Where to watch Christine Ford’s testimony and Brett Kavanaugh’s response

Today’s the big day, as Christine Ford will testify against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. You can watch her testimony and Kavanaugh’s response live at several places; I’ll put up two and you can click on the screenshots. The hearing starts at 10 a.m. EST, and I’ll be watching.

If you wish, post your comments after you’ve heard the testimony or even during the hearing.

The Senate Judiciary Committee stream:

The C-SPAN program begins at 9:45 a.m. on their homepage (click below):

Go here to find other streams.


  1. eric
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Watch to see if Jeff Flake says anything and how he reacts; he’s retiring (thus no reelection votes to try and protect), and he’s been known to speak out against Trump in the past. Of the four senate GOPers that would be most likely to vote no on confirmation, he’s the only one on the Judiciary committee, so he’s probably the only questioner who might actually change his vote. The other 20 members of the committe are basically locked-in votes.

    (Corker, Collins, and Murkowski are the other GOPers who would be most likely to vote no; Corker because like Flake he’s retiring and has opposed Trump, Collins and Murkowski because they claim to be pro-choice and are GOP senators up for reelection in blue states. I frankly think their public statements after the hearing will be more important than most of what goes on in the hearing).

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:36 am | Permalink

      Collins isn’t up for reelection until 2020, and Murkowski until 2022. Maine is purple, but Alaska’s pretty red.

      • eric
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:44 am | Permalink

        Thanks for the correction! It must just be their pro-choice stance then that’s got them identified as potential flip votes.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:00 am | Permalink

          Yeah, I’m hopeful Collins and Murkowski (and maybe even Flake) won’t let Grassley and McConnell et al. ram this nomination through like they’re trying to.

          • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:12 am | Permalink


          • eric
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

            Their last public statements before today weren’t encouraging. It appeared all four were basically telegraphing ‘we’re going to vote yes unless you give us a compelling reason to change our minds.’

  2. DrBrydon
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:23 am | Permalink

    I know I shouldn’t comment on this because my views are decidely in the minority here, but this whole thing is in no way fair to Kavanaugh or Ford. The Senate, let alone one of its committees, is not a court, and cannot determine whether a crime was committed, let alone whether Kavanaugh is guilty. There is no due process here. Ford is not getting her day in court. I have no reason to doubt or believe her accusation, and it really doesn’t matter whether I do. This is a political circus. I hope Kavanaugh is confirmed, and I hope he says “screw you”, and walks away.

    • jorgensen28ryan
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Do you think it is not important to figure these accusations out before giving him a lifetime appointment?

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Well, the statute of limitations is expired here, so no day in court is possible. I see this as a weighing of credibility that speaks to Kavanaugh’s character and probity.

      Given that no court trial is possible, how would you have this dispute adjudicated?

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:16 am | Permalink

        To start, I would have had a circumspect investigation starting months ago. Feinstein made this impossible , and she did not question him in private sessions. This circus was the result of her malfeasance.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:42 am | Permalink

      What procedure do you suggest be followed where disqualifying allegations first arise during the course of the confirmation process?

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:19 am | Permalink

        These allegations arose months ago and could have been professionally and discreetly investigated. Feinstein made sure that did not happen. There was never any need for an 11th hour public display as the *first step* in investigating these charges.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:27 am | Permalink

          There was no need for this to be the “11th hour” except the Republicans’ desire to ram the confirmation through ahead of the midterm elections.

          And your response does not answer my question at all, regarding an appropriate, alternative method for resolving allegations that first arise after the confirmation process has commenced.

          • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:43 am | Permalink

            Are you counting these allegations? There was plenty of time for a professional investigation. Do you mean ones like the gang rape charges, raised yesterday?

            • Ken Kukec
              Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:02 am | Permalink

              There’s plenty of time for a professional investigation right NOW. The confirmation process can be suspended while that’s accomplished. The deadlines on completing the confirmation have been artificially imposed by Grassley and McConnell for purely political reasons.

              What’s your point on this? That it’s more important to punish Diane Feinstein for allegedly dilatory tactics than to attempt to get as close as possible to the truth?

              • Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:12 am | Permalink

                Her tactics make the truth harder to come by, and subject lots of people to unwanted public scrutiny.

              • Ken Kukec
                Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:14 am | Permalink

                So that’s a solid reason to ram this nomination through, the truth of the allegations be damned?

        • Mark R.
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

          What is it with people bringing up this “11th hour” crap? There IS NO 11th HOUR!!! If you think there is, my only answer is: Garland.

    • eric
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:48 am | Permalink

      This is not supposed to be a criminal trial.

      If it helps you, this is more like a job application and interview. Kavanaugh is interviewing for the job of justice. His potential employers – the USG, represented by the Senate – want to talk about these rumours of sexual harassment in the background. From the ‘job interview’ perspective, they (a) have every right to ask him about it, and (b) every right to pass him over for the job if they don’t like his answers, even if a criminal court wouln’t convict him of a crime on the evidence. It’s not like a job interview is “you get it unless you can be convicted of a crime for the bad stuff you did.” It’s quite the opposite – “you don’t get it if we are at all dissatisfied with your explanation of that bad stuff.”

      • eric
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 9:54 am | Permalink

        As an aside, I also take issue with the GOP claims that non-appointment ‘ruins his life’ or similar sentiments that it punishes him. AFAIK, non-appointment would simply lead to him taking back his place as a D.C. Circuit court judge. That’s a job with a lifetime appointment, which pays $220,000/year, and comes with generous medical and retirement benefits. This is not exactly “ruining his life.” If his nomination fails, he’ll end up going back to a job that is probably better than the job 99% of Americans have.

        • Mikeyc
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:04 am | Permalink

          Maybe but there is also his reputation at stake and – not to start a fight- there is simply no way we’ll get to the truth in this matter; he will always insist he was wronged.

          • eric
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

            Give me a $220,000/year job with full benefits and guaranteed lifetime employment, and you can have my reputation. Seriously. It’s not like any of this guy’s friends or social circle is going to desert him. His kids won’t have trouble getting into college because of it. Perhaps he gets fewer invitations to speak at graduation ceremonies or law schools; okay, fine, not getting an appointment does that to him. Is such reputational damage something the senate should consider when deciding to vote for or against? Personally, I think not.

          • enl
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

            “His reputation is at stake”: I honestly don’t give a damn.

            The question on the table is whether he is qualified (probably, but questions have been raised about some of his cases, though this is likely true for any judge), and is he suitable (not, in my opinion, by several objective measures regardless of the current circus, but moreso due to his evasiveness and attempts at misdirection, which show that he either has a poor understanding of the accusations or is willing to intentionally ignore/twist the issue at hand to meet his own ends).

            His reputation is already toast, to anyone who cares about it outside their own narrow agenda, and was before he was appointed.

            • mikeyc
              Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

              That wasn’t the “question” I was responding to. eric was pondering why Kavanaugh and the GOP was so worried about him not getting appointed as he would still have his old job. As if that’s the only worry for them. I pointed out that Judge Kavanaugh might have other concerns than his salary, like his reputation. And you’re wrong about the last bit too; it is not already toast as it depends entirely upon who ones believes. There is no evidence beyond personal recollection, so it depends entirely on credibility. We’ll see.

        • Posted October 26, 2018 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

          Non-appointment cannot ruin a judge’s life, but being accused in attempted rape could.

      • Mikeyc
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink

        ooh. I like the job interview analogy. Good one.

        Part of me fears though that this is just one of the final acts in the train wreck of a show our democracy has become.

        • eric
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

          “Applying for for a promotion” may be a better analogy, since he’s already a circuit court judge. But the same logic applies: you don’t (or at least, shouldn’t) get a promotion by arguing “nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt that these allegations aren’t true.” It’s your burden of proof to convince your employers that you deserve it, not their burden of proof to show that you don’t.

      • darrelle
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:36 am | Permalink


    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

      This is not about determining court-level-standard of guilt or innocence. It’s about whether a lifetime appointment to one of the nine most powerful judicial positions in the nation should be given, when significant doubts about the nominee’s character linger.

      BK has issued blanket denials to any & all accusations of sexual misconduct. (His b.s. explanation of the “Renate Alumnus” entry is laughable and insulting.) BK has also persistently denied or downplayed his drinking during prep school and college, yet his yearbook entry, his best friend’s memoir, the recollections of his classmates, and even his own earlier public statements, indicate he was a heavy, binge drinker.

      BK also apparently perjured himself before Congress no less than four times regarding other matters.

      This pattern of blithe, serial mendacity portrays an untrustworthy individual with a sense of entitlement who plays by his own set of rules. Conservative judges are a dime-a-dozen; our nation does not need this particular unsavory character on the Supreme Court.

  3. Merilee
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:01 am | Permalink


  4. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    According to the latest PBS/Marist poll, 54% of Republicans, and 48% of evangelicals, think Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if the allegations by Dr. Ford are true. (Only 36% of evangelicals think the allegation, if true, should be disqualifying).

    The poll was taken before the most recent accusers came forward, so doesn’t indicated if they’ve had any impact on that support.

    • darrelle
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:00 am | Permalink

      In the society I wished I lived in these sexual misconduct accusations wouldn’t matter (with respect to Kavanaugh’s confirmation for SCJ) because Kavanaugh would have been given the boot the very first time it became clear that he had lied under oath to the Senate. Come on. Someone nominated to be one of the small number of highest ranking judges in our society, a lifetime position, lying under oath in response to questions from the governing body that is vetting him for that position? This is supposed to be OK? No big deal, they all do it? Yeah, that’s how we’ll make progress.

      And then his gambling debts. And then the mysterious pay-off of his gambling debts. And then his spending so much time with White House Staff during this confirmation process. For a position as a member of a branch of government that is expressly intended and supposed to be separate from and impartial towards that same White House. All plenty good reasons on their own to disqualify him.

      Since none of that got him rejected I hope like hell this sexual misconduct issue does. I’ve got no sympathy for Kavanaugh. I’ve got no fears that this will set a bad precedent (what a joke!), or that it is unfair that the poor man has been accused of sexual misconduct and has to live with that. Too bad. He’s already shown that he is unfit for the job and that he is willing to lie, cheat and steal in pursuit of it. He wants to play the game that way he doesn’t deserve any sympathy for any lumps that come his way.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:07 am | Permalink


        So stipulated, and so say we all. Hearing adjourned! 🙂

        • darrelle
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

          If only it were that easy. If wishes were fishes we’d all cast nets.

      • mikeyc
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:12 am | Permalink

        It was the lie. Maybe that should be the Democrat’s play here – give the Republicans who want to reject Kavanaugh over the sexual assault but are afraid to some cover by making it about the lies instead? I dunno.

        Certainly, if it were up to me he’d be canned for the lie alone. Full stop. But then, if it were up to me, I’d fill the senate chamber with playpen balls. It’s all a circus anyway, might as well have some fun.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:35 am | Permalink

          Hey, that’s “the world’s greatest deliberative body” you talkin’ about there, pardner!

        • darrelle
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

          Sounds good to me.

    • eric
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

      Meanwhile, I’d bet a majority of liberals think Kavanaugh should not be confirmed even if the allegations are false lol. I certainly do.

      I’d much rather Senators reject him because his judicial opinion is that the Bush era torture was legal. And that foreign governments and agents should be allowed to anonymously donate to US political campaigns. And that the President can go up to someone, shoot them, and can’t be prosecuted until after he’s been impeached. And that the state can force a woman to carry a baby to term against her will. These are all horrible legal opinions (IMO). I believe Ms. Lord and the other women. However I think Kavanaugh’s past crimes against them are far less of a reason to deny him the position than his current legal opinion on how the constitution should be interpreted.

  5. Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Listening to Ms. Ford on NOR right now, live.

    After hearing her, I can’t imagine not believing her. But then, the GOP have their brains tuned differently from mine, that’s clear.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:10 am | Permalink

      … on NPR …

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:25 am | Permalink

      You can believe her without believing her memory. She seems sincere to me. But the witnesses she named all contradict her. That is most consistent with a good faith claim based on a false memory. This claim was first articulated during couples counseling. What techniques were used by the counselor? So are prone to distort memory. We need to know that kind of thing. Memory is not a video tape. It changes, and it is often wrong. That is why we need more than to just believe she is telling the truth. We need to trust her memory is right.

      • jorgensen28ryan
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:30 am | Permalink

        Although memory is imperfect, it seems unlikely that 3 different women happen to be mis-remembering stories that implicate Kavanaugh in nefarious actions. The only other options are 1) the accusations are likely true or 2) they are coordinated and deliberately fake.

        • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:45 am | Permalink

          Bad logic. I am talking about Ford. These are the Ford hearings.

          • jorgensen28ryan
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:52 am | Permalink

            I am saying Ford mis-remembering seems less likely when she isn’t the only one making claims of this type about Kavanaugh. I don’t think that is bad logic, it is establishing a pattern that makes Ford mis-remembering seem less likely.

        • Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:49 am | Permalink

          What about the witnesses who deny it happened? One witness, her life long friend, denies ever knowing him or being at a party with him? Is the only option that they are lying? Nonsense. Here are other possibilities: they forgot; Ford got one of the alleged witnesses wrong; two witnesses forgot, one is lying; or simply that Ford’s memory is wrong. These are all possibilities.

          • jorgensen28ryan
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:53 am | Permalink

            See my comment below.

        • eric
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

          Kavanaugh’s printed HS yearbook statement has no ‘false memory’ problem. And in it he brags about two conquests, two events he got so drunk at he can’t remember how they ended, three additional beach parties, and an encounter with the police.

          Even if the guy wasn’t a drunken misogynistic party animal, he certainly wanted to give readers the impression he was. And as the saying goes, when people tell you who they are, believe them.

          • Posted September 27, 2018 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

            c. 2001, he also apologized (via email) to his buddies for getting belligerent after losing a game of dice – even though he had no recollection of it.

      • jorgensen28ryan
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:32 am | Permalink

        I should have said “most likely other options”; some accusers can be mis-remembering, while others completely truthful.

        • mikeyc
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:39 am | Permalink

          Of course is another option to add to the list; they could all of them be lying and doing so without colluding.

          To me that’s the worst thing about this – it’s just people making accusations for and against. There is no evidence to go on other than their say-so. On that our nation’s future rests and it bothers me deeply.

          • eric
            Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

            I think they’re both (Kavanaugh and Lord) sincere. IMO the most likely explanation is that one of them is remembering wrong (wrong person, wrong event, Kavanaugh could have forgotten, etc.) However, I also opine that of “Lord remembered something that didn’t happen”, “Lord remembered the event right but got the attacker wrong,” or “Kavanaugh forgot what he did,” the latter is far more likely than either of the other two.

            This is one of the horrible problems with systemic or ‘background’ cultural misogyny; it’s so taken for granted that sexist acts aren’t really even memorable to the people who do them. They don’t register as morally important because, at the time, the person doesn’t think what they’r doing is abnormal or a big deal.

            • eric
              Posted September 27, 2018 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

              Apologies, that should read Ford.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

        Listen to her testimony and how she describes her memory of the event.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

        1) The ‘witnesses’ (sic) she mentions were fellow party attendees, not witnesses per se of the assault. It is unsurprising they do not recall the incident or the party in question, as they were unaware that any assault had taken place;

        2) Blasey-Ford shared her experience with four people on three separate occasions;

        3) Memories are indeed fallible. But why is all the focus on doubting Blasey-Ford’s memories, while implicitly trusting BK’s? By all indications, BK was a binge drinker of proportions to make him prone to blackouts. Further, if the alleged pattern of sexual abuse is true, then this was but one in a blur of innumerable ‘hijinks’ for BK.

    • darrelle
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:03 am | Permalink

      I think the real issue with most of them is that they do not care whether her claims are true or not. They only care about beating the Democrats and that means getting Kavanaugh confirmed.

      • mikeyc
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:15 am | Permalink

        Roe v Wade is there lurking in the background too. The stakes are very high.

        • darrelle
          Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

          “The stakes are very high.”

          You can say that again!

  6. tomh
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    ” the statute of limitations is expired here”

    Actually, it’s not. There is no statute of limitations in Maryland for attempted rape.

  7. rickflick
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    I find watching Ford’s testimony disturbing. She is obviously terrified and under great stress. She is very convincing and I believe her. I hope the committee does. I think a rejection of Kavanaugh would require 2 republican votes in the full Senate. It’s hard to imagine the GOP can avoid losing 2 votes, but stranger things have happened. I think I’d rather see Kavanaugh back out before the vote.

    • Ken Phelps
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      Watching Kavanaugh right now. He is *not* a cool customer.

  8. Ken Kukec
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    I think Chuck Grassley made a huge tactical error in limiting their designated prosecutor to five-minute increments, alternating with questioning by Democratic senators. The designated questioner cannot develop any pace or rhythm or momentum.

    Plus, the lawyer, Arizona assistant DA Rachel Mitchell — who has spent her entire career prosecuting sex offenders, not cross-examining their victims — doesn’t really seem to have her heart in attacking the witness’s credibility.

    Republicans can’t be happy so far.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 11:13 am | Permalink

      Amy C Barrett

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

        Barrett could be the replacement nominee if Kavanaugh doesn’t hack it. That will be Trump’s instinct. But she’s way too controversial to get confirmed before the midterms — hell, maybe even too controversial to get through before the lame-duck session is over.

        McConnell will tell Trump to go with someone less controversial. But, then, Mitch told Trump to pick someone other than Kavanaugh, too, and Trump didn’t listen to him then, either.

        • Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

          Trump is a puppet of the Federalist Society.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      I seriously doubt we’ll be seeing Ms. Mitchell do the questioning of Kavanaugh this afternoon as she was originally scheduled to do. I’d look for the GOP senators to take over those duties themselves.

      One thing for sure: The Donald can’t be happy watching Mitchell’s performance. Trump, being Trump, is probably wondering why they didn’t hire a woman who was at least a “7.” 🙂

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

        And that they didn’t hire a woman who is a dickhead like him!

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

      Agreed Ken. She doesn’t seem like a killer or she is being really careful. And the 5 minute limit allows a break for Ford. I’m very glad it’s going this way; but it does seem like a blunder on Grassley’s part.

  9. Mark R.
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    This is really simple. If these three women are lying (either under oath or after a sworn affidavit) then let’s have an FBI investigation into the allegations, and if they find the women are lying, send them all to jail. It is far too obvious that the Republicans don’t want to know the truth. What a craven lot of scoundrels…it makes me sick.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

      Apparently Ford has passed a polygraph test on her testimony.

      Let’s have Kavanaugh take one on these questions.

      • Posted September 27, 2018 at 5:37 pm | Permalink

        Absent other witnesses, that would seem the best way to resolve this he-said, she-said impasse. That plus subpoenaing Mark Judge and asking him to take a polygraph. If everyone passes the polygraph then we have to go with undecidable.

  10. Caldwell
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Check some google-scholar links on
    “detect deception” –

    Untrained or mis-trained people, including police, judges, psychiatrists, etc, typically perform at the “chance” level, and are not better at detecting dishonesty than naive college students.

    Confidence in one’s opinion has almost no correlation with its correctness.

    There is some improvement after training specific to detecting lies using the correct cues.

    • Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      When performed carefully and with minimal bias, statement analysis can be quite revealing.

      A few things I noticed:
      1) Aside from generic, blanket denials, BK has phrased his responses along the lines of: ‘the incident [ACCUSER] describes did not happen.’ This might mean that something did happen, just BK conceives of it differently. People will avoid telling a direct lie if possible;

      2) BK’s primary emphasis has been on how this is not “fair” — to the nation, to the SC, but most importantly, to him. He’s used the word “fair” many many times, as well as the inverse, that all this being dragged up from so long ago is ‘unfair’;

      3) With a discernible tinge of resentment, BK touts his service record, his volunteer work, his stable family life, and his church participation. Is this to bolster his character? Or perhaps he believes his behavior in later life somehow compensates for his earlier life of sin?

      4) BK has barely given even lip service to empathy for his accusers, which would be expected it truly was multiple cases of mistaken identity. Nor has he expressed understanding for any trepidation about confirming him, much less himself suggested that the Senate take the time to fully exonerate him.

  11. Ryan
    Posted September 27, 2018 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    Ford wins if Kavanaugh is not confirmed. Kavanaugh wins if the reverse is true.

    Kavanaugh vs Ford has become a political proxy-war where the truth is irrelevant (, and in fact unknowable).

    I find this to be an incredibly disturbing example of today’s political environment.

    • eric
      Posted September 27, 2018 at 2:16 pm | Permalink

      I think the truth is very relevant. What I find disturbing about today’s political environment is that 51 Senators would agree that Kavanaugh’s legal opinions reflect a good understanding of the Constitution and not his own conservative bias.

      Seriously, how hard is it to string together the logic train: the Constitution states that signed treaties are the law of the land; the US signed a treaty making torture illegal (and prosecuted people under it for waterboarding); therefore, CIA agents waterboarding people during the Bush administration were acting illegally according to the Constitution. There may be many gray areas of law, but that is not one of them. And Kavanaugh got it wrong. So he’s not a good Constitutional jurist.

      • mikeyc
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

        Ryan can defend himself, but I think he wasn’t referring to the judge’s qualification via his legal decisions. It looks like the next Supreme Court justice will be determined by whose memory is more credible. The truth of these events doesn’t matter – because they are unknowable. All we have is to go on will be the credibility of the players. That’s a bad way to decide who sits on the bench.

        • Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

          BK couldn’t remember how just last year he paid off $200,000 in debt in one fell swoop, or how he’d acquired that debt in the first place.

      • Mark R.
        Posted September 27, 2018 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

        The simple fact that he’s a constitutionalist/textualist (like Scalia and Gorsuch) should be enough to disqualify him. Hell, that’s why Bork was seen as far too radical to be a SCOTUS justice. When Kennedy was chosen after Bork bit the dust, he had to make sure and denounce textualism as an ideology. Republicans nowadays have pretty much lost their collective minds.

%d bloggers like this: