How many accusers need to come forward before you believe the accused is guilty?

[laughing dog]

Shift the goal posts much? Failure to be appointed to the SCOTUS is not a punishment.

I think Mr. Kavanaugh should not have been approved to be on the Supreme court because he demonststated a lack of judicial temperment in his hearing and revealed himself to be a rabid partisan who will be unable to even give the appearnce of impartiality on the bench. His appointment stains the current SCOTUS. In other words, he failed his job interview.

Being a supreme judge in USA is, above all, a political position. They are all partisan. That's why they're there.

No. They are not necessarily partisan.

Not a punishment of Kavanaugh. But certainly a punishment of all Republicans.

That makes no sense. If Kavanaugh were rejected, the President nominates another candidate.

How about starting with explaining how the question is relevant and relates to the Kavanaugh election? I don't see the parallel. My babysitters won't wield political power while babysitting.

First, Kavanaugh was not elected. His nomination was confirmed.

The parallel is that Kavanaugh's appearance before the Senate Committee was a job interview. Both Kavanaugh and the baby sitter are interviewing for a job, neither is being tried for a crime. The issue is would you hire someone for a JOB. So, for the 3rd time, would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child? If that is too difficult for you to deal with, how about would you hire a babysitter who might have attempted to rape an adult?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Shift the goal posts much? Failure to be appointed to the SCOTUS is not a punishment.

I think Mr. Kavanaugh should not have been approved to be on the Supreme court because he demonststated a lack of judicial temperment in his hearing and revealed himself to be a rabid partisan who will be unable to even give the appearnce of impartiality on the bench. His appointment stains the current SCOTUS. In other words, he failed his job interview.

Being a supreme judge in USA is, above all, a political position. They are all partisan. That's why they're there.

Not a punishment of Kavanaugh. But certainly a punishment of all Republicans.

Gorsuch was approved.

You did not answer my question - would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child?

How about starting with explaining how the question is relevant and relates to the Kavanaugh election? I don't see the parallel. My babysitters won't wield political power while babysitting.

Would you hire a babysitter that shoplifted?

 

[DrZoidberg]

No. They are not necessarily partisan.

Not a punishment of Kavanaugh. But certainly a punishment of all Republicans.

That makes no sense. If Kavanaugh were rejected, the President nominates another candidate.

How about starting with explaining how the question is relevant and relates to the Kavanaugh election? I don't see the parallel. My babysitters won't wield political power while babysitting.

First, Kavanaugh was not elected. His nomination was confirmed.

The parallel is that Kavanaugh's appearance before the Senate Committee was a job interview. Both Kavanaugh and the baby sitter are interviewing for a job, neither is being tried for a crime. The issue is would you hire someone for a JOB. So, for the 3rd time, would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child? If that is too difficult for you to deal with, how about would you hire a babysitter who might have attempted to rape an adult?

We fundamentally disagree about what is at stake here. I see no point in continuing this discussion. I think you are naive

 

[laughing dog]

No. They are not necessarily partisan.
That makes no sense. If Kavanaugh were rejected, the President nominates another candidate.

First, Kavanaugh was not elected. His nomination was confirmed.

The parallel is that Kavanaugh's appearance before the Senate Committee was a job interview. Both Kavanaugh and the baby sitter are interviewing for a job, neither is being tried for a crime. The issue is would you hire someone for a JOB. So, for the 3rd time, would you hire a babysitter who might have molested a child? If that is too difficult for you to deal with, how about would you hire a babysitter who might have attempted to rape an adult?

We fundamentally disagree about what is at stake here. I see no point in continuing this discussion. I think you are naive

Fair enough. You clearly do not have a clue about the actual process or what was actually at stake. And I find it fascinating you are either unwilling or unable to answer a simple question. Apparently, you and a majority of the Senate have no problem hiring unrepetent people who may have committed serious crimes.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Call me crazy, but I expect a judge and potential Justice of the Supreme Court to be judicious.

Whatever else his flaws, faults, or misdeeds, the fact is that he comported himself so poorly that he even issued a threat ("what goes around comes around") which impugns my trust (and that of many, many others) in his ability to issue an unbiased opinion. And anyone who is or wants to be a judge, let alone a Supreme Court justice, had ought to be able to see the issues that reply would raise, and at least have the sense to temper himself and keep his mouth shut.

The fact that he couldn't even do that much arouses serious doubt in me regarding his ability to separate his personal and professional opinions.

He's confirmed; it's over. All we can do is hang on for the ride and hope for the best. But as mentioned above, it's a low-point in Senate history, and also in the history of SCOTUS. We Americans should be able to find better; we certainly deserve better.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

We Americans should be able to find better; we certainly deserve better.

Wait ... aren't you guys the people who elected Donald Trump as President? What are you basing this whole "we deserve better" thing on?