How the Kavanaugh fiasco may change vetting forever

[JoltinJoe]

It doesn’t matter who they got to examine her, Democrats would have a problem the choice. Everything is so polarized these days that it’s a lose-lose situation from the start.

Blumenthal just asked by a reporter about Ford's testimony and how it impacted his view of Kavanaugh and he can't help but mention Roe v Wade and other positions he's taken as a judge.

One of the forgotten footnotes of the Anita Hill story was the investigation into who leaked her "confidential" correspondence with the judiciary committee to the press. Like Ford, Hill was said to have lodged an allegation with a committee member, but did not want to go public. The story was that she was forced to go public when her allegation was leaked to the media AFTER the Thomas hearings had concluded. (Sound familiar?).

The end result was that the attorney who investigated could not identify the source of the leak. But the inference many drew from the facts outlined in the report that the leak was not so much a leak, but rather an intentional act of a strategy of delayed disclosure -- the suggestion being it was withheld to be used as a means of derailing Clarence Thomas, when it looked like all else had failed.

On July 10, shortly after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, NARAL sent a tweet saying that abortion rights were not going to be taken away by five men, including a "frat boy named Brett." I thought at the time we were going to learn about Kavanaugh's younger life as a bad "frat boy." I said to a colleague at work that NARAL/Planned Parenthood had some dirt on his college years that was going to become public.

Thereafter, the "frat boy" line of attack disappeared entirely and my friend even commented after the hearings ended that I had been wrong.

And the, just like that, it happened -- after the hearings, again.

It seems so familiar to me.

[houndawg]

If it were even possible for both sides
to have handled a situation worse - simultaneously - I don't see how

Clowns vs. Clowns

a battle that only America loses

This one does make it tough. In the Clarence Thomas hearings, you had the testimonies of two people who were adults at the time in reference to events that happened, at its most recent, a little more than year before the confirmation hearings. In this case, you have the testimony of two people who were minors at the time, regarding events that happened more than 30 years ago, with no evidence of continuing behavior since then (and other than their own testimonies, no evidence of the original event). How could you possibly be sure of guilt or innocence with such accusations?

I'm reading Jeffrey Toobin's book "The Nine", right now, and it's a non-fiction book that deals with the SCOTUS in 2007, with the 2008 election still ahead and with Roberts and Alito coming onto the bench. And it's amazing to hear almost the same exact language in his book as you hear today - the balance of the court is in jeopardy, the next 40 years of the country, if not the Republic is at stake, etc. And the book looks back at the Clarence Thomas nomination 20 years earlier in much the same way. When there's this kind of brinkmanship (and I've said it before, predicting with surety the end of the Republic and democracy itself if the opposition wins is as divisive as you can get) what would anyone be surprised at this nomination and how it has proceeded? Heck, the guy was labeled as a serial gang rapist yesterday, and half of the population nodded their heads as if it was expected.

Going forward, and not per se a bad thing, you're going to have more women nominated. They just aren't going to be as easily tarred with a sexual assault/harassment charge. There's no real defense, outside of court, to these charges right now. If Kavanaugh's nomination fails, that will be even more so. There's not going to be any other evidence other than her word against his, and partisan Democrats believe her and partisan Republicans believe him and what centrists are left don't have the power to sway either side or tilt the decision. It's not a perfect world but it's the one we've created.

The majority on the committee put a lot of effort into making sure it would only be a he said/she said situation. She asked for an investigation from the get and she was talking to her therapist and husband about the incident six years ago. And now it looks like Kavanaugh has classmates coming forward to verify that he was enough of a drunk that he might not remember what he did. Throw in his statements about left-wing conspiracies and revenge of the Clintons ( )....this guy is too ordinary to sit on SCOTUS, he should run for the House where he'd be able to hang out with about 250 other Congressmen that have settled sexual "situations" by paying off their accuser.

I was so hoping that he was going to get asked the detailed questions that he drew up for Clinton during the Lewinsky affair. It would be like there is a god.

[houndawg]

Blumenthal just asked by a reporter about Ford's testimony and how it impacted his view of Kavanaugh and he can't help but mention Roe v Wade and other positions he's taken as a judge.

One of the forgotten footnotes of the Anita Hill story was the investigation into who leaked her "confidential" correspondence with the judiciary committee to the press. Like Ford, Hill was said to have lodged an allegation with a committee member, but did not want to go public. The story was that she was forced to go public when her allegation was leaked to the media AFTER the Thomas hearings had concluded. (Sound familiar?).

The end result was that the attorney who investigated could not identify the source of the leak. But the inference many drew from the facts outlined in the report that the leak was not so much a leak, but rather an intentional act of a strategy of delayed disclosure -- the suggestion being it was withheld to be used as a means of derailing Clarence Thomas, when it looked like all else had failed.

On July 10, shortly after Trump nominated Kavanaugh, NARAL sent a tweet saying that abortion rights were not going to be taken away by five men, including a "frat boy named Brett." I thought at the time we were going to learn about Kavanaugh's younger life as a bad "frat boy." I said to a colleague at work that NARAL/Planned Parenthood had some dirt on his college years that was going to become public.

Thereafter, the "frat boy" line of attack disappeared entirely and my friend even commented after the hearings ended that I had been wrong.

And the, just like that, it happened -- after the hearings, again.

It seems so familiar to me.

You say that like it isn't SOP .