Poll

Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

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

Author Topic: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?  (Read 58823 times)

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #900 on: September 30, 2018, 10:36:58 AM »
Another thing I was thinking about in addition to protecting himself, he may be trying to protect his "bros". Mark Judge admitted to his girlfriend that he had "group sex" with a drunk woman.
https://www.businessinsider.com/julie-swetnick-allegations-mark-judge-kavanaugh-elizabeth-rasor-2018-9

One

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 157
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #901 on: September 30, 2018, 10:40:55 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #902 on: September 30, 2018, 10:47:54 AM »
Another thing I was thinking about in addition to protecting himself, he may be trying to protect his "bros". Mark Judge admitted to his girlfriend that he had "group sex" with a drunk woman.
https://www.businessinsider.com/julie-swetnick-allegations-mark-judge-kavanaugh-elizabeth-rasor-2018-9

"Group sex" and "gang rape" are sometimes hard to distinguish when there is heavy drinking involved.  I can see how Judge might mistakenly think that was consensual, and the woman might truthfully allege gang rape.  Or alternately, how another woman who saw it happen might allege gang rape because she saw a group of boys lined up to have sex with a girl passed out in a bedroom, but the passed out girl might have been totally fine with it.  Someone needs to find that girl.

The new testimony certainly does put a new wrinkle on the story, which many of our local posters have called "outrageous" because they seemed so outlandish.  Here we suddenly have a corroborating piece of testimony from someone who supports the existing allegations of groups of high school boys lined up to have sex with a drunk girl at a party.  Is it possible that Kavanaugh is innocent of gang rape, but participated in consensual group sex with a passed out high school girl who willingly participated while heavily impaired?  Would that still be disqualifying for Kavanaugh's promotion to the SC?  What if he lied under oath about group sex with a drunk girl, even if the sex wasn't rape?

Whether or not he's a rapist, Brett Kavanaugh is one skeevy dudebro.  I would love to see evangelical voters and Mormon Senator Jeff Flake come out and say "drunken group sex with passed out high school girls is totally fine, this was a smear campaign, he's a fine upstanding nominee and I fully support him."

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #903 on: September 30, 2018, 10:48:16 AM »
Sol, I agree with all your points.

I am also of the opinion that anyone who gets involved with Trump gets slimed one way or another. Anytime Trump cozies up to anyone, they get the slime on them and next thing you know they are in deep doo doo. Kavanaugh is just another one who got slimed. Whether he gets confirmed or not, he is tainted forever.

I too hope they find Kavanaugh not fit for this job and flick him. He is a disgrace.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #904 on: September 30, 2018, 10:54:39 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

Partisans like Kavanaugh never would have been nominated under the old 60 vote threshold.  Republicans changed the rules by invoking the "nuclear option" for SC nominees, which for the first time in a century has allowed pretty much any politician, no matter how biased, to be appointed to the SC bench.

A few years back, when nominees still needed 60 votes, nominees had to at least sort of appear to be impartial and unbiased to a majority of senators.  Those days are dead and gone.

I would support a return to the 60 vote confirmation process before I would support a 15 year term limit, I think.  It would do far more good towards ensuring we get fair jurisprudence, instead of just limiting the damage done by bad jurists.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 11:06:02 AM by sol »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #905 on: September 30, 2018, 10:55:36 AM »
Another thing I was thinking about in addition to protecting himself, he may be trying to protect his "bros". Mark Judge admitted to his girlfriend that he had "group sex" with a drunk woman.
https://www.businessinsider.com/julie-swetnick-allegations-mark-judge-kavanaugh-elizabeth-rasor-2018-9

"Group sex" and "gang rape" are sometimes hard to distinguish when there is heavy drinking involved.  I can see how Judge might mistakenly think that was consensual, and the woman might truthfully allege gang rape.  Or alternately, how another woman who saw it happen might allege gang rape because she saw a group of boys lined up to have sex with a girl passed out in a bedroom, but the passed out girl might have been totally fine with it.  Someone needs to find that girl.

The new testimony certainly does put a new wrinkle on the story, which many of our local posters have called "outrageous" because they seemed so outlandish.  Here we suddenly have a corroborating piece of testimony from someone who supports the existing allegations of groups of high school boys lined up to have sex with a drunk girl at a party.  Is it possible that Kavanaugh is innocent of gang rape, but participated in consensual group sex with a passed out high school girl who willingly participated while heavily impaired?  Would that still be disqualifying for Kavanaugh's promotion to the SC? What if he lied under oath about group sex with a drunk girl, even if the sex wasn't rape?

Whether or not he's a rapist, Brett Kavanaugh is one skeevy dudebro.  I would love to see evangelical voters and Mormon Senator Jeff Flake come out and say "drunken group sex with passed out high school girls is totally fine, this was a smear campaign, he's a fine upstanding nominee and I fully support him."
I guess one could fittingly ask if perjury was enough to impeach Clinton.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #906 on: September 30, 2018, 11:12:37 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

Partisans like Kavanaugh never would have been nominated under the old 60 vote threshold.  Republicans changed the rules by invoking the "nuclear option" for SC nominees, which for the first time in a century has allowed pretty much any politician, no matter how biased, to be appointed to the SC bench.

A few years back, when nominees still needed 60 votes, nominees had to at least sort of appear to be impartial and unbiased to a majority of senators.  Those days are dead and gone.

I would support a return to the 60 vote confirmation process before I would support a 15 year term limit, I think.  It would do far more good towards ensuring we get fair jurisprudence, instead of just limiting the damage done by bad jurists.


+1.  I'd also codify a lot more of the nomination process so that this political monkey-business wouldn't be as effective nor as offensive to the opposing party. Stuff like "all nominees get a committee vote" (Garland), all documents have to be released in a set time period (Kavanaugh) and the time frame should be clearly defined and allow for several weeks between committee hearings and full senate votes.  Most major public initiatives have a 30 or 60 day public comment period, I don't see why this isn't done for SCOTUS as well.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #907 on: September 30, 2018, 11:40:45 AM »
Another thing I was thinking about in addition to protecting himself, he may be trying to protect his "bros". Mark Judge admitted to his girlfriend that he had "group sex" with a drunk woman.
https://www.businessinsider.com/julie-swetnick-allegations-mark-judge-kavanaugh-elizabeth-rasor-2018-9

"Group sex" and "gang rape" are sometimes hard to distinguish when there is heavy drinking involved.  I can see how Judge might mistakenly think that was consensual, and the woman might truthfully allege gang rape.  Or alternately, how another woman who saw it happen might allege gang rape because she saw a group of boys lined up to have sex with a girl passed out in a bedroom, but the passed out girl might have been totally fine with it.  Someone needs to find that girl.


If a girl is passed out, how does one determine she is fine with it? One cannot consent unconciously.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #908 on: September 30, 2018, 11:59:06 AM »
His best play would have been to shrug his shoulders and go along with the investigation.

Unless he knows that he is guilty AF. That's the only logical explanation for not demanding that the FBI clear his "good name."

If I stood accused in the way Kavanaugh is, I would absolutely have demanded an investigation.  Not only would I have not refused to support it, I would have actively begged for it.  Please talk to all of the people who knew me, or the ones who were present!  Here is my exact recollection of events, including me being an awkward teenager!  I want to sit down in a room with my accuser and the FBI and try to figure out where this misunderstanding came from!

But Brett here can't do any of that, because he knows he had a drinking problem and can't remember parts of high school parties, and he knows lots of girls found him creepy and gropey, he knows he broke the law by drinking underage, he knows he had tens of thousands of dollars or gambling debt, and he knows that his previous nominations were held up for these reasons, and because he has a history of being biased on the bench.  He absolutely cannot have any of his past come to public attention.  Frankly, I'm shocked a man like that ever thought he could survive a national confirmation process at all.  It's probably just another example of white male privilege, thinking that his crimes don't matter and he's entitled to this promotion regardless of his history.

With all of that said, I can still think of another possible explanation for his refusal to support the investigation: he's a republican and he supports what the republican party wants.  Maybe this was never really about him personally, but about advancing the party's agenda and he won't stand against the party.  That means he could not openly call for an investigation when his republican backers were trying to suppress one.  He needs to support whatever narrative the republican party bosses want him to support, and so far that has been "I am a choir boy" despite his knowing full well that is not the case.  In this potential explanation, Brett is just another victim of politics in this situation, manipulated by republican congressional leaders into ruining his own life. 

Now I'm suddenly hoping he doesn't get confirmed and writes a scathing tell-all book about his experiences.  Dust jacket excerpt:  "'Don’t get rattled by all of this," Mitch whispered in my ear as he squeezed my buttocks gently but firmly from behind, 'We’re going to plow right through it.'"

Creepy is a subjective thing. The "college educated feminists" I know think I can be an asshole. The "working class feminists" think I'm actually pretty chivalrous. All of them can be correct because they all interpret events uniquely.

The accusation has already anchored the public towards "rapist". Even if the investigation clears him, no body is going to remember that. People will only ever remember the "rapist" part. It doesn't matter what he did in the intervening 36 years.

Kavanaugh is pissed off because everything ground to a halt on the basis of an accusation with no evidence. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law and powerless to do anything. He could be a good judge but is still human.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #909 on: September 30, 2018, 12:07:35 PM »
I'm going remember the outcome of the investigation.  Why would you assume that nobody else would?  It was not the accusation, but Kavenaugh's actions (lies about drinking, failing to answer reasonable questions, attempt to obstruct an investigation to find the truth) that make me suspect he's guilty.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #910 on: September 30, 2018, 12:11:56 PM »
His best play would have been to shrug his shoulders and go along with the investigation.

Unless he knows that he is guilty AF. That's the only logical explanation for not demanding that the FBI clear his "good name."

If I stood accused in the way Kavanaugh is, I would absolutely have demanded an investigation.  Not only would I have not refused to support it, I would have actively begged for it.  Please talk to all of the people who knew me, or the ones who were present!  Here is my exact recollection of events, including me being an awkward teenager!  I want to sit down in a room with my accuser and the FBI and try to figure out where this misunderstanding came from!

But Brett here can't do any of that, because he knows he had a drinking problem and can't remember parts of high school parties, and he knows lots of girls found him creepy and gropey, he knows he broke the law by drinking underage, he knows he had tens of thousands of dollars or gambling debt, and he knows that his previous nominations were held up for these reasons, and because he has a history of being biased on the bench.  He absolutely cannot have any of his past come to public attention.  Frankly, I'm shocked a man like that ever thought he could survive a national confirmation process at all.  It's probably just another example of white male privilege, thinking that his crimes don't matter and he's entitled to this promotion regardless of his history.

With all of that said, I can still think of another possible explanation for his refusal to support the investigation: he's a republican and he supports what the republican party wants.  Maybe this was never really about him personally, but about advancing the party's agenda and he won't stand against the party.  That means he could not openly call for an investigation when his republican backers were trying to suppress one.  He needs to support whatever narrative the republican party bosses want him to support, and so far that has been "I am a choir boy" despite his knowing full well that is not the case.  In this potential explanation, Brett is just another victim of politics in this situation, manipulated by republican congressional leaders into ruining his own life. 

Now I'm suddenly hoping he doesn't get confirmed and writes a scathing tell-all book about his experiences.  Dust jacket excerpt:  "'Don’t get rattled by all of this," Mitch whispered in my ear as he squeezed my buttocks gently but firmly from behind, 'We’re going to plow right through it.'"

Creepy is a subjective thing. The "college educated feminists" I know think I can be an asshole. The "working class feminists" think I'm actually pretty chivalrous. All of them can be correct because they all interpret events uniquely.

The accusation has already anchored the public towards "rapist". Even if the investigation clears him, no body is going to remember that. People will only ever remember the "rapist" part. It doesn't matter what he did in the intervening 36 years.

Kavanaugh is pissed off because everything ground to a halt on the basis of an accusation with no evidence. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law and powerless to do anything. He could be a good judge but is still human.

I think you mean "He finds himself in a position where power, money, and privilege can't solve his problem."

macoconut

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 172
  • Location: Somewhere in the middle
  • Uncombed hair and coffee
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #911 on: September 30, 2018, 12:13:59 PM »
Another thing I was thinking about in addition to protecting himself, he may be trying to protect his "bros". Mark Judge admitted to his girlfriend that he had "group sex" with a drunk woman.
https://www.businessinsider.com/julie-swetnick-allegations-mark-judge-kavanaugh-elizabeth-rasor-2018-9

"Group sex" and "gang rape" are sometimes hard to distinguish when there is heavy drinking involved.  I can see how Judge might mistakenly think that was consensual, and the woman might truthfully allege gang rape.  Or alternately, how another woman who saw it happen might allege gang rape because she saw a group of boys lined up to have sex with a girl passed out in a bedroom, but the passed out girl might have been totally fine with it.  Someone needs to find that girl.

The new testimony certainly does put a new wrinkle on the story, which many of our local posters have called "outrageous" because they seemed so outlandish.  Here we suddenly have a corroborating piece of testimony from someone who supports the existing allegations of groups of high school boys lined up to have sex with a drunk girl at a party.  Is it possible that Kavanaugh is innocent of gang rape, but participated in consensual group sex with a passed out high school girl who willingly participated while heavily impaired?  Would that still be disqualifying for Kavanaugh's promotion to the SC? What if he lied under oath about group sex with a drunk girl, even if the sex wasn't rape?

Whether or not he's a rapist, Brett Kavanaugh is one skeevy dudebro.  I would love to see evangelical voters and Mormon Senator Jeff Flake come out and say "drunken group sex with passed out high school girls is totally fine, this was a smear campaign, he's a fine upstanding nominee and I fully support him."
I guess one could fittingly ask if perjury was enough to impeach Clinton.

It was, indeed. Clinton was impeached for one count of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

ETA: And I wanted him removed from office for lying under oath but mainly for being "skeevy." A 22 year old intern and a 55-year-old powerful man? Turned my stomach!
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 12:17:09 PM by macoconut »

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #912 on: September 30, 2018, 12:15:09 PM »
I disagree that the consensus towards him that he is a rapist. As others have said, you can be a sexual offender, and still be a virgin. I think the consensus and the multiple allegations is that he drank heavily in HS, had the reputation in both high school and college of groping and trying to take advantage of drunken females, and being belligerent and aggressive while drunk. And we know he lied about the way he was in HS and college, down to even the references in his HS yearbook (boofing, devil's triangle, ffffforth of july, Renata Allumnus etc). Honestly if he had answered honestly at the beginning, about his drinking habits, drinking buddies, and reputation in HS and college, and said, yes I said disrespectful things about women and classmates in my yearbook. I even behaved disrespectuflly at times,  but, I was immature and I am a different person now, he MAY have had a chance. But instead he did a Trump and denied every-single-thing. And I'm sorry, you can't be a judge, and be that OK with lying under oath. That's just a no go.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 12:23:52 PM by partgypsy »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #913 on: September 30, 2018, 01:12:34 PM »
If a girl is passed out, how does one determine she is fine with it? One cannot consent unconciously.

By asking her. 

If the FBI can find her, and she says "I consented to having sex with six Catholic high school boys while unconscious, and then I deliberately drank so much that I blacked out, then in the morning I found out those six boys had sex with me and I was fine with it" then what we have is a case of consensual group sex by a bunch of drunk high school kids.  Skeevy and weird, but probably not illegal.

If she instead says "I consented to have sex with one boy, then I blacked out and the next morning I found out that the one boy let other boys have sex with me, telling them I was okay with it, but I wasn't" then what we have is rape.  The rapists may have not even known they were committing rape.  Still rape.  This appears to be the emerging story.

I disagree that the consensus towards him that he is a rapist.

Brett Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of several kinds of sexual assault, but not rape.  He is also accused of being present at parties where group sex between very drunk people occurred, which is not a crime if he did not participate, and maybe not a crime if he did participate and the group sex was consensual.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #914 on: September 30, 2018, 01:51:30 PM »

Brett Kavanaugh has been credibly accused of several kinds of sexual assault, but not rape.  He is also accused of being present at parties where group sex between very drunk people occurred, which is not a crime if he did not participate, and maybe not a crime if he did participate and the group sex was consensual.

Are you sure?  I'm pretty certain that one can put themselves in legal jeopardy by being present and complicit when a crime is taking place. 
If one is at a party and witnesses a gang-rape and does not offer help to the victim nor report it to the authorities, is that not illegal somehow?  Serious question...

To be clear this is a step or two removed from the topic at hand, though still relevant given accusations that he was present at parties where a supposed gang-rape occurred.  Also interesting that, upon reflection he was asked by Sen Graham whether he had ever participated in a gang rape (which was NOT alleged) but he was NOT asked whehter one had ever occurred at any of the social events he had attended.  On Fox News (while not under oath) he denied both.

Hula Hoop

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 705
  • Location: Italy
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #915 on: September 30, 2018, 02:04:08 PM »
If a girl is passed out, how does one determine she is fine with it? One cannot consent unconciously.

By asking her. 

If the FBI can find her, and she says "I consented to having sex with six Catholic high school boys while unconscious, and then I deliberately drank so much that I blacked out, then in the morning I found out those six boys had sex with me and I was fine with it" then what we have is a case of consensual group sex by a bunch of drunk high school kids.  Skeevy and weird, but probably not illegal.


An unconscious/passed out person can't consent to sex (or anything else for that matter).  Sex with an unconscious person is therefore always a crime.  That's exactly what happened in the Brock Turner case.  His victim was unconscious and therefore was incapable of consent.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #916 on: September 30, 2018, 02:11:47 PM »
Why are Republicans scared of a real investigation?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #917 on: September 30, 2018, 02:14:37 PM »
An unconscious/passed out person can't consent to sex (or anything else for that matter).

Right, but a person can absolutely consent before they become unconscious, and give pre-approval to have sex after they become unconscious, then affirm after they wake up that consent was given and acknowledged.   It's weird, but not unimaginable.  Also seems extraordinarily unlikely in this instance, given that we're talking about high school kids in the 80s. 

Are you sure?  I'm pretty certain that one can put themselves in legal jeopardy by being present and complicit when a crime is taking place. 

Yes I'm sure, and this is a salient point for Brett Kavanaugh because we know for a fact that he was present for years of sexual harassment by his former mentor Alex Kozinski, who resigned in disgrace last year after explosive reports about decades of sexual misconduct from the bench.  Kavanaugh maintains he had no obligation to do or say anything, and also that he somehow was ignorant about the entire thing despite mounds of evidence to the contrary.  Categorical denials are kind of his stock and trade now.

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #918 on: September 30, 2018, 02:50:39 PM »
His best play would have been to shrug his shoulders and go along with the investigation.

Unless he knows that he is guilty AF. That's the only logical explanation for not demanding that the FBI clear his "good name."

If I stood accused in the way Kavanaugh is, I would absolutely have demanded an investigation.  Not only would I have not refused to support it, I would have actively begged for it.  Please talk to all of the people who knew me, or the ones who were present!  Here is my exact recollection of events, including me being an awkward teenager!  I want to sit down in a room with my accuser and the FBI and try to figure out where this misunderstanding came from!

But Brett here can't do any of that, because he knows he had a drinking problem and can't remember parts of high school parties, and he knows lots of girls found him creepy and gropey, he knows he broke the law by drinking underage, he knows he had tens of thousands of dollars or gambling debt, and he knows that his previous nominations were held up for these reasons, and because he has a history of being biased on the bench.  He absolutely cannot have any of his past come to public attention.  Frankly, I'm shocked a man like that ever thought he could survive a national confirmation process at all.  It's probably just another example of white male privilege, thinking that his crimes don't matter and he's entitled to this promotion regardless of his history.

With all of that said, I can still think of another possible explanation for his refusal to support the investigation: he's a republican and he supports what the republican party wants.  Maybe this was never really about him personally, but about advancing the party's agenda and he won't stand against the party.  That means he could not openly call for an investigation when his republican backers were trying to suppress one.  He needs to support whatever narrative the republican party bosses want him to support, and so far that has been "I am a choir boy" despite his knowing full well that is not the case.  In this potential explanation, Brett is just another victim of politics in this situation, manipulated by republican congressional leaders into ruining his own life. 

Now I'm suddenly hoping he doesn't get confirmed and writes a scathing tell-all book about his experiences.  Dust jacket excerpt:  "'Don’t get rattled by all of this," Mitch whispered in my ear as he squeezed my buttocks gently but firmly from behind, 'We’re going to plow right through it.'"

Creepy is a subjective thing. The "college educated feminists" I know think I can be an asshole. The "working class feminists" think I'm actually pretty chivalrous. All of them can be correct because they all interpret events uniquely.

The accusation has already anchored the public towards "rapist". Even if the investigation clears him, no body is going to remember that. People will only ever remember the "rapist" part. It doesn't matter what he did in the intervening 36 years.

Kavanaugh is pissed off because everything ground to a halt on the basis of an accusation with no evidence. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law and powerless to do anything. He could be a good judge but is still human.

I think you mean "He finds himself in a position where power, money, and privilege can't solve his problem."

Yes.

Which Sol did raise a good point. How did he get to this point? Each promotion should have had a vetting process. In a world where corporations can get every check you have ever written (Food Inc) how did this not get brought up?

I'm going remember the outcome of the investigation.  Why would you assume that nobody else would?  It was not the accusation, but Kavenaugh's actions (lies about drinking, failing to answer reasonable questions, attempt to obstruct an investigation to find the truth) that make me suspect he's guilty.

You are smarter than the average bear GuitarStv. You also seem to be more focussed on this. The public that is only catching bits and pieces while going through life won't remember the investigation.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #919 on: September 30, 2018, 03:06:30 PM »
If a girl is passed out, how does one determine she is fine with it? One cannot consent unconciously.

By asking her. 

Not how does the FBI find out, how did the boys find out? How did they ask her at the moment? You can't get consent after the fact.

I disagree with you that you can get it ahead of time. Consent can be withdrawn at anytime and someone unconcious or  extraoridnarily drunk is not able to do that. They are incapacitated beyond the ability to consent.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #920 on: September 30, 2018, 03:08:06 PM »
As for those who say Kavanaugh is branded a rapist. I don't recall a single rape allegation. Sexual assault.
And maybe knowledge of rape he didn't stop (and maybe participated in, but no one is saying that ...)

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 104
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #921 on: September 30, 2018, 03:46:32 PM »
I don't have any reason to believe Kavanaugh is a rapist.  I find it odd that he volunteered that he was a virgin out of the blue.  In my high school, there was the group that intended to be virgins across the board, and then there was the group that defined sex extremely narrowly and did everything else.  Looking at the yearbook references, it makes me wonder if Kavanaugh fell into the latter group.

At any rate, my problem with Kavanaugh is that I believe he knowingly and willingly lied under oath.  You owe a duty to tell the WHOLE truth and to have candor before the tribunal.  Kavanaugh knows this.  I completely understand his anger.  However, every defendant in a criminal trial who pleads not guilty and every defendant in a civil case who denies the allegations is put in a position to lose either liberty or money as a result of the charges being levied.  If any defendant took the stand and evaded questions and yelled at opposing counsel claiming it was a conspiracy, they would be held in contempt of court at the very least.  I think it's indisputable that he lied about the yearbook references, his levels of drinking, and attending "parties like that"

His anger is understandable.  His dishonesty and sanctimonious belligerence are not.   

The FBI should talk to the third accuser as she has already signed a sworn affidavit.  I'm glad the Rhode Island story was debunked.  Something tells me the two men who claimed to be the perpetrators were not found to be credible. 

I know memory science is evolving.  I am just having a very hard time understanding how people can pay lip service to Dr. Ford but simultaneously say they know it wasn't Kavanaugh.  I've lost count of the Republican Senators who have said that they believe something traumatic happened to her, but they don't believe it was Kavanaugh.  That is incredibly condescending. Knowing someone at 35 isn't the same as knowing they couldn't have done something at 17-25.  Most sexual assaults don't have witnesses.  I think we are setting a horrible example if we collectively take the position that there has to be something other than the woman's testimony to investigate (or believe) a claim.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #922 on: September 30, 2018, 04:06:51 PM »
Consent can be withdrawn at anytime and someone unconcious or  extraoridnarily drunk is not able to do that.

Yes, I agree that consent can be withdrawn at any time.  That does not mean that it will be withdrawn, or must be withdrawn, just because a person is drunk.  It is possible to get blackout drunk and still want to have sex.  Go ahead, ask me how I know.

If the girl in this story, who apparently had sex with multiple dudes while drinking, claims she was raped or claims that she wasn't, she's probably right.  It hinges on how she feels about the experience.  Sadly, the dudes in this group sex story stupidly exposed themselves to huge liability by not individually getting affirmative consent, but that does not necessarily mean they did anything legally wrong, if the girl is okay with it.

I'm just saying that a girl who wants to have sex with a bunch of dudes is allowed to do that.  No one gets to call her a rape victim just because she was drinking.  You may feel she was violated if you disagree with her choices, but they are still her choices to make. 

Should any of those dudes be supreme court justices?  That seems like a laughably obvious no to me, because the only dudes that I know that have had group sex with passed out chicks, consensual or otherwise, are all admitted criminals for multiple reasons.  Even the ones who eventually turned their lives around know they can never submit to a background check.

At this point, this is roughly the situation I expect to unfold.  The FBI will determine that Brett here spent some quiet time with a passed out chick at a party, touched her body in sexually inappropriate ways, but didn't put his penis inside of her.  He will claim that he thought this was consensual, just like Mark Judge has, and he can still honestly say he was a virgin, and did not gang rape anyone.  She may or may not claim that it was consensual, but it won't matter because the Senate will decide he didn't quite lie under oath (no one asked him if he ever touched an unconscious woman at a party).  Mark Judge's memory of the Ford assault will be as reliable as everything else about Mark Judge, aka "not at all" because that dude is a walking addiction recovery commercial, and so there will be no possible corroboration or exoneration on the Ford assault, only corroboration of similar but technically noncriminal behavior.  Kavanaugh will have to admit to all kinds of embarrassing things (underage drinking, indecent exposure, etc) but they'll confirm him anyway.  Here's hoping I'm wrong.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 04:16:14 PM by sol »

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #923 on: September 30, 2018, 04:27:43 PM »

The FBI should talk to the third accuser as she has already signed a sworn ave)
My understanding is they can't because she isn't on the list of people Trump approved.

He can tweet he didn't limit the investigation all he wants, but that doesn't make it true.

It's clear the intent of the investigation is to look like they are doing something while making sure the scope is as small as possible so nothing can be found.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4951
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #924 on: September 30, 2018, 05:07:11 PM »
I don't have any reason to believe Kavanaugh is a rapist.  I find it odd that he volunteered that he was a virgin out of the blue.  In my high school, there was the group that intended to be virgins across the board, and then there was the group that defined sex extremely narrowly and did everything else.  Looking at the yearbook references, it makes me wonder if Kavanaugh fell into the latter group.

At any rate, my problem with Kavanaugh is that I believe he knowingly and willingly lied under oath.  You owe a duty to tell the WHOLE truth and to have candor before the tribunal.  Kavanaugh knows this.  I completely understand his anger.  However, every defendant in a criminal trial who pleads not guilty and every defendant in a civil case who denies the allegations is put in a position to lose either liberty or money as a result of the charges being levied.  If any defendant took the stand and evaded questions and yelled at opposing counsel claiming it was a conspiracy, they would be held in contempt of court at the very least.  I think it's indisputable that he lied about the yearbook references, his levels of drinking, and attending "parties like that"

His anger is understandable.  His dishonesty and sanctimonious belligerence are not.   

The FBI should talk to the third accuser as she has already signed a sworn affidavit.  I'm glad the Rhode Island story was debunked.  Something tells me the two men who claimed to be the perpetrators were not found to be credible. 

I know memory science is evolving.  I am just having a very hard time understanding how people can pay lip service to Dr. Ford but simultaneously say they know it wasn't Kavanaugh.  I've lost count of the Republican Senators who have said that they believe something traumatic happened to her, but they don't believe it was Kavanaugh.  That is incredibly condescending. Knowing someone at 35 isn't the same as knowing they couldn't have done something at 17-25.  Most sexual assaults don't have witnesses.  I think we are setting a horrible example if we collectively take the position that there has to be something other than the woman's testimony to investigate (or believe) a claim.

I think he is deliberately conflating arguments to imply that being a virgin means you cannot have perpetrated sexual assault.


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #926 on: September 30, 2018, 10:56:03 PM »
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

https://theintercept.com/2018/09/29/the-unbearable-dishonesty-of-brett-kavanaugh/

You folks will enjoy those.

That's good reporting.  It's exactly the kind of investigation that I'm sure the FBI is doing.

Brett Kavanaugh attended a party at "Timmy's" on July 1st, 1982, with Ford and all of the other people that she claims were present (Mark Judge, PJ, etc).  The locations line up.  The timelines line up.  No witnesses dispute these facts.  Except Brett, he denies everything.

Kavanaugh lied about it under oath.  He said he never went to gatherings like this, and yet here is one on his own calendar that perfectly coincides with the alleged sexual assault.  He claims he didn't know her, but he mentions her boyfriend of three years.  He obfuscates and dodges when asked direct questions about the people present, instead of answering honestly and forthrightly.  He lies about the testimony of the people present, claiming they "deny" the allegations when in fact they report not having any memories of what happened at this gathering at all, which is very much not the same as remembering it well enough to deny the assault could have happened.

He lied about his drinking, dodging questions and changing the subject.  He lied about the legality of drinking age, saying that drinking age was raised while he was in high school as if he suddenly became illegal to drink, but in truth he was ALWAYS underage when drinking in high school.  Thirteen separate witnesses have come forward to confirm that he was an aggressive and belligerent drunk, and yet he tries to portray himself as a choir boy.

He perjured himself approximately nine times, according to that author's accounting.  He is perhaps the least credible person to testify in front of Congress in long memory.  The FBI is certain to conclude that he is a lying sack of shit.  He has motive and opportunity, no alibi, and a history of deception.  His accuser has nothing to gain by lying, and everything to lose even by telling the truth, and appears entirely credible.

I still don't think it will matter.  The FBI report could come out next week and literally just be the single line "Brett Kavanaugh is a lying sack of shit" and I suspect congressional republicans would confirm him anyway.

edit:  Flake just said the nomination is "over" if the FBI investigation shows that Kavanaugh lied.  I don't believe him.  We already know that he lied, about all kinds of stuff, but I'm sure the Senate will judge him as having "misspoken" or "misremembered" instead.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2018, 11:24:20 PM by sol »


Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #928 on: October 01, 2018, 06:32:15 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

So you want to put the SC up for auction thus further politicizing it?  That's fresh.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 06:51:45 AM by Cache_Stash »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #929 on: October 01, 2018, 06:50:11 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

So you want to put the SC up for auction thus politicizing it?  That's fresh.

I don't believe that was the intent or goal. Given that the last three nominees have sparked such partisan divisions people are considering what measures could be put forward to reduce this divide.

The idea behind term limits (with no ability to be re-elected) is it prevents justices from sitting on the bench for a quarter century, potentially 'locking' the court into one political ideology or another for a generation or more. The thinking goes, if an individual can ony server for 10 years (vs an expected 25), his or her impact will be limited by a similar amount.  Similar approaches have been used for many state governors and similar single-term positions.  They may have enormous power, but that power will end in a finite time period. 

Another approach would be as Sol suggested - reinstating the 60 vote threshold, which has the de-facto outcome that some votes will be necessary from the opposing party.  Until this threshold was done away with it was common for justices to get ≥70 votes, including a dozen or more from the opposing party. By requiring some consensus (the thinking goes) extreme ideological candidates are eliminated and each party is forced to nominate someone just slightly to the center of where they otherwise would. Clearly defining time-frames for document release, evaluation, committee hearing, public comment period and voting might prevent this assumption that details emerged only at the last minute to stop a confirmation, and allowing more time and a public comment period might allow charges to come to light earlier on in the process.

These are just suggestions, each with positives and potential pitfalls, to try to reduce the politicization of SCOTUS. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

Cache_Stash

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #930 on: October 01, 2018, 07:05:48 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

So you want to put the SC up for auction thus politicizing it?  That's fresh.

I don't believe that was the intent or goal. Given that the last three nominees have sparked such partisan divisions people are considering what measures could be put forward to reduce this divide.

The idea behind term limits (with no ability to be re-elected) is it prevents justices from sitting on the bench for a quarter century, potentially 'locking' the court into one political ideology or another for a generation or more. The thinking goes, if an individual can ony server for 10 years (vs an expected 25), his or her impact will be limited by a similar amount.  Similar approaches have been used for many state governors and similar single-term positions.  They may have enormous power, but that power will end in a finite time period. 

Another approach would be as Sol suggested - reinstating the 60 vote threshold, which has the de-facto outcome that some votes will be necessary from the opposing party.  Until this threshold was done away with it was common for justices to get ≥70 votes, including a dozen or more from the opposing party. By requiring some consensus (the thinking goes) extreme ideological candidates are eliminated and each party is forced to nominate someone just slightly to the center of where they otherwise would. Clearly defining time-frames for document release, evaluation, committee hearing, public comment period and voting might prevent this assumption that details emerged only at the last minute to stop a confirmation, and allowing more time and a public comment period might allow charges to come to light earlier on in the process.

These are just suggestions, each with positives and potential pitfalls, to try to reduce the politicization of SCOTUS. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

The 60 vote idea is a good one but I fear that we won't be able to confirm anyone with that many votes being required in this current divisive political environment.  When was the last time that a political party held a 60/40 split in the senate?  I think that's what it would take to get someone seated because we are so divisive.  So I'm not sure it helps. 

Putting the seat up for sale with a term limit is a horrible idea in my estimation.  A judge coming off the bench would command a very sizable salary/speaking/dinner, etc... fee.  I don't think we want our former SC justices becoming politicians nor do we want them for sale.  Additionally, it would degrade the position.

I don't have any ideas that would fix this problem that hasn't become a problem yet.







OurTown

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 916
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #931 on: October 01, 2018, 07:22:19 AM »
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #932 on: October 01, 2018, 07:25:56 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

So you want to put the SC up for auction thus politicizing it?  That's fresh.

I don't believe that was the intent or goal. Given that the last three nominees have sparked such partisan divisions people are considering what measures could be put forward to reduce this divide.

The idea behind term limits (with no ability to be re-elected) is it prevents justices from sitting on the bench for a quarter century, potentially 'locking' the court into one political ideology or another for a generation or more. The thinking goes, if an individual can ony server for 10 years (vs an expected 25), his or her impact will be limited by a similar amount.  Similar approaches have been used for many state governors and similar single-term positions.  They may have enormous power, but that power will end in a finite time period. 

Another approach would be as Sol suggested - reinstating the 60 vote threshold, which has the de-facto outcome that some votes will be necessary from the opposing party.  Until this threshold was done away with it was common for justices to get ≥70 votes, including a dozen or more from the opposing party. By requiring some consensus (the thinking goes) extreme ideological candidates are eliminated and each party is forced to nominate someone just slightly to the center of where they otherwise would. Clearly defining time-frames for document release, evaluation, committee hearing, public comment period and voting might prevent this assumption that details emerged only at the last minute to stop a confirmation, and allowing more time and a public comment period might allow charges to come to light earlier on in the process.

These are just suggestions, each with positives and potential pitfalls, to try to reduce the politicization of SCOTUS. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

The 60 vote idea is a good one but I fear that we won't be able to confirm anyone with that many votes being required in this current divisive political environment.  When was the last time that a political party held a 60/40 split in the senate?  I think that's what it would take to get someone seated because we are so divisive.  So I'm not sure it helps. 

Putting the seat up for sale with a term limit is a horrible idea in my estimation.  A judge coming off the bench would command a very sizable salary/speaking/dinner, etc... fee.  I don't think we want our former SC justices becoming politicians nor do we want them for sale.  Additionally, it would degrade the position.

I don't have any ideas that would fix this problem that hasn't become a problem yet.

The last time any party held a 60+ seat majority was in the late 1970s (the Dems).  The only SP Justice nominated this time was STevens, who was confirmed 98-0.
One could say no nominee could be confirmed under the present divisive environment, but I'd argue that it's the lack of such a threshold which forces more cooperation and moderation that makes these fights so bitterly partisan in the first place - it's unlikely DJT would have nominated someone so steeped in conservative ideology if the confirmation from the start was 60 votes (and they had just ~51 to start).  We've certainly had other periods of bitter partisan politics and the Senate found consensus - heck Nixon got 4 judges to the Supreme Court, three of them with 3 or fewer votes against.

I don't want retired SCOTUS justices going on the publicity circuit either, but its already an option for them.  most seem to just want to retire and be done with it (O'Connor, Kennedy), for those who don't want to die in office.  One suggestion would be a prohibition on future political/lobbying activities similar to what's been proposed of senior level officials.  As even a 10 year term would mean most justices would 'retire' in their 60s with a full pension, I'm not sure how many that would apply to, but I'm with you - I don't want a former justice becoming a political hack (for any side or cause).

One thing I don't understand is why you are calling it "putting the seat up for sale".  This isn't buying out a person's seat on the court... or did I misundersand.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6983
  • Location: United States
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #933 on: October 01, 2018, 07:34:58 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

So you want to put the SC up for auction thus politicizing it?  That's fresh.

I don't believe that was the intent or goal. Given that the last three nominees have sparked such partisan divisions people are considering what measures could be put forward to reduce this divide.

The idea behind term limits (with no ability to be re-elected) is it prevents justices from sitting on the bench for a quarter century, potentially 'locking' the court into one political ideology or another for a generation or more. The thinking goes, if an individual can ony server for 10 years (vs an expected 25), his or her impact will be limited by a similar amount.  Similar approaches have been used for many state governors and similar single-term positions.  They may have enormous power, but that power will end in a finite time period. 

Another approach would be as Sol suggested - reinstating the 60 vote threshold, which has the de-facto outcome that some votes will be necessary from the opposing party.  Until this threshold was done away with it was common for justices to get ≥70 votes, including a dozen or more from the opposing party. By requiring some consensus (the thinking goes) extreme ideological candidates are eliminated and each party is forced to nominate someone just slightly to the center of where they otherwise would. Clearly defining time-frames for document release, evaluation, committee hearing, public comment period and voting might prevent this assumption that details emerged only at the last minute to stop a confirmation, and allowing more time and a public comment period might allow charges to come to light earlier on in the process.

These are just suggestions, each with positives and potential pitfalls, to try to reduce the politicization of SCOTUS. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

The 60 vote idea is a good one but I fear that we won't be able to confirm anyone with that many votes being required in this current divisive political environment.  When was the last time that a political party held a 60/40 split in the senate?  I think that's what it would take to get someone seated because we are so divisive.  So I'm not sure it helps. 

Putting the seat up for sale with a term limit is a horrible idea in my estimation.  A judge coming off the bench would command a very sizable salary/speaking/dinner, etc... fee.  I don't think we want our former SC justices becoming politicians nor do we want them for sale.  Additionally, it would degrade the position.

I don't have any ideas that would fix this problem that hasn't become a problem yet.

The 60 vote idea is not a NEW one. In fact, it only recently went away as a requirement.

A political party doesn't HAVE to hold a 60/40 split to confirm with 2/3 majority. Rather, a president needs to nominate someone that parties will concede may not be their -ideal- candidate, but meets the overall requirements of the judiciary. There is a LONG history of justices being confirmed this way, and more are confirmed than rejected.
That is why Garland was nominated by Obama and not a far-left liberal choice.  Republicans refused to even consider him solely because Obama nominated him. Something unheard of in past history. 

When extremist candidates are nominated is when they become very partisan. Trump's picks are much more divisive, than say Bush's or Clinton's.

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 473
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #934 on: October 01, 2018, 07:37:36 AM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

So you want to put the SC up for auction thus politicizing it?  That's fresh.

I don't believe that was the intent or goal. Given that the last three nominees have sparked such partisan divisions people are considering what measures could be put forward to reduce this divide.

The idea behind term limits (with no ability to be re-elected) is it prevents justices from sitting on the bench for a quarter century, potentially 'locking' the court into one political ideology or another for a generation or more. The thinking goes, if an individual can ony server for 10 years (vs an expected 25), his or her impact will be limited by a similar amount.  Similar approaches have been used for many state governors and similar single-term positions.  They may have enormous power, but that power will end in a finite time period. 

Another approach would be as Sol suggested - reinstating the 60 vote threshold, which has the de-facto outcome that some votes will be necessary from the opposing party.  Until this threshold was done away with it was common for justices to get ≥70 votes, including a dozen or more from the opposing party. By requiring some consensus (the thinking goes) extreme ideological candidates are eliminated and each party is forced to nominate someone just slightly to the center of where they otherwise would. Clearly defining time-frames for document release, evaluation, committee hearing, public comment period and voting might prevent this assumption that details emerged only at the last minute to stop a confirmation, and allowing more time and a public comment period might allow charges to come to light earlier on in the process.

These are just suggestions, each with positives and potential pitfalls, to try to reduce the politicization of SCOTUS. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

The 60 vote idea is a good one but I fear that we won't be able to confirm anyone with that many votes being required in this current divisive political environment.  When was the last time that a political party held a 60/40 split in the senate?  I think that's what it would take to get someone seated because we are so divisive.  So I'm not sure it helps. 

Putting the seat up for sale with a term limit is a horrible idea in my estimation.  A judge coming off the bench would command a very sizable salary/speaking/dinner, etc... fee.  I don't think we want our former SC justices becoming politicians nor do we want them for sale.  Additionally, it would degrade the position.

I don't have any ideas that would fix this problem that hasn't become a problem yet.

Gorsuch received 54 votes and probably would have received more than 60 except, very understandably, Democrats were angry about Merrick Garland.  For the previous two, Elena Kagan was 63-37 in favor and Sonia Sotomayor was 68-31.  Seems kind of chicken and egg - is it we can't have the 60 vote confirmation any longer because we're too divisive or we should have a 60 vote confirmation to help tone down divisions. 

And if we don't want our justices to be for sale or degrade the position, then Republicans should agree that Kavanaugh should be withdrawn immediately.  His finances are extremely shady and his behavior, not just his outburst on Thursday, is degrading to the court.   

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1772
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #935 on: October 01, 2018, 08:13:01 AM »
I can't believe John Roberts wants any part of having an obvious lying partisan on his court.  He has always seemed legitimately concerned about the increasing reputation of the Court as a hyper-partisan, non-objective body.  I wonder if he's doing any lobbying behind the scenes?  And would it do any good?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #936 on: October 01, 2018, 08:17:37 AM »
I can't believe John Roberts wants any part of having an obvious lying partisan on his court.  He has always seemed legitimately concerned about the increasing reputation of the Court as a hyper-partisan, non-objective body.  I wonder if he's doing any lobbying behind the scenes?  And would it do any good?

Roberts is still a lifelong republican.  He's concerned with the court's public perception as partisan, not the court becoming more partisan.

Would he reschedule or delay the Gamble case if Kavanaugh were delayed?  Would he accelerate the timeline in Gamble to get a vote before Kavanaugh joins the court?  He has wide discretion to determine when the court hears cases, and I'm sure he recognizes the harm that would be done by angry partisan Brett Kavanaugh joining the court on Monday and voting that the President has unlimited pardon powers on Tuesday, despite not even hearing the oral arguments.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #937 on: October 01, 2018, 02:58:54 PM »
Well, Mitch has stated that he wants to hold a vote on Kavanaugh this week. I wonder if he will even leave time for people to read the FBI report before voting?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409340-mcconnell-senate-will-hold-kavanaugh-vote-this-week

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 786
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #938 on: October 01, 2018, 03:35:43 PM »
Well, Mitch has stated that he wants to hold a vote on Kavanaugh this week. I wonder if he will even leave time for people to read the FBI report before voting?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409340-mcconnell-senate-will-hold-kavanaugh-vote-this-week

Quote
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #939 on: October 01, 2018, 03:45:32 PM »
I was thinking more about Mitch's pledge to block all of Obama's judicial nominees, when he said today "The time for delay and obstruction is over" as he promised the Senate was going to move ahead with the vote no matter what the investigation determines.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2018, 03:47:21 PM by sol »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #940 on: October 01, 2018, 03:55:13 PM »
I was thinking more about Mitch's pledge to block all of Obama's judicial nominees, when he said today "The time for delay and obstruction is over" as he promised the Senate was going to move ahead with the vote no matter what the investigation determines.

Well I guess he started it, so he gets to end it... I guess?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #941 on: October 01, 2018, 04:10:40 PM »
CNN is reporting that the FBI investigation will not be allowed to look into Kavanaugh's history of excessive drinking, and will (perhaps more importantly) not be allowed to investigate whether he lied under oath in any of his testimony.

Well then what's left?  Isn't the whole point of an investigation to determine if the nominee is a dirty liar, repeatedly perjured himself, and is thus unfit for the bench?  I'm not sure what the FBI can possibly say if it's not allowed to present any of the evidence showing that he has lied under oath.

They're also reporting that the FBI investigation is essentially meaningless, because the report will only be available to Trump and select group of Senators, and it is only advisory.  That it, it's designed to help those people determine if this is a person they should support, but in this case all of those people have already said that they will support him no matter what the investigation finds.  It probably wont go public.  The people who most need to see it will not see it.  So I think this is a lost cause. 

It looks like McConnell will schedule the floor vote on Friday, and we'll have a second Clarence Thomas on the Court by Monday. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8469
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #942 on: October 01, 2018, 04:18:45 PM »
If the findings are kept from the entire senate the Dems will hammer that message during the final weeks of the midterms.  Every additional account which surfaces calling into question Kavanaugh's choir-boy image will be fuel towards their base.

I don"t see how this will improve turnout among the GOP - it will then just be a hypothetical whether DJT will get a third nominee.  This is going to make Dems hopping mad though.

Michael in ABQ

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 455
    • Military Saints
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #943 on: October 01, 2018, 04:36:12 PM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

So you want to put the SC up for auction thus politicizing it?  That's fresh.

I don't believe that was the intent or goal. Given that the last three nominees have sparked such partisan divisions people are considering what measures could be put forward to reduce this divide.

The idea behind term limits (with no ability to be re-elected) is it prevents justices from sitting on the bench for a quarter century, potentially 'locking' the court into one political ideology or another for a generation or more. The thinking goes, if an individual can ony server for 10 years (vs an expected 25), his or her impact will be limited by a similar amount.  Similar approaches have been used for many state governors and similar single-term positions.  They may have enormous power, but that power will end in a finite time period. 

Another approach would be as Sol suggested - reinstating the 60 vote threshold, which has the de-facto outcome that some votes will be necessary from the opposing party.  Until this threshold was done away with it was common for justices to get ≥70 votes, including a dozen or more from the opposing party. By requiring some consensus (the thinking goes) extreme ideological candidates are eliminated and each party is forced to nominate someone just slightly to the center of where they otherwise would. Clearly defining time-frames for document release, evaluation, committee hearing, public comment period and voting might prevent this assumption that details emerged only at the last minute to stop a confirmation, and allowing more time and a public comment period might allow charges to come to light earlier on in the process.

These are just suggestions, each with positives and potential pitfalls, to try to reduce the politicization of SCOTUS. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

The 60 vote idea is a good one but I fear that we won't be able to confirm anyone with that many votes being required in this current divisive political environment.  When was the last time that a political party held a 60/40 split in the senate?  I think that's what it would take to get someone seated because we are so divisive.  So I'm not sure it helps. 

Putting the seat up for sale with a term limit is a horrible idea in my estimation.  A judge coming off the bench would command a very sizable salary/speaking/dinner, etc... fee.  I don't think we want our former SC justices becoming politicians nor do we want them for sale.  Additionally, it would degrade the position.

I don't have any ideas that would fix this problem that hasn't become a problem yet.

Gorsuch received 54 votes and probably would have received more than 60 except, very understandably, Democrats were angry about Merrick Garland.  For the previous two, Elena Kagan was 63-37 in favor and Sonia Sotomayor was 68-31.  Seems kind of chicken and egg - is it we can't have the 60 vote confirmation any longer because we're too divisive or we should have a 60 vote confirmation to help tone down divisions. 

And if we don't want our justices to be for sale or degrade the position, then Republicans should agree that Kavanaugh should be withdrawn immediately.  His finances are extremely shady and his behavior, not just his outburst on Thursday, is degrading to the court.   

Senator Ben Sasse articulated it much better than I, but the bottom line is that Congress has abdicated it's duty to the Executive and Judicial branches which has resulted in the Supreme Court becoming overly politicized in the last few decades. Congress passes a law that basically says "Executive branch go make lots of regulations to finish our job because we're lazy" then the Supreme Court ends up acting as legislators because Congress failed to make clear laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwMgJzs5Q9A

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #944 on: October 01, 2018, 05:02:51 PM »
The character references just keep coming. This one from his Yale days:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kavanaugh-yale-friend-accuses-him-of-starting-fight-jail

Key quote:
Quote
“When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive,” Ludington said in a statement. “On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

I'm curious what the semi-hostile remark was. "Squi could lift more than you on any Thursday" ?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #945 on: October 01, 2018, 05:11:39 PM »
Now that the supreme court has been so politicized I think it would be good to impose a 10 to 15 year term limit.

So you want to put the SC up for auction thus politicizing it?  That's fresh.

I don't believe that was the intent or goal. Given that the last three nominees have sparked such partisan divisions people are considering what measures could be put forward to reduce this divide.

The idea behind term limits (with no ability to be re-elected) is it prevents justices from sitting on the bench for a quarter century, potentially 'locking' the court into one political ideology or another for a generation or more. The thinking goes, if an individual can ony server for 10 years (vs an expected 25), his or her impact will be limited by a similar amount.  Similar approaches have been used for many state governors and similar single-term positions.  They may have enormous power, but that power will end in a finite time period. 

Another approach would be as Sol suggested - reinstating the 60 vote threshold, which has the de-facto outcome that some votes will be necessary from the opposing party.  Until this threshold was done away with it was common for justices to get ≥70 votes, including a dozen or more from the opposing party. By requiring some consensus (the thinking goes) extreme ideological candidates are eliminated and each party is forced to nominate someone just slightly to the center of where they otherwise would. Clearly defining time-frames for document release, evaluation, committee hearing, public comment period and voting might prevent this assumption that details emerged only at the last minute to stop a confirmation, and allowing more time and a public comment period might allow charges to come to light earlier on in the process.

These are just suggestions, each with positives and potential pitfalls, to try to reduce the politicization of SCOTUS. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

The 60 vote idea is a good one but I fear that we won't be able to confirm anyone with that many votes being required in this current divisive political environment.  When was the last time that a political party held a 60/40 split in the senate?  I think that's what it would take to get someone seated because we are so divisive.  So I'm not sure it helps. 

Putting the seat up for sale with a term limit is a horrible idea in my estimation.  A judge coming off the bench would command a very sizable salary/speaking/dinner, etc... fee.  I don't think we want our former SC justices becoming politicians nor do we want them for sale.  Additionally, it would degrade the position.

I don't have any ideas that would fix this problem that hasn't become a problem yet.

Gorsuch received 54 votes and probably would have received more than 60 except, very understandably, Democrats were angry about Merrick Garland.  For the previous two, Elena Kagan was 63-37 in favor and Sonia Sotomayor was 68-31.  Seems kind of chicken and egg - is it we can't have the 60 vote confirmation any longer because we're too divisive or we should have a 60 vote confirmation to help tone down divisions. 

And if we don't want our justices to be for sale or degrade the position, then Republicans should agree that Kavanaugh should be withdrawn immediately.  His finances are extremely shady and his behavior, not just his outburst on Thursday, is degrading to the court.   

Senator Ben Sasse articulated it much better than I, but the bottom line is that Congress has abdicated it's duty to the Executive and Judicial branches which has resulted in the Supreme Court becoming overly politicized in the last few decades. Congress passes a law that basically says "Executive branch go make lots of regulations to finish our job because we're lazy" then the Supreme Court ends up acting as legislators because Congress failed to make clear laws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwMgJzs5Q9A

I don't think it's possible to have a non-partisan court for reasons explained very well in this article.  I'm not sure exactly how that impacts the various proposals mentioned, I'm just saying I don't think you can realistically separate politics and judicial philosophy.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7203
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #946 on: October 01, 2018, 05:23:08 PM »
I don't think it's possible to have a non-partisan court for reasons explained very well in this article.  I'm not sure exactly how that impacts the various proposals mentioned, I'm just saying I don't think you can realistically separate politics and judicial philosophy.

This feels like muddying the waters.  If you're concerned about the influence of partisan politics on the judiciary, I agree there are some deep-seated connections between party affiliation and your views of proper jurisprudence but that doesn't mean you should literally hire the Vince Foster conspiracy guy

You might as well say "I worry about the influence of corporate money in politics, so I'm voting ExxonMobil for President."

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1164
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #947 on: October 01, 2018, 06:54:56 PM »
Well, Mitch has stated that he wants to hold a vote on Kavanaugh this week. I wonder if he will even leave time for people to read the FBI report before voting?
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409340-mcconnell-senate-will-hold-kavanaugh-vote-this-week

Quote
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it...
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/

I assume this is a "but they did it first" accusation?

Since I'm guessing you didn't read it, from the link you posted
Quote
Most importantly, the contents of the Affordable Care Act had been publicly available and publicly debated for months, when Pelosi made her remarks in March 2010.

If you had posted her full statement and not taken out of context it reads
Quote
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #948 on: October 01, 2018, 08:02:52 PM »
If the findings are kept from the entire senate the Dems will hammer that message during the final weeks of the midterms.  Every additional account which surfaces calling into question Kavanaugh's choir-boy image will be fuel towards their base.

I don"t see how this will improve turnout among the GOP - it will then just be a hypothetical whether DJT will get a third nominee.  This is going to make Dems hopping mad though.

This would almost be too perfect.  What better way to get Dems out to vote?  What better way to further implode as a party than by giving up every crumb of moral authority they pretended to hold?

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
« Reply #949 on: October 02, 2018, 12:48:06 AM »
Quote
The accusation has already anchored the public towards "rapist". Even if the investigation clears him, no body is going to remember that. People will only ever remember the "rapist" part. It doesn't matter what he did in the intervening 36 years.

Kavanaugh is pissed off because everything ground to a halt on the basis of an accusation with no evidence. He finds himself on the wrong side of the law and powerless to do anything. He could be a good judge but is still human.

Highlighted the key point.  Because if he committed rape, it doesn't actually matter what he has done since.  He still needs to be held to account.

It started out as an accusation with no evidence.  That is changing with each revelation (and new accuser).