He must be in there somewhere.
It didn't take the ace investigative reporters of the Washington Post long to find "dirt" on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. It seems the man who would sit on the Supreme Court incurred tens of thousands of dollars in credit card debt purchasing Washington Nationals season tickets for the past decade.
Oh, he paid it all off.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-piled-up-credit-card-debt-by-purchasing-nationals-tickets-white-house-says/2018/07/11/8e3ad7d6-8460-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html?utm_term=.e16793ba0c53
You talk about grasping at straws. This takes the cake. Let's do some math.
"Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh incurred tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade..."
"Prices for Nationals season ticket packages can vary widely, depending on their location in the stadium. Seats a dozen rows behind the dugout can go for as much as $6,000 apiece for an 81-game season package."
So $6,000 a year for 6 years equals $60,000-or as the Post puts it- "tens of thousands of dollars".
Big deal.
I just hope the Democrats try to make an issue of this especially during Kavanaugh's hearings. What are they going to say that Kavanaugh is too much removed from the lives of average Americans because he has that kind of money?
Let's face it. All Supreme Court justices are well accomplished people who no doubt are well off. At the same time, virtually everybody in the Senate is a millionaire. How about the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)? She counts her wealth in the tens of millions, largely due to her marriage to investment banker Richard Blum. C'mon, Dianne. Grill Kavanaugh about those expenditures.
1 comment:
The problem is that everyone is looking for dirt, instead of directly questioning competency. I'm indifferent to Kavanaugh, because Trump gets to do the nominations and I doubt he'll nominate anyone better. Elections have consequences, as Lindsey Graham said during the Kagan and Sotomayor confirmation hearings. Clarence Thomas should have been rejected because he didn't know relevant law very well -- he admitted as much in his autobiography, My Grandfather's Son. He was asked questions about jurisprudence and didn't know the answers. Instead, the Dems drummed up this Anita Hill thing, which is everything she said was true, is not of any great relevance.
Post a Comment