Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 53071 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11805
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1550 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: 8553
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1551 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

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1552 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: 8553
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1553 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 demagogues—and that the actual divisions in American society aren’t nearly as stark as we often imagine.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1554 on: October 09, 2018, 12:16:14 PM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

And where is Trump during all of this? Oh that's right, he is mocking and humiliating Ford. Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1555 on: October 09, 2018, 12:29:05 PM »
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.

I appreciate this honest response. I don't agree with where you came out on this, but thank you for admitting that you think he lied under oath.   The only silver lining in this whole fiasco is that perhaps people saw these casual cruelties as the sort of thing that can potentially leave a stain.   If we can't get them to have sympathy for the Renates of the world, perhaps we rely on their boundless sympathy for themselves.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8553
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1556 on: October 09, 2018, 12:35:21 PM »
The only silver lining in this whole fiasco is that perhaps people saw these casual cruelties as the sort of thing that can potentially leave a stain.
And on that we have no disagreement. :)

I'd hope that it goes beyond self-interest, but yes even a self-interested decision to act better is a good thing overall.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6946
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1557 on: October 09, 2018, 01:08:27 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)


MiserlyMiser

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1559 on: October 09, 2018, 01:58:45 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6946
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1560 on: October 09, 2018, 02:15:58 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 


Thanks for the correction!

It did sound like Kavanaugh was comfortable talking to Kagan throughout the day.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1561 on: October 10, 2018, 09:21:10 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1562 on: October 10, 2018, 09:31:39 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

Are you honestly arguing that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford are better off for having gone public?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3283
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1563 on: October 10, 2018, 09:32:43 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.


Wow.

Just wow.

Not really sure that all this filthy lucre you think Ford is gonna get will make up for the death threats, having to have her family in hiding under guard, etc., dude.

Jesus.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1564 on: October 10, 2018, 10:31:58 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

wut

asiljoy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1565 on: October 10, 2018, 11:29:05 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

No. She clearly has stated that she left the decision up to Ford and if I were Ford I would absolutely wait until the last possible moment in the vain hope that he would be eliminated for one of the other very viable reasons (not as qualified as others on the list, temperament, the stolen docs, the weird debt thing, etc) in order to avoid the death threats/keep my kids safe.

MiserlyMiser

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1566 on: October 10, 2018, 11:38:26 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

No. She clearly has stated that she left the decision up to Ford and if I were Ford I would absolutely wait until the last possible moment in the vain hope that he would be eliminated for one of the other very viable reasons (not as qualified as others on the list, temperament, the stolen docs, the weird debt thing, etc) in order to avoid the death threats/keep my kids safe.
Yeah, in my opinion, the politically expedient thing for Senator Feinstein would have been to make the allegations public earlier.  She did not, because she respected that it was Dr. Ford's decision to make and she has integrity.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1567 on: October 10, 2018, 11:42:34 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

No. She clearly has stated that she left the decision up to Ford and if I were Ford I would absolutely wait until the last possible moment in the vain hope that he would be eliminated for one of the other very viable reasons (not as qualified as others on the list, temperament, the stolen docs, the weird debt thing, etc) in order to avoid the death threats/keep my kids safe.

There have been many high profile false rape/sexual assault allegations with much less obvious up side for the accuser.  Some of these are presumably driven by revenge.  In recent times, being a "survivor" of sexual assault is almost a badge of honor.  The UVa hoax seemed to reveal a desire to belong to the "survivor" club among some college women.  In the Blasey-Ford case, her politics and those of her close friends may provide a clear incentive to take down a Trump S. Ct. nominee.  Then again, this may be a false memory.  Who knows.  There is no real corroboration.  The so-called evidence she provided wouldn't be nearly sufficient for a finding of liability in a civil suit (preponderance of evidence) much less in a criminal proceeding (beyond a reasonable doubt).  I believe many of those posting here desperately want for him to be guilty because they don't want him on the court.

dustinst22

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 452
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1568 on: October 10, 2018, 11:43:10 AM »
In my opinion, the politically expedient thing for Senator Feinstein would have been to make the allegations public earlier.  She did not, because she respected that it was Dr. Ford's decision to make and she has integrity.

Ford also wanted her name to remain anonymous, that wish wasn't respected. 

I'm sure as time passes we'll find the truth behind how this circus was handled by Diane Feinstein and the attorneys representing Dr. Ford as well as some extremely deep-pocketed interests. Maybe even more about Dr. Ford herself.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1569 on: October 10, 2018, 11:44:11 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

No. She clearly has stated that she left the decision up to Ford and if I were Ford I would absolutely wait until the last possible moment in the vain hope that he would be eliminated for one of the other very viable reasons (not as qualified as others on the list, temperament, the stolen docs, the weird debt thing, etc) in order to avoid the death threats/keep my kids safe.
Yeah, in my opinion, the politically expedient thing for Senator Feinstein would have been to make the allegations public earlier.  She did not, because she respected that it was Dr. Ford's decision to make and she has integrity.
This information could have been brought to Grassley's attention and investigated confidentially.  That was never the goal of the Dems.  They chose to hold it until the last minute and then drop it into the public domain to derail the nomination.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2908
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1570 on: October 10, 2018, 11:53:09 AM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?




craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1571 on: October 10, 2018, 12:00:08 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

This could be a hate crime.  Based on some of her previous statements, the "wise latina" certainly appears to have it in for white men.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sotomayor said in a speech at 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, law school. She made similar statements at other such events.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sotomayor-explains-wise-latina-comment/

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1572 on: October 10, 2018, 12:00:45 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

This is either shamelessly cynical whataboutism or utter madness.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3283
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1573 on: October 10, 2018, 12:01:35 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

She pinched his *robe.*

Man, the desperation to make the "both sides" argument is strong...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/ginsburg-temporarily-blocks-ross-deposition-in-census-lawsuit


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11805
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1574 on: October 10, 2018, 12:20:15 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

Quote
Jokes abounded during the session. At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor playfully pinched Justice Neil Gorsuch’s robe to illustrate a question about the reach of the federal statute that was at issue. Gorsuch reacted with feigned surprise, bringing the packed courtroom to laughter.

Sure sounds like pretty much the same thing as knocking a woman to the bed, climbing on top of her, holding a hand over her mouth so that she has trouble breathing, and drunkenly ripping the clothes off of her.  To a Republican.

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1575 on: October 10, 2018, 12:34:14 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

Quote
Jokes abounded during the session. At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor playfully pinched Justice Neil Gorsuch’s robe to illustrate a question about the reach of the federal statute that was at issue. Gorsuch reacted with feigned surprise, bringing the packed courtroom to laughter.

Sure sounds like pretty much the same thing as knocking a woman to the bed, climbing on top of her, holding a hand over her mouth so that she has trouble breathing, and drunkenly ripping the clothes off of her.  To a Republican.

Much more likely that Sen. Menendez had sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican republic.  The Obama Justice Department said they had corroborating evidence.  Outrageous that he still has his Senate seat.  I know - whataboutism.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/24/feds-say-corroborating-evidence-backed-menendez-prostitution-claims

craimund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1576 on: October 10, 2018, 12:35:34 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

Quote
Jokes abounded during the session. At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor playfully pinched Justice Neil Gorsuch’s robe to illustrate a question about the reach of the federal statute that was at issue. Gorsuch reacted with feigned surprise, bringing the packed courtroom to laughter.

Sure sounds like pretty much the same thing as knocking a woman to the bed, climbing on top of her, holding a hand over her mouth so that she has trouble breathing, and drunkenly ripping the clothes off of her.  To a Republican.

If you believe that happened.  No evidence it did.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2908
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1577 on: October 10, 2018, 12:38:10 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

She pinched his *robe.*

Man, the desperation to make the "both sides" argument is strong...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/ginsburg-temporarily-blocks-ross-deposition-in-census-lawsuit

Ok, I didnt know it was fabric on his person, not his actual person, that she playfully pinched.
That is different, I agtee.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3283
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1578 on: October 10, 2018, 12:42:58 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

She pinched his *robe.*

Man, the desperation to make the "both sides" argument is strong...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-10/ginsburg-temporarily-blocks-ross-deposition-in-census-lawsuit

Ok, I didnt know it was fabric on his person, not his actual person, that she playfully pinched.
That is different, I agtee.

Thank you.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2908
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1579 on: October 10, 2018, 12:45:55 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

Quote
Jokes abounded during the session. At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor playfully pinched Justice Neil Gorsuch’s robe to illustrate a question about the reach of the federal statute that was at issue. Gorsuch reacted with feigned surprise, bringing the packed courtroom to laughter.

Sure sounds like pretty much the same thing as knocking a woman to the bed, climbing on top of her, holding a hand over her mouth so that she has trouble breathing, and drunkenly ripping the clothes off of her.  To a Republican.
Probably no assult is the best course of action, none at all.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4935
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1580 on: October 10, 2018, 12:47:45 PM »
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

As this is primarily a financial / ER forum, I am curious what would motivate someone to find this place, register here, and start posting exclusively in political threads.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3283
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1581 on: October 10, 2018, 12:51:40 PM »
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

As this is primarily a financial / ER forum, I am curious what would motivate someone to find this place, register here, and start posting exclusively in political threads.

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

In his defense, sort of, when I joined I lurked for a long time, then primarily posted in the financial threads for a while, and now I almost exclusively post in Off Topic.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4935
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1582 on: October 10, 2018, 12:56:05 PM »
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

As this is primarily a financial / ER forum, I am curious what would motivate someone to find this place, register here, and start posting exclusively in political threads.

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

In his defense, sort of, when I joined I lurked for a long time, then primarily posted in the financial threads for a while, and now I almost exclusively post in Off Topic.

Sure, but you had a reason to be here in the first place.  This person registered on Christmas day last year and immediately began posting in controversial political threads, and has not ventured onto any other topics since.

It's....odd.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3283
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1583 on: October 10, 2018, 12:58:41 PM »
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

As this is primarily a financial / ER forum, I am curious what would motivate someone to find this place, register here, and start posting exclusively in political threads.

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

In his defense, sort of, when I joined I lurked for a long time, then primarily posted in the financial threads for a while, and now I almost exclusively post in Off Topic.

Sure, but you had a reason to be here in the first place.  This person registered on Christmas day last year and immediately began posting in controversial political threads, and has not ventured onto any other topics since.

It's....odd.

Huh. Yeah, I see what you mean.

Lews Therin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1961
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Ottawa
  • Used to be Canadian Ben
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1584 on: October 10, 2018, 01:00:53 PM »
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

As this is primarily a financial / ER forum, I am curious what would motivate someone to find this place, register here, and start posting exclusively in political threads.

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

In his defense, sort of, when I joined I lurked for a long time, then primarily posted in the financial threads for a while, and now I almost exclusively post in Off Topic.

Sure, but you had a reason to be here in the first place.  This person registered on Christmas day last year and immediately began posting in controversial political threads, and has not ventured onto any other topics since.

It's....odd.

Huh. Yeah, I see what you mean.

Interestingly, most are fallacy arguments.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3283
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1585 on: October 10, 2018, 01:08:49 PM »
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

As this is primarily a financial / ER forum, I am curious what would motivate someone to find this place, register here, and start posting exclusively in political threads.

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

In his defense, sort of, when I joined I lurked for a long time, then primarily posted in the financial threads for a while, and now I almost exclusively post in Off Topic.

Sure, but you had a reason to be here in the first place.  This person registered on Christmas day last year and immediately began posting in controversial political threads, and has not ventured onto any other topics since.

It's....odd.

Huh. Yeah, I see what you mean.

Interestingly, most are fallacy arguments.

Ha -- yeah, I was gonna point out his ridiculous goalpost fallacy argument above, but I've seen enough of Craimund to know it wouldn't make a difference.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11805
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1586 on: October 10, 2018, 01:31:44 PM »
Much more likely that Sen. Menendez had sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican republic.  The Obama Justice Department said they had corroborating evidence.  Outrageous that he still has his Senate seat.  I know - whataboutism.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/24/feds-say-corroborating-evidence-backed-menendez-prostitution-claims

I agree with you on all counts here.

You are (knowingly) using whataboutism in an attempt to normalize what happened with Kavenaugh.

It is outrageous that this democratic senator still has his senate seat.  He should be removed, there are better candidates.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1587 on: October 10, 2018, 01:52:55 PM »
Craiumud, methinks are a troll. A not super-successful troll, in that his posts contain extreme claims, with no shred of evidence, and not in continuity with the rest of the thread. I'm sure he/she will get better. Even Limbaugh had to start somewhere.

there are a couple forums including this forum I post on because of the topics, the posters are smarter than the average chipmunk and they are not unundated with trolls. I don't see that happening here yet, but once a forum gets past a certain tipping point in trolls, the forum loses control, its usefulness drops, and responsible posters drop out.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 01:54:49 PM by partgypsy »

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1588 on: October 10, 2018, 02:08:28 PM »
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Sotomayor pinched Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh.  I would be surprised if Sotomayor and Kavanaugh have the kind of rapport that she would feel comfortable pinching him to make a point, at least not on his first day. 
Not that it matters much, but it's just that the facts have been widely mistaken/ignored/misrepresented during this process, and this one, at least, is simple and should be non-controversial to correct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c

This thread is bizarre.  Posts here decry physical assult on women but now it is ok to physically pinch someone, a colleage on the Supreme Court. It is all jokey. Girls will be girls! And girls pinch!  But ONLY if they “feel comfortable.”

Are you people listening to yourselves?

Quote
Jokes abounded during the session. At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor playfully pinched Justice Neil Gorsuch’s robe to illustrate a question about the reach of the federal statute that was at issue. Gorsuch reacted with feigned surprise, bringing the packed courtroom to laughter.

Sure sounds like pretty much the same thing as knocking a woman to the bed, climbing on top of her, holding a hand over her mouth so that she has trouble breathing, and drunkenly ripping the clothes off of her.  To a Republican.

If you believe that happened.  No evidence it did.

People keep saying that. It is not true. If you look up types of evidence, in court, a main type of evidence is witness and sworn testimony. that's what Ford provided. Her testimony was actually supported by: she knew these people and even Kavanaugh admitted she was in the same social circle. She happened to name not just him but the names of close friends, and that the same names were mentioned in a calendar date of Kavanaugh's. That calendar date was the same time frame she believes it occurred (the summer before senior year).
I agree there is not ENOUGH evidence for beyond a reasonable doubt, but that is true for almost all sexual assault cases. For whatever reason rape and sexual assault conviction rates are very low (but that's room for another thread here). Believe me, if anyone was able to prove this did NOT happen, they would be coming forward. Instead the only people interviewed 6 of the 9 were friends or former friends of Kavanaugh who would have compelling reasons to support Kavanaugh's version over her's. Hopefully, I do not have to explain after 25 years there would not be any physical evidence, or the many reasons why someone who was assaulted in their teens did not come forward publically about it at the time. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/holton-arms-alumnae-ford-accusations-kavanaughOther people DID notice a change in her behavior in the same time frame: as one classmate noticed, it was like "she dropped off the face of the earth". So that leaves you with the time machine to alter her behavior at the time of this event and also in 2012, 2016 to her reports to her therapists, or the chestnut she was somehow mistaken and couldn't correctly identify someone she knew socially prior to the event. 

"In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of evidence that may be sought from witnesses and the manner in which the interrogation of witnesses is conducted such as during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Other types of evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that a trier of fact—whether judge or jury—must apply when it assesses evidence."
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 02:20:04 PM by partgypsy »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1589 on: October 10, 2018, 02:39:34 PM »
Don't feed the trolls. If you identify someone as trolling, do not engage.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1590 on: October 10, 2018, 08:35:34 PM »
Don't feed the trolls. If you identify someone as trolling, do not engage.

+1. Some trolls are just blatantly obvious. I've seen some come and go and a couple that are surpringsly still around.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3565
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1591 on: October 11, 2018, 04:09:02 AM »
The Chief Justice has just referred 15 complaints about Kavanaugh's conduct for investigation and determination by a Federal Appeals Court.  Serious enough complaints for the Chief Justice not to be able to dismiss them, then.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/the-ethics-complaints-against-justice-brett-kavanaugh

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 608
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1592 on: October 11, 2018, 06:45:09 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

Are you honestly arguing that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford are better off for having gone public?

Not at all, but it's certainly a plausible motivator. People murder for money, after all. Money, fame, social acceptance, a better teaching gig at a higher-ranked school. Only time will tell if she cashes in like Hill did.

Incidentally, after reading the rest of the posts on this page, I guess I'll stop here. I don't disbelieve Ford, and her story is certainly plausible, but nothing more. At this point in this thread no new info is coming out, so it's all just shouting slogans.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 06:58:37 AM by Tom Bri »

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1593 on: October 11, 2018, 06:54:56 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

Are you honestly arguing that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford are better off for having gone public?

Not at all, but it's certainly a plausible motivator. People murder for money, after all. Money, fame, social acceptance, a better teaching gig at a higher-ranked school. Only time will tell.

Not feeding the troll any further.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1594 on: October 11, 2018, 08:58:55 AM »
One last thought about Kavanaugh.

It would have been best had he withdrawn and someone else been nominated, except...

There is little reason to believe some character assassination wouldn't have happened again. Feinstein was ready to call Barrett a religious nut. I am glad Kavanaugh stuck it out. He may become too much of a distraction and should quit soon, maybe early next year if Repubs hold the Senate. But then again who would replace him? What is the alternative?

This country is polarized and the media gives the attention to the extremes. I agree it is an important job and just a handful in the country; if there is any question just find someone else. However, that is not the problem. The problem is people are fighting too much, nothing would have satisfied the left so long as the nominee was picked and approved by Republicans. If not Kavanaugh, what are the options?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7182
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1595 on: October 11, 2018, 09:04:35 AM »
nothing would have satisfied the left so long as the nominee was picked and approved by Republicans. If not Kavanaugh, what are the options?

That seems like a bold assertion when "the left" had just finished confirming other republican nominees, despite congressional republicans refusing to hold hearings on any Obama nominee, no matter how qualified, solely because Obama was a democrat.  I think you're projecting.  The concerns you express are exactly what republicans just did, and not something democrats have ever done, so complaining about democrats for this reason seems silly.

MiserlyMiser

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1596 on: October 11, 2018, 09:15:19 AM »

There is little reason to believe some character assassination wouldn't have happened again. Feinstein was ready to call Barrett a religious nut. I am glad Kavanaugh stuck it out. He may become too much of a distraction and should quit soon, maybe early next year if Repubs hold the Senate. But then again who would replace him? What is the alternative?

Except, there were no allegations made about Neil Gorsuch.  Or Merrick Garland, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  I'm not aware of any allegations of sexual misconduct that have been made against any Supreme Court nominee, except for Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.  Opposing someone's candidacy because of how her religious views inform her legal philosophy and her rulings--which is what I understand the Democratic opposition to Amy Barrett to be (I hadn't heard that Sen. Feinstein was calling her a "religious nut," and I definitely wouldn't support that terminology)--is not "character assassination."

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1597 on: October 11, 2018, 09:26:42 AM »
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

... Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.

Anita Hill got a great job, fame and money. Ford will almost certainly get the same. Movie rights, book contracts, go-fund-mes. NOT saying these are her motives, but they certainly are at least plausible.

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.

Are you honestly arguing that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford are better off for having gone public?

Not at all, but it's certainly a plausible motivator. People murder for money, after all. Money, fame, social acceptance, a better teaching gig at a higher-ranked school. Only time will tell.

Not feeding the troll any further.

Good call. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2275
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1598 on: October 11, 2018, 10:37:06 AM »
For the next time

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #1599 on: October 12, 2018, 01:43:05 PM »
This thread eventually moved so quickly that I was unable to keep up. If I was asked any questions to which I didn't respond, I'm sorry. Rather than read, I could only use how recently it had been updated as a measure of whether the Kavanaugh issue was still roiling our Society. I think we've finally had 24 hours in which it wasn't updated.

I read this David French piece (perhaps one of you linked to it already) about how we're more divided than ever on this matter, and I worry for our country: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/kavanaugh-fight-left-america-divided/572554/ Although I tended to side with the Ford defenders on this matter, I want to express appreciation for those of you who maintained strong arguments on the Republican side...I'm grateful for the well-thought-out opinions on this site, especially those that challenge me.

I also listened to the Slate podcast "Slow Burn" about the rape allegations against President Clinton in 1998, and it's clear to me that the forces that put us into this divided place today are not recent ones. It was not that long ago that a lot of people were basically switching sides on these matters. I heartily recommend this podcast.