Posted on 09/30/2018 7:14:00 AM PDT by bitt
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s raw, combative defense against a sexual assault allegation from decades ago may have saved his embattled nomination, but his angry, partisan words last week also may have damaged his ability to be seen as a fair justice on the nation’s highest court.
Kavanaugh said he wrote his statement, which he delivered Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, entirely on his own.
And unlike much of the nation, he said he did not watch the preceding, riveting testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, the California psychology professor who told the senators she was “100%” certain a teenage Kavanaugh had drunkenly attacked her when they were high school students in suburban Maryland in the early 1980s.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
(duh - ya think so?)
p
Impartial?
Puh-leaze.
How does one defend oneself impartially????????????????
LUNATICS are running amok all over this country . . .
As if RBG, Kagen and SM are partial. That’s what should have been SCREAMED at the democrats when they talked about Kavanaugh being radical during the hearings. I couldn’t believe (well, yeah I could) someone didn’t bring that up.
As if RBG, Kagen and SM are partial. That’s what should have been SCREAMED at the democrats when they talked about Kavanaugh being radical during the hearings. I couldn’t believe (well, yeah I could) someone didn’t bring that up.
Partisan? Speaking truth to the people in the room who were causing all the chaos isn’t partisan.
So, if he remains calm, he’s bad. If he angrily disputes what is not true, he’s bad. He’s only good if he kills himself?
A wise man might've said, "When you aim for the king, don't miss."
Idiots.
F the LA Times.
I hate to tell them, but I can’t see how it’s Kavanaugh’s fault that the Democrats went scorched earth and turned a moderate conservative into Clarence Thomas v.2.0. Actions have consequences. Maybe the far left should have considered that before they smeared a man with no supporting evidence.
Most of the country will not care and have forgotten the whole thing in a year and make no such connection other than Washington Post employees and left wing activist nutjobs who we do not care about anyway.
He said things nobody else wanted to say. It WAS revenge of the Clintons, for Merrick Garland, the 2016 election, etc.
Just as Kennedy stopping Robert Bork (among other reasons) was comeuppance for his role in firing Archibald Cox, the Watergate special prosecutor.
Revenge is par for the course with democrats, and their fellow travelers like Jeff Flake (who is instituting a little revenge for Trump’s treatment of him, and also the conservatives of Arizona, who denied him another term).
Kavanaugh has a first class temperament when it comes to his job, the law, and they all know it.
Nothing impartial from the LA Slimes. Does anyone seriously think Grandma Ginsburg, David Breyer, and the woefully unqualified duo of Sotomayor and Kagan are impartial in their case decisions on the court? All of these lefties will be exposed. They want to take our country down a path that most Americans don’t want to go down!
I think the MSM is even losing the dum dum crowd..?
God, these people are loathsome beyond anything I have ever seen in my entire life.
I would call them scum, but I don’t want to insult scum.
Meanwhile, RBG remains the epitome of impartiality.
I propose a new word within our national lexicon:
Fordicate (verb): To use sexual innuendo based on unprovable allegations, to destroy an opponent for political reasons.
“Stormy Daniels fordicated Trump.”
“Annita Hill fordicated Clarence Thomas.”
“James Carville fordicated Paula Jones.” (Credit to Palmer)
https://twitter.com/SenFeinstein/status/1045718628933554176
Sen Dianne Feinstein @SenFeinstein
Sep 28
Judge Kavanaugh did not reflect an impartial temperament or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge. He was aggressive and belligerent. He should not be rewarded with a lifetime Supreme Court seat.
Who cares how he is “seen”? And I care even less how the LAT “sees” him.
The author dismisses the possibility that he will be able to put this fiasco behind him and view cases objectively.
IOW, the writer thinks the judge will react just as the writer would react ... in an arbitrary manner reflecting personal bias.
Well, author, the judge is better than. Get over it. You’re writing for a stinking newspaper already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.