Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72396 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #350 on: September 25, 2018, 11:49:34 AM »
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

I admit I winced when I read that too. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

However, you forget that in that story, while none of the possible eyewitnesses would corroborate Ramirez's story, they did find a classmate who said he was "one-hundred-percent sure" that he was told either that night of or on one of the following two days that Kavanaugh exposed himself to Ramirez, and independently corroborated some of the details like the specific location of the allegation. Maybe not the world's most solid corroboration, but definitely enough in my eyes to dismiss this as a "Democrat con job" like Trump, and to expect this to be investigated further before proceeding with the nomination.

Jrr85, do you believe this is a setup by Democrats or Democratic supporters?

I doubt it.  If I were going to guess, I'd guess it's more likely Ford and the one from yale are true believers who experienced something and have now convinced themselves that it was sexual assault/attempted rape and that Kavanaugh was involved.  Memory is way more fickle and susceptible to distortion than people realize, and that only becomes more true when people are under the influence when the event in question took place and then decades pass. 



   

Quite honestly, the sexism in this statement is horrifying to me.

Sincere question: 

Do you find sexism in a neutral statement because it lets you be on a moral crusade that makes you feel good about yourself?  Or because you have been traumatized so you just find it everywhere regardless of its existence?  Because you use it as sort of a logical fallacy to support your argument?  Because you are sexist and assume the research on memory indicates women's memory is less reliable than men's? (to my knowledge it doesn't show any difference; memory is just less reliable than people think for men and women) 

Because of some other reason?

Sincere answer:

No.


Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #351 on: September 25, 2018, 11:53:11 AM »
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

I admit I winced when I read that too. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

However, you forget that in that story, while none of the possible eyewitnesses would corroborate Ramirez's story, they did find a classmate who said he was "one-hundred-percent sure" that he was told either that night of or on one of the following two days that Kavanaugh exposed himself to Ramirez, and independently corroborated some of the details like the specific location of the allegation. Maybe not the world's most solid corroboration, but definitely enough in my eyes to dismiss this as a "Democrat con job" like Trump, and to expect this to be investigated further before proceeding with the nomination.

Jrr85, do you believe this is a setup by Democrats or Democratic supporters?

I doubt it.  If I were going to guess, I'd guess it's more likely Ford and the one from yale are true believers who experienced something and have now convinced themselves that it was sexual assault/attempted rape and that Kavanaugh was involved.  Memory is way more fickle and susceptible to distortion than people realize, and that only becomes more true when people are under the influence when the event in question took place and then decades pass. 

It would be equally slighted to say that Kavanaugh didn't think anything of it and forgot it.... because he was a true believing in the Narrative of Brett.

Honestly, the corroboration is the key here, and there seems to be enough to warrant a formal investigation.

intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #352 on: September 25, 2018, 11:53:19 AM »
First some facts:
-Ms. Ford was likely the victim of some type of assault.  As many have pointed out, there is a lot of evidence that something happened to her as a teenager.  Witnesses corroborate a change in behavior, her therapist’s notes, etc.  Note the word LIKELY, because there could be an alternate explanation for those things.  Implanted and false memories are a documented scientific phenomenon.  It is certainly possible that Ms. Ford’s behavior changed for another reason, and the “memory” of sexual assault was generated as a result of her therapy.
-The evidence in defense of Kavanaugh regarding Ms. Ford’s claims is being waved away by Kavanaugh’s critics.  It’s significant.  She’s so far named three other people who were supposedly at this party, all three of whom have denied that Kavanaugh committed the assault.  Her “lifelong friend”, Leland Keyser, who was identified as an attendee of the party, has flat out denied that Ms. Ford’s accusation.  She has stated that she never knew Judge Kavanaugh and was never at a party with him.  I could understand skepticism about the testimony of the other person in the room (Mark Judge, a lifelong friend of Judge Kavanaugh), or the second named witness (PJ Smyth, who was also in Kavanaugh’s social circle), but what possible reason would Ms. Ford’s “lifelong friend” have to contradict her story?  Ms. Ford can’t remember the date or place of the assault.  She doesn’t know what happened before or after the party.  Her story has changed multiple times (her therapist’s notes say four people were involved in the attack, then she was the only female at the party, now there were two females).  I don’t believe she made this story up, but the possibility that she is misremembering, or that she has a case of mistaken identity.
-The timing of this revelation by Sen. Feinstein is the slimiest of slimy tactics.  The appropriate thing to do would have been to reveal this accusation as soon as she received it, to be reviewed as part of the normal confirmation process.  No reasonable person would have believed that this accusation would have stayed hidden to “protect the victim’s privacy”.  Even the alleged victim, who stated she wanted to remain anonymous, realized that anonymity was impossible in this case; she hired an attorney to represent her almost immediately after contacting Sen. Feinstein’s office.  The relevant details regarding this accusation (therapist’s notes, names of other attendees) were all either provided by Ms. Ford immediately or close enough to immediately that it makes no difference.  Sen. Feinstein then sat on those accusations and details until it became certain that Judge Kavanaugh would be confirmed through normal processes.  What was the benefit of waiting?  The benefit was that it gives Democrats a chance to delay filling the Supreme Court seat until after the midterms at which point they plan on leaving the seat empty until the next presidential election.  I’m really disappointed in other commenters whom I’ve come to respect defending this practice as no big deal.  Especially when they refer to the shady tactics used by Republicans.  Instead of “they go low, we go high” it’s “they go low, we kick them in the balls”.  Stop defending scorched earth tactics.  Let go of your Trump derangement syndrome.  Just because Democrats are doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.

Now some opinions:
-Ms. Ford’s accusation has SOME credibility (I legitimately believe she was, or believes she was, assaulted, though possibly by someone other than Kavanaugh).  The second accusation by Ms. Ramirez has none.  There is zero evidence it happened, all of her corroborating witnesses have denied it happened.  Only after being sought out by Democratic operatives and then consulting with her attorneys and handlers did she “remember” that it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself.  After the New Yorker interviewed her, she stated to friends that she STILL wasn’t sure it was Kavanaugh.  If the circumstances of this testimony were brought under a criminal court they would be laughed out of the courtroom and the attorney who thought it would be admissible would likely be disciplined.  The New York Times investigated this and found it too improbable to print.  The fact that this was printed by a reputable news source is an absolute disgrace.
-For those who are complaining about Merrick Garland being blocked: this was a topic that had long been debated in the Senate.  Joe Biden famously discussed it in the final years of Bush Sr.’s presidency establishing “The Biden Rule”, an understanding that supreme court nominees should not be put forward in a presidential election year.  No it was not a formal “rule” of the senate, but was something that had been debated and discussed multiple times.  Chuck Shumer, Democratic senator and current minority leader in the senate, stated that no other supreme court nominees should be considered for the final 18 months of Dubya’s presidency.  It’s true that there were no current vacancies at that time, but Republicans took Democrats at their word that this was an agreed upon understanding.  Also, Mitch McConnell was taking a pretty big risk with that strategy.  It quickly became clear that Trump would be the nominee, and was almost universally considered an underdog in the election.  The safe bet would have been to confirm an older moderate like Garland instead of risking an election loss and having President H. Clinton nominate a real radical.  Instead Trump beat the odds and McConnell’s bet paid off.
-I was initially against an FBI investigation.  How can you investigate a crime without a crime scene, witnesses or evidence?  Nereo convinced me otherwise though.  I do think that there is value to having a short investigation into witnesses, dates, times, etc.  Unfortunately that won’t happen though, because Republicans are now assured that any delay will only give Democrats more time to dig up anyone willing to “reassess” their memories to determine that Kavanaugh assaulted them too.  Ms. Ramirez’s story, meant to delay the hearing further and lend credence to Ms. Ford’s story, may ironically have the opposite effect.  Defenders of Kavanaugh are now seeing, rather than one claim credible enough to be investigated, two partisan hit jobs.  Even more reason to hold the hearing ASAP and vote for confirmation ASAP.
-For the people cheering on how this happened, are you comfortable with how this process is being done?  Are you at all concerned about similar tactics being used for progressive Supreme Court nominees?  Do you honestly believe that Sen. Feinstein acted in a reasonable and responsible manner?  Are you comfortable with the fact that if Democrats successfully delay a supreme court confirmation beyond the mid-terms they will keep that seat empty for two and a half years or more?  Haven’t you noticed that every time Democrats have used shady tactics (filling the “amendment tree” during their time in the majority, passing Obamacare under reconciliation, nuking the filibuster for judicial nominees), Republicans have upped the ante?
-If a decades old accusation of assault, one where all the alleged victims witnesses refute the story, is enough to derail this nomination, won’t it be enough for any other nomination?


« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 03:52:18 PM by intellectsucks »

intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #353 on: September 25, 2018, 11:54:29 AM »
Stepping back for a second.... In context this is ultimately about Kavanaugh. The Republicans have already made a mockery out of the nomination process with the way that McConnell and Grassley have run it. That horse is out of the barn. For the accusations, the motivations are not actually material. They could be choosing this time out of malicious intent to keep Brett from living out his lifelong dream of appointment to SCOTUS for personal or political reasons. They could be reluctant truth tellers. It could be somewhere in between.

It does not matter.

What does matter is that the allegations are varied in quality, but are corroborated by a number of people and thus appear to have credibility. The accusers have been up front about the limitations of memory when drunk instead of trying to fill gaps where they shouldn't. The stories appear to be credible in the broad sense even if there are details that are vague. This is exactly the type of question that I was speaking about a few posts back. What if investigation reveals a pattern of behavior? That certainly seems to be the emerging picture. Does reckless behavior also dovetail with getting into large debt over sports tickets fit into this narrative?

Right now we have investigations being carried out by journalists (some with extensive experience in this area, such as Ronan Farrow (who has been clear in his reporting about gaps, and uncertainty). It would be nice to have a group with better access like the FBI follow up.
This is not true. All of the named, first hand witnesses have refuted both accusations.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1235
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #354 on: September 25, 2018, 12:09:32 PM »
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

I admit I winced when I read that too. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

However, you forget that in that story, while none of the possible eyewitnesses would corroborate Ramirez's story, they did find a classmate who said he was "one-hundred-percent sure" that he was told either that night of or on one of the following two days that Kavanaugh exposed himself to Ramirez, and independently corroborated some of the details like the specific location of the allegation. Maybe not the world's most solid corroboration, but definitely enough in my eyes to dismiss this as a "Democrat con job" like Trump, and to expect this to be investigated further before proceeding with the nomination.

Jrr85, do you believe this is a setup by Democrats or Democratic supporters?

I doubt it.  If I were going to guess, I'd guess it's more likely Ford and the one from yale are true believers who experienced something and have now convinced themselves that it was sexual assault/attempted rape and that Kavanaugh was involved.  Memory is way more fickle and susceptible to distortion than people realize, and that only becomes more true when people are under the influence when the event in question took place and then decades pass. 

When you say "it's more likely" are you speaking from the angle of "if the allegations are false". If so, I agree with you. It's more likely that they misremembered than they made it up, if those were the only options.

If your intent was to say that it's more likely that they are mistaken than they are correct in their accusations, then I would strongly disagree. I understand where you're coming from, the human brain is a tricky thing and the research is there to prove it. However, while it is possible to misremember details (and feel quite certain of oneself) it is not the norm and certainly not the default. Add to that, for her to misremember the person involved entirely the error in memory would have almost certainly been immediately after the fact. If she knew it was him the next day, she knows it was him today. The details that are commonly misremembered are sensory details like the things you hear and see. Names, once solidified in one's mind, are not likely to be forgotten especially if she was familiar with him before the incident.

ETA: My statement contains a lot of "ifs" but my real point is that the chance it was misremembered is far from significant enough to argue against an FBI investigation, especially with my current understanding that there is more than enough time for it to be carried out.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 12:20:45 PM by Dabnasty »

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #355 on: September 25, 2018, 12:33:32 PM »
It's simple. It's not for us to be armchair detectives, especially as I believe we are only getting bits and pieces. Let the FBI do its investigation and then let the committee decide. The only reason why stuff is being released to the press is that OConnell was making it plain he was going to ramrod the process through and so far has refused to let these claims be investigated by an independant party.

What people may say to the press and what people say under oath/when it is being fact checked can be two different things. The way that Judge described Kavanaghs actions in HS, does not match how he described "Bart OKavanagh" in his memoir. He also has refused to testify under oath.   

austin944

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  • Age: 57
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #356 on: September 25, 2018, 12:39:31 PM »
Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

The balance of the court will swing right if Kavanaugh is confirmed since he'd be replacing a moderate.  Not so with Gorsuch since he was replacing a hard-right conservative.

Clarence Thomas replaced a liberal on the court.

I am seeing a pattern...

Seriously? You are suggesting that Anita Hill was a plant as well?

Good lord. We have learned nothing in all these years.

Pointing out the beginnings of a pattern is not necessarily the same as making any specific conclusion from that pattern.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #357 on: September 25, 2018, 12:42:27 PM »
Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

The balance of the court will swing right if Kavanaugh is confirmed since he'd be replacing a moderate.  Not so with Gorsuch since he was replacing a hard-right conservative.

Clarence Thomas replaced a liberal on the court.

I am seeing a pattern...

Seriously? You are suggesting that Anita Hill was a plant as well?

Good lord. We have learned nothing in all these years.

Pointing out the beginnings of a pattern is not necessarily the same as making any specific conclusion from that pattern.

Two incidences twenty-seven years apart with almost entirely different actors is not exactly a "pattern." FFS.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #358 on: September 25, 2018, 12:45:16 PM »

And this is the real issue people have with Kavanaugh.  Anybody that disagrees politically must be a likely rapist.  There are too few people who have the ability to recognize other people can disagree with respect to political issues without being monsters and too few people who see any value in the policital process or due process.  It's strictly a question of whether they think the ends justify the means.     

You are making a false equivalency. There are a great number of people who I disagree with politically whom I have no reason to suspect are guilty of sexual misconduct.  At the same time there are people who's political views are in more in line with my own who are convicted criminals. One does not equate the other.

What I believe you are asserting here is that these allegations must be politically motivated because it is the opposition who wants them heard and investigated.  Here though we have a conflicting standard - those that support the nominee wish to vote on his confirmation 'without further delay' and without further inquiry. Do you see how that conflicts with your assertion?

It's not that the allegations must be politically motivated.  It's that people "believe" them because they don't want Kavanaugh on the court.  It's not that they don't want him on the court because of the allegations. 

And it is not contrary to due or proper process to want the hearings to proceed quickly.  There was a time for these complaints to be asserted and investigated.  That time was preferably thirty years ago when they happened, but barring that, the time would have been when he was nominated to the DC Circuit Court, and barring that, it would have been when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.  Allowing people to bring these allegations after the committee hearings are over when they had plenty of notice to assert them if they wished makes a mockery of the process.   

Have Ford testify because she at least sent her letter back in July.  Then have kavanaugh testify about Ford's allegations.  That should be done but that's all to be done at this point barring some corroborating evidence. 

For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it (and that after not being sure the first 30 years after it happened) and even then is relying on hearsay, and who didn't make the claim until after the committee hearings were completed?  The proper process for that is to not consider it.  If you do something different, you are just assuring that these claims will come out of the woodwork for every nominee now, as in a country of 300M plus people, there are always going to be crazies willing to make claims.

I concur that confirmation bias is an extremely powerful force, and that many are choosing to believe the fact that support their world views while discounting or ignoring things that run contrary to pre-concieved notions.  That's really what you are talking aboiut when you say " It's that people "believe" them because they don't want Kavanaugh on the court.  It's not that they don't want him on the court because of the allegations.'

Great thinkers and scientists contanttly challenge what they believe to be true - sadly most people do not.

Where you and I are not seeing eye to eye is this insistence that the proper time to investigate such allegations has past, and therefore its proper to forge ahead.
We are where we are right now, and all the wishes in the world do not change that.  Given that, we must decide what the best course of action is given where we are right now.  There are really two paths being discussed - we ignore what's been alleged and press forward or we question, investigate and then proceed.
You are clearly arguing that we should not spend any more time with these accusations. To me that's legal malpractice.  To understand why, consider the potential outcomes should the latter path be followed:  either testimony and good investigation leads support to the accusers and we avoid placing a sexual deviant on SCOTUS, or the allegations fall apart and Kavanaugh's reputation is upheld and he gets confirmed.  If he does not become a supreme court justice another GOP-stamped candidate will almost certainly progress through the confirmation process, as did Gorsuch, and we avoid decades of controversy anytime a case involving sexual misconduct is presented before the court.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #359 on: September 25, 2018, 12:45:55 PM »
Stop defending scorched earth tactics.  Let go of your Trump derangement syndrome.  Just because Democrats are doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.

It's pretty funny that you say this and then two paragraphs down go on to justify the scorched earth tactics of republicans by saying that democrats said they'd do it first.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 12:48:57 PM by shenlong55 »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3186
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #360 on: September 25, 2018, 12:50:05 PM »
First some facts:
-For those who are complaining about Merrick Garland being blocked: this was a topic that had long been debated in the Senate.  Joe Biden famously discussed it in the final years of Bush Sr.’s presidency establishing “The Biden Rule”, an understanding that supreme court nominees should not be put forward in a presidential election year.  No it was not a formal “rule” of the senate, but was something that had been debated and discussed multiple times.  Chuck Shumer, Democratic senator and current minority leader in the senate, stated that no other supreme court nominees should be considered for the final 18 months of Dubya’s presidency.  It’s true that there were no current vacancies at that time, but Republicans took Democrats at their word that this was an agreed upon understanding.

That's actually not what the "Biden Rule" is/was about. Biden's speech didn't mention "the final 18 months" (and was made only 5 months before the 1992 election anyway) and he didn't state that no SC nominee should be considered during a Presidential election year.

Your "fact" is wrong.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8773
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #361 on: September 25, 2018, 12:59:54 PM »
Biden's speech didn't mention "the final 18 months"....
True, but not what i-s claimed.  The 18 months was Schumer's timing: Schumer was right: The Senate can refuse to fill a vacancy | TheHill.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #362 on: September 25, 2018, 01:26:30 PM »
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607328/

his fond recollections given - in a speech! Such as falling down out of a bus, keg shots, and "piecing things together the next day"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-gave-a-speech-about-binge-drinking-in-law-school/

« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 09:40:25 PM by partgypsy »

charis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1649
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #363 on: September 25, 2018, 02:03:34 PM »
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607328/

And there are a myriad of reasons why a person might experience cognitive decline at some point in their later years.  Isn't that always a risk with a lifetime appointment?  Since there are over 800 federal judges with lifetime appointments in this country, it appears that we've accepted the risk.

OzzieandHarriet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 227
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #364 on: September 25, 2018, 02:11:21 PM »
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607328/

Do we even know if he’s sober now or still st it?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #365 on: September 25, 2018, 02:21:21 PM »
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607328/

And there are a myriad of reasons why a person might experience cognitive decline at some point in their later years.  Isn't that always a risk with a lifetime appointment?  Since there are over 800 federal judges with lifetime appointments in this country, it appears that we've accepted the risk.

This is a near-perennial issue, but only tangentially related to the topic on hand. Since at least Roosevelt most presidents have at least toyed with the idea of composing some sort of age or cognitive cap on lifetime appointments, but its never gone anywhere.

Lifetime appointments were devised precisely to allow the judicial branch to be independent of both the legislature and the executive branches.  If we somehow imposed caps on their appointments it would need to be done in such a way that a particular president or political party could not force out otherwise qualified judges.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #366 on: September 25, 2018, 02:33:44 PM »
I think Frank Bruni does a good job of explaining the differing stories about Kavanaguh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/opinion/the-many-faces-of-brett-kavanaugh.html

In short, those who knew him in different contexts formed different opinions of him. In my personal life, this has always been a red flag: people who are very different depending on situation (situational manners aside).

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1987
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #367 on: September 25, 2018, 02:39:00 PM »
It seems as though asking for the FBI investigation is becoming a middle ground. On twitter, I've been following the lawyer @popehat, and he is careful to point out that the FBI are not magicians, they cannot determine things conclusively in many cases. At best, they might be able to make a statement akin to Comey's statement regarding Sec. Clinton and her e-mail server: "No prosecutor would pursue criminal charges based on this set of evidence".

And you saw how well that statement united the country.

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #368 on: September 25, 2018, 02:44:46 PM »
It's simple. It's not for us to be armchair detectives, especially as I believe we are only getting bits and pieces. Let the FBI do its investigation and then let the committee decide. The only reason why stuff is being released to the press is that OConnell was making it plain he was going to ramrod the process through and so far has refused to let these claims be investigated by an independant party.

What people may say to the press and what people say under oath/when it is being fact checked can be two different things. The way that Judge described Kavanaghs actions in HS, does not match how he described "Bart OKavanagh" in his memoir. He also has refused to testify under oath.   

I'm on the left and think Kavanaugh on the bench would be a disaster for a variety of reasons but if I put myself in the other sides' shoes I would probably have a hard time seeing this as anything other than underhanded liberal trickery, given the last minute timing and the essentially unverifiable nature of the allegations, the shifting fuzziness of the details, and the liberal/progressive history of the accusers (since removed from social media). Not saying that is accurate, of course, but I can at least see reasonable (and unreasonable) people starting from that perspective. Of course old "bare knuckles" McConnell would try to push this through if that was an available option.

Politically speaking, with a 51/47(+2) split in the Senate the immediate ballgame comes down to whether Collins and Murkowski feel enough pressure and/or have enough doubts to withhold a yes vote (and also if lame duck Jeff Flake wants to stick it to Trump more than he wants Kavanaugh). The accusations make that more likely in the short term, but if after more hearings and investigations it still comes down to a 35 year old alcohol tainted he said/she said situation (the most likely outcome I can see at this point) I could see that pressure failing to turn their votes.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #369 on: September 25, 2018, 02:51:12 PM »
the shifting fuzziness of the details

Does anyone else find it hilarious that conservatives are defending Kavanaugh's actions by saying "he was a raging alcoholic who wasn't in control of his faculties" as if that someone exonerates him of the things he did while drunk.  Maybe, just maybe, the fact that multiple sources confirm that he was a belligerent and violent drunk should instead lend credence to the accusations?  Who thinks "we can never know if he committed sexual assault, he was too much of an alcoholic to have any memory of it" and then thinks "this person should be on the Supreme Court"?

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #370 on: September 25, 2018, 03:01:27 PM »
I think Frank Bruni does a good job of explaining the differing stories about Kavanaguh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/opinion/the-many-faces-of-brett-kavanaugh.html

In short, those who knew him in different contexts formed different opinions of him. In my personal life, this has always been a red flag: people who are very different depending on situation (situational manners aside).

Just think about Bill Cosby. When that first came out, I was first, no way, he's the last person to do something like that : (

Samuel

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 221
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #371 on: September 25, 2018, 03:16:51 PM »
the shifting fuzziness of the details

Does anyone else find it hilarious that conservatives are defending Kavanaugh's actions by saying "he was a raging alcoholic who wasn't in control of his faculties" as if that someone exonerates him of the things he did while drunk.  Maybe, just maybe, the fact that multiple sources confirm that he was a belligerent and violent drunk should instead lend credence to the accusations?  Who thinks "we can never know if he committed sexual assault, he was too much of an alcoholic to have any memory of it" and then thinks "this person should be on the Supreme Court"?

That is a pretty dumb defense, but are many actually making it? Kavanaugh himself is taking the opposite stance, claiming he's never drank to the point of blacking out.

Which is diabolically clever since, by definition, he wouldn't actually remember if he blacked out or not. Perjury proof.



intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #372 on: September 25, 2018, 03:51:26 PM »
Stop defending scorched earth tactics.  Let go of your Trump derangement syndrome.  Just because Democrats are doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.

It's pretty funny that you say this and then two paragraphs down go on to justify the scorched earth tactics of republicans by saying that democrats said they'd do it first.

Oh, I'm not defending the practice.  I think it was shady as hell and that Garland should have been confirmed with an overwhelming majority.  I'm merely pointing out that Democrat's histrionics about Merrick Garland are just political posturing, since they spent many years arguing that the "Biden rule" should be honored.  Whataboutism is an awful way to justify your actions.  It means a never-ending race to the bottom of the behavioral sink.

Seriously, answer my questions about your comfort level with these "new norms".  Are you at all concerned about future precedent?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #373 on: September 25, 2018, 04:04:34 PM »
the shifting fuzziness of the details

Does anyone else find it hilarious that conservatives are defending Kavanaugh's actions by saying "he was a raging alcoholic who wasn't in control of his faculties" as if that someone exonerates him of the things he did while drunk.  Maybe, just maybe, the fact that multiple sources confirm that he was a belligerent and violent drunk should instead lend credence to the accusations?  Who thinks "we can never know if he committed sexual assault, he was too much of an alcoholic to have any memory of it" and then thinks "this person should be on the Supreme Court"?

That is a pretty dumb defense, but are many actually making it? Kavanaugh himself is taking the opposite stance, claiming he's never drank to the point of blacking out.

Which is diabolically clever since, by definition, he wouldn't actually remember if he blacked out or not. Perjury proof.

It just shows you one of the bad parts of the internet.  There probably is someone out there making that argument as an actual defense, and it makes it to some partisan blog or news site, and they promote it as an actual typical opinion from the other side rather than the type of opinion you can find when there are a few million people making comments on the internet about a particular subject.  So they maybe technically aren't attacking a straw man in the sense that someone somewhere made the argument, but it's indistinguishable from a straw man to all the people that don't go out of their way looking for the craziest arguments. 

It's somewhat amazing to see how the left has reverted to victorian standards after decades of libertine attitudes.  Now just because somebody drank in high school and college, there presumed guilty if there is a three decades old accusation against them?   

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7492
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #374 on: September 25, 2018, 04:11:07 PM »
It's somewhat amazing to see how the left has reverted to victorian standards

I don't think it's "amazing" to not want to appoint a sexual abuser to the SC so he can fulfill his promise to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Dude is gross from every angle.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #375 on: September 25, 2018, 04:54:15 PM »
Grassley sets 9:30 am Friday hearing for Committee vote on Kavanaugh.

Republicans are disgusting.  Every single one deserves to lose their seat.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #376 on: September 25, 2018, 05:08:45 PM »
And what's gross, it is very clear his description of his drinking and prolictivities during High School is falsifiable from multiple accounts (friend's memoirs, things in his Highschool year book, accounts from roommates in college, his own speech!). That means he perjured himself to the committee when answering about his drinking.

I would have some respect if he just admitted it, that he drank too much and may not remember everything that happened. Or that he did behavior he regrets from HS, but that he has reformed and grown up and does not reflect who he is today.
Instead he denies, denies denies.  Shouldn't introspection and self awareness and truthfulness be things we look for in a supreme court justice?

I think there is a bro culture, where they are covering for each other.

Like the comment "what happens on the bus, stays on the bus"

In 2001 he also went on a boat trip with all guy friends in 2001. Who knows what happened, but Kavanaugh sent an email to those there ending with
"Reminders to everyone to be very, very vigilant w/r/t confidentiality on all issues and all fronts, including with spouses.”   


From Woodward's book about Trump when talking to someone who admitted wrongdoing with women:

You've got to deny, deny, deny and push back on these women," he told the person, who was not named, Woodward reported. "If you admit to anything and any culpability, then you're dead.
That was a big mistake you made. You didn't come out guns blazing and just challenge them. You showed weakness. You've got to be strong. You've got to be aggressive.
You've got to push back hard. You've got to deny anything that's said about you. Never admit."

« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 09:41:55 PM by partgypsy »

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #377 on: September 25, 2018, 05:14:15 PM »
Stop defending scorched earth tactics.  Let go of your Trump derangement syndrome.  Just because Democrats are doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.

It's pretty funny that you say this and then two paragraphs down go on to justify the scorched earth tactics of republicans by saying that democrats said they'd do it first.

Oh, I'm not defending the practice.  I think it was shady as hell and that Garland should have been confirmed with an overwhelming majority.  I'm merely pointing out that Democrat's histrionics about Merrick Garland are just political posturing, since they spent many years arguing that the "Biden rule" should be honored.  Whataboutism is an awful way to justify your actions.  It means a never-ending race to the bottom of the behavioral sink.

Seriously, answer my questions about your comfort level with these "new norms".  Are you at all concerned about future precedent?
If your talking about the way that Senator Feinstein handled the accusations, then no I don't see a problem with it.  I've seen a lot of speculation on her motives here, but haven't seen much evidence one way or another and I have a personal rule such that I assume people's motives are good unless I have some decent evidence to the contrary.  Plus, it doesn't even seem like she delayed things that much to me.  Honestly, it seems to me like the only reason Republicans are complaining about it is because they're in a rush to get one of their own on the Supreme Court before the next Congress is seated.  I mean, what else is the reason for the rush here?  We already know it's not concern for having a full Supreme Court.  Republican's recently demonstrated how the Supreme Court can successfully function with only eight members for what, an entire year?

If your talking about the potential that we're only going to have eight people on the Supreme Court for 2 1/2 years, I'm also okay with that.  Since the only thing standing in the way of it right now is some weak norms that Republicans have no problems trashing, I think the sooner it happens the sooner we'll get the will to fix the process.  And if someone is going to break that norm in the end anyways, why shouldn't it be Democrats?  Let's just get the problem out in the open so we can deal with it.

If your talking about weakly substantiated claims being able to derail a Supreme Court nomination, then I'm still okay with it.  We have very good reasons for the standards that we set for criminal trials like "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt".  None of those reasons apply to a nominee for the Supreme Court.  I don't actually think that being prejudiced in the defendants favor is called for in this situation.  Seriously, there are only nine seats on the Supreme Court.  Do you really think that the only qualifications should be "is on my political team" and "hasn't been convicted of a crime"?  Or could we maybe set the bar a bit higher and still be able to find nine people in all of America that would be qualified for the position?

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 05:24:23 PM by shenlong55 »

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #378 on: September 25, 2018, 05:43:14 PM »
12.9476673736586997747859677% All figures significant.
In other words, this is a pointless question. The point is that the allegations are credible enough to warrant further scrutiny unless people don’t think the actions in the allegations are disqualifying.

I agree that the allegations warrant scrutiny. At the moment, I don't think they have been established enough that they ought to disbar him from a seat on the SCOTUS. I don't think my question is pointless as there is a chance, a rather significant one, that the alleged event didn't happen or happened rather differently.

I think Frank Bruni does a good job of explaining the differing stories about Kavanaguh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/opinion/the-many-faces-of-brett-kavanaugh.html

In short, those who knew him in different contexts formed different opinions of him. In my personal life, this has always been a red flag: people who are very different depending on situation (situational manners aside).

I profoundly disagree... you can be a decent person who is professional, quiet, courteous, and reserved at work, but when you're out and about with friends and drinks have been flowing, you may well be outgoing and rambunctious, flirtatious even. People do live compartmentalized, functional lives, it is perfectly normal.

~

The new allegation against Kavanaugh seems far more probable, however... I'm not sure what I think of it. So there was a drunken party and he exposed himself, she pushed him away and that was that. If the story is 100% truthful, which it may not be (Kavanaugh denies and Ramirez agrees that she was very drunk and there were gaps in her memory) does that mean that having been flashed makes me a sexual assault victim? Certainly, it's not behavior I would expect of a "conservative" and it is pretty douchey, but... I'm not sure that flashing someone in a drinking, sexual atmosphere is that huge of a deal. It probably happens all the time and is quite welcome at college and other parties all over the Western world, as we are (quite fortunately) fairly sexually liberated societies.

Makes me wonder... when I was out dancing with some friends a few weeks ago, without any invitation or reason to think that it was welcome, a strange girl suddenly began to physically dance on me in a manner that can only be described as sexual. Am I a sexual assault victim? In a few decades, if I see the girl on TV running for some sort of political office, should I expose her? (Pun intended.)
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 05:53:11 PM by GrayGhost »

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #379 on: September 25, 2018, 05:52:47 PM »
Yeah, I don’t think getting drunk and waving your dick around, although gross, is that big of a deal.  It does begin to establish a pattern, though.  I’d find kavanaugh way more believable if he was like, yeah, I was kind of a drunk bastard sometimes back in the day vs. no, never drunk, total virgin.

To clarify, I do think the original attempted rape allegation is a big deal.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 06:35:26 PM by jrhampt »

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5976
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #380 on: September 25, 2018, 06:24:55 PM »
It's somewhat amazing to see how the left has reverted to victorian standards

I don't think it's "amazing" to not want to appoint a sexual abuser to the SC so he can fulfill his promise to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Dude is gross from every angle.

Not to mention that he's likely lying about it.

I mean, there are only 9 SC justices.  Are we saying we can't find someone who is squeaky clean, not a liar, etc.?  Why the rush to push it through?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #381 on: September 25, 2018, 06:41:08 PM »

Not only does Kavanaugh lie about his drinking from high school, but his views on regulation are abhorrent and could take down the stock market as we know it.

"He has called the existence of independent regulatory agencies — notably including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but potentially the entire alphabet soup of FCC, FTC, CFTC, SEC, FEC, etc. — a “threat to individual liberty.”  The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation fight is also about the future of the economy https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/25/17897670/brett-kavanaugh-economy?

Can you imagine if the SEC were severely curtailed and publicly held corporations could flagrantly lie about their financial statements with no repercussions?
The Price to Earnings ratio would have to drop severely in order to take into account the lies of financial statements, confidence in stocks would be undermined, and investments in the markets would erode.


JanetJackson

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Location: United States
    • How I actually made $50 just for taking a survey and being in the healthcare marketplace
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #382 on: September 25, 2018, 08:28:12 PM »
12.9476673736586997747859677% All figures significant.
In other words, this is a pointless question. The point is that the allegations are credible enough to warrant further scrutiny unless people don’t think the actions in the allegations are disqualifying.

I agree that the allegations warrant scrutiny. At the moment, I don't think they have been established enough that they ought to disbar him from a seat on the SCOTUS. I don't think my question is pointless as there is a chance, a rather significant one, that the alleged event didn't happen or happened rather differently.

I think Frank Bruni does a good job of explaining the differing stories about Kavanaguh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/opinion/the-many-faces-of-brett-kavanaugh.html

In short, those who knew him in different contexts formed different opinions of him. In my personal life, this has always been a red flag: people who are very different depending on situation (situational manners aside).

I profoundly disagree... you can be a decent person who is professional, quiet, courteous, and reserved at work, but when you're out and about with friends and drinks have been flowing, you may well be outgoing and rambunctious, flirtatious even. People do live compartmentalized, functional lives, it is perfectly normal.

~

The new allegation against Kavanaugh seems far more probable, however... I'm not sure what I think of it. So there was a drunken party and he exposed himself, she pushed him away and that was that. If the story is 100% truthful, which it may not be (Kavanaugh denies and Ramirez agrees that she was very drunk and there were gaps in her memory) does that mean that having been flashed makes me a sexual assault victim? Certainly, it's not behavior I would expect of a "conservative" and it is pretty douchey, but... I'm not sure that flashing someone in a drinking, sexual atmosphere is that huge of a deal. It probably happens all the time and is quite welcome at college and other parties all over the Western world, as we are (quite fortunately) fairly sexually liberated societies.

Makes me wonder... when I was out dancing with some friends a few weeks ago, without any invitation or reason to think that it was welcome, a strange girl suddenly began to physically dance on me in a manner that can only be described as sexual. Am I a sexual assault victim? In a few decades, if I see the girl on TV running for some sort of political office, should I expose her? (Pun intended.)

>Flashing, is pretty regularly and certainly considered sexual assault.  Yes.  And in most states it's considered indecent exposure, at least.  It is wrong to expose your genitals to someone without their freely given, informed, enthusiastic, and specific consent.  Everyone in the room.  If there are 20 people and 19 are chanting "drop your pants" and one is shaking their head "No," don't do it.  And even if all 20 are chanting that you should do it, I don't know, ya know... that's your choice.  Be sexually liberated if you'd like when freely given and specific consent is present, sure.
>Depending on whether she groped you or not, it sounds like she was sexually harassing you if you didn't want her to dance on you sexually. 
Consent, regardless of atmosphere, must be explicitly given in order to engage someone in a sexual manner.  Consent can't be assumed.

We can be an awesome sexually liberated society and still have room to grow and to take accountability for mistakes that we've made and assumptions/behaviors that have been harmful to members of society.  Fully consensual genital flashing bonanza over brunch?  Sure.  Non consensual flashing at a party where people near your genitals were 60000000% not asking to see them?  That's not consensual, and that's not cool/illegal.

The misplaced angry complaints I have heard since the #MeToo era began similar to things like "Can't I even hug my friends anymore?!?" or "SO can I sue the server at this restaurant for bumping my arm?!?!" remind me SO DAMN MUCH of the 'Slippery Slope' complaints surrounding gay marriage before it was legal.....
"NEXT YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO MARRY A GOAT, OR A LAMPSHADE!!!"

Come on...

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #383 on: September 25, 2018, 08:38:16 PM »
I appreciate the consistency, however I disagree. I don't think consent needs to be "freely given, informed, enthusiastic, and specific" and I do think consent can be implied. I think overtures and advances are also okay. I think that in some atmospheres, there is a level or even an expectation of sexuality and implied consent. The alleged Kavanaugh event is probably a bit too much, unless it was par for the course at the party, but even then, it all goes back to the question of whether or not it happened.

As far as gay marriage goes, I'm a huge supporter, however, there is something to the slippery slope arguments: surely now that the definition of marriage has been expanded, it should be expanded a touch more to allow for polygamy, which has existed at least as long as monogamous marriage. Yet few people, even on the far political left, will dare to even address the matter.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 08:48:35 PM by GrayGhost »

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #384 on: September 25, 2018, 09:50:06 PM »
I appreciate the consistency, however I disagree. I don't think consent needs to be "freely given, informed, enthusiastic, and specific" and I do think consent can be implied. I think overtures and advances are also okay. I think that in some atmospheres, there is a level or even an expectation of sexuality and implied consent. The alleged Kavanaugh event is probably a bit too much, unless it was par for the course at the party, but even then, it all goes back to the question of whether or not it happened.

As far as gay marriage goes, I'm a huge supporter, however, there is something to the slippery slope arguments: surely now that the definition of marriage has been expanded, it should be expanded a touch more to allow for polygamy, which has existed at least as long as monogamous marriage. Yet few people, even on the far political left, will dare to even address the matter.
I think it's pretty credible it happened. I'm not sure what you mean by implied consent?

Well your example is an example against slippery slope thinking. Just because gay marriage is now legal, doesn't mean that people are now demanding the right to polygamous marriages (aka slippery slope). At least they aren't in my neighborhood. 

charis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1649
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #385 on: September 25, 2018, 09:53:52 PM »
Yeah, I don’t think getting drunk and waving your dick around, although gross, is that big of a deal.  It does begin to establish a pattern, though.  I’d find kavanaugh way more believable if he was like, yeah, I was kind of a drunk bastard sometimes back in the day vs. no, never drunk, total virgin.

To clarify, I do think the original attempted rape allegation is a big deal.

You not thinking it's a big deal is irrelevant, bully for you if you are fine with it.  Flashing is a crime.  Probably because most people, even drunk college girls, if you can imagine this, don't like it when someone shoves their naked genitals in their faces uninvited. In front of a group of people. Or alone. It's a method of humiliation, not an expression of free love and liberation.  It's not remotely difficult to understand.


jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #386 on: September 26, 2018, 03:29:10 AM »
I don’t think it’s fine; but I think that on its own it’s probably not serious enough to derail the nomination and I understand people who think it doesn’t qualify as assault (I have been flashed before and didn’t appreciate it either).  I think it establishes a pattern of behavior taken together with the first allegation that contradicts the image kavanaugh is attempting to portray. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #387 on: September 26, 2018, 04:58:17 AM »

I agree that the allegations warrant scrutiny. At the moment, I don't think they have been established enough that they ought to disbar him from a seat on the SCOTUS. I don't think my question is pointless as there is a chance, a rather significant one, that the alleged event didn't happen or happened rather differently.


You've either got your terminology confused or there is a fundamental misunderstanding of potential outcomes here.
Kavanaugh is a federally appointed judge on the DC Circuit of appeals - that is generally a lifetime appointment.

Disbarment happens only when the bar association finds an individual unfit to practice law, and typically occurs only after legal malpractice or when convicted of a crime. Disbarment is in effect taking away ones license. Failure for a nominee to be confirmed does not equal disbarment, nor would Kavanaugh lose their lifetime appointments; Garland is still serving as the chief justice of the DC Circuit, the position he held before and during his nomination process.

As such, the question at hand is whether we elevate Kavanaugh to SCOTUS.  It is in effect a promotion and honor (the largest promotion and honor he could get within his profession). If the result is 'nay', he continues on with his very prestigious and well paid (~$220,000/yr salary) job as federal circuit court judge.  The implications of that are important.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7854
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #388 on: September 26, 2018, 05:33:09 AM »
the guy has clearly perjured himself at this point, trying to side step all the sexual misconduct allegations he now is claiming he didnt even drink or have intercourse until far after 18.  If i'm the republicans i really need to wash my hands of this at this point and move on to a new candidate.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1987
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #389 on: September 26, 2018, 07:19:09 AM »
It's not perjury if he says it on FoxNews. It's only a problem if he says it to Congress or Law Enforcement.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7854
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #390 on: September 26, 2018, 07:33:43 AM »
It's not perjury if he says it on FoxNews. It's only a problem if he says it to Congress or Law Enforcement.

oh ok good - so he just lied on national tv then... great dude i want in the supreme court.  regardless of perjury or not its wildly out of control at this point you'd have to think even Repubs are rolling back their support - you just dont want that much egg on your face.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #391 on: September 26, 2018, 07:37:09 AM »
Aside from the question of whether Kavanaugh did or did not sexually assault many women...

In his talks at Georgetown Prep, Yale, etc. etc. he has talked about heavy drinking and partying -- bragged about it, even.

Then on Fox, he presented this studious choir boy image which is in total conflict.

The fact is, one story or the other is lying. The man is a liar. He is lying because he has decided that is the clearest path to get what he wants.

This is not a person whom I want on the Supreme Court.

boarder42

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7854
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #392 on: September 26, 2018, 07:38:45 AM »
Aside from the question of whether Kavanaugh did or did not sexually assault many women...

In his talks at Georgetown Prep, Yale, etc. etc. he has talked about heavy drinking and partying -- bragged about it, even.

Then on Fox, he presented this studious choir boy image which is in total conflict.

The fact is, one story or the other is lying. The man is a liar. He is lying because he has decided that is the clearest path to get what he wants.

This is not a person whom I want on the Supreme Court.

that pretty well sums it up - i dont know how we're still even considering him.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4035
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #393 on: September 26, 2018, 08:05:28 AM »
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

Take my best friend. In the past, he has operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. I suspect some people on this forum have done so as well. He did this a number of times in his early 20s, when his judgement was relatively poor compared to today. He endangered the lives of members of his community, all for selfish reasons. It was stupid. It was reckless.

My point? Sexual assault and DUI both endanger people's lives and have the potential to cause trauma for victim-survivors Should my friend and, for that matter, all people who have caused motor vehicle accidents while under the influence of alcohol or drugs now be prevented from seeking certain employment opportunities because of those past indiscretions?

And before you scream "false equivalence," please explain how the short-term physical and long-term psychological trauma from sexual assault is uniformly more serious than trauma caused by a car accident that resulted in serious injuries, pain, and fear of one's imminent death.

Look, I'm no fan of Kavanaugh. I've long suspected that originalism, textualism, et al. are intellectually dubious, faux justifications for imposing far-right values on the populace, so I'd rather he never become a justice. I also find the man's probable alleged sexual indiscretions to be deplorable. However, just as my friend's past DUIs neither impact his ability to do his job nor create an unsafe environment for others TODAY, Kavanaugh's behavior in the decades-old incidents thus far described doesn't seem to have any bearing on his ability to serve on the Supreme Court.

When I was 13 years old, and my brother was 18 the car we were in was hit by a drunk driver. He ran us off the road, and my brother at the wheel overcorrected when coming back onto the road. The abrupt edge of the road caught the wheel and flipped the car. We rolled four or five times. The anchor to Russell's seatbelts failed, and his chest struck the steering wheel, dissecting his aorta. The roll also threw him sideways and his chest was impaled by the gear shift. We came to rest with him on top of me, and 3/5ths of my dead brother's blood volumn leaked out onto me. I missed his funeral, because the psyches said it was better to keep me away. My very last memory of him is the way the blood lined each tooth perfectly as he screamed like a terrified animal.

Your friend, in his indiscretion and selfishness, was lucky and not good. I'm perfectly fine if my brother's murder continues to suffer for that moment. I'm fine if your friend suffers some, as well. Your implication that DUI is victimless is offensive and naive. As is implying rape somehow slides off your character a few years down the line.

Edit: typo, and to add a bit about character
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 08:13:13 AM by Sailor Sam »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #394 on: September 26, 2018, 08:08:02 AM »
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

I admit I winced when I read that too. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

However, you forget that in that story, while none of the possible eyewitnesses would corroborate Ramirez's story, they did find a classmate who said he was "one-hundred-percent sure" that he was told either that night of or on one of the following two days that Kavanaugh exposed himself to Ramirez, and independently corroborated some of the details like the specific location of the allegation. Maybe not the world's most solid corroboration, but definitely enough in my eyes to dismiss this as a "Democrat con job" like Trump, and to expect this to be investigated further before proceeding with the nomination.

Jrr85, do you believe this is a setup by Democrats or Democratic supporters?

I doubt it.  If I were going to guess, I'd guess it's more likely Ford and the one from yale are true believers who experienced something and have now convinced themselves that it was sexual assault/attempted rape and that Kavanaugh was involved.  Memory is way more fickle and susceptible to distortion than people realize, and that only becomes more true when people are under the influence when the event in question took place and then decades pass. 

It would be equally slighted to say that Kavanaugh didn't think anything of it and forgot it.... because he was a true believing in the Narrative of Brett.

Honestly, the corroboration is the key here, and there seems to be enough to warrant a formal investigation.

And it would be equally probable not knowing anything else.  Or maybe more probable just knowing their professional status because people like that are probably overrepresented among highly successful people.  Steve Jobs was supposedly famous in Apple for his ability to ignore facts and bend reality to his preference and then through force of personality get people to go along. 

But the fact that over thirty years, there is one person who has made an allegation that cannot name the time and place and all the other people she identified as witnesses deny any knowledge of it, and there is another person who admits she didn't know who did it for the first thirty years after the incident but then decided she was sure after 6 days of reflection but nobody she has identified as a witness agrees, makes me think it's less likely that kavanaugh is the one that is creating his own reality.  If somebody has the inclination to force themselves on people and then convince themselves afterwards that nothing happened or that it was consensual, then I suspect there would be more than two incidents over thirty years.  And if he had a habit of creating his own reality, I would not think he'd be able to impose that reality on people that aren't in his inner circle. 

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #395 on: September 26, 2018, 08:09:18 AM »
Kavanaugh will be a vote against indicting and/or impeaching Trump, and the RNC and GOP have gone all in on Trump at this point, so it makes perfect sense. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume Kavanaugh will be appointed to SCOTUS very soon, as we have GOP control of all branches of the federal government. The key will be to vote in November and then again in 2020, remove the GOP from the presidency and take 2/3 control of Congress, and then impeach Kavanaugh among many other course corrections.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #396 on: September 26, 2018, 08:15:31 AM »
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2607328/

And there are a myriad of reasons why a person might experience cognitive decline at some point in their later years.  Isn't that always a risk with a lifetime appointment?  Since there are over 800 federal judges with lifetime appointments in this country, it appears that we've accepted the risk.

This is a near-perennial issue, but only tangentially related to the topic on hand. Since at least Roosevelt most presidents have at least toyed with the idea of composing some sort of age or cognitive cap on lifetime appointments, but its never gone anywhere.

Lifetime appointments were devised precisely to allow the judicial branch to be independent of both the legislature and the executive branches.  If we somehow imposed caps on their appointments it would need to be done in such a way that a particular president or political party could not force out otherwise qualified judges.

I think it was Scalia that just proposed something like a twenty year, non-renewable appointment.  He said since the courts were acting politically, they should do away with lifetime appointments.  Doing a twenty year appointment would still give some insulation from the more violent swings in political sentiment, but make the influence of the political process more uniform rather than hinging on luck as far as how long justices live and/or are willing to serve and not provide an incentive to appoint younger judges. 

I'm inclined to agree with him.  Just make it 9 justices with staggered terms.  Maybe make it 18 year terms so that a justice will be appointed every two years.  Then if there is an untimely death, make it where the appointment is only to finish out the term, but if the term remaining is less than say 7 years they can be eligible for reappointment. 

Maybe keep district court and appellate court appointments for life so none of the judges are worried about employment options after their term is up.  Or maybe just make it a requirement to take senior status at age 70 or something. 

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7337
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #397 on: September 26, 2018, 08:22:14 AM »
The level of partisanship in the judiciary is insane to me.  Especially considering on of our first justices, Samuel Chase, was impeached (though not indited) for letting political leanings affect his decisions.

That's all they do anymore.


I do think lifetime appointments, or at least very long appointments are important. Half the Iowa Supreme Court was removed by voters after the gay marriage decision. The other half wasn't up for recall. When they were, it seems most people had forgotten about the decision, and they kept their seats.

It would take a lot to change the term of the supreme court justice, since it is written in the constitution. I don't think other federal judges appointments necessarily are.

turketron

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Age: 32
  • Location: WI
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #398 on: September 26, 2018, 08:54:12 AM »
Aside from the question of whether Kavanaugh did or did not sexually assault many women...

In his talks at Georgetown Prep, Yale, etc. etc. he has talked about heavy drinking and partying -- bragged about it, even.

Then on Fox, he presented this studious choir boy image which is in total conflict.

The fact is, one story or the other is lying. The man is a liar. He is lying because he has decided that is the clearest path to get what he wants.

This is not a person whom I want on the Supreme Court.

This, exactly- even if sexual assault is unprovable, or even if it's reasonably proven but (somehow) not disqualifying for you, the lying should be. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-moral-ugliness-of-casual-lying/

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8787
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #399 on: September 26, 2018, 09:11:37 AM »
This is a near-perennial issue, but only tangentially related to the topic on hand. Since at least Roosevelt most presidents have at least toyed with the idea of composing some sort of age or cognitive cap on lifetime appointments, but its never gone anywhere.

Lifetime appointments were devised precisely to allow the judicial branch to be independent of both the legislature and the executive branches.  If we somehow imposed caps on their appointments it would need to be done in such a way that a particular president or political party could not force out otherwise qualified judges.

I think it was Scalia that just proposed something like a twenty year, non-renewable appointment.  He said since the courts were acting politically, they should do away with lifetime appointments.  Doing a twenty year appointment would still give some insulation from the more violent swings in political sentiment, but make the influence of the political process more uniform rather than hinging on luck as far as how long justices live and/or are willing to serve and not provide an incentive to appoint younger judges. 

I'm inclined to agree with him.  Just make it 9 justices with staggered terms.  Maybe make it 18 year terms so that a justice will be appointed every two years.  Then if there is an untimely death, make it where the appointment is only to finish out the term, but if the term remaining is less than say 7 years they can be eligible for reappointment. 

Maybe keep district court and appellate court appointments for life so none of the judges are worried about employment options after their term is up.  Or maybe just make it a requirement to take senior status at age 70 or something.

That could work, but would require some interesting law changes.  If incumbent justices were not 'grandfathered-in' it would instantly get rid of one conservative (Thomas) and two progressives (Breyer & RBG).  As for 20 year terms - that's still near-lifetime appointment; 14 of the last 25 justices (excluding the incumbents) served for less than 20 years.  I'd favor something closer to 12 years, which would also curtail this push to appoint justices who are in their 40s (Thomas, Gorsuch) or early 50s (Roberts, Kagan) largely because they might serve for a quarter century.  It would also ensure any appointment would span multiple administrations.
I'm not particularly worried about their individual employment options given the government pension and ability for anyone who's served the top court int he land to be hired as a faculty at any number of law schools (or go the book-tour or consultant route).