(09-28-2018 11:00 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  My opinion:

1) Definitely believe CBF was sexually assaulted in the manner she stated.
2) Very concerning as to why no one else can:
a) corroborate that the party/gathering happened as she stated
b) no one remembers taking CBF to this house, her leaving this house, or picking her up to take her from this house
If the gathering was actually that small, and she stated that she had to pass by the gathering of people on her way out of the house, how come no one noticed this immediately or later on? There is no recollection that anyone has of saying something to her in the ensuing days such as "Hey, Christine, where did you go off to last night?"

Let's just say the house where the party/gathering was at was very close to her house and she could have walked home. As she stated, this was more of a "pre-party/pre-gathering" after a day of being at the pool. So presumably she did not arrive home late in the evening. Why did her parents not ask her where she had been or why she seemed shaken up? I can understand CBF not remembering some of this stuff, but the fact she can't get anyone to back her up is concerning.

3) Kavanaugh has a major issue with his temperament - he acted like a petulant child for parts of the hearing. Personally, in the context of his Supreme Court nomination, I don't think it matters whether or not he sexually assaulted CBF, because the man could not keep from going completely unhinged in a Senate hearing, which I think makes him a poor choice for a SC justice. I get raging in private, but if you're going to be a judge on the Supreme Court, you better learn how to give off a demeanor of being calm when you're in a visible setting.
4) Kavanaugh's defense was lackluster. The calendars are useless, and no one gives two ***** about how many women you're friends with (same with not caring about CBF's letters of support). It is not out of the realm of possibility to act one way towards certain people and another way towards others.
5) Some of these senators have been on this panel / in the Senate for way too long. Looking at you, Grassley, Feinstein, Hatch and Leahy.
6) The Dems were bigger ******** than the Republicans.

I predict he'll be confirmed.

Agree with much of your post, but will push back against the bolded. A first minor quibble is that an appellate judge (which is what a SCOTUS justice is of course) doesn't (IMO) necessarily have to be the paragon of unflappability and dispassion that we stereotypically expect trial judges to be. Impartial, yes, but otherwise appellate judges generally don't deal with ordinary laypeople directly, they deal with arguments, and extremely smart and capable lawyers making those arguments, and the testing of both through sharp questioning and scrutiny. Combativeness (within reason) can be an asset in that context.

The major quibble is with holding Kavanaugh to a standard of judicial temperament in a nonjudicial context. It's a false equivalency. Kavanaugh was a defendant in a trial yesterday, not a judge presiding over proceedings. Why would how he acts when he and his family have been outright attacked and personally brutalized have anything to do with judicial demeanor? Why should it be taken as having any bearing on how he would conduct himself on the job? If he'd been caught flying off the handle, whether in public or private, about something minor or trivial, *that* I could see as legitimately impacting an assessment of his suitability. But some things are OK to get angry about, even for people whose day jobs otherwise generally call for maintaining an even keel.

And let's face it, had Kavanaugh gone the other direction and showed what some think is model judicial temperament, that simply would have been twisted right back around on him in a similar manner. It would be offered up as proof that he really is Patrick Bateman in American Psycho.

As far as his defense being lackluster, that seems to be holding him to an unfair standard as well. No, he doesn't have receipts to prove he was out of the country at the time. What he does have is more evidence than most 50-somethings would have about their daily summer whereabouts at age 17 and, let's not forget, sworn statements in his favor from 100% of the witnesses named by his accuser. So really, *all* of yesterday's testimony was lackluster, from an evidentiary standpoint, next to that.

As far as predictions go, I too think he will be confirmed, if for no other reason than that the Left is already blathering about their Plan B (pun definitely intended, since this spectacle is and always has been mainly about abortion), which is to impeach him once they're back in power.