Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

Yay!
Nay!
Who cares? The SCOTUS doesn't matter anyways.

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72393 times)

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1500 on: October 08, 2018, 09:35:28 PM »
Weíve reached the: itís the liberals who brought this up! Why do you make me hit you stage of the argument.
 
Itís abundantly clear that none of you have a good explanation for why Brett threw Renate under the bus. A half-hearted pretense that she was a big old slut and he protected her doesnít hold much water. His protests were too feeble, and he never came out and said she never deserved to be the butt of his jokes. If it was true and he was trying to protect her and was willing to lie (SO HONORABLE and yet there is little evidence that he is), why lie so inefficiently? Why the mealy-mouthed crap?  If it wasnít true, and this is where the evidence points but I appreciate all the innuendo that she probably gave head to the whole team bc it tells me you knew perfectly well what Renate alumnus meant, he never apologized. What an asshole.

You know it. I know it. She knows it. Heís a liar. You donít care. He implied sheís the village bicycle and you whistle past it. Youíd rather smear her and pretend itís true than face that you support a liar. But we see you.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1501 on: October 08, 2018, 10:20:36 PM »
itís the liberals who brought this up!
That is true, correct?  Ford's handlers didn't do her any favors either, if they didn't tell her Grassley offered to come to California, which made her look bad when she said she didn't know that.

Kavanaugh didn't throw Renate under the bus - whoever publicized that part of the high school yearbook did.  There was plenty of speculation in the news that didn't come from him.  We can debate what his best response could have been (e.g., the exact truth, or a no-comment-but-apology, etc.).

My personal $0.02 is the client-server analogy: a whole lotta talk but probably not much (and a good chance not anything) actually happened.  And this high school yearbook entry has no bearing on his fitness to be a justice now.

Of course, others may have a different opinion.

crispy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1502 on: October 08, 2018, 10:25:59 PM »
As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You keep saying that, but it isn't true.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 10:27:35 PM by crispy »

Norioch

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1503 on: October 09, 2018, 01:57:05 AM »
As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You keep saying that, but it isn't true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/?utm_term=.4584afc4e6bb
"Other witnesses"

They're not direct witnesses to the event, but they are witnesses to Ford's behavior after the fact, and I find their testimony compelling evidence.

Adela Gildo-Mazzon claims that Ford told her, in 2013, that she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys and was almost raped by one of them, who is now a federal judge. I believe this. I believe Ford really did tell her that, in 2013. And I have no reason to believe Ford is either delusional or a con artist who's been planning to falsely accuse Kavanaugh for the past five years on the off-chance that he might someday be nominated for the Supreme Court.

Russell Ford claims that Christine Ford told this same story in couple's therapy in 2012. Notes from the therapy back this up. Again, I have no reason to believe Ford is delusional or a con artist playing a six year con.

Keith Keogler and Rebecca White both also testified that Ford told them about being sexually assaulted, in 2016 and 2017.

When Ford's been telling the same story, consistently, to four different people over the span of the last six years, and when there's no reason to think Ford is delusion and no apparent ulterior motive for why she'd make up such a story six years ago, and when the story fits with known facts about Kavanaugh's personal timeline, drinking habits and party behavior, the most likely explanation is that the story is true. Occam's Razor.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1504 on: October 09, 2018, 02:07:35 AM »
As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You keep saying that, but it isn't true.

What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's.  Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1505 on: October 09, 2018, 03:34:10 AM »
itís the liberals who brought this up!
That is true, correct?  Ford's handlers didn't do her any favors either, if they didn't tell her Grassley offered to come to California, which made her look bad when she said she didn't know that.

Kavanaugh didn't throw Renate under the bus - whoever publicized that part of the high school yearbook did.  There was plenty of speculation in the news that didn't come from him.  We can debate what his best response could have been (e.g., the exact truth, or a no-comment-but-apology, etc.).

My personal $0.02 is the client-server analogy: a whole lotta talk but probably not much (and a good chance not anything) actually happened.  And this high school yearbook entry has no bearing on his fitness to be a justice now.

Of course, others may have a different opinion.

Maybe, and this is a wild idea, the blame for making crude jokes at a young womanís expense could rest with the people who made the jokes and not the people shining a light on it and asking if a history of cruelty to women may be relevant to an assault charge. Party of personal responsibility strikes again. Why are you so anxious to shield Brett from his own behavior?  He wanted a seat in the highest court in the land and told us he was a church going choir boy and would have never been that drunk or been at a party like that. It turns out that he was a drunk who hung out with a dude who made jokes about women being hosebags and hitting them. The right lesson to learn is not to publish cruel jokes. No, wait. The lesson is that no matter how shit you were, just lie about it and Republicans  will wave it off if you are one of them. Lesson learned.

And you have proven the point here. You donít disagree that Brett lied. You havenít even offered a defense that his committee statement about the yearbook entry was true. You yourself agree the yearbook entry implied sex. Your best argument is that the original yearbook entry was just boasting, but pointing out yet another potential Brett Kavaugh lie doesnít erase the lie he made under oath. , it doesnít explain 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh offering a false statement  that a yearbook entry  about sex wasnít  about sex. You excused his lying, but you agree he lied. You said his lying may have been a kindness, but you agree it was a lie. You said you donít think it matters that he lied, but you agree it was a lie. So youíve agreed with us all along that Brett Kananaugh lied under oath.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1506 on: October 09, 2018, 07:11:13 AM »
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

Dissecting a two-word yearbook entry from 1983 and hypothesizing about its meaning 35 years later? And maybe, maybe, maybe with this slanted interpretation he *might* have perjured himself?

Alleging that there are "corroborating witnesses" when there are, without any question, no corroborating witnesses?

Setting forth an Alex Jones-style conspiracy theory about a calendar entry from July 1, 1982 (when all named by Ford could not corroborate)?

What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's. Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

What? Do you understand how off the damn rails you are? No, no, no, no no.  The bolded statements are just laughably inaccurate.  Ford's team would have jumped ALL OVER the 07/01/1982 date, and screamed to the absolute high heavens, if they could have proven that was the date in question.


I'm just at a loss you guys.  I feel like Democrats mentally toyed with the base and got our hopes up that we could take back the Senate and get a more moderate nominee appointed.  But it all started crumbling, so then things went into silly season (Did he drink? Did he perjure himself about his high school yearbook?)

I don't like admitting this, but anyone who followed this closely without a crazy partisan lens (e.g., took the time to also make sure they were reading WSJ or similar sources to get the right's perspective on things) knows this was all bullshit smear tactics attempting to embarrass and force the nominee to withdraw.

This is an absolute embarrassment, and I'm embarrassed that fellow Democrats are still rambling on about such nonsense.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3743
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1507 on: October 09, 2018, 07:28:21 AM »

What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's. Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

What? Do you understand how off the damn rails you are? No, no, no, no no.  The bolded statements are just laughably inaccurate.  Ford's team would have jumped ALL OVER the 07/01/1982 date, and screamed to the absolute high heavens, if they could have proven that was the date in question.


Ford's "team"?  Do please explain what opportunity they had to intervene?  The calendar was released on 26 September, Ford and Kavanaugh gave evidence on 28th September.  Ford quite rightly gave evidence of what she knew first hand.  As soon as the Republican's "assistant" asked Kavanaugh about the calendar entry the Republicans stopped her from asking any more questions and derailed the session completely.  The FBI were stopped from asking Ford about the calendar, and were stopped from gathering evidence about Ford's other evidence about the date (dates of Judge's employment at a Safeway).

Your screaming that something is inaccurate when 1) there is no evidence it is inaccurate and 2) opportunities to prove it is accurate have been blocked looks pretty desperate.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1508 on: October 09, 2018, 07:30:05 AM »
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

Dissecting a two-word yearbook entry from 1983 and hypothesizing about its meaning 35 years later? And maybe, maybe, maybe with this slanted interpretation he *might* have perjured himself?

Alleging that there are "corroborating witnesses" when there are, without any question, no corroborating witnesses?

Setting forth an Alex Jones-style conspiracy theory about a calendar entry from July 1, 1982 (when all named by Ford could not corroborate)?

What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's. Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

What? Do you understand how off the damn rails you are? No, no, no, no no.  The bolded statements are just laughably inaccurate.  Ford's team would have jumped ALL OVER the 07/01/1982 date, and screamed to the absolute high heavens, if they could have proven that was the date in question.


I'm just at a loss you guys.  I feel like Democrats mentally toyed with the base and got our hopes up that we could take back the Senate and get a more moderate nominee appointed.  But it all started crumbling, so then things went into silly season (Did he drink? Did he perjure himself about his high school yearbook?)

I don't like admitting this, but anyone who followed this closely without a crazy partisan lens (e.g., took the time to also make sure they were reading WSJ or similar sources to get the right's perspective on things) knows this was all bullshit smear tactics attempting to embarrass and force the nominee to withdraw.

This is an absolute embarrassment, and I'm embarrassed that fellow Democrats are still rambling on about such nonsense.

I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1509 on: October 09, 2018, 07:30:53 AM »
When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 07:39:16 AM by GuitarStv »

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1510 on: October 09, 2018, 07:53:07 AM »
I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.

We already do have civil remedies for rape (tort claims for assault, battery, IIED, etc.).  Those require preponderance proof. If proven, plaintiff could recover civil remedies including monetary damages and injunctive relief.  And no, they should not be jailed.  In this country, you can only be deprived of life and liberty if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime.  To set a precedent otherwise for one specific crime could open floodgates that I'm not comfortable opening.

And when I say "corroborating witnesses," I'm referring to witnesses contemporaneous with the event.  That's the standard definition.  What's being referenced above is perhaps character witnesses.


When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.

The FBI did not have jurisdiction to conduct a complete investigation here.  This was an alleged state crime that did not involve federal law.  The FBI did not have subpoena power here.  They could only conduct a "background investigation," and the White House, as the client, has the right to limit that investigation.  I would have wanted a more thorough investigation, without question; my only caveat is that it's clear the democrats would have never been satisfied.

The difference with this and Clarence Thomas was that Justice Thomas was a federal employee, and Professor Hill was also a federal employee, at the time of the alleged harassment.  That involved federal employment law, which gave the FBI more authority to be more thorough.


Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1511 on: October 09, 2018, 07:54:44 AM »
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

I've talked to conservatives (anti-trump) who don't like him. They didn't get into the specifics of yearbook notes or stories about his drinking habits, they just watched Brett respond to questions at the hearing and said he didn't seem like the type of person you want on the supreme court. They wanted to move on and pick another conservative judge. That's largely what all this comes down to for me as well (minus the conservative judge, but that's almost beside the point given the situation).

Debating what was really meant by phrases used in high school and trying to figure out what really happened is a response to those who can't see how ridiculous he acted at the hearing and the resistance to an investigation. The extent to which he dodged questions, blamed this on some democrat conspiracy, and just generally acted like an ass is what bothers me. When asked point blank if he wanted an investigation he simply refused to answer, I'm not ok with that from a supreme court judge.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1512 on: October 09, 2018, 08:00:38 AM »
When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.

The FBI did not have jurisdiction to conduct a complete investigation here.  This was an alleged state crime that did not involve federal law.  The FBI did not have subpoena power here.  They could only conduct a "background investigation," and the White House, as the client, has the right to limit that investigation.  I would have wanted a more thorough investigation, without question; my only caveat is that it's clear the democrats would have never been satisfied.

The FBI's jurisdiction includes fraud.  They should have been used to investigate the testimony given by Kavenaugh for any falsehood, but were explicitly prevented from doing so.  Why do you think that this was?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1513 on: October 09, 2018, 08:09:41 AM »
I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.
We already do have civil remedies for rape (tort claims for assault, battery, IIED, etc.).  Those require preponderance proof. If proven, plaintiff could recover civil remedies including monetary damages and injunctive relief.  And no, they should not be jailed.  In this country, you can only be deprived of life and liberty if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime.  To set a precedent otherwise for one specific crime could open floodgates that I'm not comfortable opening.
And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I'm confused.  I thought you said the reason the burden of proof was so high was because the accusation was a crime.  What I proposed makes it a civil issue.  Sure you could still go to jail, but it wouldn't be a crime anymore.  Why wouldn't that lower the standard of proof for you?

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1514 on: October 09, 2018, 08:16:58 AM »
Alleging that there are "corroborating witnesses" when there are, without any question, no corroborating witnesses?

I agree with your assessment that the democrats got played... again. I also believe that taking it further, pledging impeachment if they take the house will possibly DESTROY the 75% chance of taking the house. They are gonna fuck it up and piss me off again. JUST STOP IT!

I find the phrase "corroborating witnesses" purposefully misleading. There is DEFINITLY a question as to whether or not there are any corroborating witnesses.

One definition: "Corroborating witness is a witness whose testimony supports or confirms testimony that is already given."

Under this definition,it is absolutely true that statements given by others after the fact(friends, spouses, therapists) could be "corroborating witnesses". If you never ask these people to testify, then they are not witnesses then, are they? That is a pretty shitty way to keep your claim true. I do not know, were those statements entered as evidence and accepted? If so, then they are indeed "corroborating witnesses", unless you believe either they made it all up, or it is not clear enough that the federal judge Ford was talking about was not this federal judge, but some other federal judge that grew up near her high school home as around the same time 35 years or so ago.

Are you meaning to say there were no witnesses to the event that can corroborate Dr. Ford's account, or are you using some other definition of what a corroborating witness is?

ETA:

You wrote this after I wrote my response:
And when I say "corroborating witnesses," I'm referring to witnesses contemporaneous with the event.  That's the standard definition.  What's being referenced above is perhaps character witnesses.
Who say's this is the "standard definition". It sounds like a completely different thing to me. There can be corroborating wittnesses, AND contemporaneous witnesses(and both.... which should be the best witnesses of all).

"perhaps a character witness": You have GOT to be joking, right. Am I on candid camera?

Thank you for the information regarding federal vs. state employee's. I am sure all of that is VERY important in an investigation (at least until you lie in a federal conformation hearing, and apparently are not of the same party as those running the hearing)

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1515 on: October 09, 2018, 08:22:39 AM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

That's about as clear as it can possibly get -- you think it's okay to lie under oath. 

What the fuck is the point of being under oath if it's okay to lie for (insert whatever reason you use)?

dustinst22

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1516 on: October 09, 2018, 08:33:30 AM »
I consider myself a moderate conservative.

I was not in the least a fan of Kav's temperament at the Senate hearing that I understand was encouraged by White House Counsel Don McGahn. I also was not a fan that he would not answer fairly simple questions that were posed to him and instead just gave more speeches.

If I were a Senator, I would not have voted to confirm him. I think they could have chosen a better candidate.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 08:37:38 AM by dustinst22 »

OzzieandHarriet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 227
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1517 on: October 09, 2018, 08:34:19 AM »
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

I've talked to conservatives (anti-trump) who don't like him. They didn't get into the specifics of yearbook notes or stories about his drinking habits, they just watched Brett respond to questions at the hearing and said he didn't seem like the type of person you want on the supreme court. They wanted to move on and pick another conservative judge. That's largely what all this comes down to for me as well (minus the conservative judge, but that's almost beside the point given the situation).

Debating what was really meant by phrases used in high school and trying to figure out what really happened is a response to those who can't see how ridiculous he acted at the hearing and the resistance to an investigation. The extent to which he dodged questions, blamed this on some democrat conspiracy, and just generally acted like an ass is what bothers me. When asked point blank if he wanted an investigation he simply refused to answer, I'm not ok with that from a supreme court judge.

^ this!

And Iím dismayed how many people have twisted their arguments into knots defending this guy. In normal times, any whiff of his other issues, completely aside from the assault allegations - the financial stuff, his deeply partisan history, his obvious drinking problem - would have sunk his nomination before it even got to a hearing. But these are not normal times, or rather, the new normal is celebration of vile behavior at the top.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1518 on: October 09, 2018, 08:46:07 AM »
Kavanaugh was clearly unqualified for the Supreme Court because of his lying under oath, and the sexual misconduct was never investigated so we'll never know.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1519 on: October 09, 2018, 08:49:22 AM »
When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.

The FBI did not have jurisdiction to conduct a complete investigation here.  This was an alleged state crime that did not involve federal law.  The FBI did not have subpoena power here.  They could only conduct a "background investigation," and the White House, as the client, has the right to limit that investigation.  I would have wanted a more thorough investigation, without question; my only caveat is that it's clear the democrats would have never been satisfied.

The FBI's jurisdiction includes fraud.  They should have been used to investigate the testimony given by Kavenaugh for any falsehood, but were explicitly prevented from doing so.  Why do you think that this was?

Fraud is generally a state law crime. The FBIís jurisdiction regarding fraud only relates to fraud relating to federal statutes.

Perjuring under oath to the Senate presumably falls into that category, but as shown in this thread, thereís a lot of reaching to be done to show that. 

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1520 on: October 09, 2018, 08:50:37 AM »
I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.
We already do have civil remedies for rape (tort claims for assault, battery, IIED, etc.).  Those require preponderance proof. If proven, plaintiff could recover civil remedies including monetary damages and injunctive relief.  And no, they should not be jailed.  In this country, you can only be deprived of life and liberty if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime.  To set a precedent otherwise for one specific crime could open floodgates that I'm not comfortable opening.
And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I'm confused.  I thought you said the reason the burden of proof was so high was because the accusation was a crime.  What I proposed makes it a civil issue.  Sure you could still go to jail, but it wouldn't be a crime anymore.  Why wouldn't that lower the standard of proof for you?

I donít think Ford met even the lowest standard of proof.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1521 on: October 09, 2018, 08:53:40 AM »
Iím done with this thread. Itís clear nobody is willing to change their opinion at this point, myself included.

Iíll say again, for the third time, that Iím genuinely sad Democrats are acting like this. This entire thing has been such an embarrassment.

Best to all of your preferred candidates this November. Iím voting Republican for the second time in my life.

Iím out.

Cheers.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2978
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1522 on: October 09, 2018, 08:54:16 AM »
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

I've talked to conservatives (anti-trump) who don't like him. They didn't get into the specifics of yearbook notes or stories about his drinking habits, they just watched Brett respond to questions at the hearing and said he didn't seem like the type of person you want on the supreme court. They wanted to move on and pick another conservative judge. That's largely what all this comes down to for me as well (minus the conservative judge, but that's almost beside the point given the situation).

Debating what was really meant by phrases used in high school and trying to figure out what really happened is a response to those who can't see how ridiculous he acted at the hearing and the resistance to an investigation. The extent to which he dodged questions, blamed this on some democrat conspiracy, and just generally acted like an ass is what bothers me. When asked point blank if he wanted an investigation he simply refused to answer, I'm not ok with that from a supreme court judge.

As a non Trump voting conservative,  I pretty much agree with this. Note I say ďprettyĒ much.

This thread is amazing. I do appreciate the insight into, well, some thought processes of people here. Hmmm.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 08:57:26 AM by iris lily »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1523 on: October 09, 2018, 08:57:14 AM »
Iím done with this thread. Itís clear nobody is willing to change their opinion at this point, myself included.

Iíll say again, for the third time, that Iím genuinely sad Democrats are acting like this. This entire thing has been such an embarrassment.

Best to all of your preferred candidates this November. Iím voting Republican for the second time in my life.

Iím out.

Cheers.

You're only sad about Democrats, eh?

It's amazing to me that anyone could have watched Graham's performance at the Senate hearing and thought "well damn, those Democrats sure aren't putting on their best face - I've definitely gotta vote GOP this round."

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1524 on: October 09, 2018, 09:11:05 AM »
When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.

The FBI did not have jurisdiction to conduct a complete investigation here.  This was an alleged state crime that did not involve federal law.  The FBI did not have subpoena power here.  They could only conduct a "background investigation," and the White House, as the client, has the right to limit that investigation.  I would have wanted a more thorough investigation, without question; my only caveat is that it's clear the democrats would have never been satisfied.

The FBI's jurisdiction includes fraud.  They should have been used to investigate the testimony given by Kavenaugh for any falsehood, but were explicitly prevented from doing so.  Why do you think that this was?

Fraud is generally a state law crime. The FBIís jurisdiction regarding fraud only relates to fraud relating to federal statutes.

Perjuring under oath to the Senate presumably falls into that category, but as shown in this thread, thereís a lot of reaching to be done to show that.

Well, that's the thing.  You've come down pretty hard on the Democrats for perceived political ploys.  The FBI was explicitly prevented from investigating into Kavenaugh's (potential) perjury by Republicans . . . so I guess we'll never know the truth of the matter.  But, I'll ask again . . . why do you think that this was?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1525 on: October 09, 2018, 09:25:20 AM »
Maybe, and this is a wild idea, the blame for making crude jokes at a young womanís expense could rest with the people who made the jokes and not the people shining a light on it and asking if a history of cruelty to women may be relevant to an assault charge. Party of personal responsibility strikes again. Why are you so anxious to shield Brett from his own behavior?  He wanted a seat in the highest court in the land and told us he was a church going choir boy and would have never been that drunk or been at a party like that. It turns out that he was a drunk who hung out with a dude who made jokes about women being hosebags and hitting them. The right lesson to learn is not to publish cruel jokes. No, wait. The lesson is that no matter how shit you were, just lie about it and Republicans  will wave it off if you are one of them. Lesson learned.

And you have proven the point here. You donít disagree that Brett lied. You havenít even offered a defense that his committee statement about the yearbook entry was true. You yourself agree the yearbook entry implied sex. Your best argument is that the original yearbook entry was just boasting, but pointing out yet another potential Brett Kavaugh lie doesnít erase the lie he made under oath. , it doesnít explain 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh offering a false statement  that a yearbook entry  about sex wasnít  about sex. You excused his lying, but you agree he lied. You said his lying may have been a kindness, but you agree it was a lie. You said you donít think it matters that he lied, but you agree it was a lie. So youíve agreed with us all along that Brett Kananaugh lied under oath.
That's about as clear as it can possibly get -- you think it's okay to lie under oath. 

What the fuck is the point of being under oath if it's okay to lie for (insert whatever reason you use)?

RSM sums it up well:
Dissecting a two-word yearbook entry from 1983 and hypothesizing about its meaning 35 years later? And maybe, maybe, maybe with this slanted interpretation he *might* have perjured himself?

Yes, I think whatever Kavanaugh said to the Senate about this two-word yearbook entry from 1983, for all the various reasons that have already been put forth, is completely irrelevant to how he would perform as a justice.  Others may disagree.  Most who disagree also disagree with how they expect Kavanaugh to rule as a justice.  Some who disagree agree with how they expect Kavanaugh to rule as a justice. 

If we want to get back to talking about Kavanaugh's judicial temperament and how he might rule on cases that come before the SC, that could be productive.  Or, given he has already been confirmed, we could see how he does rule and not have to speculate.  But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1526 on: October 09, 2018, 09:37:59 AM »
But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

It's no mystery how he's going to rule on many cases, he's an extreme partisan. Environmental regulation will be gutted, workers will have fewer protections in the workplace, he will rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he will not allow Trump to be prosecuted while in office.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1527 on: October 09, 2018, 09:49:18 AM »
I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.
We already do have civil remedies for rape (tort claims for assault, battery, IIED, etc.).  Those require preponderance proof. If proven, plaintiff could recover civil remedies including monetary damages and injunctive relief.  And no, they should not be jailed.  In this country, you can only be deprived of life and liberty if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime.  To set a precedent otherwise for one specific crime could open floodgates that I'm not comfortable opening.
And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I'm confused.  I thought you said the reason the burden of proof was so high was because the accusation was a crime.  What I proposed makes it a civil issue.  Sure you could still go to jail, but it wouldn't be a crime anymore.  Why wouldn't that lower the standard of proof for you?

I donít think Ford met even the lowest standard of proof.

That's likely because you're starting from an extremely biased perspective.  You can't objectively evaluate two competing claims if your assuming that one party is telling the truth with no evidence to back up that assumption.  In fact, that's pretty much the exact opposite of objectivity.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1528 on: October 09, 2018, 09:51:19 AM »
I am amazed at anyone would be embarrassed by Democrats, but NOT embarrassed or rather horrified at what Trump and the Republicans did here. So, you are mad that Democrats are bringing up a 1983 yearbook to corroborate the environment and mentality of the person applying to be the next supreme court justice (and also to show he perjured himself. The Times interviewed a number of people including the Captain of the football team when Kavanaugh was a senior, none had volunteered this alternative definition of the term.)

What people should be disgusted at: that Trump nominates an inexperienced, extremely partisan judge who does not pass the base minimum of judicial impartiality. That he was chosen because he is young, he will most likely side with the most extreme views of the right (such as overturning Roe vs. Wade) and most important has minority and dangerous views on the powers and exemptions of the presidential branch. This is not pursuit of fairness. Not pursuit of the truth. Doesn't matter if you are right or left you should be disgusted. 

And lastly, I do feel, as a women, another sense of deja vu and being "put in one's place". That if I was attacked, led an exemplary life, and then told my story, that I would be believed. Not attacked, have death threats, and conspiracy theories pushed about me. If you watched the testimony of both people, bottom line she was credible, he was not. There is no dancing around this.  Trump being president, is a slap in the face to all women. This is another slap in the face to let us know our voice is neither needed nor wanted nor listened to, no matter how successful, exemplary, or respectable we have lived our life.   


MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1529 on: October 09, 2018, 09:51:47 AM »
But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

It's no mystery how he's going to rule on many cases, he's an extreme partisan. Environmental regulation will be gutted, workers will have fewer protections in the workplace, he will rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he will not allow Trump to be prosecuted while in office.
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1530 on: October 09, 2018, 09:58:07 AM »
Maybe, and this is a wild idea, the blame for making crude jokes at a young womanís expense could rest with the people who made the jokes and not the people shining a light on it and asking if a history of cruelty to women may be relevant to an assault charge. Party of personal responsibility strikes again. Why are you so anxious to shield Brett from his own behavior?  He wanted a seat in the highest court in the land and told us he was a church going choir boy and would have never been that drunk or been at a party like that. It turns out that he was a drunk who hung out with a dude who made jokes about women being hosebags and hitting them. The right lesson to learn is not to publish cruel jokes. No, wait. The lesson is that no matter how shit you were, just lie about it and Republicans  will wave it off if you are one of them. Lesson learned.

And you have proven the point here. You donít disagree that Brett lied. You havenít even offered a defense that his committee statement about the yearbook entry was true. You yourself agree the yearbook entry implied sex. Your best argument is that the original yearbook entry was just boasting, but pointing out yet another potential Brett Kavaugh lie doesnít erase the lie he made under oath. , it doesnít explain 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh offering a false statement  that a yearbook entry  about sex wasnít  about sex. You excused his lying, but you agree he lied. You said his lying may have been a kindness, but you agree it was a lie. You said you donít think it matters that he lied, but you agree it was a lie. So youíve agreed with us all along that Brett Kananaugh lied under oath.
That's about as clear as it can possibly get -- you think it's okay to lie under oath. 

What the fuck is the point of being under oath if it's okay to lie for (insert whatever reason you use)?

RSM sums it up well:
Dissecting a two-word yearbook entry from 1983 and hypothesizing about its meaning 35 years later? And maybe, maybe, maybe with this slanted interpretation he *might* have perjured himself?

Yes, I think whatever Kavanaugh said to the Senate about this two-word yearbook entry from 1983, for all the various reasons that have already been put forth, is completely irrelevant to how he would perform as a justice.  Others may disagree.  Most who disagree also disagree with how they expect Kavanaugh to rule as a justice.  Some who disagree agree with how they expect Kavanaugh to rule as a justice. 

If we want to get back to talking about Kavanaugh's judicial temperament and how he might rule on cases that come before the SC, that could be productive.  Or, given he has already been confirmed, we could see how he does rule and not have to speculate.  But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

Why is it so hard for you to just say that you don't care if he lied without going on a tangent about how his yearbook won't affect his performance as a judge.  We all know the yearbook entry doesn't matter, it's his lying about it that we take issue with.  Your strident defense of his lies is making me question your honesty.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 10:15:18 AM by shenlong55 »

pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7860
  • Age: 62
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1531 on: October 09, 2018, 09:59:55 AM »
His financials do not make sense. That worries me.

YttriumNitrate

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1532 on: October 09, 2018, 10:01:59 AM »
If we want to get back to talking about Kavanaugh's judicial temperament and how he might rule on cases that come before the SC, that could be productive.  Or, given he has already been confirmed, we could see how he does rule and not have to speculate.  But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.
I'll speculate a third option, at least based on the current composition of the court, how far to the right Kavanaugh rules will be largely irrelevant. It is not very controversial to say that Kavanaugh is to the right of Roberts, so at least until there is a change in the court Kavanaugh is not going to be the deciding vote on any 5-4 rulings.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1533 on: October 09, 2018, 10:02:45 AM »
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

Not all that unlikely.  Obama nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was not a hard left partisan supreme court justice.  Very unlikely that the Republicans will appoint one though, based on recent actions.

pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7860
  • Age: 62
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1534 on: October 09, 2018, 10:09:44 AM »
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

Not all that unlikely.  Obama nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was not a hard left partisan supreme court justice.  Very unlikely that the Republicans will appoint one though, based on recent actions.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland, not Gorsuch.

Bateaux

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Location: Port Vincent
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1535 on: October 09, 2018, 10:17:42 AM »
I'm glad for this thread.  It separated much of the wheat from the chaff.  I've been blocking everyone who supported this confirmation on Facebook.  I feel the same here on MMM, I no longer have use for anything you have to say.  Great thing about FU money.   You can tell anyone FU.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 10:19:55 AM by Bateaux »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1536 on: October 09, 2018, 10:20:24 AM »
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

Not all that unlikely.  Obama nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was not a hard left partisan supreme court justice.  Very unlikely that the Republicans will appoint one though, based on recent actions.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland, not Gorsuch.

Thank you, maybe a sign that I've been discussing this too long.  :P

dustinst22

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1537 on: October 09, 2018, 10:24:51 AM »
Obama nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was not a hard left partisan supreme court justice.  Very unlikely that the Republicans will appoint one though, based on recent actions.

Actually Trump nominated Gorsuch.  But you are correct, he is not a hard left partisan :).
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 10:27:08 AM by dustinst22 »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5017
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1538 on: October 09, 2018, 10:51:45 AM »
But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

It's no mystery how he's going to rule on many cases, he's an extreme partisan. Environmental regulation will be gutted, workers will have fewer protections in the workplace, he will rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he will not allow Trump to be prosecuted while in office.
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

It is not rare for justices to be appointed by some people from the opposing party, because the SCOTUS is not supposed to be a political weapon.

Obama's SCOTUS justices were appointed by 68-31 and 63-37.  The GOP pulled some underhanded bullshit and simply didn't allow a vote for his third nominee.

Trump's SCOTUS justices were appointed by 54-45 and 50-48.

This "elections have consequences" is a pathetic excuse for the abysmal depths the Trump administration has reached and absolutely reeks of a smug "You can't do anything about it, so deal with it" mentality that does nobody any good.

You can pretend what you want. The simple fact is that the GOP will do anything to get their way -- including stonewalling ANY NOMINEE THEY DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN. Might I remind you about what happened during Obama's last term?

On February 23, the eleven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the new president took office.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2018, 10:55:21 AM by JLee »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1539 on: October 09, 2018, 11:17:30 AM »
The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

  • The problem here is that the Republicans are undermining elections so that
    many people can't vote - Florida
    make it difficult to vote - harder to prove one's residency in order to vote - Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, etc.
    take away people's voting registration - purging the voter rolls
    extreme gerrymandering congressional and state house districts
    taking away the governor's authority in North Carolina when the Democrat won
    refuse to allow Obama to appoint anyone to any federal court, etc.

In other words we are becoming a one-party Authoritarian state - and we got there precisely through destroying the democratic process and preventing the will of the majority.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1540 on: October 09, 2018, 11:18:20 AM »
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

That's about as clear as it can possibly get -- you think it's okay to lie under oath. 

What the fuck is the point of being under oath if it's okay to lie for (insert whatever reason you use)?

MDM thinks it's not only OK to lie under oath, but it's Ok for a nominee to the highest court in the land to lie under oath.  Surely, surely we should hold such nominees to a higher standard.  No one is asking that he not ever have told a lie, but at least don't lie under oath.  He's a judge and an attorney. If he can't figure out the words to express himself without lying and while preserving the dignity of Renate Schroeder...maybe he isn't that great?

But this is speculation that he lied to protect her dignity. I posit that he lied to make himself look better.  We can't know.  But we all think he lied.  It's pretty telling that RSM, MDM, and Iris Lily are various levels of outraged or embarrassed at our tone and wonder at our thought processes.  But none of them have argued that Kavanaugh didn't lie.  RSM did say that it was a reach to say he was lying, but did not elaborate as to why it was a reach.  Then, he put forth the unusual legal theory that lies under oath are OK so long as the number of words involved is few and/or the subject matter is one that RSM finds to be trivial. 

Frankly, I think all this anger about our tone is because conservatives prefer when we just shut up and let them do what they want.  Then, when we don't, they construct elaborate stories as to why it's backfiring on us in hopes that we'll give up.  Sometimes, they are right.  Sometimes, they are wrong. It's too soon to tell here.  But this is a political argument separate from a consideration of whether it's OK for Brett Kavanaugh to lie under oath.  Btw-I'm pretty sure that's illegal whether or not a bunch of internet commenters are OK with it.




gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 228

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1542 on: October 09, 2018, 11:24:19 AM »
Well, it appears that Collins got something for Maine, at least:
http://bangordailynews.com/2018/09/13/business/defense-bill-with-162m-for-maine-shipyard-upgrades-sent-to-trump-for-signature/

Quote
KITTERY, Maine ó U.S. Sen. Susan Collins announced Thursday the fiscal year 2019 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, including more than $162 million for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, is headed to the presidentís desk to be signed into law.

dustinst22

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1543 on: October 09, 2018, 11:30:15 AM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

All of you can enjoy that.
   

Good read, thanks for sharing.  I don't normally like what comes from the Atlantic, but this was well written.

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1544 on: October 09, 2018, 11:49:27 AM »
What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's.  Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

Reportedly Ford and her team would have ruled out the July 1st date if questioned about it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/04/kavanaugh-confirmation-calendar-ford-870982

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1545 on: October 09, 2018, 11:52:28 AM »
Why is it so hard for you to just say that you don't care if he lied
I've already said I don't care if he lied about the Renate yearbook entry, because the entry doesn't matter and there is a very plausible (not definite, but at least plausible) and defensible reason why he would say what he did, as has now been discussed ad nauseam.
Quote
without going on a tangent about how his yearbook won't affect his performance as a judge.  We all know the yearbook entry doesn't matter, it's his lying about it that we take issue with.
I'm glad we agree the yearbook entry doesn't matter.   
Quote
Your strident defense of his lies is making me question your honesty.
I suppose stridency is in the eye of the beholder.  You are certainly welcome to disagree with me on the extent to which the discussion about something that doesn't matter is itself relevant.  Yes, I know "the coverup is worse than the crime" saying.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12287
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1546 on: October 09, 2018, 11:54:01 AM »
What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's.  Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

Reportedly Ford and her team would have ruled out the July 1st date if questioned about it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/04/kavanaugh-confirmation-calendar-ford-870982

If true, that would kinda put to bed the "Ford was a partisan hack, attacking Kavenaugh for political gain" narrative doesn't it?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1547 on: October 09, 2018, 11:59:47 AM »
MDM thinks it's not only OK to lie under oath, but it's Ok for a nominee to the highest court in the land to lie under oath.
Yes, for this specific case and for the reasons already discsussed.
Quote
Surely, surely we should hold such nominees to a higher standard.  No one is asking that he not ever have told a lie, but at least don't lie under oath.  He's a judge and an attorney. If he can't figure out the words to express himself without lying and while preserving the dignity of Renate Schroeder...maybe he isn't that great?
That's a defensible position, just one with which I don't agree.

Quote
But this is speculation that he lied to protect her dignity. I posit that he lied to make himself look better.  We can't know.  But we all think he lied.  It's pretty telling that RSM, MDM, and Iris Lily are various levels of outraged or embarrassed at our tone and wonder at our thought processes.  But none of them have argued that Kavanaugh didn't lie.  RSM did say that it was a reach to say he was lying, but did not elaborate as to why it was a reach.  Then, he put forth the unusual legal theory that lies under oath are OK so long as the number of words involved is few and/or the subject matter is one that RSM finds to be trivial.
Can't speak for the others but I'm neither outraged nor embarrassed at your tone or your opinion.  I think it's possible to disagree without being outraged or embarrassed.

Quote
Frankly, I think all this anger about our tone is because conservatives prefer when we just shut up and let them do what they want.  Then, when we don't, they construct elaborate stories as to why it's backfiring on us in hopes that we'll give up.  Sometimes, they are right.  Sometimes, they are wrong. It's too soon to tell here.  But this is a political argument separate from a consideration of whether it's OK for Brett Kavanaugh to lie under oath.  Btw-I'm pretty sure that's illegal whether or not a bunch of internet commenters are OK with it.
Well, I guess RSM did come across as angry, so I'll let RSM address that.  Didn't see much anger in Iris Lily, nor (although mirrors can be foggy) in myself, but one can't control others' perceptions.

dustinst22

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1548 on: October 09, 2018, 12:04:42 PM »



If true, that would kinda put to bed the "Ford was a partisan hack, attacking Kavenaugh for political gain" narrative doesn't it?

Not at all.  Perhaps her legal team was worried the people on the list of that date would give corroborative testimony that contradicted her story.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1549 on: October 09, 2018, 12:06:06 PM »
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

All of you can enjoy that.
+1

The conclusion seems particularly hopeful (and, I hope, correct):
Quote
I do know that many people in rival camps vastly overestimate the gulf in values between themselves and many on the other side, that the attendant polarization most advantages demagoguesóand that the actual divisions in American society arenít nearly as stark as we often imagine.