Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 72471 times)

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #400 on: September 26, 2018, 09:31:54 AM »
1. The value in lifetime appointments is that it is a check on corruption. If a justice were appointed at 40, and out at 60, they could have another decade plus of career ahead of them.... and many out there willing to offer cushy jobs post-SCOTUS in exchange for a favorable ruling. We have seen this type of soft corruption as people leave congress and cabinet positions (and others too, I'm sure). Any type of term limit on the SCOTUS needs to have a mechanism to prevent this.

2. Avanetti just threw another log on the fire, in typical media-curated fashion. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/408490-avenatti-releases-clients-identity-allegations-against-kavanaugh

I have a distrust of Avanetti, but he does seem to do some verification before his more outrageous fact-based claims. Veracity of the claim is TBD.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #401 on: September 26, 2018, 09:37:37 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.

I'm not sure how we expect our judiciary to be non-partisan when we can't even agree on a correct interpretation of the law.  If the law is subjective then, by definition, it's interpretation is going to be influenced by the opinions of the person doing the interpreting.  And since interpretation of the law is a part of partisan identity, their opinion is going to inevitably include a partisan element.

If democrats believe that the constitution clearly requires the government to go through due process before depriving citizens of their liberty and republicans disagree then how does a judge handle this issue in a non-partisan way?  Either they're going to decide cases in a way that requires the government to provide due process before curtailing our liberties or they're not, there is no non-partisan solution there.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #402 on: September 26, 2018, 09:40:11 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.

I'm not sure how we expect our judiciary to be non-partisan when we can't even agree on a correct interpretation of the law.  If the law is subjective then, by definition, it's interpretation is going to be influenced by the opinions of the person doing the interpreting.  And since interpretation of the law is a part of partisan identity, their opinion is going to inevitably include a partisan element.

If democrats believe that the constitution clearly requires the government to go through due process before depriving citizens of their liberty and republicans disagree then how does a judge handle this issue in a non-partisan way?  Either they're going to decide cases in a way that requires the government to provide due process before curtailing our liberties or they're not, there is no non-partisan solution there.

I think the idea is more that you back up your decisions based on the constitution; not everything strictly on party line.  In that respect, being the people we often called the "swing" votes, are doing it right.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #403 on: September 26, 2018, 09:47:27 AM »

I'm not sure how we expect our judiciary to be non-partisan when we can't even agree on a correct interpretation of the law. If the law is subjective then, by definition, it's interpretation is going to be influenced by the opinions of the person doing the interpreting.  And since interpretation of the law is a part of partisan identity, their opinion is going to inevitably include a partisan element.

If democrats believe that the constitution clearly requires the government to go through due process before depriving citizens of their liberty and republicans disagree then how does a judge handle this issue in a non-partisan way?  Either they're going to decide cases in a way that requires the government to provide due process before curtailing our liberties or they're not, there is no non-partisan solution there.

One observation I had only after living outside of the US for several years is how much agreement there is in American politics, even though both parties portray the other as 'extreme' and 'out of touch'.  Compared to most other developed countries, the Dems and GOP are very close together.  What's being sold is this constant narrative of what separates us, not what unites us. Perhaps if we could concentrate on the latter a bit more this political division (or apparent political division) would be less extreme.

I don't know how this could actually be accomplished, only that it could reduce the vitriol we're currently experiencing.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #404 on: September 26, 2018, 10:00:24 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.

I'm not sure how we expect our judiciary to be non-partisan when we can't even agree on a correct interpretation of the law.  If the law is subjective then, by definition, it's interpretation is going to be influenced by the opinions of the person doing the interpreting.  And since interpretation of the law is a part of partisan identity, their opinion is going to inevitably include a partisan element.

If democrats believe that the constitution clearly requires the government to go through due process before depriving citizens of their liberty and republicans disagree then how does a judge handle this issue in a non-partisan way?  Either they're going to decide cases in a way that requires the government to provide due process before curtailing our liberties or they're not, there is no non-partisan solution there.

I think the idea is more that you back up your decisions based on the constitution; not everything strictly on party line.  In that respect, being the people we often called the "swing" votes, are doing it right.

Okay, but when my interpretation of a particular part of the Constitution (as a democrat) is different from someone else's interpretation of that part of the Constitution (as a republican) (and there is no non-partisan interpretation) then how do you resolve a case involving that part of the Constitution in a non-partisan manner?  Either way I go (with the democratic interpretation or the republican interpretation) I can back up my decision with the constitution and I have to go one way or the other.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 10:07:45 AM by shenlong55 »

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #405 on: September 26, 2018, 10:15:49 AM »
2. Avanetti just threw another log on the fire, in typical media-curated fashion. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/408490-avenatti-releases-clients-identity-allegations-against-kavanaugh

That's a very masterful release of an allegation. Sworn affidavit plus a great photo that all the news outlets are going to use. The GOP seemed poised to credibly sweep the second accuser Ramirez under the rug, but it's hard to see how they can avoid addressing this new set of allegations.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3744
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #406 on: September 26, 2018, 10:27:21 AM »
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.

There are a number of events in my life where I could not tell you the exact date or the exact address but which are burned on my memory, for good or ill.  I don't regard not knowing the dates of those events, or not being able to find a precise house in a row of similar houses, in any way invalidating those significant parts of my life.  I'm fairly certain that anyone without an eidetic memory would say the same.   We retain the important information and the rest goes.  It seems entirely credible to me that Dr Ford would remember someone putting her in fear of rape and death by suffocation without remembering the exact date or address, or that Ms Ramirez would remember a penis in the face without remembering the date.  In fact, a deliberate losing over time of the parts of the memories that aren't burnt onto the brain might be a psychologically protective action.

As to witnesses, the attempted rape was in a separate room and quite understandably no-one involved was broadcasting it after the event.  For everyone else the party would have been completely forgettable.  Dr Ramirez has evidence of contemporaneous and more recent comments by others naming Brett Kavanaugh.

I see that there is now a third witness, under oath, to gang rape involving Brett Kavanaugh.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #407 on: September 26, 2018, 10:30:41 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.

I'm not sure how we expect our judiciary to be non-partisan when we can't even agree on a correct interpretation of the law.  If the law is subjective then, by definition, it's interpretation is going to be influenced by the opinions of the person doing the interpreting.  And since interpretation of the law is a part of partisan identity, their opinion is going to inevitably include a partisan element.

If democrats believe that the constitution clearly requires the government to go through due process before depriving citizens of their liberty and republicans disagree then how does a judge handle this issue in a non-partisan way?  Either they're going to decide cases in a way that requires the government to provide due process before curtailing our liberties or they're not, there is no non-partisan solution there.

I think the idea is more that you back up your decisions based on the constitution; not everything strictly on party line.  In that respect, being the people we often called the "swing" votes, are doing it right.

Okay, but when my interpretation of a particular part of the Constitution (as a democrat) is different from someone else's interpretation of that part of the Constitution (as a republican) (and there is no non-partisan interpretation) then how do you resolve a case involving that part of the Constitution in a non-partisan manner?  Either way I go (with the democratic interpretation or the republican interpretation) I can back up my decision with the constitution and I have to go one way or the other.

Yep.

A modern day Republican might interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that any limit to the sale of small arms is wrong.  A modern day Democrat (and olden day Republican) would have no issue with regulation of firearms to individuals since the amendment is explicitly about a militia.

Same document, totally different interpretation.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7498
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #408 on: September 26, 2018, 10:38:38 AM »
I see that there is now a third witness, under oath, to gang rape involving Brett Kavanaugh.

It seems that today's sworn Senate testimony is not that Brett Kavanaugh raped her, it's that she was drugged and gang raped at a party by a group of Brett's friends but she was too incapacitated to know for sure whether Brett was involved.  Maybe it was just all of his high school friends, but not him?

She also testified that prior to this incident, she attended numerous parties with Brett, and that he was typically very drunk (in high school), and habitually touched and grabbed girls in a gropey sexual way, without their consent, when he had been drinking.  That's quite a contradiction to the virgin choir boy image he has tried to portray for himself.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #409 on: September 26, 2018, 10:43:22 AM »
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.

There are a number of events in my life where I could not tell you the exact date or the exact address but which are burned on my memory, for good or ill.  I don't regard not knowing the dates of those events, or not being able to find a precise house in a row of similar houses, in any way invalidating those significant parts of my life.  I'm fairly certain that anyone without an eidetic memory would say the same.   We retain the important information and the rest goes.  It seems entirely credible to me that Dr Ford would remember someone putting her in fear of rape and death by suffocation without remembering the exact date or address, or that Ms Ramirez would remember a penis in the face without remembering the date.  In fact, a deliberate losing over time of the parts of the memories that aren't burnt onto the brain might be a psychologically protective action.

As to witnesses, the attempted rape was in a separate room and quite understandably no-one involved was broadcasting it after the event.  For everyone else the party would have been completely forgettable.  Dr Ramirez has evidence of contemporaneous and more recent comments by others naming Brett Kavanaugh.

I see that there is now a third witness, under oath, to gang rape involving Brett Kavanaugh.

I'm not talking about remembering the exact date, I'm talking about remembering the year it happened.  And the number of people in the room. 

I would also think she'd be able to remember the place it happened if she wasn't drunk (which she claims she wasn't).  She said she hid in the bathroom and then left, which if she left alone, you'd think she'd have some idea of where it was, or if she got a ride with somebody else, you'd think she'd be able to identify the person.  But maybe if it was common to hop from house party to house party of people you didn't really know that's believable that she never really figured out where she was.   

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #410 on: September 26, 2018, 10:53:42 AM »
1. The value in lifetime appointments is that it is a check on corruption. If a justice were appointed at 40, and out at 60, they could have another decade plus of career ahead of them.... and many out there willing to offer cushy jobs post-SCOTUS in exchange for a favorable ruling. We have seen this type of soft corruption as people leave congress and cabinet positions (and others too, I'm sure). Any type of term limit on the SCOTUS needs to have a mechanism to prevent this.

2. Avanetti just threw another log on the fire, in typical media-curated fashion. https://thehill.com/homenews/news/408490-avenatti-releases-clients-identity-allegations-against-kavanaugh

I have a distrust of Avanetti, but he does seem to do some verification before his more outrageous fact-based claims. Veracity of the claim is TBD.

Avanetti shockingly did something reasonably well.  Getting the sworn affidavit and releasing it with the picture, I'm not sure what else could have been done to make it more credible at first glance.  Him talking in the media first was horrible, but obviously he's a partisan and maybe he was worried the vote would move forward before he had the affidavit ready. 

The biggest credibility hurdle she will have to get over is having Avanetti as her laywer to begin with.  The second is that it is going to seem fantastical to a lot of people.  Girls were routinely getting drugged and it was not unheard of to watch guys line up to run a train on an incapacitated girl?  And girls still kept going to these parties, including the woman making the allegation?  I'm not sure what Maryland was like in the early '80's, but that is going to seem like a fictional account to I think most people.  Just hard to imagine a culture in the U.S. where gang rape was just shrugged at. 

At some point you have to wonder is Kavanaugh just the Moriaty or Keyzer Soze of rape?   He has raped and pillaged his way through life for roughly 40 years now and the only victim that can even give a first hand account of what Kavanaugh did is somebody that can't find a single witness to corroborate that the party in question happened and she made no contemporaneous comments about the crime? 

At some point, shouldn't we just consider making kavanaugh emperor?  Tell him he can keep raping and pillaging (which we apparently can't stop anyway) but that he's required to spend at least half his time looking out for the interests of the U.S.??? 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7498
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #411 on: September 26, 2018, 11:03:54 AM »
At some point you have to wonder is Kavanaugh just the Moriaty or Keyzer Soze of rape?   He has raped and pillaged his way through life for roughly 40 years now

Is your sarcasm designed to imply that Kavanaugh was an innocent choir boy, instead of a grabby alcoholic douche bro all through high school and college?  Because his own yearbooks seem to contradict the image he is now trying to portray, which may be why republicans are so desperate to avoid any kind of investigation.  What kind of innocent choir boy puts brags about being in the "100 kegs or bust" club in his yearbook?  And then has the balls to contradict five different witnesses who confirm he was a hard drinking grabby party bro by claiming he never drank or groped? 

When Kavanaugh says "I always treated women with dignity and respect" did he think nobody would check his yearbook where he called Renate the village bicycle?  That wasn't very dignified or respectful, Brett.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #412 on: September 26, 2018, 11:08:37 AM »
I'm not sure if many people will see the multiple rape jokes you're making and find them as funny as you obviously do Jrr85.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #413 on: September 26, 2018, 11:10:19 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.

I'm not sure how we expect our judiciary to be non-partisan when we can't even agree on a correct interpretation of the law.  If the law is subjective then, by definition, it's interpretation is going to be influenced by the opinions of the person doing the interpreting.  And since interpretation of the law is a part of partisan identity, their opinion is going to inevitably include a partisan element.

If democrats believe that the constitution clearly requires the government to go through due process before depriving citizens of their liberty and republicans disagree then how does a judge handle this issue in a non-partisan way?  Either they're going to decide cases in a way that requires the government to provide due process before curtailing our liberties or they're not, there is no non-partisan solution there.

I think the idea is more that you back up your decisions based on the constitution; not everything strictly on party line.  In that respect, being the people we often called the "swing" votes, are doing it right.

Okay, but when my interpretation of a particular part of the Constitution (as a democrat) is different from someone else's interpretation of that part of the Constitution (as a republican) (and there is no non-partisan interpretation) then how do you resolve a case involving that part of the Constitution in a non-partisan manner?  Either way I go (with the democratic interpretation or the republican interpretation) I can back up my decision with the constitution and I have to go one way or the other.

If your interpretation aligns with party views is different than if you are a shill of the party and will do whatever their platform says.  Party platform is irrelevant to the judiciary, or it should be.

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #414 on: September 26, 2018, 11:27:48 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.

I'm not sure how we expect our judiciary to be non-partisan when we can't even agree on a correct interpretation of the law.  If the law is subjective then, by definition, it's interpretation is going to be influenced by the opinions of the person doing the interpreting.  And since interpretation of the law is a part of partisan identity, their opinion is going to inevitably include a partisan element.

If democrats believe that the constitution clearly requires the government to go through due process before depriving citizens of their liberty and republicans disagree then how does a judge handle this issue in a non-partisan way?  Either they're going to decide cases in a way that requires the government to provide due process before curtailing our liberties or they're not, there is no non-partisan solution there.

I think the idea is more that you back up your decisions based on the constitution; not everything strictly on party line.  In that respect, being the people we often called the "swing" votes, are doing it right.

Okay, but when my interpretation of a particular part of the Constitution (as a democrat) is different from someone else's interpretation of that part of the Constitution (as a republican) (and there is no non-partisan interpretation) then how do you resolve a case involving that part of the Constitution in a non-partisan manner?  Either way I go (with the democratic interpretation or the republican interpretation) I can back up my decision with the constitution and I have to go one way or the other.

If your interpretation aligns with party views is different than if you are a shill of the party and will do whatever their platform says.  Party platform is irrelevant to the judiciary, or it should be.

It seems like what your saying is that if your interpretation of the law was arrived at through careful thought and deliberation instead of simply being copied straight from a party platform then ruling mostly in line with your party is fine and not partisan.  Is that correct?  If that's the case, then I'm not sure why your seeing a problem with partisanship in our current judiciary...

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #415 on: September 26, 2018, 11:44:13 AM »
At some point you have to wonder is Kavanaugh just the Moriaty or Keyzer Soze of rape?   He has raped and pillaged his way through life for roughly 40 years now

Is your sarcasm designed to imply that Kavanaugh was an innocent choir boy, instead of a grabby alcoholic douche bro all through high school and college?  Because his own yearbooks seem to contradict the image he is now trying to portray, which may be why republicans are so desperate to avoid any kind of investigation.  What kind of innocent choir boy puts brags about being in the "100 kegs or bust" club in his yearbook?  And then has the balls to contradict five different witnesses who confirm he was a hard drinking grabby party bro by claiming he never drank or groped? 

When Kavanaugh says "I always treated women with dignity and respect" did he think nobody would check his yearbook where he called Renate the village bicycle?  That wasn't very dignified or respectful, Brett.

Why would my sarcasm imply that? 

My sarcasm is barely implying anything.  It's pretty explicitly an opinion that it seems unlikely that Kavanaugh is a serial rapist that unabashadly took part in gang rapes at house parties in the early 80's but that no one can actually go on record to personally seeing him do anything, except that one person who cannot identify the year or place or provide anybody to corroborate the party happening despite identifying 5 other people (one of whom is a lifelong friend who says she was never at a party where Kavanaugh was present).  Maybe I'll get to eat crow, but this sounds way more like the preschool sex dungeon crimes and the UVA Fraternity gang rape than something that actually happened. 

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."

ETA:  I have no opinion on whether Kavanaugh might have treated a girl poorly.  I just doubt he ever attempted to rape anybody and I really, really doubt he engaged in any gang rapes, just because the idea of there being open gang rapes by Biff and Brett and Eustace at house parties in the 1980's seems a little fantastical. 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 11:47:44 AM by Jrr85 »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #416 on: September 26, 2018, 11:50:14 AM »
The second is that it is going to seem fantastical to a lot of people.  Girls were routinely getting drugged and it was not unheard of to watch guys line up to run a train on an incapacitated girl?  And girls still kept going to these parties, including the woman making the allegation?  I'm not sure what Maryland was like in the early '80's, but that is going to seem like a fictional account to I think most people.  Just hard to imagine a culture in the U.S. where gang rape was just shrugged at. 

See also: Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, Bill Cosby, etc...

If you want a more academic take: https://nyupress.org/books/9780814740385/

If you want an anecdotal take related to that culture: https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-was-gang-raped-at-a-u-va-frat-30-years-ago-and-no-one-did-anything

And yet we still have fraternities where hazing is a rite of passage, occasionally to the point of death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hazing_deaths_in_the_United_States

To think that this is totally implausible is naive. Does that mean that this specific allegation is true? No. Does it mean that it is fantastical? Of course not.

It sure would be nice if there was some independent agency with a good 3-letter acronym that could investigate this.


former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3744
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #417 on: September 26, 2018, 11:56:39 AM »
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.

There are a number of events in my life where I could not tell you the exact date or the exact address but which are burned on my memory, for good or ill.  I don't regard not knowing the dates of those events, or not being able to find a precise house in a row of similar houses, in any way invalidating those significant parts of my life.  I'm fairly certain that anyone without an eidetic memory would say the same.   We retain the important information and the rest goes.  It seems entirely credible to me that Dr Ford would remember someone putting her in fear of rape and death by suffocation without remembering the exact date or address, or that Ms Ramirez would remember a penis in the face without remembering the date.  In fact, a deliberate losing over time of the parts of the memories that aren't burnt onto the brain might be a psychologically protective action.

As to witnesses, the attempted rape was in a separate room and quite understandably no-one involved was broadcasting it after the event.  For everyone else the party would have been completely forgettable.  Dr Ramirez has evidence of contemporaneous and more recent comments by others naming Brett Kavanaugh.

I see that there is now a third witness, under oath, to gang rape involving Brett Kavanaugh.

I'm not talking about remembering the exact date, I'm talking about remembering the year it happened.  And the number of people in the room. 

I would also think she'd be able to remember the place it happened if she wasn't drunk (which she claims she wasn't).  She said she hid in the bathroom and then left, which if she left alone, you'd think she'd have some idea of where it was, or if she got a ride with somebody else, you'd think she'd be able to identify the person.  But maybe if it was common to hop from house party to house party of people you didn't really know that's believable that she never really figured out where she was.


Dr Ford says she was 15.  Ms Ramirez says freshman year.  Ms Swetnik says 1981 - 1983.  Where do you get "not remembering the year" from?  Number of people in the room?  Numbers of people in rooms at parties change over time.  Getting invited to a party being given by friends of friends at a house you haven't been to before?  It's happened to me, I believe it could happen to others.

When are you going to start questioning whether Kavanaugh wrote his own year book entry?  Because there are enough references to sleezy sex and drinking to oblivion in it to make the women's accusations a much more likely truth than Kavanaugh's choirboy denials.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #418 on: September 26, 2018, 12:01:17 PM »
At some point you have to wonder is Kavanaugh just the Moriaty or Keyzer Soze of rape?   He has raped and pillaged his way through life for roughly 40 years now

Is your sarcasm designed to imply that Kavanaugh was an innocent choir boy, instead of a grabby alcoholic douche bro all through high school and college?  Because his own yearbooks seem to contradict the image he is now trying to portray, which may be why republicans are so desperate to avoid any kind of investigation.  What kind of innocent choir boy puts brags about being in the "100 kegs or bust" club in his yearbook?  And then has the balls to contradict five different witnesses who confirm he was a hard drinking grabby party bro by claiming he never drank or groped? 

When Kavanaugh says "I always treated women with dignity and respect" did he think nobody would check his yearbook where he called Renate the village bicycle?  That wasn't very dignified or respectful, Brett.

Why would my sarcasm imply that? 

My sarcasm is barely implying anything.  It's pretty explicitly an opinion that it seems unlikely that Kavanaugh is a serial rapist that unabashadly took part in gang rapes at house parties in the early 80's but that no one can actually go on record to personally seeing him do anything, except that one person who cannot identify the year or place or provide anybody to corroborate the party happening despite identifying 5 other people (one of whom is a lifelong friend who says she was never at a party where Kavanaugh was present).  Maybe I'll get to eat crow, but this sounds way more like the preschool sex dungeon crimes and the UVA Fraternity gang rape than something that actually happened. 

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."

ETA:  I have no opinion on whether Kavanaugh might have treated a girl poorly.  I just doubt he ever attempted to rape anybody and I really, really doubt he engaged in any gang rapes, just because the idea of there being open gang rapes by Biff and Brett and Eustace at house parties in the 1980's seems a little fantastical.


Quote
Based on the available data, 21.8% of American rapes of female victims are gang rapes.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States

Fantastical or not, more than 1 in 5 women who are raped in the US are gang raped.  You have already been provided with previous studies showing that men who belong to fraternities are more likely to rape women both while at the fraternity and later in life.

What environment would you deem a credible one for the massive number of gang rapes that happen regularly in the US, since university and high school parties do not appear to meet your criteria of an acceptable gang rape location?

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #419 on: September 26, 2018, 12:11:52 PM »
The second is that it is going to seem fantastical to a lot of people.  Girls were routinely getting drugged and it was not unheard of to watch guys line up to run a train on an incapacitated girl?  And girls still kept going to these parties, including the woman making the allegation?  I'm not sure what Maryland was like in the early '80's, but that is going to seem like a fictional account to I think most people.  Just hard to imagine a culture in the U.S. where gang rape was just shrugged at. 

See also: Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, Bill Cosby, etc...
  Weren't all those people serial rapists or molesters?  And had lots of people come forward against them with first hand accounts of what they did to them? 

If you want a more academic take: https://nyupress.org/books/9780814740385/
 

If you want an anecdotal take related to that culture: https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-was-gang-raped-at-a-u-va-frat-30-years-ago-and-no-one-did-anything
  That's horrible.  I'm still skeptical that it was common.  And it's still not clear from that account that other women shrugged at the behavior. 

And yet we still have fraternities where hazing is a rite of passage, occasionally to the point of death: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hazing_deaths_in_the_United_States
  Well, hazing is just a little bit different from gang rape. 

To think that this is totally implausible is naive. Does that mean that this specific allegation is true? No. Does it mean that it is fantastical? Of course not.
  It's implausible.  I'm not sure what totally implausible is.  Not every fact in the story is implausible.  It's not implausible that high school guys would grind on girls or grab them without their permission and that even girls that were really bothered by it would put up with it.  But it seems implausible to me that girls just shrugged at gang rape.  Not impossible.  But it seems very unlikely to me.  I guess "totally implausible"?

It sure would be nice if there was some independent agency with a good 3-letter acronym that could investigate this.
  They should.  But they should have her testify before the Committee also, preferably immediately after Ford but as soon after as she can logistically get there.  They should also probably do these questioning in private now, although it's not absolutely necessary.

charis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #420 on: September 26, 2018, 12:15:18 PM »
At some point you have to wonder is Kavanaugh just the Moriaty or Keyzer Soze of rape?   He has raped and pillaged his way through life for roughly 40 years now

Is your sarcasm designed to imply that Kavanaugh was an innocent choir boy, instead of a grabby alcoholic douche bro all through high school and college?  Because his own yearbooks seem to contradict the image he is now trying to portray, which may be why republicans are so desperate to avoid any kind of investigation.  What kind of innocent choir boy puts brags about being in the "100 kegs or bust" club in his yearbook?  And then has the balls to contradict five different witnesses who confirm he was a hard drinking grabby party bro by claiming he never drank or groped? 

When Kavanaugh says "I always treated women with dignity and respect" did he think nobody would check his yearbook where he called Renate the village bicycle?  That wasn't very dignified or respectful, Brett.

Why would my sarcasm imply that? 

My sarcasm is barely implying anything.  It's pretty explicitly an opinion that it seems unlikely that Kavanaugh is a serial rapist that unabashadly took part in gang rapes at house parties in the early 80's but that no one can actually go on record to personally seeing him do anything, except that one person who cannot identify the year or place or provide anybody to corroborate the party happening despite identifying 5 other people (one of whom is a lifelong friend who says she was never at a party where Kavanaugh was present).  Maybe I'll get to eat crow, but this sounds way more like the preschool sex dungeon crimes and the UVA Fraternity gang rape than something that actually happened. 

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."

ETA:  I have no opinion on whether Kavanaugh might have treated a girl poorly.  I just doubt he ever attempted to rape anybody and I really, really doubt he engaged in any gang rapes, just because the idea of there being open gang rapes by Biff and Brett and Eustace at house parties in the 1980's seems a little fantastical. 

The former girlfriend of someone who actually participated in this exact type of incident told her that he did it and "seemed to regard it as fully consensual."  Her comments are in the New Yorker piece and appear to be unrelated to the new allegations.   You seem to be stuck on certain terminology.  If all of the perpetrators similarly deemed it to be consensual (and it went unreported), no one's shrugging off a violent crime.   Also, this is an 80s rich prep school party scene - maybe pick up a copy of Less than Zero, a novel described by similar students of that era as being disturbingly accurate.

Just because it seems implausible from our vantage point doesn't mean was in a certain time and place.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 12:17:48 PM by jezebel »

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 538
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #421 on: September 26, 2018, 12:29:43 PM »
Increasingly worried, Trump takes over Kavanaugh defense

Never fear Trump supporters, Kavanaugh is in safe hands now.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2071
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #422 on: September 26, 2018, 12:33:11 PM »
Increasingly worried, Trump takes over Kavanaugh defense

Never fear Trump supporters, Kavanaugh is in safe hands now.

Maybe Trump will just issue a blanket pardon to Kavanaugh and declare him, "Good to go." /s

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1806
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #423 on: September 26, 2018, 12:33:15 PM »
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


Wow powerful gut punch reading this. I'm terribly sorry that this happened to you. And underscores how serious a problem alcohol abuse is, regardless of the cavalier attitudes expressed by people like Brett Kavanaugh et al.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3744
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #424 on: September 26, 2018, 12:56:43 PM »

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."
 

Not in the USA, but here in the UK there have been multiple convictions for gang rape in recent years, with youngsters of both sexes being "groomed" into drink and drugs and accepting what happened to them, and with people in authority (social workers, police) expressing for years the same sort denial and disbelief that you are expressing here.

Do you think the USA is so special that it can't happen there?

intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #425 on: September 26, 2018, 01:02:25 PM »
-Sol, you speak as if there is no doubt in your mind that Kavanaugh is guilty of both charges.  Do you give any credence whatsoever to the fact every single witness identified by the alleged victims as having been present have denied that the events happened as described?
-I’ve reluctantly come around to the “nay” category on Kavanuagh for a couple of reasons. 
1. The “choir boy” story he told during his interview was clearly a fiction.  I don’t think this necessarily makes it more likely that he is guilty, but that discrepancy will always be enough for his critics to use it as evidence that he really was guilty and give them the impression that his confirmation is an abomination of justice.
2. I tend to lean conservative, and there are far too many conservative alternatives that will not have this baggage.  I’d rather see a “clean” conservative justice appointed and confirmed than see Kavanaugh appointed with a tainted reputation.
3. I actually tend to value the reputation of the supreme court.  Whether Kavanaugh is guilty or innocent, this accusation will always hang over the court.  Better to cut losses and get someone new.
-For good or ill, Kavanaugh is toast with this third accusation.

-A summary of the evidence in Kavanaugh’s defense:
1. Every first hand witness has refuted the accusers’ claims.
2. There is no record of any of these accusations before approx. 2012 when Ms. Ford discussed them with her therapist.
3. Kavanaugh has produced his calendars from that time period detailing his schedule and appointments, including planned parties.

-Given this summary of evidence, what possible proof could be produced that will be sufficient to clear his name?
-Or put a different way, if you found yourself eligible for a position of incredible power and prestige, a position that represented the absolute pinnacle of your life’s work, and someone accused you of similarly serious charges from 35 years ago, how would you defend yourself?  What more possible proof could you provide than Kavanaugh has provided to prove that you were innocent?

charis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #426 on: September 26, 2018, 01:19:21 PM »
The question of whether he is "guilty" is very different from the question that has been debated in this thread thus far, which is whether the victims' allegations are credible and worthy of a formal investigation and a delayed vote.  Secondary to that has been the question of whether it would be disqualifying if true.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #427 on: September 26, 2018, 01:32:53 PM »
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


Wow powerful gut punch reading this. I'm terribly sorry that this happened to you. And underscores how serious a problem alcohol abuse is, regardless of the cavalier attitudes expressed by people like Brett Kavanaugh et al.

Would you say the same thing if it were texting and driving?  Just curious.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 01:34:59 PM by Cache_Stash »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #428 on: September 26, 2018, 01:34:27 PM »
-A summary of the evidence in Kavanaugh’s defense:
1. Every first hand witness has refuted the accusers’ claims.
2. There is no record of any of these accusations before approx. 2012 when Ms. Ford discussed them with her therapist.
3. Kavanaugh has produced his calendars from that time period detailing his schedule and appointments, including planned parties.

-Given this summary of evidence, what possible proof could be produced that will be sufficient to clear his name?
-Or put a different way, if you found yourself eligible for a position of incredible power and prestige, a position that represented the absolute pinnacle of your life’s work, and someone accused you of similarly serious charges from 35 years ago, how would you defend yourself?  What more possible proof could you provide than Kavanaugh has provided to prove that you were innocent?

I actually find the publicly available proof to be the most damning. 
Starting with the Fox News interview he gave, that was clearly so far off the mark as to be a laughable. If his assertion had been that he drank and partied in his youth but later on found focus I could have swallowed that. But instead he jogged so far to the right, virtually claiming to be a perfect angel.

The calendar - I'm also not sure what that's suppoed to 'prove'. It's noteworthy that he's got a lot of parties on there (eg beach week) which seem to correspond to incidents of heavy drinking from his yearbook.  AT best it shows he was not the perfect student he portrayed himself to be, more likely it shows a teenager who spent much of their time planning social events. A calendar is typically filled with the normal kind of deadlines listed there; no one writes "attempt to rape Christine, next Friday".

Proof -- we've got a lot of circumstantial but supporting accounts.  Writings in people's yearbooks about drinking and chasing girls.  Statements from roommates and classmates who say he acted aggressively and disrespectfully towards other girls. The willingness of the accusors to be interviewed and polygraphed by authorities. An investigation would test the legitimacy of many of these writings, and potentially uncover more, but to date the GOP is resisting taking that step, and that in itself is telling. His legal writings which show him willing to humiliate a victim to achieve his end-goal.

Proof in these sorts of cases always comes back to the legitimacy of the claims. In order to test the legitimacy one must investigate the accusations. Unfortunately the current line that's been drawn is that i) we won't investigate these claims to see what we can learn and ii) because have been unable to assess their legitimacy a burden of proof has not been met.  It's a chicken-and-egg problem.  True, an investigation could be conducted which might shed no further light on the subject, but right now we're not even willing to open to the door to see whether we uncover a monster. The calculation seems to be: if we don't investigate there's no chance at learning something unsavory - and that's not the proper standard when one is doling out a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in government.

Kavanaugh's name could be cleared if his version of events were more believable than the accusations.  Unfortunately his latest version is that he was a choir-boy focused on his studies and all but disinterested in the opposite sex. At a minimum all other accounts paint a picture at a minimum of a young man who drank and partied a lot, who was a member of both fraternities and societies that were known for their mysogenistic behavior and many of his peers remember him quite differently. In effect his version of his formative years has already been disproven.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1806
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #429 on: September 26, 2018, 01:54:23 PM »


Would you say the same thing if it were texting and driving?  Just curious.


Anything that causes impaired driving is a problem.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #430 on: September 26, 2018, 02:05:21 PM »


Would you say the same thing if it were texting and driving?  Just curious.


Anything that causes impaired driving is a problem.

At the risk of going way OT here, the greatest challenge I see with texting while driving is that most people do not perceive it to be that big of a deal, even though the reality is that it can be worse than driving while drunk. We have thankfully reached the point where it is no longer socially acceptable to drive drunk - where people expect someone who drives drunk to lose their license, and for someone who kills another while driving drunk to go to jail.  Its seen as socially unjust when someone gets probation for killing someone behind the wheel when under the influence. 

At present the same cannot be said about texting while driving.  "I only looked down at my phone for an instant" is still a frequent defense, despite all the warnings, technology and laws preventing texting while driving.  There are even a few states that still haven't explicitly banned texting while driving.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #431 on: September 26, 2018, 02:08:04 PM »


Would you say the same thing if it were texting and driving?  Just curious.


Anything that causes impaired driving is a problem.

At the risk of going way OT here, the greatest challenge I see with texting while driving is that most people do not perceive it to be that big of a deal, even though the reality is that it can be worse than driving while drunk. We have thankfully reached the point where it is no longer socially acceptable to drive drunk - where people expect someone who drives drunk to lose their license, and for someone who kills another while driving drunk to go to jail.  Its seen as socially unjust when someone gets probation for killing someone behind the wheel when under the influence. 

At present the same cannot be said about texting while driving.  "I only looked down at my phone for an instant" is still a frequent defense, despite all the warnings, technology and laws preventing texting while driving.  There are even a few states that still haven't explicitly banned texting while driving.

I'm very much hoping that we get to the place where we see texting while driving as equally heinous/dangerous/socially unacceptable as driving while drunk.

It absolutely infuriates me to see people texting behind the wheel.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #432 on: September 26, 2018, 02:10:54 PM »
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.

I'm not sure how we expect our judiciary to be non-partisan when we can't even agree on a correct interpretation of the law.  If the law is subjective then, by definition, it's interpretation is going to be influenced by the opinions of the person doing the interpreting.  And since interpretation of the law is a part of partisan identity, their opinion is going to inevitably include a partisan element.

If democrats believe that the constitution clearly requires the government to go through due process before depriving citizens of their liberty and republicans disagree then how does a judge handle this issue in a non-partisan way?  Either they're going to decide cases in a way that requires the government to provide due process before curtailing our liberties or they're not, there is no non-partisan solution there.

I think the idea is more that you back up your decisions based on the constitution; not everything strictly on party line.  In that respect, being the people we often called the "swing" votes, are doing it right.

Not really.  Kennedy was a swing vote, but he basically was results oriented based on his sort of libertarian leanings.  Roberts is something of a swing vote but he swings based on his concerns about the public perception of the court. 




shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #433 on: September 26, 2018, 02:11:17 PM »


-Sol, you speak as if there is no doubt in your mind that Kavanaugh is guilty of both charges.  Do you give any credence whatsoever to the fact every single witness identified by the alleged victims as having been present have denied that the events happened as described?
...
-A summary of the evidence in Kavanaugh’s defense:
1. Every first hand witness has refuted the accusers’ claims.

Strictly speaking, this is not true to the best of my knowledge.  Besides the accused themselves (Kavanaugh and Judge), the most anyone has said to this effect is that they don't remember it.  If we're going to question the accusers memory then I don't see why we wouldn't question theirs as well.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk


Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #434 on: September 26, 2018, 02:20:10 PM »

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."
 

Not in the USA, but here in the UK there have been multiple convictions for gang rape in recent years, with youngsters of both sexes being "groomed" into drink and drugs and accepting what happened to them, and with people in authority (social workers, police) expressing for years the same sort denial and disbelief that you are expressing here.

Do you think the USA is so special that it can't happen there?

There is a reason I limited it to the USA.  I'm sure it is much more plausible in some developing countries and in certain insular immigrant communities in developed countries.  And we will probably have the same issues pop up in the U.S.A. 

But I was under the impression that people in authority in the UK weren't in disbelief, but it was more of a combination of the authorities thinking the victims were trash that probably asked for it and/or being concerned about being viewed as anti-muslim/racist/xenophobic if they accused the perpetrators of gang rape and running sex rings. 


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #435 on: September 26, 2018, 02:33:10 PM »

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."
 

Not in the USA, but here in the UK there have been multiple convictions for gang rape in recent years, with youngsters of both sexes being "groomed" into drink and drugs and accepting what happened to them, and with people in authority (social workers, police) expressing for years the same sort denial and disbelief that you are expressing here.

Do you think the USA is so special that it can't happen there?

There is a reason I limited it to the USA.  I'm sure it is much more plausible in some developing countries and in certain insular immigrant communities in developed countries.  And we will probably have the same issues pop up in the U.S.A. 

But I was under the impression that people in authority in the UK weren't in disbelief, but it was more of a combination of the authorities thinking the victims were trash that probably asked for it and/or being concerned about being viewed as anti-muslim/racist/xenophobic if they accused the perpetrators of gang rape and running sex rings.

Given that the stats show that more than 1 in 5 women who are raped in the US are gang raped, and that rapes are more common by fraternity men than others . . . why do you find it so unbelievable that a gang rape (or multiple gang rapes) would happen at Kavenaugh's fraternity?

I know it's the second time I've asked, but you ignored the question last go around.

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #436 on: September 26, 2018, 02:43:57 PM »


Would you say the same thing if it were texting and driving?  Just curious.


Anything that causes impaired driving is a problem.

At the risk of going way OT here, the greatest challenge I see with texting while driving is that most people do not perceive it to be that big of a deal, even though the reality is that it can be worse than driving while drunk. We have thankfully reached the point where it is no longer socially acceptable to drive drunk - where people expect someone who drives drunk to lose their license, and for someone who kills another while driving drunk to go to jail.  Its seen as socially unjust when someone gets probation for killing someone behind the wheel when under the influence. 

At present the same cannot be said about texting while driving.  "I only looked down at my phone for an instant" is still a frequent defense, despite all the warnings, technology and laws preventing texting while driving.  There are even a few states that still haven't explicitly banned texting while driving.

I'm very much hoping that we get to the place where we see texting while driving as equally heinous/dangerous/socially unacceptable as driving while drunk.

It absolutely infuriates me to see people texting behind the wheel.

+100000000000000000000000000

One of the most selfish acts that we have as a society.  Even worse, it's because of narcissistic tendencies as I see it.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 02:46:55 PM by Cache_Stash »

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #437 on: September 26, 2018, 02:50:15 PM »

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."
 

Not in the USA, but here in the UK there have been multiple convictions for gang rape in recent years, with youngsters of both sexes being "groomed" into drink and drugs and accepting what happened to them, and with people in authority (social workers, police) expressing for years the same sort denial and disbelief that you are expressing here.

Do you think the USA is so special that it can't happen there?

There is a reason I limited it to the USA.  I'm sure it is much more plausible in some developing countries and in certain insular immigrant communities in developed countries.  And we will probably have the same issues pop up in the U.S.A. 

But I was under the impression that people in authority in the UK weren't in disbelief, but it was more of a combination of the authorities thinking the victims were trash that probably asked for it and/or being concerned about being viewed as anti-muslim/racist/xenophobic if they accused the perpetrators of gang rape and running sex rings.

Given that the stats show that more than 1 in 5 women who are raped in the US are gang raped, and that rapes are more common by fraternity men than others . . . why do you find it so unbelievable that a gang rape (or multiple gang rapes) would happen at Kavenaugh's fraternity?

I know it's the second time I've asked, but you ignored the question last go around.

I never said anything about gang rapes at Kavanaugh's fraternity (to my knowledge, nobody else has).

I said that I find it hard to believe that gang rapes were going on at high school parties such that high school girls (or college age girls at high school parties in the case of the newest accuser) just shrug it off. 

I would guess most gang rapes take place when there are relatively small groups and not a lot of non-participants to witness it.  So maybe the last girl or two still present at a house party with a few guys would be a typical circumstance?  Or maybe a girl or two go home from a bar with three or four unfamiliar guys?  Or maybe gets roofied at a party and then moved to a more private location?  I'm not really an expert on gang rape and I recognize different subcultures exist.  Certainly I was surprised at how accepting people in hollywood apparently are of rape.  But with all that's changed as far as attitudes and the metoo movement, the only person willing to come out and talk about these high school gang rape parties is somebody who attended them after high school?  Just seems questionable to me.

ETA:  I'd also like to see a source for the claim that fraternity members are more likely to commit rape than men in general.  Just doing a little googling and it looks like it's part of the same ridiculous stats like 1 in 4 women are victims of sexual assault or rape during college.  The only "study" I could find was gibberish and basically follows the same pattern of defining a term like sexual assault down and then using those words interchangeably with rape.  I'd be interested to see if there was an actual study that looked at rape and found that members of fraternities committed rape at higher rates than males in general. 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 03:08:48 PM by Jrr85 »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #438 on: September 26, 2018, 02:58:29 PM »
I never said anything about gang rapes at Kavanaugh's fraternity (to my knowledge, nobody else has).

I said that I find it hard to believe that gang rapes were going on at high school parties such that high school girls (or college age girls at high school parties in the case of the newest accuser) just shrug it off. 

I would guess most gang rapes take place when there are relatively small groups and not a lot of non-participants to witness it.  So maybe the last girl or two still present at a house party with a few guys would be a typical circumstance?  Or maybe a girl or two go home from a bar with three or four unfamiliar guys?  Or maybe gets roofied at a party and then moved to a more private location?  I'm not really an expert on gang rape and I recognize different subcultures exist.  Certainly I was surprised at how accepting people in hollywood apparently are of rape.  But with all that's changed as far as attitudes and the metoo movement, the only person willing to come out and talk about these high school gang rape parties is somebody who attended them after high school?  Just seems questionable to me.

Maybe someone should do an investigation and look into this accusation.


Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #439 on: September 26, 2018, 03:29:22 PM »
Well I guess we should end the witch hunt, Kavanaugh's calendar has been revealed....and no rapes or exposed members were noted.

intellectsucks

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #440 on: September 26, 2018, 03:32:06 PM »

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."
 

Not in the USA, but here in the UK there have been multiple convictions for gang rape in recent years, with youngsters of both sexes being "groomed" into drink and drugs and accepting what happened to them, and with people in authority (social workers, police) expressing for years the same sort denial and disbelief that you are expressing here.

Do you think the USA is so special that it can't happen there?

There is a reason I limited it to the USA.  I'm sure it is much more plausible in some developing countries and in certain insular immigrant communities in developed countries.  And we will probably have the same issues pop up in the U.S.A. 

But I was under the impression that people in authority in the UK weren't in disbelief, but it was more of a combination of the authorities thinking the victims were trash that probably asked for it and/or being concerned about being viewed as anti-muslim/racist/xenophobic if they accused the perpetrators of gang rape and running sex rings.

Given that the stats show that more than 1 in 5 women who are raped in the US are gang raped, and that rapes are more common by fraternity men than others . . . why do you find it so unbelievable that a gang rape (or multiple gang rapes) would happen at Kavenaugh's fraternity?

I know it's the second time I've asked, but you ignored the question last go around.
Surely you have statistics and studies that you can link to back up such a claim.  Smearing a whole group of people without evidence is not an effective technique for debate or life.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7498
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #441 on: September 26, 2018, 03:35:08 PM »
-For good or ill, Kavanaugh is toast with this third accusation.

I think you grossly overestimate Mitch McConnell.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #442 on: September 26, 2018, 03:35:38 PM »

I never said anything about gang rapes at Kavanaugh's fraternity (to my knowledge, nobody else has).

what news sources are you following exactly?  That accusation has been a focus of this latest news cycle...

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7342
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #443 on: September 26, 2018, 03:42:53 PM »

I never said anything about gang rapes at Kavanaugh's fraternity (to my knowledge, nobody else has).

what news sources are you following exactly?  That accusation has been a focus of this latest news cycle...

I don't think that latest claim names his fraternity. Merely that it frequently happened at parties he attended.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #444 on: September 26, 2018, 03:43:13 PM »
Heard an interview with a GOP strategist on my way home - one of the latest talking points goes something like this: the fact that there are now 3 accusers is evidence that this is a coordinated conspiracy and not a reflection of a pattern of conduct. The more accusations there are, the less likely they are to be true.

whaaaa?  We've entered bizarro world were more = less and

If this is indeed a coordinated conspiracy it seems the best course of action would be to launch an investigation.  It shouldn't be too hard to prove that a single group conspired to have these women commit perjury.  Phone records, meetings, shared narratives...

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8790
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #445 on: September 26, 2018, 03:45:56 PM »

I never said anything about gang rapes at Kavanaugh's fraternity (to my knowledge, nobody else has).

what news sources are you following exactly?  That accusation has been a focus of this latest news cycle...

I don't think that latest claim names his fraternity. Merely that it frequently happened at parties he attended.
This is true of the latest accuser, Julie Swetnick.  However there's been a great deal about the culture within his fraternity and his society (later involved in the now infamous "no means yes, yes means anal" chants)

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1806
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #446 on: September 26, 2018, 04:01:04 PM »
Over the last 6 years Dr. Ford revealed to several people that she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh

"Russell Ford, Dr. Blasey’s husband, said that his wife shared the details of the assault in a 2012 couple’s therapy session.
“She said that she had been trapped in a room and physically restrained by one boy who was molesting her while the other boy watched,” he said.

Keith Koegler, one close friend, says that Dr. Blasey mentioned the assault to him in the summer of 2016, around the time that the news was awash with the story of a Stanford student, Brock Turner, who raped an unconscious woman. Dr. Blasey told him that she had been assaulted by a man who was now a federal judge.
Shortly after Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his retirement from the court in July, Dr. Blasey wrote an email to Mr. Koegler saying that her assailant was a “favorite for SCOTUS,” short for Supreme Court of the United States. When Mr. Koegler inquired who, she said it was Brett Kavanaugh.

Another friend, Adela Gildo-Mazzon, recounted a 2013 meal with Dr. Blasey at a Mountain View, Calif., pizzeria in which she grew “visibly upset.” When Ms. Gildo-Mazzon asked her what was wrong, Dr. Blasey said she had been having a hard day, thinking about being assaulted years before.
“She said that she had been almost raped by someone who was now a federal judge,” Ms. Gildo-Mazzon stated. “She told me she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys, and then she escaped, ran away, and hid.”

Brett Kavanaugh Regrets Some Choices in High School, but Again Denies Sexual Assault

https://nyti.ms/2NJfKJi

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7498
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #447 on: September 26, 2018, 04:56:54 PM »
-Sol, you speak as if there is no doubt in your mind that Kavanaugh is guilty of both charges.  Do you give any credence whatsoever to the fact every single witness identified by the alleged victims as having been present have denied that the events happened as described?

You and JRR have both made this allegation, but I still don't get it.  Several witnesses have said they didn't personally see Kavanaugh assault Ford, not that it didn't happen or that they didn't see him do any of other creepy and gropey things that have he has been widely reported to have done.  For the record, I could also say that I did not see Kavanaugh assault Ford.  One defender (his longtime friend Mark Judge) has refused to testify under oath.  His accusers have submitted sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury, while his defenders have refused to do so.  At first glance, it sure looks like the accusers are telling the horrible truth and the defenders are trying to hide something.

And remember that at this point we're not even discussing whether or not Kavanaugh should get a lifetime promotion, we're only discussing whether or not republicans should forbid any investigation into these allegations.  They're not only claiming they are false, they are claiming they don't want to find out. 

You can certainly take issue with the allegations, if you're in the habit of telling alleged survivors of sexual assault that they are liars.  But why would you refuse to even investigate?  That part baffles me.  If you don't believe the multiple women who have come forward, why would you so staunchly oppose finding the truth?  If you think they are false accusations, wouldn't you want that exposed with a real investigation?  Let's subpoena Mark Judge and see if he stands by his denials under oath.  The accusers do.

No, I think the real story here is that republican Senators DO think they allegations are true, and they are trying to preserve what little political cover they still have by sticking their fingers in their ears so they can plead ignorance long enough to ramrod through a lifetime appointment.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12293
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #448 on: September 26, 2018, 05:28:13 PM »

Out of curiosity, has anyone here been part of a social group or known a social group in the U.S., where gang rape would be no big deal?  I'm going out on a limb here because I don't know what the early 80's in Maryland were like and I get that attitudes were more permissive, especially with respect to sex after drinking or drugs, but I just can't imagine that is was so different that high school girls were just like, "damn, another girl getting gang raped.  Maybe i should do some....oooh, I need a refill on my punch.
 Someone else can deal with the gang rape."
 

Not in the USA, but here in the UK there have been multiple convictions for gang rape in recent years, with youngsters of both sexes being "groomed" into drink and drugs and accepting what happened to them, and with people in authority (social workers, police) expressing for years the same sort denial and disbelief that you are expressing here.

Do you think the USA is so special that it can't happen there?

There is a reason I limited it to the USA.  I'm sure it is much more plausible in some developing countries and in certain insular immigrant communities in developed countries.  And we will probably have the same issues pop up in the U.S.A. 

But I was under the impression that people in authority in the UK weren't in disbelief, but it was more of a combination of the authorities thinking the victims were trash that probably asked for it and/or being concerned about being viewed as anti-muslim/racist/xenophobic if they accused the perpetrators of gang rape and running sex rings.

Given that the stats show that more than 1 in 5 women who are raped in the US are gang raped, and that rapes are more common by fraternity men than others . . . why do you find it so unbelievable that a gang rape (or multiple gang rapes) would happen at Kavenaugh's fraternity?

I know it's the second time I've asked, but you ignored the question last go around.
Surely you have statistics and studies that you can link to back up such a claim.  Smearing a whole group of people without evidence is not an effective technique for debate or life.

A fair amount of research exists indicating this to be true.  Some of the studies regarding this topic  were referenced and summarized by another poster quite a while ago in this thread (post 171 I believe).

Putting forth an uninformed opinion without first paying attention to the conversation is not an effective technique for debate or life.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2018, 05:36:00 PM by GuitarStv »

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1806
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #449 on: September 26, 2018, 05:41:25 PM »
No, I think the real story here is that republican Senators DO think they allegations are true, and they are trying to preserve what little political cover they still have by sticking their fingers in their ears so they can plead ignorance long enough to ramrod through a lifetime appointment.

+1