Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 02, 2018

Why is Brett Kavanaugh so upset? It's a question few ask because so many already think they know the answer. The most common explanation, the hot take- so hot it melted the conventional wisdom and forged a new concrete group think, is that Kavanaugh was so angry because he represents White Male Entitlement and as such, he is by definition wrong because that is his assigned role.

I do not deny that Brett Kavanaugh believes he is entitled to certain things. But couldn't a plausible explanation be that he feels entitled to the job because, by all accounts, he is one of most qualified judges in America and has spent a dozen years on the second-highest court in the country? Could he not also feel entitled to some measure of fair play?

And yet we're supposed to believe his anger derives not from uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault and gang rape but from some abstract idea of white male powerlessness?

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Never mind that there were times in America when "believe all white women" was the rule. When they made allegations against black men, it led to some unspeakable evils. "To Kill A Mockingbird" is in many ways a modern allegory about those times.

I am not trying to say that Brett Kavanaugh is a contemporary, real-life Tom Robinson, the black man falsely accused of rape in that book. I am trying to say that Kavanaugh is an actual human being.

Appeals to historical grievances, highbrow theories of the male psyche and pent-up resentments -- as interesting or as emotionally powerful as they may be -- are not all that relevant here. This isn't an allegory. It's the real world.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Let the teeth-gnashing and garment rending commence.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-02 02:36 PM | Reply

Let the teeth-gnashing and garment rending commence.

#1 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Who cares if he is angry?

If he is going to sit on the Supreme Court, he better be able to handle his anger a lot better than he did.

#2 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-10-02 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

My position on this is simple: A mature man, a man in control of himself, a man who deals with pressure, would not have behaved the way he did that day.

WHY he f----- it up will remain a matter of conjecture. That he DID f----- it up is something I'd like you to admit.

#3 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-02 02:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

--he better be able to handle his anger a lot better than he did.

He has a long record and has never been accused of lacking in judicial temperament. If he's innocent, he has every right to be angry. You would be too. So would Kavanaugh impersonator Matt Damon.

In December 2017, Damon appeared on ABC's "Popcorn" with Peter Travers and explained that in the years before the #MeToo movement, false allegations were often settled monetarily. But after the fall of Harvey Weinstein, all that changed.

"If you make the same claim to me today," he said, "it would be scorched-earth. I don't care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, I've worked too hard for it, I've earned it, you can't just------- up like that."

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-02 02:44 PM | Reply

On the other side of this coin it says say "Ford mild-mannered because maybe she's an expert liar?"

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-02 02:50 PM | Reply

That he DID f----- it up is something I'd like you to admit.

I don't disagree, have made the point that he would have been better off toning it down on several occasions and that getting pissed off was the wrong thing to do.

Now I would like you to agree that if you were wrongfully accused of sexual assault that you would be angry as well.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-02 02:51 PM | Reply

"teeth-gnashing and garment rending"

Good description of Kavanaugh's demeanor under oath.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-02 02:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Now I would like you to agree that if you were wrongfully accused of sexual assault that you would be angry as well."

Are you actually incapable of becoming angry without having a temper tantrum?

Kavanaugh was, under oath.

That's not judge material.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-02 02:57 PM | Reply

Men who are unjustly and justly accused of rape may both become angry at the accusation. The difference between the unjustly and justly accused, however, is that the unjustly accused are more likely to welcome a fair and impartial investigation into the accusation and to be willing to help investigators in whatever way they can, for as long as it takes to clear their good names. An unjustly accused man might even conceivably volunteer to take a polygraph test to bolster his claim of innocence.

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-02 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"Immediately, the same opponents of Kavanaugh who have been portraying him as a monster took great umbrage that he'd be angry at being portrayed as a monster. Look, they said, he lacks a judicial temperament!

But how is a person who maintains his innocence supposed to react when a political party will credit any allegation against him, when swaths of the media presume his guilt, when every aspect of his teenage years -- including notations in his yearbook -- are used against him, when all the testimonials in his favor and his decades of spotless public service mean nothing?

Read more at www.jewishworldreview.com

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-02 03:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" But how is a person who maintains his innocence supposed to react when a political party will credit any allegation against him, when swaths of the media presume his guilt, when every aspect of his teenage years -- including notations in his yearbook -- are used against him, when all the testimonials in his favor and his decades of spotless public service mean nothing?" - #10 | Posted by nulliquisling at 2018-10-02 03:06 PM

President Obama faced all that... and more.

And still acted, well, presidential.

Apparently, rightwingers are delicate snowflakes in comparison.

#11 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-02 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Republicans kept pushing to make Kavanaugh a judge on the powerful appeals court, year after year. In his defense, they cited multiple reviews by the ABA's judicial review committee that found him "well qualified" -- the big attorney association's highest possible endorsement, meaning Kavanaugh had outstanding legal abilities and outstanding judicial temperament.

[Analysis: Kavanaugh's evasive testimony probably wouldn't have been allowed in his own courtroom]

But in May 2006, as Republicans hoped to finally push Kavanaugh's nomination across the finish line, the ABA downgraded its endorsement.

The group's judicial investigator had recently interviewed dozens of lawyers, judges and others who had worked with Kavanaugh, the ABA announced at the time, and some of them raised red flags about "his professional experience and the question of his freedom from bias and open-mindedness."

"One interviewee remained concerned about the nominee's ability to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship," the ABA committee chairman wrote to senators in 2006. "Another interviewee echoed essentially the same thoughts: ‘(He is) immovable and very stubborn and frustrating to deal with on some issues.'"

www.washingtonpost.com

#12 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-02 03:13 PM | Reply

Attacking the process which might be able to prove his innocence is not the reaction of a wrongly accused man.

See Trump and the Russia Investigation for the most prominent example. Trump claims innocence, but tries to destroy the process which could exonerate him. That doesn't indicate an innocent man, but rather, the opposite.

#13 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2018-10-02 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"The difference between the unjustly and justly accused, however, is that the unjustly accused are more likely to welcome a fair and impartial investigation into the accusation and to be willing to help investigators in whatever way they can, for as long as it takes to clear their good names. An unjustly accused man might even conceivably volunteer to take a polygraph test to bolster his claim of innocence."

Citation?

Says who?

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-02 03:15 PM | Reply

#9,

I dont agree Gal. All to often, if you "help" an investigation, they can twist your words or use things against you. And in this biased environment, the ones doing the investigating are never your friend.

welcome a fair and impartial investigation

In this environment, that's almost impossible.

into the accusation and to be willing to help investigators in whatever way they can, for as long as it takes to clear their good names.

Actually, no. The burden of proof is on the state. Accusations are just that. Accusations. Especially those brought just because someone is getting a high profile job 30+ years after the fact. They shouldn't be used to render/decide guilt or innocence. Especially those without proof.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-02 03:16 PM | Reply

"Says who?" - #14 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-02 03:15 PM

There's a clue in here:

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-02 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2
Can you find it?

#16 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-02 03:17 PM | Reply

-President Obama faced all that... and more.

He didn't face a hearing like that. Apples and oranges

I agree he handled all the crap thrown at him extremely well.

#17 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-02 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--An unjustly accused man might even conceivably volunteer to take a polygraph test to bolster his claim of innocence."

I wouldn't do it. There's a reason it's inadmissible in court.

#18 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-10-02 03:19 PM | Reply

"They shouldn't be used to render/decide guilt or innocence. Especially those without proof." - #15 | Posted by pfc. boazotoes© (h/t to ichiro) at 2018-10-02 03:16 PM

This isn't a criminal trial.

It isn't even a civil trial.

This is a job interview.

#19 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-02 03:19 PM | Reply

"I agree he handled all the crap thrown at him extremely well." - #17 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-02 03:18 PM

Now that's a Newsworthy comment.

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-02 03:20 PM | Reply

"I agree he handled all the crap thrown at him extremely well." - #17 | Posted by eberly at 2018-10-02 03:18 PM

I think Trump handles crap thrown at him far better than Obama did.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-02 03:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

"I think Trump handles crap thrown at him far better than Obama did."

Because Trump doesn't notice a change in smell.

#22 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-10-02 03:29 PM | Reply

Okay, now that I got that joke out of the way...

Retorter, please. We have the most vindictive President in your lifetime and you have the chutpah to claim that he handles criticism better than Obama. It's really astounding to hear anybody even attempt to make that claim.

#23 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-10-02 03:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Kavanaugh authored the opinion in Sacks v. U.S. Department of Defense, which involved polygraph tests in a dispute over federal open-records fees. Kavanaugh described the importance of a polygraph test for law enforcement agencies to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. He also said employers can use them during hiring decisions.

Such background investigations could assess an applicant's qualification and the polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes, Kavanaugh said.

"As the Government notes, law enforcement agencies use polygraphs to test the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants. Those agencies also use polygraphs to "screen applicants for security clearances so that they may be deemed suitable for work in critical law enforcement, defense, and intelligence collection roles."

www.law.com

#24 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-02 03:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I think Trump handles crap thrown at him far better than Obama did."

If by handles you mean shovels, then I agree with you.

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-02 03:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Retorter, please. We have the most vindictive President in your lifetime and you have the chutpah to claim that he handles criticism better than Obama. It's really astounding to hear anybody even attempt to make that claim.

#23 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

You didn't pick up on the fact that I was joking?

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-10-02 03:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hagbard,
You ok? For real.
I hope all is well.

#27 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-02 03:37 PM | Reply

I wasn't asking due to the JefeJ exchange, btw. I haven't "seen" you in a little while.

Everyone would handle being accused in his position differently. No matter how he responded some would attack/defend.
I was surprised, tbh. It appeared genuine. That weird sniffle nose crunch thing is distracting though.

#28 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-10-02 03:41 PM | Reply

"An unjustly accused man might even conceivably volunteer to take a polygraph test to bolster his claim of innocence."

Kavanaugh wrote a bench opinion that polygraphs are useful for law enforcement.

Presumably he didn't mean they were useful to law enforcement because they do a good job of making innocent men look guilty.

So he should take one.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-02 03:43 PM | Reply

So he should take one.

#29 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-10-02 03:43 PM

Agreed, but it should be the exactly like the one that Ford took: establish a baseline and then ask two similar questions about her allegations.

#30 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-02 04:00 PM | Reply

Now I would like you to agree that if you were wrongfully accused of sexual assault that you would be angry as well.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter

I'd be angry and frightened.

I would have NOT soiled myself the way Keg did. That was a disgrace. He demonstrated that he isn't a serious man who has led a serious life.

He humiliated himself, and by all appearances appears self-satisfied with that result. I do NOT understand the psychology of that, and any mature man is going to see his behavior as being a warning.

#31 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-02 04:03 PM | Reply

What I found to be the most troubling about Kav's "I'm an innocent man" rant was his claim that the allegations against him were all part of a Clintons revenge plot. What did Ford's allegation of what happened to other at 15 or Ramirez's allegation of what happened to her in college have to do with Bill and Hillary? Dr. Ford is said to have given $80 (total) to the DNC and the Sanders campaign in 2016. I don't know what Ms. Ramirez's political affiliation is, but were is Kav's evidence that she came forward in as part of a payback plot meant to right previous political wrongs perpetrated against the Clintons? If he has it, he needs to bring it forward. If he doesn't, then for making that unsubstantiated counter-allegation as part of his own defense, I believe Kav is unqualified for a lifetime SC nomination.

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-02 04:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Self-indulgent pathos. Adolescent anger. Apocalyptic imprecations of revenge.

I can't believe he wasn't handed his hat immediately. Keg was beyond bad. The only thing that would have made it worse was for him to throw himself down and kick his little feet.

#33 | Posted by Zed at 2018-10-02 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#32

Come on Gal, you know as well as I that he was talking not about Dr. Ford but the DNC operatives and Senators who were going to say and do anything to keep him from getting confirmed.

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-02 04:11 PM | Reply

RoC, the fact that he conflated those two women's allegations with DNC operatives out to get revenge for Bill and Hill is still problematic. What evidence does he have? (I'm purposely not including Swetnick in this, because I don't know what her deal is.)

#35 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-02 04:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You and Jeff should start a news program for far right loons.

#36 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-02 05:02 PM | Reply

As Charlie Sykes, a thoughtful conservative commentator sympathetic to Kavanaugh, put it on The Weekly Standard's podcast Friday, "Even if you support Brett Kavanaugh ... that was breathtaking as an abandonment of any pretense of having a judicial temperament." Sykes went on: "It's possible, I think, to have been angry, emotional, and passionate without crossing the lines that he crossed -- assuming that there are any lines anymore."

www.theatlantic.com

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-10-02 05:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The only investigation is the one when Dr Ford files charges. He is innocent. You want him to agree to an investigation? That's not what he needs to do. She needs to file charges. Until the case goes to court, he is innocent of all accusations. She has to act, not him. When she fails to act, there is no case against him.

#38 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-02 07:06 PM | Reply

The only investigation is the one when Dr Ford files charges. He is innocent. You want him to agree to an investigation? That's not what he needs to do. She needs to file charges. Until the case goes to court, he is innocent of all accusations. She has to act, not him. When she fails to act, there is no case against him.

POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2018-10-02 07:06 PM | REPLY

This is a background check for a pending job. It's on him to prove his moral fitness.

#39 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-02 07:08 PM | Reply

Why do republicans think this is a criminal trial? Ford can file criminal charges at any point in the future. The burden of innocence is on kavanaugh because this is a supreme court nomination. Jesus, perhaps if they weren't so afraid of education they would have learned a little civics.

#40 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-10-02 07:16 PM | Reply

Is this guy the only judge left in the country??

I can't believe this is the hill that the GOP wants to die on..

#41 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2018-10-02 07:23 PM | Reply

#37

I agree with Charlie Sykes, Kavanaugh definitely crossed lines that call into question his fitness for a seat on SCOTUS.

#41

Agreed, but unless Kavanaugh withdraws his name, it is the hill they are fighting the battle on.

#42 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-02 07:32 PM | Reply

Her accusation isnt supported by a conviction of him nor did she win a civil suit. So, he is innocent of her charges.

He doesn't have to defend himself from her allegations. She has to prove them.

Sorry, but IMO, if she wont hang him in court, he is innocent until proven otherwise

#43 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-02 07:42 PM | Reply

"...he is innocent until proven otherwise" - #43 | Posted by Petrous at 2018-10-02 07:42 PM

This isn't a criminal case.

This isn't even a civil case.

This is a job interview.

#44 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-02 07:44 PM | Reply

Her accusation isnt supported by a conviction of him nor did she win a civil suit. So, he is innocent of her charges.
He doesn't have to defend himself from her allegations. She has to prove them.
Sorry, but IMO, if she wont hang him in court, he is innocent until proven otherwise

POSTED BY PETROUS AT 2018-10-02 07:42 PM | REPLY

Your ignorance of the subject matter is quite telling. Dr Ford isn't up for an elevation in standing with a seat on the Supreme Court. That is Kavanaugh. He shoulders the burden on proving moral fitness for the job.

#45 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-02 07:45 PM | Reply

He shoulders the burden on proving moral fitness for the job.

Not from criminal accusations. His past conduct on the court and performance job wise is the only thing on his shoulders.

#46 | Posted by boaz at 2018-10-02 09:13 PM | Reply

#44 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2018-10-02 07:44 PM | FLAG: YAWN

#47 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-10-02 10:00 PM | Reply

By JONAH GOLDBERG

S'riously? Someone posted an article by Lucianne's baby boy?

That's so cute! In a dumbass rwing sorta way.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2018-10-02 10:17 PM | Reply

"I think Trump handles crap thrown at him far better than Obama did.
#21 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-10-02 03:24 PM"

Want to place a bet on what would happen if a Congressman interrupted President Trump's State of the Union speech with "You LIE!"?

#49 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2018-10-03 02:02 AM | Reply

Not from criminal accusations. His past conduct on the court and performance job wise is the only thing on his shoulders.

#46 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-10-02 09:13 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Absolutely incorrect as per the usual with you. His whole body of work including his bad behaviour MUST be up for scrutiny. Yes shoulders the burden for ALL of it.

#50 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-10-03 02:08 AM | Reply

I've seen all you anon posers blow up and melt down over far less than a sex assault accusation.

And none of you have anything to lose here.

*reporting live, from Vegas.

#51 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-03 12:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#23 Newsworthy, but you misspelled Chutzpah. Trust me, I know. I still put flowers on my English teachers grave when I have to, which is only the thing that keeps me from the chair.

#52 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-10-03 01:03 PM | Reply

#32 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Hmm. So there's a Canadian angle. Thank you for updating me.

#53 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2018-10-03 01:06 PM | Reply

Kavanaugh seems like the kind of virgin who bragged to his bros about boofing his imaginary "Canadian girlfriend." #HighFive #MAGA

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-03 01:10 PM | Reply

Haven't seen this in a few days:

💖 Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-10-03 12:50 PM | Reply | Flagged funny by nullifidian
I thought perhaps the blush was off the relationship.

Imagine my relief.

#55 | Posted by Hans at 2018-10-03 01:36 PM | Reply

On the other side of this coin it says say "Ford mild-mannered because maybe she's an expert liar?" - #5 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-02 02:50 PM

Did you have some foresight of the current allegations released by Dr Ford's live-in boyfriend? That was a bit of a prophetic question.

#56 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-10-03 02:28 PM | Reply

Avigdore, if Ford denies those allegations with the same invective and bluster Kavanaugh used, will you believe Ford like you believe Kavanaugh? Hmm?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-03 02:33 PM | Reply

Avigdore, if Ford denies those allegations with the same invective and bluster Kavanaugh used, will you believe Ford like you believe Kavanaugh? Hmm?

#57 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-10-03 02:33 PM |
Sorry to burst your preconceived notion, but I don't disbelieve Dr Ford now.Well, I didn't prior to these 'revelations'. If they are true, it really does call her testimony into question.
I feel of the two, her testimony in the hearing was far more credible. You may not recall, but I've called NUMEROUS times for her to file charges with the MD police.
Kavanaugh was evasive, and I think that he was exhibiting bluster because he thought that's what Trump wanted to see. I believe that Trump was close to just pulling the nomination, but Kav's anger stoked an equal feeling in Trump bolstering Trump's approval of Kav.
That being said, I can still point out where Kav didn't lie where people are claiming that he did.
Just as I can point out where Trump's told the truth even thought people have claimed lies.
I don't have to agree with a speaker to be able to determine if their words are disprovable. I don't call someone a liar unless I can disprove their statements, and I call out others who try to pretend that -know- that someone is lying, when in reality, they just feel strongly that they are lying. There is a difference.

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-10-03 06:13 PM | Reply

"Sorry to burst your preconceived notion, but I don't disbelieve Dr Ford now."

Really, you think Kavanaugh assaulted her, just like she says?

And yet you still want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, right?

Creeper alert.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-03 11:44 PM | Reply

Jonah Goldberg. Crap. Nuf said.

#60 | Posted by danni at 2018-10-04 09:42 AM | Reply

And yet you still want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, right? - #59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-10-03 11:44 PM
Can you ever not portray someone as having opinions that they haven't expressed?
Point to anywhere that I've said that I want kav on the SC.
Is it my calling for Dr Ford to file criminal charges in MD that gave it away?
I hope this one decides to file a criminal complaint. - Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-26 11:50 AM

Please join with me in encouraging Dr Ford in filing a complaint with the Maryland Police who are both the correct people to handle an investigation into her claims, are also standing by to do so. - Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-23 02:57 PM

Is it my desire for an actual criminal investigation by a law enforcement body that can recommend charges to a DA that makes you think that?
You're so blinded by your own biases that you can't seem to comprehend how wrong you are.
You're either ignorant of reality or a trolling idiot. There can be no other options.

I think that he will be a bad choice for the SC. He's picked by a terrible and divisive president, his views on filing charges on sitting presidents - I don't agree with, I'm not convinced that he really believes RvW is 'settled law', or that 'settled law' is really all that settled. -Posted by Avigdore at 2018-09-22 05:19 PM

#61 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-10-04 09:46 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort