefit of. She represents those of the Left against the Right because politics infects her noble legal virtue.

    Secondly, Cohen has in this matter hung her hat on the defendant being a female and the superior virtuous accoutrement and vulnerability of same. Yet, she defended Bill Clinton to the hilt in a matter where he had arguably committed serious sexual felonies.

    By all means defend a solicitors right to act for both sides, when they actually do so absent of politics. To defend a person like Cohen who clearly places politics above all else, including her duty to tell the truth, adhere to the rule of law and follow proper process, is just a bridge too far.

    Cohen’s morality is repulsive. She’s a scumbag along with the rest of the Democrats involved in this farrago of lies and histrionics.

    The sooner we wake up and realise this sort of behaviour is completely anathema to a successful society, the better. The defense of lawyers cynicism in such circumstances is not justifiable.

  60. Iampeter

    I don’t have a horse in this race either way since I think Kavanaugh is awful and unfit for the SC–Imp

    Why?

    Because he’s a religious kook, typical of the clueless weirdo’s dominating politics today who wouldn’t be able to answer what the purpose of the Supreme Court is, let alone anything about politics.
    Not that anyone’s asking that question, since the clueless weirdo’s voting to confirm him don’t know anything either.

    None of these people are fit for office.

  61. .

    The Supreme Court shouldn’t have an opinion on abortion at all Peter.

    There is almost no other “religious” issue to deal with. Religion does not matter.

  62. Iampeter
    #2831647, posted on October 4, 2018 at 5:56 pm

    Because he’s a religious kook, typical of the clueless weirdo’s dominating politics today who wouldn’t be able to answer what the purpose of the Supreme Court is, let alone anything about politics.
    Not that anyone’s asking that question, since the clueless weirdo’s voting to confirm him don’t know anything either.

    None of these people are fit for office.

    And yet Kavanaugh has had 11 of his judgements adopted by the SC and has had NONE….zero….overturned.
    Yet here is IAmPeter passing judgement as to his fitness and claiming he wouldn’t know what the purpose of the SC is.
    You can’t make this partisan shit up.
    You really are a dick head of first order Pete.

  63. Iampeter

    And yet Kavanaugh has had 11 of his judgements adopted by the SC and has had NONE….zero….overturned.

    That doesn’t prove anything since its a revolving door of weirdo cultists.
    These confirmation hearings never even raise a single question that is pertinent to whether someone should sit on the SC. None of the people involved in politics today know anything about it. It’s a more dead science than economics.

    And I wouldn’t call me partisan. I view today’s political discourse as a battle between the religious leftists of the conservative movement racing to turn the west into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia vs the secular leftists of the progressive movement, racing to turn the west into something like Venezuela.

    Everyone in the mainstream is awful and left wing.

    I single out conservative for particular criticism because they are so completely clueless that they seriously think they are an alternative to the left, which makes them even worse than progressives who at least know what they’re doing.

  64. .

    None of the people involved in politics today know anything about it.

    Well, what are you going to do? Who should be on the bench?

    It’s a more dead science than economics.

    Do you actually know anything about economics? Serious question.

    You have to accept that Keynesian ideas are just bunk, despite their popularity. Marxist and socialist economists basically are walking contradictions.

  65. Iampeter

    There is almost no other “religious” issue to deal with. Religion does not matter.

    I wasn’t actually thinking about religion when I wrote that but that fact that you went to this one specific issue is a symptom of the problem.
    That problem is that no one has a clear political ideology, just a position on one or two random issues not tied together by anything.
    Then you have grown man, professional, career politicians, grill their nominee on these one or two issues.
    This isn’t politics.
    These aren’t the questions one should be asking and don’t get at any of the fundamentals.

    That’s why everyone loves a good scandal. Helps everyone involved with and around politics avoid the fact the fact they don’t know anything about politics and they can write endless articles analyzing he said/she said instead.

  66. Iampeter

    * Sorry I meant “abortion” in the post above not “religion”.

  67. .

    the conservative movement racing to turn the west into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia

    Where do you pick up this nonsense?

    They aren’t going to challenge Obergfell.

    At most, they will give the decision on abortion back to the States.

    There might be some sympathetic to this in Australian politics, but they’re a fringe within the microparties of the right and are usually ignored. I am from NSW. Fred Nile had little influence over policy, less so than moralising wowsers in the LNP and ALP, both atheist and religious.

  68. .

    Look peter I think you’re right but your ideas are high falutin’ to idiots like Kamala Harris who got her career off the ground because she could suckstart a man twice her age her gave her a job as a commissioner of insurance with no career experience other than a short stint as a junior lawyer…and being a professional girlfriend.

    Abortion is the issue. All this other crap about “women’s rights!”, unsubstantiated allegations etc do keep blogs like this, and the crap network news like CNN with the tragically stupid Don Lemon etc in business.

    Do you know much about law? You seem to make everything about politics. Maybe that is your strong point.

    There is no philosophy, legal theory or political theory that honestly supports anything short of black-letter law. Abortion would be a state issue, rightly. Just as different states having different gun laws does not violate Amendment XIV, neither would a rejection of nonsense on stilts like penumbras galore.

    I find BK distasteful as I see him as a hangover from the Bush/Gitmo days when that administration tried on too much crap with military tribunals. You’re an objectivist, right? Most of those guys were not meekly pro-war for Bush they were gung-ho. I hope you did not make convenient excuses for the shit laws Bush passed that were rightly knocked down at the time.

  69. Tel

    And I wouldn’t call me partisan. I view today’s political discourse as a battle between the religious leftists of the conservative movement racing to turn the west into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia vs the secular leftists of the progressive movement, racing to turn the west into something like Venezuela.

    Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, but that’s not partisan, that’s plain and simple delusional.

    If you are taking that position for the amusement of arguing it out then perhaps that’s interesting, but just show me any Christian anywhere who wants to reduce the legal testimony of a woman to 1/4 that of a man. Sheesh this whole blog post is trying to keep the legal testimony of a man just barely equal with a woman and we have moronic activists running around saying any woman should be believed under all possible circumstances without question. Christians might encourage modest dress standards but show me one case were Christians have demanded that all women in public must be bagged and hidden to the point where only their eyes are visible. Doesn’t even need to be mainstream Christian, even try to find a small fringe church pushing for this.

  70. Iampeter

    just show me any Christian anywhere who wants to reduce the legal testimony of a woman to 1/4 that of a man.

    By the time I can prove the point to you with a concrete example like that, it’ll be too late to prove the point to you as I would’ve fled the country with my family.
    You’re just doing the same thing as everyone else and missing the point entirely, trying to find a specific concrete example to avoid having to think.
    What you need to do is to learn to integrate and connect the dots between a movement that thinks a christian baker can refuse service not because of individual rights but because of “religious liberty” while at the same time thinks that tech companies can be forced to host content against their will.
    You need to connect the dots between a movement that thinks everyone should be forced to pay for other peoples contraception but if you’re a christian its a violation of your “religious liberty” and so you should be exempted.
    etc.
    Such a movement is going to give us a christian version of Saudi Arabia, but it takes an integrated approach to politics to see that.

    It’s the same with the Kavanagh circus, no one has this understanding and so they don’t know what to ask the nominee to get a view of his overall ideological perspective on things. So they read his high school yearbook or grill him on his position on abortion or find a scandal. They have no overarching view of politics to work with.

  71. Iampeter

    Is that it Imp?

    What else do you need?

    Do you think he’s a good nominee? Why?

    Let’s see if you can give a coherent, political view as to why someone like Brett Kavanaugh is a good nominee for the Supreme Court, explaining what you think politics is, what the Supreme Court does and why Brett is a good fit…

  72. Tel

    By the time I can prove the point to you with a concrete example like that, it’ll be too late to prove the point to you as I would’ve fled the country with my family.

    Thus, you are blaming the Christians for things they haven’t done yet, but which you think perhaps they could probably do sometime. You make your preparations as best you see fit, but don’t be surprised when other people are reluctant to follow along.

    You’re just doing the same thing as everyone else and missing the point entirely, trying to find a specific concrete example to avoid having to think.

    I’m an empiricist, so IMHO the thinking process starts with specific concrete examples, and then generalizes from those… you know, scientific method n at… it’s been known to work in the past so you should give it a try.

    What you need to do is to learn to integrate and connect the dots between a movement that thinks a christian baker can refuse service not because of individual rights but because of “religious liberty” while at the same time thinks that tech companies can be forced to host content against their will.

    As I’ve explained plenty of times already the only thing the tech companies should be obliged to do is follow their own “community standards” that they laid out and that’s the agreement they made with people who were attracted to use the platform. Since there has never been a documented “community standard” that excludes conservatives, they are in violation of their own agreement… they won’t even admit what they are doing so the first step is to collect evidence (yes, specific examples) and then hold them up for fraudulent dealing.

    You don’t support fraud I hope? You understand that in order to have trade, when a merchant offers a product it should do what was promised.

    On the question of whether individual liberty is distinct from religious liberty, I don’t think it makes sense to have either without the other. If people are free then they are also free to join a club, or sign a contract or adopt religious principles, should that be what seems the right thing to do.

  73. Iampeter

    Thus, you are blaming the Christians for things they haven’t done yet, but which you think perhaps they could probably do sometime.

    Yes. Obviously. As they have done before in the past I might add.
    Did you need for everything to play out in Venezuela too before you were able to connect the dots between cause and effect?

    I’m an empiricist, so IMHO the thinking process starts with specific concrete examples, and then generalizes from those… you know, scientific method

    You’re a disintegrated thinker which is what most people are today and you have it totally backwards.
    You don’t start with technical, specific examples, you start with the basics and then work your way up.
    For us to be discussing specific concrete examples would require agreement on a whole lot of fundamentals first. Fundamentals we can’t agree on because you don’t have any.

    So applying this to the Kavanaugh hearing the thinking process would go something like:
    1. What is politics?
    2. What is government?
    3. What is function of Supreme Court?
    4. What are Brett K’s positions on this and what questions can I ask to elicit the response I need to determine if he is qualitied?

    Everyone is skipping the first three steps because they don’t even know how to start on them and that leaves them completely unequipped for step 4, which is why we get yearbook readings and scandals.
    What else are these people going to talk about?

  74. .

    What you need to do is to learn to integrate and connect the dots between a movement that thinks a christian baker can refuse service not because of individual rights but because of “religious liberty” while at the same time thinks that tech companies can be forced to host content against their will.

    Of course, it is an individual right, but you already know that. Individual property rights are the core of those rights, a moral society and true liberty.

    The tech giants of course should not be regulated anymore and/or forced to host content. They should be held accountable for massive fraud.

    The common carrier stuff is a second order argument, perhaps with a bad basis. The market will correct – we’ve seen Brave and the like and now Tim Berners Lee is working on a new platform.

  75. .

    All that matters is that Kavanaugh follows a black letter interpretation of the constitution of the US.

    If he truly did that he’d be on the “right” of the Republicans and hang somewhere near the Constitutionalists and Libertarians.

  76. classical_hero

    Imp, seems to believe that “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is a future for America. Delusional.

  77. Iampeter

    Imp, seems to believe that “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is a future for America. Delusional.

    I said that was one option, the other one being a secular version of that like Venezuela.
    Either way, those are the two major trends in the West today and the only delusional people (or more accurately simply ignorant) are the ones who don’t see it.
    I mean you just watched a hearing where a grown man tearfully said his daughter is saying prayers before bed (wtf!?) and that she suggested praying for the woman destroying her dads life (wtf!?). This should not be acceptable in polite society that has no chance of becoming like the Handmaids Tale.

    Then there’s the circus I had someone relate to me from certain conservative assemblies in America throughout the year, where screaming lunatics declare that they are “christian soldiers!” and other things like that.

    If you think it’s delusional to be concerned about this stuff then you have no idea what’s going on or how the world works.

  78. Tel

    You’re a disintegrated thinker which is what most people are today and you have it totally backwards. You don’t start with technical, specific examples, you start with the basics and then work your way up.

    Although that approach is reasonable for pure mathematics, it’s never worked for anything in the real world. Based on your general blockheadedness I get the impression that pure maths wouldn’t suit you either.

    I guess for you, the lack of a working example might be a feature, but I prefer to at least take a starting point based on something tangible.

    Did you need for everything to play out in Venezuela too before you were able to connect the dots between cause and effect?

    I can’t seem to remember you making any predictions on where Venezuela was going back around 2009 when the turning point was happening. Doesn’t require a whole lot of nous to notice they have a problem in 2018.

    Oh sorry, there I go again… specific concrete examples of something you got right. How silly of me, those aren’t important. I just can’t get myself past the idea that getting things right might be useful or something.

  79. .

    I don’t even know that is true for mathematics Tel. Most of analysis was worked out before number theory or linear algebra.

  80. Tim Neilson

    “Close adherence to legal reasoning is the only way to maintain the confidence of all parties in federal conflicts. It may be that the Court is thought to be excessively legalistic. I should be sorry to think that it is anything else. There is no other safe guide to judicial decisions in great conflicts than a strict and complete legalism”.

    (Sir Owen Dixon, Australia’s greatest ever judge by the length of the straight, on being sworn in as Chief Justice of the High Court.)

    Iampeter –

    A judge does not need to know “what is politics”.

    A judge doesn’t need to know “what is government”, the judge just needs to understand how the laws of the judge’s own jurisdiction define the institutions of that jurisdiction, and their processes and powers.

    I agree that a Supreme Court judge should understand the function of the Supreme Court, but that is best ascertained by reading the judgements that the judge has given in inferior courts, so as to discern the judge’s approach to the judicial task, not by demanding that the judge bandy generalities in some public hearing. And the whole criticism of Kavanaugh by the “progressives” is that he clearly understands the proper function of a judge all too well, and is likely to continue to perform it on the Supreme Court.

    Your neo-Na#i insistence that judges should be selected only from people who share your ideology is exactly what’s wrong with the “progressive” approach. The judge’s personal political, economic, social, religious and philosophical beliefs should be irrelevant to their work as a judge, with the sole exception that they should believe, and adhere to, Sir Owen Dixon’s description of the judicial function. And that’s what the progressives are afraid of because they know from Kavanaugh’s record as a judge that that’s what they’ll get.

  81. Iampeter

    A judge does not need to know “what is politics”.
    A judge doesn’t need to know “what is government”, the judge just needs to understand how the laws of the judge’s own jurisdiction define the institutions of that jurisdiction, and their processes and powers.

    If I want a Judge in Soviet Russia than that’ll work. But I want a Judge in the Western world where we have a slightly different view of how society, government and politics should work. That requires a level of knowledge and thinking ability beyond that of a mindless drone.
    Sorry but you can’t politics without knowing anything about politics.

    I agree that a Supreme Court judge should understand the function of the Supreme Court, but that is best ascertained by reading the judgements that the judge has given in inferior courts, so as to discern the judge’s approach to the judicial task

    You wouldn’t even need to read them other than to confirm your opinion if you knew the guys more general methodology. On the flip side, without knowing what government does, what role the SC plays or what politics is even about, how will reading them help you? You wouldn’t have any way to determine if they were good or bad judgements.
    Sorry but you are desperately trying to avoid having to go to the effort of thinking and learning a lot about how the world works, hoping that magic or diving revelation will lightning bolt the information you need into your head somehow. Nope, sorry that won’t happen.

    Your neo-Na#i insistence that judges should be selected only from people who share your ideology is exactly what’s wrong with the “progressive” approach.

    I want the right man for the job based on an actual understanding of what that job is and what a right man for that job looks like. You don’t know what the job is or how to find the right man for it, so it’s anyone’s guess what you’re trying to do. I guess you agree with him on abortion or something because you think having random disjointed positions on random issues amounts to understanding of politics.

    Also you don’t need to worry about the “progressive” approach to anything since conservatives are just religious versions of them anyway, that also happen to be much more confused.

    The breakdown is:
    Progressives – knowingly advancing collectivism in politics.
    Conservatives – political illiterate progressives, unknowingly advancing collectivism in politics. Also Jesus.

  82. Iampeter

    Although that approach is reasonable for pure mathematics, it’s never worked for anything in the real world. Based on your general blockheadedness I get the impression that pure maths wouldn’t suit you either.

    This is an example of disintegrated thinking. The rules of reality don’t change for maths. Once you learn how to think you can apply it to everything exactly the same correct way. All knowledge is linked and all knowledge is hierarchical, meaning you have to go in order and cannot skip steps.
    That’s why discussing what makes a good SC nominee is impossible without understanding of the far more fundamental concepts like what the SC does, what government does, what politics is, etc, etc.
    You cannot reverse engineer it.

    I can’t seem to remember you making any predictions on where Venezuela was going back around 2009 when the turning point was happening. Doesn’t require a whole lot of nous to notice they have a problem in 2018.

    You’re the one that’s refusing to acknowledge that a murderous ideology that has killed millions of people and set Western Civilization back millennia, might be a problem if taken seriously by a large enough number of people who then get political power.

    This has nothing to do with me, it’s about your inability to integrate and think clearly.

  83. Kneel

    “But I want a Judge in the Western world where we have a slightly different view of how society, government and politics should work.”

    heh.
    I want a judge who does what the courts are supposed to do – be an impartial arbiter of what the law means in specific (and sometimes general) cases. That’s it. That’s all they need to do – doing more than that is overstepping their authority.
    In order to determine if the nominee is suitable then, only requires reviewing their judgement record.

    Frankly, for me it’s like politicians. I don’t particularly like too many of them and think there should be as few as possible. I don’t care if they dress badly and pick their noses at the dinner table, as long as they do a good job – and for a judge that means being fair and consistent, and interpreting law not making law.

    Simples.

  84. Tim Neilson

    If I want a Judge in Soviet Russia than that’ll work. But I want a Judge in the Western world where we have a slightly different view of how society, government and politics should work.

    Ah, the magical “we”. You poor old mindless collectivist drone. As it so happens, judges in the Soviet Union were expected to have very clear ideas about politics, government and society. That’s the whole reason that they were different than e.g. Sir Owen Dixon.

    You wouldn’t even need to read them other than to confirm your opinion if you knew the guys more general methodology.

    This is absolutely correct! What people say and what they do always coincide 100%, so we should always believe what they say! Therefore instead of looking at what he does as a judge we should ask him to give us a secondhand description. You KNOW it makes sense!

    On the flip side, without knowing what government does, what role the SC plays or what politics is even about, how will reading them help you? You wouldn’t have any way to determine if they were good or bad judgements.

    I’ve already pointed out how we should assess Kavanaugh’s understanding of the judicial role. The rest of this drivel displays such breathtaking ignorance of the proper role of a judge that it beggars belief.

    I guess you agree with him on abortion or something because you think having random disjointed positions on random issues amounts to understanding of politics.

    This ought to have nothing to do with “politics”. Your ignorance of what a judge in a superior court ought to be doing is glaringly obvious.

    As for abortion, again you display your ignorance. The real issue is whether or not the Constitution takes the legality of abortion out of the hands of the voters and enshrines it as a “right”. That should be determined solely by reference to the text and to any extrinsic materials which are relevant in accordance with proper doctrines of statutory interpretation.
    It is perfectly possible to have a judge who thinks that abortion is morally wrong but a Constitutional right, or a judge who thinks that there’s nothing morally wrong with abortion but that the Constitution leaves its legality to the voters.
    But that’s not good enough for you and the rest of the neofascists of “progressive” collectivism – the idea that in a democracy voters might get to decide is anathema to you.

  85. Iampeter

    Ah, the magical “we”. You poor old mindless collectivist drone.

    By “we” I mean those of us who know what we’re talking about.
    As to mindless collectivist drone, well that’s what you are. Literally. You’re rejecting the knowledge required to even realize you’re a collectivist drone.

    That’s the whole reason that they were different than e.g. Sir Owen Dixon.

    No, the reason the West is different is because it is the first society to figure our what rights are and establish rights protecting governments, even if imperfectly. The rest of the world either mimics this mindlessly today and succeeds or remains collectivist and fails.
    You don’t know what the difference is or why its important.

    I’ve already pointed out how we should assess Kavanaugh’s understanding of the judicial role.

    Yes you said by looking to his rulings. But you don’t understand politics so how will looking at his past rulings help you? You don’t even know what judges do and why we have them.

    The rest of this drivel displays such breathtaking ignorance of the proper role of a judge that it beggars belief.

    That’s a description of your issue here, not mine.
    Not only are you rejecting the knowledge of what a judge does, but rejecting the fundamentals that are required to be understood before you can even get to that.

    The real issue is whether or not the Constitution takes the legality of abortion out of the hands of the voters and enshrines it as a “right”.

    That requires understanding of what the constitution is about, which you reject since you don’t think politics is relevant to being a judge. Good luck figuring this mess out.

    But that’s not good enough for you and the rest of the neofascists of “progressive” collectivism – the idea that in a democracy voters might get to decide is anathema to you.

    Again, this is a description of you not me.
    And America is NOT a Democracy but a Republic, understanding the difference is pretty important to this topic. This is another example of why you wouldn’t know what makes a good or bad SC nominee.

    Basically what you’re posting is the usual conventional claptrap that one hears everywhere today from people who have no grasp of the fundamentals but think they are authorities.

  86. .

    Can we agree we want someone like Owen Dixon on the bench?

  87. Tim Neilson

    Can we agree we want someone like Owen Dixon on the bench?

    I do.

    Iamashiteater wouldn’t, because he’s got absolutely no idea how Dixon went about his task, and he’s declared himself implacably opposed to Dixon’s exposition of legalism which I quoted above.

  88. Tim Neilson

    By “we” I mean those of us who know what we’re talking about.

    The totalitarianism of the self-appointed elitist on ever-reliable display.

    No, the reason the West is different is because it is the first society to figure our what rights are and establish rights protecting governments,

    One aspect of rights protection in at least the Anglosphere is separation of powers, about which you are clearly totally ignorant.

    Yes you said by looking to his rulings. But you don’t understand politics

    That requires understanding of what the constitution is about, which you reject since you don’t think politics is relevant to being a judge.

    Once again you display your ever-reliable total ignorance about what a superior court judge ought to be doing. Politics has nothing to do with it. Go and find a copy of Pearce and Geddes on Statutory Interpretation and then refer me to the chapter, or the paragraphs, which explain why judges’ political views should shape their interpretation of the Constitution.

    And America is NOT a Democracy but a Republic,

    That would be an excellent point if I had suggested that the Constitution requires that abortion be left to “America”. The argument against Roe v Wade is that the Constitution leaves abortion to each State. Each State is a democracy in respect of matters properly left to its jurisdiction under the Constitution. That’s what you neofascists of the “progressive” movement regard with such horror.

  89. Iampeter

    The totalitarianism of the self-appointed elitist on ever-reliable display.

    You’re confused. I’m not the totalitarian here. Obviously.

    One aspect of rights protection in at least the Anglosphere is separation of powers, about which you are clearly totally ignorant.

    No, YOU are ignorant of it because you have proudly declared that politics isn’t relevant to picking SC judges. You do it again in this very next bit.

    Once again you display your ever-reliable total ignorance about what a superior court judge ought to be doing. Politics has nothing to do with it.

    OK then why did you raise separation of powers as being important if “politics doesn’t have anything to do with it”?

    The argument against Roe v Wade is that the Constitution leaves abortion to each State.

    No, lol you don’t know what you’re saying. Nothing is left to the state’s and I’m not even going to begin this education as it would be a total derail of this thread but this confirm exactly what I said before, about your position been one of the most conventional type of total ignorance.

    That’s what you neofascists of the “progressive” movement regard with such horror.

    Again, you’re just describing yourself.

  90. .

    Nothing is left to the state’s and I’m not even going to begin this education as it would be a total derail of this thread but this confirm exactly what I said before, about your position been one of the most conventional type of total ignorance.

    What the hell are you talking about?

    1. Gun regulation.
    2. State taxes, income tax.
    3. State penal laws.
    4. States can have their own bill of rights.
    5. States can regulate non-interstate commerce. A good court would overturn nonsense like Wickard v Filburn.

  91. I am bespoke

    Iampeter
    #2831936, posted on October 5, 2018 at 7:32 am
    Is that it Imp?
    What else do you need?

    You have not stated any proof “Kavanaugh is awful and unfit for the SC” but I see from following comments feeeelzz!! not details is all you have.

    Do you think he’s a good nominee? Why?

    I don’t know that’s why I asked.

  92. Iampeter

    but I see from following comments feeeelzz!! not details is all you have.

    LOL that’s the exact opposite of what you’d be getting from my posts. Direct that comment to Tim who is all about the emotion.
    I’ve answered your question countless times and I’ve asked you one as well which you are evading.
    Why do you think he’s a good nominee?

  93. Iampeter

    Oh sorry I see you said, you don’t know if he would be a good nominee. I’d suggest rereading my posts but if you thought that I was arguing emotion instead of facts then you’re not going to get it anyway.

  94. Fisky

    I can see Iampeter is running interference for the #Resistance again! He supports the #metoo line against Kavanaugh 100%. Never, ever trust the fake “libertarian” movement, they are nothing more than proxies for the hard Left.

  95. .

    I don’t even think Peter purports to be a libertarian, Fisk.

  96. Iampeter

    I’m the only one here actually calling for the idiots to confirm the guy to stop destroying his life.
    Fisky you are literally the stupidest person on the internet.

  97. Fisky

    Iampeter, you have said that Kavanaugh is “unfit” and “awful” which is literally what the Democrat propaganda machine is saying. So you are running interference f0r the Left yet again.

  98. .

    No, you’re not actually Peter.

    I say the same as well. As do most people here.

    Then there should be a probing investigation into Feinstein, Cosko, the ricin mailer and so on, who have or probably have committed very serious offences.

  99. Iampeter

    No, you’re not actually Peter.

    Except I’ve said in one of my earlier posts:

    Every day this drags out is another day of torture for the Kavanaugh family over literally nothing.
    There was no reason to have a hearing dedicated to this and there is no reason for any FBI “investigation” as there is nothing to investigate.
    Some random person accused him of random things that her own witnesses deny. How did this derail the entire process to such a degree?

    Reading and comprehension. Learn how.

    Iampeter, you have said that Kavanaugh is “unfit” and “awful” which is literally what the Democrat propaganda machine is saying. So you are running interference f0r the Left yet again.

    So is everyone on or nominated for the Supreme Court or doing the nominating and voting.
    Doesn’t mean the guys life should be destroyed because conservatives are politically incompetent as well as illiterate.
    Why are you even on a political blog herping and derping? Go medicate yourself you clueless, middle-late aged, weirdo.

  100. Fisky

    Nice try, Peter, but everyone can see through your attempt to run interference for the Left with the phoney “pox on both their houses” line.

    That sort of propaganda hasn’t worked on this site for years, so you should scuttle back to whichever Leftist blog you were sent from, thank you.

  101. Tim Neilson

    OK then why did you raise separation of powers as being important if “politics doesn’t have anything to do with it”?

    It is precisely because separation of powers is important that politics should have nothing to do with what a judge of a superior court does.

    You are clearly totally ignorant of what the judicial task involves.

    I’ve invited you to refer me to the parts of Pearce & Geddes which support your argument.

    Use another statutory interpretation book if you like.

    Or explain why your knowledge of the judicial task is superior to that of Sir Owen Dixon.

    But for heaven’s sake stop giving the trouser ferret such a vigorous rubdown over “politics”. We get it. You think that “politics” should influence judicial decisions. Those of us with any actual knowledge of the area know you’re wrong.

  102. Iampeter

    Herpa derpa.
    Confused old man who knows less about politics than teenagers is trying to talk the politics on the intertubes.
    Derp.

    Yes, yes, boo The Left, boo propaganda! What about Goerge Soros? That guy!

    Good political talks.

    Derp.

  103. I am bespoke

    Dot please tell me Imp is your sock and not the next Ted Kaczynski.

  104. Iampeter

    It is precisely because separation of powers is important that politics should have nothing to do with what a judge of a superior court does.

    Wait are you saying that when I said you need to understand politics before you can understand what makes a good judge, you took that to mean that I’m saying judges should be “political”? Ie that they should be corrupt?

    Oy Vey.

  105. Tim Neilson

    Wait are you saying that when I said you need to understand politics before you can understand what makes a good judge, you took that to mean that I’m saying judges should be “political”? Ie that they should be corrupt?

    Once again you display your total ignorance.

    No – although obviously I want judges not to be “corrupt” that has nothing to do with what I’ve been saying on this thread.

    Read again the quote from Dixon that I put at the top of the first comment I made here.

    If you can’t understand why that is a clear denunciation of “politics” intruding into a judge’s deliberations, then your fortifications of pure ignorance are clearly impregnable.

    Come on, I’ve asked you many times to refer me to a statutory interpretation textbook that explains the role that politics plays in the proper performance of the judicial function.

  106. Iampeter

    Tim, you didn’t know that America isn’t a Democracy until just now. All you’re doing is grasping at straws when you need to be learning the basics.
    If you want to know what makes a good SC Judge, you need to learn the purpose of the SC.
    Which means learning where it fits in American government and why.
    Which means learning what American government is about and why that’s important.
    Which means learning what politics is about.
    Etc.

    Just like you can’t do quadratic equations without first learning to add and subtract so you can’t talk about SC nominees without an understanding of the fundamentals either. Quotes from random dudes that you can’t understand anyway, are not going to help you.

    Don’t think I’m saying this to pick on you either since the professionals in American politics for their entire “careers” couldn’t answer any of these questions anyway. This is why I think they are all awful.

  107. .

    No Peter, you’re not the only one here saying BK should be confirmed straight away.

    Reading and comprehension. Learn how.

  108. Tim Neilson

    Tim, you didn’t know that America isn’t a Democracy until just now.

    Re-read what I wrote.

    And re-read Dot’s refutation of your bullshit about the Constitutional position of the States.

    Here’s something you wrote before:
    It’s the same with the Kavanagh circus, no one has this understanding and so they don’t know what to ask the nominee to get a view of his overall ideological perspective on things.

    You also denied that they should assess Kavanaugh’s fitness for judicial office by looking at his judgments.

    Very clearly you don’t understand what a judge actually does in a superior court. Therefore you rabbit on with this bullshit about politics, which is totally irrelevant.

    They should just read his judgments to see whether he adheres to proper rules of evidence, proper principles of statutory interpretation and proper logic, and REFRAINS from introducing “politics” into it.

  109. .

    Tim, you didn’t know that America isn’t a Democracy until just now.

    FFS Peter, this is laying it on thick. I am pretty sure everyone knows America is a constitutional republic, albeit a very democratic one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.