What will the supreme court be inundated with now?

Do you think there will be bunch of suits over the 2ndA, abortion or something else?  

People claiming to be inoscent because they like beer.

New product on the market...rapebeer...buy some now!.

At a certain point it doesn't matter if Cavanaugh wad guilty his unprofessional behavior during the hearing itself should have disqualified him. A supreme court justice should really know the difference between the denial of an event and the denial of any memory of the event. Also he was very distespectful to the prosecuted which while not illegal in and of itself does not speak highly of character.

I'm sure the left thinks he has the wrong temperament, but the GOP is tired of the cry-bully tactics of the left where they attack the right with no substantiation, and then cry victim if the GOP fights back. The left once again overplayed the cry-bully card, and unleashed the gentle giant's wrath.

Roe v Wade will come in Trump's 2nd term.

As I said it hardly matters if he is guilty or inoscent or who is the victim if the man cannot understand simple principles of jurisprudence. He isn't qualified to be a judge let alone a judge on for the highest court in the nation.

Jurisprudence....such as....innocent until PROVEN guilty? (note this requires proof)....

Cause the left's idea of jurisprudence is an entirely different animal.

I will agree that having a hearing rather than a trial was probably a mistake. Cavanaugh was tried in the court of public opinion rather than the court of law and that isn't how things should be done according to the constitution of these United States. As I said his guilt or innocence becomes immaterial at a certain point. My objection to his appointment is not tied up in his guilt or innocence (which was not legally established as There was no trial) it has to do with his conduct during the hearing itself.

There's also the jurisprudence of using the term "ALLEGED VICTIM" which the Senators conveniently tossed out.

You're right, the Senate has horrible understanding of jurisprudence, which is why they outsource to lawyer groups.

In short this shouldn't be a left/right issue it should be an American issue and America deserves better than a man who thinks it is alright to answer a question at an official government hearing (whether the hearing itself was a good idea or not) with another question rather than the whole and literal truth to the best of his memory.

I don't think he will be personally attacked and treated like he was once he's on the bench and looking at cases.  Everyone has their limits and they pushed his far more than any other imo.  But if you look at Bill Clinton's response and demeanor when questioned, obviously a guilty person, then I think he was pretty human in his reaction by someone innocent.

Correct. America is tired of the fake emotion people. Emotions and temperaments should not be "politically correct"

Judge a man on the fruits of his labors, not for how well he toes the PC line.

When someone's back is to the wall they show you who they really are and I do not believe that Cavanaugh showed us a supreme court justice. He did provide us with ample material for jokes about being "sober as a judge" but I don't feel that was really a good trade.

Do you think his 60,000+ documents reviewed on judicial rulings were also not PC?

What does political correctness have to do with my argument? Do try to keep up.

Sorry, you lost me with the temperment narrative bro.

I don't recall using the word temperment. I did say that Cavanaugh doesn't seem to understand simple juresprudence and that he did not show a quality of character that I feel we should expect from a supreme court judge but niether of those things has anything to do with his temperment or political correctness.

Well let me know if you ever fall off the "proper behavior for a judge" wagon and decide to take a look at those judicial reviews.

I'd be happy to take a look but I'm not sure what they have to do with his confusion over the difference between a person denying an event had happened and denying any memory of an event as well as his misquoting of persons not present to testify. In fact if he actually does understand juresprudence then his behavior is all the more alarming

Well whenever you fall off that wagon, let me know how his rulings fit in with your idea of jurisprudence, unless your entire intent is to troll this thread into ignoring them.

I can't do that until you provide the link. And again if he does understand how hearings and trials are supposed to work then his behavior is all the more alarming and his rulings may have the opposite effect from the one you intend.

That's fine. I'm not expecting you to do any more research into those rulings than any of the 95% of Democratic Senators who said they wouldn't vote for Kavy the very minute his name was announced for confirmation.

I thought you had a link to provide I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Have you reviewed all 60000+ documents? Was there something specific you wanted to draw my attention to?

I actually have read quite a few of them and some summaries of others too.

The mere fact that you could not care less to read one summary is the exact sentiment of nearly every Democratic Senator. So it's really no surprise when you have a partisan opinion on Kavy. No curiosity is the mark of a hack.

I am somewhat curious but that's a lot of documents and I was rather hoping you could tell me what exactly you found that impresses you with Mr Cavanaugh or even just a place to start. Of course as I have already said these documents may have the opposite effect on me.

Let's not forget the Democrats releasing a letter or some kind of written objection to Trump's selection, when the name hadn't even been announced yet.  Given their behavior last time why should they be taken seriously this time?  They were voting no, this go around before anything even started.....even though Garland agreed with Kavanaugh 93% of the time, something like that anyway.