Voting NO for Kavanaugh

Comments (Archived):

1. Yup–they do work for us.Someone posed the question to me over a drink:-What do you do if the midterms are a huge disappointment?-What if they are a landslide like we hope?Useful to level set.Stuff is a true mess with undertones of hope. I’m holding on to the belief that change is coming.

   1. I’m hoping too

      1. Been listening to a few of Jon Favreau (Obama speech writer) podcast called Wilderness where he has traced the history of women in politics over the last century and is now talking with a number of young women running for office. For me great stuff and a reminder that when my mom was born women did not have the right to vote.

         1. Women are just starting to hit their stride.

   2. I hate to tell you from here in the country it’s going to be both.It will be a huge landslide in California, NY, CT and other Northeast States. Places like Berkley and Yale will vote 90%+But SHS Incident, Ted Cruz, ANTIFA, and this are causing huge backlash which will get out the vote outside of those areas, where it will be close.Lisa says a ton of his support is from people that say it is ok. Never heard a Senator say that.I did hear one say: I know he is guilty men should just shut up. Another held this back purposefully to delay the vote. Another said just an allegation means pull him.Just increases the anger towards the elites. You can do that to SHS, you Jimmy Kimmel who is shouting at the top of his lungs does need to shut up. Ever seen his gameshow of guess what’s in my crotch?This is going to turn into a giant game of he said she said, from 35 years ago with people picking each side.I don’t know. I just don’t know. But I do know I don’t want somebody able to just say something and people get convicted by a public mob.

      1. when there is smoke there is fire. find someone who at least is super smart with a solid background that we can all move forward with.

         1. I always try to see both sides, the other side also thinks there is smoke. If you objectively look you have to say there could be that viewpoint. We will oppose by any means (that was a dumb statement), usually there is a long term pattern, timing, people you told then, etc. Maybe that comes out. As I said I don’t know.I do know that usually when it gets to be a point of cramming down views from one side or the other things really get out of control.I’m sure you dealt with this at portfolio companies. You hear one side and then the other and go whaaaat??? I have.Sometimes, rarely, one side is totally right.And certainly when it comes to abuse/harassment that is right. Most it is people playing the extremes. I have heard people say if we have to sacrifice an innocent person for change, then do it.That price is too high for me, and I am not saying he is innocent.

            1. Completely.

      2. Thanks.i took the morning off to listen to the testimony today with Lianna. She is not lying.This person is not qualified.Now we get to see the true mettle and fabric of the Republicans.I will watch and learn.

         1. I don’t know how you can make that determination. Have you ever had somebody lie to you really bad, but you were convinced?? I have many times. Lying is a complicit act. You have to want to be lied to. Not accusing her or making a determination

            1. It is for each of us to decide that and each of us must, actually.This is a job interview around the character of the applicant in my view.My decision on this is as relevant as anyone’s till and if there is an investigation.I asked Lianna to watch this as she is closer to her generation and the toughest and smartest person I know.She did and corroborated my beliefs.

            2. I hope you watched the other side……..what a damn mess. I would get ready to brace for Midterms. Signs will be up tomorrow reminding people that you get out in vote in November. Damn, you keep detailed diaries for 36 years. You graduated top in class from top Catholic High School, Football and Basketball. You have the best track record of female law clerks and proposed all female law clerks. People will look at this as an assault on his family and the country. It will be ugly.

            3. So be it then.The upside of this Trump shit is that yes–and thankfully–we have empowered women not only to speak out but to realize that what indeed what was always said is ok, is not at all so.If it takes a generation for these truly aberrant politicians to me removed, so be it as well.I did spend that entire day watching and talking to a few people of different points of view.I have asked myself, what would I like to see if the House, the Senate get flipped and where my wishes are useful to occur and not simply vengefulness. It’s hard for me to separate them.I have no idea and can’t wrap my head around what I will do/feel/support/contribute if neither happens.I am being completely honest here.

2. It’s interesting that a lot of the pushback from his supporters isn’t “We stand by his assertion that he didn’t do it.” but it is “Even if he did do it, it doesn’t matter because he was a drunk 17 year old.” First of all, what kind of message does that send to 17 year olds? Also, the pushback that “everyone has does something like that.” You know who hasn’t probably done something like that? A woman. (Not to mention that also undermines the men who haven’t done that.) What is going on now is a an actual strategy that abusers use to provide cover for their abuse. If we can’t delay it long enough for a full investigation, then we’ve lost the rule of law and one of the pillars of democracy along with it.

   1. .Unfair comment – he himself has denied it and is prepared to do so under oath, the witness provided by the accuser has denied it and said it simply never happened. How does one say something didn’t happen more clearly?The accuser cannot supply a date, a location, a consistent story, so the notion that it didn’t happen is a strawman argument. She can’t describe the basic who, what, where, when, why of the allegation and having thrown the stink bomb into the Senate is not prepared to come testify about the allegation to clear the air as to any of that missing info, misinformation, disinformation.This is an embarrassing attempt by the Dems to create a controversy where one doesn’t exist. It is a total fabrication.The Dems had plenty of time to bring this forward, Sen Feinstein having sat upon it for months. She could have asked Judge Kavanaugh about this in his interview with her, at the committee meeting, or asked for an executive session to consider sensitive information. She didn’t even share it with her colleagues. Why?If you are going to invoke the “rule of law” then please honor the Constitutional right of a target of an allegation to confront their accuser and to force that accuser to provide “evidence.” This is a sacred tenet of our Constitution and democracy.No, this is entirely and only what it seems to be – a dirty political trick driven by dirty tricksters.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

      1. Remember when Senators of both parties called out Joe McCarthy. John Kass opined that they might do the same for Feinstein

   2. 100%. Well said

   3. Let me start by saying that both my ex wife was assaulted when in college (by a ‘nice’ guy) and my current wife was assaulted by her former husband.In the case of my ex wife the person got 7 years prison time. He abducted her and did something that he got that he got prison time for. He also held a gun to her head while making her drive around prior to the ‘event’. No dispute on any facts. There was a court, judge, jury and a process that made that happen. Ditto for my current wife. Court, divorce and actual agreement by the husband of what had happened. I had another girlfriend that was taken at gunpoint by a boyfriend. Actually that also happened separately to my current wife. There is no dispute of the fact of any of these events either. And a gun and kidnap is not a gray area.However the unfortunate thing that is happening here is we are allowing an accusation, which anyone can level for any reason, to derail a process. Can we really let that happen?Do you really want to have a situation where a mere accusation is enough? Doesn’t that seem to you to be a very dangerous weapon to have? At any person’s disposal?Even if you are a woman you have perhaps a husband, a brother or a son and uncle. Do you want the fact that someone says something happened to them to be able to cause them and you great pain? Sure it could be true. But is an accusation enough? And yes it could also happen to a man as well.What if your own son (as has happened) is accused of something by another person (man or woman) Just an accusation. Then he can’t get into college even though he has not been convicted of anything and there has not been a process to determine the truth. He is guilty just because he has been accused of something. Or he gets fired from his job prior just on the accusation or is turned down for a promotion. Doesn’t that seem to be a very powerful and simple way to do damage to someone? Not saying that happened here either. Just saying it could and definitely can happen. Especially when someone has enemies. Or people are jealous. Right? After all people strap bombs to themselves because of what they believe in. This seems to be less dangerous (not saying the accuser isn’t telling the truth to be clear).Not disputing that something wrong might have happened here. Not saying it didn’t happen. I never drank at all in college let alone drugs. I was never drunk except one time at passover (really) when I was 13. That is it. Last time. Obviously I did not do what the nominee did or hang around the type of people (or at parties) where that type of thing would happen (hard to do that if you don’t drink, right?). But I do recognize that there has to be an element of fairness that protects people that are innocent until proven guilty. And that fairness is not allowing an accusation to derail a process or prevent an opportunity when in practicality there is also harm caused by the actual accusation (because it will also enable the same to happen in the future for any other nominee or person running for public office).

   4. Thoughtful comment.This is not a trial (as yet), it is a job interview.We are the employers and the character of the applicant is totally within our rights to have disclosure on and make a decision on.I think there are legal pieces that may very well surface.

      1. Having a limited inquiry is unacceptable. This is a job interview and based on his demeanor in front of the Senate committee…he failed the test

3. .The FBI does not “investigate” non-criminal matters except for the investigative work they do in the issuance of security clearances. In this instance, the FBI does a background check on an individual to receive their initial security clearance and semi-annual or annual updates. Judge Kavanaugh has had almost a dozen of such initial background investigations and tons of updates.He was routinely granted security clearances at the TSBISCI level – top secret background investigation special compartmented information, and likely “code word” clearance for special projects. That is as good as it gets. That lets one eavesdrop on the President’s calls.Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy is contained in 300+ opinions written while on the US Ct of Appeals DC Circuit (considered the mini-SCOTUS because of its physical location and gov’t dealings) over a dozen years. This is an enormous record.If one cannot glean his judicial philosophy from that extensive body of work- judgments and opinions, then they have no business being in that position. It is the most complete record of any nominee in a century.During that time period, the SCOTUS adopted 13 positions that Judge Kavanaugh had taken in his opinions and NINE of them were from dissents – not all appellate opinions go to the SCOTUS, but some do. In 13 instances which did, the SCOTUS adopted Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion and NINE of them were opinions in which Judge Kavanaugh disagreed with his colleagues.Dems are proud of Obama’s SCOTUS nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the same DC Circuit – but fail to note that Judges Kavanaugh and Garland voted the same 94% of the time.The correlation between opinions authored by Chief Judge Garland and Judge Kavanaugh is remarkable.Garland authored 30 opinions when Kavanaugh was on the same 3-judge panel. (Appeals are heard by 3 judges which rotates amongst the greater body of judges, so judges don’t work together very frequently, but over 12 years they did.) Of those 30 Garland authored opinions, Kavanaugh joined him on 28 of them.Kavanaugh authored 28 opinions when Garland was on the same 3-judge panel. Garland joined Kavanaugh 27 times.That is a remarkable example of judicial correlation. Garland was an Obama nominee and, yet, Kavanaugh’s actual track record shows this 28/30 and 27/28 record of correlation. This is quite remarkable.The Dems, stripped bare, allowed this confirmation hearing to run its course before attempting to hijack it with this outrageous – unknown date, unknown location, unknown participants, conflicting versions of events, challenged by witnesses, 36-year old – allegation to come forth.This is a naked attempt to de-rail this nomination of a man who has a superior command of the law and verifiable track record of judicial restraint, temperament, and performance.We may take some comfort that Judge Kavanaugh will be confirmed in due time, this event will be instructive as to how the Dems respect the process and conduct their affairs.Judge Kavanaugh will be an extraordinary SCOTUS Justice. Bravo!JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

   1. I hit the wall with you. You are no longer welcome on this blog.

      1. I’ve been reading your blog anonymously for at least 5 years. I read for recipes and JLM’s posts. I enjoy his posts on both your and Fred’s blogs.IMO, JLM is a national treasure. I suspect “hitting the wall” for you is due to his stunning command of facts and his emotions.Judge Kavanaugh will be an extraordinary SCOTUS Justice. Bravo!

      2. .Haha. I have never really felt welcome.Liberals preach diversity, inclusion, spend a lot of time virtue signalling and in self-congratulation.What they really mean is: “I am in favor of diversity and inclusion as long you think like me.””LIBERAL diversity – look different, think the same.”Intellectual curiosity drives the learned person to consider other views, testing their own views, their ideas against other views, ideas. When one fails to do that, they cheat themselves and diminish the quality of their own thinking.If one’s ideas are sound, they will stand up to scrutiny and debate while becoming stronger in the process.The most dangerous walls we build are the ones we build around our minds, which construct an echo chamber.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

4. are basic principles of jurisprudence being thrown under the bus here to serve political ends?you vote NO if you don’t like his record as a judge. you don’t vote NO because of an allegation made today dating to 1982 with zero corroborating evidence or testimony. we are all in peril if this holds sway.