A fish out of water | Raucous Caucus | Tom Cushing | PleasantonWeekly.com |

Local Blogs

Raucous Caucus

By Tom Cushing

E-mail Tom Cushing

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply...  (More)

View all posts from Tom Cushing

A fish out of water

Uploaded: Oct 1, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-IkWpm7TS0 (safe for work)

Self-referential Blogger note: It’s been a while – all those tribal drumbeats. Your blogger preferred to use time more wisely, like watching the A’s, supporting mid-term election turn-out here and in Nevada, crafting an ethics course - and even wasting it frivolously.

There comes a time, however, when civic duty transcends these pass-times. If Professor Ford can selflessly step into the life-altering media glare, then I certainly ought to do my little bit here, and drag myself back in.


My message:

Brett Kavanaugh is a privileged, unjudicial, dissembling disaster, who must not be confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

There’s a useful old Ethiopian adage that works here: “the fish is the last to know he’s in the water.” In his poorly conceived and worse-executed hearing room hissy, the nominee demonstrated the wisdom of that saying, and illustrated the folly of not learning its lesson. He denied having any advantages that supported his admission to Yale Law School, ascribing his success instead to personal hard work.

He thus showed us all that he has no idea that he was endowed with the precious, unearned gratuities of being born in this country, white and male, into wealth, and educated at an elite private preparatory school. He was also an undergraduate at Yale and chosen to one of its secretive social societies – fertile breeding grounds for future Masters of the Universe.

Did he succeed in those places? Absolutely – he did not squander all his time drinking and carousing. But did that give him any adequate appreciation of his ample good fortune? Apparently not even a minnow's share. He is a fish whose rarified environments supported, nurtured and promoted him – and he had no inkling of it. Places like Georgetown Prep and Yale attempt to cultivate in their students a sense of their exceptionalism. Kavanaugh was obviously convinced, and remains so.

Perhaps that also accounts for his conviction that the Kennedy seat on the Supreme Court is His – by birthright and as having swum with the currents of Potomac power. He was first a clerk to the same Justice Kennedy, and later served as a dedicated aide to Ken Starr in the Whitewater probe - the protracted and venomous seven-year(!) pursuit of the Clintons.

That very unconsciousness causes great concern about his qualifications for the nation’s highest court. The best Justices there understand that “the life of the law has not been logic, but experience” (per Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., one of the greats). The law lives in its real-life impacts on people – folks whose lives and times are far removed from worries about ace-ing that poli-sci seminar, or sourcing that kegger.

Kavanaugh lacks such personal experience; he also clearly does not appreciate the difficulty and challenges of those lives-less-blessed. A patrician who has deluded himself into believing he succeeded on his own merits is quite unlikely to understand the tribulations of the rabble (freely translated as “the rest of us”).

His writings further demonstrate that he believes the ultimate GOP patrician, the President, is essentially above and beyond the reach of laws that apply to (all) the rest of us. Should anyone be surprised? Probably not. But more important - does anyone consider that to be sound public policy outside a dictatorship?

Further, Kavanaugh’s temperament is as an advocate, not a judge. His petulant, arrogant attacks on the process and the Senators questioning him showed not only an umbrage born of privilege but a demeanor more suited to trench warfare than contemplative deliberation.

Indeed, the nominee thereby demonstrated the partisan bones he made in his uber-aggressive, ultimately unsuccessful advocacy during the never-ending Starr investigations. In addition to seeking a reopener on the long-settled Foster suicide, he proposed a puerile line of attack questions to be asked of the then-sitting democratic Prez (whom he apparently considered fair game?), concerning the very most graphic anatomical details of his sexual assignations. That’s not what judge-types do, and any appreciation of the karmic irony of having his own sexual past laid publicly bare was surely lost in his rage.

Then there’s the evasion and dissembling pattern of behaviors that have themed his committee process, and the attempted disappearance of a very key witness (“How did you find me?!” was the first astonished response of Mark Judge, holed-up in an obscure beach town). It has been an obvious search for loopholes - those technicalities that lawyers seek, and people seeking answers disdain. When asked directly why he wouldn’t want an air-clearing investigation, he deflected - repeatedly and unconvincingly. Those are not the actions of a seeker of truth, nor, frankly, of an innocent man.

There have been reports that Kavanaugh’s practiced outrage was directed by the current White House occupant, who’s much better at lies and insults (and who has little understanding of anything remotely judicial). If so, the nominee was in a tough spot – should he abide his sponsor’s wishes, or act like the calm, sober adjudicator that most folks want in their judges? That he went with the former is further proof of destructive partisanship, as well as another demonstration that nobody who comes in close contact with this President comes away with a reputation unsullied.

Do I think he did what he’s been credibly accused-of – yeah, I do. And for that, and for a multitude of other reasons, he’s not the person on whom to bestow a lifetime tenure on the highest court in the land. He’s a fish out of his depth, and out of water, and maybe out of time.
What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

 +   5 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Oct 1, 2018 at 9:49 am

I will pray hard that Kavanaugh will not be appointed! American citizens are deserving of a Justice who is honest, compassionate, a brilliant legal mind who is capable of demonstrating respect for the law and a fairness toward fellow Americans.

Kavanaugh's behavior is reprehensible. I believe Dr. Ford as I believed Anita Hill.

I look forward to any findings by the FBI.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 1, 2018 at 3:40 pm

Tom, welcome back. I was concerned that your absence was due to a health problem, and am glad that you are ok.

Now, having said that, where do I begin???

Tom, before this sexual assault allegation came out, even you must admit Judge Kavanaugh was qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme. He excelled academically at the top undergraduate university and law school, clerked for a US Supreme Court Justice, and spent over a decade as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. The liberal ABA even gave him a well qualified rating, until the sexual assault allegation came out. You may not like his judicial rulings, his conservative tendencies, but at a minimum he is certainly on paper qualified for this position.

He also has a long history of public service, volunteering at soup kitchens, Catholic charities, and coaching basketball at the CYO level.

He also has long been an advocate for women, as witnessed by the almost 100 women who have worked for him, or with him, over the years, who wrote glowing letters of recommendation for him, including a Federal Public Defender, and numerous female law clerks. In fact, he has the record for most female law clerks ever promoted to work for the U.S. Supreme Court. If approved, he will also be the first U.S. Supreme Justice ever to have only female law clerks work for him. Those who have known him the longest, at the high school, college, or young attorney days, have stood up for him, and risked ridicule and worse to defend him as a person. This shows you what a true good person he really is, that so many would risk everything to come to the aid of him during this confirmation circus.

As to his judicial demeanor, I watched his initial confirmation hearings, and the recent hearings last week, and there was a big difference in his demeanor, for good reason. During the first hearings, the issues were fair game, his judicial opinions, his experience, and his judicial record, and he answered in a polite and non-aggressive manner. During the hearings last week, the Democrats asked him about comments he made about farting in high school, drinking beer in high school, and if he sexually abused Dr.Ford or anyone else. Tom, how would you, or anyone else, respond to those type of allegations? You do not graduate first in your class, work as a respected appeals Judge for a decade, without having fight in you. If someone made an allegation that you sexually assaulted someone, that was false, is it surprising that he would get upset and angry over such false allegations? What is the proper way to respond to a false allegation of sexual assault? Wouldn't you, or anyone else with a backbone, get upset and angry if falsely accused of something, that nobody ever mentioned, that allegedly occurred over 30 years ago?

Tom, as an attorney, doesn't evidence matter to you? All of the alleged witnesses that Dr.Ford claims witnessed the party or event, even her good friend,had to deny any knowledge of this ever occurring! There is literally no evidence to back her allegation, period.

I am not saying that someone, at some time, may have done what Dr.Ford alleges, but the evidence suggest it was not Judge Kavanaugh.

The sad thing is that the Democrats threw Dr.Ford under the bus, along with Judge Kavanaugh, as they could have done all of this in private, without compromising Dr.Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, as they had this letter months ago. When the Democrats could not lay a glove on Judge Kavanaugh during the initial hearings, on the merits, they decided to play dirty, and took an unsubstantiated letter from a lady who wanted to remain confidential, and turned it into a public circus. Politics at its worst.

Finally, be careful what you wish for, Tom, as if Judge Kavanaugh is not confirmed, guess who President Trump will nominate next: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a former Professor at Notre Dame Law School, and current Federal Judge, who is a devout Catholic with 8 children, and much more conservative than Judge Kavanaugh. The Democrats will not be able to play the anti-male card with her, or ask her about farting in high school or drinking beer. She is only 46 years old, and would be on the highest bench for decades. Roe vs. Wade is safe with Judge Kavanaugh. With Judge Amy Coney Barrett?

Anyway, welcome back Counselor, and I am glad you are in good health, and will be able to watch our A's knock the Yankees out of the playoffs Wednesday.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 1, 2018 at 6:35 pm

Don't know whether Kavanaugh is guilty of sexually assaulting Christine Ford or the two other women who have accused him. However, I do know that his testimony during his hearing, including his shameful and disrespectful behavior towards Senator Klobuchar, did not meet the standards expected of a Supreme Court justice.


 +   20 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 1, 2018 at 9:26 pm

Jake Waters is a registered user.

All of you better ‘pray hard' that you are never accused of something horrific based on unsupported evidence. Interesting that you all have judged this man on the bases of what Ford said without proof. There are more holes in Ford's statement than a strainer.

But then you are Liberals and/or Democrats and enjoy a long history (from the beginning) of anger, hatred, racism and worse. Anything you do doesn't surprise me anymore.




 +   6 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 7:56 am

What's likely to sink Kavanaugh's nomination is not Christine Ford's direct testimony, but increasing evidence that Kavanaugh has lied during his sworn testimony. Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Susan Collins have basically said that Kavanaugh is finished if he lied. Christine Ford didn't torpedo Kavanaugh's nomination. It looks like Kavanaugh torpedoed Kavanaugh's nomination:

“New reasons to question Brett Kavanaugh's credibility emerge"

“....During his sworn testimony, Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) when he first learned of Ramirez's allegation. The judge replied that he heard about the claim in the Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker. That answer, at a minimum, appears to have been misleading, since the texts obtained by NBC News pre-date the publication of the article.His answer to a similar question from Judiciary Committee staff was even more categorical. It also appears to have been false."

“All of which brings us to a familiar point: many of Kavanaugh's supporters have occasionally argued that the antics of a drunk student shouldn't disqualify him from opportunities decades after the fact. It's a point worthy of debate."

“But that's only part of Kavanaugh's larger problem. I try to steer clear of the "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" cliché, but in this case, it resonates for a reason: the more we're confronted to instances in which the Supreme Court nominee was less than truthful while under oath, the harder it is to make the case that he deserves to be confirmed."
MSNBC :Web Link
- - -


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 9:47 am

Jake Waters is a registered user.

People use the word ‘evidence' as if ‘evidence' has been provided, but all that has been provided are ‘accusations.' What we have heard is uncorroborated testimony. You may not want Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court, but you can't make things up. You are not entitled to your own facts, and this is what we are hearing. Something may have happened to Ford at some point, at some time, and at some place, but this may not be it.

What we have seen from all of this are the shameful people that have crawled out of the ground to attack his children and his wife; despicable words and cartoon depictions. However, if anyone questions, disagrees, or doesn't believe the accuser they are vilified. A very scary precedent.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 9:48 am

Jesuit magazine pulls support for Kavanaugh: Web Link

I strongly support their decision.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 10:02 am

@Jake Waters :"People use the word ‘evidence' as if ‘evidence' has been provided, but all that has been provided are ‘accusations.' What we have heard is uncorroborated testimony. You may not want Judge Kavanaugh to sit on the Supreme Court, but you can't make things up."

Maybe Tom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that sworn testimony is considered "evidence" in a court of law and that people can be and are convicted of serious crimes on the basis of such evidence.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 10:06 am

Note to commenters: I wish I wasn't uber-busy today (no- not driving). I'll have time tomorrow to participate (in case it's not over by then).


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Chris, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 10:40 am

I'm glad that people bring up evidence as the best evidence we have is what Mr. Kavanaugh stated himself as well as his calendar, his yearbook and the police report from a bar fight he was alleged to be a part of. He has made claims that he didn't drink heavily and that he didn't have sex in high school so what does the evidence say? His yearbook lists him as the treasurer of the keg city club and his Chris Dudley was arrested in a Connecticut bar in an incident that another friend alleges he was part of. As for high school and being a virgin the first piece of evidence is being a "Renate Alumnius." Renate was a classmate of his who signed a letter of support for him until she found out about the yearbook listing of which she said, "the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue." It was very clear to her that the post meant that they had had sex. There is another listing, "Have you boofed yet?" He claims this refers to farting, but urban dictionary entries from over 10 years ago define it as taking alcohol or drugs anally. Lastly is "Devil's Triangle" which he claims is a drinking game. The only pre-2018 reference I could find was an entry in urban dictionary from 2008 which defines it as a threesome with 2 men and a woman.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Jake Water, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 10:54 pm

Sworn testimony is not direct evidence. You still have to have that corroborating evidence to support to the claim. Or I could take a sworn statement claiming you are an ............ and do you want law enforcement to act upon that. Seriously. Are you that naive?


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 11:21 pm

@Jake Water

I'm afraid you lost track of the plot, Jake. Look back over your posts and mine and refresh your memory: The subject in question was whether an accusation can be used as "evidence". As I pointed out, an accusation in the form of a sworn testimony can be used as evidence in a court of law.

You apparently forgot what we were arguing about and went off onto some irrelevant tangent about "corroborating evidence" being needed to support a claim, which has nothing to do with what we were discussing. BTW, if someone accuses you of assault or robbing a store, etc. then, yes, law enforcement does indeed have to "act upon that" and investigate.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 2, 2018 at 11:43 pm

I will write slowly for you, Doug, so please follow along: I can respond right now to the police department and make a sworn statement against you for a crime, and unless I can provide corroborating evidence or they can locate corrobborating evidence it will go no further. Ford's testimony means nothing unless it is supported by evidence. This isn't Salem of the 1600's where we just have to say you are a witch.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 7:22 am

@Jake Waters

Jake, you're still drifting off into space, so let me bring you back to Earth with your very own words in the following quote. You stated “Sworn testimony is not direct evidence." This statement is flatly false. Sworn testimony IS evidence. People get convicted and sent to prison all the time on the basis of sworn testimonies in a court of law.

Concerning the thread topic, Dr. Christine Ford's sworn testimony at Kavanaugh's hearing IS evidence against him. It can be debated whether it in itself is enough evidence against him to prevent him from being confirmed, but the fact that it IS evidence against him is not up for debate.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Ennis, a resident of Pleasanton Valley,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 9:37 am

Tom- welcome back. You have been missed!


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Not, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 12:14 pm

NOT!


 +   2 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 12:17 pm

New compelling information just came out today about Dr.Ford. The Senate Judiciary Committee has now received a signed statement under penalty of perjury from a man who dated Dr.Ford for over 6 years. This statement under penalty of perjury suggest Dr.Ford actually lied under oath at the senate confirmation hearing on several topics.

First, Dr.Ford has advanced degrees in Psychology, and one of the many reasons polygraphs are not admissible in court as study after study for decades has determined they are highly unreliable and inaccurate and easily manipulated by those who understand the science of the polygraph test. During the senate hearing, the prosecutor asked Dr.Ford if she had ever given tips or advice to anyone who was looking to take a polygraph test, and she replied, "never". However, this new signed statement under penalty of perjury from Dr.Ford's long time ex boyfriend confirms he personally witnessed Dr.Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations, with details on the friends name, the reason for the polygraph, and when Dr.Ford coached her on how to beat the polygraph.

Next, Dr.Ford testified at the senate confirmation hearings that allegedly due to the claimed sexual assault by Judge Kavanaugh, she has fears of flying and tight spaces and avoid planes and small spaces. Dr.Ford's attorneys claimed that she would have to get to Washington D.C. for her testimony by car as she can not fly due to the fears from the alleged assault. However, this signed statement from the long time ex boyfriend notes Dr.Ford frequently traveled with him by plane, including in tiny propeller planes, and she lived in a tiny 500 square foot apartment for years. Dr.Ford never once mentioned the alleged assault to him, and never once complained about flying, or small spaces. Additional evidence has also recently come out confirming Dr.Ford has flown to the mid Atlantic at least once a year to visit family, and flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 1:26 pm

@American

I wasn't familiar with the issues you brought up so I looked into your two claims. It appears that you didn't tell the whole story for either case, but rather one-sided stories which made it appear that both cases were open-and-shut cases against Ford when they're not. I suggest that in the future you try telling the whole story, because it doesn't do much good for your credibility if someone checks into your claims (like I just did) and finds that you were omitting important information.

Claim #1: Ex-boyfriend claims that Ford lied in answer to polygraph question: Not the clear case that you make it seem. Although the ex-boyfriend (who has been identified as "Brian Merrick") claims that Ford coached a friend on taking a polygraph, the friend that she allegedly helped, Monica McLean, denies that Ford helped her prepare for a polygraph. Why did you omit mentioning that important bit of information in your post? Again, doesn't help your credibility.

Claim #2: Ford must be lying when she says she fears flying because she does fly on airplanes. Wrong. There are degrees of "aviophobia" (the fear of flying) just as there are different degrees of most phobias. Reportedly, about 20% of all people who suffer from aviophobia are stressed so much by flying that they are unable to do so. The other 80% manage to deal with it in various ways (e.g., sedatives, short plane hops, meditation, repeated exposure to flying, etc.).


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 2:28 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

My friend Tom is back doing what he does so well. And as someone noted, we are all happy that he is doing well. Tom is a great and entertaining writer who is just wrong on so many things. This latest blog is "exhibit A" regarding why Trump won the election and why Democrats will continue to lose. Democrats do not understand why they lost.

Rather than enter into this particular debate, and at the risk of eating humble pie, I will go to the bottom line and make some related predictions:

1. Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the Senate. At least two Democrats will vote to confirm him. At least one vote will be from a female Democrat.
2. Republicans will pick up seats in the Senate on November 6th.
3. Republicans will hold the House of Representatives but with a smaller majority.
4. Nancy Pelosi will be replaced as the leading Democrat in the House. And then she will "retire".
5. Trump will successfully appoint at least one more person to the Supreme Court.
6. The Kavanaugh "standard" will be used against many sitting senators and representatives and that the source of much of this will be through leaks regarding the congressional slush fund that has paid people to be quiet for a long time. One of those could be a local congressman.
7. Bill Clinton's popularity will tank and never recover.
8. After the election, Mrs. Clinton will become persona non grata among Democrats. Which makes me sad.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 4:11 pm

dougie...where did you find you super-special crystal ball?

Are you a psychic to the STARS? waaaaaaay cool...

As for the birdland s-NOT and duh miller, have you considered doing legal writing for the SCOTUS?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 6:26 pm

Hundreds of law professors have come out against Kavanaugh in a letter to the Senate. NOTE: Their opposition against Kavanaugh is NOT directly related to the sexual assault accusation by Ford against Kavanaugh, so don't get started on that. Their opposition against Kavanaugh is due to the fact that Kavanaugh did not comport himself properly in the hearings and "displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court":

- - - - -

"Hundreds of law professors have signed onto a letter urging the Senate to reject Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The letter was shared in a New York Times op-ed and signed by more than 650 law professors. The letter will be sent to the Senate on Thursday."

"The letter says that in his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Kavanaugh "displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court, and certainly for election to the highest court of the land." The letter also says Kavanaugh gave "intemperate, inflammatory" responses and was "discourteous" to senators."
SFGATE: Web Link
- - - -


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 8:41 pm

Doug, literally all of my law school professors were outspoken liberal Democrats, so it is not surprising that they do not like Judge Kavanaugh. Did the law school professors think it was "intemperate, discourteous" for the Democratic Senators to ask him about farting in high school?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 3, 2018 at 10:41 pm

@American : “Did the law school professors think it was "intemperate, discourteous" for the Democratic Senators to ask him about farting in high school?"

See? There you go further destroying your own credibility by playing dumb and obtuse. If you've been reading the news on this story - and I'm sure that you have - you know very well that the term in Kavanaugh's yearbook that the Senator was asking about and that Kavanaugh claimed to mean “farting" was pointed out by many people, including many of his former Georgetown Prep classmates, to have a much different meaning. Don't know why you want to continue to play dumb and obtuse here because you're not fooling anyone. It would be much better if you faced and discussed the facts honestly and straightforwardly.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 7:42 am

More bad news for Kavanaugh. Do Republicans really think that it's wise to confirm him? At what point does the cost of confirming Kavanaugh become too high for Republicans in terms of the resulting fallout?

“A group representing 100,000 congregations and 45 million churchgoers across an array of Christian denominations in the U.S. has called for the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be withdrawn."

“The National Council of Churches statement said, “Judge Kavanaugh exhibited extreme partisan bias and disrespect towards certain members of the committee and thereby demonstrated that he possesses neither the temperament nor the character essential for a member of the highest court in our nation." The statement also alleged misstatements and “outright falsehoods" in his testimony."
Fortune: Web Link
- - -


 +  Like this comment
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 8:14 am

Doug from Birdland: First, you post about a bunch of professors who are critical about Judge Kavanaugh, and then about the notorious World Council of Churches also being critical of Judge Kavanaugh. You then attempt to attack my posts saying I am not credible for listing only one side of the facts.

Doug, applying your standard, you are not credible. First, as I mentioned, literally all of my law school professors were outspoken liberal Democrats. My own experience is in line with stats from other universities, as it was widely reported that 96% of the Harvard professors were registered Democrats. Most of the ABA accredited law schools are full of Harvard grads. So you posting that law school professors were critical of Judge Kavanaugh is meaningless and shows a lack of credibility on your part.

As to the notorious World Council of Churches, they believe in Ecumanism, or an effort to make all churches one faith. The Catholic Church, at it's core, believes in only one faith, The Catholic Faith, and this is why only Catholics, and not Methodists, Baptist, Lutherans, or other Christian faiths can receive communion at Catholic Mass, while any Christian faith members can receive communion at Methodist or other Christian churches. Judge Kavanaugh is a proud practicing Catholic, who was an altar boy, went to Catholic schools, goes to Catholic mass every week, and volunteers at Catholic charities and coaches basketball in the Catholic Youth Organization. Hence, it is no more surprising that the World Council of Churches would be against him, as a devout Catholic, than the law school professors would be against him, as a conservative Republican.

Doug, from Birdland, time for you to fly the coop.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 8:20 am

Am: 1 - thanks - healthy as a horse. Sorry about the A's - they did not show their best last evening. That's baseball - terrific season.
2 - to say that a process serially tainted by secrecy from the outset had not yet uncovered concerns is like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer's dietary preferences weren't always at-issue. My blog indicates that what we now know is disqualifying - the unconscious privilege, the bizarre position on Executive immunity, the disrespect, the blatant partisan threats of retribution, the lies and other fudges. He's bad news as we Now know, and as 1000 law profs and the Council of Churches know, too.
3 - per the NYT, Kav is much more conservative generally than any serious alternative, including Barrett.
4 - as someone who was scurrilously accused of The Worst Thing in the context of a divorce proceeding, I proved the negative of that awful absurdity via many, many character references. Got joint custody immediately and both girls came to live with me full-time as soon as they were able. THAT's how it's done - not that it's anybody's business, but it's Life, sometimes /often it's not Fair, and I know whereof I speak.
5 - Kavanaugh threw a tantrum, instead. Verry injudicious and unjudicial conduct. Bad biased news, and something for which he'd have to recuse himself any time any faintly liberal group had a matter before the Court. Otherwise, the Court's credibility is in serious Q - the nation cannot afford that.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 8:26 am

My friend Doug Miller: you claim two things I am interested in your actually developing, instead of jumping right into your murky ball prognostications: apparently you disagree with all those wrong things in the blog, but you don't say why, and it shows why Dems lose elections, but you don't say why.

Enlighten me/us, please.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 9:13 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

My friend Tom:

There is nothing murky about my predictions. They are clear and concise. If there is something in them that you do not understand, please let me know. But I still stand by them, every one of them.

And compared to all the personal opinions, points and counterpoints, expressed above, the issues involved in my predictions are the only thing that really matter to each and every one of us.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 9:21 am

@American: "As to the notorious World Council of Churches...."

You're confused (and not for the first time). I posted a story about a statement from the (US) "National Council of Churches", not to be confused with the "notorious" World Council of Churches.

As for your other point, law professors aren't credible because nearly all of them are "outspoken liberal Democrats"? You're a law school graduate, and that's an example of the caliber of logical thinking that you practice? You've gotta be kidding me.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 9:31 am

@Doug Miller :"There is nothing murky about my predictions. They are clear and concise."

Maybe, but they are not really "predictions". They are really expressions of your hopes and wishes. And, no, you're not the first person on an internet forum who has tried to pass off a list of their personal hopes and wishes as being "predictions".


 +  Like this comment
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 9:35 am

Tom,

(1) Glad you are healthy and back in the saddle. It was an amazing season, first time in MLB history the team with the lowest payroll to start the season made the post season. The Yanks had 11 players making at least $10 million a year, we had one(Krush, HR leader). I confess I used "non-judicial" words during the game yesterday. Still a fantastic season, and Melvin should be shoe in win Manager of Year.

(2) Interesting how different groups frame the process, i.e. was it simply a "job interview" as Dems claim, or was Judge Kavanaugh essentially facing a hostile criminal prosecution where he was entitled to be innocent until proven guilty? Years ago I was in charge of interviewing third year law students for our firm and if I had asked any of them questions remotely related to what the Democrats asked Kavanaugh we would have been sued. The hearings surely did not resemble anything close to a job interview.

(2A) I think the "privilege" label is unfair to Kavanaugh. It was reported his mom was the primary bread winner in the family and she was a local Judge. Judges, back then, made considerably less, than most practicing attorneys. His family valued education, and only had one child, and were Catholics, so he went to Georgetown Prep, an all male Catholic High school. Yes, there were many wealthy kids at the school, but also scholarship students, and middle class kids, like presumably Kavanaugh. It sounds a lot like our local De La Salle High, where the boys go there, and the girls to Carondelet. To suggest all the kids there are privileged rich kids is false. He worked hard in high school, cut neighbors lawns for money, volunteered at soup kitchens, played sports, and graduated top of his class. To suggest he was like Ted Kennedy, a rich privileged kid who had tutors and poor grades and was kicked out of his ivy league school for cheating, is false. In fact, if anyone in this circus was "privileged" it was Dr.Ford, as she reported she spent the entire summer simply hanging out at the country club pool, and it was reported her dad was in banking and was president of Burning Tree Golf Club, a waspy all male golf club.

(3) I have not read the NYT report comparing Kavanaugh to Barrett, but from what I read Trump actually favored Barrett for being more conservative than Kavanaugh on most issues, including abortion, and it bothered Trump how close Kavanaugh was to George W, but at the time there were concerns she would not be confirmed for being so conservative. However, with the clear anti-male bashing going on, now Trump needs a female appointee.

(4) I am so sorry to hear about the horrible false allegations made about you by your ex. I can not even imagine how anyone could go through such an ordeal. I am sure in the heat of the moment you would have been angry, defensive, and aggressive toward cross-examination on these false allegations, just like Judge Kavanaugh was during the second hearing. Yes, in the ideal world, he acts like Mr.Spock and shows no emotion and simply answers questions, no matter how absurd and insulting. But Judge Kavanaugh is not a robot, he is human, and humans have emotions when confronted with falsehoods.

(5) As to recusing himself, have you heard what Justice Ruth Ginsberg has said publicly about President Trump??? So much for judicial temperament and impartiality and avoiding conflicts and bias. Do you think she is going to recuse herself from ruling on any issues that come before the US Supreme Court involving the Trump administration? Once again, just because you were a black robe does not mean you no longer have feelings, opinions, emotions.

If there is one issue(maybe) we can agree on is god help anyone nominated in the future for the US Supreme Court, as we now have the Kavanaugh standard of questioning, where anything and everything goes as alleged fair questions. I think a lot of very good candidates will refuse consideration of the appointment as not wanting to expose their family, loved ones, to this type of circus smear and destroy campaign.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 9:48 am

"(2) Interesting how different groups frame the process, i.e. was it simply a "job interview" as Dems claim, or was Judge Kavanaugh essentially facing a hostile criminal prosecution where he was entitled to be innocent until proven guilty? Years ago I was in charge of interviewing third year law students for our firm and if I had asked any of them questions remotely related to what the Democrats asked Kavanaugh we would have been sued. The hearings surely did not resemble anything close to a job interview."

Oh, please! It's not the same as your interviewing third year law students! There was a public allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh, and due diligence in the hiring process demands that questions probing that issue be asked. There were no such serious public allegations against any of your interviewed law students, were there? If there had been, then you would have been remiss in your duties if you had not questioned the interviewee about it, as uncomfortable as it may have been for both you and the interviewee.

The sloppiness of your logic is amazing. You claim to be a lawyer? Where in the heck do you get your law degree?


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 9:48 am

Cushing, the former lawyer, the one who taught and/or teaches law at Golden Gate Law School, made the following remark about Kavanaugh:

"His petulant, arrogant attacks on the process and the Senators questioning him..."

And who were the Senators questioning him, huh? You mean people like Blumenthal?

Blumenthal said he served in Vietnam, when in fact his military service was confined to the United States.

You mean people like Senator Feinstein? The one who knew Kavanaugh was being investigated by the FBI at the time, but did not share with them the information given to her from Crazy Ford. Withholding evidence is a no, no.

You mean people like Senator Corey Booker? Uh, I mean Spartacas - the one who admitted to molesting a woman? The guy who, in a show of political theatrics, claimed that he was breaking Senate rules by releasing "confidential" Kavanaugh emails.

Not only did the move completely backfire as the documents showed that Kavanaugh opposed racial profiling and racial bias, officials revealed that they had cleared the emails for Booker to release at his request and that they gave him the green light to release them.

Booker's actions were so bad that MSNBC and CNN both slammed Booker multiple times.

Yup, proven liars one and all. Yet, never a word about Blazy Crazy Ford though, huh?

One last thought... Hey Cushing, do you have real world experience? Have you ever represented someone in a court of law?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 10:13 am

Doug Miller: my friend, I did not say your predictions were murky. I said your crystal ball was murky. And your response was not an answer.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 10:23 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Doug in Birdland:

Nope. Four of my eight predictions are not things I hope for. Just the opposite. I hope that Nancy Pelosi will stick around as minority leader for the next congress. I hope that Bill and Hillary Clinton will continue to be the face of Democrats. And I hope that the approval of Kavanaugh will end the tactics of attempting to destroy people and their families. But I don't believe any of those things will happen.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 10:30 am

Doug Miller is a registered user.

Tom:

"Murky ball prognostications" versus "murky predictions"? I think that is a distinction without a difference.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 12:18 pm

@American: "....Roe vs. Wade is safe with Judge Kavanaugh. With Judge Amy Coney Barrett?"

Conservatives are eager to appoint a judge who overturns Roe versus Wade? It that the threat? Yes, please, please, please have Trump and Republicans nominate and confirm a judge who overturns Roe versus Wade. Seriously, please do it. Please! :

- - -
"NBC/WSJ poll: Support for Roe v. Wade hits new high"

"A majority of Republicans " 52 percent " say the Supreme Court decision should not be overturned."

"A new poll from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal finds that 71 percent of American voters believe that the decision, which established a woman's legal right to an abortion, should not be overturned. Just 23 percent say the ruling should be reversed. That's the highest level of support for the decision " and the lowest share of voters who want Roe v. Wade overturned " in the poll's history dating back to 2005. "

"Voters also say that they are more likely to vote for a political candidate who supports abortion rights rather than for one who opposes them. ...."

MSNBC: Web Link
- - -


 +  Like this comment
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 12:43 pm

Tom, final thought from me(I promise):

It is concerning to see female protesters, celebrities, and others proclaim that they were sexually assaulted, so they believe Dr.Ford and stand with her.

Applying that concept, would it be any different for these same female protesters, celebrities, and others to proclaim that they were sexually assaulted, so they believe your ex wife and stand with her claims against you?

As a nation, have we become so obsessed with being politically correct that we stop applying logic and critical thinking analysis? If something as serious as sexual assault is alleged, doesn't every person accused of such a horrendous thing deserve, at least, that we look at the evidence before we grab our pitchforks and automatically assume guilt?

People seem to forget the Duke lacrosse rape case, where multiple innocent college boys were falsely accused of sexual assault, and nobody including the local DA who was up for election, bothered to look first at the evidence, before proclaiming that "privileged" athletes had sexually assaulted a woman. Ultimately, the evidence leaked out, and it was clear the boys were innocent of the false charges, and the politically correct D.A. was ultimately disbarred for his illegal actions.

This Judge Kavanaugh matter has many similarities to the Duke lacrosse case, and in fact the Kavanaugh matter is worse as it was over 35 years after the alleged event before anyone mentioned it allegedly occurring, where the woman in the Duke case went to the police shortly thereafter. There is not one crumb of evidence to corroborate the allegation by Dr.Ford against Judge Kavanaugh, and all of the alleged witnesses offered by Dr.Ford, including her good friend, had to admit they have no idea what she is talking about, and never witnessed or even heard about this alleged incident occurring.

If you are a sexual assault victim, that is horrible, and I have complete empathy for you. But please, do not make the leap that because it happened to you it must have happened to Dr.Ford. Every case is different, and each case should be judged solely on the evidence in that particular case.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 1:09 pm

DM - You're deflecting, just like a good GOPer. Very real difference: murky crystal ball can give clear, concise, and lousy predictions. Like yours. Including the positions you've stated but never explained.

MX: if you can't communicate without a sneer, your posts won't last long. All those points were attacks on people, including me, rather than the content of the arguments. And I owe you no answer, but I am not a former lawyer and I have represented clients on many, many claims, including $multi-million stakes. So buzz-off with the ivory tower crap.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 1:38 pm

I'm grateful that many citizens believe Dr. Ford.

American citizens have a right to present their concerns to whomever they wish.

Dr. Ford has made her concerns public and I believe her.

There are thousands upon thousands of male victims of sexual abuse by clergy, males and females,of many faiths. I work as a Volunteer for BishopAccountability/BA,that tracks incidents of rape by Catholic priests and nuns. The photos that I locate of perpetrators are posted on the BA website.

The memories of rape/sexual violence last a lifetime. There's no mercy for Survivor's. The suffering is enormous and for the most part, the RCC has shown very little to no mercy or concern as sexual violence against innocents continues.

Whatever the outcome for Judge Kavanaugh, the harm that he has done to the United States of America, is his contribution to American history.






















 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a PleasantonWeekly.com blogger,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 1:45 pm

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

MX: you are a slow learner.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Stewart G, a resident of Walnut Creek,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 3:21 pm

Tom, instead of bouncing a poster you don't agree with, why not engage him in debate? I could be wrong, but I think Malcolm was attempting to lay a little foundation for a good legal argument.

Malcolm pointed out that the three senators, in his words, are liars. That's what Malcolm believes, just like you believe in Dr. Ford's testimony.

Your temperament is becoming suspect in the sense that those you don't agree with are quickly removed from your blog. I hate to say it, because I don't always agree with Malcolm, but he is making his point by your actions.

Just saying.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a PleasantonWeekly.com blogger,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 3:48 pm

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

Stewart: Thanks for your comment.

If I routinely bounced comments that don't agree with me, this section would be mostly empty - it's not, obviously. MX was warned. I do not have time or inclination to abide insulting tones and insinuations. This is especially true when I've already indulged an inappropriate personal inquiry, but he charges right ahead apparently without reading it.
It's 'attack the messenger stuff,' it's tiresome, and it contributes very little.

Further, he knows better from past experience. This ain't some espn chat room.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 3:55 pm

@Stewart G.

Maybe if Malcolm Hex shows up again you can help him better craft and articulate his arguments because I, for one, didn't understand a lot of what he was trying to say. In particular, I didn't get his Feinstein was "withholding evidence" accusation. Given how his post above is just filled with personal accusations with little or no support, I assumed that his Feinstein "withholding evidence" accusation was just another baseless, off-the-wall accusation, too.

Coming here and throwing out a lot of unsupported accusations may make for a good catharsis, but if Malcom was thinking that he was going to win anyone over to his point of view with his tone and style of writing then it was an utter fail.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 5:43 pm

Hey Doug, one question: what proof do you have that dr. Ford was telling the truth?






 +  Like this comment
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 6:53 pm

@Malcolm Hex

“Proof?" You mean evidence? Well, Ms. Christine Ford's sworn testimony is in itself evidence against Kavanaugh. Now if you're asking whether I think that proof “beyond a reasonable doubt" has been established and whether the accusation against Kavanaugh is so solid that he could be convicted in a criminal jury trial, I would say “no". I certainly wouldn't vote for a conviction if I were on a jury and Ms. Christine Ford's testimony was all the evidence against him.

OK, so now that I've answered your question, why don you answer mine?: if you were a hiring manager and you had a job candidate who was publicly accused of sexual assault or some other serious crime, at what point would you disqualify the condidate from further consideration? Would multiple allegations of a similar nature by different people against the candidate be enough to make you say to yourself “Naah, I think that I'm going to take a pass on this guy."? Or would you insist on nothing less than him being convicted in a court of law before you would throw his application out? Precisely where would you draw the line in saying that the person is disqualified from further consideration for a job?


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 7:34 pm

I wonder if any of you libs could explain why the Senate Democrats wanted the report to be withheld from the public?

What could possibly be in the report that they don't want us to know, hmmm?

Would any lib care to take this on?


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Oct 4, 2018 at 11:33 pm

I wonder if any of you libs can explain why Fords lawyers will not respond to Sen. Grassely' request to hand over therapy notes to the committee? Therapy notes that Ford shared with the Washington Post.

He's asked three times.

Why won't they respond?


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 12:00 am

@Resident

Maybe because they don't trust a politician with an agenda like Grassley to be responsible and discreet in the handling of personal therapy notes? Would you willingly hand over your personal therapy notes to a Democratic politician with an agenda?
Point proved.

Ford and her lawyers did say though that they were willing to turn over the therapy notes to the FBI during an interview with them. Unfortunately, she was never contacted by the FBI in the course of their Kavanaugh investigation. Why?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 12:19 am

Hi Doug. Thank you for the opening I eagerly waited for.

You said: "Well, Ms. Christine Ford's sworn testimony is in itself evidence against Kavanaugh."

Doug, what Ford said is called an ACCUSATION. An ACCUSATION is NOT evidence unless it can be supported by real evidence (photos/audio recordings, etc.,) or the testimony of other people. In court, Ford would be considered a plaintiff.

Now, you might want to backtrack a bit on the second part if your post.

You said: "Precisely where would you draw the line in saying that the person is disqualified from further consideration for a job?"

Well Doug, that is what background checks are for. Did you not pay attention to to what the FBI recently wrapped up?

Where or where was the evidence? Doug? Do you not believe the FBI, Doug?







 +   4 people like this
Posted by Raucus Caucus Is Back! :-), a resident of Pleasanton Valley,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 7:54 am

Great to see this Blog back in action - the entertainment it provides is priceless!

Goes perfectly with my morning coffee!

Thanks Tom for coming back.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 8:12 am

@Malcolm Hex :"Doug, what Ford said is called an ACCUSATION. An ACCUSATION is NOT evidence unless it can be supported by real evidence (photos/audio recordings, etc.,) ...."

Nope. Already went over this multiple times with DKHSK and “American". Sworn testimony is evidence. You can call it an “accusation", too, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's recognized as admissible evidence in a court of law or that it's recognized as evidence in a hearing.

As for my question to you, seriously? It wasn't a trick question. It wasn't a complicated question. It was a very simple, direct question and you couldn't provide a direct answer but instead go rambling off about “background checks"? If I had asked a 5th grader that question then he or she would have understood the question and would have been able to provide a coherent answer without rambling off onto a different topic as you did.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 10:10 am

Doug, I'm sorry that you are unable to understand concepts of basic American law.

So, let me put this another way. If you accuse me of something, without evidence to support your claim, what do you have? Nada.

If I went down to the local PD today and said you threw a rock at me. Would that be enough evidence for the police to take action, Doug?

Nope. They would want a name, description, location where the alleged assault took place, date, time, and names of witnesses if there were any. Thats a pretty simple concept of American jurisprudence.

Not hard to grasp.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Barabara Murphy, a resident of Walnut Creek,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 10:25 am

Well said Malcolm. And I applaud you for not responding to the sarcastic nature of Doug's ramblings.

Based on what Doug said, the police could then lock up anyone they wanted too from a single accusation.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 10:53 am

@Malcolm Hex :"Doug, I'm sorry that you are unable to understand concepts of basic American law. So, let me put this another way. If you accuse me of something, without evidence to support your claim, what do you have? Nada"

Malcolm, you're confused. We weren't discussing whether an accusation in the form of a sworn testimony is enough to convict someone of a crime or cause the police to knock down your door. We were simply discussing whether sworn testimony is evidence or not. The answer is it is. Period. Simple. Not complicated.

And thanks for your attempts to help me to understand “basic American law". I'm a professional physicist myself with a Ph.D. in physics from one of those evil “liberal" Ivy League universities out east so I didn't study any law in school. However, I am pretty good at logic which comes in handy for exposing posters who don't know what they're talking about and making them look like fools.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 12:10 pm

Calm down, Sir. I'm just glad that you finally understand the difference now between an accusation and sworn testimony. It took awhile, but that Ph.D you allege to have certainly appeared to help.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 1:38 pm

No more argument from me, just a plea that no matter where you stand on this issue, please google and watch Senator Susan Collins speech that she gave a few minutes ago, explaining her vote on this confirmation. Everyone, from Senators, to protesters, to local attorneys, bloggers, and Ph.D's, would benefit from reviewing her careful and thought provoking analysis and consideration of the same.




 +   3 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 1:44 pm

American, I could not agree more. Collin's speech was one of the best I ever heard - the best of any Senator for sure. Simply outstanding.

I hope Cushing and Ph.D take time to listen to it.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Doug, a resident of Birdland,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 2:28 pm

I didn't see Collins' speech but did read a news story on it which summarized her points. I respect Collins and her views on the Kavanaugh case, although I don't agree with them. Kavanaugh is always going to be tainted by this controversy surrounding his nomination. The years are not going to erase the memory of this controversy any more than they have erased the memory of the controversy surrounding Clarence Thomas. Even today Clarence Thomas still has a bit of a dark cloud over his reputation, and now Kavanaugh will have one, too. IMHO, it would have been better to have re-started the nomination process with a fresh, new candidate rather than steamrolling a candidate who - by his own admission - didn't quite display the most professional behavior during his nomination process.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 2:54 pm

Doug apparently believes that a person accused of an alleged crime should be passed over for a job based solely on an accusation that can't be supported by fact.

I believe Doug's way of thinking is still practiced in countries that don't believe in due process.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 7:11 pm

With the reported vote necessary, will be enough to put Kavanaugh on the bench, we can all expect the democratic violent revenge all across this country. Everyone be careful to not be a victim of democratic violence.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 11:08 pm

Very true Michael. They can't help themselves from losing their minds.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Resident, a resident of Laguna Oaks,
on Oct 5, 2018 at 11:35 pm

Obama: “Elections have consequences"

They sure do, don't they?

Remember when the Dems cheered when Harry Reid changed the senate rules to simple majority? They were told they'd regret it.

We'll rule the Supreme Court for decades when RBG passes.




 +   3 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 6, 2018 at 10:16 am

Back to Cushing's comments...

He sayeth: "Do I think he (Kavanaugh) did what he's been credibly accused-of " yeah, I do."

You want a debate Mr. Cushing. Here is the first question: How is Ford's testimony cedible?



 +   6 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Oct 6, 2018 at 11:51 am

Seems fair to give you boys the benefit of another 24 hours gloating time - however graceless (but within reason MX and Michael). After all, everything just might change in a month, which is why I waste very little time answering the Trumpista tribe - impervious as it is.

My time is much better spent registering and GOTVing. The democratic response, Michael, will be at the polls. If it succeeds in flipping at least one House, then I will have hope. If not, I will know that Ben Franklin's skepticism was justified.

[We've given you] A republic - if you can keep it."


 +   3 people like this
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Oct 6, 2018 at 2:36 pm

MichaelB is a registered user.

"IMHO, it would have been better to have re-started the nomination process with a fresh, new candidate rather than steamrolling a candidate who - by his own admission - didn't quite display the most professional behavior during his nomination process."

@Doug

It would not have made any difference.

Trump campaigned on nominating judges that would interpret the Constitution "as is". Any nominee he put forward,regardless of their credentials, would have been smeared as a "threat" and deemed "unqualified". So called progressives want use the court system to reinterpret (make up) the Constitution to suit their outcomes to give the nation a "social justice" makeover.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Oct 6, 2018 at 2:55 pm

MichaelB is a registered user.

"With the reported vote necessary, will be enough to put Kavanaugh on the bench, we can all expect the democratic violent revenge all across this country. Everyone be careful to not be a victim of democratic violence."

@Michael Austin

Any attempts to incite violence will send a message to independent/moderate/swing voters that you do not want these people in charge of anything. Let the Democrats keep digging a hole - and losing more elections.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Oct 6, 2018 at 6:06 pm

I did not vote for Trump.

I simply appreciate the conservative government in Washington following Trumps' election as president of the United States.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Malcolm Hex, a resident of San Ramon,
on Oct 6, 2018 at 6:42 pm

I wasn't going to gloat until I read that Pelosi is going to file a FOIA request to dig up dirt on Kavanaugh. Yeah, good luck on with that.

There is alao a petition out there stating claims as grounds for impeachment, among other grievances, that Kavanaugh lied under oath about not having "legacy" connections to Yale Law School because his grandfather attended Yale as an undergraduate.

However, Yale Law School admissions officials have said that Kavanaugh would have received no boost from his grandfather's attendance at the university as an undergraduate.

All this makes me even happier about Kavanaugh's confirmation. Watching the Dems Lise their minds is so much fun.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a PleasantonWeekly.com blogger,
on Oct 7, 2018 at 11:28 am

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

That's okay - you guys really need to gloat. You live in fair California, where your tribe is an endangered species, and our polity provides you so few opportunities.

Over/out.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.