Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72473 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #200 on: September 21, 2018, 02:15:49 PM »
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isnít the right guy.  Itís not like they donít have more solid choices. 

But Trump is in office, so there is no backing down for him, not ever.  So here we are.

Doesn't have anything to do with Trump being in office.  Or even with wanting Kavanaugh.  He is a solid jurist, but he's basically Roberts when most of the right would prefer another Gorsuch or Thomas. But it would be ridiculous to make a standard requirement for nominees that there can't be anybody they knew in high school that is partisan enough to be willing to make an accusation against them that is vage enough to be non-provable or disprovable.  There will be too many people who refuse to submit themselves to a nomination process like that.
If this were actually the case, I might be inclined to agree with you. I think that she specifically discussed this with her therapist long before Kavanaugh was considered for SCOTUS, and she is also asking the FBI to investigate. People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

austin944

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Age: 57
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #201 on: September 21, 2018, 02:43:12 PM »
People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

There is a third alternative: the accuser's memory is faulty.  She may have misremembered the events and/or the name of her attacker from 35 years ago.  Judge Kavanaugh's name has been in the news a lot, before these latest allegations.  The power of suggestion can sometimes overwhelm weak memories.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #202 on: September 21, 2018, 02:47:57 PM »
People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

There is a third alternative: the accuser's memory is faulty.  She may have misremembered the events and/or the name of her attacker from 35 years ago.  Judge Kavanaugh's name has been in the news a lot, before these latest allegations.  The power of suggestion can sometimes overwhelm weak memories.

She knew Kavanaugh prior to the alleged incident. This tends not to be the type of thing a victim will forget. Quite the opposite. Memory is a fungible thing, and details like what song was put on could be argued. But I seriously doubt that the people who were involved are going to be forgotten.

Pylortes

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #203 on: September 21, 2018, 02:48:59 PM »
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isnít the right guy.  Itís not like they donít have more solid choices. 

But Trump is in office, so there is no backing down for him, not ever.  So here we are.

Doesn't have anything to do with Trump being in office.  Or even with wanting Kavanaugh.  He is a solid jurist, but he's basically Roberts when most of the right would prefer another Gorsuch or Thomas. But it would be ridiculous to make a standard requirement for nominees that there can't be anybody they knew in high school that is partisan enough to be willing to make an accusation against them that is vage enough to be non-provable or disprovable.  There will be too many people who refuse to submit themselves to a nomination process like that.
If this were actually the case, I might be inclined to agree with you. I think that she specifically discussed this with her therapist long before Kavanaugh was considered for SCOTUS, and she is also asking the FBI to investigate. People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

One person has made an accusation against the nominee.  She has yet to testify under oath or produce corroborating evidence, no investigation has yet occurred and the purported incident occurred many years ago and was not contemporaneously reported. The nominee denies the accusation.  Why would the GOP want to drop the nominee at this point merely on the basis of an accusation before even hearing from either side under oath?  If this is the new standard, watch out as any nominee regardless of how squeeky clean they are could be dragged down with unproven accusations.

I strongly prefer due process (and you should too) be followed before we dump someone based on an accusation that has yet to be proven. That's whats the legal process is all about. An HR manager would know that as well assuming you are talking about a current employee.  Otherwise you jump the shark.  If in this case, the process shows more likely than not that this incident occurred, then the President should withdraw the nomination and/or the Senate should vote him down.  If however there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim then the claims should be discounted and the nominee voted on based on his record.  This is pretty simple, let the process play out.  It would be better if there were time for a full investigation, however the accusation was only laid out at the 11th hour before the scheduled vote. Given that, it seems reasonable to hold the hearing first and then if substantial doubt still exists, delay the vote again and refer to the FBI for an investigation. 

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #204 on: September 21, 2018, 02:49:55 PM »
I've been thinking a lot about this idea of other scandals emerging, and I think it goes a long way to explaining the GOP's current strategy here.  First off, that's why they are so adamant in sticking to this artificial deadline which they created and which absolutely does not really exist.  The hope seems to be "if we can just get him confirmed by early next week maybe no new bad news will have enough time to surface!"  That's why they don't want to delay for an FBI investigation (Hill's took just 3 days), why they won't allow anyone but Ford and Kavanaugh to make any statement.

it also explains their thinly veiled hostility toward Ford.  Its not about her, it's about making any woman who might have had a similar encounter too scared to come forward.  They've been very clever about this thus far, seeming to 'hear her out' while making sure its clear that any accuser who steps foward will face public scrutiny and scorn.

I still think its a very short-sighted approach, and that the worst thing which could happen to the GOP here is to have more credible accounts occur after rushing through his confirmation.  But I think this at least explains their actions a bit more...

Or it could be a way of neutralizing the clearly political nature of the timing of the break of this story. The timing is obviously designed to derail his nomination at the last minute, and hopefully push the confirmation of Kavanaugh or anyone else Trump may replace him with, to after the mid-terms. The hope is then that they can exact their revenge over being denied Garland. I am a republican, (Luke warm on Kavanaugh) and I couldn't help but think "Well played" when this came out... and that it's pretty clear how cynically the democrats view the MeToo movement.

At any rate, I'm not sure how I feel about Kavanaugh at this point. On one hand, the GOP should look for someone less encumbered by an accusation like this. There is still time, There are other qualified candidates, and he sure mis-remembered alot of things that happened during his time in the Bush administration. The democrats have burned up a lot of their energy freaking out about Kavanaugh... nominating someone who is just a smidge to the left of kavanaugh would make the democrats look as foolish as they are if they continue to speculate hyperbolic about what he might do.

On the other, I do not think the GOP should lend legitimacy to the idea that questionable, unsubstantiated, unprovable, inconsistent and politically timed accusations should be a silver bullet to anyone democrats don't like. People do lie about things like this for a variety of reasons. You know the head-line grabbing cases. I can point to one that happened in my circle of acquaintances where a 13 year old girl about destroyed someones life because she thought it would be funny to see what happened. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of someone who first came forward with this to Dianne Fienstein.   

I guess we'll see how the hearings and testimony play out.

Quote
If this were actually the case, I might be inclined to agree with you. I think that she specifically discussed this with her therapist long before Kavanaugh was considered for SCOTUS, and she is also asking the FBI to investigate. People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

She did not mention Kavanaugh when she talked to the therapist. Ford remains unclear about many key details: When, where. She only seemed to specify that it was Kavanaugh after he was nominated for the SCOTUS. that seems to be the only concrete thing she remembers. Given her documented political activities, skepticism is clearly reasonable here. There has been zero evidence of subsequent things like this from Kavanaugh, and the evidence shows that this is something people don't tend to grow out of. I see no reason she would be afraid to invite FBI scrutiny into something that is totally un-provable either way.

To be clear - if Kavanaugh did infact attempt to rape her, then he is unequivocally not fit for the SCOTUS, his present office, or any public office. That the alleged rape was  unsuccessful  is a distinction without a difference.

anyway, imagine the story and the evidence shown was leveled against Obama....Would you be calling for his resignation? I am certain you would not if it came to it.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2018, 02:59:38 PM by ncornilsen »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #205 on: September 21, 2018, 03:00:11 PM »
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isnít the right guy.  Itís not like they donít have more solid choices. 

But Trump is in office, so there is no backing down for him, not ever.  So here we are.

Doesn't have anything to do with Trump being in office.  Or even with wanting Kavanaugh.  He is a solid jurist, but he's basically Roberts when most of the right would prefer another Gorsuch or Thomas. But it would be ridiculous to make a standard requirement for nominees that there can't be anybody they knew in high school that is partisan enough to be willing to make an accusation against them that is vage enough to be non-provable or disprovable.  There will be too many people who refuse to submit themselves to a nomination process like that.
If this were actually the case, I might be inclined to agree with you. I think that she specifically discussed this with her therapist long before Kavanaugh was considered for SCOTUS, and she is also asking the FBI to investigate. People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

I have no clue whether it has merit or not.  Nobody will every have a clue whether has merit.  Because it happened more than three decades ago.  I'm a little skeptical that this was some horrible event that scarred her so much that she couldn't talk about it for three decades yet can't say when or where it happened.  I'm also a little skeptical that a guy that tried to rape someone at the age of 17 didn't behave in a way that a single other person is willing to come out and talk about how rapey he was.  I'm also a little skeptical that two 17 year old boys attempted but failed to rape a 15 year old girl.  But really none of that is anything but conjecture. 

What is not conjecture is that if they derail the Kavanaugh nomination over a claim so vague as to be non-falsifiable, that is the precedent going forward.  I wouldn't expect democrats to follow it when the roles are reversed, but that will be the precedent until they ignore it.  And it's an extremely unreasonable precedent.  There is a reason statutes of limitation exist.  While Kavanaugh isn't at risk of criminal prosecution, the reasons still apply.  It is not fair to innocent people to punish them for allegations that they cannot disprove because they were not made until decades after they could be reasonably investigated. 

Also, she is not inviting scrutiny of the FBI.  She has left her story vague enough that there is nothing for them to do.  If she made it up completely out of thin air, she's not at any risk.  All the FBI can do is ask her what happened.  They can ask questions of the people she said were there (all of whom have denied anything like that took place) and if they stick to their story (which if she made it up, is what she would expect them to do), and that's pretty much the extent of it.  There's no real way for them to follow up when they don't know when or where it happened and don't know of anybody that was present so there's no way for them to determine that she made anything up.  Again, have no clue whether she's making anything up, just saying the FBI being involved isn't a deterrent because she hasn't provide anything falsifiable that could get herself in trouble.     

Pylortes

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #206 on: September 21, 2018, 03:06:50 PM »
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isnít the right guy.  Itís not like they donít have more solid choices. 

But Trump is in office, so there is no backing down for him, not ever.  So here we are.

Doesn't have anything to do with Trump being in office.  Or even with wanting Kavanaugh.  He is a solid jurist, but he's basically Roberts when most of the right would prefer another Gorsuch or Thomas. But it would be ridiculous to make a standard requirement for nominees that there can't be anybody they knew in high school that is partisan enough to be willing to make an accusation against them that is vage enough to be non-provable or disprovable.  There will be too many people who refuse to submit themselves to a nomination process like that.
If this were actually the case, I might be inclined to agree with you. I think that she specifically discussed this with her therapist long before Kavanaugh was considered for SCOTUS, and she is also asking the FBI to investigate. People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

I have no clue whether it has merit or not.  Nobody will every have a clue whether has merit.  Because it happened more than three decades ago.  I'm a little skeptical that this was some horrible event that scarred her so much that she couldn't talk about it for three decades yet can't say when or where it happened.  I'm also a little skeptical that a guy that tried to rape someone at the age of 17 didn't behave in a way that a single other person is willing to come out and talk about how rapey he was.  I'm also a little skeptical that two 17 year old boys attempted but failed to rape a 15 year old girl.  But really none of that is anything but conjecture. 

What is not conjecture is that if they derail the Kavanaugh nomination over a claim so vague as to be non-falsifiable, that is the precedent going forward.  I wouldn't expect democrats to follow it when the roles are reversed, but that will be the precedent until they ignore it.  And it's an extremely unreasonable precedent.  There is a reason statutes of limitation exist.  While Kavanaugh isn't at risk of criminal prosecution, the reasons still apply.  It is not fair to innocent people to punish them for allegations that they cannot disprove because they were not made until decades after they could be reasonably investigated. 

Also, she is not inviting scrutiny of the FBI.  She has left her story vague enough that there is nothing for them to do.  If she made it up completely out of thin air, she's not at any risk.  All the FBI can do is ask her what happened.  They can ask questions of the people she said were there (all of whom have denied anything like that took place) and if they stick to their story (which if she made it up, is what she would expect them to do), and that's pretty much the extent of it.  There's no real way for them to follow up when they don't know when or where it happened and don't know of anybody that was present so there's no way for them to determine that she made anything up.  Again, have no clue whether she's making anything up, just saying the FBI being involved isn't a deterrent because she hasn't provide anything falsifiable that could get herself in trouble.     

Agreed.  I think there's reasons to be skeptical of the allegation given the length of time back that it occurred the lack of people who were told about it then and the timing of it being raised now until evidence/testimony is produced that supports it.  However, its important for Senators to keep an open mind if she participates in a hearing and investigation.  That may be impossible though given the hyper partisan nature of today.  That's a shame.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #207 on: September 21, 2018, 03:45:42 PM »
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isnít the right guy.  Itís not like they donít have more solid choices. 

But Trump is in office, so there is no backing down for him, not ever.  So here we are.

Doesn't have anything to do with Trump being in office.  Or even with wanting Kavanaugh.  He is a solid jurist, but he's basically Roberts when most of the right would prefer another Gorsuch or Thomas. But it would be ridiculous to make a standard requirement for nominees that there can't be anybody they knew in high school that is partisan enough to be willing to make an accusation against them that is vage enough to be non-provable or disprovable.  There will be too many people who refuse to submit themselves to a nomination process like that.
If this were actually the case, I might be inclined to agree with you. I think that she specifically discussed this with her therapist long before Kavanaugh was considered for SCOTUS, and she is also asking the FBI to investigate. People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

One person has made an accusation against the nominee.  She has yet to testify under oath or produce corroborating evidence, no investigation has yet occurred and the purported incident occurred many years ago and was not contemporaneously reported. The nominee denies the accusation.  Why would the GOP want to drop the nominee at this point merely on the basis of an accusation before even hearing from either side under oath?  If this is the new standard, watch out as any nominee regardless of how squeeky clean they are could be dragged down with unproven accusations.

I strongly prefer due process (and you should too) be followed before we dump someone based on an accusation that has yet to be proven. That's whats the legal process is all about. An HR manager would know that as well assuming you are talking about a current employee.  Otherwise you jump the shark.  If in this case, the process shows more likely than not that this incident occurred, then the President should withdraw the nomination and/or the Senate should vote him down.  If however there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim then the claims should be discounted and the nominee voted on based on his record.  This is pretty simple, let the process play out.  It would be better if there were time for a full investigation, however the accusation was only laid out at the 11th hour before the scheduled vote. Given that, it seems reasonable to hold the hearing first and then if substantial doubt still exists, delay the vote again and refer to the FBI for an investigation.
Let's be clear. The intent is for the process to be allowed to play out. The simple fact is that the GOP has done a lot to shield Kavanaugh from scrutiny due to his long judicial record, and has not indicated that they are excited to let the process play out unless forced to do so. There has been a lot of derision of Ford's character and doubt about her case. The accusation was not laid out at the 11th hour by Ford, who provided the information as early as July. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the timing has a lot to do with delaying the confirmation, but that does not change the substance of the accusation, nor does it change the timing of when Ford notified. Yes, I think many of us would like to see the due process continue. I think that if there is to be an investigation, that it should happen before an open hearing. The only deadline for the nomination process is the political one, which is driven by the proximity to the midterm elections. Honestly, given the decades that justices spend on the court, that timing concern should not drive the calendar.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1351
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #208 on: September 21, 2018, 04:03:58 PM »
In the American context, a social conservative = racist, sexist, Christian fundamentalist with a gun fetish.  As mentioned, the Republican party has completely abandoned all elements of fiscal conservatism in favor of this brand of social conservatism . . . and the people who vote Republican have rewarded them richly for doing so.

Kavanaugh has a history of pro-Christian fundamentalist support, racism, has demonstrated deeply ingrained sexism, and appears to want to expand gun rights . . . so he's most likely a shoe in.  I think that the sexual assault allegations probably help him from a Republican standpoint.

^ That is complete nonsense, even for a far left liberal as yourself.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #209 on: September 21, 2018, 04:30:24 PM »

One person has made an accusation against the nominee.  She has yet to testify under oath or produce corroborating evidence, no investigation has yet occurred and the purported incident occurred many years ago and was not contemporaneously reported. The nominee denies the accusation.  Why would the GOP want to drop the nominee at this point merely on the basis of an accusation before even hearing from either side under oath?  If this is the new standard, watch out as any nominee regardless of how squeeky clean they are could be dragged down with unproven accusations.

I strongly prefer due process (and you should too) be followed before we dump someone based on an accusation that has yet to be proven. That's whats the legal process is all about. An HR manager would know that as well assuming you are talking about a current employee.  Otherwise you jump the shark.  If in this case, the process shows more likely than not that this incident occurred, then the President should withdraw the nomination and/or the Senate should vote him down.  If however there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim then the claims should be discounted and the nominee voted on based on his record.  This is pretty simple, let the process play out.  It would be better if there were time for a full investigation, however the accusation was only laid out at the 11th hour before the scheduled vote. Given that, it seems reasonable to hold the hearing first and then if substantial doubt still exists, delay the vote again and refer to the FBI for an investigation.

Several things to respond to here:
First, this is not 11th hour, nor is there any time constraint here.  The Senate committee can set whatever timeline it wants for a vote, and there is not scheduling conflicts for moving the vote to be a week or even a month later.  This is quite common.  The midterms are not for another 6 weeks, and the next congress will not be seated until January.

Second, an FBI investigation is far more valuable *before* individuals give testimony under oath, not after.  Their investigation can guide the questions being asked, and allows Senators to ask follow up questions if the individual gives answers which are at odds with what is in the FBI report.  An investigation would also highlight other individuals who could be called to testify under oath. 

Third (and very ironically) due process is what Kavanaugh's opponents are arguing for, while his supporters are trying to short-circuit the situation. Ford and her lawyer are actively requesting a full investigation.  The GOP is hiding behind an artificial and self constructed deadline.  They've made the absolutely baffling statement that "this isn't what the FBI does" (it is), and refused to allow other individuals, including the 3rd person allegedly in the room, to be involved. 

I absolutely agree with you that this process needs to play out.  The only way that can occur is for an investigation to be performed, full hearings to occur with people under oath, a method for other people to come forward without having to fear for their safety, and a vote only after these steps have been carried out to the fullest.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5976
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #210 on: September 21, 2018, 04:37:06 PM »
Quote
I have no clue whether it has merit or not.  Nobody will every have a clue whether has merit.  Because it happened more than three decades ago.  I'm a little skeptical that this was some horrible event that scarred her so much that she couldn't talk about it for three decades yet can't say when or where it happened.  I'm also a little skeptical that a guy that tried to rape someone at the age of 17 didn't behave in a way that a single other person is willing to come out and talk about how rapey he was.  I'm also a little skeptical that two 17 year old boys attempted but failed to rape a 15 year old girl.  But really none of that is anything but conjecture. 

And this is why women don't report things.  Among many other reasons.

She did talk about it.  To her therapist.

2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #211 on: September 21, 2018, 04:49:08 PM »
Quote
I have no clue whether it has merit or not.  Nobody will every have a clue whether has merit.  Because it happened more than three decades ago.  I'm a little skeptical that this was some horrible event that scarred her so much that she couldn't talk about it for three decades yet can't say when or where it happened.  I'm also a little skeptical that a guy that tried to rape someone at the age of 17 didn't behave in a way that a single other person is willing to come out and talk about how rapey he was.  I'm also a little skeptical that two 17 year old boys attempted but failed to rape a 15 year old girl.  But really none of that is anything but conjecture. 

And this is why women don't report things.  Among many other reasons.

She did talk about it.  To her therapist.

2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported.

According tot he NYT, her behavior changed pretty dramatically after the incident including becoming more socially withdrawn, which is consistent with trauma.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-allegations.html

Key quote:
Quote
After the alleged attack on Dr. Blasey, a male friend said, she ďfell off the face of the earth socially,Ē failing to appear at parties and events sheíd previously attended. ďAll I remember is after my junior year thinking, ĎWhereís Chrissy Blasey?íĒ he recalled.

ďShe was the sort of person a lot of people paid attention to ó she was a leader, she was great. I was like, where did she go?Ē

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #212 on: September 21, 2018, 05:46:12 PM »
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isnít the right guy.  Itís not like they donít have more solid choices. 

But Trump is in office, so there is no backing down for him, not ever.  So here we are.

Doesn't have anything to do with Trump being in office.  Or even with wanting Kavanaugh.  He is a solid jurist, but he's basically Roberts when most of the right would prefer another Gorsuch or Thomas. But it would be ridiculous to make a standard requirement for nominees that there can't be anybody they knew in high school that is partisan enough to be willing to make an accusation against them that is vage enough to be non-provable or disprovable.  There will be too many people who refuse to submit themselves to a nomination process like that.
If this were actually the case, I might be inclined to agree with you. I think that she specifically discussed this with her therapist long before Kavanaugh was considered for SCOTUS, and she is also asking the FBI to investigate. People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

One person has made an accusation against the nominee.  She has yet to testify under oath or produce corroborating evidence, no investigation has yet occurred and the purported incident occurred many years ago and was not contemporaneously reported. The nominee denies the accusation.  Why would the GOP want to drop the nominee at this point merely on the basis of an accusation before even hearing from either side under oath?  If this is the new standard, watch out as any nominee regardless of how squeeky clean they are could be dragged down with unproven accusations.

I strongly prefer due process (and you should too) be followed before we dump someone based on an accusation that has yet to be proven. That's whats the legal process is all about. An HR manager would know that as well assuming you are talking about a current employee.  Otherwise you jump the shark.  If in this case, the process shows more likely than not that this incident occurred, then the President should withdraw the nomination and/or the Senate should vote him down.  If however there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim then the claims should be discounted and the nominee voted on based on his record.  This is pretty simple, let the process play out.  It would be better if there were time for a full investigation, however the accusation was only laid out at the 11th hour before the scheduled vote. Given that, it seems reasonable to hold the hearing first and then if substantial doubt still exists, delay the vote again and refer to the FBI for an investigation.
Let's be clear. The intent is for the process to be allowed to play out. The simple fact is that the GOP has done a lot to shield Kavanaugh from scrutiny due to his long judicial record, and has not indicated that they are excited to let the process play out unless forced to do so. There has been a lot of derision of Ford's character and doubt about her case. The accusation was not laid out at the 11th hour by Ford, who provided the information as early as July. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the timing has a lot to do with delaying the confirmation, but that does not change the substance of the accusation, nor does it change the timing of when Ford notified. Yes, I think many of us would like to see the due process continue. I think that if there is to be an investigation, that it should happen before an open hearing. The only deadline for the nomination process is the political one, which is driven by the proximity to the midterm elections. Honestly, given the decades that justices spend on the court, that timing concern should not drive the calendar.

+1.

The GOP, notably Mr. Ditch Mitch, has already stated Kavanaugh will be confirmed. In essence claiming due process is irrelevant. I am surprised they didn't just label it "locker room behavior."

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #213 on: September 21, 2018, 05:50:25 PM »

Let's be clear. The intent is for the process to be allowed to play out. The simple fact is that the GOP has done a lot to shield Kavanaugh from scrutiny due to his long judicial record, and has not indicated that they are excited to let the process play out unless forced to do so. There has been a lot of derision of Ford's character and doubt about her case. The accusation was not laid out at the 11th hour by Ford, who provided the information as early as July. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the timing has a lot to do with delaying the confirmation, but that does not change the substance of the accusation, nor does it change the timing of when Ford notified. Yes, I think many of us would like to see the due process continue. I think that if there is to be an investigation, that it should happen before an open hearing. The only deadline for the nomination process is the political one, which is driven by the proximity to the midterm elections. Honestly, given the decades that justices spend on the court, that timing concern should not drive the calendar.

+1.

The GOP, notably Mr. Ditch Mitch, has already stated Kavanaugh will be confirmed. In essence claiming due process is irrelevant. I am surprised they didn't just label it "locker room behavior."

Well they've already called it "rough horseplay" and used the "boys will be boys" excuse, not to mention talked about how "what heterosexual male hasn't pushed things with a girl when just discovering his masculinity?" and everyone's favorite "but they were drunk hormonal teenagers!"   Different phrases, same sick justification. 

Pylortes

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #214 on: September 21, 2018, 06:09:08 PM »

One person has made an accusation against the nominee.  She has yet to testify under oath or produce corroborating evidence, no investigation has yet occurred and the purported incident occurred many years ago and was not contemporaneously reported. The nominee denies the accusation.  Why would the GOP want to drop the nominee at this point merely on the basis of an accusation before even hearing from either side under oath?  If this is the new standard, watch out as any nominee regardless of how squeeky clean they are could be dragged down with unproven accusations.

I strongly prefer due process (and you should too) be followed before we dump someone based on an accusation that has yet to be proven. That's whats the legal process is all about. An HR manager would know that as well assuming you are talking about a current employee.  Otherwise you jump the shark.  If in this case, the process shows more likely than not that this incident occurred, then the President should withdraw the nomination and/or the Senate should vote him down.  If however there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim then the claims should be discounted and the nominee voted on based on his record.  This is pretty simple, let the process play out.  It would be better if there were time for a full investigation, however the accusation was only laid out at the 11th hour before the scheduled vote. Given that, it seems reasonable to hold the hearing first and then if substantial doubt still exists, delay the vote again and refer to the FBI for an investigation.

Several things to respond to here:
First, this is not 11th hour, nor is there any time constraint here.  The Senate committee can set whatever timeline it wants for a vote, and there is not scheduling conflicts for moving the vote to be a week or even a month later.  This is quite common.  The midterms are not for another 6 weeks, and the next congress will not be seated until January.

Second, an FBI investigation is far more valuable *before* individuals give testimony under oath, not after.  Their investigation can guide the questions being asked, and allows Senators to ask follow up questions if the individual gives answers which are at odds with what is in the FBI report.  An investigation would also highlight other individuals who could be called to testify under oath. 

Third (and very ironically) due process is what Kavanaugh's opponents are arguing for, while his supporters are trying to short-circuit the situation. Ford and her lawyer are actively requesting a full investigation.  The GOP is hiding behind an artificial and self constructed deadline.  They've made the absolutely baffling statement that "this isn't what the FBI does" (it is), and refused to allow other individuals, including the 3rd person allegedly in the room, to be involved. 

I absolutely agree with you that this process needs to play out.  The only way that can occur is for an investigation to be performed, full hearings to occur with people under oath, a method for other people to come forward without having to fear for their safety, and a vote only after these steps have been carried out to the fullest.

Whether you or I like it, the Senate controls the calendar and the process for confirmation hearings.  The information was indeed disclosed at the 11th hour in terms of the consideration of the nominee, after thousands of questions had already been submitted and answered by the nominee and the nominations hearings had wrapped up and just days prior to when the judiciary committee was going to vote. 

Now, let me be clear that Iím not blaming the victim here for timing if she reported this back in July, but for one reason or another the Democrats (or really just Sen Feinstein) sat on the info and only played the card at the very last time possible.  There may be valid reasons why, but an objective observer could still reasonably question the timing, especially given the Dís claims throughout the process that they wanted to do anything possible to stop the process.   If you are going to blame the GOP for having an arbitrary calendar that they can move, itís only fair that you acknowledge that they have already shown some flexibility and postponed the vote to allow for the victim to testify Monday.  Further, it Now it appears she has pushed back through her attorneys and asked for longer (why? who knows), and the latest Iíve heard is that the sides have discussed moving the hearing to Wednesday.   

Neither the victim, nor the nominee, nor any other person gets to set the calendar of the Senate except the Senate.  The Senate alone in its constitutional role in the process can determine how it wants to advice and consent on the nominee.  If they decide a hearing under oath is how they want to learn more details on the allegation, itís really quite reasonable for the Senate to decide it prefers to put the parties under oath and question them. You, I or the victim might prefer another way, but this is far from unreasonable for them to consider the allegations in this manner.  Perhaps because of the optics, the GOP Senís on the judiciary committee are making accommodations to allow the victim the opportunity to testify and have offered several options to the victim/accuser to accommodate her.  The public should wait to hear what comes out of the hearing before rushing to judgment.   Again, we mostly agree and the main point is let the process play out and withhold judgment until we learn more and the parties testify.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #215 on: September 21, 2018, 06:50:18 PM »

Let's be clear. The intent is for the process to be allowed to play out. The simple fact is that the GOP has done a lot to shield Kavanaugh from scrutiny due to his long judicial record, and has not indicated that they are excited to let the process play out unless forced to do so. There has been a lot of derision of Ford's character and doubt about her case. The accusation was not laid out at the 11th hour by Ford, who provided the information as early as July. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the timing has a lot to do with delaying the confirmation, but that does not change the substance of the accusation, nor does it change the timing of when Ford notified. Yes, I think many of us would like to see the due process continue. I think that if there is to be an investigation, that it should happen before an open hearing. The only deadline for the nomination process is the political one, which is driven by the proximity to the midterm elections. Honestly, given the decades that justices spend on the court, that timing concern should not drive the calendar.

+1.

The GOP, notably Mr. Ditch Mitch, has already stated Kavanaugh will be confirmed. In essence claiming due process is irrelevant. I am surprised they didn't just label it "locker room behavior."

Well they've already called it "rough horseplay" and used the "boys will be boys" excuse, not to mention talked about how "what heterosexual male hasn't pushed things with a girl when just discovering his masculinity?" and everyone's favorite "but they were drunk hormonal teenagers!"   Different phrases, same sick justification.

These are the same people that impose dress restrictions on women at school so that the boys are not tempted. In a strange way, it speaks to a belief in frailty of Man, and that sin is inevitable. It goes all the way back to Eve with the proverbial apple (those damn temptresses!). Seriously, if men are supposed to be all strong and great and smart, why can't they be expected to regulate themselves?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #216 on: September 21, 2018, 07:04:26 PM »
This is an interesting interview.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/21/gop-women-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-florida-kaye-pkg-ac-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

These women are obviously self-selected. CNN also (probably) didn't ask for on-the-fence Trump supporters and, even if there was one in the group, there was a lot of peer pressure to not question the party line.

But,
1) We don't believe Ford.
2) Even if he did do it, there wasn't intercourse. It was only attempted rape. (!) She's still hung up on this?
3) Even if he did do it, what teenage boy hasn't done it?

If Ford is lying, why would she come forward with this allegation, considering the affect on her and her family:

1) She's also destroying his life.
2) Why didn't she come out sooner?

Why not have an investigation:

1) It doesn't matter what everyone else has to say.


One funny (but sad) comment was, "And who bought the alcohol for these kids?"

Another one: "And maybe she liked him, and he went out with another girl." Implying, I guess, that she made it up to get back at him.

The thinking in that group is...fascinating.

Points 2 and 3 make me so so very sad, more than any other points that have been brought up. It's not a perspective of I don't believe her or anything else, just even if it happened, everybody does it and it wasn't really that bad. Does anyone think that this is a view that many people outside of this article would have? I know that anecdotally, no one I know has at least admitted to thinking that way. Any thoughts, anecdotes, statistics? It is extremely distressing to believe that a sizable minority truly believe that if the account in its entirety is true, that that is ok....

Edited: I guess this shocked me going off people I know because even the Trump supporters I know when his comments about grabbing women came out would say "he's just talking, he didn't do that." With Stormy and such, they'd say, it was consensual, and so on. Self-deluded - of course. I understand if this isn't even a line at this point with anyone because of so many lines that have been crossed. It's just, to me, if we can't even agree that sexual assault is a bad thing, how can we ever make any change? I don't mean to derail the thread. I'm just curious what people have seen/think is out there.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2018, 06:19:42 AM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #217 on: September 22, 2018, 11:57:56 AM »
Patti Davis writes about her own sexual assault 40 years ago:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-was-sexually-assaulted-heres-why-i-dont-remember-many-of-the-details/2018/09/21/8ce0088c-bdab-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.f12691b68df0&noredirect=on

It's no surprise to (most) people on this thread but sexual assaults often don't go unreported and often stay hidden for years and decades.

Kavanaugh support polls at 38% and the events over the past week are alienating suburban women who tend to vote Republican. It's obvious that the leadership is out-of-step with even their own supporters. The GOP operatives are looking at the same polls. Given their actions so far, it may not matter.

Quote from: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/22/politics/kavanaugh-democrats-midterms-suburban-women/index.html
The poll found support for Kavanaugh had plummeted compared to its August results among independents (+15 percentage points then and -16 points now), suburban women (-6 points then and -11 points now) and women over age 50 (+3 points then and -7 points now). Those results suggest that even if Kavanaugh's nomination galvanizes committed GOP voters, Republicans' hopes of using it to persuade moderate voters could be evaporating.


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #218 on: September 22, 2018, 12:07:29 PM »
This is an interesting interview.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/21/gop-women-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-florida-kaye-pkg-ac-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

These women are obviously self-selected. CNN also (probably) didn't ask for on-the-fence Trump supporters and, even if there was one in the group, there was a lot of peer pressure to not question the party line.

But,
1) We don't believe Ford.
2) Even if he did do it, there wasn't intercourse. It was only attempted rape. (!) She's still hung up on this?
3) Even if he did do it, what teenage boy hasn't done it?

Points 2 and 3 make me so so very sad, more than any other points that have been brought up. It's not a perspective of I don't believe her or anything else, just even if it happened, everybody does it and it wasn't really that bad. Does anyone think that this is a view that many people outside of this article would have? I know that anecdotally, no one I know has at least admitted to thinking that way. Any thoughts, anecdotes, statistics? It is extremely distressing to believe that a sizable minority truly believe that if the account in its entirety is true, that that is ok....

That type of thinking may be a minority position but do note that those two women were willing to go on CNN.com and were comfortable enough to admit to believing that.

Kevin Cramer, North Dakota Senate nominee, has also stated,

Quote from: Kevin Cramer
These are teenagers who evidently were drunk, according to her own statement. They were drunk. Nothing evidently happened in it all, even by her own accusation. Again, it was supposedly an attempt or something that never went anywhere."

One guess as to Kevin's political party.

Cramer may become a lesson of "what not to say" but, as of right now, he felt secure enough in his supporters to say it out loud.

austin944

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Age: 57
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #219 on: September 22, 2018, 02:35:10 PM »
She knew Kavanaugh prior to the alleged incident. This tends not to be the type of thing a victim will forget. Quite the opposite. Memory is a fungible thing, and details like what song was put on could be argued. But I seriously doubt that the people who were involved are going to be forgotten.

I've not heard either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh say that they were acquaintances or friends prior to the alleged incident.  Where did you hear that? 

If they did meet prior to the alleged assault, then wouldn't you expect to see corroborating evidence at this point?  Wouldn't there be other acquaintances in common who could relate events where they both met or became acquainted before the incident?  Why hasn't Dr. Ford offered other evidence that she knew him (or has she already done that)?  How about just a general description of how they might have met before this alleged party?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #220 on: September 22, 2018, 02:47:35 PM »
She knew Kavanaugh prior to the alleged incident. This tends not to be the type of thing a victim will forget. Quite the opposite. Memory is a fungible thing, and details like what song was put on could be argued. But I seriously doubt that the people who were involved are going to be forgotten.

I've not heard either Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh say that they were acquaintances or friends prior to the alleged incident.  Where did you hear that? 

If they did meet prior to the alleged assault, then wouldn't you expect to see corroborating evidence at this point?  Wouldn't there be other acquaintances in common who could relate events where they both met or became acquainted before the incident?  Why hasn't Dr. Ford offered other evidence that she knew him (or has she already done that)?  How about just a general description of how they might have met before this alleged party?

I have no idea if they were acquaintances before Kavenaugh's failed rape attempt.  I know that things are and have historically been difficult for women, but don't believe that sexual assault hapens so frequently that it would be easily forgotten regardless.  The incident was discussed by Ford with her therapist long before Kavenaugh was up for appointment, so it's not like she's a political hack trying to ruin the Republican Party by making up a story either.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #221 on: September 22, 2018, 03:23:28 PM »
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2018, 08:05:10 PM by bacchi »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4598
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #222 on: September 22, 2018, 07:40:01 PM »
Why exactly would you state this forum is not a place for that discussion?  Expecially as someone who is not a mod?
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

Membership in sexist societies isn't a disqualifying factor in the halls of power, it's a prerequisite.  What, you thought the patriarchy just happened by accident?

I agree that there are genuine problems in society today with Rape Culture. Kavanaugh doesn't give any indication he appreciates this problem. Many republicans also don't give any indication they appreciate this problem.

But membership in a fraternity != having raped someone. Saying Kavanaugh joined this type of group as a young man therefore the Ford allegations (from before he was a Yale student) are true is not logical. And merely being the type of person who would join a fraternity while in college is not disqualifying.
While I would agree that not all of those who are members of a fraternity rape, the person who joins a fraternity is more likely to be a rapist than the general male population according to an entire body of research. See citations below.
One particular myth associated with fraternities is the idea that forcing drunk women to have sex is acceptable. In her qualitative research Sanday (1990) found that some fraternity members approved of this idea and called it “working out a yes.”  In addition, fraternities are associated with the sexual objectification of women through pornography and other means (Sanday 1990).
Schaeffer and Nelson (1993) found that residents in all male housing (regardless of fraternity status) were more traditional about gender roles and more accepting of rape myths than those in co-ed housing.
Stombler (1994) reported from her ethnographic study of “Little Sisters” to fraternities that these women were sexually objectified and commodified by fraternity brothers; for example, in some cases sisters were encouraged to portray themselves as sexually available to fraternity pledges.
Compared to non-fraternity men, fraternity men have been found to have more traditional attitudes towards women (Schaeffer and Nelson 1993); a more sexually permissive peer group (Lottes and Kuriloff 1994); stronger belief in male dominance (Kalof and Cargill 1991); and greater belief in “rape myths” (false beliefs about rape that tend to legitimize rape; Burt 1980; Boeringer 1999).
Boeringer (1996) found that fraternity members were more likely to have friends who had gotten women drunk or high to have sex, and who did not disapprove of this practice.
Fraternity affiliation has been found to be a significant predictor of sexually aggressive behavior in retrospective analyses (Lackie & de Man, 1997).
Murnen (2000) found that fraternity men were more likely to use degrading language to refer to women’s genitals than men not formally associated with a fraternity.
Prospectively, fraternity membership at baseline was a significant predictor of perpetration during the 3-month follow-up period (Loh, Gidycz, Lobo & Rohini Luthra 2005).
Bleecker and Murnen (2005) found that fraternity men were more likely to display sexually degrading pictures of women in their dorm rooms than non-fraternity men, and that the display of such images was associated with the men’s endorsement of rape myths.

Gin1984, you deserve credit for this post. A more in-depth discussion of Rape Culture--this is not the forum for this--would be incomplete without this as a starting point. Thank you!

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk


Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #223 on: September 22, 2018, 10:19:55 PM »
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

That shows weakness even though it's by far the safest play. I think they're going to push Kavanaugh through no matter the consequences.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #224 on: September 22, 2018, 10:39:38 PM »
Nay.  His anti-gun control stance is the only thing that recommends him to me.  But Iíd have to ignore he was appointed by the sleaziest administration in living memory to approve.  One that already demonstrated a willingness to trample even that for political expediency.  Not to mentiona generation of violating everything else in the Bill of Rights as an added benefit. 

aaahhrealmarcus

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Location: Missouri
  • Declutter. Decommodify. Denerdify.
    • Minimally Nerdy
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #225 on: September 23, 2018, 03:43:20 PM »
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

That shows weakness even though it's by far the safest play. I think they're going to push Kavanaugh through no matter the consequences.

Is it THAT hard to find someone who isn't an attempted rapist?

Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #226 on: September 23, 2018, 04:27:34 PM »
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

That shows weakness even though it's by far the safest play. I think they're going to push Kavanaugh through no matter the consequences.

Is it THAT hard to find someone who isn't an attempted rapist?

Among far right conservatives who also believe the President cannot be indicted while in office and that would rule to over turn Roe v Wade - apparently.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #227 on: September 23, 2018, 05:45:45 PM »
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

That shows weakness even though it's by far the safest play. I think they're going to push Kavanaugh through no matter the consequences.

Is it THAT hard to find someone who isn't an attempted rapist?

Among far right conservatives who also believe the President cannot be indicted while in office and that would rule to over turn Roe v Wade - apparently.

I know the above was said in jest, but there's a subtle narrative being played out here  - that Kavanaugh is somehow uniquely qualified and is above any other candidate, therefore he must be confirmed.

The reality of course is that if we consider the average experience of the last 30-some justices, there are probably at least 1,000 qualified candidates, many of whom are far right of center.  There's a list of 21 pre-vetted candidates already out there; all have less baggage and most have more experience. Kavanaugh's far from special, but they've hitched their wagon to his nomination, and now they're being dragged into the swamp.

JetBlast

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #228 on: September 23, 2018, 06:30:53 PM »
I think the fear is that if they pull Kavanaugh the process starts over. While, there is time to get someone else confirmed before the new congress in January, what if that nominee has a skeleton in their closet that wasnít found in the vetting process?  That might push things into next year, which the GOP is deathly afraid will mean a less extreme judge has to be confirmed.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #229 on: September 23, 2018, 06:55:56 PM »
Yep, they've hitched their wagon and to ditch him now would give Democrats a moral victory. The way this seems to be blowing up, they might get the justice in but are losing on the moral ground. They could have just yanked Kavanaugh immediately and showed how seriously they take sexual misconduct, and still get a pick in anyway.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #230 on: September 23, 2018, 08:22:30 PM »
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

The GOP gambled big that no more accusers or negative stories would surface.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4358
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #231 on: September 23, 2018, 08:23:00 PM »
Clearly a deep state feminist ploy to keep Collins and Murkowski in the news. In fact, all women senators should recuse themselves from this vote, too biased.

GreenEggs

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 567
  • Location: Here & There
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #232 on: September 23, 2018, 09:11:35 PM »
I wonder who Putin will choose next? 

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #233 on: September 23, 2018, 09:41:52 PM »
Clearly a deep state feminist ploy to keep Collins and Murkowski in the news. In fact, all women senators should recuse themselves from this vote, too biased.

LOL!

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #234 on: September 23, 2018, 10:31:10 PM »
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

You know, I hate to not believe people who say they're victims, and it is entirely possible that the described events took place... however, I think we should take allegations a bit skeptically. In a he-said-she-said case, I say, innocent until proven guilty.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3744
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #235 on: September 24, 2018, 12:46:48 AM »
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

You know, I hate to not believe people who say they're victims, and it is entirely possible that the described events took place... however, I think we should take allegations a bit skeptically. In a he-said-she-said case, I say, innocent until proven guilty.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminal charges which can result in someone's freedom or property being taken away.   Outside of criminal or civil action two people start on equal ground and if we have to chose we chose the more credible.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5827
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #236 on: September 24, 2018, 05:17:53 AM »
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

You know, I hate to not believe people who say they're victims, and it is entirely possible that the described events took place... however, I think we should take allegations a bit skeptically. In a he-said-she-said case, I say, innocent until proven guilty.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminal charges which can result in someone's freedom or property being taken away.   Outside of criminal or civil action two people start on equal ground and if we have to chose we chose the more credible.

Yes... it's the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities".

Basically, OJ Simpson no?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #237 on: September 24, 2018, 05:51:31 AM »
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

You know, I hate to not believe people who say they're victims, and it is entirely possible that the described events took place... however, I think we should take allegations a bit skeptically. In a he-said-she-said case, I say, innocent until proven guilty.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminal charges which can result in someone's freedom or property being taken away.   Outside of criminal or civil action two people start on equal ground and if we have to chose we chose the more credible.

Yes... it's the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities".

Basically, OJ Simpson no?

even more than that.  This isn't a criminal trial (or even a civil trial).  It's a job interview. Despite the continuous assertions, if Kavanaugh were to have his name withdrawn his life would not be 'ruined'.

Two women have forward publicly, and Michael Avenatti is claiming he represents a third, yet publicly unknown woman.  The proper course of action here is to have the FBI investigate to determine credibility and then have testimonies under oath. Congress should not approve a candidate to a lifetime appointment if there's credible evidence that that he committed (a) violent crime(s). The standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" here, it's "are these accusations and accusers credible". 

Unique User

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #238 on: September 24, 2018, 06:07:59 AM »
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

That shows weakness even though it's by far the safest play. I think they're going to push Kavanaugh through no matter the consequences.

Is it THAT hard to find someone who isn't an attempted rapist?

Among far right conservatives who also believe the President cannot be indicted while in office and that would rule to over turn Roe v Wade - apparently.

He also is in favor of both dark money in politics and foreign money in politics.  Add that in and it makes a lot more sense why so many politicians would favor him.  Also, attempted rape and misogyny?  It's a feature, not a bug!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #239 on: September 24, 2018, 07:04:31 AM »
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

That shows weakness even though it's by far the safest play. I think they're going to push Kavanaugh through no matter the consequences.

Is it THAT hard to find someone who isn't an attempted rapist?

Among far right conservatives who also believe the President cannot be indicted while in office and that would rule to over turn Roe v Wade - apparently.

I know the above was said in jest, but there's a subtle narrative being played out here  - that Kavanaugh is somehow uniquely qualified and is above any other candidate, therefore he must be confirmed.

The reality of course is that if we consider the average experience of the last 30-some justices, there are probably at least 1,000 qualified candidates, many of whom are far right of center.  There's a list of 21 pre-vetted candidates already out there; all have less baggage and most have more experience. Kavanaugh's far from special, but they've hitched their wagon to his nomination, and now they're being dragged into the swamp.

I take issue with the argument that the Republican party is "being dragged into the swamp".  They've not only been living there for some time, but have been increasing swamp area at a level that is making the Fish and Wildlife Service proud.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3744
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #240 on: September 24, 2018, 07:10:03 AM »
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

You know, I hate to not believe people who say they're victims, and it is entirely possible that the described events took place... however, I think we should take allegations a bit skeptically. In a he-said-she-said case, I say, innocent until proven guilty.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminal charges which can result in someone's freedom or property being taken away.   Outside of criminal or civil action two people start on equal ground and if we have to chose we chose the more credible.

Yes... it's the difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities".

Basically, OJ Simpson no?

even more than that.  This isn't a criminal trial (or even a civil trial).  It's a job interview. Despite the continuous assertions, if Kavanaugh were to have his name withdrawn his life would not be 'ruined'.

Two women have forward publicly, and Michael Avenatti is claiming he represents a third, yet publicly unknown woman.  The proper course of action here is to have the FBI investigate to determine credibility and then have testimonies under oath. Congress should not approve a candidate to a lifetime appointment if there's credible evidence that that he committed (a) violent crime(s). The standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" here, it's "are these accusations and accusers credible".

Yes.  This case is not simply "he said she said".  The people making the accusations have asked for an FBI investigation.  One of them has taken and passed a lie detector test administered by ex-FBI.  They have put forward the names of witnesses to call.  They have historical records to back up the fact that the allegations have been made over a period of years.    The side defending the accusations has refused an FBI investigation.  It has refused to allow witnesses to be called under oath.  It has disseminated completely unfounded libels that someone else was responsible for the attempted rape.  So all the surrounding facts lean towards supporting the accusations.

If nothing else, a Republican party that refuses to properly investigate credible accusations in order to railroad a second sexual predator onto a lifetime appointment with enormous power over the lives of women deserves all the calumny that can be directed at it. 

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1988
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #241 on: September 24, 2018, 07:15:14 AM »
I had an offline conversation with a friend (conservative) who claimed that the reason the FBI could do so much to investigate Thomas was that he was a Federal Employee during the time when he was targetting Anita Hill. Kavanaugh wasn't such during the time when these allegations are relevant.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #242 on: September 24, 2018, 07:24:46 AM »
Yes.  This case is not simply "he said she said".  The people making the accusations have asked for an FBI investigation.  One of them has taken and passed a lie detector test administered by ex-FBI.  They have put forward the names of witnesses to call.  They have historical records to back up the fact that the allegations have been made over a period of years.    The side defending the accusations has refused an FBI investigation.  It has refused to allow witnesses to be called under oath.  It has disseminated completely unfounded libels that someone else was responsible for the attempted rape.  So all the surrounding facts lean towards supporting the accusations.

If nothing else, a Republican party that refuses to properly investigate credible accusations in order to railroad a second sexual predator onto a lifetime appointment with enormous power over the lives of women deserves all the calumny that can be directed at it.

So, I completely agree with the first paragraph of your post.  The second sentence struck me as a bit worrisome though.  The Republican party doesn't deserve calumny.  Nobody does.  Lying about a person or group to hurt them is wrong.  What the Republican party deserves is to be called on and held accountable for it's actions.  There's no need to make false statements to damage the reputation of Republicans - the truth is damaging enough.

The Republican party has selected a sexist, racist, homophobe, serial liar as their leader and representative.  The party has done everything in it's power to subvert the democratic system (gerrymandering, increasing the ability of corporations and donors to influence politicians, voter suppression, collaborating with foreign powers to influence elections), and support those who are subverting the system.  They have repeatedly fielded and supported candidates with a history of sexual violence, rape, and pedophilia for positions to be filled.  This list just goes on and on.

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #243 on: September 24, 2018, 07:25:34 AM »
I'm sticking with "nay" at this point.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #244 on: September 24, 2018, 07:29:14 AM »
I had an offline conversation with a friend (conservative) who claimed that the reason the FBI could do so much to investigate Thomas was that he was a Federal Employee during the time when he was targetting Anita Hill. Kavanaugh wasn't such during the time when these allegations are relevant.

Nothing has infuriated me more in recent days than this bizarre GOP talking point that "the FBI doesn't do these kinds of investigations".  Of course they do - that's their job.  They are uniquely qualified and trained to conduct investigations for all high-level federal employees. They investigated the accusations by Anita Hill against Justice Thomas (and found them credible) - that took them just 3 days.

Saying that the FBI should not investigate charges of attempted rape is tantamount to declaring that you have no interest in learning whether such allegations have merit.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #245 on: September 24, 2018, 08:06:01 AM »
Quote
I have no clue whether it has merit or not.  Nobody will every have a clue whether has merit.  Because it happened more than three decades ago.  I'm a little skeptical that this was some horrible event that scarred her so much that she couldn't talk about it for three decades yet can't say when or where it happened.  I'm also a little skeptical that a guy that tried to rape someone at the age of 17 didn't behave in a way that a single other person is willing to come out and talk about how rapey he was.  I'm also a little skeptical that two 17 year old boys attempted but failed to rape a 15 year old girl.  But really none of that is anything but conjecture. 

And this is why women don't report things.  Among many other reasons.

She did talk about it.  To her therapist.

2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported.

She talked to her therapist about it roughly thirty years after it happened without naming Kavanaugh. 

Women don't report things for lots of reasons, but if you're worried about women reporting things in the future, Blassey did them a disservice.  It's hard to figure out what happened in these situations in the best of circumstances.  Once a few decades have passed, it's pretty much impossible.  Blassey threw out an allegation without being able to name a time or place and the only witnesses identified deny it.  Kavanaugh has denied it.  Every person who has known Kavanaugh for the past three decades says they've never seen him do anything like that.  There is literally nothing else that could be done to clear Kavanaugh's name.  People crediting her allegation now are basically saying, yes, she can't remember the time or place and the only people she says witnessed it deny it, but we believe her.  There's literally no way for Kavanaugh to discredit her claim any more than it already is than by proving he actually was never in Maryland for the two years that her allegation could have taken place in. 

To ask people to believe her over the witnesses she identified when she can't even identify a time or place is asking that any female be able to ruin somebody's career at anytime within three or four decades after their paths could have crossed geographically, just by making a vague accusation.  Of course people are going to push back on that.  And that probably will unfortunately discourage some victims that can credibly claim sexual assault, including being able to name a time or place of the assault or a time a place when they became incapacitated such that they couldn't remember the details of the assault.   

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #246 on: September 24, 2018, 08:13:15 AM »

One person has made an accusation against the nominee.  She has yet to testify under oath or produce corroborating evidence, no investigation has yet occurred and the purported incident occurred many years ago and was not contemporaneously reported. The nominee denies the accusation.  Why would the GOP want to drop the nominee at this point merely on the basis of an accusation before even hearing from either side under oath?  If this is the new standard, watch out as any nominee regardless of how squeeky clean they are could be dragged down with unproven accusations.

I strongly prefer due process (and you should too) be followed before we dump someone based on an accusation that has yet to be proven. That's whats the legal process is all about. An HR manager would know that as well assuming you are talking about a current employee.  Otherwise you jump the shark.  If in this case, the process shows more likely than not that this incident occurred, then the President should withdraw the nomination and/or the Senate should vote him down.  If however there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim then the claims should be discounted and the nominee voted on based on his record.  This is pretty simple, let the process play out.  It would be better if there were time for a full investigation, however the accusation was only laid out at the 11th hour before the scheduled vote. Given that, it seems reasonable to hold the hearing first and then if substantial doubt still exists, delay the vote again and refer to the FBI for an investigation.

Several things to respond to here:
First, this is not 11th hour, nor is there any time constraint here.  The Senate committee can set whatever timeline it wants for a vote, and there is not scheduling conflicts for moving the vote to be a week or even a month later.  This is quite common.  The midterms are not for another 6 weeks, and the next congress will not be seated until January.

Second, an FBI investigation is far more valuable *before* individuals give testimony under oath, not after.  Their investigation can guide the questions being asked, and allows Senators to ask follow up questions if the individual gives answers which are at odds with what is in the FBI report.  An investigation would also highlight other individuals who could be called to testify under oath. 

Third (and very ironically) due process is what Kavanaugh's opponents are arguing for, while his supporters are trying to short-circuit the situation. Ford and her lawyer are actively requesting a full investigation.  The GOP is hiding behind an artificial and self constructed deadline.  They've made the absolutely baffling statement that "this isn't what the FBI does" (it is), and refused to allow other individuals, including the 3rd person allegedly in the room, to be involved. 

I absolutely agree with you that this process needs to play out.  The only way that can occur is for an investigation to be performed, full hearings to occur with people under oath, a method for other people to come forward without having to fear for their safety, and a vote only after these steps have been carried out to the fullest.

Ignoring the fact that all the FBI could do here is do a background check, if the person making the allegation can't name the time or place that it happened, and can't name a witness to corroborate her story, and there is no physical evidence because it happened over thirty years ago (and of course, knowing where it happened would be a big part of collecting physical evidence), what exactly is the FBI supposed to investigate?

She has given her story, Kavanaugh has given his.  The witnesses she named have given theirs.  The Senate is going to decide whether they think she is credible without any corroborating evidence regardless of what the FBI does.  What else is there to do other than swear them in and have them testify? 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #247 on: September 24, 2018, 08:23:46 AM »

One person has made an accusation against the nominee.  She has yet to testify under oath or produce corroborating evidence, no investigation has yet occurred and the purported incident occurred many years ago and was not contemporaneously reported. The nominee denies the accusation.  Why would the GOP want to drop the nominee at this point merely on the basis of an accusation before even hearing from either side under oath?  If this is the new standard, watch out as any nominee regardless of how squeeky clean they are could be dragged down with unproven accusations.

I strongly prefer due process (and you should too) be followed before we dump someone based on an accusation that has yet to be proven. That's whats the legal process is all about. An HR manager would know that as well assuming you are talking about a current employee.  Otherwise you jump the shark.  If in this case, the process shows more likely than not that this incident occurred, then the President should withdraw the nomination and/or the Senate should vote him down.  If however there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim then the claims should be discounted and the nominee voted on based on his record.  This is pretty simple, let the process play out.  It would be better if there were time for a full investigation, however the accusation was only laid out at the 11th hour before the scheduled vote. Given that, it seems reasonable to hold the hearing first and then if substantial doubt still exists, delay the vote again and refer to the FBI for an investigation.

Several things to respond to here:
First, this is not 11th hour, nor is there any time constraint here.  The Senate committee can set whatever timeline it wants for a vote, and there is not scheduling conflicts for moving the vote to be a week or even a month later.  This is quite common.  The midterms are not for another 6 weeks, and the next congress will not be seated until January.

Second, an FBI investigation is far more valuable *before* individuals give testimony under oath, not after.  Their investigation can guide the questions being asked, and allows Senators to ask follow up questions if the individual gives answers which are at odds with what is in the FBI report.  An investigation would also highlight other individuals who could be called to testify under oath. 

Third (and very ironically) due process is what Kavanaugh's opponents are arguing for, while his supporters are trying to short-circuit the situation. Ford and her lawyer are actively requesting a full investigation.  The GOP is hiding behind an artificial and self constructed deadline.  They've made the absolutely baffling statement that "this isn't what the FBI does" (it is), and refused to allow other individuals, including the 3rd person allegedly in the room, to be involved. 

I absolutely agree with you that this process needs to play out.  The only way that can occur is for an investigation to be performed, full hearings to occur with people under oath, a method for other people to come forward without having to fear for their safety, and a vote only after these steps have been carried out to the fullest.

Ignoring the fact that all the FBI could do here is do a background check, if the person making the allegation can't name the time or place that it happened, and can't name a witness to corroborate her story, and there is no physical evidence because it happened over thirty years ago (and of course, knowing where it happened would be a big part of collecting physical evidence), what exactly is the FBI supposed to investigate?

She has given her story, Kavanaugh has given his.  The witnesses she named have given theirs.  The Senate is going to decide whether they think she is credible without any corroborating evidence regardless of what the FBI does.  What else is there to do other than swear them in and have them testify?

Do what they did with Anita Hill? Have her come testify in front of the committee, and have the FBI investigate.

And, it looks like, have the other two women who are coming forward give their testimony, as well.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7343
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #248 on: September 24, 2018, 08:27:01 AM »
The FBI is excellent at investigation. They are excellent at lining up stories, even with very few details, to decide credibility of various parties.

Senators, on the other hand, are not trained in these techniques.

The Republicans want us to think this is a trial, and "innocent until proven guilty" applies. But it isn't, and it may or may not.  Really, they could reject a candidate for any reason if they are uncomfortable with that candidate. Garland was rejected solely on who nominated him.  That's a pretty low standard.  Certainly "allegations of sexual misconduct" are above that level, though I agree, it is worth it to determine if the allegations have merit; they wouldn't NEED to determine them.  It's NOT a trial.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #249 on: September 24, 2018, 08:35:59 AM »

She talked to her therapist about it roughly thirty years after it happened without naming Kavanaugh. 

Women don't report things for lots of reasons, but if you're worried about women reporting things in the future, Blassey did them a disservice.  It's hard to figure out what happened in these situations in the best of circumstances.  Once a few decades have passed, it's pretty much impossible.  Blassey threw out an allegation without being able to name a time or place and the only witnesses identified deny it.  Kavanaugh has denied it.  Every person who has known Kavanaugh for the past three decades says they've never seen him do anything like that.  There is literally nothing else that could be done to clear Kavanaugh's name.  People crediting her allegation now are basically saying, yes, she can't remember the time or place and the only people she says witnessed it deny it, but we believe her.  There's literally no way for Kavanaugh to discredit her claim any more than it already is than by proving he actually was never in Maryland for the two years that her allegation could have taken place in. 

To ask people to believe her over the witnesses she identified when she can't even identify a time or place is asking that any female be able to ruin somebody's career at anytime within three or four decades after their paths could have crossed geographically, just by making a vague accusation.  Of course people are going to push back on that.  And that probably will unfortunately discourage some victims that can credibly claim sexual assault, including being able to name a time or place of the assault or a time a place when they became incapacitated such that they couldn't remember the details of the assault.

Because something is difficult does not mean it is impossible, and denials mean little when not given under oath or as part of an investigation, particularly when that person would also be part of a crime.   These are not vague accusations, and as I've said before it's hyperbole to suggest that failure to reach SCOTUS is equivalent to "ruining" Kavanaugh's life. Indeed its important to note that Blasey Ford has lost a great deal by coming forward.

This is why an investigation is so important. Beyond determining whether details from the alleged assault are consistent and whether any can be verified, it can also ascertain the actions of everyone involved over the last several weeks. Simple questions that can be addressed include "Was Blassey-Ford compensated or politically motivated?" "Has the alleged witness and co-assualtant Judge coordinated his responses with Kavanaugh and his team?" " What steps did Feinstein take she first received a letter about this assault, and was there coordination between Feinstein and Blasey Ford", "do .  These questions and others can very easily be ascertained by an investigation and by hearings under oath. False accusations have a way of rapidly crumbling. To NOT take these steps is akin to throwing up ones hands and saying "well we can't possibly ever know so let's not even try to find out". This is not about proving behind a reasonable doubt as one would for a criminal trial. It's about appointing someone to SCOTUS, and deciding whether multiple allegations are credible.

Also, please note the correct spelling of the alleged victim's name.