The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Glenstache on September 04, 2018, 10:03:25 AM

Title: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 04, 2018, 10:03:25 AM
Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?

His hearings began this morning with Democrats asking to adjourn to have time to review the 40,000 documents that were conveniently (finally) produced last night.

Live updates from the NYT at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/us/politics/kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-updates.html

My prediction is that he will ultimately be nominated unless there is a groundswell with enough force to peel off some Republicans. There are conservatives that I disagree with but can still respect such as Roberts. I think Kavanaugh is too politically motivated to be an impartial judge and will work to push the boundaries of the courts in his tenure.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 04, 2018, 10:22:31 AM
Anyone who picks "The Supreme Court doesn't matter" in this poll must not live in the United States.

I'm very scared by what the court will do when this nomination is approved; and I'm sure it will be.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: vern on September 04, 2018, 11:45:04 AM
He will be confirmed thanks to Harry Reid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html?noredirect=on
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: caffeine on September 04, 2018, 11:54:26 AM
The process shouldn't be any more involved than establishing that the nominee is qualified.

It shouldn't be a contensious, partisan process.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 04, 2018, 11:55:30 AM
He will be confirmed thanks to Harry Reid.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poised-to-limit-filibusters-in-party-line-vote-that-would-alter-centuries-of-precedent/2013/11/21/d065cfe8-52b6-11e3-9fe0-fd2ca728e67c_story.html?noredirect=on

Well, Reid didn't go so far as to extend that to Supreme court nominees. He could have, but he limited the change.  That was McConnell who extended it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: jrhampt on September 04, 2018, 11:57:10 AM
It doesn’t matter what I think about kavanaugh because he will be confirmed regardless.  As a Democrat, my chance to have a say in nominations for the Supreme Court was in November of 2016.  Now it’s an utterly moot point.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OurTown on September 04, 2018, 12:26:49 PM
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 04, 2018, 12:45:29 PM
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

Unless states pass laws prohibiting travel for an abortion, rich people will still be able to get them.  I wonder how long it will take states to start doing that.

Poor people ALREADY have access issues.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 04, 2018, 12:51:43 PM
The process shouldn't be any more involved than establishing that the nominee is qualified.

It shouldn't be a contensious, partisan process.


Problem:
There is NO required qualification to be a justice.


There isn't an age limit, a residency or citizenship requirement, any requirement for knowing anything about the law.
The Constitution is silent on all of this.


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 04, 2018, 01:01:32 PM
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

Unless states pass laws prohibiting travel for an abortion, rich people will still be able to get them.  I wonder how long it will take states to start doing that.

Poor people ALREADY have access issues.

Wouldn't a law banning travel for a medical procedure violate interstate commerce law? (honest question)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 04, 2018, 01:02:26 PM
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

Unless states pass laws prohibiting travel for an abortion, rich people will still be able to get them.  I wonder how long it will take states to start doing that.

Poor people ALREADY have access issues.

Wouldn't a law banning travel for a medical procedure violate interstate commerce law? (honest question)

One would think it would.
But the courts could decide otherwise.

States pass unconstitutional laws all the time in hopes of them being upheld by courts.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 04, 2018, 01:31:16 PM
Nay.  We are going to lose the right to a legal abortion. 

Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

Unless states pass laws prohibiting travel for an abortion, rich people will still be able to get them.  I wonder how long it will take states to start doing that.

Poor people ALREADY have access issues.

Wouldn't a law banning travel for a medical procedure violate interstate commerce law? (honest question)

If abortion were treated like a normal medical procedure in your country, there would be no opposition to someone getting one in the first place.  If you believe that abortion is murderous baby killing, why wouldn't banning travel to have it done be OK?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 04, 2018, 01:40:46 PM
If abortion were treated like a normal medical procedure in your country, there would be no opposition to someone getting one in the first place.  If you believe that abortion is murderous baby killing, why wouldn't banning travel to have it done be OK?

Indeed. Section 20-58, Virginia, made it illegal for an interracial couple to marry out of state and then return to Virginia.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: aaahhrealmarcus on September 04, 2018, 02:58:19 PM
I don't believe they're ever going to touch abortion. Not as long as there are so many single-issue voters they can manipulate with the promise of a repeal. That's too big of a carrot, and they know it. Once that's gone, what else do they have to offer anti-choice conservatives?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 04, 2018, 03:09:02 PM
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: caffeine on September 04, 2018, 03:27:10 PM
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.

Was the man recognized as a Parkland victim's father during the hearing?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 04, 2018, 03:47:45 PM
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.


Was the man recognized as a Parkland victim's father during the hearing?

Yes, the man said as much. Which is exactly when Kavanaugh withdrew his hand and turned away.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner on September 04, 2018, 04:07:31 PM
Just as a reference point....  Scalia was appointed 98-0. 
The SCOTUS and basically all federal workings have become a circus and both sides are pathetically to blame.

https://www.congress.gov/nomination/99th-congress/1193 (https://www.congress.gov/nomination/99th-congress/1193)

Edit to add:
https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm)
Breyer was 87-9 and Ginsburg was 96-3.  The SCOTUS appointments were at one time considered off-limits to politics and it was merely a vote on qualifications.

Relevant:  https://www.nationalreview.com/news/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-well-qualified-rating/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/news/american-bar-association-gives-brett-kavanaugh-well-qualified-rating/)
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-20180710-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/readersreact/la-ol-le-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-20180710-story.html)
https://www.google.com/search?q=kavanaugh+qualified&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS725US726&oq=kavanaugh+qualified&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7623j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=kavanaugh+qualified&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS725US726&oq=kavanaugh+qualified&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7623j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on September 04, 2018, 04:14:24 PM
Just as a reference point....  Scalia was appointed 98-0. 
The SCOTUS and basically all federal workings have become a circus and both sides are pathetically to blame.

This false equivalence needs to die. Both sides are not the same. Republicans are the problem.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: mm1970 on September 04, 2018, 04:45:56 PM
The process shouldn't be any more involved than establishing that the nominee is qualified.

It shouldn't be a contensious, partisan process.
So, we can just go back to Merrick Garland, right?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on September 04, 2018, 04:48:07 PM
The process shouldn't be any more involved than establishing that the nominee is qualified.

It shouldn't be a contensious, partisan process.
So, we can just go back to Merrick Garland, right?

No, see, because you can't appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election ye-

Oh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: msilenus on September 04, 2018, 07:12:48 PM
Related: there's a group collecting donation pledges for Susan Collins' 2020 opponent.  You only have to pay up if she votes to confirm.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/brett-kavanaugh-susan-collins-ady-barkan/

Very Mustachian, if you ask me. :D
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 04, 2018, 07:28:56 PM
Related: there's a group collecting donation pledges for Susan Collins' 2020 opponent.  You only have to pay up if she votes to confirm.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/16/brett-kavanaugh-susan-collins-ady-barkan/

Very Mustachian, if you ask me. :D

So good.

Totally donating now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 04, 2018, 07:35:13 PM
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.


Was the man recognized as a Parkland victim's father during the hearing?

Yes, the man said as much. Which is exactly when Kavanaugh withdrew his hand and turned away.
Meh. Have you ever been approached on the street to save kids or some other cause? Techniques include shoving your hand in the person's face, or asking a very innocuous question, or commenting on anything to get a reaction. It's very effective, most people fall for it once or twice then learn to ignore.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 04, 2018, 08:02:59 PM
Then there's this.

https://crooksandliars.com/2018/09/wow-kavanaugh-refuses-shake-hand-parkland

Of course, Kavanaugh is bought and paid for by the NRA, so... no surprise, I guess.

But what a flaming asshole.


Was the man recognized as a Parkland victim's father during the hearing?

Yes, the man said as much. Which is exactly when Kavanaugh withdrew his hand and turned away.
Meh. Have you ever been approached on the street to save kids or some other cause? Techniques include shoving your hand in the person's face, or asking a very innocuous question, or commenting on anything to get a reaction. It's very effective, most people fall for it once or twice then learn to ignore.

Yes! i have.

I have not, however, been nominated to serve in the highest court in the land and then felt entirely within my rights to immediately turn away from a citizen of that country who was in the audience at the hearing as soon as I decided — based on the fact that I recognized them as someone whose child had just been gunned down by a school shooter — that they weren’t marching in lockstep with my NRA-funded views and could therefore be ignored as though invisible.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner on September 04, 2018, 08:21:32 PM
Just as a reference point....  Scalia was appointed 98-0. 
The SCOTUS and basically all federal workings have become a circus and both sides are pathetically to blame.

This false equivalence needs to die. Both sides are not the same. Republicans are the problem.

And this is why things never change.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on September 04, 2018, 08:36:01 PM
Just as a reference point....  Scalia was appointed 98-0. 
The SCOTUS and basically all federal workings have become a circus and both sides are pathetically to blame.

This false equivalence needs to die. Both sides are not the same. Republicans are the problem.

And this is why things never change.

Things are changing, for the worse, because of Republicans.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 04, 2018, 11:54:42 PM
Kavanaugh is a lifelong Republican activist who has made no secret of his desire to advance conservative social causes regardless of what the law says, so he's probably a poor choice to be a judge of any sort. 

But that's basically just a sideshow to the larger issue here.  The reason this galls me is that a President who is currently under multiple criminal investigations and has openly subverted the justice system for personal political gain is the last person on earth who should be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, who will serve for life.  This is like a bank robber making his getaway driver the judge.  This is a divorce court where your spouse is the judge.  Justice cannot be served under these circumstances, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee.

Not that it will matter, because Russia swayed the election and the US Constitution gives zero power to the minority party in Congress, so America is basically broken until the next election anyway.  They get to do whatever they want.  They can make Stephen Miller the Supreme Court justice if they want to, what are you going to do about it?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 05, 2018, 12:47:10 AM
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 05, 2018, 01:10:21 AM
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.
Yes, exactly this. Trump's blatant disdain (or is it just misunderstanding?) for the rule of law makes this pick all the more remarkable. So much so that I would bet a couple fingers that this was not his doing. Someone must have tricked him into nominating him, and we should all be thankful for that, in a weird way.

NYT op-ed on the matter that made the rounds a few weeks ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html

The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on September 05, 2018, 02:18:22 AM
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

Policy-wise, the appointment of a Supreme Court justice is huge, and far more important than anything else Trump could do in his entire presidency short of ending fair elections or starting World War 3. Yes, Trump and most of his administration are criminals and they should be criminally prosecuted, but there will be time for that later. The nomination hearings for Kavanaugh are happening now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 05, 2018, 07:53:28 AM
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

There is the small matter of an executive branch that's been expanding in power for administrations nominating a SC judge who thinks that the executive branch should have even more power. He's only 1 of 9 but Trump may get a 3rd judge in place soon.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 05, 2018, 08:31:07 AM
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

There is the small matter of an executive branch that's been expanding in power for administrations nominating a SC judge who thinks that the executive branch should have even more power. He's only 1 of 9 but Trump may get a 3rd judge in place soon.

His views on executive power seem to be that a sitting president should not come under criminal or civil prosecution. This is more nuanced than "presidents should be above the law" as some in the media portrayed it. The idea, as far as I can tell, is that the POTUS should not be bogged down by such investigations while in power (Clinton and many other examples to pull from), and the impeachment process should be used instead. Presumably criminal charges can be explored after impeachment. Interesting to note that he published this opinion right after Obama's election.

Quote
For a primary author of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's occasionally explicit report detailing Clinton's transgressions, Kavanaugh traveled a long way to his 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review recommending that presidents be free from prosecution.

"This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s," he wrote. But "looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots."

Kavanaugh did not suggest that judges treat presidents differently, however. He said Congress should pass a law providing that civil suits and criminal investigations be deferred while the president is in office. If the president acts "dastardly," he said, "the impeachment process is available."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-fan-presidential-powers/776292002/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 05, 2018, 08:51:29 AM
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 05, 2018, 09:05:37 AM
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

No, you missed my part about judicial nomination being a decidedly political process. It think Garland was also well qualified, he just didn't have the votes in the Senate for confirmation. If the year was 2019 instead of 2018 and the Dems got enough Senate seats in the mid-terms then Kavanaugh would likely suffer the same fate - it would reflect the political reality of the moment. Are you saying that the Dems, if they control the Senate after the mid-term, should just ignore party bias and go along with the next SC nomination from Trump (or Pence if impeached)?

Let's not be naive about it, Supreme Court nominations are extremely high-stakes and have a long history of partisanship politics.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 05, 2018, 09:07:40 AM
Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.
Clearly the latter. Garland should have been confirmed, but the GOP leadership decided to roll the dice, correctly guessing that they would suffer no electoral damage for their behavior. They get to throw tantrums and it works for them.

This will not work when your base has fewer nutjobs, and you don't hold a majority anywhere.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 05, 2018, 09:38:33 AM
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

There is the small matter of an executive branch that's been expanding in power for administrations nominating a SC judge who thinks that the executive branch should have even more power. He's only 1 of 9 but Trump may get a 3rd judge in place soon.

His views on executive power seem to be that a sitting president should not come under criminal or civil prosecution. This is more nuanced than "presidents should be above the law" as some in the media portrayed it. The idea, as far as I can tell, is that the POTUS should not be bogged down by such investigations while in power (Clinton and many other examples to pull from), and the impeachment process should be used instead. Presumably criminal charges can be explored after impeachment. Interesting to note that he published this opinion right after Obama's election.

Quote
For a primary author of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's occasionally explicit report detailing Clinton's transgressions, Kavanaugh traveled a long way to his 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review recommending that presidents be free from prosecution.

"This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s," he wrote. But "looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots."

Kavanaugh did not suggest that judges treat presidents differently, however. He said Congress should pass a law providing that civil suits and criminal investigations be deferred while the president is in office. If the president acts "dastardly," he said, "the impeachment process is available."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-fan-presidential-powers/776292002/

Yeah, that's what concerns me.

Kavanaugh was a lead author on the Starr Report, which advocated for wide impeachment powers. An impeachment is brought by Congress and is investigated by a Special Counsel. As part of the Starr team, he investigated the Paula Jones case.

Now he's against such investigations as a distraction to the sitting President.

Is he against a Special Counsel entirely? Or only a Special Counsel investigating certain crimes (e.g., Paula Jones and lying about porn star payouts)? Given that a Special Counsel can be a prelude to an impeachment, how does Congress then gain investigative knowledge without one? Does the "dastardly" deed just surface and Congress can then act on it or can Congress have someone do some investigating?

tldr; When Kavanuagh said, "Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel," does that include Special Counsel?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 05, 2018, 10:08:08 AM
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

No, you missed my part about judicial nomination being a decidedly political process. It think Garland was also well qualified, he just didn't have the votes in the Senate for confirmation. If the year was 2019 instead of 2018 and the Dems got enough Senate seats in the mid-terms then Kavanaugh would likely suffer the same fate - it would reflect the political reality of the moment. Are you saying that the Dems, if they control the Senate after the mid-term, should just ignore party bias and go along with the next SC nomination from Trump (or Pence if impeached)?

Let's not be naive about it, Supreme Court nominations are extremely high-stakes and have a long history of partisanship politics.

No, that's my point.  If Dems control the Senate after the midterms then they shouldn't bring any of Trumps judicial nominees up for a vote, and you shouldn't support Kavanaugh just because he's qualified and has legal experience.  Since we agree that the Supreme Court nomination process is inherently political we should be supporting those justices that we agree with and fighting with every tool at our disposal to stop those justices that we disagree with.  Instead of, for example, giving Clarence Thomas eleven votes when he passed by two, giving John Roberts 22 votes and not filibustering Alito.  Basically what I'm saying is that these were all mistakes made by Democrats and we should definitely not repeat them by trying to follow norms and traditions that Republicans won't honor such as only considering whether a candidate is "qualified" or not when deciding who to support.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 05, 2018, 10:13:39 AM
The White House is literally bursting at the seams with dog shit. Focusing on the nomination of a generic conservative Justice that's quite possibly the only normal thing to have happened in a while? It further energizes an acquired voter base that's already been in a pressure cooker for the last 18 months, and looks petty to everyone else.

There is the small matter of an executive branch that's been expanding in power for administrations nominating a SC judge who thinks that the executive branch should have even more power. He's only 1 of 9 but Trump may get a 3rd judge in place soon.

His views on executive power seem to be that a sitting president should not come under criminal or civil prosecution. This is more nuanced than "presidents should be above the law" as some in the media portrayed it. The idea, as far as I can tell, is that the POTUS should not be bogged down by such investigations while in power (Clinton and many other examples to pull from), and the impeachment process should be used instead. Presumably criminal charges can be explored after impeachment. Interesting to note that he published this opinion right after Obama's election.

Quote
For a primary author of independent counsel Kenneth Starr's occasionally explicit report detailing Clinton's transgressions, Kavanaugh traveled a long way to his 2009 article in the Minnesota Law Review recommending that presidents be free from prosecution.

"This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s," he wrote. But "looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots."

Kavanaugh did not suggest that judges treat presidents differently, however. He said Congress should pass a law providing that civil suits and criminal investigations be deferred while the president is in office. If the president acts "dastardly," he said, "the impeachment process is available."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/12/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-fan-presidential-powers/776292002/

Yeah, that's what concerns me.

Kavanaugh was a lead author on the Starr Report, which advocated for wide impeachment powers. An impeachment is brought by Congress and is investigated by a Special Counsel. As part of the Starr team, he investigated the Paula Jones case.

Now he's against such investigations as a distraction to the sitting President.

Is he against a Special Counsel entirely? Or only a Special Counsel investigating certain crimes (e.g., Paula Jones and lying about porn star payouts)? Given that a Special Counsel can be a prelude to an impeachment, how does Congress then gain investigative knowledge without one? Does the "dastardly" deed just surface and Congress can then act on it or can Congress have someone do some investigating?

tldr; When Kavanuagh said, "Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel," does that include Special Counsel?

Obviously I can't speak for him, but I don't see how deferring criminal or civil investigations would preclude a Special Prosecutor to pursue impeachment. I think he's saying that, at the level of the three Federal branches, the proper channel to deal with a bad president is impeachment, not the courts, and then worry about criminal charges after impeachment. This is pure speculation, but my guess is that he's seen enough of the fishing expeditions, and if Congress thinks there's impropriety then they should move to impeach, which has its own dangers, as the Republicans discovered with Clinton.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 05, 2018, 10:16:54 AM
Special prosecutors do not pursue impeachment. They make recommendations to Congress, a body of elected representatives who are experts at hearing what they want to hear.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on September 05, 2018, 10:17:30 AM
Kavanaugh is a lifelong Republican activist who has made no secret of his desire to advance conservative social causes regardless of what the law says, so he's probably a poor choice to be a judge of any sort. 

But that's basically just a sideshow to the larger issue here.  The reason this galls me is that a President who is currently under multiple criminal investigations and has openly subverted the justice system for personal political gain is the last person on earth who should be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, who will serve for life.  This is like a bank robber making his getaway driver the judge.  This is a divorce court where your spouse is the judge.  Justice cannot be served under these circumstances, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee.

Not that it will matter, because Russia swayed the election and the US Constitution gives zero power to the minority party in Congress, so America is basically broken until the next election anyway.  They get to do whatever they want.  They can make Stephen Miller the Supreme Court justice if they want to, what are you going to do about it?

AGREE to all you have said!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 05, 2018, 10:35:21 AM
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

No, you missed my part about judicial nomination being a decidedly political process. It think Garland was also well qualified, he just didn't have the votes in the Senate for confirmation. If the year was 2019 instead of 2018 and the Dems got enough Senate seats in the mid-terms then Kavanaugh would likely suffer the same fate - it would reflect the political reality of the moment. Are you saying that the Dems, if they control the Senate after the mid-term, should just ignore party bias and go along with the next SC nomination from Trump (or Pence if impeached)?

Let's not be naive about it, Supreme Court nominations are extremely high-stakes and have a long history of partisanship politics.

No, that's my point.  They shouldn't, and you shouldn't support Kavanaugh just because he's qualified and has legal experience.  Since we agree that the Supreme Court nomination process is inherently political we should be supporting those justices that we agree with and fighting with every tool at our disposal to stop those justices that we disagree with.  Instead of, for example, giving Clarence Thomas eleven votes when he passed by two, giving John Roberts 22 votes and not filibustering Alito.  Basically what I'm saying is that these were all mistakes made by Democrats and we should definitely not repeat them by trying to follow norms and traditions that Republicans won't honor such as only considering whether a candidate is "qualified" or not when deciding who to support.

You're free to support or oppose whoever you like and use all political means within the process for your cause. More power to you. The goal of the Dems right now is to try and delay confirmation past the mid-term, which they hope will give them more leverage in the confirmation process. That's fine, probably the only strategy option for them at this point. But own it. Stop pretending that it's not partisan or biased, or that Garland was wronged, or that there's a double standard (more accurately, both sides have a double standard).

Although I don't agree with Kavanaugh on everything, there's enough there that I support his confirmation. He is a generic conservative, the product of a careful and long term vetting process designed as a pipeline for conservative justices to get to the SCOTUS. Of course I would expect those on the Left to be vehemently opposed, but he would likely be on the short list of candidates even if an establishment Republican was at the helm. I agree with Paul, this is the most surprising thing given how bombastic Trump is, and I have a suspicion that the Dems are disappointed that he didn't nominate someone crazy and easy to swat down.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 05, 2018, 10:51:40 AM
Special prosecutors do not pursue impeachment. They make recommendations to Congress, a body of elected representatives who are experts at hearing what they want to hear.

Fine, I'm not choosing my words well. There would be nothing preventing Congress from investigating a president for impeachment.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 05, 2018, 11:12:31 AM
Special prosecutors do not pursue impeachment. They make recommendations to Congress, a body of elected representatives who are experts at hearing what they want to hear.

Fine, I'm not choosing my words well. There would be nothing preventing Congress from investigating a president for impeachment.

With a Special Counsel or by their own committees and subpoenas?

To make matters worse, Kavanaugh has refused to say whether a sitting President can pardon himself or even broker a pardon-testify trade with someone who is on trial.

He's now turned into an king-lover, which is a far cry from his Starr days. It's also dangerous given the level of power that the executive branch currently has.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 05, 2018, 11:42:11 AM
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Justices are selected via a political process and are therefore all biased politically. Their bias is a reflection of the present political reality in DC. In other words, the bias of the nominee was determined in 2016 when Trump was elected along with a majority GOP congress. A GOP president with GOP congress is not going to nominate a moderate, and vice versa. Elections have consequences, yes?

Garland wasn't passed-over based on some high-minded ideal that a POTUS shouldn't nominate during an election year. It was clear he didn't have the votes in the Senate and Obama's term was coming to an end. Besides, most people assumed Clinton would easily win the presidency and I don't think Obama wanted to end his term grinding out an acrimonious and ultimately ill fated confirmation process. I wonder sometimes if he regrets that decision.

Why wouldn't he have had the votes?  Was he unqualified?  Or are you suggesting that there weren't even four Republican Senators willing to put partisanship aside and vote for a qualified candidate for the Supreme Court nominated by a legitimate, sitting President?

I think this is another situation where the Republican Party is doing a very good job of convincing people to hold Democrats to a standard that they are not willing to hold themselves to.  From my perspective, if Republicans want to blatantly politicize the Supreme Court nomination process then Democrats should lean into it.  Either nobody will care and the parties will be fighting on an even playing field from now on, or it will highlight the problem and someone will figure out how to fix it.

No, you missed my part about judicial nomination being a decidedly political process. It think Garland was also well qualified, he just didn't have the votes in the Senate for confirmation. If the year was 2019 instead of 2018 and the Dems got enough Senate seats in the mid-terms then Kavanaugh would likely suffer the same fate - it would reflect the political reality of the moment. Are you saying that the Dems, if they control the Senate after the mid-term, should just ignore party bias and go along with the next SC nomination from Trump (or Pence if impeached)?

Let's not be naive about it, Supreme Court nominations are extremely high-stakes and have a long history of partisanship politics.

No, that's my point.  They shouldn't, and you shouldn't support Kavanaugh just because he's qualified and has legal experience.  Since we agree that the Supreme Court nomination process is inherently political we should be supporting those justices that we agree with and fighting with every tool at our disposal to stop those justices that we disagree with.  Instead of, for example, giving Clarence Thomas eleven votes when he passed by two, giving John Roberts 22 votes and not filibustering Alito.  Basically what I'm saying is that these were all mistakes made by Democrats and we should definitely not repeat them by trying to follow norms and traditions that Republicans won't honor such as only considering whether a candidate is "qualified" or not when deciding who to support.

You're free to support or oppose whoever you like and use all political means within the process for your cause. More power to you. The goal of the Dems right now is to try and delay confirmation past the mid-term, which they hope will give them more leverage in the confirmation process. That's fine, probably the only strategy option for them at this point. But own it. Stop pretending that it's not partisan or biased, or that Garland was wronged, or that there's a double standard (more accurately, both sides have a double standard).

Although I don't agree with Kavanaugh on everything, there's enough there that I support his confirmation. He is a generic conservative, the product of a careful and long term vetting process designed as a pipeline for conservative justices to get to the SCOTUS. Of course I would expect those on the Left to be vehemently opposed, but he would likely be on the short list of candidates even if an establishment Republican was at the helm. I agree with Paul, this is the most surprising thing given how bombastic Trump is, and I have a suspicion that the Dems are disappointed that he didn't nominate someone crazy and easy to swat down.

Oh, well, if you mostly agree with him then by all means support him.  I just got the impression from your post that you mostly disagree with him but are supporting him because he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job.

I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 05, 2018, 11:43:33 AM
Special prosecutors do not pursue impeachment. They make recommendations to Congress, a body of elected representatives who are experts at hearing what they want to hear.

Fine, I'm not choosing my words well. There would be nothing preventing Congress from investigating a president for impeachment.

With a Special Counsel or by their own committees and subpoenas?

To make matters worse, Kavanaugh has refused to say whether a sitting President can pardon himself or even broker a pardon-testify trade with someone who is on trial.

He's now turned into an king-lover, which is a far cry from his Starr days. It's also dangerous given the level of power that the executive branch currently has.

Quote
Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress#Subpoenas]

Whether through special council or other means, there's a way. The bigger question is to what extent must the executive branch comply [https://www.vox.com/2018/3/15/16997474/mueller-subpoena-trump-russia-probe]

He is absolutely right to refuse to answer a large unsettled legal question based on vague hypotheticals. If he had done so that itself would give me cause for concern. I'm not a lawyer and far far from an expert, but I recall studying lots of case law as part of an employment law class in grad school. I was impressed with the Justices across the board, Left and Right (albeit, less so with Thomas), with their careful handling of cases. They try to avoid making sweeping changes that upset the huge body of case law. So they are careful to issue judgements as narrow and nuanced as possible - they don't want to make a huge mess that they have to clean up later. So rulings are always on the specific merits of the the case before the court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 05, 2018, 11:56:19 AM
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

The concerns about the process being politicized come from both sides of the isle, depending on which side is trying to get their candidate through:

Quote
Kagan became the third consecutive high court pick, after Sotomayor and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006, to receive less than a three-fourths majority in the Senate, a trend that suggests that, in a departure from historical practice, the nominations are becoming increasingly politicized and that nominees are now being treated like contentious pieces of legislation.
[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/06/nation/la-na-elena-kagan-20100806]
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: By the River on September 05, 2018, 12:02:50 PM
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

Bork? Robert Bork?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 05, 2018, 12:15:41 PM
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

The concerns about the process being politicized come from both sides of the isle, depending on which side is trying to get their candidate through:

Quote
Kagan became the third consecutive high court pick, after Sotomayor and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2006, to receive less than a three-fourths majority in the Senate, a trend that suggests that, in a departure from historical practice, the nominations are becoming increasingly politicized and that nominees are now being treated like contentious pieces of legislation.
[http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/06/nation/la-na-elena-kagan-20100806]

Yes, both sides talk about it.  But which side is doing the most to politicize the process?  Which side pushes the boundaries in order to politicize the process?  I get that both sides do it to an extent, but I do not agree that both sides do it to even close to the same degree.

I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

Bork? Robert Bork?

So far as I can tell, even the infamous Robert Bork was allowed a vote and even got two votes from democrats.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: msilenus on September 05, 2018, 12:23:14 PM
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

Bork? Robert Bork?

Robert Bork was the toady Nixon got to fire Cox after three better men put their country first and resigned rather than carrying out the order.  [1]  Nixon had promised Bork a Supreme Court seat if he did the deed.  Of course, it fell to Reagan to follow through on the pact --which he eventually did. [2]

Instead of owning up to how shameful the whole affair was, conservatives have since tried to turn him into a sort of martyr.  What else could they do?  The whole corrupt affair is so shameful no small lie would do.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomination
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: jinga nation on September 05, 2018, 12:25:06 PM
Anyone who picks "The Supreme Court doesn't matter" in this poll must not live in the United States.

I'm very scared by what the court will do when this nomination is approved; and I'm sure it will be.

I live in the US. SCOTUS hasn't mattered since Citizens United. They sold us out. All three branches are rigged, it's a pay-to-play system. The people are given "a choice to vote for a candidate" but almost all of them are bought out by corporations people.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 05, 2018, 01:01:22 PM
Let's review:  Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in multiple federal crimes.  Because they are felonies, he will have to stand trial, or be pardoned.  If his case goes to trial, it will undoubtedly reach the Supreme Court.  Trump desperately needs a friendly Supreme Court to keep himself out of jail, so he appoints a man who has spent his entire career openly mocking the law in pursuit of Republican causes.  Today, that man has refused to say that Trump cannot pardon himself for any and all crimes.

It's a perfect circle of corruption.  Man breaks law, then that same man "fixes" the judicial system to make laws irrelevant.  This is some serious banana republic level shit going down.  It's a sad day to be an American.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Aelias on September 05, 2018, 01:45:38 PM
Kavanaugh is a lifelong Republican activist who has made no secret of his desire to advance conservative social causes regardless of what the law says, so he's probably a poor choice to be a judge of any sort. 

But that's basically just a sideshow to the larger issue here.  The reason this galls me is that a President who is currently under multiple criminal investigations and has openly subverted the justice system for personal political gain is the last person on earth who should be allowed to appoint a Supreme Court Justice, who will serve for life.  This is like a bank robber making his getaway driver the judge.  This is a divorce court where your spouse is the judge.  Justice cannot be served under these circumstances, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee.

Not that it will matter, because Russia swayed the election and the US Constitution gives zero power to the minority party in Congress, so America is basically broken until the next election anyway.  They get to do whatever they want.  They can make Stephen Miller the Supreme Court justice if they want to, what are you going to do about it?

AGREE to all you have said!

Seconded.  From what I’ve read at this point, Kavanaugh is indeed a very, very conservative jurist, he’s made a lot of decisions I disagree with, and I’m certain that if he’s confirmed (which he almost certainly will be), he’ll make many more. People have valid concerns about him on that basis, and I’m not going to minimize the harm those decisions will cause.

But, the people who’ve worked with him also seem to believe he’s a decent guy who reads broadly and who thinks carefully about his positions. That plus his credentials would put him on basically any list of potential nominees for any Republican president. If President Cruz / Romney / Rubio had picked Kavanaugh, it still would have be gross because of the theft of the Garland nomination, but it would have been less gross.

But I’m convinced that the reason Trump picked Kavanaugh over everyone else (despite his miles long document trail and the fact that it took him 3 years to get confirmed to the D.C. Cir) is his writings about deferring criminal investigation and civil litigation for a sitting president. Smart people have written thoughtful arguments about why Kavanaugh’s views aren’t as favorable to Trump as they may seem, but I guarantee you Trump didn’t get that nuance. He heard, “Wait—this guy thinks presidents shouldn’t even be investigated? That’s my dude!”

I think the Kavanaugh pick was Trump’s deliberate and not particularly subtle attempt to make SCOTUS more likely to stymy the Russia investigation in any matter that may come before it. In other words, he was picked in bad faith by a President who is currently a subject of an active criminal investigation into whether he and/or his campaign coordinated with a hostile foreign power to influence an election.

And that, by itself, should be reason enough FOR ANYONE to oppose his confirmation.  It won't be, but it should be.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 05, 2018, 03:04:33 PM
I guess the NRA isn’t as broke as it’s been whining about being.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/nra-says-it-ll-spend-at-least-1-million-on-pro-kavanaugh-ads
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: YttriumNitrate on September 06, 2018, 07:52:22 AM
With Republicans holding the majority in the Senate, Kavanaguh's confirmation is pretty much a foregone conclusion as long as he avoids saying anything particularly stupid. My take is that in the longer run, the spectacle of a confirmation process will probably end up hurting Democrats. Montana, Indiana, and North Dakota are the reason why. Each of those states tends to skew conservative (at least 55%+ for Trump in 2016) and has a Democratic senator up for reelection desperately trying to portray themselves as a moderate. The Kavanaguh hearings aren't helping. One could speculate that the hearings were specifically scheduled to correspond with the midterms, and the Democrats are playing right into the GOP's hand.

If the GOP gains some or all of those seats in the Senate, let's just hope the 85-year-old colon-cancer and pancreatic-cancer survivor justice stays healthy for at least another two years.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 06, 2018, 08:22:32 AM
Brett Kavanaugh evades Kamala Harris' question about whether he conversed with the Mueller investigation with anyone in the law firm that is representing Donald Trump.

Republican Senator Lee explodes, and the implications for this question could include Kavanaugh having to recuse himself with any cases that would come before the Supreme Court regarding the Mueller investigation.

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1037518507423002629/video/1
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner on September 06, 2018, 08:49:49 AM
If the GOP gains some or all of those seats in the Senate, let's just hope the 85-year-old colon-cancer and pancreatic-cancer survivor justice stays healthy for at least another two six years.

FTFY.   :)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 06, 2018, 09:07:21 AM
the implications for this question could include Kavanaugh having to recuse himself with any cases that would come before the Supreme Court regarding the Mueller investigation.

I wouldn't count on it.  Recusal is only enforced as a matter of personal integrity, and Kavanaugh has never let integrity get in the way of advancing the conservative agenda.  I'm betting he would refuse to recuse, then rule in Trump's favor, despite of his prior work for the Trump campaign.

I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though

These things aren't even in the same universe.  Conservatives made a huge fuss about Elena Kagan's refusal to recuse herself from the Obamacare case, and that was only because other people at her law firm had worked on it.  She wasn't even involved, and they still threw a fit over it because they thought she might have been influenced by the political views of her former partners.  That is a far cry from Kavanaugh's situation, where he has personally and openly advocated subverting the law to advance conservative causes.  He is a partisan appointee in the way that no democratic appointee has ever been.

But none of that matters.  As I've previously pointed out, Republicans could appoint a dancing monkey to the supreme court and then laugh in your face about it.  They don't care about what's "right" and they definitely don't care about what the people want.  Remember when their tax plan had a 34% approval rating and they passed it anyway because their big-money corporate donors wanted it?  Remember their ~40 votes to "repeal and replace" the ACA?  Remember Republicans getting a minority of the national popular vote and yet still commandeering every branch of government?

The entire Republican party stands for one thing these days, and that's using procedural technicalities to enforce the will of a wealthy elite minority on the entirety of America.  They are good at it!  They don't need or want your support, they already have all the power and they plan to keep it that way.  Confirming a partisan tool like Kavanaugh is just the latest example of the party subverting American democracy, of using power to retain power.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on September 06, 2018, 11:32:07 AM
I find it concerning besides his very conservative views and inability to answer Senator Harris on whether he has has contact with the President's lawyers is that his financial disclosures do not add up.  He had six figure credit card debt on his financial disclosures prior to 2016, however, in 2016 those debts disappeared.  The White House said it was on baseball tickets and friends paid him back for the tickets.  While I don't doubt that Mustachians could pay off six figure credit card debt on what his salary is, this man has an expensive house, private school tuition, etc. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PDXTabs on September 06, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
He appears to have lied under oath in 2006 (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/ron-wyden-says-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-in-2006-testimony).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 06, 2018, 11:18:41 PM
inability to answer Senator Harris on whether he has has contact with the President's lawyers
It wasn't just this issue.  Kavanaugh also refused to answer questions about whether a president can ignore a subpoena and refuse to testify.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 06, 2018, 11:37:50 PM
Kavanaugh also refused to answer questions about whether a president can ignore a subpoena and refuse to testify.

Again, as he should.

Quote
Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues. Each case comes to court based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties of their representatives present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecast, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.

Source https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 06, 2018, 11:53:00 PM
Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues.

This is not an abstract issue.  This is a current legal reality regarding the criminal investigation of the man who nominated this specific judge.  That's exactly the reason he HAS to get asked about it.

Rudy has been on tv for weeks declaring (without evidence or argument) that Trump is above the law and doesn't have to do a damn thing he doesn't want to, for any reason.  The rest of the Justice department has been quietly suggesting that Trump, as an American citizen, is subject to the same laws as the rest of us.  Kavanaugh just sided with Rudy, and against the Justice department (and common sense, IMO).

He might as well have been asked "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" and your answer is "well I can't comment without knowing the specifics of a particular case presented to me..."  Like under what possible set of circumstances is that answer ever "no"?

At this point, I will not be surprised when WaPo breaks the story about Kavanaugh being an unregistered foreign agent working for Russia.  The layers of corruption here are beginning to conceal each other.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 07, 2018, 12:03:18 AM
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 07, 2018, 08:40:34 AM
there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

I'm pretty sure the separation of powers was never intended to let one branch of government go full-on Keyser Soze and then refuse to even speak to the other branches of government when they attempt to use the system of checks and balances to hold him accountable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 07, 2018, 09:53:37 AM
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 07, 2018, 10:01:10 AM
there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

I'm pretty sure the separation of powers was never intended to let one branch of government go full-on Keyser Soze and then refuse to even speak to the other branches of government when they attempt to use the system of checks and balances to hold him accountable.

True. At the same time Congress cannot just go on fishing expeditions in the executive branch. There are limitations. The information requested must be pertinent to the investigation, which is a matter of judgement. And the specifics of the case matter, which is why the SCOTUS would likely get pulled in (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/07/what-happens-if-trump-is-subpoenaed-by-robert-mueller/).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 07, 2018, 10:21:27 AM
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

It prejudices the justice and short-circuits the process. I encourage you to read that quote from Justice Ginsburg in context (p. 52 of https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf). Very wise woman and much more articulate that I'll ever be. If that doesn't convince you of folly of nominees responding to hypotheticals then I'm afraid there's nothing more to discuss and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If we want to know how Kavanaugh interprets law then the most accurate representation is his judicial record, which is extensive. These are real cases, within specific parameters, and it gives be best insight into how he would serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that zealous partisans on the Left are deeply offended by his record, which is really what's going on here, as he would certainly tilt the court further to the Right. And fine, it's your right to argue and protest and do what you can to stop his nomination. But know also that people are watching your behavior. From my perspective as a centrist (for reference, I also supported Sotomayor and Kagan) I think the behavior from the opposition is a bit of a temper tantrum and not a good look.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 07, 2018, 10:26:04 AM
There are limitations. The information requested must be pertinent to the investigation, which is a matter of judgement. And the specifics of the case matter, which is why the SCOTUS would likely get pulled in

In this case, the question is whether or not the President can blatantly ignore a subpoena while under criminal investigation.  I'm pretty sure "come talk to us about it" is a legitimately pertinent request.  Trump is arguing that he has no legal obligation to even respond to a subpoena, because he is above the law.  Not that the questions he will be asked aren't pertinent, not that the investigation is prejudicial, but that the law simply doesn't apply to him whenever he decides so.  That's not separation of powers, that's corruption.

And are we really surprised?  Trump's entire presidential campaign was built on the idea of ignoring the ordinary and customary rules of an election, and that's part of the reason his supporters loved him.  A president isn't supposed to bang porn stars, and yet here are.  A president isn't supposed to support racism, and yet here we are.  A president isn't supposed to take bribes, and yet here we are.  A president isn't supposed to work with hostile foreign powers to sway elections... shall I go on? 

And some people absolutely love these things about him, because they think it makes him "different" from all of those "elitist snobs" that used to run the government.  You know, those elitist snobs that actually felt compelled to follow the law?  The ones who will never "win" because they choose to follow rules that it turns out you can just ignore without consequences? 

As long as one particular party in government actively chooses to endorse criminal activity, American democracy is dead and gone.  I won't be surprised if the midterms are a republican landslide in every state, with coordinated Russian hacking of election machines and GOP governors conveniently continuing to destroy all paper receipts of voting records.  I won't be surprised if a republican congress refuses to do anything about Trump running for a blatantly illegal third or fourth consecutive term as president.  I won't be surprised if we end up like Russia or Cuba, where the dictator apparently gets 90% or more of the popular vote despite nobody on the street admitting to voting for him and widespread protests about corruption. 

Like what happens if Trump fires four supreme court justices and appoints his four children to fill the seats?  Would congressional republicans do anything, or would they just continue to say "we don't agree with the President's methods but it's not our place to intervene" like they've been doing for two years now?  What if decides to just cancel the EPA and allocates all of its budget to Exxon/Mobil, who would stop him?  Fires Mueller and his next three replacements until the investigation disappears?  Seriously, is there anything he couldn't get away with at this point?

Kavanaugh is just another stepping stone in this process, another way to ensure ultimate power forever by appointing someone who will never interfere with your dictatorial rise.  Arguing about the details of Kavanaugh's voting record is a red herring.  All that will matter is that Kavanaugh will support Trump's immunity from any criminal prosecution, protecting him from the system of checks and balances that the Constitution requested, but that we no longer believe in.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 07, 2018, 10:52:12 AM
There are limitations. The information requested must be pertinent to the investigation, which is a matter of judgement. And the specifics of the case matter, which is why the SCOTUS would likely get pulled in

In this case, the question is whether or not the President can blatantly ignore a subpoena while under criminal investigation.  I'm pretty sure "come talk to us about it" is a legitimately pertinent request.  Trump is arguing that he has no legal obligation to even respond to a subpoena, because he is above the law.  Not that the questions he will be asked aren't pertinent, not that the investigation is prejudicial, but that the law simply doesn't apply to him whenever he decides so.  That's not separation of powers, that's corruption.

I agree, it's corruption. But that's orthogonal to the question of how Kavanaugh would adjudicate in this matter.

Kavanaugh is just another stepping stone in this process, another way to ensure ultimate power forever by appointing someone who will never interfere with your dictatorial rise.  Arguing about the details of Kavanaugh's voting record is a red herring.  All that will matter is that Kavanaugh will support Trump's immunity from any criminal prosecution, protecting him from the system of checks and balances that the Constitution requested, but that we no longer believe in.

Pure speculation. Kavanaugh is his own person with a long and respected career in law. He's not a Trump lacky. On the contrary, he's part of a larger plan to prepare conservative justices for the SCOTUS that predates Trump. He's representative of what any other GOP president would have nominated (how's that speculation for ya' ;-) ). Once confirmed Justices are beholden to no one, including the president that nominated them. If anything they have every incentive to maintain the integrity of the branch they serve in while keeping the other branches in check.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 07, 2018, 11:11:49 AM
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

It prejudices the justice and short-circuits the process. I encourage you to read that quote from Justice Ginsburg in context (p. 52 of https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf). Very wise woman and much more articulate that I'll ever be. If that doesn't convince you of folly of nominees responding to hypotheticals then I'm afraid there's nothing more to discuss and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If we want to know how Kavanaugh interprets law then the most accurate representation is his judicial record, which is extensive. These are real cases, within specific parameters, and it gives be best insight into how he would serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that zealous partisans on the Left are deeply offended by his record, which is really what's going on here, as he would certainly tilt the court further to the Right. And fine, it's your right to argue and protest and do what you can to stop his nomination. But know also that people are watching your behavior. From my perspective as a centrist (for reference, I also supported Sotomayor and Kagan) I think the behavior from the opposition is a bit of a temper tantrum and not a good look.

While I respect Justice Ginsberg greatly, I don't understand how answering questions at a hearing prevents a justice from deciding a case impartially or acting independently in the future.  And I'm starting to feel like a party's base is generally more important that independents/centrists (from a winning elections perspective).  Turnout seems to be key, so I think fighting hard for things that the base cares about is probably more important than being "civil" to appeal to centrists most of the time.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 07, 2018, 11:22:47 AM
Pure speculation.

Isn't that what we're doing here?

Quote
Kavanaugh is his own person with a long and respected career in law.  He's not a Trump lacky.

This is like the 2016 speculation that Trump would become more presidential and respectful if he got the nomination.  Why would you possibly think his future would be any different from his past?  Kavanaugh has made a career out of openly subverting the law to advance conservative causes.  He twists and warps it to advance his own political agenda.  He literally worked for Ken Starr on indicting Blill Clinton as part of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, arguably the genesis of our current hyperpartisan no-holds-barred culture war political warfare. 

Kavanaugh hates liberalism.  He hates the social progress America has enjoyed since the 1950s, and has spent a career finding ways to revert us back to the Eisenhower administration.  He would continue to do so as a supreme court justice, undermining everything that makes America great.  How's that speculation for you?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 07, 2018, 11:31:00 AM
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

It prejudices the justice and short-circuits the process. I encourage you to read that quote from Justice Ginsburg in context (p. 52 of https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf). Very wise woman and much more articulate that I'll ever be. If that doesn't convince you of folly of nominees responding to hypotheticals then I'm afraid there's nothing more to discuss and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If we want to know how Kavanaugh interprets law then the most accurate representation is his judicial record, which is extensive. These are real cases, within specific parameters, and it gives be best insight into how he would serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that zealous partisans on the Left are deeply offended by his record, which is really what's going on here, as he would certainly tilt the court further to the Right. And fine, it's your right to argue and protest and do what you can to stop his nomination. But know also that people are watching your behavior. From my perspective as a centrist (for reference, I also supported Sotomayor and Kagan) I think the behavior from the opposition is a bit of a temper tantrum and not a good look.

While I respect Justice Ginsberg greatly, I don't understand how answering questions at a hearing prevents a justice from deciding a case impartially or acting independently in the future.  And I'm starting to feel like a party's base is generally more important that independents/centrists (from a winning elections perspective).  Turnout seems to be key, so I think fighting hard for things that the base cares about is probably more important than being "civil" to appeal to centrists most of the time.

It appears we're at an impasse as I don't know what else I can add. If the Dems want to pander to their base then that's their choice. Should be easy pickings on the East/West Coast for sure, certainly like shooting fish in a barrel here in California, but I have doubts about such a strategy in the rest of the country. I suppose time will tell.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 07, 2018, 11:37:40 AM
The rest of that quote is kinda important. It's not simply a matter of how he interprets the law, the process matters. The arguments brought before the court matter. He may be asked to rule on this issue in the future, if not Trump, then potentially a subsequent president, so he would be prejudicing himself by predicting how he would rule on a hypothetical.

Asking "is the President bound to follow the laws of the United States?" is entirely different than asking how those laws apply to the president. In the case of congressional subpoena there's a serious and not entirely settled constitutional question involving separation of powers.

Does answering questions about a hypothetical situation somehow bind a justice to resolve a case with different particulars in a certain way?  If speculating about hypothetical situations might prejudice justices then wouldn't they have to avoid even thinking about hypothetical situations?  Do we think that justices actually police their own thoughts in that way?

It prejudices the justice and short-circuits the process. I encourage you to read that quote from Justice Ginsburg in context (p. 52 of https://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/ginsburg/hearing.pdf). Very wise woman and much more articulate that I'll ever be. If that doesn't convince you of folly of nominees responding to hypotheticals then I'm afraid there's nothing more to discuss and we'll have to agree to disagree.

If we want to know how Kavanaugh interprets law then the most accurate representation is his judicial record, which is extensive. These are real cases, within specific parameters, and it gives be best insight into how he would serve as a Supreme Court Justice. I have no doubt that zealous partisans on the Left are deeply offended by his record, which is really what's going on here, as he would certainly tilt the court further to the Right. And fine, it's your right to argue and protest and do what you can to stop his nomination. But know also that people are watching your behavior. From my perspective as a centrist (for reference, I also supported Sotomayor and Kagan) I think the behavior from the opposition is a bit of a temper tantrum and not a good look.

While I respect Justice Ginsberg greatly, I don't understand how answering questions at a hearing prevents a justice from deciding a case impartially or acting independently in the future.  And I'm starting to feel like a party's base is generally more important that independents/centrists (from a winning elections perspective).  Turnout seems to be key, so I think fighting hard for things that the base cares about is probably more important than being "civil" to appeal to centrists most of the time.

It appears we're at an impasse as I don't know what else I can add. If the Dems want to pander to their base then that's their choice. Should be easy pickings on the East/West Coast for sure, certainly like shooting fish in a barrel here in California, but I have doubts about such a strategy in the rest of the country. I suppose time will tell.

Or maybe they really just don't want Kavanaugh on the court for the next 30 years.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on September 07, 2018, 11:39:03 AM
Quote
Kavanaugh is his own person with a long and respected career in law.  He's not a Trump lacky.

This is like the 2016 speculation that Trump would become more presidential and respectful if he got the nomination.  Why would you possibly think his future would be any different from his past?  Kavanaugh has made a career out of openly subverting the law to advance conservative causes.  He twists and warps it to advance his own political agenda.  He literally worked for Ken Starr on indicting Blill Clinton as part of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, arguably the genesis of our current hyperpartisan no-holds-barred culture war political warfare. 

Kavanaugh hates liberalism.  He hates the social progress America has enjoyed since the 1950s, and has spent a career finding ways to revert us back to the Eisenhower administration.  He would continue to do so as a supreme court justice, undermining everything that makes America great.  How's that speculation for you?

Kavanaugh's behavior as a judge, or even personal life, is in no way similar to that of Trump. Every judge brings their own biases with them, and yes it's clear that he is biased Right. I don't disagree with you on that, but let that be your argument instead of demanding that he answer questions that have been, for good reasons, considered out-of-bounds for the better part of 30 years. And try as you may to equate Kavanaugh with Trump...it's not working, at least not for me.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 07, 2018, 12:38:51 PM
Just to clarify, the reason that I oppose Brett Kavahaugh's nomination is because I don't think he believes in/accepts the idea of substantive due process.  Which basically means that he believes the government can restrict our liberty without having gone through due process first.  I actually wish democrats would ask more about this instead of about abortion, since it's the principle that forms the foundation of the abortion and gay marriage protections, but I get why they don't.  I just recently had to look it up and found this great article that explains it really well...

The Original Understanding of Substantive Due Process (https://www.lawliberty.org/2016/10/25/the-original-understanding-of-substantive-due-process/)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 07, 2018, 01:49:18 PM
Until yesterday/today, my objections to Kavanaugh had to do with the person who nominated him, and the circumstances of these hearings. Not Kavanaugh himself. The GOP releasing only about 10% of the documents to the committee, AND the fact that they released them so soon before the beginning of the hearing that no one could possibly have read them, is absolutely outrageous and ABSOLUTELY should have resulted in postponing the hearings until the rest of the documentation was released and could be read.

The fact of the criminal investigations around the President should at least halt these proceedings until the legitimacy of his election could be confirmed.

And then, of course, there is the hypocrisy of the GOP not allowing the hearing of Merrick Garland.

Until today, even though I strongly dislike Kavanaugh's politics and even suspect he has views that I would interpret as unconstitutional, I didn't have enough of an objection of him as a judge to say he wasn't qualified.

However: now he has lied under oath. Multiple times.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

He should not be confirmed.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 07, 2018, 01:55:53 PM
This was a pretty interesting comment:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/i-knew-brett-kavanaugh-during-his-years-republican-operative-don-ncna907391
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 07, 2018, 03:12:17 PM
Kavanaugh seems to me to be both personally ambitious and a fanatic, and even his best efforts aren't able to hide that he has and is lying in pursuit of his ambition and his fanaticism.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: jrhampt on September 17, 2018, 07:36:22 AM
Full story in the post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html

Seems credible enough to warrant investigation at least.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sequoia on September 17, 2018, 08:30:03 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/20/politics/kavanaugh-lewinsky-email/index.html

Very interesting what he wrote in the past...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 17, 2018, 08:40:08 AM
But it's totally OK for Kavanaguh to commit perjury...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 17, 2018, 08:59:06 AM
Until this week my views of Kavanaugh mirrored @Kris - it seemed deeply unfair that Garland's nomination wouldn't even be considered, and that he was a judge hand-picked to appeal to social conservatives and not as some middle-ground or right-of-center pick.  But none of these were against Kavanaugh himself or his qualifications/experience.

Now I have much more serious misgivings.  During his hearings he played the now-typical dodge and refuse game, hiding behind republican skirts and defaulting to the line "it would be inappropriate to say how I'd rule in a hypothetical'...  but Kavanaugh missed some easy opportunities to appear impartial.  He could have said "of course I will recuse myself from any future cases involving Trump - the man who nominated me - and charges which might come from the investigation" - but he didn't.  He could have authorized the release of and dissemination of his documents from working with the White House - but he didn't. He skipped every question about his views about executive power and its limits, including the very straightforward question "does the president have the power to pardon himself?" This is neither an obscure nor, given Trump's texts and his lawyer's statements, a parlor-hypothetical.
These would not have been hard things to do, nor controversal questions for any federal judge to give an opinion on, save when they are in front of Congress for some reason.

Now there's a very public accusation about a very serious charge.  If true, behaviour like this is rarely (if ever) a one-off, and there could very well be others  to terrified to come forward.   Of course the only logical thing to do is investigate this as far as possible, includiong putting Kavanaugh back under oath and asking him very direct questions about it.

... but he's already lost me. I never supported him based on his conservative stances, but now I oppose him because he was willing to lie and unwilling to declare his impartiality in concrete terms to all while under oath.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 17, 2018, 09:21:32 AM
I oppose him because he was willing to lie and unwilling to declare his impartiality in concrete terms to all while under oath.

This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone.  Kavanaugh's personal history is well known.  He has never made any pretext of being impartial.  At least he didn't try to fake it during his confirmation hearings.

His nomination is a giant middle finger to middle America.  He should have borrowed Melania's "I really don't care" jacket for his congressional appearances.  He knows that as long as republican control all of congress and continue to kowtow to Trump, he can stand up there and say "I hate feminazi libtards, and I would burn the Constitution if it helped the republican party" and he'll still get to be a supreme court justice.  This system is broken.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OurTown on September 17, 2018, 09:23:49 AM
I would like to reaffirm my "nay."  I get that it was way back in high school and they were just a couple of drunk ass bros, but attempted rape demonstrates a real character flaw in my book.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 17, 2018, 10:09:45 AM
I would like to reaffirm my "nay."  I get that it was way back in high school and they were just a couple of drunk ass bros, but attempted rape demonstrates a real character flaw in my book.
Yeah. The account is pretty damning, and apparently something she has a history of discussing with people like mental health professionals long before he was nominated. The story seems pretty credible. I said nay initially on politics, but this should make it bipartisan. There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 17, 2018, 10:30:15 AM
I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 17, 2018, 10:53:40 AM
There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

There are also plenty of conservative SCOTUS justices who are.  Have you noticed that Anita Hill is back in the news?

I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

As grotesque as it may be, it's probably important to distinguish between rapists and sexual harassers.  Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are apparently the latter.  This female professor is not saying that Brett forcibly inserted his penis into her body, she's saying that he forcibly held her down and talked about forcibly inserting his penis into her body.  To a social conservative Trump supporter, who typically believes women have fewer rights than men anyway, this looks like casing a bank before robbing it, and is only sort of a crime. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 17, 2018, 10:56:39 AM
There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

There are also plenty of conservative SCOTUS justices who are.  Have you noticed that Anita Hill is back in the news?

I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

As grotesque as it may be, it's probably important to distinguish between rapists and sexual harassers assaulters.  Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are apparently the latter.  This female professor is not saying that Brett forcibly inserted his penis into her body, she's saying that he forcibly held her down and talked about forcibly inserting his penis into her body.  To a social conservative Trump supporter, who typically believes women have fewer rights than men anyway, this looks like casing a bank before robbing it, and is only sort of a crime.

FTFY. But in the substance of what you're saying, I agree.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 17, 2018, 11:00:59 AM
I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

Also, don't forget the ones who say she was to blame for having been drinking at a party.

Kavanaugh aside, remembering how these types of allegations have been treated in the past (Anita Hill, most pertinently), I am at least somewhat comforted in seeing the difference in the general response now. I think there are still a lot of assholes out there who are victim blaming or not treating rape as the serious thing that it is, but the needle has shifted in the right direction.

My main fear at this point is that Trump will attempt a recess appointment.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 17, 2018, 11:10:43 AM
There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

There are also plenty of conservative SCOTUS justices who are.  Have you noticed that Anita Hill is back in the news?

I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

As grotesque as it may be, it's probably important to distinguish between rapists and sexual harassers.  Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are apparently the latter.  This female professor is not saying that Brett forcibly inserted his penis into her body, she's saying that he forcibly held her down and talked about forcibly inserting his penis into her body.  To a social conservative Trump supporter, who typically believes women have fewer rights than men anyway, this looks like casing a bank before robbing it, and is only sort of a crime.

She was able to fight off a rape.  How long is a woman supposed to wait to fight back and get out of the situation? 
Forcibly holding someone down is not sexual harrassment.



But for the person who called it sexual assualt- OK; but again, should women let themselves be raped so that the proper charge applies?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 17, 2018, 11:22:30 AM

But for the person who called it sexual assualt- OK; but again, should women let themselves be raped so that the proper charge applies?

The charge would be 'attempted rape' along with  'assault' (quite possibly 'aggravated assault').  It's an interesting quirk of our judicial system that in many states 'attempted' is punished less severely as if the crime were carried to completion. It's not right, but it's the way it is.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 17, 2018, 11:22:59 AM
There are plenty of conservative candidates for SCOTUS out there that are not rapists.

There are also plenty of conservative SCOTUS justices who are.  Have you noticed that Anita Hill is back in the news?

I've heard a number of people dismiss it because "he didn't successfully rape her".

WTF???

As grotesque as it may be, it's probably important to distinguish between rapists and sexual harassers.  Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh are apparently the latter.  This female professor is not saying that Brett forcibly inserted his penis into her body, she's saying that he forcibly held her down and talked about forcibly inserting his penis into her body.  To a social conservative Trump supporter, who typically believes women have fewer rights than men anyway, this looks like casing a bank before robbing it, and is only sort of a crime.

She was able to fight off a rape.  How long is a woman supposed to wait to fight back and get out of the situation? 
Forcibly holding someone down is not sexual harrassment.



But for the person who called it sexual assualt- OK; but again, should women let themselves be raped so that the proper charge applies?

Obviously not. Sexual assault/attempted rape should be enough. But Sol's point, minus the inaccurate terminology, was that conservatives don't really care. Because they are willing to justify anything at this point to get their guy in at the Supreme Court.

That they could still consider Kavanaugh "their guy" after all of this is another discussion entirely.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 17, 2018, 11:31:34 AM
But Sol's point, minus the inaccurate terminology, was that conservatives don't really care. Because they are willing to justify anything at this point to get their guy in at the Supreme Court.

Right.  A history of sexual assault is irrelevant.  Blatant racism is irrelevant.  If he had cheated on all of his wives, no problem.  Made fun of disabled people or the parents of dead soldiers?  Totally fine.  Colluding with Russia is also A-okay.  It honestly doesn't matter what Kavanaugh's history or qualifications are, as long as republicans control Congress they could appoint Steven Bannon to the seat, or abolish the seat and just have eight justices, or rig the voting machines in nine states with the help of Russian hackers.  They could start shooting illegal immigrants on sight, and hang a swastika flag over the White House.  Again, what are you going to do about it?

None of it matters as long as they control every branch of government because there is no avenue for opposition, except the midterm elections.  Until then, all bets are off.  They can do any damn thing they please, and what Kavanaugh says or doesn't say at a confirmation hearing is just irrelevant side show.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: wenchsenior on September 17, 2018, 11:37:40 AM
I suspect the sexual assault accusation and the lying won't matter at all, and he'll be confirmed.  Forget how fast this would overturn a nomination by a Dem president, I suspect these issues would also derail a GOP nominee IF they were female. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 17, 2018, 11:39:13 AM

None of it matters as long as they control every branch of government because there is no avenue for opposition, except the midterm elections.  Until then, all bets are off.  They can do any damn thing they please, and what Kavanaugh says or doesn't say at a confirmation hearing is just irrelevant side show.

Truth
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 17, 2018, 11:46:11 AM
Yes I agree, I think this latest accusation will not make a whit of difference. Unlike the case with Roy Moore where there was a court of public opinion and people did have the freedom to vote their conscience, the senators involved are as much bought and sold.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 17, 2018, 12:34:27 PM
Senator Collins may be looking for a reason to say "nay." She's asked for testimony from Ford.

I'm sure the GOP is already looking into Ford's past. There will inevitably be something along the lines of, "Ford had sex with 2 different guys in one week!"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 17, 2018, 12:36:36 PM
Yes I agree, I think this latest accusation will not make a whit of difference. Unlike the case with Roy Moore where there was a court of public opinion and people did have the freedom to vote their conscience, the senators involved are as much bought and sold.

You think the court of public opinion cares about this?  Remember that Trump won the election immediately after "grab 'em by the pussy" went public.  They voted for him anyway.

Kavanaugh is at least denying the allegations, for now, just like Trump denied everything too until the videotape surfaced (and continues to deny all of his affaris, btw).  I don't think it would matter if this lady literally had a recording of the assault in progress.  It didn't matter last time, why should this be different?

CNN is breathlessly reporting that Kavanaugh nomination "hangs in the balance" but I think they're dreaming.  He's virtually guaranteed a confirmation, just like Clarence Thomas was after a similar history was revealed.  Conservative voters just love a man who knows how to put a woman in her place, which in this case means being elevated to the scotus and getting her to shut the hell up about the time he committed sexual assault.

edit:  this is a numbers game for Mitch, purely for partisan reasons, so I think he will force the confirmation vote either way.  He used his senate majority to refuse the Merrick Garland nomination, and he's not about to waste his senate majority by pausing Kavanaugh's confirmation until after the midterms, when his majority is potentially more vulnerable than it is now.  No, I think Mitch will damn the torpedoes and ram this through in the next few days.  This isn't about justice, or about the Constitution, it's just about getting the most partisan judge they could find into a lifetime appointment.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 17, 2018, 12:46:16 PM

CNN is breathlessly reporting that Kavanaugh nomination "hangs in the balance" but I think they're dreaming.  He's virtually guaranteed a confirmation, just like Clarence Thomas was after a similar history was revealed.  Conservative voters just love a man who knows how to put a woman in her place, which in this case means being elevated to the scotus and getting her to shut the hell up about the time he committed sexual assault.

There have been a few articles that pointed out men lost their senate seats after the Anita Hill stuff though....  It's insanity how few women were in the senate before the Thomas confirmation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 17, 2018, 04:27:34 PM
So many important Senate races, Florida, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, North Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana - a small chance Democrats can take it, but probably too late before Kavanaugh would get confirmed.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 18, 2018, 01:31:54 PM
Well.

Now, it seems the Kavanaugh camp is starting to realize they aren't gonna be able to successfully convince people it never happened.

So, their solution? Spin it, of course.

https://www.newsandguts.com/link/tpm-kavanaugh-team-now-calls-rough-horse-play/

They're calling it "rough horse play."

HORSE PLAY.

HORSE PLAY.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OurTown on September 18, 2018, 01:45:13 PM
Well.

Now, it seems the Kavanaugh camp is starting to realize they aren't gonna be able to successfully convince people it never happened.

So, their solution? Spin it, of course.

https://www.newsandguts.com/link/tpm-kavanaugh-team-now-calls-rough-horse-play/

They're calling it "rough horse play."

HORSE PLAY.

HORSE PLAY.

I thought he wasn't at the party?  How can it be rough horse play if he wasn't even there?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 18, 2018, 01:49:51 PM
Well.

Now, it seems the Kavanaugh camp is starting to realize they aren't gonna be able to successfully convince people it never happened.

So, their solution? Spin it, of course.

https://www.newsandguts.com/link/tpm-kavanaugh-team-now-calls-rough-horse-play/

They're calling it "rough horse play."

HORSE PLAY.

HORSE PLAY.

I thought he wasn't at the party?  How can it be rough horse play if he wasn't even there?

Ha. Yeah. I'm thinking they've decided that "not even there" thing isn't gonna fly. So it looks like they're changing gears.

"He wasn't even there!"
"Okay, he was there, but he didn't do it!"
"Okay, but it wasn't like she says! It was only rough horse play!"

Next up:
"But he was drunk! So even if he did it, he doesn't remember it! Which is basically the same as him not even doing it, right? RIGHT?"
(Also, she was drunk so it was kind of her fault, right? RIGHT?)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FIRE@50 on September 18, 2018, 01:50:57 PM
60 million Americans voted for a guy that said openly admitting to sexual assault was just locker room talk. I'm struggling to see how this is any different.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 18, 2018, 01:57:39 PM
I thought he wasn't at the party?  How can it be rough horse play if he wasn't even there?

The same way Donald Trump has never met Stormy Daniels.  Well, met her but didn't have an affair.  Well, had an affair but didn't pay her hush money.  Well, paid her hush money but it wasn't illegal.  Well, it was illegal but I didn't know about it.  Well, I knew about it but I didn't orchestrate.  Oh there's an audio recording of me orchestrating an illegal hush money payment to the woman I had an affair with?  Well, the public doesn't really care so look at me getting off scot-free!

I expect the Kavanaugh nomination to go the exact same way.  The Trump base can't be convinced to care.  A sexual harasser and admitted groper nominates a sexual abuser to the Supreme Court so that he can overturn Roe v. Wade?  Eleven white male republican senators on the judiciary committee excoriating the assault victim on national television?  What could possibly go wrong for them in this scenario?

We're about to find out if #metoo and #timesup have changed a damn thing, or if this sort of thing is still a totally normal part of the exercise of white male power in America today.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 18, 2018, 02:04:51 PM
Well.

Now, it seems the Kavanaugh camp is starting to realize they aren't gonna be able to successfully convince people it never happened.

So, their solution? Spin it, of course.

https://www.newsandguts.com/link/tpm-kavanaugh-team-now-calls-rough-horse-play/

They're calling it "rough horse play."

HORSE PLAY.

HORSE PLAY.

I thought he wasn't at the party?  How can it be rough horse play if he wasn't even there?

Ha. Yeah. I'm thinking they've decided that "not even there" thing isn't gonna fly. So it looks like they're changing gears.

"He wasn't even there!"
"Okay, he was there, but he didn't do it!"
"Okay, but it wasn't like she says! It was only rough horse play!"

Next up:
"But he was drunk! So even if he did it, he doesn't remember it! Which is basically the same as him not even doing it, right? RIGHT?"
(Also, she was drunk so it was kind of her fault, right? RIGHT?)

This progression has become all too familiar. While I sincerely try to understand the mindset of Trump (and friends) apologists, I may never understand how someone can look at this kind of progression and say, "ya, that seems legit. I believe him now that we're at stage 4 of the denial."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 18, 2018, 03:11:40 PM
It reminds me of things my 5 year old (many years ago) would successively say after cookies are missing. With crumbs on her mouth. Plausible deniability only goes so far.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 18, 2018, 03:24:26 PM
So, according to the accusation, there were three people in the room. The second male was a friend of Kavanaugh's by the name of Mark Judge. Mark has so far refused to testify and claims that he didn't recall this happening. However, while he may not show unless actively subpoenaed, he did write a book about his partying life at Georgetown Prep. That book is called "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk". (https://www.amazon.com/Wasted-Tales-Mark-Gauvreau-Judge/dp/1568381425)

More on that here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school/index.html

Of you want more of Judge's misogyny, you can find that in this wonderful (/s) op-ed he wrote for the Daily Caller:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/barack-obama-the-first-female-president/

And going back closer in time to the accusation, Judge's yearbook page has the following quote:
Quote
"Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs,"

So, given the context of the allegations, this is probably not exactly who Kavanaugh wants as a character witness. From what I have seen, Judge's writings are entirely consistent with someone who is more likely than most to have conducted sexual assault. No wonder he doesn't want to testify about this under oath in front of the entire nation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 18, 2018, 04:04:30 PM
I have no reason to believe either Kavanagh or Judge would not like under oath.  Kavanagh has already been shown to have done so.

Our judicial system relies on people telling the truth, and many people are unwilling to do that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 18, 2018, 04:53:29 PM
I have no reason to believe either Kavanagh or Judge would not like under oath.  Kavanagh has already been shown to have done so.

Our judicial system relies on people telling the truth, and many people are unwilling to do that.

Agreed, and appears to have already been the case given the story changes mentioned above. That said, I think Judge's written record would make for a very uncomfortable questioning. His defense would likely be that it was juvenile locker talk, and not to be taken seriously. I expect that McConnell is putting a lot of pressure on Collins and Murkowski right now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 18, 2018, 05:30:58 PM
So, Trump is refusing to let the FBI investigate this. The Dems don't have enough power to subpeoena the friend, Judge, who presumably was a witness. So all they are allowing is for her to show up and be questioned by an all male, hostile committee? Why in the world would she do that? I feel very bad for her. 

Trump apparently also feels bad

Trump did not mention Ford's name but said he felt "terribly" for Kavanaugh, his wife "and for his beautiful young daughters."
"I feel so badly for him that he's going through this, to be honest with you, I feel so badly for him," said Trump, who has himself faced numerous accusations of sexual harassment that he's denied. "This is not a man that deserves this."

What a -weird thing to say. Either he did it, and regardless if he is a white successful lawyer or whatever he DID deserve to be accused and have the truth come out. Or if he didn't do it, doesn't matter if he is a successful lawyer or chimney sweep or even a criminal he DIDN'T deserve it. Or is Trump suggesting there should be different laws or implementation depending on who you are? Does Trump feel some are above the law? Because of their "beautiful young daughters?"  BAARF

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 18, 2018, 06:42:20 PM
I have no reason to believe either Kavanagh or Judge would not like under oath.  Kavanagh has already been shown to have done so.

Our judicial system relies on people telling the truth, and many people are unwilling to do that.

This is where having the FBI investigate would be so useful. What the FBI does - very well - is corroborate personal accounts, determine plausible timelines and vet statements.  They do this by interviewing everyone from every angle and compiling documents.

It makes lying under oath exceptionally risky. That leaves the ‘safest’ option a series of “I can’t recall”, which isn’t exactly a great testimony to have against someone who’s giving a very detailed, graphic and damning account. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 18, 2018, 06:48:53 PM
538 (well their podcast) predicts the nomination will be withdrawn.

Should be get a betting pool going for replacements?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 18, 2018, 07:20:53 PM
538 (well their podcast) predicts the nomination will be withdrawn.

Should be get a betting pool going for replacements?

If they do replace him, you’ll see the GOP try to rush the next nominee through at a speed not seen in a century. 

ETA: the irony is they have tons of time now to properly evaluate things.  If Kavanaugh really is their guy, no vote needs happen for several weeks.  Are they really sure they want to rush this through and risk more victims or a witness or something completely unknown as of now coming out?  What’s their defense going to be then (other than “we wanted to make sure we couldn’t find out!)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 18, 2018, 07:27:14 PM
538 (well their podcast) predicts the nomination will be withdrawn.

Should be get a betting pool going for replacements?

If they do replace him, you’ll see the GOP try to rush the next nominee through at a speed not seen in a century. 

ETA: the irony is they have tons of time now to properly evaluate things.  If Kavanaugh really is their guy, no vote needs happen for several weeks.  Are they really sure they want to rush this through and risk more victims or a witness or something completely unknown as of now coming out?  What’s their defense going to be then (other than “we wanted to make sure we couldn’t find out!)
Well, if the nomination is yanked, it will be this week. After which they just need to get the new guy confirmed before the new Congress shows up in January. No need to rush that much.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 18, 2018, 07:36:38 PM
It looks like you are right, Paul.  Most recent justices have taken 2-3 months from nomination to confirmation, with a few taking just a few weeks (Roberts and Stevens)

...I guess it just *feels* like forever, given the media saturation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 18, 2018, 07:40:42 PM
I'll out myself as one who voted "Yay." Not because I think he's great or because I agree with all his positions (I don't), but because I think he's well qualified and has the legal experience and expertise to do the job. Given the instability and chaotic nature of the current POTUS I think Kavanaugh is a surprisingly decent pick, likely due to decades of behind the scenes work by the Federalist Society. The fact that an extremely motivated opponent can only come up with nitpickery such as a sporting event debt from years ago (meh, I forget the details) or that he didn't shake someone's hand, is a pretty good indicator that he's thoroughly vetted and not some crazy person. And believe you me, I think Trump probably could have nominated some pretty wackadoodle candidates.

Do you still feel this way?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 18, 2018, 07:42:25 PM
60 million Americans voted for a guy that said openly admitting to sexual assault was just locker room talk. I'm struggling to see how this is any different.

Harvey Weinstein
Bill Cosby
Kevin Spacey

It's different now. But is it different enough?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 18, 2018, 07:43:44 PM
I thought he wasn't at the party?  How can it be rough horse play if he wasn't even there?

The same way Donald Trump has never met Stormy Daniels.  Well, met her but didn't have an affair.  Well, had an affair but didn't pay her hush money.  Well, paid her hush money but it wasn't illegal.  Well, it was illegal but I didn't know about it.  Well, I knew about it but I didn't orchestrate.  Oh there's an audio recording of me orchestrating an illegal hush money payment to the woman I had an affair with?  Well, the public doesn't really care so look at me getting off scot-free!

I expect the Kavanaugh nomination to go the exact same way. The Trump base can't be convinced to care.... 

The Trump base is small and, I hear, shaped like a mushroom.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 19, 2018, 07:11:15 AM
I keep hearing mushroom jokes. Is there something I missed?


I thought this was a good article about false rape accusations

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 19, 2018, 07:19:01 AM
I keep hearing mushroom jokes. Is there something I missed?


I thought this was a good article about false rape accusations

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/18/17874168/toad-stormy-daniels-trump-mario-kart (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/18/17874168/toad-stormy-daniels-trump-mario-kart)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 19, 2018, 07:25:11 AM
Oh ye dogs.

I thought it would be an updating of the old mushroom joke: Trump supporters are being kept in the dark and having shit shovelled on them.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 19, 2018, 08:07:56 AM
I keep hearing mushroom jokes. Is there something I missed?


I thought this was a good article about false rape accusations

https://qz.com/980766/the-truth-about-false-rape-accusations/

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/18/17874168/toad-stormy-daniels-trump-mario-kart (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/18/17874168/toad-stormy-daniels-trump-mario-kart)

Like many, did not want that image in my mind.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on September 19, 2018, 08:11:25 AM
So, according to the accusation, there were three people in the room. The second male was a friend of Kavanaugh's by the name of Mark Judge. Mark has so far refused to testify and claims that he didn't recall this happening. However, while he may not show unless actively subpoenaed, he did write a book about his partying life at Georgetown Prep. That book is called "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk". (https://www.amazon.com/Wasted-Tales-Mark-Gauvreau-Judge/dp/1568381425)

More on that here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school/index.html

Of you want more of Judge's misogyny, you can find that in this wonderful (/s) op-ed he wrote for the Daily Caller:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/20/barack-obama-the-first-female-president/

And going back closer in time to the accusation, Judge's yearbook page has the following quote:
Quote
"Certain women should be struck regularly, like gongs,"

So, given the context of the allegations, this is probably not exactly who Kavanaugh wants as a character witness. From what I have seen, Judge's writings are entirely consistent with someone who is more likely than most to have conducted sexual assault. No wonder he doesn't want to testify about this under oath in front of the entire nation.
It's not like Judge's book references Kavanaugh.  Well, I mean there is a bit about "Bart O'Kavanaugh" passing out drunk and puking in a friend's car, but not Brett Kavanaugh...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 19, 2018, 08:12:18 AM
Toad was always my favorite player. 
Dammit - yet another thing ruined from my childhood.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 19, 2018, 08:31:50 AM
Toad was always my favorite player. 
Dammit - yet another thing ruined from my childhood.

I for one refuse to let the president ruin yet another aspect of my life and am going to continue driving Donald Trump's penis around in Mario Kart as I did before.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 19, 2018, 08:38:32 AM
I for one refuse to let the president ruin yet another aspect of my life and am going to continue driving Donald Trump's penis around in Mario Kart as I did before.

"Another"?  This might be the first thing Donald Trump has done that has obviously and directly affected my personal quality of life.  I'm not an immigrant, or a woman, or lbgtq, or military, or a minority, or disabled, or a rival celebrity, or a member of his administration.  Trump surely has a lot of negativity to dish out, but he has studiously avoided sending any my way.

Until the Toad penis thing.  Suddenly this administration is hitting me right in the feelz.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 19, 2018, 08:41:45 AM
I for one refuse to let the president ruin yet another aspect of my life and am going to continue driving Donald Trump's penis around in Mario Kart as I did before.

"Another"?  This might be the first thing Donald Trump has done that has obviously and directly affected my personal quality of life.  I'm not an immigrant, or a woman, or lbgtq, or military, or a minority, or disabled, or a rival celebrity, or a member of his administration.  Trump surely has a lot of negativity to dish out, but he has studiously avoided sending any my way.

Until the Toad penis thing.  Suddenly this administration is hitting me right in the feelz mushroom.

:P
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 19, 2018, 08:46:22 AM
Toad was always my favorite player. 
Dammit - yet another thing ruined from my childhood.

I for one refuse to let the president ruin yet another aspect of my life and am going to continue driving Donald Trump's penis around in Mario Kart as I did before.

How long will it take before some programmer makes a skin for Mario Cart replacing Toad with ....  nevermind.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 19, 2018, 08:50:49 AM
Toad was always my favorite player. 
Dammit - yet another thing ruined from my childhood.

I for one refuse to let the president ruin yet another aspect of my life and am going to continue driving Donald Trump's penis around in Mario Kart as I did before.

How long will it take before some programmer makes a skin for Mario Cart replacing Toad with ....  nevermind.

The President's health status is . . . unclear.  He also has a long history of risky sexual dalliances with other partners.  The current depiction of toad could well be an accurate representation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 19, 2018, 08:57:36 AM
I for one refuse to let the president ruin yet another aspect of my life and am going to continue driving Donald Trump's penis around in Mario Kart as I did before.

"Another"?  This might be the first thing Donald Trump has done that has obviously and directly affected my personal quality of life.  I'm not an immigrant, or a woman, or lbgtq, or military, or a minority, or disabled, or a rival celebrity, or a member of his administration.  Trump surely has a lot of negativity to dish out, but he has studiously avoided sending any my way.

Until the Toad penis thing.  Suddenly this administration is hitting me right in the feelz.

Well, I'm glad you too can suddenly see how so many of the rest of us are feeling because the administration is affecting us personally.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 19, 2018, 10:04:41 AM
I'm implementing a filter in deciding about all these issues: if I didn't know Trump's position on the matter, what would I think? I don't like having conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and I don't like having attempted rapists on the Supreme Court. So I would like to know the truth about these Ford allegations, but I think the process is in place to get to that truth.

Assuming McConnel lets that process play out. My guess is he'd like to have a vote on Kavanaugh before the mid-terms so that he can get the Red State Democrats on the record as a "yay" or "nay". Unfortunately for him, these allegations give the Red State democrats cover for voting "Nay". While the sensation around Trump grabs headlines, I think historians will come to realize that Mitch McConnel was the most important person in this period of history (this is not a compliment), much in the way Newt Gingrich defined the late 1990's. He has an excellent chance of maintaining his majority in the Senate for another two years.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 19, 2018, 10:10:58 AM
One more note: the Kavanaugh allegations seem much less severe than the Clarence Thomas allegations did. And McConnel is more pressured by the timing with regard to midterms. But I do not know how to weigh the extent to which society has changed wrt to the #metoo movement.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 19, 2018, 10:22:45 AM
Nominate Jeff Sessions to SCOTUS, make Kavanaugh Attorney General, and you solve two problems at once!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 19, 2018, 11:09:06 AM
I'm implementing a filter in deciding about all these issues: if I didn't know Trump's position on the matter, what would I think? I don't like having conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and I don't like having attempted rapists on the Supreme Court. So I would like to know the truth about these Ford allegations, but I think the process is in place to get to that truth.

Assuming McConnel lets that process play out. My guess is he'd like to have a vote on Kavanaugh before the mid-terms so that he can get the Red State Democrats on the record as a "yay" or "nay". Unfortunately for him, these allegations give the Red State democrats cover for voting "Nay". While the sensation around Trump grabs headlines, I think historians will come to realize that Mitch McConnel was the most important person in this period of history (this is not a compliment), much in the way Newt Gingrich defined the late 1990's. He has an excellent chance of maintaining his majority in the Senate for another two years.
One more note: the Kavanaugh allegations seem much less severe than the Clarence Thomas allegations did. And McConnel is more pressured by the timing with regard to midterms. But I do not know how to weigh the extent to which society has changed wrt to the #metoo movement.

Curious - why do you think that these allegations are much less severe (emphasis yours) than those against Clarence Thomas?  Seems to me Kavanaugh is accused of both assault and attempted rape of a minor, and (depending on your read) with an accomplice (she allegedly escaped when Judge tumbled onto bed with Kavanaugh).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 19, 2018, 11:37:37 AM
The Thomas/hill allegations were much more recent, involved actions by an adult, and established a pattern of behavior that was more compelling than the pattern of Kavanaugh's behavior. I do think you raise important points, and I realize that an expert in the law may find your objections more compelling.

I don't think anyone seriously expects the allegations by Dr. Ford to lead to a criminal conviction.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 19, 2018, 11:44:16 AM
I don't think anyone seriously expects the allegations by Dr. Ford to lead to a criminal conviction.

Isn't that part of the problem, though?  That white male privilege is so fully entrenched in our society that sexual assault of a minor not only goes totally unpunished, it doesn't even preclude the perpetrator from holding the position of highest moral authority in the US government?

Kavanaugh's behavior all of those years ago, which absolutely was criminal, are part of a lifelong pattern of subjugating women's rights and women't autonomy.  He has no place in modern society, much less in government, much less on the Supreme Court.  He is the modern equivalent to appointing Rick Perry and Scott Pruitt to lead the agencies they have spent a lifetime trying to destroy.  Only in this case it's not some basic government function they want to subvert, it's morality itself.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 19, 2018, 11:46:30 AM
Both Thomas and Kavanaugh behaved in ways that show them thinking that women's minds and bodies are at their disposal for sexual gratification.  Both Thomas and Kavanaugh will make judgements binding on women that restrict women's autonomy over their own bodies.

The law is a refuge for the weak against the powerful.  The Supreme Court is the last resort for protection for 160 million women.  If Kavanaugh is confirmed as a justice then two out of nine members of that Court will be men who have been credibly accused of violating the rights of women in their personal capacities and are on record as wanting to violate the rights of women in their professional capacities.

It's a complete and utter fucking disgrace.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 19, 2018, 12:17:00 PM


You are completely unhinged on this and completely ahistorical. 

the implications for this question could include Kavanaugh having to recuse himself with any cases that would come before the Supreme Court regarding the Mueller investigation.

I wouldn't count on it.  Recusal is only enforced as a matter of personal integrity, and Kavanaugh has never let integrity get in the way of advancing the conservative agenda.  I'm betting he would refuse to recuse, then rule in Trump's favor, despite of his prior work for the Trump campaign.
  Kavanaugh has been on the D.C. Circuit court for over a decade.  He didn't do any work for the Trump campaign. 


I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though

These things aren't even in the same universe.  Conservatives made a huge fuss about Elena Kagan's refusal to recuse herself from the Obamacare case, and that was only because other people at her law firm had worked on it.  She wasn't even involved, and they still threw a fit over it because they thought she might have been influenced by the political views of her former partners.
  Elena Kagan was solicitor general when Obamacare was passed.  It wasn't that she was a member of a law firm that did work.  She oversaw the attorneys doing the work, and was to be brought in as needed. 


That is a far cry from Kavanaugh's situation, where he has personally and openly advocated subverting the law to advance conservative causes.
Yea...No.  You're reading some conspiracy stuff somewhere I guess.  I do wish Kavanaugh hadn't been involved with Kenneth Starr's investigation, but his career is not atypical for a circuit court judge or supreme court justice.   

  He is a partisan appointee in the way that no democratic appointee has ever been.
  Again, no.  He looks basically like Roberts.  An incrementalist with an originalist bent.  He certainly could change once he's on the supreme court, but I doubt he's some manchurian candidate that is going to turn into a rabid activist once he's sworn in.  If anything, he'll be partisan in the way Kagan is partisan.  Mostly able to apply the law but biased in close calls or on subjects that are particularly important to his personal political beliefs.   
 

But none of that matters.  As I've previously pointed out, Republicans could appoint a dancing monkey to the supreme court and then laugh in your face about it.  They don't care about what's "right" and they definitely don't care about what the people want.  Remember when their tax plan had a 34% approval rating and they passed it anyway because their big-money corporate donors wanted it?  Remember their ~40 votes to "repeal and replace" the ACA?  Remember Republicans getting a minority of the national popular vote and yet still commandeering every branch of government?

The entire Republican party stands for one thing these days, and that's using procedural technicalities to enforce the will of a wealthy elite minority on the entirety of America.  They are good at it!  They don't need or want your support, they already have all the power and they plan to keep it that way.  Confirming a partisan tool like Kavanaugh is just the latest example of the party subverting American democracy, of using power to retain power.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 19, 2018, 12:43:03 PM
Isn't that part of the problem, though?  That white male privilege is so fully entrenched in our society that sexual assault of a minor not only goes totally unpunished, it doesn't even preclude the perpetrator from holding the position of highest moral authority in the US government?
From a legal standpoint, it will go totally unpunished because the victim sat on this for over 3 decades. Barring the surfacing of some very strong evidence, the window to do anything about it has long closed. I find the victim's testimony to be quite credible, and it may very well have happened exactly as the victim says it did, but that's not enough to convict.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 19, 2018, 12:52:20 PM
Isn't that part of the problem, though?  That white male privilege is so fully entrenched in our society that sexual assault of a minor not only goes totally unpunished, it doesn't even preclude the perpetrator from holding the position of highest moral authority in the US government?
From a legal standpoint, it will go totally unpunished because the victim sat on this for over 3 decades. Barring the surfacing of some very strong evidence, the window to do anything about it has long closed. I find the victim's testimony to be quite credible, and it may very well have happened exactly as the victim says it did, but that's not enough to convict.


Whether or not it is enough to convict is irrelevant.  There is and will be no criminal investigation.  What there should be is an investigation into whether Kavanaugh is an appropriate person to sit on the Supreme Court.  He is credibly accused of attempted rape.  He is also credibly accused of perjury.  On both counts he is not an appropriate person to sit on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 19, 2018, 01:06:26 PM
Isn't that part of the problem, though?  That white male privilege is so fully entrenched in our society that sexual assault of a minor not only goes totally unpunished, it doesn't even preclude the perpetrator from holding the position of highest moral authority in the US government?
From a legal standpoint, it will go totally unpunished because the victim sat on this for over 3 decades. Barring the surfacing of some very strong evidence, the window to do anything about it has long closed. I find the victim's testimony to be quite credible, and it may very well have happened exactly as the victim says it did, but that's not enough to convict.


Whether or not it is enough to convict is irrelevant.  There is and will be no criminal investigation.  What there should be is an investigation into whether Kavanaugh is an appropriate person to sit on the Supreme Court.  He is credibly accused of attempted rape.  He is also credibly accused of perjury.  On both counts he is not an appropriate person to sit on the Supreme Court.
Isn't this exactly what the confirmation process is about? It looks like it will not be confirmed over this, so it looks like this is working as intended.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 19, 2018, 01:10:56 PM
Isn't that part of the problem, though?  That white male privilege is so fully entrenched in our society that sexual assault of a minor not only goes totally unpunished, it doesn't even preclude the perpetrator from holding the position of highest moral authority in the US government?
From a legal standpoint, it will go totally unpunished because the victim sat on this for over 3 decades. Barring the surfacing of some very strong evidence, the window to do anything about it has long closed. I find the victim's testimony to be quite credible, and it may very well have happened exactly as the victim says it did, but that's not enough to convict.


Whether or not it is enough to convict is irrelevant.  There is and will be no criminal investigation.  What there should be is an investigation into whether Kavanaugh is an appropriate person to sit on the Supreme Court.  He is credibly accused of attempted rape.  He is also credibly accused of perjury.  On both counts he is not an appropriate person to sit on the Supreme Court.
Isn't this exactly what the confirmation process is about? It looks like it will not be confirmed over this, so it looks like this is working as intended.

I'd like to think you are right that he won't be confirmed but I'm not confident.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: redbirdfan on September 19, 2018, 01:54:08 PM
I am a Republican.  I do not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed.  This isn't a matter of boys being boys.  Sexual harassment and sexual assault may have been common in school and the workplace up until recently, but I don't think it's too much to ask that the people appointed to the highest court in the land not have particularly hideous and credible allegations of violating the law in their respective past.  It's a job with 9 positions.  The Federalist Society literally has a list of potential justices at the ready and Kavanaugh was not on the initial list.

The larger issue is about the protecting the legitimacy of the Court.  We are about to enter an era in which the majority of the Republican side of the court was nominated by presidents who (initially) lost the popular vote.  We are already in an era in which Gorsuch's seat probably wouldn't have been available in normal times.  To add a justice nominated by a president who lost the popular vote AND who is under federal investigation when that justice has outlier views on executive power AND when there is a credible accusation of attempted rape against him AND he has provided perjury-adjacent testimony is just a bridge too far.  I don't understand how you can deny being at a party when you have no idea when or where the party was.  That is suspicious unless Kavanaugh NEVER attended a high school party at which he consumed alcohol.  At the very least Dr. Ford should provide a list of people she recalls being at said party and those people should be interviewed under oath prior to a confirmation vote.  I do not think this is too much to require before a lifetime appointment is doled out.  That process wouldn't take longer than a week or two.

The legitimacy of the court has never really been called into question during my lifetime.  I'm afraid if women's rights are chipped away (read: re-defined under the Constitution), it will not go over well to have Thomas and Kavanaugh leading the way.  I believe we need to reset and regroup.  Kavanaugh's nomination should be pulled.  I don't think Democrats will be excited about who comes next, but that's a different story for a different day.  Just my $.02.   

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Fireball on September 19, 2018, 02:06:53 PM
Isn't that part of the problem, though?  That white male privilege is so fully entrenched in our society that sexual assault of a minor not only goes totally unpunished, it doesn't even preclude the perpetrator from holding the position of highest moral authority in the US government?
From a legal standpoint, it will go totally unpunished because the victim sat on this for over 3 decades. Barring the surfacing of some very strong evidence, the window to do anything about it has long closed. I find the victim's testimony to be quite credible, and it may very well have happened exactly as the victim says it did, but that's not enough to convict.


Whether or not it is enough to convict is irrelevant.  There is and will be no criminal investigation.  What there should be is an investigation into whether Kavanaugh is an appropriate person to sit on the Supreme Court.  He is credibly accused of attempted rape.  He is also credibly accused of perjury.  On both counts he is not an appropriate person to sit on the Supreme Court.
Isn't this exactly what the confirmation process is about? It looks like it will not be confirmed over this, so it looks like this is working as intended.

I'd like to think you are right that he won't be confirmed but I'm not confident.

Before all this I would have said 100% chance he gets confirmed. Now, a good solid 80% chance. Never underestimate the current administration and this Republican majority. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 20, 2018, 11:22:23 AM
Man, you can't make this stuff up...

Roy Moore, the GOP candidate and former judge who lost the special Senate election in Georgia after eight women accused him of sexual misconduct, is now endorsing Bret Kavanaugh.

In his endorsement, Moore is warning that Dems are "weaponizing" sexual misconduct decades earlier to defeat Republican candidates.  I'm not sure how much worse the optics could be here - maybe if Harvey Weinstein suddenly wrote an op-ed in Kavanaugh's support?  I mean... really??
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 20, 2018, 11:25:21 AM
I'm not sure how much worse the optics could be here - maybe if Harvey Weinstein suddenly wrote an op-ed in Kavanaugh's support?  I mean... really??

Maybe if the pussy-grabber in chief were too... oh wait, nevermind.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 20, 2018, 11:42:23 AM
Man, you can't make this stuff up...

Roy Moore, the GOP candidate and former judge who lost the special Senate election in Georgia after eight women accused him of sexual misconduct, is now endorsing Bret Kavanaugh.

In his endorsement, Moore is warning that Dems are "weaponizing" sexual misconduct decades earlier to defeat Republican candidates.  I'm not sure how much worse the optics could be here - maybe if Harvey Weinstein suddenly wrote an op-ed in Kavanaugh's support?  I mean... really??

Ha. I can imagine the call from McDaniel (RNC Chair) to Moore:

"Wtf? Are you trying to hurt the party?"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 20, 2018, 11:54:57 AM
Probably trying to keep his name in the news and in front of Trump, after all there is an Attorney General that's going to need replacing in a few weeks.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 20, 2018, 12:08:40 PM
Probably trying to keep his name in the news and in front of Trump, after all there is an Attorney General that's going to need replacing in a few weeks.

OMG.  Could that actually come to pass?  I was kind-of putting my money on Lindsey Graham being the next AG, given his transformation from Trump Critic (remember "it's like choosing between being poisoned or shot"?) to Trump defender.  But sure, a serial sexual predator twice removed from the bench seems like a great choice to run our Department of Justice (::eyeroll::)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 20, 2018, 12:29:40 PM
Probably trying to keep his name in the news and in front of Trump, after all there is an Attorney General that's going to need replacing in a few weeks.

OMG.  Could that actually come to pass?  I was kind-of putting my money on Lindsey Graham being the next AG, given his transformation from Trump Critic (remember "it's like choosing between being poisoned or shot"?) to Trump defender.  But sure, a serial sexual predator twice removed from the bench seems like a great choice to run our Department of Justice (::eyeroll::)

I can totally see this happening. After all, Trump is still pissed off that he endorsed Moore and Moore didn't win. Trump can't stand to back a loser, so one way to make Moore into a winner is to give him a winner's job.


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on September 20, 2018, 01:14:45 PM
Probably trying to keep his name in the news and in front of Trump, after all there is an Attorney General that's going to need replacing in a few weeks.

OMG.  Could that actually come to pass?  I was kind-of putting my money on Lindsey Graham being the next AG, given his transformation from Trump Critic (remember "it's like choosing between being poisoned or shot"?) to Trump defender.  But sure, a serial sexual predator twice removed from the bench seems like a great choice to run our Department of Justice (::eyeroll::)

I can totally see this happening. After all, Trump is still pissed off that he endorsed Moore and Moore didn't win. Trump can't stand to back a loser, so one way to make Moore into a winner is to give him a winner's job.
Moore might be one of the few people Trump could pick that some republicans might actually vote against.  Of course, that would be in a pre-Kavanaugh world...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 20, 2018, 01:22:39 PM
Nice. When Kavanaugh was at Yale, he belonged to a secret society called "Tit and Clit."

Motto: No means yes. Yes means anal.

Yeah. I don't really want him on the Supreme Court.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/at-yale-kavanaugh-belonged-to-a-secret-society-with-an-unprintable-name-6M4_RxlyZ0KZjoN3hd6P1A/

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 20, 2018, 01:34:21 PM
Nice. When Kavanaugh was at Yale, he belonged to a secret society called "Tit and Clit."

Motto: No means yes. Yes means anal.

Yeah. I don't really want him on the Supreme Court.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/at-yale-kavanaugh-belonged-to-a-secret-society-with-an-unprintable-name-6M4_RxlyZ0KZjoN3hd6P1A/

To be totally transparent about this, "Tit and Clit" was the nickname of the club he belonged to at Yale, not the official name.  And that club didn't make national news for chanting "No means yes, yes means anal" until after Kavanaugh had graduated, so I'm sure it was all fine upstanding young men when he was a part of it. 

No, I'm not sure of that at all.

Personally, I think this sort of thing should be disqualifying for all types of government jobs.  Like why is it disqualifying if you've ever smoked weed, but not if you've attempted to rape a 15 year old?  What shocks me most of all is that he was still allowed to be a judge, despite this part of his past not exactly being a secret.  Note that we don't nominate David Duke for federal positions anymore, either.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 20, 2018, 01:51:06 PM
Like why is it disqualifying if you've ever smoked weed, but not if you've attempted to rape a 15 year old?

One is a horrific moral failing and one is a common youthful indiscretion.  Which is which apparently depends on whether you're Republican or Democrat though . . .
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 20, 2018, 01:56:35 PM
Nice. When Kavanaugh was at Yale, he belonged to a secret society called "Tit and Clit."

Motto: No means yes. Yes means anal.

Yeah. I don't really want him on the Supreme Court.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/at-yale-kavanaugh-belonged-to-a-secret-society-with-an-unprintable-name-6M4_RxlyZ0KZjoN3hd6P1A/

Kris, get your facts straight. He was in a Fraternity DKE that has an animal house reputation that chanted "no means yes, yes means anal" in front of the women's center. He was ALSO part of a secret society (truth and courage) that was nicknamed (other nickname). But I'm sure he will say it was pure coincidence and a accident he joined two different societies with heavy drinking and horribly sexist reputations. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 20, 2018, 02:17:08 PM
Nice. When Kavanaugh was at Yale, he belonged to a secret society called "Tit and Clit."

Motto: No means yes. Yes means anal.

Yeah. I don't really want him on the Supreme Court.

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/at-yale-kavanaugh-belonged-to-a-secret-society-with-an-unprintable-name-6M4_RxlyZ0KZjoN3hd6P1A/

Kris, get your facts straight. He was in a Fraternity DKE that has an animal house reputation that chanted "no means yes, yes means anal" in front of the women's center. He was ALSO part of a secret society (truth and courage) that was nicknamed (other nickname). But I'm sure he will say it was pure coincidence and a accident he joined two different societies with horribly sexist reputations.

Good lord. How could that have been even worse than I understood it to be?

And to think that none of this will matter one iota to the GOP. (And my fist itches to punch something when I think about how many of them are quietly chuckling to themselves and saying, "Haha, I remember those youthful days well. Good times...")
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 20, 2018, 02:19:21 PM

And to think that none of this will matter one iota to the GOP. (And my fist itches to punch something when I think about how many of them are quietly chuckling to themselves and saying, "Haha, I remember those youthful days well. Good times...")

Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 20, 2018, 02:47:07 PM
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

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

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 20, 2018, 03:01:59 PM
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

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

I'm having a hard time understanding why women keep supporting this imbalance.  They make up 51% of the electorate, after all...
Sadly, I know a few women from older generations (Boomers) that vote however their husbands vote.  How did that happen to those who were part of the free-love, feminist cohort?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 20, 2018, 03:09:02 PM
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

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

I'm having a hard time understanding why women keep supporting this imbalance.  They make up 51% of the electorate, after all...
Sadly, I know a few women from older generations (Boomers) that vote however their husbands vote.  How did that happen to those who were part of the free-love, feminist cohort?

Of the two family members I know that participated in the 60s (most people in the 60s didn't participate), only one was a true believer. The other was there for the good times and is now a Fox-loving conservative.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 20, 2018, 03:55:55 PM
Shocking report of millions of voters becoming more conservative as they age, tonight on 60 minutes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 20, 2018, 04:17:16 PM
I get being conservative and becoming more conservative as one ages, but I don't equate true conservatism with misogyny and patriarchy.  I guess many do.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 20, 2018, 07:11:12 PM
I get being conservative and becoming more conservative as one ages, but I don't equate true conservatism with misogyny and patriarchy.  I guess many do.

I can see the argument that Republicans aren't 'true conservatives' I suppose . . . they appear have abandoned fiscal conservatism entirely in favor of a pro-sexual assault brand of social conservatism.  Make no mistake though, support of misogyny and patriarchy are essential to being Republican today.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 05:08:40 AM
I get being conservative and becoming more conservative as one ages, but I don't equate true conservatism with misogyny and patriarchy.  I guess many do.

I can see the argument that Republicans aren't 'true conservatives' I suppose . . . they appear have abandoned fiscal conservatism entirely in favor of a pro-sexual assault brand of social conservatism.  Make no mistake though, support of misogyny and patriarchy are essential to being Republican today.

I don't even get what's socially conservative about this latest crop.  The GOP loves to tout itself as "the party of Lincoln and Reagan".  Well Lincoln's enduring legacy was to defeat a group of rogue southern states while proclaiming all slaves free.  Arguably Reagan's most famous line during his entire Presidency was "Tear down that wall". He was a staunch opponent of Moscow and forceful supporter of global free trade.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 21, 2018, 06:47:12 AM
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

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

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

But membership in a fraternity != having raped someone. Saying Kavanaugh joined this type of group as a young man therefore the Ford allegations (from before he was a Yale student) are true is not logical. And merely being the type of person who would join a fraternity while in college is not disqualifying.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 21, 2018, 07:00:57 AM
I get being conservative and becoming more conservative as one ages, but I don't equate true conservatism with misogyny and patriarchy.  I guess many do.

I can see the argument that Republicans aren't 'true conservatives' I suppose . . . they appear have abandoned fiscal conservatism entirely in favor of a pro-sexual assault brand of social conservatism.  Make no mistake though, support of misogyny and patriarchy are essential to being Republican today.

I don't even get what's socially conservative about this latest crop.  The GOP loves to tout itself as "the party of Lincoln and Reagan".  Well Lincoln's enduring legacy was to defeat a group of rogue southern states while proclaiming all slaves free.  Arguably Reagan's most famous line during his entire Presidency was "Tear down that wall". He was a staunch opponent of Moscow and forceful supporter of global free trade.

In the American context, a social conservative = racist, sexist, Christian fundamentalist with a gun fetish.  As mentioned, the Republican party has completely abandoned all elements of fiscal conservatism in favor of this brand of social conservatism . . . and the people who vote Republican have rewarded them richly for doing so.

Kavanaugh has a history of pro-Christian fundamentalist support, racism, has demonstrated deeply ingrained sexism, and appears to want to expand gun rights . . . so he's most likely a shoe in.  I think that the sexual assault allegations probably help him from a Republican standpoint.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 21, 2018, 07:22:16 AM
Once again I think you're over-simplifying the complex dynamic that has lead Evangelicals to install Trump as President and buy these two Supreme court seats from him. The price they're paying is giving up a good chunk of moral authority in the cultural reckoning of which one symptom is the #metoo movement; the price the more general Republican party is paying is the stink of corruption that is rising from appointees like Price, Carson, DeVos, Pruitt, etc. (to say nothing of Trump's brazen emoluments).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: electriceagle on September 21, 2018, 07:47:01 AM
Will he be confirmed?  Probably.

The Democrats may try to run out the clock on the nomination, but the Republicans know this and won't let it happen. If the Ds had the power to run out the clock, they would also have the ability to block the nomination entirely. So, delaying the nomination is a moot strategy.

Even if Kavanaugh were dropped, the Rs would rush through someone else. They aren't going to let an opportunity to appoint a supreme court justice pass, regardless of the cost. They would nominate and confirm Satan if he promised to keep the prisons full and vote against abortion and gay marriage.

The only way that Democrats win on this is if they get male, Republican senators who are up for re-election on video being mean to Ford during the hearings. The Ds might win an election and ensure that Kav is the last supreme court justice that Trump gets to appoint. This would come at the cost of seating a supreme court justice who actively hates the left instead of simply disagreeing with them.

Speculation: If the Russia investigation gets too close and the Kavanaugh nomination is withdrawn, Trump could pardon himself for all crimes and then appoint himself to the supreme court, leaving the presidency for Pence. There seem to be no rules after all....
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 08:05:17 AM
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

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

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

But membership in a fraternity != having raped someone. Saying Kavanaugh joined this type of group as a young man therefore the Ford allegations (from before he was a Yale student) are true is not logical. And merely being the type of person who would join a fraternity while in college is not disqualifying.

Here's where I have a problem with this logic - Kavanaugh isn't on trial where the outcome might depend on whether he remains a free man or not - he's up for a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. Being in a fraternity while in college shouldn't be disqualifying, but not owning up to it now and actively condemning your fraternity's actions should be, even if you weren't one of the perpetrators.

When Kavanaugh releases a statement saying "I have never done anything like what the accuser describes—to her or to anyone... [I will] refute this false allegation, from 36 years ago, and defend my integrity" - it rings hollow knowing that he does not refute the actions and misogynistic opinions of his friend, his fraternity or his peers.

When being considered for the highest office of the land, it's not enough (IMO) to simply say "well it was all around me but I wasn't part of it". One needs to take the moral high-ground and condemn such behavior then and now, not hide behind the fog of time ("36 years") nor cultural-defenses like it's just "boys being boys" or "that's just the way it was back then" or "rough horseplay".  Kavanaugh's not decrying any of this behavior. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on September 21, 2018, 08:24:57 AM
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

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

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

But membership in a fraternity != having raped someone. Saying Kavanaugh joined this type of group as a young man therefore the Ford allegations (from before he was a Yale student) are true is not logical. And merely being the type of person who would join a fraternity while in college is not disqualifying.
While I would agree that not all of those who are members of a fraternity rape, the person who joins a fraternity is more likely to be a rapist than the general male population according to an entire body of research. See citations below.
One particular myth associated with fraternities is the idea that forcing drunk women to have sex is acceptable. In her qualitative research Sanday (1990) found that some fraternity members approved of this idea and called it “working out a yes.”  In addition, fraternities are associated with the sexual objectification of women through pornography and other means (Sanday 1990).
Schaeffer and Nelson (1993) found that residents in all male housing (regardless of fraternity status) were more traditional about gender roles and more accepting of rape myths than those in co-ed housing.
Stombler (1994) reported from her ethnographic study of “Little Sisters” to fraternities that these women were sexually objectified and commodified by fraternity brothers; for example, in some cases sisters were encouraged to portray themselves as sexually available to fraternity pledges.
Compared to non-fraternity men, fraternity men have been found to have more traditional attitudes towards women (Schaeffer and Nelson 1993); a more sexually permissive peer group (Lottes and Kuriloff 1994); stronger belief in male dominance (Kalof and Cargill 1991); and greater belief in “rape myths” (false beliefs about rape that tend to legitimize rape; Burt 1980; Boeringer 1999).
Boeringer (1996) found that fraternity members were more likely to have friends who had gotten women drunk or high to have sex, and who did not disapprove of this practice.
Fraternity affiliation has been found to be a significant predictor of sexually aggressive behavior in retrospective analyses (Lackie & de Man, 1997).
Murnen (2000) found that fraternity men were more likely to use degrading language to refer to women’s genitals than men not formally associated with a fraternity.
Prospectively, fraternity membership at baseline was a significant predictor of perpetration during the 3-month follow-up period (Loh, Gidycz, Lobo & Rohini Luthra 2005).
Bleecker and Murnen (2005) found that fraternity men were more likely to display sexually degrading pictures of women in their dorm rooms than non-fraternity men, and that the display of such images was associated with the men’s endorsement of rape myths.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DreamFIRE on September 21, 2018, 08:45:27 AM

Definitely a "yay!"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 21, 2018, 08:56:15 AM

Definitely a "yay!"

So, by the rules of Kavenaugh's fraternity you want anal?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Fireball on September 21, 2018, 10:46:52 AM

Definitely a "yay!"

So, by the rules of Kavenaugh's fraternity you want anal?

LOL
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 11:04:13 AM

Definitely a "yay!"
What makes you a supporter?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: golden1 on September 21, 2018, 11:18:48 AM
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isn’t the right guy.  It’s not like they don’t have more solid choices. 

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

Quote
I'm having a hard time understanding why women keep supporting this imbalance.  They make up 51% of the electorate, after all...

I think about this a lot, and I think it boils down to the fact that many women benefit from the power structures being what they are. If you are attractive, and willing to play the game, you can parley that into a lifetime of not working and spending someone else’s money.  Having equal rights entails equal responsibilities, and many women are not willing to make that trade.  At a gut level, they would rather have less freedom and less responsibility.  Many will never openly admit this, but I believe it to be true. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 21, 2018, 11:35:47 AM
it boils down to the fact that many women benefit from the power structures being what they are. If you are attractive, and willing to play the game, you can parley that into a lifetime of not working and spending someone else’s money.  Having equal rights entails equal responsibilities, and many women are not willing to make that trade.  At a gut level, they would rather have less freedom and less responsibility.  Many will never openly admit this, but I believe it to be true.

Sexism is an insidious cancer.  It invades all aspects of society with a creeping subtlety, and it has invaded you too.

Think carefully about what you just said.  It's a tiny step from your position to the anti-suffragettes of the 1850s who argued that a woman's place was in the home, and that giving women the vote would threaten the security and domestic power they then enjoyed.  Do you also believe that women are naturally irresponsible, or hysterical, or that they are better off when they have a man to look after them?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 21, 2018, 11:39:59 AM
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isn’t the right guy.  It’s not like they don’t have more solid choices. 

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

Quote
I'm having a hard time understanding why women keep supporting this imbalance.  They make up 51% of the electorate, after all...

I think about this a lot, and I think it boils down to the fact that many women benefit from the power structures being what they are. If you are attractive, and willing to play the game, you can parley that into a lifetime of not working and spending someone else’s money.  Having equal rights entails equal responsibilities, and many women are not willing to make that trade.  At a gut level, they would rather have less freedom and less responsibility.  Many will never openly admit this, but I believe it to be true.

Mostly I think it's about getting by.  It's about living within the system rather than changing it.  It's about going along with something less immediately important because food on the table and getting the kids to do their homework is more immediately important.  It's about men having most of the power and most of the money and if the men in your life who have most of the money and most of the power are Republican what are you going to do?  That may look to you like working the power system for an easy life.  To me it looks like living within the limits imposed from outside in order to get by.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PoutineLover on September 21, 2018, 11:45:24 AM

Quote
I'm having a hard time understanding why women keep supporting this imbalance.  They make up 51% of the electorate, after all...

I think about this a lot, and I think it boils down to the fact that many women benefit from the power structures being what they are. If you are attractive, and willing to play the game, you can parley that into a lifetime of not working and spending someone else’s money.  Having equal rights entails equal responsibilities, and many women are not willing to make that trade.  At a gut level, they would rather have less freedom and less responsibility.  Many will never openly admit this, but I believe it to be true. 

I think its important to differentiate between white and black women here. Black and hispanic women overwhelmingly voted for Clinton, it's white women who "upheld the patriarchy" so to speak. From where I stand, I would guess that WOC knew they were losing on both counts, racism and sexism, where white women were only losing on the sexist side and they were fine with trading that for the race win.
I would dispute the idea that women are just looking for a free ride, I think more women than ever are participating in the labour force and if anything men are dropping out. Would have to find statistics to back that up though, that's just my impression based on articles I've read.
Anyway, I'm in Canada so I've avoided weighing in but honestly this nomination is appalling and keeps getting worse. Watching him being questioned by Kamala Harris showed how unwilling he was to answer basic questions and I am sure there's a lot of nasty shit in his record that will only come out after he wins. Nay from me.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 11:57:15 AM
it boils down to the fact that many women benefit from the power structures being what they are. If you are attractive, and willing to play the game, you can parley that into a lifetime of not working and spending someone else’s money.  Having equal rights entails equal responsibilities, and many women are not willing to make that trade.  At a gut level, they would rather have less freedom and less responsibility.  Many will never openly admit this, but I believe it to be true.

Sexism is an insidious cancer.  It invades all aspects of society with a creeping subtlety, and it has invaded you too.

Think carefully about what you just said.  It's a tiny step from your position to the anti-suffragettes of the 1850s who argued that a woman's place was in the home, and that giving women the vote would threaten the security and domestic power they then enjoyed.  Do you also believe that women are naturally irresponsible, or hysterical, or that they are better off when they have a man to look after them?

fun fact:  The word 'hysterical' comes from the greek husterikós: “suffering in the uterus, hysterical"

The ancients literally connected being hysterical with being a woman, and surmised that the root problem must therefor come from a woman's uterus.  It's also why the procedure for removing the uterus is called a "hysterectomy"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 12:11:00 PM
I thought the analysis of the Kavanaugh nomination by Preet Bharara's guest Ron Klain was fascinating.

The podcast transcript is available at:
https://www.cafe.com/stay-tuned-transcript-kavanaugh-and-the-court-w-ron-klain/

There is a lot in the transcript, including a lot about how the GOP has been running the hearings relative to the precedent set in previous hearings, but I think this is the kernel regarding why he was selected:
Quote
Ron Klain: Let’s go back to how Brett Kavanaugh got picked for this. The Republicans made a big deal about the fact that Donald Trump campaigned on the Supreme Court, and he put out two lists during the campaign of people he would pick for the Supreme Court. And you know who wasn’t on those lists? Brett Kavanaugh. Trump put out 21 names of people he’d pick for the Supreme Court in September of 2016. Kavanaugh wasn’t in the top 21. So, how does someone who’s not in the top 21 get picked for the Supreme Court? He shows up for the first time on a list that Trump puts out in November of 2017. Now, what changed? Not his sterling credentials; not his judicial service. What changed?

Two things changed, Preet. The first is, a few weeks before Kavanaugh appeared on that list, he wrote a decision in the Garza case where he dissented from the DC Circuit, saying that a minor in custody as an immigrant should be released to get an abortion. And not only did Kavanaugh issue this decision in accord with the views of the anti-choice forces—that opinion he wrote is a love letter to the Right to Life movement. He calls the minor’s petition to be released a request for abortion on demand. Well, abortion on demand is not a legal phrase. It’s not something judges say. It’s a political phrase. It’s a disparaging phrase about abortion rights. This minor wasn’t demanding an abortion. This minor was seeking a medical procedure. And so, using that phrase was a big signal to the Right to Life movement.

Preet Bharara: So, are you saying that Donald Trump sat back in his office at the White House and read the Garza decision, and decided, this is my guy?

Ron Klain: No. What I’m saying is that Kavanaugh campaigned to the Right to Life movement, and they gave him a big gold star next to his name, because not only did he call her claim a claim for abortion on demand; he added in that opinion—he said—we talked about Roe and [?Kasey], these decisions, and he called them existing Supreme Court precedent. Now, Preet, if my wife introduced me to people as her existing husband, I’d be checking the state of our insurance policies, okay?

Preet Bharara: Right.

Ron Klain: So, there are signals in that decision about where he’s headed on Roe v. Wade. He had, earlier that same year in 2017, given a speech praising former Chief Justice Rehnquist for being a dissenter in Roe v. Wade. He was flashing every signal he could to the anti-choice forces, I’m your guy.

Preet Bharara: You’re saying something really significant. Are you saying that he actually sort of shaped his language in a particular opinion, the Garza opinion, as a kind of public audition for the role of Supreme Court justice?

Ron Klain: You know, it seems that way to me. I mean, I think you read that opinion, and it comes on top of him that same year giving a speech where he embraces Chief Justice Rehnquist as his judicial hero and cites his dissent in Roe as an example of that.
Quote
Ron Klain: Well, I think that was part of it. And then I think there’s a second thing that happened between the list in September 2016 and the list in November 2017. And that second thing was the Mueller investigation. You know, that obviously was not something that existed in September of 2016. But by November of 2017, Donald Trump and his people are looking for a Supreme Court justice who might rule with him if any issues in the Mueller investigation make their way to the Supreme Court. And you know, Preet, that’s a hard thing to look for, because to find someone who’s gonna rule that a president can’t be subpoenaed, who’s gonna rule that a president isn’t subject to legal process, that’s a pretty out of the mainstream view with most lawyers. And yet, they found someone who holds those views: Brett Kavanaugh.

Preet Bharara: And it’s even worse—who used to hold the opposite view.

Ron Klain: Yeah, exactly. Who had the opposite view in the ‘90s.

Preet Bharara: It’s a recent convert to a convenient view, no?

Ron Klain: A post-2000 convert to a very, very, very extreme view of the president’s immunity from legal process, suggesting at one point in time that the classic US v. Nixon case might be wrongly decided, saying that the president can’t be subject to a subpoena, writing a whole Law Review article on how the president should be exempt from legal process. I mean, if Donald Trump was looking for someone other than Rudy Giuliani who had extolled his point of view on these legal issues, it was a very short list, and Brett Kavanaugh really was number one on that list.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 21, 2018, 12:11:26 PM
This is an interesting interview.

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

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

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

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

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

Why not have an investigation:

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


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

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

The thinking in that group is...fascinating.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on September 21, 2018, 12:26:36 PM
This is an interesting interview.

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

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

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

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

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

Why not have an investigation:

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


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

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

The thinking in that group is...fascinating.
I think that the last one is trying to draw a connection to the Rolling Stone scandal at the University of Virginia a couple of years ago.  As the reporting fell apart, the accuser admitted that her accusations were based on this.  I've seen more than one right wing commenter reference this in discussions of articles on Dr. Ford.  It's important to them to fabricate a structure where it assuming that accusers are lying is acceptable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 21, 2018, 12:38:59 PM
I thought the analysis of the Kavanaugh nomination by Preet Bharara's guest Ron Klain was fascinating.

So the main point of that analysis is that Kavanaugh rocketed to the top of Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees, which he previously wasn't even on, for two reasons.

1.  Kavanaugh suggested he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he would be the swing vote on this issue.

2.  Kavanaugh sided with Guliani, against everyone else in the world, by saying that Trump is exempt from criminal prosecution no matter what he's done.

And yet republicans wonder why nobody supports this guy.  These are two deeply unpopular opinions in America, despite a very vocal minority supporting them.  Is that where we're at as a country, now?  A minority party takes over every branch of government and exerts minority control over the rest of us?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 12:44:01 PM
I thought the analysis of the Kavanaugh nomination by Preet Bharara's guest Ron Klain was fascinating.

So the main point of that analysis is that Kavanaugh rocketed to the top of Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees, which he previously wasn't even on, for two reasons.

1.  Kavanaugh suggested he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he would be the swing vote on this issue.

2.  Kavanaugh sided with Guliani, against everyone else in the world, by saying that Trump is exempt from criminal prosecution no matter what he's done.

And yet republicans wonder why nobody supports this guy.  These are two deeply unpopular opinions in America, despite a very vocal minority supporting them.  Is that where we're at as a country, now?  A minority party takes over every branch of government and exerts minority control over the rest of us?
I would be willing to bet that Kavanaugh also sees no problem with gerrymandering, or selectively closing polling places, or all of the other tools for adjusting voter participation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 21, 2018, 12:47:45 PM
I thought the analysis of the Kavanaugh nomination by Preet Bharara's guest Ron Klain was fascinating.

So the main point of that analysis is that Kavanaugh rocketed to the top of Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees, which he previously wasn't even on, for two reasons.

1.  Kavanaugh suggested he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he would be the swing vote on this issue.

2.  Kavanaugh sided with Guliani, against everyone else in the world, by saying that Trump is exempt from criminal prosecution no matter what he's done.

And yet republicans wonder why nobody supports this guy.  These are two deeply unpopular opinions in America, despite a very vocal minority supporting them.  Is that where we're at as a country, now?  A minority party takes over every branch of government and exerts minority control over the rest of us?
I would be willing to bet that Kavanaugh also sees no problem with gerrymandering, or selectively closing polling places, or all of the other tools for adjusting voter participation.

Unless it's against the Republicans. He'll be all over it then.

Most important to Trump is #2. He doesn't want to go to jail. #1 is just a bonus to keep the evangelical support.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: YttriumNitrate on September 21, 2018, 12:52:14 PM
So the main point of that analysis is that Kavanaugh rocketed to the top of Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees, which he previously wasn't even on, for two reasons.
1.  Kavanaugh suggested he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he would be the swing vote on this issue.
2.  Kavanaugh sided with Guliani, against everyone else in the world, by saying that Trump is exempt from criminal prosecution no matter what he's done.

I'm going to disagree with the contention that Kavanaugh somehow rocketed to the top of the list a few weeks before his nomination. Based on the news coverage from back in 2017, he was a top contender the moment he was added to Trump's list:

Quote
The biggest new name was that of Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Many Supreme Court justices have come from that circuit, and Kavanaugh tops the list of judges most often named as Trump's next pick.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/trump-adds-five-names-list-potential-supreme-court-justices/875983001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/trump-adds-five-names-list-potential-supreme-court-justices/875983001/)

Quote
Many observers were surprised last year when Judge Kavanaugh’s name did not appear on the original list of 21 possible Supreme Court picks—an omission some chalk up to Mr Trump’s swamp-draining rhetoric. But Judge Kavanaugh stands head and shoulders above the other four new additions to the list.
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2017/11/21/donald-trumps-new-contenders-for-the-supreme-court (https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2017/11/21/donald-trumps-new-contenders-for-the-supreme-court)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 21, 2018, 12:56:06 PM
So the main point of that analysis is that Kavanaugh rocketed to the top of Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees, which he previously wasn't even on, for two reasons.
1.  Kavanaugh suggested he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he would be the swing vote on this issue.
2.  Kavanaugh sided with Guliani, against everyone else in the world, by saying that Trump is exempt from criminal prosecution no matter what he's done.

I'm going to disagree with the contention that Kavanaugh somehow rocketed to the top of the list a few weeks before his nomination.

Who said that?

Ron Klain, in the interview posted above, said,

Quote
So, how does someone who’s not in the top 21 get picked for the Supreme Court? He shows up for the first time on a list that Trump puts out in November of 2017. Now, what changed? Not his sterling credentials; not his judicial service. What changed?

Who said that he went to the top of the list a few weeks before the nomination?


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 21, 2018, 12:56:26 PM
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

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

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

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

Gin1984, you deserve credit for this post. A more in-depth discussion of Rape Culture--this is not the forum for this--would be incomplete without this as a starting point. Thank you!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 21, 2018, 12:58:06 PM
I thought the analysis of the Kavanaugh nomination by Preet Bharara's guest Ron Klain was fascinating.

So the main point of that analysis is that Kavanaugh rocketed to the top of Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees, which he previously wasn't even on, for two reasons.

1.  Kavanaugh suggested he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he would be the swing vote on this issue.

2.  Kavanaugh sided with Guliani, against everyone else in the world, by saying that Trump is exempt from criminal prosecution no matter what he's done.

And yet republicans wonder why nobody supports this guy.  These are two deeply unpopular opinions in America, despite a very vocal minority supporting them.  Is that where we're at as a country, now?  A minority party takes over every branch of government and exerts minority control over the rest of us?
I would be willing to bet that Kavanaugh also sees no problem with gerrymandering, or selectively closing polling places, or all of the other tools for adjusting voter participation.

Note: Kennedy was fine with gutting the Voting Rights Act five years ago. These things are not out-of-bounds opinions for Federalist Society judges.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 01:10:59 PM
I thought the analysis of the Kavanaugh nomination by Preet Bharara's guest Ron Klain was fascinating.

So the main point of that analysis is that Kavanaugh rocketed to the top of Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees, which he previously wasn't even on, for two reasons.

1.  Kavanaugh suggested he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he would be the swing vote on this issue.

2.  Kavanaugh sided with Guliani, against everyone else in the world, by saying that Trump is exempt from criminal prosecution no matter what he's done.

And yet republicans wonder why nobody supports this guy.  These are two deeply unpopular opinions in America, despite a very vocal minority supporting them.  Is that where we're at as a country, now?  A minority party takes over every branch of government and exerts minority control over the rest of us?
I would be willing to bet that Kavanaugh also sees no problem with gerrymandering, or selectively closing polling places, or all of the other tools for adjusting voter participation.

Unless it's against the Republicans. He'll be all over it then.

Most important to Trump is #2. He doesn't want to go to jail. #1 is just a bonus to keep the evangelical support.
I'm relatively certain the formerly outwardly pro-choice (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/?utm_term=.d1fe8e4336d2) Donald Trump doesn't really give a rats ass about Roe-v-Wade, and only took up the pro-life position because it suddenly made him very popular with a very vocal minority.

To me, the GOP not dropping Kavanaugh is very telling.  They very literally have a pre-vetted list of 21 very conservative candidates.  They've got 3.5 months before the next congress is seated, and 6 weeks before the elections.  DJT could withdraw the nomination, nominate someone from the list, the senate could hold hearings and a vote - and probably get it done before the elections.  This whole fear of 'galvanizing the base' seems exactly backward, as they are now stuck with trying to encourage GOP voters to turn out more to defend a candidate with a rather ghastly shadow.

Worse, if Kavanaugh gains his seat any literally anything else comes out about his past (more accusers? former classmates that call him misogynistic? a confession/recollection by Judge?) then the GOP will forever look like the party willing to short-circuit normal hearings to promote a sexual predator onto the bench. Literally every SCOTUS case which touches on gender will be prefaced by a media reel on Justice Kavanaugh and his controversial appointment. Which means the GOP will perpetually be linked with being complicit with rape.

He's toxic right now - any HR manager would agree.  Trump supports him because he thinks he will defend anything a (republican) President does as a rightful use of his power.  The GOP senators fear DJT going ballistic on him, even if it would be the best thing for the party and (to be honest) the country in general.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 21, 2018, 01:22:18 PM
To me, the GOP not dropping Kavanaugh is very telling.  They very literally have a pre-vetted list of 21 very conservative candidates.  They've got 3.5 months before the next congress is seated, and 6 weeks before the elections.  DJT could withdraw the nomination, nominate someone from the list, the senate could hold hearings and a vote - and probably get it done before the elections.  This whole fear of 'galvanizing the base' seems exactly backward, as they are now stuck with trying to encourage GOP voters to turn out more to defend a candidate with a rather ghastly shadow.

Worse, if Kavanaugh gains his seat any literally anything else comes out about his past (more accusers? former classmates that call him misogynistic? a confession/recollection by Judge?) then the GOP will forever look like the party willing to short-circuit normal hearings to promote a sexual predator onto the bench. Literally every SCOTUS case which touches on gender will be prefaced by a media reel on Justice Kavanaugh and his controversial appointment. Which means the GOP will perpetually be linked with being complicit with rape.

I think you're miscalculating how Trump's base feels about such activities.

Roy Moore still almost won and he had a lot of accusers. As a 30 year old, he was preying on good ol' Alabama girls, too, and not some liberal, elite, Professor in California.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 01:30:39 PM
So the main point of that analysis is that Kavanaugh rocketed to the top of Trump's list of Supreme Court nominees, which he previously wasn't even on, for two reasons.
1.  Kavanaugh suggested he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he would be the swing vote on this issue.
2.  Kavanaugh sided with Guliani, against everyone else in the world, by saying that Trump is exempt from criminal prosecution no matter what he's done.

I'm going to disagree with the contention that Kavanaugh somehow rocketed to the top of the list a few weeks before his nomination. Based on the news coverage from back in 2017, he was a top contender the moment he was added to Trump's list:

Quote
The biggest new name was that of Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Many Supreme Court justices have come from that circuit, and Kavanaugh tops the list of judges most often named as Trump's next pick.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/trump-adds-five-names-list-potential-supreme-court-justices/875983001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/trump-adds-five-names-list-potential-supreme-court-justices/875983001/)

Quote
Many observers were surprised last year when Judge Kavanaugh’s name did not appear on the original list of 21 possible Supreme Court picks—an omission some chalk up to Mr Trump’s swamp-draining rhetoric. But Judge Kavanaugh stands head and shoulders above the other four new additions to the list.
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2017/11/21/donald-trumps-new-contenders-for-the-supreme-court (https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2017/11/21/donald-trumps-new-contenders-for-the-supreme-court)
Nothing to disagree with. The analysis indicates why he was added in November 2017.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 01:39:13 PM
To me, the GOP not dropping Kavanaugh is very telling.  They very literally have a pre-vetted list of 21 very conservative candidates.  They've got 3.5 months before the next congress is seated, and 6 weeks before the elections.  DJT could withdraw the nomination, nominate someone from the list, the senate could hold hearings and a vote - and probably get it done before the elections.  This whole fear of 'galvanizing the base' seems exactly backward, as they are now stuck with trying to encourage GOP voters to turn out more to defend a candidate with a rather ghastly shadow.

Worse, if Kavanaugh gains his seat any literally anything else comes out about his past (more accusers? former classmates that call him misogynistic? a confession/recollection by Judge?) then the GOP will forever look like the party willing to short-circuit normal hearings to promote a sexual predator onto the bench. Literally every SCOTUS case which touches on gender will be prefaced by a media reel on Justice Kavanaugh and his controversial appointment. Which means the GOP will perpetually be linked with being complicit with rape.

I think you're miscalculating how Trump's base feels about such activities.

Roy Moore still almost won and he had a lot of accusers. As a 30 year old, he was preying on good ol' Alabama girls, too, and not some liberal, elite, Professor in California.

I think this is exactly the kind of thing they should be worried about.  Roy Moore lost in crimson-colored Alabama. If they keep branding themselves as the party that nominates sexual predators, what hope do they have in purple Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania?

I'm not suggesting their best course would be to ditch Kavanaugh for some left-of-center judge, but that their continued support of him comes with very big risks when there are already a long list of very conservative candidates whom they could push through with much less political fallout.  They're trying to win a battle at the cost of all their powder and many of their men. Best case scenario they gain nothing (over these other candidates) but no new scandals emerge.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 21, 2018, 01:42:44 PM
Perhaps we'll have to wait to see how they course-correct once we've seen Dr. Ford testify?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 21, 2018, 01:49:25 PM
their continued support of him comes with very big risks when there are already a long list of very conservative candidates whom they could push through

Right, I have no illusions that whoever takes the vacant SC seat is going to be any better for America than Kavanaugh, but at least they could come on without a history of literally assaulting women when they pass down rulings that strip away women's rights.  American liberalism died the moment Kennedy announced his retirement.  For the next few decades, at least, the supreme court will be a mouthpiece for the religious right. 

Whether it's Kavanaugh or some other partisan hack, conservatives have it locked down.  I've accepted the death of the American progressive movement, may it RIP in Obama's wake, but can we at least not elevate sexual predators?  Can we nominate just regular run-of-the-mill Guns-and-Jesus freaks instead of rapey ex-frat boys who think no means yes?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 01:54:41 PM
This is an interesting piece of writing demonstrating the whitewashing of Kavanaugh's record in the documents that were provided on him:
https://tyt.com/stories/4vZLCHuQrYE4uKagy0oyMA/1FM2NrgYRiekqIeoiWugai

key quote from the actual speech:
Quote
But fortunately we had a good saying that we've held firm to to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Georgetown Prep.' That's been a good thing for all of us, I think.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 01:57:33 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this idea of other scandals emerging, and I think it goes a long way to explaining the GOP's current strategy here.  First off, that's why they are so adamant in sticking to this artificial deadline which they created and which absolutely does not really exist.  The hope seems to be "if we can just get him confirmed by early next week maybe no new bad news will have enough time to surface!"  That's why they don't want to delay for an FBI investigation (Hill's took just 3 days), why they won't allow anyone but Ford and Kavanaugh to make any statement.

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

I still think its a very short-sighted approach, and that the worst thing which could happen to the GOP here is to have more credible accounts occur after rushing through his confirmation.  But I think this at least explains their actions a bit more...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 21, 2018, 02:10:13 PM
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isn’t the right guy.  It’s not like they don’t have more solid choices. 

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

Doesn't have anything to do with Trump being in office.  Or even with wanting Kavanaugh.  He is a solid jurist, but he's basically Roberts when most of the right would prefer another Gorsuch or Thomas.  But it would be ridiculous to make a standard requirement for nominees that there can't be anybody they knew in high school that is partisan enough to be willing to make an accusation against them that is vage enough to be non-provable or disprovable.  There will be too many people who refuse to submit themselves to a nomination process like that. 


 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 02:15:49 PM
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isn’t the right guy.  It’s not like they don’t have more solid choices. 

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

Doesn't have anything to do with Trump being in office.  Or even with wanting Kavanaugh.  He is a solid jurist, but he's basically Roberts when most of the right would prefer another Gorsuch or Thomas. But it would be ridiculous to make a standard requirement for nominees that there can't be anybody they knew in high school that is partisan enough to be willing to make an accusation against them that is vage enough to be non-provable or disprovable.  There will be too many people who refuse to submit themselves to a nomination process like that.
If this were actually the case, I might be inclined to agree with you. I think that she specifically discussed this with her therapist long before Kavanaugh was considered for SCOTUS, and she is also asking the FBI to investigate. People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: austin944 on September 21, 2018, 02:43:12 PM
People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

There is a third alternative: the accuser's memory is faulty.  She may have misremembered the events and/or the name of her attacker from 35 years ago.  Judge Kavanaugh's name has been in the news a lot, before these latest allegations.  The power of suggestion can sometimes overwhelm weak memories.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 02:47:57 PM
People who are making things up out of thin air generally do not go out of their way to invite the scrutiny of the FBI. I think the behavior described in the accusation, if taken to be true, is disqualifying. Would you agree that the behavior and actions should be disqualifying if you independently had reason to believe the accusation (and I understand from your comment above that you believe it does not have merit)?

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

She knew Kavanaugh prior to the alleged incident. This tends not to be the type of thing a victim will forget. Quite the opposite. Memory is a fungible thing, and details like what song was put on could be argued. But I seriously doubt that the people who were involved are going to be forgotten.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ncornilsen on September 21, 2018, 02:49:55 PM
I've been thinking a lot about this idea of other scandals emerging, and I think it goes a long way to explaining the GOP's current strategy here.  First off, that's why they are so adamant in sticking to this artificial deadline which they created and which absolutely does not really exist.  The hope seems to be "if we can just get him confirmed by early next week maybe no new bad news will have enough time to surface!"  That's why they don't want to delay for an FBI investigation (Hill's took just 3 days), why they won't allow anyone but Ford and Kavanaugh to make any statement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anyway, imagine the story and the evidence shown was leveled against Obama....Would you be calling for his resignation? I am certain you would not if it came to it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 21, 2018, 03:00:11 PM
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isn’t the right guy.  It’s not like they don’t have more solid choices. 

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

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

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

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

Also, she is not inviting scrutiny of the FBI.  She has left her story vague enough that there is nothing for them to do.  If she made it up completely out of thin air, she's not at any risk.  All the FBI can do is ask her what happened.  They can ask questions of the people she said were there (all of whom have denied anything like that took place) and if they stick to their story (which if she made it up, is what she would expect them to do), and that's pretty much the extent of it.  There's no real way for them to follow up when they don't know when or where it happened and don't know of anybody that was present so there's no way for them to determine that she made anything up.  Again, have no clue whether she's making anything up, just saying the FBI being involved isn't a deterrent because she hasn't provide anything falsifiable that could get herself in trouble.     
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 03:45:42 PM
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isn’t the right guy.  It’s not like they don’t have more solid choices. 

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

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

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

I strongly prefer due process (and you should too) be followed before we dump someone based on an accusation that has yet to be proven. That's whats the legal process is all about. An HR manager would know that as well assuming you are talking about a current employee.  Otherwise you jump the shark.  If in this case, the process shows more likely than not that this incident occurred, then the President should withdraw the nomination and/or the Senate should vote him down.  If however there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim then the claims should be discounted and the nominee voted on based on his record.  This is pretty simple, let the process play out.  It would be better if there were time for a full investigation, however the accusation was only laid out at the 11th hour before the scheduled vote. Given that, it seems reasonable to hold the hearing first and then if substantial doubt still exists, delay the vote again and refer to the FBI for an investigation.
Let's be clear. The intent is for the process to be allowed to play out. The simple fact is that the GOP has done a lot to shield Kavanaugh from scrutiny due to his long judicial record, and has not indicated that they are excited to let the process play out unless forced to do so. There has been a lot of derision of Ford's character and doubt about her case. The accusation was not laid out at the 11th hour by Ford, who provided the information as early as July. I think there is a strong argument to be made that the timing has a lot to do with delaying the confirmation, but that does not change the substance of the accusation, nor does it change the timing of when Ford notified. Yes, I think many of us would like to see the due process continue. I think that if there is to be an investigation, that it should happen before an open hearing. The only deadline for the nomination process is the political one, which is driven by the proximity to the midterm elections. Honestly, given the decades that justices spend on the court, that timing concern should not drive the calendar.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DreamFIRE on September 21, 2018, 04:03:58 PM
In the American context, a social conservative = racist, sexist, Christian fundamentalist with a gun fetish.  As mentioned, the Republican party has completely abandoned all elements of fiscal conservatism in favor of this brand of social conservatism . . . and the people who vote Republican have rewarded them richly for doing so.

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

^ That is complete nonsense, even for a far left liberal as yourself.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 04:30:24 PM

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

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

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

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

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

I absolutely agree with you that this process needs to play out.  The only way that can occur is for an investigation to be performed, full hearings to occur with people under oath, a method for other people to come forward without having to fear for their safety, and a vote only after these steps have been carried out to the fullest.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: mm1970 on September 21, 2018, 04:37:06 PM
Quote
I have no clue whether it has merit or not.  Nobody will every have a clue whether has merit.  Because it happened more than three decades ago.  I'm a little skeptical that this was some horrible event that scarred her so much that she couldn't talk about it for three decades yet can't say when or where it happened.  I'm also a little skeptical that a guy that tried to rape someone at the age of 17 didn't behave in a way that a single other person is willing to come out and talk about how rapey he was.  I'm also a little skeptical that two 17 year old boys attempted but failed to rape a 15 year old girl.  But really none of that is anything but conjecture. 

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

She did talk about it.  To her therapist.

2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 04:49:08 PM
Quote
I have no clue whether it has merit or not.  Nobody will every have a clue whether has merit.  Because it happened more than three decades ago.  I'm a little skeptical that this was some horrible event that scarred her so much that she couldn't talk about it for three decades yet can't say when or where it happened.  I'm also a little skeptical that a guy that tried to rape someone at the age of 17 didn't behave in a way that a single other person is willing to come out and talk about how rapey he was.  I'm also a little skeptical that two 17 year old boys attempted but failed to rape a 15 year old girl.  But really none of that is anything but conjecture. 

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

She did talk about it.  To her therapist.

2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported.

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

Key quote:
Quote
After the alleged attack on Dr. Blasey, a male friend said, she “fell off the face of the earth socially,” failing to appear at parties and events she’d previously attended. “All I remember is after my junior year thinking, ‘Where’s Chrissy Blasey?’” he recalled.

“She was the sort of person a lot of people paid attention to — she was a leader, she was great. I was like, where did she go?”
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on September 21, 2018, 05:46:12 PM
I think he is a liability for the GOP at this point.  They would be much better off just admitting that this isn’t the right guy.  It’s not like they don’t have more solid choices. 

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

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

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

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

+1.

The GOP, notably Mr. Ditch Mitch, has already stated Kavanaugh will be confirmed. In essence claiming due process is irrelevant. I am surprised they didn't just label it "locker room behavior."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 21, 2018, 05:50:25 PM

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

+1.

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

Well they've already called it "rough horseplay" and used the "boys will be boys" excuse, not to mention talked about how "what heterosexual male hasn't pushed things with a girl when just discovering his masculinity?" and everyone's favorite "but they were drunk hormonal teenagers!"   Different phrases, same sick justification. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 21, 2018, 06:50:18 PM

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

+1.

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

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

These are the same people that impose dress restrictions on women at school so that the boys are not tempted. In a strange way, it speaks to a belief in frailty of Man, and that sin is inevitable. It goes all the way back to Eve with the proverbial apple (those damn temptresses!). Seriously, if men are supposed to be all strong and great and smart, why can't they be expected to regulate themselves?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on September 21, 2018, 07:04:26 PM
This is an interesting interview.

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

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

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

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

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

Why not have an investigation:

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


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

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

The thinking in that group is...fascinating.

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

Edited: I guess this shocked me going off people I know because even the Trump supporters I know when his comments about grabbing women came out would say "he's just talking, he didn't do that." With Stormy and such, they'd say, it was consensual, and so on. Self-deluded - of course. I understand if this isn't even a line at this point with anyone because of so many lines that have been crossed. It's just, to me, if we can't even agree that sexual assault is a bad thing, how can we ever make any change? I don't mean to derail the thread. I'm just curious what people have seen/think is out there.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 22, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Patti Davis writes about her own sexual assault 40 years ago:

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 22, 2018, 12:07:29 PM
This is an interesting interview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One guess as to Kevin's political party.

Cramer may become a lesson of "what not to say" but, as of right now, he felt secure enough in his supporters to say it out loud.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: austin944 on September 22, 2018, 02:35:10 PM
She knew Kavanaugh prior to the alleged incident. This tends not to be the type of thing a victim will forget. Quite the opposite. Memory is a fungible thing, and details like what song was put on could be argued. But I seriously doubt that the people who were involved are going to be forgotten.

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

If they did meet prior to the alleged assault, then wouldn't you expect to see corroborating evidence at this point?  Wouldn't there be other acquaintances in common who could relate events where they both met or became acquainted before the incident?  Why hasn't Dr. Ford offered other evidence that she knew him (or has she already done that)?  How about just a general description of how they might have met before this alleged party?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 22, 2018, 02:47:35 PM
She knew Kavanaugh prior to the alleged incident. This tends not to be the type of thing a victim will forget. Quite the opposite. Memory is a fungible thing, and details like what song was put on could be argued. But I seriously doubt that the people who were involved are going to be forgotten.

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

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

I have no idea if they were acquaintances before Kavenaugh's failed rape attempt.  I know that things are and have historically been difficult for women, but don't believe that sexual assault hapens so frequently that it would be easily forgotten regardless.  The incident was discussed by Ford with her therapist long before Kavenaugh was up for appointment, so it's not like she's a political hack trying to ruin the Republican Party by making up a story either.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 22, 2018, 03:23:28 PM
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on September 22, 2018, 07:40:01 PM
Why exactly would you state this forum is not a place for that discussion?  Expecially as someone who is not a mod?
Of course it won't. They were all in these same societies.

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

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

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

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

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

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

That shows weakness even though it's by far the safest play. I think they're going to push Kavanaugh through no matter the consequences.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: EricL on September 22, 2018, 10:39:38 PM
Nay.  His anti-gun control stance is the only thing that recommends him to me.  But I’d have to ignore he was appointed by the sleaziest administration in living memory to approve.  One that already demonstrated a willingness to trample even that for political expediency.  Not to mentiona generation of violating everything else in the Bill of Rights as an added benefit. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: aaahhrealmarcus on September 23, 2018, 03:43:20 PM
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

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

Is it THAT hard to find someone who isn't an attempted rapist?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Fireball on September 23, 2018, 04:27:34 PM
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

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

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

Among far right conservatives who also believe the President cannot be indicted while in office and that would rule to over turn Roe v Wade - apparently.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 23, 2018, 05:45:45 PM
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

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

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

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

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

The reality of course is that if we consider the average experience of the last 30-some justices, there are probably at least 1,000 qualified candidates, many of whom are far right of center.  There's a list of 21 pre-vetted candidates already out there; all have less baggage and most have more experience. Kavanaugh's far from special, but they've hitched their wagon to his nomination, and now they're being dragged into the swamp.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JetBlast on September 23, 2018, 06:30:53 PM
I think the fear is that if they pull Kavanaugh the process starts over. While, there is time to get someone else confirmed before the new congress in January, what if that nominee has a skeleton in their closet that wasn’t found in the vetting process?  That might push things into next year, which the GOP is deathly afraid will mean a less extreme judge has to be confirmed.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez on September 23, 2018, 06:55:56 PM
Yep, they've hitched their wagon and to ditch him now would give Democrats a moral victory. The way this seems to be blowing up, they might get the justice in but are losing on the moral ground. They could have just yanked Kavanaugh immediately and showed how seriously they take sexual misconduct, and still get a pick in anyway.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 23, 2018, 08:22:30 PM
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

The GOP gambled big that no more accusers or negative stories would surface.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 23, 2018, 08:23:00 PM
Clearly a deep state feminist ploy to keep Collins and Murkowski in the news. In fact, all women senators should recuse themselves from this vote, too biased.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on September 23, 2018, 09:11:35 PM
I wonder who Putin will choose next? 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez on September 23, 2018, 09:41:52 PM
Clearly a deep state feminist ploy to keep Collins and Murkowski in the news. In fact, all women senators should recuse themselves from this vote, too biased.

LOL!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GrayGhost on September 23, 2018, 10:31:10 PM
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

You know, I hate to not believe people who say they're victims, and it is entirely possible that the described events took place... however, I think we should take allegations a bit skeptically. In a he-said-she-said case, I say, innocent until proven guilty.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 24, 2018, 12:46:48 AM
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

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

"Innocent until proven guilty" is for criminal charges which can result in someone's freedom or property being taken away.   Outside of criminal or civil action two people start on equal ground and if we have to chose we chose the more credible.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: marty998 on September 24, 2018, 05:17:53 AM
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

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

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

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

Basically, OJ Simpson no?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 05:51:31 AM
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

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

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

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

Basically, OJ Simpson no?

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

Two women have forward publicly, and Michael Avenatti is claiming he represents a third, yet publicly unknown woman.  The proper course of action here is to have the FBI investigate to determine credibility and then have testimonies under oath. Congress should not approve a candidate to a lifetime appointment if there's credible evidence that that he committed (a) violent crime(s). The standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" here, it's "are these accusations and accusers credible". 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on September 24, 2018, 06:07:59 AM
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

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

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

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

He also is in favor of both dark money in politics and foreign money in politics.  Add that in and it makes a lot more sense why so many politicians would favor him.  Also, attempted rape and misogyny?  It's a feature, not a bug!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 24, 2018, 07:04:31 AM
Trump and the Republicans should've moved on to someone else in their list of 21. They may get Kavanuagh through but I suspect the committee will look like it's bullying her. They're risking the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

I take issue with the argument that the Republican party is "being dragged into the swamp".  They've not only been living there for some time, but have been increasing swamp area at a level that is making the Fish and Wildlife Service proud.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 24, 2018, 07:10:03 AM
Now there's a report that Kavanaugh exposed himself to a female classmate while at Yale.

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

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

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

Basically, OJ Simpson no?

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

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

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

If nothing else, a Republican party that refuses to properly investigate credible accusations in order to railroad a second sexual predator onto a lifetime appointment with enormous power over the lives of women deserves all the calumny that can be directed at it. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 24, 2018, 07:15:14 AM
I had an offline conversation with a friend (conservative) who claimed that the reason the FBI could do so much to investigate Thomas was that he was a Federal Employee during the time when he was targetting Anita Hill. Kavanaugh wasn't such during the time when these allegations are relevant.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 24, 2018, 07:24:46 AM
Yes.  This case is not simply "he said she said".  The people making the accusations have asked for an FBI investigation.  One of them has taken and passed a lie detector test administered by ex-FBI.  They have put forward the names of witnesses to call.  They have historical records to back up the fact that the allegations have been made over a period of years.    The side defending the accusations has refused an FBI investigation.  It has refused to allow witnesses to be called under oath.  It has disseminated completely unfounded libels that someone else was responsible for the attempted rape.  So all the surrounding facts lean towards supporting the accusations.

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

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

The Republican party has selected a sexist, racist, homophobe, serial liar as their leader and representative.  The party has done everything in it's power to subvert the democratic system (gerrymandering, increasing the ability of corporations and donors to influence politicians, voter suppression, collaborating with foreign powers to influence elections), and support those who are subverting the system.  They have repeatedly fielded and supported candidates with a history of sexual violence, rape, and pedophilia for positions to be filled.  This list just goes on and on.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OurTown on September 24, 2018, 07:25:34 AM
I'm sticking with "nay" at this point.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 07:29:14 AM
I had an offline conversation with a friend (conservative) who claimed that the reason the FBI could do so much to investigate Thomas was that he was a Federal Employee during the time when he was targetting Anita Hill. Kavanaugh wasn't such during the time when these allegations are relevant.

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

Saying that the FBI should not investigate charges of attempted rape is tantamount to declaring that you have no interest in learning whether such allegations have merit.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 24, 2018, 08:06:01 AM
Quote
I have no clue whether it has merit or not.  Nobody will every have a clue whether has merit.  Because it happened more than three decades ago.  I'm a little skeptical that this was some horrible event that scarred her so much that she couldn't talk about it for three decades yet can't say when or where it happened.  I'm also a little skeptical that a guy that tried to rape someone at the age of 17 didn't behave in a way that a single other person is willing to come out and talk about how rapey he was.  I'm also a little skeptical that two 17 year old boys attempted but failed to rape a 15 year old girl.  But really none of that is anything but conjecture. 

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

She did talk about it.  To her therapist.

2/3 of sexual assaults go unreported.

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

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

To ask people to believe her over the witnesses she identified when she can't even identify a time or place is asking that any female be able to ruin somebody's career at anytime within three or four decades after their paths could have crossed geographically, just by making a vague accusation.  Of course people are going to push back on that.  And that probably will unfortunately discourage some victims that can credibly claim sexual assault, including being able to name a time or place of the assault or a time a place when they became incapacitated such that they couldn't remember the details of the assault.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 24, 2018, 08:13:15 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She has given her story, Kavanaugh has given his.  The witnesses she named have given theirs.  The Senate is going to decide whether they think she is credible without any corroborating evidence regardless of what the FBI does.  What else is there to do other than swear them in and have them testify? 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 24, 2018, 08:23:46 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, it looks like, have the other two women who are coming forward give their testimony, as well.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 24, 2018, 08:27:01 AM
The FBI is excellent at investigation. They are excellent at lining up stories, even with very few details, to decide credibility of various parties.

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

The Republicans want us to think this is a trial, and "innocent until proven guilty" applies. But it isn't, and it may or may not.  Really, they could reject a candidate for any reason if they are uncomfortable with that candidate. Garland was rejected solely on who nominated him.  That's a pretty low standard.  Certainly "allegations of sexual misconduct" are above that level, though I agree, it is worth it to determine if the allegations have merit; they wouldn't NEED to determine them.  It's NOT a trial.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 08:35:59 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Also, please note the correct spelling of the alleged victim's name.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 08:46:57 AM

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

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

I don't think you understand what the FBI can and routinely does do when conducting investigations for high-level appointments.  I detailed it a bit in my previous post, but the investigation would not be limited to the event over three decades ago. The investigators would look for motivating factors for making this allegation (is it political? was she paid or coerced?).  they would talk to her close family members (when did they first learn about it? Has the story changed?) They would certainly interview Judge (who would now face obstruction charges if he lied) as well as other close friends of Kavanaugh during that period (did Kavanaugh drink heavily? Was he ever aggressive with other girls? Did he share Judge's well documented opinions on 'hookup culture'?). They could talk to her therapist (with permission) and ask when and how these memories came about.
All of these things involve very recent events and could tell us a great deal. It's mind-boggling to hear people say that 1) nothing can be learned or 2) this isn't the purvue of the FBI.  The only rational explanation is that the GOP does not want to cast further doubt on their nomination.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: electriceagle on September 24, 2018, 08:53:56 AM
Two women have forward publicly, and Michael Avenatti is claiming he represents a third, yet publicly unknown woman. 

At this point, the Republicans have to decide whether they are willing to take the heat to keep Kavanaugh and pass him on a party-line vote (which is what they intended to do in the first place) or drop him completely. If they open an investigation and new accusers come forward in drips and drabs, the investigation will stretch past the election and Trump could lose the ability to make this appointment.

Jeff Flake could vote "no" since he is retiring (no longer needs the goodwill of the Republican party) and dislikes Trump and his ways. If Flake bails, Kavanaugh doesn't get out of the judiciary committee.

My guess is that they will decide whether to accept Kavanaugh before having the hearing, as there's no point in producing the spectacle of male senators interviewing a crying woman and then dropping the nomination anyway.

I don't see any point in pretending that anyone in politics is interested in whether the allegations are true. They all want what they want and will use any tool to get it -- if the Republicans request that the FBI conduct an investigation, it is because they intend to drop Kavanaugh and are buying time for Trump to choose a nominee and rapidly vet him in secret before doing the world's fastest confirmation process.

If you see an ad in the paper that says "Do you believe that President cannot be indicted & abortion should be illegal? I've got a job for you! Good pay, lifetime appointment, judicial experience optional." you'll know which way this is going to go.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 09:19:05 AM
Two women have forward publicly, and Michael Avenatti is claiming he represents a third, yet publicly unknown woman. 

At this point, the Republicans have to decide whether they are willing to take the heat to keep Kavanaugh and pass him on a party-line vote (which is what they intended to do in the first place) or drop him completely. If they open an investigation and new accusers come forward in drips and drabs, the investigation will stretch past the election and Trump could lose the ability to make this appointment.

Jeff Flake could vote "no" since he is retiring (no longer needs the goodwill of the Republican party) and dislikes Trump and his ways. If Flake bails, Kavanaugh doesn't get out of the judiciary committee.

My guess is that they will decide whether to accept Kavanaugh before having the hearing, as there's no point in producing the spectacle of male senators interviewing a crying woman and then dropping the nomination anyway.

I don't see any point in pretending that anyone in politics is interested in whether the allegations are true. They all want what they want and will use any tool to get it -- if the Republicans request that the FBI conduct an investigation, it is because they intend to drop Kavanaugh and are buying time for Trump to choose a nominee and rapidly vet him in secret before doing the world's fastest confirmation process.

If you see an ad in the paper that says "Do you believe that President cannot be indicted & abortion should be illegal? I've got a job for you! Good pay, lifetime appointment, judicial experience optional." you'll know which way this is going to go.

Interesting analysis - I'd just stress these two points
1) they've already got a pre-vetted list of 21 potential nominees, which has been public for 2+ years now.

2) this notion about "running out of time" and "eleventh hour" is even remotely true. Its September 24th - there are 101 days until the next congress is sworn in (which may or may not still have a GOP majority).  There are 43 days between now and the midterms.
Roberts, Ginsberg, Stevens and O'Conner all went from nomination to confirmation in less than 43 days.  Every single justice in the last century has been confirmed in under 100 days, including Thomas (at 99).

I have no dilusions that the Dems can somehow prevent the GOP from nominating whomever they want, and I'm certain it will be a person who is very right-of-center, particularly as it pertains to guns, women's rights, abortion and corporations. I'd just like for it to not be someone who's widely seen as having been a sexual deviant in his formative years.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 24, 2018, 09:30:45 AM
Just read through this weekend's posts on this topics, and wanted to point out a few things:

-I don't think you can tie Democrats to the timing of Ford's accusations becoming public, the timeline I've read in several places suggests Feinstein kept it private and internal, and it was actually reports who spent several weeks digging and digging before finally linking Ford to the originally very nebulous public whispers, forcing her to come public with her name and the actual details

-This line about "no one" corroborating Ford's details is a completely false Republican talking point. Yes, the woman Ford specifically cited could not confirm that she was at the party, and Judge backs up Kavanaugh but refused to provide Senate testimony. But many people of that age and in that scene have confirmed some of the aspects, like the hard drinking and partying lifestyle (yearbooks, Judge's memoirs, other people not connected to the specific allegation). So there is a lot of smoke surrounding this allegation. This includes an old girlfriend of Judge's. Again, much of this points to things Judge may have committed, and while that doesn't prove Kavanaugh was involved, they were obviously very close friends.

-The second accuser, Ramirez, has provided more specific allegations, including time, place, and additional witnesses. Many of those witnesses she gave are directly refuting her, but again, there is circumstantial evidence that she told others at the time who were not there but have confirmed portions of her story. One could entertain the notion that the denials may be false or made for other reasons, and that's why these need to be actually investigated.

-No one is really talking about the third unnamed accuser now being repped by Avenatti. He's made some pretty bold accusations on Twitter (well, they are very slippery accusations, since they are more posed as questions he thinks the Senate should start asking...you could see how he could back down or deny and not be accused of slander the way he's asked them).

The point is the Republican talking point that there is only one lone accuser who no one will corroborate and who is only speaking to events 35 years ago has been completely blown up this weekend. There is a ton of smoke, and while if you want to say there's no fire yet I can't completely fault you, I still think the country deserves to know more.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 24, 2018, 09:37:42 AM
There is literally nothing else that could be done to clear Kavanaugh's name.

False accusations have a way of rapidly crumbling.

There have been a few cases in recent years of false accusations being exposed by an investigation, notably the Duke Lacrosse case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case).  The details were similar (drunk students at a party) but the accuser was less credible and the prosecution and presumption of guilt was much more rushed.   In the end, just a cursory attempt by journalists (not the FBI) was enough to find holes and contradictions in the story, the accusations were withdrawn and the charges dropped, and the prosecutor was disbarred.  Multiple university administrators were forced to resign.  Despite the initial outcry, justice was apparently served and the accused were exonerated, and the accusers had their lives destroyed instead of the accused.

Given that history, it makes perfect sense to me that Feinstein sat on this accusation for so long.  If she rushed to back an accusation of unknown merit, she would probably be forced to resign.  Ford's (very famous) lawyer would likely have her career ruined. 

Any time that a story like this breaks national news, I sort of assume there is far more information in the hands of the relevant parties than is reported by the press.  I've seen too many stories evolve over time to think that we have the full picture at the outset, so I suspect that Feinstein has already done her own private investigation and corroborated the story somehow.  A PI can rapidly determine that the two people were in fact students at the same school and traveled in similar social circles, that Kavanaugh was in fact at the party and was in fact stumbling drunk, that Ford has been credibly discussing this attack for decades now, and that other credible accusations support Kavanaugh's history of similar behavior.  All of that deserves a public airing before he is confirmed.

At this point, Kavanaugh's best (and I think only) defense is going to be "I was too drunk to remember any of this, but it sure doesn't seem like me."  He can't credibly deny the allegations because he was apparently too drunk to stand.  Is that the man we want as our final arbiter of moral authority on the Supreme Court?

I have certainly overimbibed as a young man, and said and done some horrible things as a result, but I have never assaulted anyone while drunk.  It wouldn't even occur to me that anyone might attempt to make such an accusation based on any circumstance that might even remotely have been misconstrued as nonconsensual touching.  This behavior is not, and never was, normal or acceptable.  The common republican talking point about "what young man hasn't done this" seems horribly regressive to me.  What sort of person HAS done this? 

In the republican defense of Kavanaugh I'm hearing eerie echoes of their defense of admitted child molestor Judge Roy Moore for the Senate, or their defense of admitted serial philanderer and groper Donald Trump for the presidency.  Republicans, who used to claim the mantle of the "family values" party, have fully embraced the most vile and disgusting sort of male privilege imaginable, the consequence-free sexual assault of women, in their candidates for high office.  Even for voters who like the GOP positions on economic policy, gun control, the military, or social issues like religion, the open embrace of sexual assault seems like it's probably disqualifying.  I understand that you don't always get everything you want in a candidate, but what kind of person votes for a rapist just because they're also a supply-sider?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 24, 2018, 10:50:32 AM

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

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

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

Because something is difficult does not mean it is impossible, and denials mean little when not given under oath or as part of an investigation, particularly when that person would also be part of a crime.   These are not vague accusations,

An allegation that can't name a time and place other than a county and year is not vague?  If that's not vague, I guess that means you find the allegations completely false since her friend Keyser (alleged by Ford to have been present at the party) said she doesn't recall ever being at a party where kavanaugh was present?   

and as I've said before it's hyperbole to suggest that failure to reach SCOTUS is equivalent to "ruining" Kavanaugh's life.
  Who suggested it is ruining his life?  You could argue whether letting completely uncorroborated allegations derail his career is ruining it.  But the bigger issue is that we can't provide anybody who has ever been in the same geographic area and plausibly within the same extended social circles to have a veto power of their appointment.   

Indeed its important to note that Blasey Ford has lost a great deal by coming forward.
  She has lost her anonymity.  She'll be viewed as a hero by some people and as a political opportunist by others.  I'm not sure how that tradeoff works teaching in California. 

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

Also, please note the correct spelling of the alleged victim's name.
  Nobody is suggesting not asking these questions.  There just not going along with the disingenuous requests to delay things.  If Ford will not agree to make her allegations under oath and at least have a closed meeting with the senators, there's not much reason to proceed.  As you said, this is not about reasonable doubt, it's about appointing someone to SCOTUS.  That's a political process (as Feinstein has made so clear with her actions), and if Ford doesn't want Kavanaugh on the supreme court, the minimum she has to do is agree to answer questions as part of the political process. 

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 10:54:19 AM
Here's a bizarre example of cosmic karma...

Brett Kavanaugh currently sits on the DC circuit court of appeals. 

The chief justice of the DC circuit is none-other than Merrick Garland, who was nominated by Obama but denied even a hearing for over 7 months by McConnell and the GOP-held Senate.

If Kavanaugh is shown or suspected to have falsely denied allegations made by Blasey Ford, he could be investigated by the DC Circuit for publicly lying while serving as a member of the DC Circuit Court, and the results of said investigation would be given to Judge Garland.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 24, 2018, 11:12:06 AM

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

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

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

Because something is difficult does not mean it is impossible, and denials mean little when not given under oath or as part of an investigation, particularly when that person would also be part of a crime.   These are not vague accusations,

An allegation that can't name a time and place other than a county and year is not vague?  If that's not vague, I guess that means you find the allegations completely false since her friend Keyser (alleged by Ford to have been present at the party) said she doesn't recall ever being at a party where kavanaugh was present?   

and as I've said before it's hyperbole to suggest that failure to reach SCOTUS is equivalent to "ruining" Kavanaugh's life.
  Who suggested it is ruining his life?  You could argue whether letting completely uncorroborated allegations derail his career is ruining it.  But the bigger issue is that we can't provide anybody who has ever been in the same geographic area and plausibly within the same extended social circles to have a veto power of their appointment.   

Indeed its important to note that Blasey Ford has lost a great deal by coming forward.
  She has lost her anonymity.  She'll be viewed as a hero by some people and as a political opportunist by others.  I'm not sure how that tradeoff works teaching in California. 

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

Also, please note the correct spelling of the alleged victim's name.
  Nobody is suggesting not asking these questions.  There just not going along with the disingenuous requests to delay things.  If Ford will not agree to make her allegations under oath and at least have a closed meeting with the senators, there's not much reason to proceed.  As you said, this is not about reasonable doubt, it's about appointing someone to SCOTUS.  That's a political process (as Feinstein has made so clear with her actions), and if Ford doesn't want Kavanaugh on the supreme court, the minimum she has to do is agree to answer questions as part of the political process.

Honestly what is the issue with having the FBI investigate these allegations? Having the FBI investigate is a two-edged sword. It might provide evidence she has made a false accusation. I think the only way CBFord will have a fair hearing is if the FBI do an independent, inpartial investigation. She won't get that by simply testifying in front of the congressional committee. That is plainly obvious.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 24, 2018, 11:31:34 AM
Honestly what is the issue with having the FBI investigate these allegations?

Was that a rhetorical questions?  Because the answer seems obvious to me, like it shouldn't need explanation.

But just in case I'm assuming too much, I thin the answer to your question "what is the harm in investigating" is that to Trump's GOP, an investigation would lend credence to the allegation regardless of what it finds, because it suggests that someone somewhere thinks the allegations credible enough to not laugh out loud at. 

For now, Kavanaugh's defense seems to be "this never happened, and you've hurt my feelings by even suggesting it."  They don't want to investigate, because they might find something they don't want to know, and they have no room to back down on this.  They need to approve Kavanaugh no matter how many allegations against him there are, provable or otherwise. 

Congressional republicans see his appointment as the means to future electoral victories by appeasing the religious zealots on the far right (by outlawing abortion).  Trump sees his appointment as his get-out-of-jail-free card, because Kavanaugh is on record as ruling "it's not illegal when the President does it".  These two things together, and their unusual presence in the same nominee, makes Kav a uniquely powerful republican appointee right now and they don't seem to think they can find anyone else who checks those two boxes, so his criminal past is going to have to be overlooked.  Which should be easy, since they've already overlooked a similar history in their Presidential candidate and thus have plenty of practice.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Fireball on September 24, 2018, 11:35:45 AM
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 24, 2018, 11:39:31 AM
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

Are you suggesting that Feinstein withholding accusations of sexual assault against a supreme court nominee until they could be corroborated is in any way akin to McConnell refusing to allow hearings or testimony on a supreme court nominee with a sterling record purely because the president who nominated him was a black democrat?

From where I'm standing, McConnell played it as dirty as possible for purely partisan reasons, and Feinstein benefited politically from doing the right thing in waiting for confirmation before going public.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 11:43:42 AM
  Who suggested it is ruining his life?  You could argue whether letting completely uncorroborated allegations derail his career is ruining it.  But the bigger issue is that we can't provide anybody who has ever been in the same geographic area and plausibly within the same extended social circles to have a veto power of their appointment.   

I think there's a bit you are missing about current events.  Graham is just one of many people suggesting Kavanaugh's life is somehow going to be 'ruined' if he doesn't get appointed to SCOTUS.  Here he was on Fox News Sunday: What am I supposed to do, go and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation? … I’m just being honest: Unless there’s something more, no, I’m not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this
You have also made a slightly less severe suggestion that his career would be ruined ("...is asking that any female be able to ruin somebody's career at anytime within three or four decades after their paths could have crossed geographically, just by making a vague accusation)

This is also much more than some vague accusation. While the date and location of the party are unknown, Blasey Ford gave a number of very specific details, including a potential witness (Judge), who says he will resist any effort for him to testify, as well lots of details about the house, clothes, what was said and where and how people moved.  These sorts of details are exactly the sorts of things investigators like to have to test teh credibility of an accusation by testing whether those details shift.

Quote
  She has lost her anonymity.  She'll be viewed as a hero by some people and as a political opportunist by others.  I'm not sure how that tradeoff works teaching in California. 
There's a difference between a victim and a hero.  Overwhelmingly those who believe her see her as a victim -those that don't as a villain. The negative impact going public has had on her life is pretty straightforward.  OTOH, unless he is disbarred for this (in which case he'd be guilty of either the crime or attempting to cover it up) Kavanaugh will still sit on the DC circuit, a rather prestigeous and well paying job.
To hammer this point a bit more - failure to get a promotion to SCOTUS is not 'ruining' one's career. No one is taking away his federal judgeship.

Quote
  Nobody is suggesting not asking these questions.  There just not going along with the disingenuous requests to delay things.  If Ford will not agree to make her allegations under oath and at least have a closed meeting with the senators, there's not much reason to proceed.  As you said, this is not about reasonable doubt, it's about appointing someone to SCOTUS.  That's a political process (as Feinstein has made so clear with her actions), and if Ford doesn't want Kavanaugh on the supreme court, the minimum she has to do is agree to answer questions as part of the political process.

This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: dogboyslim on September 24, 2018, 12:38:57 PM
Roy Moore still almost won and he had a lot of accusers. As a 30 year old, he was preying on good ol' Alabama girls, too, and not some liberal, elite, Professor in California.

My mother voted for Moore.  Said she was sure he was a sexist A-hole that did everything he was accused of doing, but none of that mattered to her because she hates democrats more.  Said "if it was okay for Clinton to do that, why the hell should I care about anyone else doing it?"  She became a Republican over Clinton & the media's treatment of Juanita Broderick and she hasn't looked back.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 24, 2018, 12:47:44 PM
“No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination"
-Brett Kavanaugh, 7/9/18

As Kavanaugh’s poll numbers plummet, Trump is telling people in private that he was never a fan of Kavanaugh’s selection, sources said. According to two people who’ve spoken with Trump recently, Trump complained that establishment Republicans foisted Kavanaugh on him, because they reasoned Kavanaugh would unite the party in November. According to one former West Wing official, Trump’s first choice was Judge Thomas Hardiman, who served on the federal bench alongside Trump’s sister Maryanne Trump Barry.
-several unidentified sources, Vanity Fair, 9/24/18

I'd like to give some of you the benefit of the doubt, but I've decided to finally declare that anyone defending this nomination is engaged in pure sophistry.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 24, 2018, 12:48:45 PM
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

Are you suggesting that Feinstein withholding accusations of sexual assault against a supreme court nominee until they could be corroborated is in any way akin to McConnell refusing to allow hearings or testimony on a supreme court nominee with a sterling record purely because the president who nominated him was a black democrat?

From where I'm standing, McConnell played it as dirty as possible for purely partisan reasons, and Feinstein benefited politically from doing the right thing in waiting for confirmation before going public.

Feinstein didn't withhold accusations until they could be corroborated.  She held them so they could not be considered or investigated before the hearings were over.  She also ensured that they would be aired publicly rather than investigated and determined whether there was any corroborating information before doing a public character assassination. 

McConnell engaged in a pure political power play.  He didn't assassinate Garland's character.  I think everybody pretty much acknowledges that Garland was a qualified judge and as far as anybody knows is an upstanding person (If you're really worried about somebody like Trump having too much power, you should like Gorsuch over Garland for at least that reason though).  McConnell just continued the tit for tat escalation that was going on before he got there.  That's extremely unfortunate, but probably an inevitable result of the Supreme Court asserting itself as the "first among equals" as far as the three branches of federal government go. 

So no, their actions are not akin at all.  It's bad that we basically have devolved to the point where Justices will only be seated when the same party has the presidency and the senate.  But Feinstein's actions are still worse.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 12:51:14 PM
Roy Moore still almost won and he had a lot of accusers. As a 30 year old, he was preying on good ol' Alabama girls, too, and not some liberal, elite, Professor in California.

My mother voted for Moore.  Said she was sure he was a sexist A-hole that did everything he was accused of doing, but none of that mattered to her because she hates democrats more.  Said "if it was okay for Clinton to do that, why the hell should I care about anyone else doing it?"  She became a Republican over Clinton & the media's treatment of Juanita Broderick and she hasn't looked back.
...oh the irony; one can leave a political party for sexual mis-deeds, but not abandon their new party for similar reasons.

What's gone amiss is that it was never ok, ever, for anyone.  Until that becomes clear this is cycle is just going to keep repeating itself.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 12:57:09 PM
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

Are you suggesting that Feinstein withholding accusations of sexual assault against a supreme court nominee until they could be corroborated is in any way akin to McConnell refusing to allow hearings or testimony on a supreme court nominee with a sterling record purely because the president who nominated him was a black democrat?

From where I'm standing, McConnell played it as dirty as possible for purely partisan reasons, and Feinstein benefited politically from doing the right thing in waiting for confirmation before going public.

Feinstein didn't withhold accusations until they could be corroborated.  She held them so they could not be considered or investigated before the hearings were over.  She also ensured that they would be aired publicly rather than investigated and determined whether there was any corroborating information before doing a public character assassination. 

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein is the one asking for this matter to be investigated.  In her letter to chariman Grassey
I am writing to request an immediate postponement of any further proceedings related to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh... that the newest allegations of sexual misconduct be referred to the FBI for investigation, and that you join our request for the White House to direct the FBI to investigate the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford as well as these new claims

Sen. Feinstein is asking that the hearings be postponed until they can be investigated.  Which is exactly the opposite of what you are alleging. Also, she was roundly criticized (appropriately or not) for NOT airing the accusations publicly, while her office determined whether the accusations had merit and referred to the FBI.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 24, 2018, 01:00:24 PM
This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not on Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 24, 2018, 01:06:56 PM
Anyone who wants to complain about Feinstein's handling of this needs to come down off their high horse. If the Republicans can't handle a tiny dose of their own medicine, then they need to reconsider how their previous actions may have influenced this confirmation process.

Are you suggesting that Feinstein withholding accusations of sexual assault against a supreme court nominee until they could be corroborated is in any way akin to McConnell refusing to allow hearings or testimony on a supreme court nominee with a sterling record purely because the president who nominated him was a black democrat?

From where I'm standing, McConnell played it as dirty as possible for purely partisan reasons, and Feinstein benefited politically from doing the right thing in waiting for confirmation before going public.

Feinstein didn't withhold accusations until they could be corroborated.  She held them so they could not be considered or investigated before the hearings were over.  She also ensured that they would be aired publicly rather than investigated and determined whether there was any corroborating information before doing a public character assassination. 

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein is the one asking for this matter to be investigated.  In her letter to chariman Grassey
I am writing to request an immediate postponement of any further proceedings related to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh... that the newest allegations of sexual misconduct be referred to the FBI for investigation, and that you join our request for the White House to direct the FBI to investigate the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford as well as these new claims

Sen. Feinstein is asking that the hearings be postponed until they can be investigated.  Which is exactly the opposite of what you are alleging. Also, she was roundly criticized (appropriately or not) for NOT airing the accusations publicly, while her office determined whether the accusations had merit and referred to the FBI.

You are getting the timeline wrong.  She had the allegations in late July.  She waited until the confirmation hearings were all but wrapped up before leaking the allegations.  Had she handled the allegations appropriately, the process already would have been resolved.  Most likely, there would have been either something to corroborate the claim as plausible and that would have been enough to spike the nomination, or there would be nothing to corroborate it and the nomination would have moved forward. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 24, 2018, 01:10:00 PM
This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable.

A number of plausible explanations as to why she didn't release the accusations sooner have been offered yet you continue to insist that the only possible explanations are the ones that support your preferred narrative. In reality, the public doesn't have enough information to say with any certainty what her motives were. That Ford did not want to go public and Feinstein respected her wishes until it was leaked is plausible. That Feinstein was making an effort to corroborate the story is plausible. That she timed the release for political reasons is plausible. You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 01:13:25 PM
This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

What??  Blasey Ford agreed to testify on Thursday, a week after her allegation became public.  Did you somehow miss that?
Judge has NOT been inverviewed under penalty of perjury, because there is, as of yet, no investigation. 

Quote
Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable.

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein was asked by Blasey Ford to retain her confidentiality - which contradicts your assertion that it was unfair to the claimant (Ford). If she sat on it because it wasn't credible, then that's going to come out soon enough, Kavanaugh gets confirmed and Feinstein gets egg all over her face and quite possibly censure by the Senate. If it is credible, then we are moving towards where we ought to go - with hearings and (hopefully) an investigation in the matter.

Quote
You are getting the timeline wrong.  She had the allegations in late July.  She waited until the confirmation hearings were all but wrapped up before leaking the allegations.  Had she handled the allegations appropriately, the process already would have been resolved.  Most likely, there would have been either something to corroborate the claim as plausible and that would have been enough to spike the nomination, or there would be nothing to corroborate it and the nomination would have moved forward
You do realize this is the entire function of confirmation hearings, right?  To determine the suitability of a candidate for a particular position?
You seem annoyed that Feinstein kept the confidentiality of an accuser and didn't initiate a full investigation and hearing, yet you are also angry that now that her name has been made public that she is advocating for these very same things.  Ford's hesitance to testify under oath last week was evidence of her shoddy claim, yet her agreement to testify this week should be discredited because it's 'at the last minute'?

The confirmation wasn't "all but wrapped up" - the committee had not even voted on whether to send it to the entire Senate. There's no reason it can't go on for another week or month - certainly numerous SCOTUS members' confirmations have taken far longer. Would it have been better for Kavanaugh had these allegations come out two weeks ago? I have no idea; the defendant rarely gets to decide when he or she gets accused. Was Feinstein acting "politically" in all of this?  Quite possibly, but she is a politician - but that doesn't mean that these allegations should be dropped or ignored.

Look, serious accusations have been made against a nominee for SCOTUS. This congress has the time. Investigate the claims, have all parties testify under oath, and let the chips fall where they will. If this is somehow a politically motivated smear campaign (as has been alleged by Kavanaugh) that may become clear and the accusers will then be in legal jeopardy. If they are credible under scrutiny that's sufficient to deny someone a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on September 24, 2018, 01:16:28 PM
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 24, 2018, 01:24:55 PM
This is very confusing, because first off because in your last several posts you've maintained that not much can be learned via an FBI investigation (false), and secondly its the GOP who is trying to curtail any public hearings or investigations on this matter. Blasey Ford is also the one who wants to have public hearings, under oath.  She is the one who wants to have Judge called to testify.  She is the one who volunteered for a polygraph test adminstered by the FBI.

Do you believe that the FBI should investigate the matter?
Do you think that a full hearing should be given with Kavanaugh, Ford and others called to testify under oath?
Finally, what - specifically - did Feinstein do with regard to Blasey Ford that you find objectionable?

It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

What??  Blasey Ford agreed to testify on Thursday, a week after her allegation became public.  Did you somehow miss that?
Judge has NOT been inverviewed under penalty of perjury, because there is, as of yet, no investigation. 

Quote
Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable.

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein was asked by Blasey Ford to retain her confidentiality - which contradicts your assertion that it was unfair to the claimant (Ford). If she sat on it because it wasn't credible, then that's going to come out soon enough, Kavanaugh gets confirmed and Feinstein gets egg all over her face and quite possibly censure by the Senate. If it is credible, then we are moving towards where we ought to go - with hearings and (hopefully) an investigation in the matter.

Quote
You are getting the timeline wrong.  She had the allegations in late July.  She waited until the confirmation hearings were all but wrapped up before leaking the allegations.  Had she handled the allegations appropriately, the process already would have been resolved.  Most likely, there would have been either something to corroborate the claim as plausible and that would have been enough to spike the nomination, or there would be nothing to corroborate it and the nomination would have moved forward
You do realize this is the entire function of confirmation hearings, right?  To determine the suitability of a candidate for a particular position?
You seem annoyed that Feinstein kept the confidentiality of an accuser and didn't initiate a full investigation and hearing, yet you are also angry that now that he name has been made public that she is advocating for these very same things.

The confirmation wasn't "all but wrapped up" - the committee had not even voted on whether to send it to the entire Senate. There's no reason it can't go on for another week or month - certainly numerous SCOTUS members' confirmations have taken far longer. Would it have been better for Kavanaugh had these allegations come out two weeks ago? I have no idea; the defendant rarely gets to decide when he or she gets accused. Was Feinstein acting "politically" in all of this?  Quite possibly, but she is a politician - but that doesn't mean that these allegations should be dropped or ignored.

Exactly.

And, lost in all of this discussion is the fact that the GOP suppressed roughly 90% of the documentation about Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White House. So, the idea that somehow Kavanaugh's vetting has been sufficient, and hasn't been subject to basically ramming it through as quickly as possible, is laughable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 24, 2018, 01:32:25 PM
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.

That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on September 24, 2018, 01:40:31 PM
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 24, 2018, 01:45:58 PM
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

what if the interviews conducted by the FBI (assumption here noted) reveal a pattern of behavior consistent with the multiple accusations? This is fundamentally a question of character. If he is shown to reasonably have the character alleged by Ford, should that be disqualifying? A common thread that I have seen is that those who are willing to support the point of view of the accused are willing to go on record, while many who support Kavanaugh will not go on record. This pattern is apparent in reporting by the New Yorker, etc where most of those supporting Kavanaugh were choosing to stay anonymous.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 24, 2018, 01:48:13 PM
how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information

I don't know that you are actually being sincere, but any one of these people and witnesses can lie left and right to the public and through spokespeople. I think having everyone involved speak with either the FBI or Senate under oath may force whoever is not telling the whole truth to do so. And if not, the FBI is (I'm told) very good at establishing verifiable facts and building timelines based on statements, and using that to assess what happened and what level of confidence we may or may not have with regards to those facts that may be based solely on testimony.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 24, 2018, 01:50:17 PM
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has made this claim.

If you're curious as to how evidence of misconduct could become more credible, read through nereo's posts. He's done a pretty good job of laying out how an FBI investigation might be conducted in scenario's like this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 24, 2018, 01:55:44 PM
It is Ford who is delaying testifying.  She does not get to dictate the process.  If she doesn't want to testify under oath until after she sees what the FBI finds and what holes might be in her story, then that's not Republicans.  Judge has been interviewed under penalty of perjury.  Kavanaugh has offered to testify under penatly of perjury.  The only person resisting giving any statements under penalty of perjury is Ford. 

What??  Blasey Ford agreed to testify on Thursday, a week after her allegation became public.  Did you somehow miss that?
I thought she was still "negotiating" over things like having the FBI act first, staffers not being allowed to ask questions, Kavanaugh testifying first, etc.  I did not realize she had agreed to testify without her conditions being met. 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/ford-letter-fbi/index.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/christine-blasey-ford-hearing-conditions_us_5ba44e3ee4b0375f8f9b8332



Judge has NOT been inverviewed under penalty of perjury, because there is, as of yet, no investigation. 

https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1042825426769461249?lang=en



Quote
Feinstein sat on the information for months.  She should have raised it with the other committee members so that the claim could be timely investigated as part of the confirmation process but she didn't.  Instead, she either sat on a credible claim because she wanted to delay, which in addition to being grossly unfair to the claimant, was also abusive of the process.  Or she sat on it because it wasn't credible, but leaked it after the committee proceedings were wrapping up because she wanted to use it as a delay tactic.  Either option is pretty despicable.

Again, you seem misinformed.  Feinstein was asked by Blasey Ford to retain her confidentiality - which contradicts your assertion that it was unfair to the claimant (Ford). If she sat on it because it wasn't credible, then that's going to come out soon enough, Kavanaugh gets confirmed and Feinstein gets egg all over her face and quite possibly censure by the Senate. If it is credible, then we are moving towards where we ought to go - with hearings and (hopefully) an investigation in the matter.
  First, you don't get to lob anonymous accusations at people and have them taken seriously.  But ignoring that, it doesn't change the fact that if Feinstein was going to pass it on, she should have passed it on when she got the information.  Waiting until after the committee proceedings were wrapped up and then leaking the information just ignores Ford's wishes while also ensuring she is tainted with the bad faith of Feinstein.   

Quote
You are getting the timeline wrong.  She had the allegations in late July.  She waited until the confirmation hearings were all but wrapped up before leaking the allegations.  Had she handled the allegations appropriately, the process already would have been resolved.  Most likely, there would have been either something to corroborate the claim as plausible and that would have been enough to spike the nomination, or there would be nothing to corroborate it and the nomination would have moved forward
You do realize this is the entire function of confirmation hearings, right?  To determine the suitability of a candidate for a particular position?
You seem annoyed that Feinstein kept the confidentiality of an accuser and didn't initiate a full investigation and hearing, yet you are also angry that now that her name has been made public that she is advocating for these very same things.  Ford's hesitance to testify under oath last week was evidence of her shoddy claim, yet her agreement to testify this week should be discredited because it's 'at the last minute'?
  You are not reading.  Feinstein violated her duties as a senator by not promptly notifying other senators on the committee of the issue, or at the very least, of asking the nominee about the accusation.  As you said, the entire point of the confirmation hearings is to determine the suitability of the candidate.  Performing her duties in good faith would have involved bringing this issue up before teh committee had wrapped up its hearings. 

The confirmation wasn't "all but wrapped up" - the committee had not even voted on whether to send it to the entire Senate. There's no reason it can't go on for another week or month - certainly numerous SCOTUS members' confirmations have taken far longer. Would it have been better for Kavanaugh had these allegations come out two weeks ago? I have no idea; the defendant rarely gets to decide when he or she gets accused. Was Feinstein acting "politically" in all of this?  Quite possibly, but she is a politician - but that doesn't mean that these allegations should be dropped or ignored.
  The committee proceedings as I said earlier.  That was a mental slip.  But I'm not sure how long the floor debate is going to last now that there is no filibuster and I'm not sure the committee proceedings aren't where the action will be from now on.  Gorsuch had a three day floor debate.  I expect the floor debate to be even shorter in the future but that's obviously just a guess.     

Look, serious accusations have been made against a nominee for SCOTUS. This congress has the time. Investigate the claims, have all parties testify under oath, and let the chips fall where they will. If this is somehow a politically motivated smear campaign (as has been alleged by Kavanaugh) that may become clear and the accusers will then be in legal jeopardy. If they are credible under scrutiny that's sufficient to deny someone a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS.
  Congress has time, but at the same time, there has to be some due process.  Minority parties can delay confirmation indefinitely if the rule is anything alleged after committee hearings are completed restarts the process.  This is an uncorroborated claim from three decades ago.  Since it was Feinstein that acted in bad faith, the committee should have Ford testify.  But it should be still be expedited to the extent possible and Ford's attorneys' seeming implication that her cooperation was contingent on controlling the process smacked of bad faith.  If she goes ahead and testifies without conditions on Thursday, then that more or less cures that. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 24, 2018, 02:00:29 PM
I think it is completely fair to say that Kavanaugh has misrepresented or lied about several issues involving his work in the GWB White House, even if it doesn't rise to the level of outright perjury. And that's a mighty whopper he said at his nomination acceptance speech I quoted above, no one, and I mean literally NO ONE, believes that Trump conducted the widest and most encompassing search for a SCOTUS nominee in history, as Trump himself repeatedly said he would only consider Federalist Society picks, and is now telling people in private that Kavanaugh was pushed on him by others.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 24, 2018, 02:11:36 PM
how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote

As has already been pointed out in this thread, false accusations tend to be revealed as such fairly quickly when a real investigation is conducted, so claiming "we'll never know" isn't exactly supported by recent history. 

You interview the people involved, getting all of the details you can.  You corroborate or challenge those details based on the other details.  You cross check the stories with verifiable facts like enrollment records and yearbook records.  You interview supporting players.  You build profiles of each character based on their other statements and records, and you see how those profiles fit together with the story each side presents.

In cases of false accusations, false accusers tend to rescind their accusations when challenged with contradictory information, and when it becomes clear no one is taking them seriously anymore.  Notice that virtually nobody in the #metoo movement, however, has been exposed as a false accuser despite public revelations, while many many serial sexual predators have been exposed and been dethroned, issuing public apologies and having their careers ruined even decades after the fact.  Why should Brett Kavanaugh's outcome be any different from Harvey Weinstein's, or Kevin Spacey's, or Louis C.K.'s?

Just maybe, as an outside possibility, can you recognize that powerful white American men have, for generations now, perpetrated sexual assault against women with complete freedom and absence of any professional consequences?  That women have largely failed to report these crimes, out of fear or shame or guilt?

Think of the 3-5 closest women in your life that you know were sexually assaulted.  How many of them reported it right away?  How many more women in your life have been assaulted and are still keeping it a secret?  That's the whole point of the #metoo movement.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 24, 2018, 02:11:56 PM
Ramirez comes across as very credible in the New Yorker article, and Judge comes across as one who is dishonest about Kavanaugh's behavior.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 24, 2018, 02:19:20 PM
Ramirez comes across as very credible in the New Yorker article, and Judge comes across as one who is dishonest about Kavanaugh's behavior.

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

If I understand this story correctly, Kavanaugh shoved his dick in her face as part of a frat-boy style "joke".  I can name a few dudes from my school days who thought it was funny to teabag drunk people, which is approximately the same level of sexual assault that Ramirez allegedly experienced.  I'm not suggesting that it's not traumatic, just that I can totally understand why Brett Kavanaugh might think this one is just "boys being boys" and not a big deal.  He might even admit it under oath, not knowing any better. 

Perps sometimes don't even recognize the harm they cause.  For example, the only registered sex offender I know personally went to jail for a similar college "prank" one night when he was drunk and naked.  He felt his life was ruined by a silly frat stunt, and to this day considers himself a victim of an overzealous feminized legal system. 

Kavanaugh seems to fit this exact same mold.  He was a hard drinking party boy with a history of lewd and suggestive behavior, but because he was a white male Yalie this was acceptable behavior and not at all disqualifying from becoming a federal judge in the 90s.   Hell, look at what Trump was doing in the 90s and tell me that Kavanaugh is half as bad? 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 02:27:58 PM
@Jrr85 - your responses keep focusing on Senator Feinstein's conduct and push this narrative that the conference proceedings were "all but wrapped up".
Is it your position that it is now "too late" to take these accusations into account and to conduct an investigation on the matter?

As you've pointed out, absent the filibuster debate on the Senate floor will likely be a few days at best.  How do you therefor reach the conclusion that we cannot further delay a vote in order to investigate the merit of these claims?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on September 24, 2018, 02:32:28 PM
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has made this claim.
Perhaps not verbatim, but in so many words.

Quote
If you're curious as to how evidence of misconduct could become more credible, read through nereo's posts. He's done a pretty good job of laying out how an FBI investigation might be conducted in scenario's like this.
Yep, read those, but short of Ford or Kavanaugh personally changing her or his story, I don't think
- Kavanaugh can prove he wasn't there, or was there and didn't do that, or
- Ford can prove he was there and did that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: almcclur on September 24, 2018, 03:00:32 PM
I think it's obvious they need to do an investigation, even though there is very little chance of any real information coming from one. This does seem like the worst kind of political maneuvering, and I think it's good that the Republicans are not automatically dropping him based just on these unproven accusations, even though it might be politically expedient to do so. With how contentious politics have become, you can be sure we'll be seeing this more and more in the future, if all it takes to tank a career is for someone to say you did something without any proof.

Regarding the new one:
"Ramirez was initially hesitant to speak publicly, she told the magazine, partly because her memory contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. She was unsure of his role in the incident at first, but after six days of carefully assessing memories and consulting with her attorney, Stan Garnett, Ramirez told The New Yorker she felt confident enough in her recollections to say she remembers it was Kavanaugh who had exposed himself." https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/kavanaugh-allegation-second-woman/index.html

Holy Crap. She wasn't sure, but then she thought really hard about it (30 years later) and now she's sure. That's problematic, right? Does that give pause to any liberal here? Maybe not about the entire issue of Kavanaugh, but about giving the accuser the benefit of the doubt?

These accusations are not being made in a vacuum. The country is hyper-partisan right now, and some groups have been perpetually outraged since Trump arrived. I know several normal, pleasant, otherwise reasonable people who can get irrationally hostile within a few seconds when a political topic turns up. In this environment, when you ask "why would she lie?" it's not such an easy answer.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on September 24, 2018, 03:01:45 PM
what if the interviews conducted by the FBI (assumption here noted) reveal a pattern of behavior consistent with the multiple accusations? This is fundamentally a question of character. If he is shown to reasonably have the character alleged by Ford, should that be disqualifying?
Now that's a good and reasonable question, particularly if that character is shown to have occurred and persisted beyond his teenage years. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on September 24, 2018, 03:08:20 PM
how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote

As has already been pointed out in this thread, false accusations tend to be revealed as such fairly quickly when a real investigation is conducted, so claiming "we'll never know" isn't exactly supported by recent history.

You interview the people involved, getting all of the details you can.  You corroborate or challenge those details based on the other details.  You cross check the stories with verifiable facts like enrollment records and yearbook records.  You interview supporting players.  You build profiles of each character based on their other statements and records, and you see how those profiles fit together with the story each side presents.
When the events are recent, given access to tweets, cell phone locations, etc., I agree: evidence may be plentiful.

Quote
Just maybe, as an outside possibility, can you recognize that powerful white American men have, for generations now, perpetrated sexual assault against women with complete freedom and absence of any professional consequences?  That women have largely failed to report these crimes, out of fear or shame or guilt?
Yes, and you can remove "powerful white American" and still have a true statement.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: charis on September 24, 2018, 03:16:45 PM
You don't have enough information to justify the certainty you feel about this issue.
Excellent point, applicable to both the pro and anti sides in this discussion.
That's not exactly a fair criticism, MDM, when one side is saying "we need more information before moving forward" and the other side is saying "we don't want to find out what really happened, we need to do this immediately".
It's completely fair toward anyone who says "I know Kavanaugh did/did not do this."

Regarding the various senators, both Democrat and Republican - how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote they decided to cast as soon as (or even before) the nomination was announced?  Short of Ford or Kavanaugh saying "oops" that is.

I don't believe anyone in this thread has made this claim.
Perhaps not verbatim, but in so many words.

Quote
If you're curious as to how evidence of misconduct could become more credible, read through nereo's posts. He's done a pretty good job of laying out how an FBI investigation might be conducted in scenario's like this.
Yep, read those, but short of Ford or Kavanaugh personally changing his or her story, I don't think
- Kavanaugh can prove he wasn't there, or was there and didn't do that, or
- Ford can prove he was there and did that.

That's absurd.  Of course it could be proven without any party changing his or her story.  Presumably that's why an investigation is being requested.  If Judge truly confessed to his former girlfriend about similar behavior and other incidents from that period, I dare say there are others that might be aware of it.  The yearbook stuff, if accurately reported, tends to suggest that such behavior was either boasted about or at least not well hidden. 

Therefore, it seems that it wouldn't be difficult for relevant information from that period, and perhaps more recent periods, to turn up during a very thorough investigation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 24, 2018, 03:20:18 PM
  For example, the only registered sex offender I know personally went to jail for a similar college "prank" one night when he was drunk and naked.  He felt his life was ruined by a silly frat stunt, and to this day considers himself a victim of an overzealous feminized legal system. 



These registries should only be reserved for the most heinous of crimes and so I agree with him that the legal system can become too focused on law and order and not on common sense.
Ultimately, these registries are a form of double jeopardy and should be made illegal under the US Constitution.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 03:22:59 PM
what if the interviews conducted by the FBI (assumption here noted) reveal a pattern of behavior consistent with the multiple accusations? This is fundamentally a question of character. If he is shown to reasonably have the character alleged by Ford, should that be disqualifying?
Now that's a good and reasonable question, particularly if that character is shown to have occurred and persisted beyond his teenage years.

Well let's get to the heart of this issue - suppose Kavanaugh was guilty of this behavior in his prep-school and college years, but has not done anything since. 
Is that in itself enough to disqualify someone from being confirmed to SCOTUS?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on September 24, 2018, 03:33:00 PM
...short of Ford or Kavanaugh personally changing his or her story, I don't think
- Kavanaugh can prove he wasn't there, or was there and didn't do that, or
- Ford can prove he was there and did that.
That's absurd.  Of course it could be proven without any party changing his or her story.  Presumably that's why an investigation is being requested.  If Judge truly confessed to his former girlfriend about similar behavior and other incidents from that period, I dare say there are others that might be aware of it.  The yearbook stuff, if accurately reported, tends to suggest that such behavior was either boasted about or at least not well hidden. 

Therefore, it seems that it wouldn't be difficult for relevant information from that period, and perhaps more recent periods, to turn up during a very thorough investigation.
I don't agree with your estimation of the difficulty, but also don't think it is absurd.  You may not agree with my estimation of the difficulty but I don't it's absurd either. ;)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 24, 2018, 03:53:02 PM
how, pray tell, will there ever be enough information on something that may or may not have happened 30-some years ago for any of them to change the vote

As has already been pointed out in this thread, false accusations tend to be revealed as such fairly quickly when a real investigation is conducted, so claiming "we'll never know" isn't exactly supported by recent history. 

You interview the people involved, getting all of the details you can.  You corroborate or challenge those details based on the other details.  You cross check the stories with verifiable facts like enrollment records and yearbook records.  You interview supporting players.  You build profiles of each character based on their other statements and records, and you see how those profiles fit together with the story each side presents.

In cases of false accusations, false accusers tend to rescind their accusations when challenged with contradictory information, and when it becomes clear no one is taking them seriously anymore.  Notice that virtually nobody in the #metoo movement, however, has been exposed as a false accuser despite public revelations, while many many serial sexual predators have been exposed and been dethroned, issuing public apologies and having their careers ruined even decades after the fact.  Why should Brett Kavanaugh's outcome be any different from Harvey Weinstein's, or Kevin Spacey's, or Louis C.K.'s?

Just maybe, as an outside possibility, can you recognize that powerful white American men have, for generations now, perpetrated sexual assault against women with complete freedom and absence of any professional consequences?  That women have largely failed to report these crimes, out of fear or shame or guilt?

Think of the 3-5 closest women in your life that you know were sexually assaulted.  How many of them reported it right away?  How many more women in your life have been assaulted and are still keeping it a secret?  That's the whole point of the #metoo movement.
  And how many of the accused in the metoo movement have been credibly accused by a single person?  All the ones I'm aware of, it turns out to be a consistent pattern. 

Contrast that with Kavanaugh.  One person alleges something happened 36 years ago but the only people she points to as witnesses don't remember the party in question.  Another comes forward with a claim where after 34 years, she wasn't even sure Kavanaugh was the person that did it, but after 34 years and six days, she's decided she's sure.  It's certainly possible both are telling the truth, but they are well short of meeting the burden that should accompany accusations about behavior from more than thirty years ago. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on September 24, 2018, 03:54:09 PM
what if the interviews conducted by the FBI (assumption here noted) reveal a pattern of behavior consistent with the multiple accusations? This is fundamentally a question of character. If he is shown to reasonably have the character alleged by Ford, should that be disqualifying?
Now that's a good and reasonable question, particularly if that character is shown to have occurred and persisted beyond his teenage years.
Well let's get to the heart of this issue - suppose Kavanaugh was guilty of this behavior in his prep-school and college years, but has not done anything since. 
Is that in itself enough to disqualify someone from being confirmed to SCOTUS?
Depends on which "this behavior" you mean. There are currently(?) three behaviors (I believe - please correct me if not):
1) Exposing himself (Ramirez): Not enough to disqualify based on what has been said, even if true.
2) Gang rapes (Avenatti): Too vague to understand what Kavanaugh is supposed to have done.  In the extreme of Kavanaugh being the ringleader and performing rapes himself, yes enough to disqualify.
3) Ford's claim: That's the toughest call.  Drunk and underage people do stupid things that they wouldn't and don't do as sober adults, but there's also in vino veritas.  I suspect that most opinions on this one are the same as the opinions of Kavanaugh as a justice without this accusation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GrayGhost on September 24, 2018, 04:07:15 PM
Well let's get to the heart of this issue - suppose Kavanaugh was guilty of this behavior in his prep-school and college years, but has not done anything since. 
Is that in itself enough to disqualify someone from being confirmed to SCOTUS?

As far as the Ford accusation goes, I'd say, it's absolutely enough to disqualify him, if it happened. The problem is that I'm not sure that it happened... it very well may have, however, it might not have, and I'm not comfortable with punishing someone or denying them a job for something that may have happened. It sets a very very negative precedent and weaponizes unproven allegations. So even if the Ford accusation is true, which it very well may be, I don't think it should be a career ender for Kavanaugh, unless it is substantiated and results in a conviction.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 24, 2018, 04:14:07 PM
Well let's get to the heart of this issue - suppose Kavanaugh was guilty of this behavior in his prep-school and college years, but has not done anything since. 
Is that in itself enough to disqualify someone from being confirmed to SCOTUS?

As far as the Ford accusation goes, I'd say, it's absolutely enough to disqualify him, if it happened. The problem is that I'm not sure that it happened... it very well may have, however, it might not have, and I'm not comfortable with punishing someone or denying them a job for something that may have happened. It sets a very very negative precedent and weaponizes unproven allegations. So even if the Ford accusation is true, which it very well may be, I don't think it should be a career ender for Kavanaugh, unless it is substantiated and results in a conviction.

That's a rather high bar. Not to say they are equivalent actions but by your rules OJ could serve on the supreme court (his arrest didn't "results in conviction".
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GrayGhost on September 24, 2018, 04:51:48 PM
Yeah, I understand that... one of the casualties of believing in the innocent until proven guilty principle is that quite a few people who are in fact guilty may not be convicted, and that sucks. I'd still rather have guilty people walk free than threaten the lives or liberties of those who are likely innocent.

I mean, I guess you could make one off exceptions, but I don't think the evidence in these Kavanaugh allegations are remotely similar to the OJ case (not that I'm familiar with that one as it was before my time).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 24, 2018, 04:55:46 PM
Yeah, I understand that... one of the casualties of believing in the innocent until proven guilty principle is that quite a few people who are in fact guilty may not be convicted, and that sucks. I'd still rather have guilty people walk free than threaten the lives or liberties of those who are likely innocent.

I mean, I guess you could make one off exceptions, but I don't think the evidence in these Kavanaugh allegations are remotely similar to the OJ case (not that I'm familiar with that one as it was before my time).
Should there not be a different standard applied for appointment to a permanent office (SCOTUS) and taking away someone’s liberty (prison)?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 24, 2018, 05:13:31 PM
As an interesing line of defense, he is claiming that he could not have possibly held down and forcibly groped Ford (or shoved his penis into Ramirez's face) because he was a virgin until "many years after college.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408172-kavanaugh-i-was-a-virgin-through-high-school-and-college

1. Loss of virginity is not what he is accused of.
2. Really?
3. Sure would be interesting if any of his ex girlfriends (or boyfriends?) cared to dispute this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 24, 2018, 05:31:52 PM
As an interesing line of defense, he is claiming that he could not have possibly held down and forcibly groped Ford (or shoved his penis into Ramirez's face) because he was a virgin until "many years after college.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408172-kavanaugh-i-was-a-virgin-through-high-school-and-college

1. Loss of virginity is not what he is accused of.
2. Really?
3. Sure would be interesting if any of his ex girlfriends (or boyfriends?) cared to dispute this.
Old frat bros going out of their way to claim they didn't get laid in college, that may be the most bizarre thing I've read all year.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GrayGhost on September 24, 2018, 05:49:47 PM
Yeah, I understand that... one of the casualties of believing in the innocent until proven guilty principle is that quite a few people who are in fact guilty may not be convicted, and that sucks. I'd still rather have guilty people walk free than threaten the lives or liberties of those who are likely innocent.

I mean, I guess you could make one off exceptions, but I don't think the evidence in these Kavanaugh allegations are remotely similar to the OJ case (not that I'm familiar with that one as it was before my time).
Should there not be a different standard applied for appointment to a permanent office (SCOTUS) and taking away someone’s liberty (prison)?

They should be held to different standards of behavior, yes... the problem is, there is insufficient reason to believe the Kavanaugh acted in a way that ought to disbar him from public office.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 24, 2018, 06:32:12 PM
It seems that referring to himself (yep, his own words) as a "Renate Alumni" doesn't bode well for his character at the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/24/business/brett-kavanaugh-yearbook-renate.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

article intro for the click-averse:
Quote
Brett Kavanaugh’s page in his high school yearbook offers a glimpse of the teenage years of the man who is now President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee: lots of football, plenty of drinking, parties at the beach. Among the reminiscences about sports and booze is a mysterious entry: “Renate Alumnius.”

The word “Renate” appears at least 14 times in Georgetown Preparatory School’s 1983 yearbook, on individuals’ pages and in a group photo of nine football players, including Judge Kavanaugh, who were described as the “Renate Alumni.” It is a reference to Renate Schroeder, then a student at a nearby Catholic girls’ school.

Two of Judge Kavanaugh’s classmates say the mentions of Renate were part of the football players’ unsubstantiated boasting about their conquests.

“They were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate,” said Sean Hagan, a Georgetown Prep student at the time, referring to Judge Kavanaugh and his teammates. “I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.”
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 24, 2018, 07:48:26 PM
I'm actually of 2 minds about him being a virgin. There was a guy in college who was the son of a pastor, and he drank and acted out a LOT, to the point it was a relief when he got a girlfriend. So it is entirely possible he did both things; attacked that 15 year old and exposed himself, yet was a virgin as well. It's not really a defense as far as I can see.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: calimom on September 24, 2018, 08:02:12 PM
As an interesing line of defense, he is claiming that he could not have possibly held down and forcibly groped Ford (or shoved his penis into Ramirez's face) because he was a virgin until "many years after college.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408172-kavanaugh-i-was-a-virgin-through-high-school-and-college

1. Loss of virginity is not what he is accused of.
2. Really?
3. Sure would be interesting if any of his ex girlfriends (or boyfriends?) cared to dispute this.
Old frat bros going out of their way to claim they didn't get laid in college, that may be the most bizarre thing I've read all year.

And plus, Kavanaugh has apparently produced his diary from 1982. Nowhere in it does he mention "I drunkenly date raped/had weird sex with a family friend against her will". So good of him to do this, clears it all up, right? Rigggght
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 24, 2018, 08:57:32 PM
Back in the early 1980's there were no Sexual Assault and Prevention Awareness Centers for women college students to go to if they were sexually assaulted on college campuses.

The embarrassment and shame these assault survivors experienced certainly would have made it difficult for them to go to the police, authority figures, even to a parent who they might not have had a close relationship with. The assault survivors might have felt unwilling to go through a trial process that would bring up a whole set of new problems that at the age of 16 or 18 they might believe they would not understand how to navigate.  With no intelligent adult guidance or help, all these survivors had were their peers, who were equally clueless about what to do.

It's not surprising therefore that these assault survivors just had to somehow pick up the pieces of their life after an assault, and it may have taken them years to finally communicate what happened to them.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GrayGhost on September 24, 2018, 09:04:27 PM
What do you think is the rough likelihood that the event either did not happen, or happen substantially different to the point that it should not be considered as a slight against Kavanaugh's character and fitness for office?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 24, 2018, 09:34:50 PM
What do you think is the rough likelihood that the event either did not happen, or happen substantially different to the point that it should not be considered as a slight against Kavanaugh's character and fitness for office?
12.9476673736586997747859677% All figures significant.
In other words, this is a pointless question. The point is that the allegations are credible enough to warrant further scrutiny unless people don’t think the actions in the allegations are disqualifying.

The way that these things proceed from here is we get additional information and the range of possibility narrows. Hopefully it will narrow adequately to allow a reasoned decision on if Kavanaugh is appropriate for the SCOTUS, where he will be ruling on things that are specific to women’s issues at some point. Thus far, the trajectory has been pretty decidedly against him.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on September 25, 2018, 06:07:23 AM
He said he concentrated on his studies, went to church and a virgin...BWAHHHHHHH!!!!  Yep, normal college kid that still has his 1982 calendar!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 25, 2018, 06:33:56 AM
Yeah, I understand that... one of the casualties of believing in the innocent until proven guilty principle is that quite a few people who are in fact guilty may not be convicted, and that sucks. I'd still rather have guilty people walk free than threaten the lives or liberties of those who are likely innocent.

I mean, I guess you could make one off exceptions, but I don't think the evidence in these Kavanaugh allegations are remotely similar to the OJ case (not that I'm familiar with that one as it was before my time).
Should there not be a different standard applied for appointment to a permanent office (SCOTUS) and taking away someone’s liberty (prison)?

They should be held to different standards of behavior, yes... the problem is, there is insufficient reason to believe the Kavanaugh acted in a way that ought to disbar him from public office.

Here's what I take issue with - should his nomination be withdrawn (either by himself or by DJT) Kavanaugh will remain a federally appointed judge on DC's circuit court of appeals, just as Merrick Garland currently is.  The question at hand isn't disbarment, but a lifetime promotion. Yes, disbarment would require a higher burden of proof (though it should be noted that one can be disbarred by the bar association even when the offense is not sufficient to put the person in jail).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: El_Viajero on September 25, 2018, 06:38:33 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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

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

Look, I'm no fan of Kavanaugh. I've long suspected that originalism, textualism, et al. are intellectually dubious, faux justifications for imposing far-right values on the populace, so I'd rather he never become a justice. I also find the man's probable alleged sexual indiscretions to be deplorable. However, just as my friend's past DUIs neither impact his ability to do his job nor create an unsafe environment for others TODAY, Kavanaugh's behavior in the decades-old incidents thus far described doesn't seem to have any bearing on his ability to serve on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on September 25, 2018, 06:48:57 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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

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

Look, I'm no fan of Kavanaugh. I've long suspected that originalism, textualism, et al. are intellectually dubious, faux justifications for imposing far-right values on the populace, so I'd rather he never become a justice. I also find the man's probable alleged sexual indiscretions to be deplorable. However, just as my friend's past DUIs neither impact his ability to do his job nor create an unsafe environment for others TODAY, Kavanaugh's behavior in the decades-old incidents thus far described doesn't seem to have any bearing on his ability to serve on the Supreme Court.
I am not going to go in how the trauma is different, however the idea that a person who raped many years ago is likely to have stopped is not supported by research.  Rapists repeat their rapes. 
See link https://davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 25, 2018, 07:06:49 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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

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

Look, I'm no fan of Kavanaugh. I've long suspected that originalism, textualism, et al. are intellectually dubious, faux justifications for imposing far-right values on the populace, so I'd rather he never become a justice. I also find the man's probable alleged sexual indiscretions to be deplorable. However, just as my friend's past DUIs neither impact his ability to do his job nor create an unsafe environment for others TODAY, Kavanaugh's behavior in the decades-old incidents thus far described doesn't seem to have any bearing on his ability to serve on the Supreme Court.
I am not going to go in how the trauma is different, however the idea that a person who raped many years ago is likely to have stopped is not supported by research.  Rapists repeat their rapes. 
See link https://davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf

Plus, in the examples you cite, El_Viajero, while it is quite true that many people do stupid and idiotic things in their teens and twenties, there is a distinction to be made. In the case of many of those examples, the person is exhibiting what you call "poor judgment," and likely has rationalized his stupidity as relatively harmless. ("It's not that far, I'm not that drunk," etc.) Essentially, the person doing the stupid thing is betting, however stupidly, that there will be no consequences that will harm anyone.

In the case of sexual assault, there is a deliberate decision to use another person for one's own gratification. A deliberate disregard of the other person's agency and humanity, in the pursuit of one's own desires.

This is something that is worth pointing out.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 25, 2018, 07:08:23 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.


well here's a counter-argument - if a person did commit such a crime when they were a teenager and were never punished for it, never admitted wrong-doing, never made amends - are we going to effectively say they got away with it by running out the clock?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 25, 2018, 07:16:55 AM

It's four women now:

" additional allegations against him surfaced this weekend, from his time in college and in high school. Government investigators confirmed Monday they’re aware of a potential second sexual assault complaint in the county against former Georgetown Prep student and Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh.
While investigators weren’t specific and spoke on background, they said they are looking at allegations made against Kavanaugh during his senior year in high school after an anonymous witness voluntarily came forward to speak with them this weekend.
This would potentially bring the number to four women accusing Kavanaugh of wrongdoing and comes after Deborah Ramirez, a former Yale college student, stepped forward this weekend to accuse Kavanaugh of exposing himself to her in college, and after attorney Michael Avenatti tweeted out a message saying he represents a woman with “credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.” "

https://mont.thesentinel.com/2018/09/24/supreme-court-nominee-kavanaugh-faces-more-allegations/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 25, 2018, 07:20:34 AM
Then there is this, from his college roommate at Yale:

Brett Kavanuagh's college roommate says he believes Debbie Ramirez, who alleges the Supreme Court nominee sexually harassed her at Yale:

"[Kavanaugh] was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk ... Based on my time with Debbie, I believe her to be unusually honest and straightforward and I cannot imagine her making this up. Based on my time with Brett, I believe that he and his social circle were capable of the actions that Debbie described."

https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-college-roommate-believes-allegations-add8ad85-cc53-4e42-88e3-6a36398d6bb0.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: driftwood on September 25, 2018, 07:22:45 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

You'll need a better example. In the case of your friend, he broke a law, but there was no victim and no consequence. In the case of sexual assault, there was a victim. This is something he did to someone else, not just a bad decision made in a vacuum where there was no negative consequence.

Maybe a better hypothetical example would be someone beating up another student in college (assault & bullying). Do we hold that person accountable for the attack 30+ years later?

I think someone with this much shit attached to his history shouldn't hold a public office. But then again... as these assaults pop up we're finding out that a lot of people in power have done some shady shit. It looks like our system is set up so that they rise to the top - those who take advantage of others to increase their own personal power. 'Merica.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 25, 2018, 07:54:28 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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


While Kavanaugh might no longer be committing sexual assaults now that he is in his early 50's, he continues to subjugate women to his own religious beliefs, like when he tried to deny a 16 year old who was in an immigration detention the lawful right to obtain the abortion she was seeking, by throwing up all kinds of procedural hurdles that would have delayed her from getting the abortion in time. This effort by Kavanaugh to stop the abortion is another way of controlling women in the way he wants.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 25, 2018, 07:58:52 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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


While Kavanaugh might no longer be committing sexual assaults now that he is in his early 50's, he continues to subjugate women to his own religious beliefs, like when he tried to deny a 16 year old who was in an immigration detention the lawful right to obtain the abortion she was seeking, by throwing up all kinds of procedural hurdles that would have delayed her from getting the abortion in time. This effort by Kavanaugh to stop the abortion is another way of controlling women in the way he wants.

And, it's noteworthy that if he had succeeded in raping Christine Blasey Ford and she had gotten pregnant, she would have been months younger than that 16 year-old.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 25, 2018, 08:01:25 AM
He said he concentrated on his studies, went to church and a virgin...BWAHHHHHHH!!!!  Yep, normal college kid that still has his 1982 calendar!

I don't think the virginity claim is about making a factual claim. I think it's about reminding Evangelical Christians that he's one of them, trying to double down on the tribalism that will make Republicans hold the line on him.

I agree that it's irrelevant to the Ford allegations.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JanetJackson on September 25, 2018, 08:11:38 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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


While Kavanaugh might no longer be committing sexual assaults now that he is in his early 50's, he continues to subjugate women to his own religious beliefs, like when he tried to deny a 16 year old who was in an immigration detention the lawful right to obtain the abortion she was seeking, by throwing up all kinds of procedural hurdles that would have delayed her from getting the abortion in time. This effort by Kavanaugh to stop the abortion is another way of controlling women in the way he wants.

YES, THIS.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 25, 2018, 08:43:57 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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


While Kavanaugh might no longer be committing sexual assaults now that he is in his early 50's, he continues to subjugate women to his own religious beliefs, like when he tried to deny a 16 year old who was in an immigration detention the lawful right to obtain the abortion she was seeking, by throwing up all kinds of procedural hurdles that would have delayed her from getting the abortion in time. This effort by Kavanaugh to stop the abortion is another way of controlling women in the way he wants.

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

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: charis on September 25, 2018, 08:48:46 AM
...
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.

One's personal feelings about your friend's criminal history is irrelevant.  In an ideal world, everyone's particular circumstances would be considered individually (which is of course actually happening in Kavanaugh's case).  Most employers don't have that luxury.  We don't even have to compare these two scenarios.  Any criminal conviction (DUI/DWI), especially one that resulted in physical injury or serious injury likely wouldn't get passed a first level government background check.  So yes, your friend would certainly be "prevented from seeking certain employment opportunities." 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 25, 2018, 08:55:17 AM
And this is the real issue people have with Kavanaugh.  Anybody that disagrees politically must be a likely rapist.  There are too few people who have the ability to recognize other people can disagree with respect to political issues without being monsters and too few people who see any value in the policital process or due process.  It's strictly a question of whether they think the ends justify the means.     

Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on September 25, 2018, 08:59:46 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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

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

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

This is a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.  We can at least hold him to the same standards he'd hold his own clerks to.  Supreme Court justices routinely dismiss resumes for not having the right school and not having the right clubs, let alone having sexual assault allegations pending.

By the way, for all of the screeching about the smear campaign against him, I only smell karma.  This dude spent years and millions of government money fanning the nonexistent flames of every sordid Hillary killed Vince Foster rumor he could find.  I'm sure he'd say he was only responsibly pursuing the truth.  Let's apply his own standards to him here.  If he can ask Vince Foster's grieving daughter for a hair sample based on internet swamp theories, then I think the Senate has more than enough evidence to request an FBI investigation. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/why-was-kavanaugh-obsessed-with-vince-foster.html


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 25, 2018, 09:03:46 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

Yes.  If that crime is sexual assault of a minor, that shit should absolutely haunt you for the rest of your life.  There are LOTS of jobs that don't hire people with criminal histories.  Why isn't "judge" one of those?  People with DUIs are already barred from jobs as commercial drivers, right?

Not only should this prevent him from being a SC judge, it should probably cost him his DC circuit job and possibly his marriage.  How would you feel if you found out your partner had a history of sexual assault in high school and college supported by at least four different victims, had totally gotten away with it without so much as an apology, and was now trying to become the voice of moral authority for an entire nation?  The hypocrisy of a sexual predator who is a literal judge handing out punishments to people who have committed lesser crimes is absolutely mind boggling to me.

This best case scenario here, in my mind, is that Kavanaugh gets woke.  He realizes that his behavior as a young man was absolutely unacceptable, he offers apologies to all of the women he touched or groped or imprisoned or exposed his junk to.  He claims to be a victim of his own times, who now recognizes that he had a serious drinking problem that caused him to behave in criminally reckless ways, and recommits himself to his faith and his family.  That scenario would at least let him keep his current job, because otherwise I think 70% of the country is going to be calling for his head.  He can't credibly be a DC circuit court judge AND an unrepentant sexual predator at the same time, can he?

I opposed Kavanaugh for the SC before we knew of his gross sexual history, just based on the fact that he's never attempted to be impartial when deciding issues relevant to the conservative base.  Why isn't his history of sexually inappropriate behavior relevant to the conservative base?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 25, 2018, 09:07:04 AM

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

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

What I believe you are asserting here is that these allegations must be politically motivated because it is the opposition who wants them heard and investigated.  Here though we have a conflicting standard - those that support the nominee wish to vote on his confirmation 'without further delay' and without further inquiry. Do you see how that conflicts with your assertion?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on September 25, 2018, 09:09:27 AM
He can't credibly be a DC circuit court judge US president AND an unrepentant sexual predator at the same time, can he?



We already know that republicans don't care.  Being a sexual predator makes him an alpha, so he'd fit right in the sexual domination humiliation politics favored by the republican base.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 25, 2018, 09:18:26 AM

Not only should this prevent him from being a SC judge, it should probably cost him his DC circuit job and possibly his marriage.  How would you feel if you found out your partner had a history of sexual assault in high school and college supported by at least four different victims, had totally gotten away with it without so much as an apology, and was now trying to become the voice of moral authority for an entire nation? The hypocrisy of a sexual predator who is a literal judge handing out punishments to people who have committed lesser crimes is absolutely mind boggling to me.

...speaking of hypocrisy - Kavanaugh was part of Ken Starr's special council team. Helaine Olen writes:
Kavanaugh not only thought Clinton needed to be questioned about his relations with Lewinsky; he also wanted Clinton to be interrogated in the most detailed and specific way possible. He drew up a memo* with a series of 10 sexually explicit questions about Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky. He claimed he wanted to establish Clinton had no defense for his “pattern of behavior.” As a result, “[the] idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me,” Kavanaugh wrote in the summer of 1998.

But, the Post reports: Kavanaugh grew frustrated when it came to questions that dug into his private life, particularly his drinking habits and his sexual proclivities. Later, on Fox News, Kavanaugh complained that inquires into his sexual life was deeply unfair and harmful to his wife and daughters.

* The memo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/read-the-memo-from-brett-kavanaugh-to-judge-starr/2322/?tid=a_inl_manual) Kavanaugh drafted for Clinton's deposition has some incredibly explicit questions, and is worth a read if only to see what he thought was appropriate to ask a sitting President then, vs what he finds inappropriate to ask now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: cats on September 25, 2018, 09:24:47 AM

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

Seriously?  Before any of these allegations came out, Kavanaugh was one of the least popular SC nominees in recent history (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/brett-kavanaugh-is-polling-like-robert-bork-and-harriet-miers/).  If McConnell weren't determined to go totally nuclear and confirm with 51 votes instead of the traditional 60 votes, this guy probably never would have gotten to the stage of having hearings at all and none of this assault stuff would have come out.  Since the Republicans have decided to abandon 200 years of tradition and compromise and instead have capitulated to the hard-right extremists in their party, the Democrats are not left with any viable options for making their point known through "due process", because the Republicans are denying them due process.  There are now multiple allegations and multiple Republican senators are already saying that they are still planning to vote for him, so no need for a proper investigation.

Due to population disparities, the Senate at the moment is not at all representative of the makeup or opinions of the general American population.  ~20% of the population controls 60% of the Senate.  Rather than being mindful of the immense and disproportionate power they hold and choosing to wield it responsibly (by advocating for their constituents but also considering the good of the whole country), those senators are choosing to cater to a minority of the population to an extreme degree.



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: El_Viajero on September 25, 2018, 09:46:34 AM
I posted my thoughts on the Kavanaugh/sexual assault matter earlier this morning and already received several thought-provoking responses and rebuttals! I won't quote them all, but the two that stand out are:

Kris's argument: Sexual assault is different from, say, a DUI in your 20s because it necessarily involves the deliberate exploitation of another human being.

Sol's argument: Someone who has gotten away with sexual assault on multiple occasions has no business meting out punishments to people as a judge or justice.

These arguments are strong enough to make me reconsider my position!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 25, 2018, 09:50:42 AM
I posted my thoughts on the Kavanaugh/sexual assault matter earlier this morning and already received several thought-provoking responses and rebuttals!
...
These arguments are strong enough to make me reconsider my position!

You must not be a Senator.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Samuel on September 25, 2018, 09:52:36 AM
And this is the real issue people have with Kavanaugh.  Anybody that disagrees politically must be a likely rapist.  There are too few people who have the ability to recognize other people can disagree with respect to political issues without being monsters and too few people who see any value in the policital process or due process.  It's strictly a question of whether they think the ends justify the means.     

Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

To be fair, neither did Kavanaugh until after his confirmation hearings and right before the vote.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: El_Viajero on September 25, 2018, 09:53:26 AM
I posted my thoughts on the Kavanaugh/sexual assault matter earlier this morning and already received several thought-provoking responses and rebuttals!
...
These arguments are strong enough to make me reconsider my position!

You must not be a Senator.

Lol. Nope. I'm not ruthless enough to be in politics. I've got plenty of other flaws, but being an inflexible, pandering asshole thankfully isn't one of them. My wife may disagree.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 25, 2018, 10:15:15 AM
And this is the real issue people have with Kavanaugh.  Anybody that disagrees politically must be a likely rapist.  There are too few people who have the ability to recognize other people can disagree with respect to political issues without being monsters and too few people who see any value in the policital process or due process.  It's strictly a question of whether they think the ends justify the means.     

Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

To be fair, neither did Kavanaugh until after his confirmation hearings and right before the vote.

Are we sure about this?  I kinda think this is in the realm of "possible but potentially unknowable".
There have certainly been other public figures who have successfully repressed previous misdeeds, be that by settlements outside of course, intimidation or working to have records sealed.

It would certainly be a line of questioning I'd like asked of Kavanaugh while under oath.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 25, 2018, 10:19:16 AM

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

Would you please send this message to Mitch McConnell?

Again, most of the people here are calling for an investigation of Kavanaugh based an increasing number of reports of sexual assault by Kavanaugh. That he carries disregard for women forward in his judicial career (I understand that this can be argued, and is subject to opinion), is a follow on as opposed to a primary reason to think has conducted sexual harassment.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 25, 2018, 10:39:56 AM
...Helaine Olen writes: ...

Fun fact, Helaine Olen is now a personal finance writer, and has even posted in this illustrious forum (once) (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/profile/?u=14752)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 25, 2018, 10:48:59 AM
Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

To be fair, neither did Kavanaugh until after his confirmation hearings and right before the vote.

We do know that it was widely reported that Majority Leacer McConnell strongly argued for three other candidates and against Kavanaugh. The reason that he gave in the press around July was Kavanaugh's "large paper trail" of millions of documents while working for the Bush White House. Maybe that was the only reason, or maybe there was more, but I'm not ready to assume that this side of Kavanaugh wasn't at least partially on the radar of Republicans before the actual nomination. Gorsuch also went to Georgetown Prep, two years behind Kavanaugh, and you know that some reporter(s) is/are going to investigate that angle further, so there could be more to that story too.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 25, 2018, 10:54:33 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it (and that after not being sure the first 30 years after it happened) and even then is relying on hearsay, and who didn't make the claim until after the committee hearings were completed?  The proper process for that is to not consider it.  If you do something different, you are just assuring that these claims will come out of the woodwork for every nominee now, as in a country of 300M plus people, there are always going to be crazies willing to make claims. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 25, 2018, 11:07:07 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you know the motivations of all of the people who have a problem with these allegations?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 25, 2018, 11:07:39 AM
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

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

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

Jrr85, do you believe this is a setup by Democrats or Democratic supporters?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 25, 2018, 11:14:48 AM
So you think these women are just "crazies willing to make claims?" I agree that it would have been better if this came out sooner. Honestly before this whole thing started. But it was only after he was nominated, just like with roy Moore, the states were higher. The issue with sexual assault, no one wants to be the first. A similar thing happened in the Roy Moore case. For a long while there was just one claim.

I'm reserving judgement on all this. I still feel it should be investigated by an impartial party, the FBI versus everyone just throwing their 2 cents in.  That is the best for both Kavanagh so he can remove the clouds over his head if these are unsubstantiated claims, or provide more determining information. There is no deadline here, only an artificial one because McConnell has already announced that he was going to deliver Kavanagh as next Justice.

Last Friday he said "here’s what I want to tell you: in the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court."

 
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/21/mcconnell-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/1379027002/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: austin944 on September 25, 2018, 11:20:16 AM
Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

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

Clarence Thomas replaced a liberal on the court.

I am seeing a pattern...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 25, 2018, 11:22:45 AM
Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

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

Clarence Thomas replaced a liberal on the court.

I am seeing a pattern...

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

Good lord. We have learned nothing in all these years.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 25, 2018, 11:27:01 AM
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

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

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

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

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



   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 25, 2018, 11:27:51 AM
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

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

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

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

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



   

Quite honestly, the sexism in this statement is horrifying to me.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 25, 2018, 11:30:26 AM
So you think these women are just "crazies willing to make claims?" I agree that it would have been better if this came out sooner. Honestly before this whole thing started. But it was only after he was nominated, just like with roy Moore, the states were higher. The issue with sexual assault, no one wants to be the first. A similar thing happened in the Roy Moore case. For a long while there was just one claim.

I'm reserving judgement on all this. I still feel it should be investigated by an impartial party, the FBI versus everyone just throwing their 2 cents in.  That is the best for both Kavanagh so he can remove the clouds over his head if these are unsubstantiated claims, or provide more determining information. There is no deadline here, only an artificial one because McConnell has already announced that he was going to deliver Kavanagh as next Justice.

Last Friday he said "here’s what I want to tell you: in the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court."

 
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/21/mcconnell-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/1379027002/

No one knows.  That's the point.  And they can't know.  It's possible that they're crazies willing to make a claim.  It's possible that they honestly believe what they are saying but are mistaken.  It's possible that Kavanaugh did what they are alleging but all the witnesses identified by the alleged victims are circling the wagons and lying on behalf of Kavanaugh.  There's really no way to know. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: charis on September 25, 2018, 11:31:24 AM
Is it logical that the first alleged victim was not as motivated to come forward until this point?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 25, 2018, 11:35:06 AM
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

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

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

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

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



   

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

Sincere question: 

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

Because of some other reason?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 25, 2018, 11:39:31 AM
I doubt it.  If I were going to guess, I'd guess it's more likely Ford and the one from yale are true believers who experienced something and have now convinced themselves that it was sexual assault/attempted rape and that Kavanaugh was involved.  Memory is way more fickle and susceptible to distortion than people realize, and that only becomes more true when people are under the influence when the event in question took place and then decades pass. 

Cuts both ways, I myself have wondered (assuming the allegations are basically true) whether Kavanaugh has convinced himself this never happened, or was a very minimal deal/prank among friends. Maybe he both did the actions alleged and really truly feels blindsided by all of this, I don't discount that possibility.

But again, without an independent fact-based investigation by the FBI or similar agency, we are left reading tea leaves. And I still find the alleged victims stories, complete with acknowledged holes and all, more believable that Kavanaugh's insistent denial of anything whatsoever, no way, no how. His Fox News interview where he implies he only drank when he was legally 18 (except the age limit jumped to 21 when he would have been 17), his very deceptive testimony about the roles he played in the Bush White House, threading that needle of not committing perjury but also not offering an honest recount of what he did receive and on the nominations he may have contributed to.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 25, 2018, 11:48:37 AM
Stepping back for a second.... In context this is ultimately about Kavanaugh. The Republicans have already made a mockery out of the nomination process with the way that McConnell and Grassley have run it. That horse is out of the barn. For the accusations, the motivations are not actually material. They could be choosing this time out of malicious intent to keep Brett from living out his lifelong dream of appointment to SCOTUS for personal or political reasons. They could be reluctant truth tellers. It could be somewhere in between.

It does not matter.

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

Right now we have investigations being carried out by journalists (some with extensive experience in this area, such as Ronan Farrow (who has been clear in his reporting about gaps, and uncertainty). It would be nice to have a group with better access like the FBI follow up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 25, 2018, 11:49:34 AM
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

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

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

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

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



   

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

Sincere question: 

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

Because of some other reason?

Sincere answer:

No.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 25, 2018, 11:53:11 AM
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

It does not matter.

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

Right now we have investigations being carried out by journalists (some with extensive experience in this area, such as Ronan Farrow (who has been clear in his reporting about gaps, and uncertainty). It would be nice to have a group with better access like the FBI follow up.
This is not true. All of the named, first hand witnesses have refuted both accusations.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 25, 2018, 12:09:32 PM
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

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

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

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

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

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

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

ETA: My statement contains a lot of "ifs" but my real point is that the chance it was misremembered is far from significant enough to argue against an FBI investigation, especially with my current understanding that there is more than enough time for it to be carried out.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 25, 2018, 12:33:32 PM
It's simple. It's not for us to be armchair detectives, especially as I believe we are only getting bits and pieces. Let the FBI do its investigation and then let the committee decide. The only reason why stuff is being released to the press is that OConnell was making it plain he was going to ramrod the process through and so far has refused to let these claims be investigated by an independant party.

What people may say to the press and what people say under oath/when it is being fact checked can be two different things. The way that Judge described Kavanaghs actions in HS, does not match how he described "Bart OKavanagh" in his memoir. He also has refused to testify under oath.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: austin944 on September 25, 2018, 12:39:31 PM
Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

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

Clarence Thomas replaced a liberal on the court.

I am seeing a pattern...

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

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

Pointing out the beginnings of a pattern is not necessarily the same as making any specific conclusion from that pattern.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 25, 2018, 12:42:27 PM
Gorusch didn't have any sexual assault accusers.

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

Clarence Thomas replaced a liberal on the court.

I am seeing a pattern...

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

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

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

Two incidences twenty-seven years apart with almost entirely different actors is not exactly a "pattern." FFS.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 25, 2018, 12:45:16 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where you and I are not seeing eye to eye is this insistence that the proper time to investigate such allegations has past, and therefore its proper to forge ahead.
We are where we are right now, and all the wishes in the world do not change that.  Given that, we must decide what the best course of action is given where we are right now.  There are really two paths being discussed - we ignore what's been alleged and press forward or we question, investigate and then proceed.
You are clearly arguing that we should not spend any more time with these accusations. To me that's legal malpractice.  To understand why, consider the potential outcomes should the latter path be followed:  either testimony and good investigation leads support to the accusers and we avoid placing a sexual deviant on SCOTUS, or the allegations fall apart and Kavanaugh's reputation is upheld and he gets confirmed.  If he does not become a supreme court justice another GOP-stamped candidate will almost certainly progress through the confirmation process, as did Gorsuch, and we avoid decades of controversy anytime a case involving sexual misconduct is presented before the court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 25, 2018, 12:45:55 PM
Stop defending scorched earth tactics.  Let go of your Trump derangement syndrome.  Just because Democrats are doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.

It's pretty funny that you say this and then two paragraphs down go on to justify the scorched earth tactics of republicans by saying that democrats said they'd do it first.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 25, 2018, 12:50:05 PM
First some facts:
-For those who are complaining about Merrick Garland being blocked: this was a topic that had long been debated in the Senate.  Joe Biden famously discussed it in the final years of Bush Sr.’s presidency establishing “The Biden Rule”, an understanding that supreme court nominees should not be put forward in a presidential election year.  No it was not a formal “rule” of the senate, but was something that had been debated and discussed multiple times.  Chuck Shumer, Democratic senator and current minority leader in the senate, stated that no other supreme court nominees should be considered for the final 18 months of Dubya’s presidency.  It’s true that there were no current vacancies at that time, but Republicans took Democrats at their word that this was an agreed upon understanding.

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

Your "fact" is wrong.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on September 25, 2018, 12:59:54 PM
Biden's speech didn't mention "the final 18 months"....
True, but not what i-s claimed.  The 18 months was Schumer's timing: Schumer was right: The Senate can refuse to fill a vacancy | TheHill (https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/270937-schumer-was-right-the-senate-can-refuse-to-fill-a-vacancy).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 25, 2018, 01:26:30 PM
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

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

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

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

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

And there are a myriad of reasons why a person might experience cognitive decline at some point in their later years.  Isn't that always a risk with a lifetime appointment?  Since there are over 800 federal judges with lifetime appointments in this country, it appears that we've accepted the risk.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on September 25, 2018, 02:11:21 PM
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

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

Do we even know if he’s sober now or still st it?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 25, 2018, 02:21:21 PM
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

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

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

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

Lifetime appointments were devised precisely to allow the judicial branch to be independent of both the legislature and the executive branches.  If we somehow imposed caps on their appointments it would need to be done in such a way that a particular president or political party could not force out otherwise qualified judges.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 25, 2018, 02:33:44 PM
I think Frank Bruni does a good job of explaining the differing stories about Kavanaguh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/opinion/the-many-faces-of-brett-kavanaugh.html

In short, those who knew him in different contexts formed different opinions of him. In my personal life, this has always been a red flag: people who are very different depending on situation (situational manners aside).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 25, 2018, 02:39:00 PM
It seems as though asking for the FBI investigation is becoming a middle ground. On twitter, I've been following the lawyer @popehat, and he is careful to point out that the FBI are not magicians, they cannot determine things conclusively in many cases. At best, they might be able to make a statement akin to Comey's statement regarding Sec. Clinton and her e-mail server: "No prosecutor would pursue criminal charges based on this set of evidence".

And you saw how well that statement united the country.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Samuel on September 25, 2018, 02:44:46 PM
It's simple. It's not for us to be armchair detectives, especially as I believe we are only getting bits and pieces. Let the FBI do its investigation and then let the committee decide. The only reason why stuff is being released to the press is that OConnell was making it plain he was going to ramrod the process through and so far has refused to let these claims be investigated by an independant party.

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

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

Politically speaking, with a 51/47(+2) split in the Senate the immediate ballgame comes down to whether Collins and Murkowski feel enough pressure and/or have enough doubts to withhold a yes vote (and also if lame duck Jeff Flake wants to stick it to Trump more than he wants Kavanaugh). The accusations make that more likely in the short term, but if after more hearings and investigations it still comes down to a 35 year old alcohol tainted he said/she said situation (the most likely outcome I can see at this point) I could see that pressure failing to turn their votes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 25, 2018, 02:51:12 PM
the shifting fuzziness of the details

Does anyone else find it hilarious that conservatives are defending Kavanaugh's actions by saying "he was a raging alcoholic who wasn't in control of his faculties" as if that someone exonerates him of the things he did while drunk.  Maybe, just maybe, the fact that multiple sources confirm that he was a belligerent and violent drunk should instead lend credence to the accusations?  Who thinks "we can never know if he committed sexual assault, he was too much of an alcoholic to have any memory of it" and then thinks "this person should be on the Supreme Court"?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 25, 2018, 03:01:27 PM
I think Frank Bruni does a good job of explaining the differing stories about Kavanaguh.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/opinion/the-many-faces-of-brett-kavanaugh.html

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

Just think about Bill Cosby. When that first came out, I was first, no way, he's the last person to do something like that : (
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Samuel on September 25, 2018, 03:16:51 PM
the shifting fuzziness of the details

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

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

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


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks on September 25, 2018, 03:51:26 PM
Stop defending scorched earth tactics.  Let go of your Trump derangement syndrome.  Just because Democrats are doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.

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

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

Seriously, answer my questions about your comfort level with these "new norms".  Are you at all concerned about future precedent?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 25, 2018, 04:04:34 PM
the shifting fuzziness of the details

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

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

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

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

It's somewhat amazing to see how the left has reverted to victorian standards after decades of libertine attitudes.  Now just because somebody drank in high school and college, there presumed guilty if there is a three decades old accusation against them?   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 25, 2018, 04:11:07 PM
It's somewhat amazing to see how the left has reverted to victorian standards

I don't think it's "amazing" to not want to appoint a sexual abuser to the SC so he can fulfill his promise to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Dude is gross from every angle.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 25, 2018, 04:54:15 PM
Grassley sets 9:30 am Friday hearing for Committee vote on Kavanaugh.

Republicans are disgusting.  Every single one deserves to lose their seat.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 25, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
And what's gross, it is very clear his description of his drinking and prolictivities during High School is falsifiable from multiple accounts (friend's memoirs, things in his Highschool year book, accounts from roommates in college, his own speech!). That means he perjured himself to the committee when answering about his drinking.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 25, 2018, 05:14:15 PM
Stop defending scorched earth tactics.  Let go of your Trump derangement syndrome.  Just because Democrats are doing it doesn’t mean it’s right.

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

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

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

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

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

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GrayGhost on September 25, 2018, 05:43:14 PM
12.9476673736586997747859677% All figures significant.
In other words, this is a pointless question. The point is that the allegations are credible enough to warrant further scrutiny unless people don’t think the actions in the allegations are disqualifying.

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

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

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

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

~

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

Makes me wonder... when I was out dancing with some friends a few weeks ago, without any invitation or reason to think that it was welcome, a strange girl suddenly began to physically dance on me in a manner that can only be described as sexual. Am I a sexual assault victim? In a few decades, if I see the girl on TV running for some sort of political office, should I expose her? (Pun intended.)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: jrhampt on September 25, 2018, 05:52:47 PM
Yeah, I don’t think getting drunk and waving your dick around, although gross, is that big of a deal.  It does begin to establish a pattern, though.  I’d find kavanaugh way more believable if he was like, yeah, I was kind of a drunk bastard sometimes back in the day vs. no, never drunk, total virgin.

To clarify, I do think the original attempted rape allegation is a big deal.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: mm1970 on September 25, 2018, 06:24:55 PM
It's somewhat amazing to see how the left has reverted to victorian standards

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

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

I mean, there are only 9 SC justices.  Are we saying we can't find someone who is squeaky clean, not a liar, etc.?  Why the rush to push it through?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 25, 2018, 06:41:08 PM

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

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

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

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JanetJackson on September 25, 2018, 08:28:12 PM
12.9476673736586997747859677% All figures significant.
In other words, this is a pointless question. The point is that the allegations are credible enough to warrant further scrutiny unless people don’t think the actions in the allegations are disqualifying.

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

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

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

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

~

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as gay marriage goes, I'm a huge supporter, however, there is something to the slippery slope arguments: surely now that the definition of marriage has been expanded, it should be expanded a touch more to allow for polygamy, which has existed at least as long as monogamous marriage. Yet few people, even on the far political left, will dare to even address the matter.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 25, 2018, 09:50:06 PM
I appreciate the consistency, however I disagree. I don't think consent needs to be "freely given, informed, enthusiastic, and specific" and I do think consent can be implied. I think overtures and advances are also okay. I think that in some atmospheres, there is a level or even an expectation of sexuality and implied consent. The alleged Kavanaugh event is probably a bit too much, unless it was par for the course at the party, but even then, it all goes back to the question of whether or not it happened.

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

Well your example is an example against slippery slope thinking. Just because gay marriage is now legal, doesn't mean that people are now demanding the right to polygamous marriages (aka slippery slope). At least they aren't in my neighborhood. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: charis on September 25, 2018, 09:53:52 PM
Yeah, I don’t think getting drunk and waving your dick around, although gross, is that big of a deal.  It does begin to establish a pattern, though.  I’d find kavanaugh way more believable if he was like, yeah, I was kind of a drunk bastard sometimes back in the day vs. no, never drunk, total virgin.

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

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

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: jrhampt on September 26, 2018, 03:29:10 AM
I don’t think it’s fine; but I think that on its own it’s probably not serious enough to derail the nomination and I understand people who think it doesn’t qualify as assault (I have been flashed before and didn’t appreciate it either).  I think it establishes a pattern of behavior taken together with the first allegation that contradicts the image kavanaugh is attempting to portray. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 26, 2018, 04:58:17 AM

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


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

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

As such, the question at hand is whether we elevate Kavanaugh to SCOTUS.  It is in effect a promotion and honor (the largest promotion and honor he could get within his profession). If the result is 'nay', he continues on with his very prestigious and well paid (~$220,000/yr salary) job as federal circuit court judge.  The implications of that are important.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: boarder42 on September 26, 2018, 05:33:09 AM
the guy has clearly perjured himself at this point, trying to side step all the sexual misconduct allegations he now is claiming he didnt even drink or have intercourse until far after 18.  If i'm the republicans i really need to wash my hands of this at this point and move on to a new candidate.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 26, 2018, 07:19:09 AM
It's not perjury if he says it on FoxNews. It's only a problem if he says it to Congress or Law Enforcement.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: boarder42 on September 26, 2018, 07:33:43 AM
It's not perjury if he says it on FoxNews. It's only a problem if he says it to Congress or Law Enforcement.

oh ok good - so he just lied on national tv then... great dude i want in the supreme court.  regardless of perjury or not its wildly out of control at this point you'd have to think even Repubs are rolling back their support - you just dont want that much egg on your face.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 26, 2018, 07:37:09 AM
Aside from the question of whether Kavanaugh did or did not sexually assault many women...

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

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

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

This is not a person whom I want on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: boarder42 on September 26, 2018, 07:38:45 AM
Aside from the question of whether Kavanaugh did or did not sexually assault many women...

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

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

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

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

that pretty well sums it up - i dont know how we're still even considering him.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Sailor Sam on September 26, 2018, 08:05:28 AM
Here's a question I have about this fiasco: Many crimes are inexcusable. Sexual assault is one of them. However, are we prepared, as a society, to hold your feet to the fire TODAY for an idiotic, harmful, dangerous thing you did when you were a stupid kid in your teens or early 20s? If so, a lot of us are going to be in serious trouble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: typo, and to add a bit about character
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 26, 2018, 08:08:02 AM
For the person who decided Kavanaugh assaulted her only after six days of thinking about it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the fact that over thirty years, there is one person who has made an allegation that cannot name the time and place and all the other people she identified as witnesses deny any knowledge of it, and there is another person who admits she didn't know who did it for the first thirty years after the incident but then decided she was sure after 6 days of reflection but nobody she has identified as a witness agrees, makes me think it's less likely that kavanaugh is the one that is creating his own reality.  If somebody has the inclination to force themselves on people and then convince themselves afterwards that nothing happened or that it was consensual, then I suspect there would be more than two incidents over thirty years.  And if he had a habit of creating his own reality, I would not think he'd be able to impose that reality on people that aren't in his inner circle. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 26, 2018, 08:09:18 AM
Kavanaugh will be a vote against indicting and/or impeaching Trump, and the RNC and GOP have gone all in on Trump at this point, so it makes perfect sense. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume Kavanaugh will be appointed to SCOTUS very soon, as we have GOP control of all branches of the federal government. The key will be to vote in November and then again in 2020, remove the GOP from the presidency and take 2/3 control of Congress, and then impeach Kavanaugh among many other course corrections.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 26, 2018, 08:15:31 AM
something that people aren't talking about, is that binge drinking can have long term effects on the brain. Especially concerning if you are talking about appointing someone to a literally "lifetime" appointment. Does anyone disagree that the facts consistently point towards Kavanagh in his teens and college years drinking excessively, even to the point of black out?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe keep district court and appellate court appointments for life so none of the judges are worried about employment options after their term is up.  Or maybe just make it a requirement to take senior status at age 70 or something. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 26, 2018, 08:22:14 AM
The level of partisanship in the judiciary is insane to me.  Especially considering on of our first justices, Samuel Chase, was impeached (though not indited) for letting political leanings affect his decisions.

That's all they do anymore.


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

It would take a lot to change the term of the supreme court justice, since it is written in the constitution. I don't think other federal judges appointments necessarily are.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: turketron on September 26, 2018, 08:54:12 AM
Aside from the question of whether Kavanaugh did or did not sexually assault many women...

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-and-the-moral-ugliness-of-casual-lying/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 26, 2018, 09:11:37 AM
This is a near-perennial issue, but only tangentially related to the topic on hand. Since at least Roosevelt most presidents have at least toyed with the idea of composing some sort of age or cognitive cap on lifetime appointments, but its never gone anywhere.

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

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

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

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

That could work, but would require some interesting law changes.  If incumbent justices were not 'grandfathered-in' it would instantly get rid of one conservative (Thomas) and two progressives (Breyer & RBG).  As for 20 year terms - that's still near-lifetime appointment; 14 of the last 25 justices (excluding the incumbents) served for less than 20 years.  I'd favor something closer to 12 years, which would also curtail this push to appoint justices who are in their 40s (Thomas, Gorsuch) or early 50s (Roberts, Kagan) largely because they might serve for a quarter century.  It would also ensure any appointment would span multiple administrations.
I'm not particularly worried about their individual employment options given the government pension and ability for anyone who's served the top court int he land to be hired as a faculty at any number of law schools (or go the book-tour or consultant route).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 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.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 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.??? 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 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...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 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. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache 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.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv 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 (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?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: charis 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 26, 2018, 12:29:43 PM
Increasingly worried, Trump takes over Kavanaugh defense (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-second-sexual-allegation-latest/h_e65db0f4ef52f18e23a90792dc46e7db)

Never fear Trump supporters, Kavanaugh is in safe hands now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 26, 2018, 12:33:11 PM
Increasingly worried, Trump takes over Kavanaugh defense (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-second-sexual-allegation-latest/h_e65db0f4ef52f18e23a90792dc46e7db)

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
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player 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?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks 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?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: charis 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 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. 



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 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

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 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. 

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 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. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi 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.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor 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
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor 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
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 26, 2018, 05:46:07 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna913581

A fourth accuser, from 1998, has come forward.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 26, 2018, 05:47:20 PM
Surely someone on the FedSoc list (which is still, by itself, ridiculous) doesn't have these kinds of skeletons. Nominate Hardiman and call it a day.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 26, 2018, 05:54:43 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna913581

A fourth accuser, from 1998, has come forward.

He’s toast. Shut the thread down. Hope an attempt at the SCOTUS was worth losing his family, professional respect, and (hopefully) his current job.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 26, 2018, 05:55:43 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna913581

A fourth accuser, from 1998, has come forward.

He’s toast. Shut the thread down. Hope an attempt at the SCOTUS was worth losing his family, professional respect, and (hopefully) his current job.

Gotta find a republican senator who cares first...
Mine sure don't. (I sure as hell didn't vote for them, btw. They basically don't consider my area of the state part of their constituency)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 26, 2018, 05:57:23 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

I think there's a great deal of willful ignorance and plausable deniability.  If there is no investigation - if other witnesses are not called to testify and if the committee votes before (god forbid) yet more individuals come forward to question his character those GOP senators who vote for Kavanaugh can forever say "we didn't know the full story! These additional testimonies didn't come out until later! When I cast my vote it was just a he-said/she-said and he was a federal jodge with years on the bench"

In other words, the rush is out of fear of what might come out in the coming weeks, not about whether they believe Kavanaugh over Ford/Ramirez/Swetnick."  There was a time when Roy more had just one accuser with limited hard evidence, then two, then three...  That's still fresh in the GOP's psyche.  I'm certain there are some praying this doesn't go the same way (and are actively pushing the timeline in the hopes that it won't... to 'control what they can control', so to speak)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks on September 26, 2018, 06:06:55 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.
I'll cop to it, I didn't read the whole thread.  However the post you mentioned makes a very compelling case that fraternity members have a strong correlation with having unorthodox OPINIONS regarding rape, but does not discuss the actual INCIDENCE of rape being committed by fraternity members.  Even if it did draw that connection, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Brett kavanaugh attempted rape against Ms Ford.

If someone made the outrageous claim that you have (since he's a member of this group, it means he's more likely to rape) against any other group you'd be calling them a racist xenophobe.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on September 26, 2018, 06:07:33 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

Trump certainly agrees. He literally stated they should have just pushed him through. Remember "only the best and brightest." 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 26, 2018, 06:11:32 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna913581

A fourth accuser, from 1998, has come forward.

So at this point he's about 32 years old and still getting drunk and violently attacking women
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 26, 2018, 06:37:47 PM
If someone made the outrageous claim that you have (since he's a member of this group, it means he's more likely to rape) against any other group you'd be calling them a racist xenophobe.

I think this is an important point. The social groups that Kavanaugh willingly chose to associate with have these well-documented behaviors. As a group, that is not the same as "any other group you'd be calling them a racist xenophobe." As a rather extreme is example: It would absolutely be incorrect to say that all southerners are racists. It would be an okay grouping to say that a member of the Klan is much more likely to have been involved in a racist hate crime. Does membership in Klan guarantee that it happened? of course not. But it is a good indicator of character.

I personally have a number of good friends who were in fraternities where these behaviors would not be tolerated and they were solid, good people. I also know that there are a lot of fraternities where bad behavior is commonplace, and these types of sexist things occur. What is germane about his membership in the specific social organizations (including fraternities) that he chose to join is that the overall behavors of those specific organizations is at odds with his portrayal of himself as an angel. As nereo said above, it is circumstantial. The credibility would come from actual investigation of the allegations. Why is Kavanaugh only going on Fox news to repeat scripted responses instead of asking for investigation? I think the points made by sol and others above that the GOP just wants this done before there can be a full review (of the allegations and his record for that matter).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 26, 2018, 06:38:00 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.
I'll cop to it, I didn't read the whole thread.  However the post you mentioned makes a very compelling case that fraternity members have a strong correlation with having unorthodox OPINIONS regarding rape, but does not discuss the actual INCIDENCE of rape being committed by fraternity members.  Even if it did draw that connection, that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Brett kavanaugh attempted rape against Ms Ford.

If someone made the outrageous claim that you have (since he's a member of this group, it means he's more likely to rape) against any other group you'd be calling them a racist xenophobe.


There exist reams of easily found information on this subject.

Quote
"Bohmer and Parrot (1993) assert that "the men who are most likely to rape in college are fraternity pledges" (p. 21). Boumil, Friedman, and Taylor (1993) suggest that a "desire for male bonding, as indicated by the popularity of fraternities" can lead in combination with other factors to coercive sexual acts (p. 122). Warshaw (1988) similarly gives a number of examples of gang rapes taking place in fraternity houses, although noting that "more one-on-one date rapes and acquaintance rapes occur in fraternity houses than do gang acquaintance rapes" (p. 104). Martin and Hummer (1989), in an article that is widely cited and reprinted (e.g., Bart & Moran, 1993; Thio & Calhoun, 1995), explain that fraternity members are more likely to have a narrow conception of masculinity, espouse group secrecy, and sexually objectify women. However, perhaps the most cited author of all on the subject is Sanday (1990), who describes in detail the psychological processes that lead fraternity pledges to a position that facilitates rape."
- http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/fraternityMyths.html (http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/fraternityMyths.html)

Quote
"Research indicates that sexual victimization occurs at increased rates during fraternity parties (Gross-bard, Geisner, Neighbors, Kilmer, & Larimer,2007; McMahon, 2010) and after fraternity-sponsored functions in fraternity houses(Mohler-Kou, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler,2004; Murnen & Kohlman, 2007). Minow and Einolf (2009) found that more than one-third of rapes reported on college campuses took place in a fraternity house. As compared to men who are not in fraternities, men who are in fraternities are also more likely to engage in sexually aggressive behaviors (Loh, Gidycz,Lobo, & Luthra, 2005; Murnen & Kohlman,2007) and to endorse rape-supportive beliefs and attitudes (Boeringer, 1999; Boeringer,Shehan, & Akers, 1991; Canan, Jozkowski, &Crawford, 2016; Humphreys & Kahn, 2000).These fndings suggest that fraternity subculture may be conducive to sexual violence against women and that specifc venues such as parties and events hosted by fraternities represent spaces of high risk for the perpetration of sexual assault. We argue that fraternity culture, marked by “hooking up, sexual competition among brothers, and collective disrespect for women[,]makes fraternity rape a virtual inevitability”(Boyle, 2015, p. 386). "
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316353371_The_Greek_System_How_Gender_Inequality_and_Class_Privilege_Perpetuate_Rape_Culture_Greek_System_and_Rape_Culture (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316353371_The_Greek_System_How_Gender_Inequality_and_Class_Privilege_Perpetuate_Rape_Culture_Greek_System_and_Rape_Culture)

Quote
"In conclusion, although our study uses a conservative estimate for rape, our study indicates that higher liquor violations, fraternity men, and athletes on campuses are associated with higher campus reported rapes."
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317663622_An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Campus_Demographics_and_Reported_Rapes (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317663622_An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Campus_Demographics_and_Reported_Rapes)

Quote
"Fraternity men are overrepresented among sexual assault perpetrators"
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326019599_Good_Guys_Don't_Rape_Greek_and_Non-Greek_College_Student_Perpetrator_Rape_Myths (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326019599_Good_Guys_Don't_Rape_Greek_and_Non-Greek_College_Student_Perpetrator_Rape_Myths)

Quote
"Despite widespread knowledge that fraternity members are frequently involved in the sexual assaults of women, fraternities are rarely studied as social contexts-groups and organizations-that encourage the sexual coercion of women. An analysis of the norms and dynamics of the social construction of fraternity brotherhood reveals the highly masculinist features of fraternity structure and process, including concern with a narrow, stereotypical conception of masculinity and heterosexuality; a preoccupation with loyalty, protection of the group, and secrecy; the use of alcohol as a weapon against women's sexual reluctance; the pervasiveness of violence and physical force; and an obsession with competition, superiority, and dominance. Interfraternity rivalry and competition-particularly over members, intramural sports, and women-encourage fraternity men's commodification of women. We conclude that fraternities will continue to violate women socially and sexually unless they change in fundamental ways."
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/189763?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (https://www.jstor.org/stable/189763?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)

Quote
Despite consistent evidence that fraternity membership is associated with greater perpetration and acceptance of sexual violence, less is known about why this link occurs. In this study, we use Structural Equation Modeling to test whether endorsement of traditional masculinity explains why fraternity membership is associated with greater rape myth acceptance and more sexual deception behaviors in a sample of 365 undergraduate men. Our assessment of traditional masculinity included the following 3 components: conformity to masculine norms, pressure to uphold masculine norms, and acceptance of objectification of women. Results suggest that conformity to masculine norms, pressure to uphold masculine norms, and acceptance of objectification of women mediate the relation between fraternity membership and acceptance of sexual violence.
- http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-46139-001 (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-46139-001)

Please tell me more about my "racism" towards fraternities.

Neo-nazi membership is voluntary.  If Kevenaugh had a history as a neo-nazi, and accusers saying that he was racist . . . it would be relevant to point this out because neo-nazis have a long standing and well-researched history of facilitating/encouraging racist action.  Even if not every neo-nazi is a racist.

Frat membership is voluntary.  Kavenaugh has a history of being a fraternity member and accurers are saying that he sexually assaulted them.  Fraternities have a well researched and long standing history of facilitating/encouraging rape.  It is relevant to point this out, even if not every frat bro is a rapist.

How is this similar to saying that someone of a particular race is defined by characteristics unique to his (or her) race?  Race is not voluntary.  To my knowledge there exists no research proving that race (in lieu of other factors) will determine any behavioral patterns.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 26, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna913581

A fourth accuser, from 1998, has come forward.

He’s toast. Shut the thread down. Hope an attempt at the SCOTUS was worth losing his family, professional respect, and (hopefully) his current job.

You're dreaming.  They still backed Judge Roy Moore right up until the moment the last votes were counted.  They knew of all of the allegations and there was an absolute flood of corroborating evidence, so they publicly acknowledged they were true despite Roy flatly denying everything just like Kavanaugh is doing, and it still didn't matter.  They stood by him right to the end.

How could they not, after standing by Trump?

Look, this is really quite simple.  Sexual assault of a minor just isn't disqualifying for a republican candidate.  The only relevant difference between Judge Brett "it's a con job" Kavanaugh and Judge Roy "it's a smear campaign" Moore is that the public doesn't get to vote on Kavanaugh.  Senate republicans can just make him a SC justice, despite his history, and there is nothing you or I or anyone else can do about it.  Mitch McConnell has publicly said as much.  It just doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 26, 2018, 07:11:20 PM
Senate Republicans are now releasing anonymous accusations in an effort to try to discredit the first three women on the record.

Republicans are the greatest threat to our republic.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 26, 2018, 07:21:45 PM
Senate Republicans are now releasing anonymous accusations in an effort to try to discredit the first three women on the record.

Republicans are the greatest threat to our republic.
Do you have a source on this?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 26, 2018, 07:24:03 PM
And also a quote from Dan Rather for some perspective:
Quote
There is so much to see and hear in this crazy news environment, but as I take in yet one more women coming forth with a story of sexual harassment and assault against Brett Kavanaugh, another one of the senses overtakes me. This whole situation has a stench that smells to high heaven. It is downright rancid.

The headlines are of the specifics of these serious allegations, but coursing beneath is what's really on the balance of justice. This is about money, privilege and power. All of these naked forces have backed Judge Kavanaugh and are loathe to be defeated. They are personified by the old Republican bulls of the Senate (Grassley, Hatch, Graham, and others) who I believe have greatly misjudged the national mood. They are playing by rules that have long since exceeded their expiration date. Again, this rancid stench.

And what makes this all so easy for the American public to understand is that a picture is emerging of Judge Kavanaugh which suggests that he may that he may be "That Guy," who many have seen before - the dangerous drunk (strong language I grant you but we have to consider the evidence before us). He may present as a man in control. People who know him in his work environment can attest to his character, but it may turn out to be that famous Jekyll and Hyde. Although he portrayed himself as a choir boy on Fox News, evidence accumulates that he has a record as someone who drinks a lot. And from the similarities of the accusations, we also see a man who may have been steeped in a form of toxic masculinity. A thorough and complete investigation might prove otherwise, but it seems that Judge Kavanaugh and the White House do not want that to happen.

I don't know where this ends up. But I have never seen a nomination process so bereft of sanity. It has been bungled. It is Inept. bizarre, and plainly weird. In short it is in keeping with the Era of Trump. But there will be a judgement coming and it will say a lot about the courage and decency of our political leaders and the determination of the public to say that this is all completely anathema to the American character.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks on September 26, 2018, 07:34:23 PM
GuitarStv: only one of the studies you linked looks at sexual assault rates, and concludes that three factors correlate to campus' with higher rates of sexual assault than others: fraternity membership, alcohol violations and athletes.  It also does not compare sexual assault rates between fraternity members and the general population.  For all we know fraternity members may be LESS likely than the general population to commit sexual assault. The one you quoted stating that fraternity members are overrepresented in sexual assault does not study assault rates at all. Like the rest of the links you provided, and the links provided previously in the thread, it studies fraternity members opinions regarding "rape myths".

But again, whether or not fraternity members as a whole commit sexual assault at higher rates than the general population is irrelevant to whether or not Brett kavanaugh committed sexual assault. If the rate of sexual assault amongst fraternity members was astronomical, say 20%, it would still mean that the overwhelming majority of fraternity members were not sexual predators.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 26, 2018, 07:35:53 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.


Gang rape is sadly plausible amongst any insular/tightly knit group that regards itself as separate from/better than society and immune from enforcement action.  Like privileged boys at a prep school, or in a fraternity at an Ivy.

And we are currently getting a very clear demonstration of how "authorities" in the form of the Senate Judicial Committee, and the President, and the Republican Party, are trying hard to discredit and disbelieve the sworn statements of highly educated, responsible and well-regarded professional women.   What chance do you think a 15 year old girl who has been drinking or doing drugs, or going out somewhere without her parents' knowledge, would have had of being believed?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 26, 2018, 07:39:25 PM
GuitarStv: only one of the studies you linked looks at sexual assault rates, and concludes that three factors correlate to campus' with higher rates of sexual assault than others: fraternity membership, alcohol violations and athletes.  It also does not compare sexual assault rates between fraternity members and the general population.  For all we know fraternity members may be LESS likely than the general population to commit sexual assault. The one you quoted stating that fraternity members are overrepresented in sexual assault does not study assault rates at all. Like the rest of the links you provided, and the links provided previously in the thread, it studies fraternity members opinions regarding "rape myths".

But again, whether or not fraternity members as a whole commit sexual assault at higher rates than the general population is irrelevant to whether or not Brett kavanaugh committed sexual assault. If the rate of sexual assault amongst fraternity members was astronomical, say 20%, it would still mean that the overwhelming majority of fraternity members were not sexual predators.


Brett Kavanaugh is strongly linked to all three of the factors you mentioned: fraternity, alcohol and athletics.   And there is no accusation against the overwhelming majority of fraternity members, there are now multiple accusations against Kavanaugh.


Were/are you a member of a fraternity, by any chance?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks on September 26, 2018, 07:44:31 PM
My last point for the night in the fight against PEOPLE BEING WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!!1!!1!1

The FBI already reviewed the claims made by Ms. Ford when they received the letter and passed on investigating it further.  They stated that this was a political matter now, not a federal crime.

I think that an FBI investigation is the only possible way that kavanaugh gets confirmed, but I can't possibly see them finding any evidence pointing one way or another.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 26, 2018, 07:48:44 PM
My last point for the night in the fight against PEOPLE BEING WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!!1!!1!1

The FBI already reviewed the claims made by Ms. Ford when they received the letter and passed on investigating it further.  They stated that this was a political matter now, not a federal crime.

I think that an FBI investigation is the only possible way that kavanaugh gets confirmed, but I can't possibly see them finding any evidence pointing one way or another.


The FBI background check had been completed when they received the letter: they needed permission from the President to re-open the check which they did not get.


That there was no federal crime to investigate is irrelevant other than it prevented the FBI from opening proceedings separate from the confirmation process.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 26, 2018, 07:57:53 PM
Senate Republicans are now releasing anonymous accusations in an effort to try to discredit the first three women on the record.

Republicans are the greatest threat to our republic.
Do you have a source on this?

The 4th claim is from Republican Cory Gardner. The transcript of the 5th accusation call came from Republicans, a call in which Democrats asked no questions.

They will stop at nothing to confirm this judge who will take away a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PoutineLover on September 26, 2018, 07:58:57 PM
Anecdotally, but somewhat relevant to this whole discussion, I have a story that is super similar to what Kavanaugh is being accused of. I went to a frat party when I was a naive young fresh(wo)man, I drank and played beer pong with the guys. I went to the bathroom, and some guy followed me in and started kissing me. I tried to push him away and leave, but the door was being held closed from the outside by his frat buddies. Luckily, a couple of my friends noticed what was going on and rescued me, and we left the party. I never reported it, but I have never forgotten it either. Sexual assault is violating, it feels disgusting, but it feels like there isn't much that you can do about it, and at the time I thought at least he only kissed me and didn't get away with worse.
In a culture like that where boys see this as an acceptable way of "getting some", they help each other out, and they don't rat on each other, this stuff gets swept under the rug. I am positive I'm not the only one who went through that in that frat house, and I was lucky I hadn't gone there alone. Given my experience, the accusations seem completely plausible to me, and more so the more women come forward. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. I think the senate is afraid to investigate because they know its true,or at the very least, that Kavanaugh has lied under oath about his past behaviour.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on September 26, 2018, 08:03:38 PM
GuitarStv: only one of the studies you linked looks at sexual assault rates, and concludes that three factors correlate to campus' with higher rates of sexual assault than others: fraternity membership, alcohol violations and athletes.  It also does not compare sexual assault rates between fraternity members and the general population.  For all we know fraternity members may be LESS likely than the general population to commit sexual assault. The one you quoted stating that fraternity members are overrepresented in sexual assault does not study assault rates at all. Like the rest of the links you provided, and the links provided previously in the thread, it studies fraternity members opinions regarding "rape myths".

But again, whether or not fraternity members as a whole commit sexual assault at higher rates than the general population is irrelevant to whether or not Brett kavanaugh committed sexual assault. If the rate of sexual assault amongst fraternity members was astronomical, say 20%, it would still mean that the overwhelming majority of fraternity members were not sexual predators.
Maybe look back to my post 172 where I cited "Fraternity affiliation has been found to be a significant predictor of sexually aggressive behavior in retrospective analyses (Lackie & de Man, 1997)."

"Prospectively, fraternity membership at baseline was a significant predictor of perpetration during the 3-month follow-up period (Loh, Gidycz, Lobo & Rohini Luthra 2005)."
Those mean that members of frats are more likely to be rapists than the general male population.  For additional supporting citations see post 172.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 26, 2018, 09:15:38 PM
My last point for the night in the fight against PEOPLE BEING WRONG ON THE INTERNET!!!!1!!1!1


my favorite line in this whole damn thread.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 26, 2018, 09:26:12 PM
Anecdotally, but somewhat relevant to this whole discussion, I have a story that is super similar to what Kavanaugh is being accused of. I went to a frat party when I was a naive young fresh(wo)man, I drank and played beer pong with the guys. I went to the bathroom, and some guy followed me in and started kissing me. I tried to push him away and leave, but the door was being held closed from the outside by his frat buddies. Luckily, a couple of my friends noticed what was going on and rescued me, and we left the party. I never reported it, but I have never forgotten it either. Sexual assault is violating, it feels disgusting, but it feels like there isn't much that you can do about it, and at the time I thought at least he only kissed me and didn't get away with worse.
In a culture like that where boys see this as an acceptable way of "getting some", they help each other out, and they don't rat on each other, this stuff gets swept under the rug. I am positive I'm not the only one who went through that in that frat house, and I was lucky I hadn't gone there alone. Given my experience, the accusations seem completely plausible to me, and more so the more women come forward. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. I think the senate is afraid to investigate because they know its true,or at the very least, that Kavanaugh has lied under oath about his past behaviour.

Never go to a party alone.  Never leave your drink unattended (or don't drink from it if you have). Don't walk home alone. Go to the bathroom in pairs. Never drink in excess when there are lots of other men present.

These are all 'common sense' things that young women are taught in highschool and college, but aren't taught to young men.  For everything that's occurred since the #metoo movement its still necessary for necessary for women to play defense to sexual assualt, to be the ones that are always on the lookout, always ensuring they never put themselves in an 'un-safe' situation. 
And that's f*'d up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PoutineLover on September 26, 2018, 10:07:12 PM
Anecdotally, but somewhat relevant to this whole discussion, I have a story that is super similar to what Kavanaugh is being accused of. I went to a frat party when I was a naive young fresh(wo)man, I drank and played beer pong with the guys. I went to the bathroom, and some guy followed me in and started kissing me. I tried to push him away and leave, but the door was being held closed from the outside by his frat buddies. Luckily, a couple of my friends noticed what was going on and rescued me, and we left the party. I never reported it, but I have never forgotten it either. Sexual assault is violating, it feels disgusting, but it feels like there isn't much that you can do about it, and at the time I thought at least he only kissed me and didn't get away with worse.
In a culture like that where boys see this as an acceptable way of "getting some", they help each other out, and they don't rat on each other, this stuff gets swept under the rug. I am positive I'm not the only one who went through that in that frat house, and I was lucky I hadn't gone there alone. Given my experience, the accusations seem completely plausible to me, and more so the more women come forward. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. I think the senate is afraid to investigate because they know its true,or at the very least, that Kavanaugh has lied under oath about his past behaviour.

Never go to a party alone.  Never leave your drink unattended (or don't drink from it if you have). Don't walk home alone. Go to the bathroom in pairs. Never drink in excess when there are lots of other men present.

These are all 'common sense' things that young women are taught in highschool and college, but aren't taught to young men.  For everything that's occurred since the #metoo movement its still necessary for necessary for women to play defense to sexual assualt, to be the ones that are always on the lookout, always ensuring they never put themselves in an 'un-safe' situation. 
And that's f*'d up.
And the extra shitty part is that by focusing on what women can do to avoid getting raped, all we are doing is ensuring that it's some other girl instead, a girl who didn't get the memo, or didn't get as lucky, or even though she did everything right he still raped her. Because nothing is done to stop or change the behaviour of the actual criminals here, the ones who bear the actual responsibility for the rape occurring. Until we hold rapists (and abuser, and harassers) responsible, nothing will change. Men will still get away with their crimes and people will be conditioned to feel sorry for them if they do face any kind of penalty for their behaviour.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Goodidea on September 27, 2018, 03:01:16 AM
Frat membership is voluntary.  Kavenaugh has a history of being a fraternity member and accurers are saying that he sexually assaulted them.  Fraternities have a well researched and long standing history of facilitating/encouraging rape.  It is relevant to point this out, even if not every frat bro is a rapist.

How is this similar to saying that someone of a particular race is defined by characteristics unique to his (or her) race?  Race is not voluntary.  To my knowledge there exists no research proving that race (in lieu of other factors) will determine any behavioral patterns.

I am not surprised about gang rapes and fraternities having some correlation.  Fraternities + sororities + alcohol is a formula to produce those results sometimes.  That said, the notion that it is encouraged would be a generalization.  Perhaps some individuals or small groups within organizations encourage the idea, but it is very unlikely that it is promoted in any official capacity.

I was in a fraternity and served in officer positions within the Interfraternity Council at a beach town college known for hot girls and partying.  I'm sure some in the school would be okay with taking advantage of inebriated girls, but it would be absolutely crazy if gang rape was openly encouraged.  I had friends from all of the major houses and if someone made such a suggestion, that person would have been cut immediately.  Socializing held importance, but preservation of the fraternity was paramount.  The stakes are too high.  The fraternity would be decommissioned by the school and they'd lose their chapter without question.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: golden1 on September 27, 2018, 04:34:00 AM
Frat culture is definitely a big part of this.  I went to a school with a heavy frat presence and everyone knew what went on.  Parties were essentially excuses to get some girls wasted and take advantage. 

Even if Kavanaugh is innocent of specific rape crimes, he was part of the pack, incentivizing and encouraging that type of behavior.  This has been corroborated by many, many people.

This is probably the guy that will kill Roe vs. Wade, and there is fuck all we can do about it.

The democrats are finally playing political hardball, and on one hand I am happy to see it, but on the other hand gutted that this is where we are as a country.  It’s ugly, dirty, and an indication of how far we have fallen. Once the Garland nomination was jettisoned in the way that it was, everything was possible in SC nomination.  I love hearing the outrage about character assasionation from the   Republicans. 

No matter the outcome of this confirmation hearing, it galvanizes turn out either way.  I just pray that the end result of this is that we have a political check on Trump, maybe even potentially turning the senate. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on September 27, 2018, 04:37:46 AM
Frat membership is voluntary.  Kavenaugh has a history of being a fraternity member and accurers are saying that he sexually assaulted them.  Fraternities have a well researched and long standing history of facilitating/encouraging rape.  It is relevant to point this out, even if not every frat bro is a rapist.

How is this similar to saying that someone of a particular race is defined by characteristics unique to his (or her) race?  Race is not voluntary.  To my knowledge there exists no research proving that race (in lieu of other factors) will determine any behavioral patterns.

I am not surprised about gang rapes and fraternities having some correlation.  Fraternities + sororities + alcohol is a formula to produce those results sometimes.  That said, the notion that it is encouraged would be a generalization.  Perhaps some individuals or small groups within organizations encourage the idea, but it is very unlikely that it is promoted in any official capacity.

I was in a fraternity and served in officer positions within the Interfraternity Council at a beach town college known for hot girls and partying.  I'm sure some in the school would be okay with taking advantage of inebriated girls, but it would be absolutely crazy if gang rape was openly encouraged.  I had friends from all of the major houses and if someone made such a suggestion, that person would have been cut immediately.  Socializing held importance, but preservation of the fraternity was paramount.  The stakes are too high.  The fraternity would be decommissioned by the school and they'd lose their chapter without question.
"Taking advantage of inebriated girls" is rape.  Rape is sex without consent.  And yes, see post 172, that culture (which you inadvertently gave such a great example of) does encourage rape and sexual assault.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 06:44:35 AM
Anecdotally, but somewhat relevant to this whole discussion, I have a story that is super similar to what Kavanaugh is being accused of. I went to a frat party when I was a naive young fresh(wo)man, I drank and played beer pong with the guys. I went to the bathroom, and some guy followed me in and started kissing me. I tried to push him away and leave, but the door was being held closed from the outside by his frat buddies. Luckily, a couple of my friends noticed what was going on and rescued me, and we left the party. I never reported it, but I have never forgotten it either. Sexual assault is violating, it feels disgusting, but it feels like there isn't much that you can do about it, and at the time I thought at least he only kissed me and didn't get away with worse.
In a culture like that where boys see this as an acceptable way of "getting some", they help each other out, and they don't rat on each other, this stuff gets swept under the rug. I am positive I'm not the only one who went through that in that frat house, and I was lucky I hadn't gone there alone. Given my experience, the accusations seem completely plausible to me, and more so the more women come forward. This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. I think the senate is afraid to investigate because they know its true,or at the very least, that Kavanaugh has lied under oath about his past behaviour.

Never go to a party alone.  Never leave your drink unattended (or don't drink from it if you have). Don't walk home alone. Go to the bathroom in pairs. Never drink in excess when there are lots of other men present.

These are all 'common sense' things that young women are taught in highschool and college, but aren't taught to young men.  For everything that's occurred since the #metoo movement its still necessary for necessary for women to play defense to sexual assualt, to be the ones that are always on the lookout, always ensuring they never put themselves in an 'un-safe' situation. 
And that's f*'d up.
And the extra shitty part is that by focusing on what women can do to avoid getting raped, all we are doing is ensuring that it's some other girl instead, a girl who didn't get the memo, or didn't get as lucky, or even though she did everything right he still raped her. Because nothing is done to stop or change the behaviour of the actual criminals here, the ones who bear the actual responsibility for the rape occurring. Until we hold rapists (and abuser, and harassers) responsible, nothing will change. Men will still get away with their crimes and people will be conditioned to feel sorry for them if they do face any kind of penalty for their behaviour.

Because it's always the victim's fault.  "She shouldn't have been drinking. She shouldn't have gone to the party alone."
No- HE shouldn't have raped her. 

(And in the other instance, when women take advantage of men; that's also illegal.)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on September 27, 2018, 07:08:31 AM
-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.


I think BK did this to signal to evangelical primary voters that he would be one of "them" once he gets confirmed. Facts are not relevant. The Senators who are voting on him know these voters will show up in primary season.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on September 27, 2018, 07:26:05 AM
I was in a fraternity and served in officer positions within the Interfraternity Council at a beach town college known for hot girls and partying.  I'm sure some in the school would be okay with taking advantage of inebriated girls, but it would be absolutely crazy if gang rape was openly encouraged.  I had friends from all of the major houses and if someone made such a suggestion, that person would have been cut immediately.  Socializing held importance, but preservation of the fraternity was paramount.  The stakes are too high.  The fraternity would be decommissioned by the school and they'd lose their chapter without question.

Jesus fucking Christ. This is utterly chilling to read. Even while declaring that there wasn't a rape culture in your college, you casually acknowledge that it wouldn't have been a particularly big deal for people to rape intoxicated women.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 27, 2018, 07:36:23 AM
I was in a fraternity and served in officer positions within the Interfraternity Council at a beach town college known for hot girls and partying.  I'm sure some in the school would be okay with taking advantage of inebriated girls, but it would be absolutely crazy if gang rape was openly encouraged.  I had friends from all of the major houses and if someone made such a suggestion, that person would have been cut immediately.  Socializing held importance, but preservation of the fraternity was paramount.  The stakes are too high.  The fraternity would be decommissioned by the school and they'd lose their chapter without question.

Jesus fucking Christ. This is utterly chilling to read. Even while declaring that there wasn't a rape culture in your college, you casually acknowledge that it wouldn't have been a particularly big deal for people to rape intoxicated women.

"I'm sure some in the school would be okay with taking advantage of inebriated girls, but"

Agreed. JFC. J. F. C.

Along with the reasons for not being okay with gang rape:

The stakes were too high. Preservation of the fraternity was paramount.

The fraternity would have been at risk.

The fraternity.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 07:40:04 AM
It makes me less annoyed that I have to do a 2nd training today on sexual harassment and assault.  The school I'm getting a MBA at requires a 90 minute class at the beginning of the semester, and a 20 minute class mid-semester; every single semester. Or you are blocked from registering.

One major point made is what consent is.

It's clear that's needed.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 07:43:27 AM
Frat membership is voluntary.  Kavenaugh has a history of being a fraternity member and accurers are saying that he sexually assaulted them.  Fraternities have a well researched and long standing history of facilitating/encouraging rape.  It is relevant to point this out, even if not every frat bro is a rapist.

How is this similar to saying that someone of a particular race is defined by characteristics unique to his (or her) race?  Race is not voluntary.  To my knowledge there exists no research proving that race (in lieu of other factors) will determine any behavioral patterns.

I am not surprised about gang rapes and fraternities having some correlation.  Fraternities + sororities + alcohol is a formula to produce those results sometimes.  That said, the notion that it is encouraged would be a generalization.  Perhaps some individuals or small groups within organizations encourage the idea, but it is very unlikely that it is promoted in any official capacity.

I was in a fraternity and served in officer positions within the Interfraternity Council at a beach town college known for hot girls and partying.  I'm sure some in the school would be okay with taking advantage of inebriated girls, but it would be absolutely crazy if gang rape was openly encouraged.  I had friends from all of the major houses and if someone made such a suggestion, that person would have been cut immediately.  Socializing held importance, but preservation of the fraternity was paramount.  The stakes are too high.  The fraternity would be decommissioned by the school and they'd lose their chapter without question.

Two questions I'd like you to think about:
1) how do you think gang rapes actually happen?
2) do you think a victim is more or less likely to report being raped by multiple people (e.g. 'three-against-one' situation) than by a single individual.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 07:48:47 AM
It makes me less annoyed that I have to do a 2nd training today on sexual harassment and assault.  The school I'm getting a MBA at requires a 90 minute class at the beginning of the semester, and a 20 minute class mid-semester; every single semester. Or you are blocked from registering.

One major point made is what consent is.

It's clear that's needed.

Yeah, we have quarterly harassment training as well.  It frustrates me that consent is not better udnerstood, because its a pretty simple concept - if all participants are not there willingly and of clear mind, at least one is committing a crime. 
Or we could ask "do you want some tea? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ)"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks on September 27, 2018, 07:56:06 AM
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/27/two-men-claim-responsibility-christine-blasey-ford/

Early report of two men who are claiming to be the assailants against Ms. Ford at the party.  If this turns out to be true, it completely exonerates Kavanaugh.  If any of the named witnesses (PJ Smythe, or Leland Keyser) corroborate that these men were at the party, then there can be no other conclusion than they're telling the truth.  If that happens, will anyone show remorse at smearing Brett Kavanaugh with false accusations?

If their story is not corroborated but they make their claims on the record, will that sway anyone in this threads opinion on whether or not he committed assault?  This is a serious question, not a hypothetical.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2018, 07:57:26 AM
GuitarStv: only one of the studies you linked looks at sexual assault rates, and concludes that three factors correlate to campus' with higher rates of sexual assault than others: fraternity membership, alcohol violations and athletes.  It also does not compare sexual assault rates between fraternity members and the general population.

That data is available in the referenced studies, which you (bizarrely) seem to have ignored.  For example, the single study that you've mentioned above includes full references  (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317663622_An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Campus_Demographics_and_Reported_Rapes (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317663622_An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Campus_Demographics_and_Reported_Rapes)):

"Multiple studies have found that sexual assaults are more likely to occur with fraternity men"
- Adams-Curtis LE, Forbedos GB. College women’s experiences
of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim,
and situational variables. Trauma Viol Abuse.
2004;5,91–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262331.

- Foubert JD, Newberry JT, Tatum J. Behavior differences seven months later: Effects of a rape prevention program. NASPA J. 2007;44(4):728–749. 8 J. D. WIERSMA-MOSLEY ET AL.

- Humphrey SE, Kahn AS. Fraternities, athletic teams, and rape. J Interpers Violence. 2000;15(12):1313–1320.

- Kimble NB, Russo SA, Bergman BG, Galindo VH. Revealing an empirical understanding of aggression and violent behavior in athletics. Aggress Viol Behav. 2010;15:446–462.

- Safai P. Boys behaving badly: Popular literature on the misbehavior of male team sport athletes in North America. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2002;37:97–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690202037001006

"more than one-third of campus rapes occur in fraternity houses" - Minow JC, Einolf CJ. Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Viol Against Women. 2009;15(7):835–851.

etc.

This is true for every other study quoted as well ( Minow and Einolf (2009), Bohmer and Parrot (1993), Gross-bard, Geisner, Neighbors, Kilmer, & Larimer,(2007); McMahon, (2010), Mohler-Kou, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler, (2004), Murnen & Kohlman, (2007), etc. all contain the information you purport to be looking for.  This is all referenced in the information you were provided with.  I believe that Gin pointed to several other studies demonstrating the same.  You appear to be hellbent on ignoring all this data for some reason.



For all we know fraternity members may be LESS likely than the general population to commit sexual assault. The one you quoted stating that fraternity members are overrepresented in sexual assault does not study assault rates at all. Like the rest of the links you provided, and the links provided previously in the thread, it studies fraternity members opinions regarding "rape myths".

If we ignore the multiple citations indicating that fraternity men rape at higher rates . . . then we have no idea if fraternity men rape at higher rates.  Please read the articles posted and check the references therein before creating novel conclusions to fit your personal narrative.



But again, whether or not fraternity members as a whole commit sexual assault at higher rates than the general population is irrelevant to whether or not Brett kavanaugh committed sexual assault. If the rate of sexual assault amongst fraternity members was astronomical, say 20%, it would still mean that the overwhelming majority of fraternity members were not sexual predators.

Sure, belonging to a fraternity does not make one a sexual assault perpetrator.  I didn't ever say that Kavenaugh's fraternity days made him sexually assault anyone.  This is a straw man that you're arguing here.  My comments about fraternities were in reference to Jrr's belief that gang rape couldn't possibly occur in a fraternity.  The evidence shows that not only does rape frequently occur in fraternities, but that gang rape is not particularly unusual.

I don't know if Kavenaugh is guilty or not of the multiple sexual assaults he has been accused of.  Just because someone acts guilty and lies about related things certainly isn't evidence of their guilt.  What I do believe is that there is ample cause to investigate the matter further before granting him a lifetime appointment to a judicial position.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 08:01:09 AM
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/27/two-men-claim-responsibility-christine-blasey-ford/

Early report of two men who are claiming to be the assailants against Ms. Ford at the party.  If this turns out to be true, it completely exonerates Kavanaugh.  If any of the named witnesses (PJ Smythe, or Leland Keyser) corroborate that these men were at the party, then there can be no other conclusion than they're telling the truth. If that happens, will anyone show remorse at smearing Brett Kavanaugh with false accusations?

If their story is not corroborated but they make their claims on the record, will that sway anyone in this threads opinion on whether or not he committed assault?  This is a serious question, not a hypothetical.

I can think of multiple other conclusions.

Which is an excellent reason that the FBI should have investigated ALL of the allegations thoroughly.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks on September 27, 2018, 08:07:20 AM
GuitarStv: only one of the studies you linked looks at sexual assault rates, and concludes that three factors correlate to campus' with higher rates of sexual assault than others: fraternity membership, alcohol violations and athletes.  It also does not compare sexual assault rates between fraternity members and the general population.  For all we know fraternity members may be LESS likely than the general population to commit sexual assault. The one you quoted stating that fraternity members are overrepresented in sexual assault does not study assault rates at all. Like the rest of the links you provided, and the links provided previously in the thread, it studies fraternity members opinions regarding "rape myths".

But again, whether or not fraternity members as a whole commit sexual assault at higher rates than the general population is irrelevant to whether or not Brett kavanaugh committed sexual assault. If the rate of sexual assault amongst fraternity members was astronomical, say 20%, it would still mean that the overwhelming majority of fraternity members were not sexual predators.


Brett Kavanaugh is strongly linked to all three of the factors you mentioned: fraternity, alcohol and athletics.   And there is no accusation against the overwhelming majority of fraternity members, there are now multiple accusations against Kavanaugh.


Were/are you a member of a fraternity, by any chance?

No, I actually find almost all aspects of fraternity culture repugnant. I AM however hoping for a seat on the supreme Court.

EDITED BECAUSE I'M NOT BEING AS THOROUGH IN MY READING AS I SHOULD IN THIS THREAD. AND TO ADD THAT I'M JOKING ABOUT BEING ON THE SUPREME COURT.

note to self: don't try to squeeze in heated political debates during short lulls at work.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 08:15:31 AM
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/27/two-men-claim-responsibility-christine-blasey-ford/

Early report of two men who are claiming to be the assailants against Ms. Ford at the party.  If this turns out to be true, it completely exonerates Kavanaugh.  If any of the named witnesses (PJ Smythe, or Leland Keyser) corroborate that these men were at the party, then there can be no other conclusion than they're telling the truth.  If that happens, will anyone show remorse at smearing Brett Kavanaugh with false accusations?

If their story is not corroborated but they make their claims on the record, will that sway anyone in this threads opinion on whether or not he committed assault?  This is a serious question, not a hypothetical.

Well for starters what you are asking is a hypothetical (even if it is a serious question) as it hasn't yet happened.

If there's are two people claiming to be Ford's attackers this would basically leave us with two suspects, Kavanaugh/Judge and these other two. Assuming Ford remains convinced that it was Kavanaugh/Judge we'd have a situation where we'd have to evaluate which is more plausable, and of course an actual investigation would help determine that.

However it wouldn't change the other allegations made by Swetnick or Ramirez, nor the accusations and evidence which points to him having been an abusive drunk and having downplayed/lied about this in public declarations.

As many of us has said multiple times - false claims have a way of crumbling under investigative scrutiny and when given sufficient time for evidence to be unearthed and corroborated., whereas true allegations get supported.  Holding a hearing with only 2 of the individuals and then voting less than 24 hours later is not the best practice to uncover the truth/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on September 27, 2018, 08:17:04 AM
"Presumption of innocence" applies in criminal proceedings, not in what amounts to a high stakes job interview.

This is not a criminal trial. It does not follow the same principles as a criminal trial.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 27, 2018, 08:17:37 AM
"Presumption of innocence" applies in criminal proceedings, not in what amounts to a high stakes job interview.

This is not a criminal trial. It does not follow the same principles as a criminal trial.

Yes.

Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.

Then you hear this:

- A woman says your top pick tried to sexually assault her, pinning her down on a bed at a party when they were in high school, a story she told a therapist years ago.
-A second woman says he exposed himself to her as a student at Yale. Classmates gossiped about it for decades.
-A third woman says your applicant was a bystander when she was, in her words, “gang raped” at a high school party. She says that she saw him once in a line of boys preparing to gang rape another student.
-She also said that he and his friends spiked drinks with drugs and alcohol to make women unable fight off unwanted sexual advances.
-In response to all of this, your top pick presents himself as a virgin choirboy. Half a dozen of his old friends gasp, telling the Washington Post that, in fact, he was an aggressive “sloppy drunk” for years.

Do you hire him, anyway?

- Ezra Klein
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks on September 27, 2018, 08:21:11 AM
GuitarStv: only one of the studies you linked looks at sexual assault rates, and concludes that three factors correlate to campus' with higher rates of sexual assault than others: fraternity membership, alcohol violations and athletes.  It also does not compare sexual assault rates between fraternity members and the general population.

That data is available in the referenced studies, which you (bizarrely) seem to have ignored.  For example, the single study that you've mentioned above includes full references  (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317663622_An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Campus_Demographics_and_Reported_Rapes (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317663622_An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Campus_Demographics_and_Reported_Rapes)):

"Multiple studies have found that sexual assaults are more likely to occur with fraternity men"
- Adams-Curtis LE, Forbedos GB. College women’s experiences
of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim,
and situational variables. Trauma Viol Abuse.
2004;5,91–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262331.

- Foubert JD, Newberry JT, Tatum J. Behavior differences seven months later: Effects of a rape prevention program. NASPA J. 2007;44(4):728–749. 8 J. D. WIERSMA-MOSLEY ET AL.

- Humphrey SE, Kahn AS. Fraternities, athletic teams, and rape. J Interpers Violence. 2000;15(12):1313–1320.

- Kimble NB, Russo SA, Bergman BG, Galindo VH. Revealing an empirical understanding of aggression and violent behavior in athletics. Aggress Viol Behav. 2010;15:446–462.

- Safai P. Boys behaving badly: Popular literature on the misbehavior of male team sport athletes in North America. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2002;37:97–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690202037001006

"more than one-third of campus rapes occur in fraternity houses" - Minow JC, Einolf CJ. Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Viol Against Women. 2009;15(7):835–851.

etc.

This is true for every other study quoted as well ( Minow and Einolf (2009), Bohmer and Parrot (1993), Gross-bard, Geisner, Neighbors, Kilmer, & Larimer,(2007); McMahon, (2010), Mohler-Kou, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler, (2004), Murnen & Kohlman, (2007), etc. all contain the information you purport to be looking for.  This is all referenced in the information you were provided with.  I believe that Gin pointed to several other studies demonstrating the same.  You appear to be hellbent on ignoring all this data for some reason.



For all we know fraternity members may be LESS likely than the general population to commit sexual assault. The one you quoted stating that fraternity members are overrepresented in sexual assault does not study assault rates at all. Like the rest of the links you provided, and the links provided previously in the thread, it studies fraternity members opinions regarding "rape myths".

If we ignore the multiple citations indicating that fraternity men rape at higher rates . . . then we have no idea if fraternity men rape at higher rates.  Please read the articles posted and check the references therein before creating novel conclusions to fit your personal narrative.



But again, whether or not fraternity members as a whole commit sexual assault at higher rates than the general population is irrelevant to whether or not Brett kavanaugh committed sexual assault. If the rate of sexual assault amongst fraternity members was astronomical, say 20%, it would still mean that the overwhelming majority of fraternity members were not sexual predators.

Sure, belonging to a fraternity does not make one a sexual assault perpetrator.  I didn't ever say that Kavenaugh's fraternity days made him sexually assault anyone.  This is a straw man that you're arguing here.  My comments about fraternities were in reference to Jrr's belief that gang rape couldn't possibly occur in a fraternity.  The evidence shows that not only does rape frequently occur in fraternities, but that gang rape is not particularly unusual.

I don't know if Kavenaugh is guilty or not of the multiple sexual assaults he has been accused of.  Just because someone acts guilty and lies about related things certainly isn't evidence of their guilt.  What I do believe is that there is ample cause to investigate the matter further before granting him a lifetime appointment to a judicial position.

I don't think anyone is claiming that gang rapes don't happen, my reading of Jrrrr is that he is questioning the believability of the claim that a gang rape RING operated in that social circle multiple times but was never investigated and everyone involved with it stayed completely silent about it for over thirty years. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 08:45:06 AM
GuitarStv: only one of the studies you linked looks at sexual assault rates, and concludes that three factors correlate to campus' with higher rates of sexual assault than others: fraternity membership, alcohol violations and athletes.  It also does not compare sexual assault rates between fraternity members and the general population.

That data is available in the referenced studies, which you (bizarrely) seem to have ignored.  For example, the single study that you've mentioned above includes full references  (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317663622_An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Campus_Demographics_and_Reported_Rapes (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317663622_An_Empirical_Investigation_of_Campus_Demographics_and_Reported_Rapes)):

"Multiple studies have found that sexual assaults are more likely to occur with fraternity men"
- Adams-Curtis LE, Forbedos GB. College women’s experiences
of sexual coercion: A review of cultural, perpetrator, victim,
and situational variables. Trauma Viol Abuse.
2004;5,91–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838003262331.

- Foubert JD, Newberry JT, Tatum J. Behavior differences seven months later: Effects of a rape prevention program. NASPA J. 2007;44(4):728–749. 8 J. D. WIERSMA-MOSLEY ET AL.

- Humphrey SE, Kahn AS. Fraternities, athletic teams, and rape. J Interpers Violence. 2000;15(12):1313–1320.

- Kimble NB, Russo SA, Bergman BG, Galindo VH. Revealing an empirical understanding of aggression and violent behavior in athletics. Aggress Viol Behav. 2010;15:446–462.

- Safai P. Boys behaving badly: Popular literature on the misbehavior of male team sport athletes in North America. Int Rev Sociol Sport. 2002;37:97–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690202037001006

"more than one-third of campus rapes occur in fraternity houses" - Minow JC, Einolf CJ. Sorority participation and sexual assault risk. Viol Against Women. 2009;15(7):835–851.

etc.

This is true for every other study quoted as well ( Minow and Einolf (2009), Bohmer and Parrot (1993), Gross-bard, Geisner, Neighbors, Kilmer, & Larimer,(2007); McMahon, (2010), Mohler-Kou, Dowdall, Koss, & Wechsler, (2004), Murnen & Kohlman, (2007), etc. all contain the information you purport to be looking for.  This is all referenced in the information you were provided with.  I believe that Gin pointed to several other studies demonstrating the same.  You appear to be hellbent on ignoring all this data for some reason.



For all we know fraternity members may be LESS likely than the general population to commit sexual assault. The one you quoted stating that fraternity members are overrepresented in sexual assault does not study assault rates at all. Like the rest of the links you provided, and the links provided previously in the thread, it studies fraternity members opinions regarding "rape myths".

If we ignore the multiple citations indicating that fraternity men rape at higher rates . . . then we have no idea if fraternity men rape at higher rates.  Please read the articles posted and check the references therein before creating novel conclusions to fit your personal narrative.



But again, whether or not fraternity members as a whole commit sexual assault at higher rates than the general population is irrelevant to whether or not Brett kavanaugh committed sexual assault. If the rate of sexual assault amongst fraternity members was astronomical, say 20%, it would still mean that the overwhelming majority of fraternity members were not sexual predators.

Sure, belonging to a fraternity does not make one a sexual assault perpetrator.  I didn't ever say that Kavenaugh's fraternity days made him sexually assault anyone.  This is a straw man that you're arguing here.  My comments about fraternities were in reference to Jrr's belief that gang rape couldn't possibly occur in a fraternity.  The evidence shows that not only does rape frequently occur in fraternities, but that gang rape is not particularly unusual.

I don't know if Kavenaugh is guilty or not of the multiple sexual assaults he has been accused of.  Just because someone acts guilty and lies about related things certainly isn't evidence of their guilt.  What I do believe is that there is ample cause to investigate the matter further before granting him a lifetime appointment to a judicial position.

Surely if there's so much research on it, someobdy can point to a study, provide the definition they are using, and give the numbers? 

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 

And surely you're not going to claim somebody else is attacking a straw man and then say that I don't believe gang rape could occur in a fraternity. That's pretty rich.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 08:59:56 AM
-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.

Ignoring the interested parties, Ford can't find one person to verify that they were ever at a party where Ford and Kavanaugh were present.  Possibly not a big deal, except that she named a witness that was supposed to be at the party where only 5 or 6 people were there. 

The yale student's claim is even odder.   There was a group of people in the room, but she can't identify one person that was there who will confirm it happened?   

And the third person claims that when she was in college, she would attend high school parties where Kavanaugh and his friends would try to date rape people and line up for gang rapes and that eventually at one of these parties she too was gang raped, but she doesn't know if Kavanaugh was one of the people.  And not one other person is like, oh yea, I remember those gang rape parties.  They were wild. 

So it's not that just random people didn't witness things.  it's that people that were identified can't remember anything like the reported incident, and even when the larger number of people were witness to it, they can't identify one eye witness?

Certainly doesn't mean any one or all of the allegations are false.  And the first two are certainly reasonably plausible events, but there seems to be reason to be skeptical. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 09:02:38 AM

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..
Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 09:20:03 AM
Surely if there's so much research on it, someobdy can point to a study, provide the definition they are using, and give the numbers? 

That has been done, just for you, multiple times now.  Why do you keep asking for the same information you've already been provided?  Are you deliberately ignoring it?

Quote
Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.

Calling sexual assault survivors or their experiences "ridiculous" is pretty callous, man.  And the fact that you can so easily separate coercion or assault (apparently fine?) from rape (I guess not fine?) and condemn one but not the other is pretty telling.  Were you, perhaps, a member of fraternity where this sort of thing went on?  Are you suggesting that getting girls drunk and then molesting them when they can't protest is an acceptable practice, and thus an allowable form of nonconsensual sexual contact for supreme court nominees as long as there was no penetration?

Ignoring the interested parties, Ford can't find one person to verify that they were ever at a party where Ford and Kavanaugh were present.

The press has reported like eight different people who reported that Ford and Kavanaugh traveled in similar social circles, and they both attended parties at the same places.  Even if your claim was true, and no one could testify under oath that they were sure these two people attended this specific party together, that would not mean it didn't happen.  On weight of the evidence, it seems likely these events happened as described by Ford.  Why would you even try to dispute this? 

Quote
The yale student's claim is even odder.   There was a group of people in the room, but she can't identify one person that was there who will confirm it happened?   

Um, I see two different people in the press who have confirmed that the dick in face event happened, in addition to the accuser.  It sounds like everyone has been talking about this act for decades.  "Hey guys, remember that time that Brett shoved his balls in Deb's face, that was hilarious!"  No, not hilaroius.  Sexually demeaning and unacceptable by modern standards.  Absolutely disqualifying for a justice, or a man. 

Quote
And the third person claims that when she was in college, she would attend high school parties where Kavanaugh and his friends would try to date rape people

Your knowledge of sexual assault seems very limited.  Many of these frat house cases are examples where a sexual encounter rapidly went from consensual to nonconsensual in a hurry, often as a result of an "approved" partner giving the girls drugs or alcohol until she was unable to protest or tell the difference, and then passing her off to other people.  The fact that woman wanted to have sex with a boy does not mean she wasn't assaulted/raped if another boy touches/penetrates her after she passes out.  Maybe read up on Brock Turner, Jrr, before you claim this sort of thing is wildly fantastical and never happens.

Quote
it's that people that were identified can't remember anything like the reported incident, and even when the larger number of people were witness to it, they can't identify one eye witness?

You're wrong.  Not a single person has gone under oath to defend Kavanaugh with a specific denial.  You can go on Fox News and say any damn thing you like, but if you then refuse to testify under oath then how reliable should we think you are?  The accusers have now testified under oath.  I'd like to see some of the defenders do the same, except I can't because none of them are willing.  This is a very different pictures than the one you are you trying to present in which the defenders are supposed to be trustworthy for unidentified reasons but the accusers are not.

Quote
Certainly doesn't mean any one or all of the allegations are false.  And the first two are certainly reasonably plausible events, but there seems to be reason to be skeptical. 

There is always reason to be skeptical.  How about you and I agree that we really need a proper investigation into these claims before giving a lifetime irrevocable appointment to someone?  If you are skeptical too, let's get to the bottom of it.  Can we at least find common ground on that point?  Because as of right now, Senate republicans are refusing to even allow an investigation and are pushing ahead with the confirmation vote regardless.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 27, 2018, 10:00:15 AM
Or we could ask "do you want some tea? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ)"

I would love some, thanks for asking! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vr8LMgGr-M)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 10:12:04 AM
Surely if there's so much research on it, someobdy can point to a study, provide the definition they are using, and give the numbers? 

That has been done, just for you, multiple times now.  Why do you keep asking for the same information you've already been provided?  Are you deliberately ignoring it?
  No, a bunch of crap studies that are self referential back to the same BS claims have been provided.  It shouldn't be that hard to find the study that looks at actual incidents of rape and/or sexual assault, provide the definition used, and then the prevalence among different groups.  I'm not going to pour through the crap studies to try to find one that's legitimate.  If it's so well established by research, then it should be easy enough to find a study showing it that doesn't rely on sleight of hand. 


Quote
Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.

Calling sexual assault survivors or their experiences "ridiculous" is pretty callous, man.  And the fact that you can so easily separate coercion or assault (apparently fine?) from rape (I guess not fine?) and condemn one but not the other is pretty telling.  Were you, perhaps, a member of fraternity where this sort of thing went on?  Are you suggesting that getting girls drunk and then molesting them when they can't protest is an acceptable practice, and thus an allowable form of nonconsensual sexual contact for supreme court nominees as long as there was no penetration?
  That's a poor effort at a straw man.  I really don't get why people enjoy attacking straw men on an internet message board.  Even if you're going to do it, at least make a game effort at it so it does something other than make you look stupid.  What percentage of crazies believe whistling at a girl is in the same category as physically assaulting them?  That's the people your straw man argument will work on.   

Ignoring the interested parties, Ford can't find one person to verify that they were ever at a party where Ford and Kavanaugh were present.

The press has reported like eight different people who reported that Ford and Kavanaugh traveled in similar social circles, and they both attended parties at the same places.  Even if your claim was true, and no one could testify under oath that they were sure these two people attended this specific party together, that would not mean it didn't happen.  On weight of the evidence, it seems likely these events happened as described by Ford.  Why would you even try to dispute this? 
  You are unhinged?  What weight of the evidence are you talking about?  There is one person who says it happened, one person who says it didn't.  Nobody that can verify that it happened or even corroborate that there was a time and place where it could have happened.  The person that says it happened can't say where or when other than sometime other than a town sometime between when she was 15 and late teens depending on the time she talked about it.  It's certainly possible that it happened, but there is no weight of the evidence.   
 
Quote
The yale student's claim is even odder.   There was a group of people in the room, but she can't identify one person that was there who will confirm it happened?   

Um, I see two different people in the press who have confirmed that the dick in face event happened, in addition to the accuser.  It sounds like everyone has been talking about this act for decades.  "Hey guys, remember that time that Brett shoved his balls in Deb's face, that was hilarious!"  No, not hilaroius.  Sexually demeaning and unacceptable by modern standards.  Absolutely disqualifying for a justice, or a man. 
  You'll have to provide a cite to this.  Surely you are not counting the person who heard something like that happened but didn't know if Kavanaugh was involved or the person who said it was believable that something like this could happen. 

Quote
And the third person claims that when she was in college, she would attend high school parties where Kavanaugh and his friends would try to date rape people

Your knowledge of sexual assault seems very limited.  Many of these frat house cases are examples where a sexual encounter rapidly went from consensual to nonconsensual in a hurry, often as a result of an "approved" partner giving the girls drugs or alcohol until she was unable to protest or tell the difference, and then passing her off to other people.  The fact that woman wanted to have sex with a boy does not mean she wasn't assaulted/raped if another boy touches/penetrates her after she passes out.  Maybe read up on Brock Turner, Jrr, before you claim this sort of thing is wildly fantastical and never happens.
  I can't even tell if this was an attempt at a straw man it's so nonresponsive.  I said she accused them of trying to date rape people.  And then you go and give basically the definition of date rape and say I should read up on it? 

Quote
it's that people that were identified can't remember anything like the reported incident, and even when the larger number of people were witness to it, they can't identify one eye witness?

You're wrong.  Not a single person has gone under oath to defend Kavanaugh with a specific denial.  You can go on Fox News and say any damn thing you like, but if you then refuse to testify under oath then how reliable should we think you are?  The accusers have now testified under oath.  I'd like to see some of the defenders do the same, except I can't because none of them are willing.  This is a very different pictures than the one you are you trying to present in which the defenders are supposed to be trustworthy for unidentified reasons but the accusers are not.
  There is not a specific denial to defend him against.  At least Judge has said under penalty of perjury that the event didn't happen.  Kavanaugh has.  I'm not sure how many of the other people questioned have or have not. 


Quote
Certainly doesn't mean any one or all of the allegations are false.  And the first two are certainly reasonably plausible events, but there seems to be reason to be skeptical. 

There is always reason to be skeptical.  How about you and I agree that we really need a proper investigation into these claims before giving a lifetime irrevocable appointment to someone?  If you are skeptical too, let's get to the bottom of it.  Can we at least find common ground on that point?  Because as of right now, Senate republicans are refusing to even allow an investigation and are pushing ahead with the confirmation vote regardless.
  There needs to be some basis for an investigation.  Ford is submitting sworn statements for the first time today I believe.  After her testimony and kavanaughs, they can decide how to proceed.  They have already been investigating and asking questions of different people identified. 

Ramirez reportedly refused to provide a sworn statement when asked and referred them to her statement to the New Yorker.  If that's true, there's nothing else to be done with that allegation. 

Avanetti's client has submitted a sworn statement under penalty of perjury and they should question her if she's willing and able to do so today or tomorrow, but they don't need to hold up the confirmation over it.  IF there is any truth to it, he can be impeached over it.  But it was a last second allegation that vaguely makes claims where she attributes intent (Did she actually see Kavanaugh spike punch and if so, how does she know he was doing it to date rape people and not just doing a normal high school party thing of providing alcohol at a party?; how in the world does she know what Kavanaugh was standing in line for; ignoring teh question of why she would keep attending high school parties as a college age student if there were gang rapes going on?) and doesn't actually provide first hand knowledge of any criminal activity involving kavanaugh other than underaged drikning (assuming that she did see him spike the punch or provide the spiked punch).  If anybody else comes forward or is identified that has knowledge of this, they can keep investigating.  But there have been multiple background checks without the whole gang rape thing coming up despite there being multiple parties where it was involved, so I'm not sure there is anything to be done until somebody with first hand knowledge comes forward.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 10:15:30 AM

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..
Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.

It's not very bold.  That number has been debunked.  As far as what constitutes sexual assault, I think reasonable people can disagree at the margins, but I don't think reasonable people agree that cat calling should be considered sexual assault, or at the very least, would be much more interested in the numbers for what is more traditionally thought of as sexual assault than numbers that lump verbal comments and physical attacks in the same category.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 10:16:54 AM
Jrr85 you are living in a world of delusion.

Go watch the interview that's happening right now and get your head back into reality.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 10:23:52 AM

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..
Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.

It's not very bold.  That number has been debunked.  As far as what constitutes sexual assault, I think reasonable people can disagree at the margins, but I don't think reasonable people agree that cat calling should be considered sexual assault, or at the very least, would be much more interested in the numbers for what is more traditionally thought of as sexual assault than numbers that lump verbal comments and physical attacks in the same category.

Sexual assault is codified in law.  Cat calling is sexual harassment. Neither is ok, but please understand the difference.

Regarding sexual assault, no, in general reasonable people can not disagree 'at the margins'.  If you did not or could not give consent and someone touches your genitals or forces you to touch theirs, that's sexual assault.  There's no legal or moral ambiguity here.  Assault involves intent, a lack of consent, and physical contact.  If those three elements are put together, you've got the legal textbook definition of assault.  If it involves genitals, it's sexual assault.

To sum up: when you intentionally touch someone's privates, and they did not want you to touch them (no consent), OR if force them to touch someone else's - that's sexual assault.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 10:25:15 AM
  After her testimony and kavanaughs, they can decide how to proceed. 
Except they have already decided how to proceed. They are voting tomorrow. They are refusing an investigation.  You say there needs to be a reason for an investigation? How about 3 independent allegations?  Investigate those.  If they are all false, the FBI will be able to work that out. That's what they do!

Quote
But it was a last second allegation
Last second to an artificial timeline Grassley and McConnell have come up with.  The supreme court nominee does not need to be confirmed within a certain time limit. There is plenty of time for the investigation to take place.  THEY are the ones insisting on rushing this, and not allowing the claims to be investigated.


Do you understand the incredible bravery it takes of women to voice their allegations? These women have received death threats; they have become national figures they might not want to be, and they have to relive their trauma in an incredibly public setting. 

As a trauma victim (though not of sexual violence)- it already haunts me; having to do so on a national stage would be unbearable. That's why most women stay quiet.



(Also- keep in mind in most places urinating in public can put you on the sex offenders list. So shoving your genitals into someone's face...clearly sexual assault. Forcing yourself sexually onto a person, clearly sexual assault. These aren't grey areas.)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 10:33:33 AM

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..
Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.

It's not very bold.  That number has been debunked.  As far as what constitutes sexual assault, I think reasonable people can disagree at the margins, but I don't think reasonable people agree that cat calling should be considered sexual assault, or at the very least, would be much more interested in the numbers for what is more traditionally thought of as sexual assault than numbers that lump verbal comments and physical attacks in the same category.

Sexual assault is codified in law.  Cat calling is sexual harassment. Neither is ok, but please understand the difference.

Regarding sexual assault, no, in general reasonable people can not disagree 'at the margins'.  If you did not or could not give consent and someone touches your genitals or forces you to touch theirs, that's sexual assault.  There's no legal or moral ambiguity here.  Assault involves intent, a lack of consent, and physical contact.  If those three elements are put together, you've got the legal textbook definition of assault.  If it involves genitals, it's sexual assault.

To sum up: when you intentionally touch someone's privates, and they did not want you to touch them (no consent), OR if force them to touch someone else's - that's sexual assault.

Here is how it is defined in Maryland (home state of Georgetown Prep).
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

Second point to Jrr: you do realize that there is likely a much higher bar to impeachment than there is at present, right?  Impeachment from the SCOTUS would be a huge deal and is frankly just extremely unlikely.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 10:46:15 AM

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..
Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.

It's not very bold.  That number has been debunked.  As far as what constitutes sexual assault, I think reasonable people can disagree at the margins, but I don't think reasonable people agree that cat calling should be considered sexual assault, or at the very least, would be much more interested in the numbers for what is more traditionally thought of as sexual assault than numbers that lump verbal comments and physical attacks in the same category.

Sexual assault is codified in law.  Cat calling is sexual harassment. Neither is ok, but please understand the difference.

Regarding sexual assault, no, in general reasonable people can not disagree 'at the margins'.  If you did not or could not give consent and someone touches your genitals or forces you to touch theirs, that's sexual assault.  There's no legal or moral ambiguity here.  Assault involves intent, a lack of consent, and physical contact.  If those three elements are put together, you've got the legal textbook definition of assault.  If it involves genitals, it's sexual assault.

To sum up: when you intentionally touch someone's privates, and they did not want you to touch them (no consent), OR if force them to touch someone else's - that's sexual assault.

Then you are agreeing with me that the 1/4 number is ridiculous, correct?  Because the 1/4 number isn't looking at anything near the legal definition of sexual assault.  That's something closer to 1 in 164 women if you're looking at college aged students and 1 in 132 if you are looking at college aged women who are not students.  https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 27, 2018, 10:54:26 AM
Speculation: Flake is a "nay." That gives cover to the red-state Democrats, leaving the vote to Collins or Murkowsi.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 10:56:34 AM

Because everyone I can find, they seem to purposefully conflate aggressiveness/coercion/assault/rape.  That's how you get ridiculous numbers like one in four college women are victims of sexual assault before they graduate.  I suspect it's also how you get ridiculous stats like members of fraternities are 3 times more likely to commit rape. 
..
Wiat a second... backup.  Are you implying that the incidences of sexual assault are much less than that?  Or that attempted rape, groping etc. should not be considered 'sexual assault.  Because eitehr is a very, very bold statement.

It's not very bold.  That number has been debunked.  As far as what constitutes sexual assault, I think reasonable people can disagree at the margins, but I don't think reasonable people agree that cat calling should be considered sexual assault, or at the very least, would be much more interested in the numbers for what is more traditionally thought of as sexual assault than numbers that lump verbal comments and physical attacks in the same category.

Sexual assault is codified in law.  Cat calling is sexual harassment. Neither is ok, but please understand the difference.

Regarding sexual assault, no, in general reasonable people can not disagree 'at the margins'.  If you did not or could not give consent and someone touches your genitals or forces you to touch theirs, that's sexual assault.  There's no legal or moral ambiguity here.  Assault involves intent, a lack of consent, and physical contact.  If those three elements are put together, you've got the legal textbook definition of assault.  If it involves genitals, it's sexual assault.

To sum up: when you intentionally touch someone's privates, and they did not want you to touch them (no consent), OR if force them to touch someone else's - that's sexual assault.

Here is how it is defined in Maryland (home state of Georgetown Prep).
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/maryland-law/maryland-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

Second point to Jrr: you do realize that there is likely a much higher bar to impeachment than there is at present, right?  Impeachment from the SCOTUS would be a huge deal and is frankly just extremely unlikely.

If Kavanaugh was going around routinely gang raping people like the person claims (or even just being involved in it), that's not going to be a hard bar to clear.  And it should be hard to find a few victims if it was as common as she claimed. 

That's very different from Ford's allegation, where even if she had a way to credibly prove her allegations, there would potentially be a question in some people's minds regarding whether a drunken groping from more than 30 years ago is disqualifying. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2018, 10:58:37 AM
In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 11:06:20 AM
  After her testimony and kavanaughs, they can decide how to proceed. 
Except they have already decided how to proceed. They are voting tomorrow. They are refusing an investigation.  You say there needs to be a reason for an investigation? How about 3 independent allegations?  Investigate those.  If they are all false, the FBI will be able to work that out. That's what they do!
Scheduling a vote is not a determination on how to proceed.  IF there is something in the testimony that they think provides an avenue for them to prove or disprove the allegations (or Kavanaugh says somethign to make them think the allegations are likely true), then they can postpone the vote or vote against him.


Quote
But it was a last second allegation
Last second to an artificial timeline Grassley and McConnell have come up with.  The supreme court nominee does not need to be confirmed within a certain time limit. There is plenty of time for the investigation to take place.  THEY are the ones insisting on rushing this, and not allowing the claims to be investigated.

They are not rushing it.  The nomination was made on July 9th.  The committee hearings began September 4th.  If they don't hold to any timeline, then the vote will never take place.  There can always be a claim submitted the eve before the vote to restart the process if you take the position that the position doesn't have to be filled in any particular time (which is correct as a matter of law but that doesn't mean the president and senate shouldn't get to vote on a nominee). 



Do you understand the incredible bravery it takes of women to voice their allegations? These women have received death threats; they have become national figures they might not want to be, and they have to relive their trauma in an incredibly public setting. 

As a trauma victim (though not of sexual violence)- it already haunts me; having to do so on a national stage would be unbearable. That's why most women stay quiet.



(Also- keep in mind in most places urinating in public can put you on the sex offenders list. So shoving your genitals into someone's face...clearly sexual assault. Forcing yourself sexually onto a person, clearly sexual assault. These aren't grey areas.)

It is incredibly hard to go public with a sexual assault allegation.  It is incredibly hard to be smeared with a false claim.  There is no "fair" solution as to how to handle allegations from three decades ago.  It's perfectly understandable that people might stay quiet.  But it is also a necessity that claims from thirty years ago be treated with healthy skepticism, as there is no feasible way for the accused to disprove the allegations, especially when they are vague on teh time or place. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 11:11:10 AM
In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?  [/s]

MOD EDIT: No, thanks.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on September 27, 2018, 11:19:51 AM
There's nothing healthy about the scepticism on display here. This is the same relentless refusal to listen to credible allegations of sexual assaults that pops up every time something like this comes up. Everything so far has been consistent with how sexual assault survivors behave, and inconsistent with behaviours seen in false allegations.

But this happens Every. Fucking. Time. that allegations are made. No matter how clear it is that the man in question has a case to answer, there will ALWAYS be a group of people furiously arguing that it's all a violation of his good name. Every fucking time.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on September 27, 2018, 11:22:41 AM
In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

This is a shitty response to a serious question. In your post immediately preceding, you indicated pretty clearly that you thought there may be a case that allegations going back thirty years are not relevant. You were then asked to quantify that, and instead, you decided to pretend you were the victim of a particularly loaded example of a logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 27, 2018, 11:23:45 AM
Quote
But it was a last second allegation
Last second to an artificial timeline Grassley and McConnell have come up with.  The supreme court nominee does not need to be confirmed within a certain time limit. There is plenty of time for the investigation to take place.  THEY are the ones insisting on rushing this, and not allowing the claims to be investigated.

They are not rushing it.  The nomination was made on July 9th.  The committee hearings began September 4th.  If they don't hold to any timeline, then the vote will never take place.  There can always be a claim submitted the eve before the vote to restart the process if you take the position that the position doesn't have to be filled in any particular time (which is correct as a matter of law but that doesn't mean the president and senate shouldn't get to vote on a nominee).

And the leadership of the senate can always choose to hold the vote anyways.  What's your point?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 11:26:09 AM
If Kavanaugh was going around routinely gang raping people like the person claims

She didn't claim that Kavanaugh went around gang raping people.  She claimed that she personally was gang raped at a party Kavanaugh attended, by Kavanaugh's friends, and that she saw that he was present before losing consciousness in the middle of it. 

So, best case scenario here, Brett knew what was happening and didn't stop it, but didn't personally rape her?  That's what you're hoping is the truth?  Let's make that man a judge!

Quote
there would potentially be a question in some people's minds regarding whether a drunken groping from more than 30 years ago is disqualifying.

I think we've already established that it's not disqualifying, in the eyes of republican senators, for a supreme court nominee, or for a senate candidate from Alabama, or for a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that those same republican senators absolutely demanded that Al Franken resign in disgrace after he admitted to over-the-clothes touching the boob of a coworker while she slept, because he thought it was a funny joke.  What Kavanaugh did was arguably worse (because it was private and aggressive and demeaning and violent) than what Franket did (which was sexist and inappropriate but done in jest to someone he liked and respected, and involved no use of physical force, or removal of clothing) and yet Franken got rightfully booted and Kavanaugh is getting promoted.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 11:28:39 AM
In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

These questions aren't remotely the same.
One is a trap question; the other asking about a statue of limitations, essentially (but not on criminal prosecution).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 11:31:04 AM
In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

Let's follow the forum rules.
Attack an argument, not a forum member (2)
Be respectful.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/ (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 11:36:34 AM
In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

This is a shitty response to a serious question. In your post immediately preceding, you indicated pretty clearly that you thought there may be a case that allegations going back thirty years are not relevant. You were then asked to quantify that, and instead, you decided to pretend you were the victim of a particularly loaded example of a logical fallacy.

No, I responded to Sol who said the bar for impeachment would be higher, and I explained that it wouldn't matter for the gang rape claims, but that some people might think the allegations by Ford were disqualifying even if true.  Didn't state my opinion at all.  Just recognized the reality that some senators (who would ultimately vote on impeachment) might not think a drunken groping from 30 years ago disqualifies him such that he should be impeached. 

Even if I had stated my opinon, the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 11:39:17 AM
In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

Let's follow the forum rules.
Attack an argument, not a forum member (2)
Be respectful.
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/ (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/)

Was that a response to me?  Clearly I was attacking the argument. 

If it was a response to GuitarStv, he/she used a stale rhetorical trick.  I'm not sure that's a personal attack.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 11:39:55 AM

Even if I had stated my opinon, the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

No it's not.  The first question the answer is "There is no point when it is OK." 
There isn't an answer to "When did you stop beating your wife?" if you never started.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 27, 2018, 11:47:02 AM
Impeaching who, a justice? We are not talking about impeaching him. We are talking about not giving him the biggest promotion in his life. And I wouldn't characterize what he did to Ford as "drunken groping". She was pushed in a room (some places that's considered kidnapping to be moved from one place to another)* hand placed over her mouth so she wouldn't make a noise. That's just messed up if you consider that "drunken groping". Why even put the "drunken" in front of it? Does that make it better?
*eta that action would not constitute kidnapping. But it would be considered false imprisonment (felony).

BTW I personally feel from even statements from his own friends, accquantices and roommates, that he often was so drunk, he may not remember what he did or how he acted. And that when he was drunk he was often agressive and belligerent. So how can he answer so confidently that he "always treated women with dignity and respect?"

I am confident he will be nominated for supreme court judge. As others have noted, many people including Trump have too much riding on him not to be nominated, and anyone who does not vote yes will be heavily punished by thier party. There is no room for independent thought. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: intellectsucks on September 27, 2018, 11:48:10 AM
"Presumption of innocence" applies in criminal proceedings, not in what amounts to a high stakes job interview.

This is not a criminal trial. It does not follow the same principles as a criminal trial.

Yes.

Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.

Then you hear this:

- A woman says your top pick tried to sexually assault her, pinning her down on a bed at a party when they were in high school, a story she told a therapist years ago.
-A second woman says he exposed himself to her as a student at Yale. Classmates gossiped about it for decades.
-A third woman says your applicant was a bystander when she was, in her words, “gang raped” at a high school party. She says that she saw him once in a line of boys preparing to gang rape another student.
-She also said that he and his friends spiked drinks with drugs and alcohol to make women unable fight off unwanted sexual advances.
-In response to all of this, your top pick presents himself as a virgin choirboy. Half a dozen of his old friends gasp, telling the Washington Post that, in fact, he was an aggressive “sloppy drunk” for years.

Do you hire him, anyway?

- Ezra Klein
For the record, I think that they should dump kavanaugh and move on to the next nominee.  That said, I think that this comparison, while mostly a good one, lacks certain key elements. The main one being an adversarial group whose intention is to disrupt the process by any means necessary. If I was reasonably sure that this adversarial group would produce a dubious claim no matter which candidate I picked, then I would be much more inclined to seriously weigh the veracity of the accusations against my standout.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 27, 2018, 11:49:04 AM
"Presumption of innocence" applies in criminal proceedings, not in what amounts to a high stakes job interview.

This is not a criminal trial. It does not follow the same principles as a criminal trial.

Yes.

Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.

Then you hear this:

- A woman says your top pick tried to sexually assault her, pinning her down on a bed at a party when they were in high school, a story she told a therapist years ago.
-A second woman says he exposed himself to her as a student at Yale. Classmates gossiped about it for decades.
-A third woman says your applicant was a bystander when she was, in her words, “gang raped” at a high school party. She says that she saw him once in a line of boys preparing to gang rape another student.
-She also said that he and his friends spiked drinks with drugs and alcohol to make women unable fight off unwanted sexual advances.
-In response to all of this, your top pick presents himself as a virgin choirboy. Half a dozen of his old friends gasp, telling the Washington Post that, in fact, he was an aggressive “sloppy drunk” for years.

Do you hire him, anyway?

- Ezra Klein
For the record, I think that they should dump kavanaugh and move on to the next nominee.  That said, I think that this comparison, while mostly a good one, lacks certain key elements. The main one being an adversarial group whose intention is to disrupt the process by any means necessary. If I was reasonably sure that this adversarial group would produce a dubious claim no matter which candidate I picked, then I would be much more inclined to seriously weigh the veracity of the accusations against my standout.

That is an assumption. One that seems fairly unfounded, given that Neil Gorsuch now sits on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 11:50:29 AM
the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

No, it's not at all the same. 

The correct answer to "when does sexual assault become acceptable" is "never".  You seem to think it's "approximately 20-30 years".

There is no correct answer to "when did you stop beating your wife" because any answer at all an admission of guilt.  If you say "never" then you are implying that you still beat your wife, and that's the point of the rhetorical question, to highlight how unfair it is to ask such a question.  The question you were asked, by contrast, is absolutely fair and has a variety of good answers, none of which you have given. 

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 11:52:38 AM
Impeaching who, a justice? We are not talking about impeaching him. We are talking about not giving him the biggest promotion in his life. And I wouldn't characterize what he did to Ford as "drunken groping". She was pushed in a room (some places that's considered kidnapping to be moved from one place to another) hand placed over her mouth so she wouldn't make a noise. That's just messed up if you consider that "drunken groping". Why even put the "drunken" in front of it? Does that make it better?

BTW I personally feel from even statements from his own friends, accquantices and roommates, that he often was so drunk, he may not remember what he did or how he acted. And that when he was drunk he was often agressive and belligerent. So how can he answer so confidently that he "always treated women with dignity and respect?"

I am confident he will be nominated for supreme court judge. As others have noted, many people including Trump have too much riding on him not to be nominated, and anyone who does not vote yes will be heavily punished by thier party. There is no room for independent thought.

I assume you mean apppointed?  He has already been nominated.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on September 27, 2018, 11:54:11 AM
Bill Cosby found out.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 11:56:27 AM
I think that this comparison, while mostly a good one, lacks certain key elements. The main one being an adversarial group whose intention is to disrupt the process by any means necessary.

I agree that the comparision to a F500 CEO interview lacks a certain key element, but I disagree on which one.  In my view, Klein's comparison isn't complete without highlighting that the Fortune 500 company for which this alleged abuser is interviewing plays a key role in shaping national policy about women's right and access to medical care. 

On a smaller scale, for example, do you think Planned Parenthood should hire someone with a laundry list of sexual assault allegations against him to lead their organization?  Maybe the Battered Women Justice Project should hire him instead?  Because that's a huge part of what the Supreme Court does, and putting Kavanaugh up for that position is just a big FU finger in the eye of 51% of the American population.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 11:58:03 AM
If Kavanaugh was going around routinely gang raping people like the person claims

She didn't claim that Kavanaugh went around gang raping people.  She claimed that she personally was gang raped at a party Kavanaugh attended, by Kavanaugh's friends, and that she saw that he was present before losing consciousness in the middle of it. 

So, best case scenario here, Brett knew what was happening and didn't stop it, but didn't personally rape her?  That's what you're hoping is the truth?  Let's make that man a judge!
  yes, she claimed Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape.  It's paragraph 12 of her affidavit.  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/read-full-sworn-statement-from-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick.html


Quote
there would potentially be a question in some people's minds regarding whether a drunken groping from more than 30 years ago is disqualifying.

I think we've already established that it's not disqualifying, in the eyes of republican senators, for a supreme court nominee, or for a senate candidate from Alabama, or for a presidential candidate.

Meanwhile, let's not forget that those same republican senators absolutely demanded that Al Franken resign in disgrace after he admitted to over-the-clothes touching the boob of a coworker while she slept, because he thought it was a funny joke.  What Kavanaugh did was arguably worse (because it was private and aggressive and demeaning and violent) than what Franket did (which was sexist and inappropriate but done in jest to someone he liked and respected, and involved no use of physical force, or removal of clothing) and yet Franken got rightfully booted and Kavanaugh is getting promoted.

Franken resigned because of pressure from democrats.  Some republicans were trying to make democrats play by their own rules, but the reason they were successful is because Democrats pressured him because they didn't want him to detract from their arguments against Roy Moore.  I'm not a fan of Franken, but he should not have resigned (although I thought he was just hovering his hands over her boobs to make it look like he was groping her?  If he actually grabbed them while she was asleep, that's outside the bounds of just a crude and stupid joke). 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2018, 12:01:09 PM

That's very different from Ford's allegation, where even if she had a way to credibly prove her allegations, there would potentially be a question in some people's minds regarding whether a drunken groping from more than 30 years ago is disqualifying.

In your mind Jrr, how many years does it take until a drunken sexual assault should be ignored?  If it happened last year?  Five years ago?  Ten?  At what point does the sexual assault become OK/acceptable?

Well, that depends.  When did you stop beating your wife?

It was a serious question, but poorly worded and overly confrontational.

I don't think I personally know anyone who would say that sexual assault crimes are unimportant after a period of time, so am unfamiliar with this concept.  You're claiming that in "some people's minds" 30 year old sexual assault doesn't matter.  I'm asking what is the age limit or point at which sexual assault stops mattering?

Many priests weren't charged with sexual assault for 30 years . . . but there was still an awful lot of widespread condemnation of their actions.  Is the time limit just for assault on women?  Can you clarify your comment?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 27, 2018, 12:13:13 PM
"Presumption of innocence" applies in criminal proceedings, not in what amounts to a high stakes job interview.

This is not a criminal trial. It does not follow the same principles as a criminal trial.

Yes.

Imagine you’re on the committee to hire the next CEO of a Fortune 500 company. You’ve got a stack of impressive resumes, but one is a standout.

Then you hear this:

- A woman says your top pick tried to sexually assault her, pinning her down on a bed at a party when they were in high school, a story she told a therapist years ago.
-A second woman says he exposed himself to her as a student at Yale. Classmates gossiped about it for decades.
-A third woman says your applicant was a bystander when she was, in her words, “gang raped” at a high school party. She says that she saw him once in a line of boys preparing to gang rape another student.
-She also said that he and his friends spiked drinks with drugs and alcohol to make women unable fight off unwanted sexual advances.
-In response to all of this, your top pick presents himself as a virgin choirboy. Half a dozen of his old friends gasp, telling the Washington Post that, in fact, he was an aggressive “sloppy drunk” for years.

Do you hire him, anyway?

- Ezra Klein
For the record, I think that they should dump kavanaugh and move on to the next nominee.  That said, I think that this comparison, while mostly a good one, lacks certain key elements. The main one being an adversarial group whose intention is to disrupt the process by any means necessary. If I was reasonably sure that this adversarial group would produce a dubious claim no matter which candidate I picked, then I would be much more inclined to seriously weigh the veracity of the accusations against my standout.

What you seem to be saying is that you would be more inclined to doubt the claims against Kavanaugh if you thought the Democrats would start a dirty tricks campaign against any candidate put forward.

To which it is only necessary to point out that there is no evidence of a Democrat dirty tricks campaign against any Supreme Court nominee, including Kavanaugh.   So your point is a pointless one.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 12:15:10 PM
yes, she claimed Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape.  It's paragraph 12 of her affidavit.  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/read-full-sworn-statement-from-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick.html

You've misunderstood.  That paragraph says Kavanaugh helped to get girls drunk so that the boys could have sex with them, and that she saw Kavanaugh lined up outside the room of another woman who was inebriated, not that she witnessed Kavanaugh rape her or that she was herself raped by Kavanaugh.


Franken resigned because of pressure from democrats

Right, that's the key distinction I was trying to make.  Republicans don't care about sexual assault.  There are no conservative constituents complaining about the party nominating serial sexual abusers.  Far from being penalized at the polls, republicans found electoral success with a serial philanderer with 19 sexual assault allegations against him.  It's a feature, not a bug!

Except some republican senators do claim to care about sexual assault, when it's a Al Franken or Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton.  Just not when it's Donald Trump or Roy Moore or Brett Kavanaugh or Joe Barton or Dennis Hastert.  And in the current debate, it's seeminly hypocritcal that some of the same individual senators who cried bloody murder about Franken last year are voting to promote Kavanaugh this year.  I'm looking at you, Susan Collins.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 12:22:14 PM
What you seem to be saying is that you would be more inclined to doubt the claims against Kavanaugh if you thought the Democrats would start a dirty tricks campaign against any candidate put forward.

To which it is only necessary to point out that there is no evidence of a Democrat dirty tricks campaign against any Supreme Court nominee, including Kavanaugh.   So your point is a pointless one.

Or to further this point - unless you are allege otherwise, Dems did not attempt any 'dirty tricks' against Gorsuch or Alito or Roberts.
There's been no evidence put forward that Dems are behind these allegations - only that the timing was inconvenient for the committee and may have been influenced to maximize political impact.  But unless the accusations themselves are politically motivated and untrue the point is moot.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 12:27:26 PM
the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

No, it's not at all the same. 

The correct answer to "when does sexual assault become acceptable" is "never".  You seem to think it's "approximately 20-30 years".

There is no correct answer to "when did you stop beating your wife" because any answer at all an admission of guilt.  If you say "never" then you are implying that you still beat your wife, and that's the point of the rhetorical question, to highlight how unfair it is to ask such a question.  The question you were asked, by contrast, is absolutely fair and has a variety of good answers, none of which you have given. 
  ETA:  The point of both questions is the same.  The "when did you start beating your wife question" is more "clever," but they both are essentially an accusation formed as a question.

Stricken because I read an intent into the question that was not there per GuitrSTv's subsequent comment. 

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence. 


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 27, 2018, 12:33:10 PM
the question asked was "at what point does sexual assault become OK/acceptable."  That is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question.

No, it's not at all the same. 

The correct answer to "when does sexual assault become acceptable" is "never".  You seem to think it's "approximately 20-30 years".

There is no correct answer to "when did you stop beating your wife" because any answer at all an admission of guilt.  If you say "never" then you are implying that you still beat your wife, and that's the point of the rhetorical question, to highlight how unfair it is to ask such a question.  The question you were asked, by contrast, is absolutely fair and has a variety of good answers, none of which you have given. 
  ETA:  The point of both questions is the same.  The "when did you start beating your wife question" is more "clever," but they both are essentially an accusation formed as a question.

Stricken because I read an intent into the question that was not there per GuitrSTv's subsequent comment. 

So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.


What is the relevance of your examples?  I'm not seeing any connection between them and what Kavanaugh did, which was to carry on even when his victim was screaming and put his hand over her mouth to silence her so that he could carry on trying to rape her.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 12:38:43 PM
If we might pause for a moment from the fun of arguing with Kavanaugh's defenders, is anyone watching Ford's live testimony today?

She seems pretty credible to me.  This does not look like a political hit job at all, it looks like a survivor coming forward under difficult circumstances.  At this point, I think the only way Kavanaugh gets confirmed is if Grassley and friends just come right out and say "we accept that these allegations are truthful, and we're going to confirm him anyway because we don't care about his history of sexually abusing women."  They can probably muscle senators Collins and Murkowski into going along with it, with appropriate threats to their careers.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 12:39:48 PM
So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.
This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 12:42:33 PM
If we might pause for a moment from the fun of arguing with Kavanaugh's defenders, is anyone watching Ford's live testimony today?

She seems pretty credible to me.  This does not look like a political hit job at all, it looks like a survivor coming forward under difficult circumstances.  At this point, I think the only way Kavanaugh gets confirmed is if Grassley and friends just come right out and say "we accept that these allegations are truthful, and we're going to confirm him anyway because we don't care about his history of sexually abusing women."  They can probably muscle senators Collins and Murkowski into going along with it, with appropriate threats to their careers.

I agree she seems very credible.
I think it is likely she will convince at least a few republican senators to vote no.

But probably not Joni Ernst " "I am in meetings all day so I'm not watching TV."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 12:44:28 PM
If we might pause for a moment from the fun of arguing with Kavanaugh's defenders, is anyone watching Ford's live testimony today?

She seems pretty credible to me.  This does not look like a political hit job at all, it looks like a survivor coming forward under difficult circumstances.  At this point, I think the only way Kavanaugh gets confirmed is if Grassley and friends just come right out and say "we accept that these allegations are truthful, and we're going to confirm him anyway because we don't care about his history of sexually abusing women."  They can probably muscle senators Collins and Murkowski into going along with it, with appropriate threats to their careers.

They may have made the political calculus that they needed to have a good reason to ditch Kavanaugh... that if they gave up too easily it would hurt them more in the midterms, just a few weeks away. I think that if they are going to dump him, it will happen tomorrow (always good to put out bad news on a Friday) and that Monday will be a fresh nomination to capture/divert the news cycle.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2018, 12:45:12 PM
All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence. 

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we are OK'ing non-consensual sexual assault if we believe that the person was young and horny, and hoping to hook-up.  This sounds an awful lot like saying 'boys will be boys' from where I'm sitting.  Assault is assault - regardless of perceived motive of the offender.

In Kavenaugh's case, this isn't even an issue of course.  He doesn't meet the 'kinda OK assault' criteria as defined.

I'm also deeply uncomfortable with the idea of excusing one's actions due to their chosen level of inebriation.  Getting drunk and driving is a choice that holds the same moral ground in my mind as purposely running over a pedestrian.  The fact that sometimes you can get away with it doesn't make it morally better.  You choose to drink, and you choose the amount you drink.  You choose to pick up the keys.  You know that you're doing something unsafe that risks the lives of others by doing so.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 12:46:14 PM
yes, she claimed Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape.  It's paragraph 12 of her affidavit.  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/26/read-full-sworn-statement-from-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-julie-swetnick.html

You've misunderstood.  That paragraph says Kavanaugh helped to get girls drunk so that the boys could have sex with them, and that she saw Kavanaugh lined up outside the room of another woman who was inebriated, not that she witnessed Kavanaugh rape her or that she was herself raped by Kavanaugh.
 

The entire Paragraph 12:  I also witnessed efforts by Mark Judge, Brett kavanaugh and others to cause girls to become inebriated and disoriented so they could then be "gang raped" in a side room or bedroom by a "train" of numerous boys.  I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their "turn" with a girl inside the room.  These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh."

That's not an allegation that Kavanaugh participated in a gang rape?  That doesn't seem like a tough syllogism.  She claims Kavanaugh caused girls to be inebriated so they could be gang raped in a side room by a train of boys.  That boys lined up outside those rooms waiting to take turns with the girls inside the room.  And that Kavanaugh was one of those boys.  How is that not an allegation that he participated in at least one gang rape?   

Franken resigned because of pressure from democrats

Right, that's the key distinction I was trying to make.  Republicans don't care about sexual assault.  There are no conservative constituents complaining about the party nominating serial sexual abusers.  Far from being penalized at the polls, republicans found electoral success with a serial philanderer with 19 sexual assault allegations against him.  It's a feature, not a bug!

Except some republican senators do claim to care about sexual assault, when it's a Al Franken or Anthony Weiner or Bill Clinton.  Just not when it's Donald Trump or Roy Moore or Brett Kavanaugh or Joe Barton or Dennis Hastert.  And in the current debate, it's seeminly hypocritcal that some of the same individual senators who cried bloody murder about Franken last year are voting to promote Kavanaugh this year.  I'm looking at you, Susan Collins.
  You are atlking about the party of Bill Clinton.  A real credibly accused rapist that was suspended from the bar for lying under oath.  The reason Franken resigned is that democrats didn't care about Franken.  He wasn't particularly helpful to them other than providing another vote in the senate, and they were going to get that vote anyway because it was extremely likely another democrat would replace him.  Bob Menendez is going to be re-elected.  Keith Ellison is likely going to be elected (granted that's domestic violence and not sexual assault I think).  People on both sides of the aisle care to a point and are willing to compromise to a point, depending on what they view as being at stake. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 12:47:56 PM
If we might pause for a moment from the fun of arguing with Kavanaugh's defenders, is anyone watching Ford's live testimony today?


I have it on in the background and am watching it as time allows. I agree I find her credible. She comes off as a bit timid and uncomfortable of all the attention, and has been very clear throughout. Her explanations for why and how she reported her alleged assault seem like a path any educated person might take.  A few of the Dems (Booker, Harris) couldn't resist the chance to heap glittering praise on her in their moment to 'own the mike'.

What's been most interesting to me is the rather steady, non-confrontational approach that the GOP representative has taken towards asking questions. She's been probing for possible alternative motives or holes in her story but without finding much she hasn't been overly aggressive. I'm guessing the GOP is hyper-aware of how bad it would look to badger a white woman who's alleging sexual assault on national TV.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: redbirdfan on September 27, 2018, 12:48:39 PM
This is INSANE.  I have been to several high school parties.  I could not give you the address of most of them UNLESS they were at the house of a friend.  Can Graham really say that he's never been hanging out and someone says, "hey, let's go to so and so's house?"  I know i did.  I can't give you an addresses.  I COULD tell you that I went from the library so it's gotta be within X distance of the library.  I COULD tell you that I hung out by a fire pit in the backyard and they had a purple fence, etc.   

Full disclosure: I'm a Republican.  I want a conservative justice to be seated.  Kavanaugh isn't worth it.  You will have to have get a bunch of Republican senators to man-splain that Yes, something happened to her, but she can't know that it was Kavanaugh.  How f-ing out of touch do you have to be to understand that you can know someone without knowing everything they are or were capable of when drunk.  If Kavanaugh had admitted that it could have happened because of his past, I would be on board with him still being seated bc he turned his life around/stopped drinking, etc.  The denial of ever attending such a party with calendar entries of "skis" with the very people in attendance is crazy.  Not calling an eyewitness to testify under oath is crazy if your goal is to get to the truth.  Testifying by letter and then hiding out is not adequate in this situation. 

There are no heroes here.  Democrats should be ashamed for using a victim as a political football.  Republicans should be ashamed for punting on the questioning and plowing forward with Kavanaugh when there is a significant chance that he 1) did assault Ford; 2) may have done a number of things while heavily intoxicated that haven't come out yet that he really doesn't remember; and 3) has given less than completely honest testimony re: stolen documents and his days in the Bush White House.

I feel awful for Kavanaugh.  By all accounts he is a talented jurist who has turned his life around post marriage/fatherhood.  That's necessary but not sufficient.  His confirmation isn't worth it.  His life will not be ruined by not being appointed to the Supreme Court.  This isn't worth hoping a Democrat-majority House doesn't start sending out subpoenas for Judge or the next Democrat president doesn't start releasing documents related to his time in the Bush White House. 

The Democrats played a dirty game...that they won.  The same is true for the Republicans with Garland.  Cut bait and move on. 

 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 12:50:20 PM
I think that if they are going to dump him, it will happen tomorrow (always good to put out bad news on a Friday) and that Monday will be a fresh nomination to capture/divert the news cycle.

Well it damn well better happen today or tomorrow morning, because the McConnell has scheduled the confirmation vote for tomorrow and has given no signs of backing down from that.

Personally, I don't see the harm in stalling it for a week so the FBI can do a proper investigation.  Just vote next Friday, Mitch.  What are you so afraid of?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 12:52:22 PM
I think that if they are going to dump him, it will happen tomorrow (always good to put out bad news on a Friday) and that Monday will be a fresh nomination to capture/divert the news cycle.

Well it damn well better happen today or tomorrow morning, because the McConnell has scheduled the confirmation vote for tomorrow and has given no signs of backing down from that.

Personally, I don't see the harm in stalling it for a week so the FBI can do a proper investigation.  Just vote next Friday, Mitch.  What are you so afraid of?

Which is insane, since at least one senator has admitted to not paying attention to this committee hearing at all.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 27, 2018, 01:11:11 PM
A few Republican Governors are calling for a delay in the vote and even Chris Wallace on Fox is calling it a "disaster" for Republicans.

Kavanaugh is done. Put a fork in him.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2018, 01:12:10 PM
You are atlking about the party of Bill Clinton.  A real credibly accused rapist that was suspended from the bar for lying under oath.  The reason Franken resigned is that democrats didn't care about Franken.  He wasn't particularly helpful to them other than providing another vote in the senate, and they were going to get that vote anyway because it was extremely likely another democrat would replace him.  Bob Menendez is going to be re-elected.  Keith Ellison is likely going to be elected (granted that's domestic violence and not sexual assault I think).  People on both sides of the aisle care to a point and are willing to compromise to a point, depending on what they view as being at stake.

Clinton was suspended for lying under oath about having an affair with Lewinsky.  Was that not generally considered to be consensual (although I can see how one could reasonably argue statutory rape in the case)?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
Whoa. Kavanaugh's opening statement is is surprisingly political for anything associated with a position that is supposed to be apolitical, even if just as a fig leaf.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 01:20:10 PM
Whoa. Kavanaugh's opening statement is is surprisingly political for anything associated with a position that is supposed to be apolitical, even if just as a fig leaf.

And he just said "what goes around comes around."

Heh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 27, 2018, 01:20:57 PM
Yeah. It'll be interesting to see how "belligerent anger" as a chosen tone is going to work out for him.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 01:22:25 PM
Yeah. It'll be interesting to see how "belligerent anger" as a chosen tone is going to work out for him.

If he's so adamant about both sides being heard, why isn't he pushing for an FBI investigation to clear his good name?

..just kidding, we all know why.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
You are atlking about the party of Bill Clinton.  A real credibly accused rapist that was suspended from the bar for lying under oath.  The reason Franken resigned is that democrats didn't care about Franken.  He wasn't particularly helpful to them other than providing another vote in the senate, and they were going to get that vote anyway because it was extremely likely another democrat would replace him.  Bob Menendez is going to be re-elected.  Keith Ellison is likely going to be elected (granted that's domestic violence and not sexual assault I think).  People on both sides of the aisle care to a point and are willing to compromise to a point, depending on what they view as being at stake.

Clinton was suspended for lying under oath about having an affair with Lewinsky.  Was that not generally considered to be consensual (although I can see how one could reasonably argue statutory rape in the case)?

The problem with the Clinton-Lewinsky dynamic is that she was an intern in the WH while he was president. Due to the power dynamic, she was subservient to him (and not in a sexual way). In order for one to be able to freely give consent, he or she must also be able to freely refuse, without fear of penalty.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 01:25:49 PM
So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.
This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.

I wasn't trying to connect it to anything Kavanaugh did because I have no way of knowing what he did.  I was just talking in generalities and trying to make it in the ball park of what may have happened. 

And what Ford accused Kavanaugh of is actual sexual assault.  I'm not sure even if you take her statements as 100% factual that it constitutes attempted rape.  It's certainly possible that's what he was intending to rape her, but there doesn't seem to be a way to tell from her description.  Maybe she had a sense of what he intended and she was correct, or maybe she feared it even though an objective observer would not have classified it that way. 

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 01:28:59 PM
You are atlking about the party of Bill Clinton.  A real credibly accused rapist that was suspended from the bar for lying under oath.  The reason Franken resigned is that democrats didn't care about Franken.  He wasn't particularly helpful to them other than providing another vote in the senate, and they were going to get that vote anyway because it was extremely likely another democrat would replace him.  Bob Menendez is going to be re-elected.  Keith Ellison is likely going to be elected (granted that's domestic violence and not sexual assault I think).  People on both sides of the aisle care to a point and are willing to compromise to a point, depending on what they view as being at stake.

Clinton was suspended for lying under oath about having an affair with Lewinsky.  Was that not generally considered to be consensual (although I can see how one could reasonably argue statutory rape in the case)?

I was referring to Juanita Broderick.  I was thinking that his license was suspending for lying under oath about his actions with her in a civil suit by Paula Jones, but i think you are right it was about Lewinsky (but I think still in the civil suit by Jones?)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 01:55:17 PM
So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.
This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.

I wasn't trying to connect it to anything Kavanaugh did because I have no way of knowing what he did.  I was just talking in generalities and trying to make it in the ball park of what may have happened. 

And what Ford accused Kavanaugh of is actual sexual assault.  I'm not sure even if you take her statements as 100% factual that it constitutes attempted rape.  It's certainly possible that's what he was intending to rape her, but there doesn't seem to be a way to tell from her description.  Maybe she had a sense of what he intended and she was correct, or maybe she feared it even though an objective observer would not have classified it that way.

Ok, but it isn't you or I who is alleging sexual assault and attempted rape.  Ford is. By definition 'attempted rape' is when the assailant did not succeed in penetrating his or her victim. Ford's allegation is that Kavanaugh and Judge pushed her into a room and locked the door.  Kavanaugh held her down on the bed and ground his hips into her pelvis.  When she tried to scream Kavanaugh covered her mouth and made it difficult to breathe, and she feared that Kavanaugh might accidentally kill her.  She states quite clearly "I believed he was going to rape me."  We also have Ramirez and Swetnick both alleging sexual assault.


Here's Ford's testimony on the event - she clearly states she thinks he was going to rape her:
Quote
Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 02:09:17 PM
So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.
This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.

I wasn't trying to connect it to anything Kavanaugh did because I have no way of knowing what he did.  I was just talking in generalities and trying to make it in the ball park of what may have happened. 

And what Ford accused Kavanaugh of is actual sexual assault.  I'm not sure even if you take her statements as 100% factual that it constitutes attempted rape.  It's certainly possible that's what he was intending to rape her, but there doesn't seem to be a way to tell from her description.  Maybe she had a sense of what he intended and she was correct, or maybe she feared it even though an objective observer would not have classified it that way.

Ok, but it isn't you or I who is alleging sexual assault and attempted rape.  Ford is. By definition 'attempted rape' is when the assailant did not succeed in penetrating his or her victim. Ford's allegation is that Kavanaugh and Judge pushed her into a room and locked the door.  Kavanaugh held her down on the bed and ground his hips into her pelvis.  When she tried to scream Kavanaugh covered her mouth and made it difficult to breathe, and she feared that Kavanaugh might accidentally kill her.  She states quite clearly "I believed he was going to rape me."  We also have Ramirez and Swetnick both alleging sexual assault.


Here's Ford's testimony on the event - she clearly states she thinks he was going to rape her:
Quote
Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

Attempted [whatever crime] isn't based on the subjective experience of the victim.  I believe it's based on what a reasonable observer would think.  There's quite a big distance to cover between grinding on somebody and forcefully penetrating them with any body part. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PoutineLover on September 27, 2018, 02:12:20 PM
So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.
This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.

I wasn't trying to connect it to anything Kavanaugh did because I have no way of knowing what he did.  I was just talking in generalities and trying to make it in the ball park of what may have happened. 

And what Ford accused Kavanaugh of is actual sexual assault.  I'm not sure even if you take her statements as 100% factual that it constitutes attempted rape.  It's certainly possible that's what he was intending to rape her, but there doesn't seem to be a way to tell from her description.  Maybe she had a sense of what he intended and she was correct, or maybe she feared it even though an objective observer would not have classified it that way.

Ok, but it isn't you or I who is alleging sexual assault and attempted rape.  Ford is. By definition 'attempted rape' is when the assailant did not succeed in penetrating his or her victim. Ford's allegation is that Kavanaugh and Judge pushed her into a room and locked the door.  Kavanaugh held her down on the bed and ground his hips into her pelvis.  When she tried to scream Kavanaugh covered her mouth and made it difficult to breathe, and she feared that Kavanaugh might accidentally kill her.  She states quite clearly "I believed he was going to rape me."  We also have Ramirez and Swetnick both alleging sexual assault.


Here's Ford's testimony on the event - she clearly states she thinks he was going to rape her:
Quote
Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

Attempted [whatever crime] isn't based on the subjective experience of the victim.  I believe it's based on what a reasonable observer would think.  There's quite a big distance to cover between grinding on somebody and forcefully penetrating them with any body part. 
Well maybe, but the distance gets smaller when he covers up her screams by turning up the music, covers her mouth with his hand, lays himself on top of her (2 years and presumably a few pounds on her) and tries to take off her clothes..
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 02:15:49 PM
I was almost expecting Kavanaugh to blurb out, "You can't handle the tructh!" during that opener. That certainly didn't look like impartial judicial temperament to me. And also, this whole affair is not a stain on the SCOTUS yet.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 02:18:55 PM
So maybe stop dodging the question with aspersions and counterarguments, and just answer it.  How long after a sexual assault occurs do you think is necessary before the perpetrator should be free of any consequences?  Do you believe a guilty party should be liable forever?  Until the statue of limitations for criminal prosecution runs out?  Something less than that?  Somewhere in between?
  All of these are legitimate questions.  I think rape is basically a lifetime thing.  Not saying a rapist can't be reformed and still contribute to society, but I do think that the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion and that they should. 

If a high schooler is drunk and forcibly holds a girl down while she tries to get away and gropes her but does not try to rape her, that is an insight into their character that is pretty bad.  It will always cast a shadow on him.

If a high schooler drunkenly and clumsily tries to initiate a "hook-up", including completely ignoring/violating normal conventions (like trying for a kiss without any signal that it's welcome; skipping "steps" rather than consensual escalation such as going from a consensual kiss to trying to immediately unzip someones pants, etc.), but stops when the victim pushes them away or tells them to stop, that's bad, but I'm not sure that's really something that should follow them long after they've stopped putting themselves in a position to do that.  The moral gravity of trying to do something against somebody's will is not lessened because someone is under the influence.  But I do think there is a moral distinction between that and not being able to follow normal social conventions because of being under the influence.
This is where the disconnect is for me with your comments Jrr85 - What CBF has accused Kavanaugh of is attempted rape and sexual assault. Not some 'drunken groping" where consent was misunderstood.  She claims that he held her down on a bed and tried to pull off her bathing-suit.  When she tried to scream he held his hand over her mouth.  That is sexual assault and attempted rape.

Unless you believe that 'attempted rape' should not carry the same consequences as rape (as you said: the consequences will follow them forever in some shape or fashion) the only way Kavanaugh would be fit to be a federal justice is if Ford's version of events are not accurate.  There is no in-between here.

I wasn't trying to connect it to anything Kavanaugh did because I have no way of knowing what he did.  I was just talking in generalities and trying to make it in the ball park of what may have happened. 

And what Ford accused Kavanaugh of is actual sexual assault.  I'm not sure even if you take her statements as 100% factual that it constitutes attempted rape.  It's certainly possible that's what he was intending to rape her, but there doesn't seem to be a way to tell from her description.  Maybe she had a sense of what he intended and she was correct, or maybe she feared it even though an objective observer would not have classified it that way.

Ok, but it isn't you or I who is alleging sexual assault and attempted rape.  Ford is. By definition 'attempted rape' is when the assailant did not succeed in penetrating his or her victim. Ford's allegation is that Kavanaugh and Judge pushed her into a room and locked the door.  Kavanaugh held her down on the bed and ground his hips into her pelvis.  When she tried to scream Kavanaugh covered her mouth and made it difficult to breathe, and she feared that Kavanaugh might accidentally kill her.  She states quite clearly "I believed he was going to rape me."  We also have Ramirez and Swetnick both alleging sexual assault.


Here's Ford's testimony on the event - she clearly states she thinks he was going to rape her:
Quote
Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

Attempted [whatever crime] isn't based on the subjective experience of the victim.  I believe it's based on what a reasonable observer would think.  There's quite a big distance to cover between grinding on somebody and forcefully penetrating them with any body part.

Are you saying that a reasonable observer would not conclude that the events described constitute attempted rape?  You pick up the grinding but ignore everything else in her statement.

Kavanaugh is alleged to have locked the door, held her down, put her hand over her mouth so she couldn't scream and had trouble breathing, ground his genitals over hers and tried to forcibly remove her clothing.

...and yes, what the victim believes the perpetrator intends is very much taken into consideration.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 02:30:05 PM
It seems to me, if the senate finds both testimoney's credible, the FBI should investigate further.
Perhaps, other witnesses should be called as well.

Or the senate can just vote tomorrow and today can be shown to be a total farce.


(Of course, I doubt the credibility of a man who has just indirectly described "drank too much" as 2-3 beers...")
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on September 27, 2018, 02:32:02 PM
Even if I believed Kavanaugh completely, I'd be horrified watching him. This is not the demeanour of someone who should be trusted with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 02:32:35 PM
Even if I believed Kavanaugh completely, I'd be horrified watching him. This is not the demeanour of someone who should be trusted with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

Given this most recent two minutes, he's incapable of simply answering a question.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 02:33:57 PM
Even if I believed Kavanaugh completely, I'd be horrified watching him. This is not the demeanour of someone who should be trusted with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

Agree; but I thought that before the allegations. His beliefs are all set, he has no interest in hearing cases.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 02:34:48 PM
I am starting to think that Kavanaugh is trying to run out the 5 minute question clock by going on meandering stories and avoiding simple yes/no questions.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 27, 2018, 02:35:49 PM
I am starting to think that Kavanaugh is trying to run out the 5 minute question clock by going on meandering stories and avoiding simple yes/no questions.

Trump did say he thought him a great person.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 27, 2018, 02:36:51 PM
This focus on a calendar from 1982 is just bizarre.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 02:37:54 PM
Even if I believed Kavanaugh completely, I'd be horrified watching him. This is not the demeanour of someone who should be trusted with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

Trump disagrees.


Donald Trump Jr.

@DonaldJTrumpJr
 I love Kavanaugh’s tone. It’s nice to see a conservative man fight for his honor and his family against a 35 year old claim with ZERO evidence and lots of holes that amounts to nothing more than a political hit job by the Dems.

Others in the GOP should take notice!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 02:38:22 PM
This focus on a calendar from 1982 is just bizarre.
Not really. It documents that he was hanging out with the other person alleged to be in the room (Judge).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MaybeBabyMustache on September 27, 2018, 02:41:12 PM
Even if I believed Kavanaugh completely, I'd be horrified watching him. This is not the demeanour of someone who should be trusted with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

THIS. I believe the allegations should be fully investigated, & in no way want Kavanaugh on the court because of his political perspective, but leaving the allegations completely behind for a moment, his behavior today has demonstrated that he should have never been considered as a candidate.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 27, 2018, 02:42:33 PM
Even if I believed Kavanaugh completely, I'd be horrified watching him. This is not the demeanour of someone who should be trusted with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

THIS. I believe the allegations should be fully investigated, & in no way want Kavanaugh on the court because of his political perspective, but leaving the allegations completely behind for a moment, his behavior today has demonstrated that he should have never been considered as a candidate.

Yep.

And it gives cover to Collins and Murkowski. This guy's way too belligerent to be a SC Justice.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2018, 02:49:47 PM
Here's Ford's testimony on the event - she clearly states she thinks he was going to rape her:
Quote
Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

Attempted [whatever crime] isn't based on the subjective experience of the victim.  I believe it's based on what a reasonable observer would think.  There's quite a big distance to cover between grinding on somebody and forcefully penetrating them with any body part. 

Are you reading the same thing that I am?

- Two people were involved in the attack
- Locked bedroom door
- Loud music turned up to drown out screams
- Victim is knocked down
- Assailant #1 climbs on top
- Sexual grinding
- Groping
- Assailant attempts to tear clothing away, but is drunk and has difficulty removing bathing suit
- Victim screams, silenced by assailant covering her mouth
- Victim can't breathe

Does the above not pretty clearly qualify as attempted rape?  If not, what would need to happen for it to qualify?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 27, 2018, 02:50:56 PM
Graham is off the rails.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 02:51:52 PM
Refusing to support an FBI investigation does not look good for Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PoutineLover on September 27, 2018, 02:53:36 PM
Graham is off the rails.
Seriously!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 27, 2018, 02:53:57 PM
Refusing to support an FBI investigation does not look good for Kavanaugh.

Neither does "I like beer. I like beer. Do you like beer, Senator?"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 02:55:12 PM
"Question that Kavanaugh doesn't want to answer:"

"Senator, I was at the top of my class, and did all these great things."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DS on September 27, 2018, 03:03:07 PM
"Question that Kavanaugh doesn't want to answer:"

"Senator, I was at the top of my class, and did all these great things."

"Swimmer at Stanford"

Oh wait getting things mixed up..
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 27, 2018, 03:03:32 PM
Even if I believed Kavanaugh completely, I'd be horrified watching him. This is not the demeanour of someone who should be trusted with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

THIS. I believe the allegations should be fully investigated, & in no way want Kavanaugh on the court because of his political perspective, but leaving the allegations completely behind for a moment, his behavior today has demonstrated that he should have never been considered as a candidate.

This is ludicrous.  If he was calm, people would be saying somebody falsely accused of being a serial rapist would be mad and him being calm is just more evidence that he's a psychopath.

He is being subjected to a process where he is accused of an attempted rape where the accuser doesn't know when or where it happened nor can she identify how she got to or from the place and also can't identify another person that can corroborate that the gathering took place. 

He's being accused by someone who admitted that she didn't know who potentially put their penis in her face, but then after spending 6 days thinking about it decided that she was sure it was him but she can't find anybody else that witnessed the event.

A person who swears he was part of a gang rape ring (but can't identify any other witnesses) 

And then an anonymous letter from the supposed mother of a friend of an ex girlfriend claims Kavanaugh assaulted hsi girlfriend outside of a restaurant (which his girlfriend of the time, who is now a federal judge, denies ever happened).

Fords are the only ones that aren't ridiculous on their face.  And the press and democrat politicians and others are just acting like those are perfectly normal and credible allegations and he has to deal with his daughter hearing all the people slander him.  Of course he is furious. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 27, 2018, 03:06:16 PM
This is ludicrous.  If he was calm, people would be saying somebody falsely accused of being a serial rapist would be mad and him being calm is just more evidence that he's a psychopath.

He is being subjected to a process where he is accused of an attempted rape where the accuser doesn't know when or where it happened nor can she identify how she got to or from the place and also can't identify another person that can corroborate that the gathering took place. 

He's being accused by someone who admitted that she didn't know who potentially put their penis in her face, but then after spending 6 days thinking about it decided that she was sure it was him but she can't find anybody else that witnessed the event.

A person who swears he was part of a gang rape ring (but can't identify any other witnesses) 

I have this crazy idea.

Why don't we let the FBI do an investigation?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2018, 03:08:39 PM
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 27, 2018, 03:12:25 PM
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

That was a bizarre exchange. He evaded over and over Klobuchar's question about why he doesn't just ask to have the background check be re-opened.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 03:12:33 PM
Even if I believed Kavanaugh completely, I'd be horrified watching him. This is not the demeanour of someone who should be trusted with a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.

THIS. I believe the allegations should be fully investigated, & in no way want Kavanaugh on the court because of his political perspective, but leaving the allegations completely behind for a moment, his behavior today has demonstrated that he should have never been considered as a candidate.

This is ludicrous.  If he was calm, people would be saying somebody falsely accused of being a serial rapist would be mad and him being calm is just more evidence that he's a psychopath.

He is being subjected to a process where he is accused of an attempted rape where the accuser doesn't know when or where it happened nor can she identify how she got to or from the place and also can't identify another person that can corroborate that the gathering took place. 

He's being accused by someone who admitted that she didn't know who potentially put their penis in her face, but then after spending 6 days thinking about it decided that she was sure it was him but she can't find anybody else that witnessed the event.

A person who swears he was part of a gang rape ring (but can't identify any other witnesses) 

And then an anonymous letter from the supposed mother of a friend of an ex girlfriend claims Kavanaugh assaulted hsi girlfriend outside of a restaurant (which his girlfriend of the time, who is now a federal judge, denies ever happened).

Fords are the only ones that aren't ridiculous on their face.  And the press and democrat politicians and others are just acting like those are perfectly normal and credible allegations and he has to deal with his daughter hearing all the people slander him.  Of course he is furious.
This is of course why everyone was so supportive of Peter Strozk's testy testimony, correct?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on September 27, 2018, 03:14:43 PM
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.


He prefers the alternative facts that he's willing to answer, "right here & right now".
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 03:16:24 PM
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Yuuuuup.

He stands in stark contrast to Ford, who answered every question to the best of her ability.  Kavanaugh has continuously evaded and filibustered his way through this process.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 27, 2018, 03:17:04 PM
Is a "devil's triangle" a drinking game?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils%20Triangle

Not anymore. Was it a drinking game in the early 80s?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MaybeBabyMustache on September 27, 2018, 03:18:42 PM
This is ludicrous.  If he was calm, people would be saying somebody falsely accused of being a serial rapist would be mad and him being calm is just more evidence that he's a psychopath.

He is being subjected to a process where he is accused of an attempted rape where the accuser doesn't know when or where it happened nor can she identify how she got to or from the place and also can't identify another person that can corroborate that the gathering took place. 

He's being accused by someone who admitted that she didn't know who potentially put their penis in her face, but then after spending 6 days thinking about it decided that she was sure it was him but she can't find anybody else that witnessed the event.

A person who swears he was part of a gang rape ring (but can't identify any other witnesses) 

I have this crazy idea.

Why don't we let the FBI do an investigation?

Exactly, except I'm also sympathetic to the woman who came forward, who had no interest or intention of having her name released, and has zero upside from this entire situation. Let the FBI investigate. If she's a liar, well then, that will be exposed. If there's even a small chance that she's correct, a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court feels worthy of double checking.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on September 27, 2018, 03:19:52 PM
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

+1

Throwing a temper tantrum is not going to convince grown ups you are innocent. He should be saying "absolutely investigate me!! Investigate everything, because I have nothing to hide." It's the best way to clear his name and make his accusers and Dems look foolish. 

BUT we live in bizarro world where up is down, left is right and "grab em by the pussy" is just normal locker room talk. He doesn't want an investigation anymore than Trump wants an investigation into Russian meddling. 

He couldn't even answer the simple question of weather he drank too much so as to not remember parts of the night before. He kept repeating "have you?"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 03:20:52 PM
Well, he certainly isn't doing much to dissuade the allegations of being a belligerent drunk.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 03:22:22 PM
Well, he certainly isn't doing much to dissuade the allegations of being a belligerent drunk.

He's belligerent sober..imagine when drunk!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 27, 2018, 03:36:26 PM
Well, he certainly isn't doing much to dissuade the allegations of being a belligerent drunk.

He's belligerent sober..imagine when drunk!

The world needs to see this exchange.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 03:45:29 PM
BUT we live in bizarro world where up is down, left is right and "grab em by the pussy" is just normal locker room talk. He doesn't want an investigation anymore than Trump wants an investigation into Russian meddling. 

I don't think it's bizarro world at all, I think it's carefully calculated positioning.

Whenever a politician admits they did something wrong, some people from their own party call for a resignation no matter how apologetic you are.  Al Franken came out and said it was a stupid joke that he recognizes was inappropriate, but by the standards of the era it seemed normal to him.  He said he had grown as a man since then, had reached out to his victim and apologized in every way possible, and had devoted his career to advancing women's rights, and yet he was still tossed from the Senate.

Trump, by contrast, continues to deny everything and they made him potus for it.  He still denies the porn star affair despite his recorded conversations about it, and that denial is enough for his most dyed-in-the-wool supporters to retain a kernel of doubt, and presume his innocence.  The lesson we have taught all politicians is to deny deny deny at all costs.  There can be no redemption, no forgiveness, only punishment if you admit the tiniest sliver of truth in the accusations.  Kavanaugh has been watching this story unfold for the past three years and he knows the score.  Feinstein could produce a photo of his penis swinging around a frat party and he would still claim to be a choir boy having his character assassinated.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 27, 2018, 03:47:10 PM
It's clear he is getting confirmed tomorrow. The only way the FBI investigates is if Trump calls for it, despite what Grassley thinks.  It's not happening.

The few republicans who might be on the fence won't cross party lines. They are all spineless.

But his testimony was horrific. There will be independent voters out there this sways. It will still do generations of damage to rights of minority groups though
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 03:56:52 PM
It's clear he is getting confirmed tomorrow. The only way the FBI investigates is if Trump calls for it, despite what Grassley thinks.  It's not happening.

The few republicans who might be on the fence won't cross party lines. They are all spineless.

But his testimony was horrific. There will be independent voters out there this sways. It will still do generations of damage to rights of minority groups though

It's somewhat mind-boggling to me that the chairman of the committee that's supposed to be investigating this is so blatantly clear that he doesn't give a fuck what the committee comes out to - that they are going to proceed with the confirmation anyway.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 04:01:12 PM
It's clear he is getting confirmed tomorrow.

Yea, watching republican senators apologize to a man accused of multiple accounts of sexual misconduct was kind of gross.  "I'm sorry your history of assault had to be trotted out in front of your family!"  Fuck that, man, if you do this kind of shit everyone deserves to know.  You fingered a drunk chick when you were 17?  You don't ever get to be a supreme court justice.  You have an angry ex who thinks you raped her?  You don't ever get to be a supreme court justice either.  It's honestly not that hard to find nominees who don't have these problems.

Obama never had sexual assault allegations.  Neither did Gorsuch, or Roberts.  It's not like sexual assault allegations fall out of the sky.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 27, 2018, 04:48:18 PM
So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 27, 2018, 04:57:00 PM
So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?

It is a two pronged attack. Basically, if she had been assaulted, she wouldn't have known who it was.

After all, it is also a liberal hit job.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 05:03:12 PM
So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?

No, I think that as of right now the GOP line is that this whole thing is a liberal hit job, totally fabricated for political reasons.

And part of me kind of wishes that was true, because it would look like some kind of justice for the Merrick Garland debacle if it WAS just a purely partisan hit job.  They made no bones about scuttling Garland for partisan reasons, after all, so it would be delicious irony if liberals had returned the favor.  Sadly, this looks like an actual history of assault against multiple women who want to testify under oath, and nobody willing to defend him under oath, so the odds of it being a "sham" as Lindsey Graham claims are pretty slim.

I still think he'll be confirmed without so much as an investigation into these accusations.  They are not legally required to investigate.  Republicans have total control of two of the three branches of government, and they will use that control to take control of the third branch tomorrow.  Voters have no say.  Public opinion doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is McConnell holding together 51 republican senators despite today's testimonies, so he can basically say "We don't care if it's true or not, we're putting him on the SC anyway" and then it will happen, and nobody else can do a damn thing about it.

In the long run, the electoral consequences of that kind of abuse are probably detrimental to the GOP and to the country as a whole, but that's not exactly at the forefront of the thought processes right now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 27, 2018, 05:17:33 PM

So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?
I think the lines is that they don't care if Kavanaugh assaulted Ford, the situational politics of the GOP do not allow them to care.
I think  that they are scared of the midterms, and have created a situation (by their own doing) where they have political capital invested in Kavanaugh and can't see a way to drop him. What I read in Graham's unhinged diatribe was, "what if everyone with skeletons in their closet can't be confirmed?" To this I say, "Good." If they really cared about the allegations they would support an investigation. They don't. And they don't want to set the precedent that this could be disqualifying, just like with Thomas. Irrespective of left-right politics I think this is shameful, not to mention how tone deaf and stupid it is in the face of our society at large.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 05:25:54 PM
"what if everyone with skeletons in their closet can't be confirmed?"

Today someone reminded me that Reagan had to withdraw the nomination of Judge Doug Ginsburg to the Supreme Court because he once smoked pot.  The scandal!  Such character flaws!  Moral decay!  Unfit to serve!

But hey, at least he didn't hold his hands over the mouth of screaming rape victim!

Let's remember that approximately 50% of the self-identified republicans in the country today think Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if all of the allegations against him are true.  They're the party of family values!  And what screams "family values" quite like nominating a man who was a member of the "Tit and Clit" club at Yale and has at least three known credible accusations of sexual misconduct against women to a position where he has promised to overturn women's rights?  That's family friendly, right?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 27, 2018, 05:57:06 PM
"what if everyone with skeletons in their closet can't be confirmed?"

Today someone reminded me that Reagan had to withdraw the nomination of Judge Doug Ginsburg to the Supreme Court because he once smoked pot.  The scandal!  Such character flaws!  Moral decay!  Unfit to serve!

But hey, at least he didn't hold his hands over the mouth of screaming rape victim!

Let's remember that approximately 50% of the self-identified republicans in the country today think Kavanaugh should be confirmed even if all of the allegations against him are true.  They're the party of family values!

Who is the rape victim?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: boarder42 on September 27, 2018, 06:02:29 PM
So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?

No, I think that as of right now the GOP line is that this whole thing is a liberal hit job, totally fabricated for political reasons.

And part of me kind of wishes that was true, because it would look like some kind of justice for the Merrick Garland debacle if it WAS just a purely partisan hit job.  They made no bones about scuttling Garland for partisan reasons, after all, so it would be delicious irony if liberals had returned the favor.  Sadly, this looks like an actual history of assault against multiple women who want to testify under oath, and nobody willing to defend him under oath, so the odds of it being a "sham" as Lindsey Graham claims are pretty slim.

I still think he'll be confirmed without so much as an investigation into these accusations.  They are not legally required to investigate.  Republicans have total control of two of the three branches of government, and they will use that control to take control of the third branch tomorrow.  Voters have no say.  Public opinion doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is McConnell holding together 51 republican senators despite today's testimonies, so he can basically say "We don't care if it's true or not, we're putting him on the SC anyway" and then it will happen, and nobody else can do a damn thing about it.

In the long run, the electoral consequences of that kind of abuse are probably detrimental to the GOP and to the country as a whole, but that's not exactly at the forefront of the thought processes right now.

The last statement is what I don't get all these guys just want to swing their power dicks but aren't thinking about the magnitude this could have on the future of their party.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 06:03:00 PM
Who is the rape victim?

Oh so sorry, I meant attempted rape victim.

Does that make all of this go away, for you?  Because she was able to break free?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JanetJackson on September 27, 2018, 06:03:15 PM
"Question that Kavanaugh doesn't want to answer:"

"Senator, I was at the top of my class, and did all these great things."

"Swimmer at Stanford"

Oh wait getting things mixed up..

“Brock Turners grow up to be Brett Kavanaughs who make the rules for Brock Turners....”
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 27, 2018, 06:04:42 PM
So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?

No, I think that as of right now the GOP line is that this whole thing is a liberal hit job, totally fabricated for political reasons.

And part of me kind of wishes that was true, because it would look like some kind of justice for the Merrick Garland debacle if it WAS just a purely partisan hit job.  They made no bones about scuttling Garland for partisan reasons, after all, so it would be delicious irony if liberals had returned the favor.  Sadly, this looks like an actual history of assault against multiple women who want to testify under oath, and nobody willing to defend him under oath, so the odds of it being a "sham" as Lindsey Graham claims are pretty slim.

I still think he'll be confirmed without so much as an investigation into these accusations.  They are not legally required to investigate.  Republicans have total control of two of the three branches of government, and they will use that control to take control of the third branch tomorrow.  Voters have no say.  Public opinion doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is McConnell holding together 51 republican senators despite today's testimonies, so he can basically say "We don't care if it's true or not, we're putting him on the SC anyway" and then it will happen, and nobody else can do a damn thing about it.

In the long run, the electoral consequences of that kind of abuse are probably detrimental to the GOP and to the country as a whole, but that's not exactly at the forefront of the thought processes right now.

The last statement is what I don't get all these guys just want to swing their power dicks but aren't thinking about the magnitude this could have on the future of their party.

I doubt it. Every Trump supporter on my FB feed has posted horrible things about women who accuse men of power and/or made jokes about sexual harassment and assault.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: boarder42 on September 27, 2018, 06:08:02 PM
So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?

No, I think that as of right now the GOP line is that this whole thing is a liberal hit job, totally fabricated for political reasons.

And part of me kind of wishes that was true, because it would look like some kind of justice for the Merrick Garland debacle if it WAS just a purely partisan hit job.  They made no bones about scuttling Garland for partisan reasons, after all, so it would be delicious irony if liberals had returned the favor.  Sadly, this looks like an actual history of assault against multiple women who want to testify under oath, and nobody willing to defend him under oath, so the odds of it being a "sham" as Lindsey Graham claims are pretty slim.

I still think he'll be confirmed without so much as an investigation into these accusations.  They are not legally required to investigate.  Republicans have total control of two of the three branches of government, and they will use that control to take control of the third branch tomorrow.  Voters have no say.  Public opinion doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is McConnell holding together 51 republican senators despite today's testimonies, so he can basically say "We don't care if it's true or not, we're putting him on the SC anyway" and then it will happen, and nobody else can do a damn thing about it.

In the long run, the electoral consequences of that kind of abuse are probably detrimental to the GOP and to the country as a whole, but that's not exactly at the forefront of the thought processes right now.

The last statement is what I don't get all these guys just want to swing their power dicks but aren't thinking about the magnitude this could have on the future of their party.

I doubt it. Every Trump supporter on my FB feed has posted horrible things about women who accuse men of power and/or made jokes about sexual harassment and assault.

You're probably right even women I know have posted memes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 27, 2018, 07:11:26 PM
The Wall Street Journal is reporting Kavanaugh watched Ford's testimony. He testified under oath he did not. He'll like about anything.

Regardless of legal guilt or innocence, he showed his ass today as a political operative not worthy of serving as a judge on any court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 27, 2018, 08:12:56 PM
The Wall Street Journal is reporting Kavanaugh watched Ford's testimony. He testified under oath he did not. He'll like about anything.

Regardless of legal guilt or innocence, he showed his ass today as a political operative not worthy of serving as a judge on any court.

He was lying about his drinking.

Which brings up a point someone else made: They both could be telling the truth.

* Ford was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.
* Kavanaugh doesn't remember it, and can deny it, because he was such a heavy drinker. It may also have been a not uncommon occurrence -- getting drunk and getting aggressive with women.

He doesn't want that line of questioning pursued because his hard-partying broski ways will come out more than they have already, ruining his evangelical cred.*



* However, as sol mentioned above, almost half of evangelicals, per a Marist poll, would still support Kavanaugh even if there was evidence of sexual assault. They want the abortion SC vote very badly.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 27, 2018, 08:25:26 PM

"Now, pitying himself, he says he wants his dignity. He abdicated that long before anyone heard Christine Blasey Ford’s name."

Great piece from Counterpunch that covers a whole sweep of what makes Kavanaugh so awful, from torture, the privileged background, and how he is almost a psychopath in his indifference to human suffering.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/27/what-brett-kavanaugh-really-learned-in-high-school-make-the-rules-break-the-rules-and-prosper/

September 27, 2018
"What Brett Kavanaugh Really Learned in High School: Make the Rules, Break the Rules and Prosper"
by JoAnn Wypijewski
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GrayGhost on September 27, 2018, 08:51:14 PM
^ You must realize that that article won't convince anyone who isn't already thoroughly anti-Kavanaugh. Which seems to be nearly 3/4ths of this thread, so you're probably going to get some pats on the back, but still, it doesn't mean it will convince anyone.

Quote
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Sounds a lot like saying those who have nothing to hide shouldn't fear mass surveillance or warantless searches...

~

At this point, it seems that the Ford allegation is the most credible one. Even then, even if it is mostly true, there's a significant chance that it did not happen, or that the attacker was not Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 27, 2018, 09:00:14 PM
You must realize that that article won't convince anyone who isn't already thoroughly anti-Kavanaugh.

If anyone can watch his performance from today and not be anti, then nothing is going to change their mind anyway.

His outright refusal to answer questions was so apparent and obvious - entirely unacceptable in this setting.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GrayGhost on September 27, 2018, 09:08:58 PM
I'll take a look at that later if I get a chance. I'm curious though, what would make you think that Kavanaugh is acceptable for a seat on the SCOTUS?

PS, and slightly off topic, just heard about Sen Booker's "indescretion" back in 92. I don't think it is sexual assault. He was kissing someone, he tried to advance things, she rejected him physically, that was that. Heck, reading the original column... he leans in for a hug and is met with an "overwhelming kiss" makes it sound almost like HE was sexually assaulted, if the bar for sexual assault really is so low.

I hate to say it, because there is a lot of sexual crime that should be addressed and pursued by the criminal justice system, but there is also a bit of witch hunting going on, by both sides.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: redbirdfan on September 27, 2018, 10:41:52 PM
I'm convinced Kavanaugh did it.  He reminds me of a relative of mine who does in fact have a drinking problem.  Let's be honest.  1) it's crazy that he's pulling out a calendar from 1982 as proof that he didn't do ("weekends away); 2) there are numerous dates on his own calendar that match the people and the approximate time of the incident "skis w/ PJ, Judge and Timmy" in the summer of '82.  3) He outright lied about the Renate Alumnus thing.  She obviously didn't think it was because she was one of them after hearing about it.  4) He wrote about having to "piece his night together" in the past but today denied that he's ever lost bits of memory as a result of drinking.  5) He is completely against a FBI investigation.  That was quite obvious today.  There is a LOT of information we could get through an FBI investigation:

1. Names of any friends of Kavanaugh with a home near the Country Club.
2. Dates on which Judge worked at the Safeway.
3. Address of "Timmy"
4. Address of P.J.
5. Address of Judge
6. Confirmation of Renate Alumnus meaning, Devil's Triangle, Boof
7. Testimony of Judge, Timmy, PJ and Leyland under oath.

People are casually saying, yes something happened, but it wasn't Kavanaugh.  That doesn't seem likely given that she knew him (by id) prior to the incident.  You don't usually mistake id when you already know the identity of the person.  That's completely different that picking a stranger out of a lineup.  There was nothing about Kavanaugh's performance that made me think he didn't have a drinking problem or that he wouldn't be an aggressive drunk.  I don't say this lightly.  I think people who have/have had alcoholics in their lives can notice some of the signs of defensive/evasive aggression.   

Graham reminded me of someone "banging the table" when they don't have the law or facts on their side.  Kavanaugh is too outwardly political to be a credible SC Justice.  Who comes up with a Clinton conspiracy out of the gate?  Would any organization affiliated with left-leaning organizations get a fair shake in front of him?  Doesn't seem likely.  He lacks the temperament and self reflection to be an honest jurist. 

The Republicans likely know that Kavanaugh is not telling the truth.  Not to play the Hillary card, but if Hillary just wrote a letter to the House Oversight Comm. that said under penalty of felony, I don't recall doing anything wrong regarding Benghazi or regarding my email server, I'm pretty sure that would NOT be considered sufficient. 

Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 27, 2018, 10:51:32 PM
Kavanaugh should not be on the Supreme Court.

And yet, here we are.  The committee votes to approve him tomorrow, and the full Senate will confirm him next week, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it.  At this point it wouldn't matter if Kavanaugh went on tv and said "haha j/k I totally tried to rape that slut!" he would still get confirmed.

Tonight, the American Bar Association is calling for a delay in the confirmation vote until after the FBI can complete an investigation.  Which only makes sense, if you want to get to the bottom of this.  Kavanaugh, Trump, Grassley, and McConnell have all tried to prevent that investigation from happening, for some unknown reason that sure looks like criminal intent.  It's not like their nomination process is going to be materially affected by a one week delay, so what's the rush? 

Why in the world would anyone say "we don't want an investigation" at this point?  Because that's the official line of the entire GOP right now, with the possible exception of Susan Collins who has only hinted that gee wouldn't it be nice to know what's really going on?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 12:18:22 AM
For those only loosely following along, the best humorous summary of today's hearings that I've seen was provided by The Daily Show:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbJgtZbU8LU

Note: adult language on cable tv.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 01:33:40 AM
Dr Ford said that the attack happened at a party in the summer of 1982 attended by Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, PJ and one other boy.  Kavanaugh's diary corroborates that he went out drinking with Mark Judge, PJ and two other boys on 1st July 1982.

Kavanaugh says neither he nor his friends lived near Columbia Country Club/ Bethesda, the general location where Dr Ford says the party took place.  Kavanaugh said that both Judge and PJ had cars that they gave him lifts to school in.  Either of them could easily have driven him to the location of the party.

Kavanaugh says that the party presumably happened on the weekend and all his weekends were busy.  His diary entry about the party with his friends is for Thursday.

Dr Ford said that both Kavanaugh and PJ had been drinking: there is ample corroborating evidence of Kavanaugh's and Judge's drinking.

Under oath, Kavanaugh was unable to deny knowing both Dr Ford or her friend Ms Keyser.

Transcript of the testimony here -
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.ac9f6722c58a

I don't see how anyone reading the transcript could conclude anything other than that Dr Ford is convincing and Kavanaugh is not.  Even without the different demeanours on show.

It's also quite clear to me that Graham intervened, and Grassley blew up the agreed procedures to let him, at the first possible chance after the 1st July diary entry came to light, as a planned and deliberate attempt to divert the hearing away from any further fact finding.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on September 28, 2018, 01:59:28 AM
Two things have become abundantly clear:

1. Kavanaugh is not a good enough candidate for the Supreme Court. Even assuming he's entirely innocent of the accusations that have been made, the process has made it very clear that he can't reasonably be trusted to be impartial. There is no way he can ever be seen as a fair judge in any case involving the Democratic party. And if one of the senators on the panel ends up becoming President down the line - how on earth can Kavanaugh claim impartiality in that situation?

2. He's going to be confirmed anyway, because the Republican party is terrified that the Democrats will win the Senate in a few weeks and refuse to confirm any of Trump's picks. Why are they scared this will happen? Because it's exactly what they did with Merrick Garland. Reversing Roe v Wade has become the sole purpose of the entire Republican party: there is nothing they will not sell out in advancement of that goal, not even basic principles.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on September 28, 2018, 04:49:22 AM
Alter boy, pure as the driven snow. Sniveling, crying, choked up, wriggling his nose, drinking gallons of water. How dare anyone accuse this 1982 virgin, library geek and avid player of sports. He is innocent, just ask him. No need for FBI to investigate, he said so. Seems he made up new meanings for the word Boof and Devils Triangle. Funny, he says they mean flatulence and a card game. LOL! Google it.

Poor little him, his reputation is smeared. It is all about him and his world. What about Ford? What about the other women?

Kavanaugh showed his true colors by being a lying, belligerent, hot headed, cry baby.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 05:03:11 AM
Alter boy, pure as the driven snow. Sniveling, crying, choked up, wriggling his nose, drinking gallons of water. How dare anyone accuse this 1982 virgin, library geek and avid player of sports. He is innocent, just ask him. No need for FBI to investigate, he said so. Seems he made up new meanings for the word Boof and Devils Triangle. Funny, he says they mean flatulence and a card game. LOL! Google it.

Poor little him, his reputation is smeared. It is all about him and his world. What about Ford? What about the other women?

Kavanaugh showed his true colors by being a lying, belligerent, hot headed, cry baby.

Cable news is saying that the White House altered the Wikipedia definition of Devils Triangle after Kavanaugh testified.  The links certainly seem to have changed from when I in my innocence googled it yesterday.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 05:07:14 AM
So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?

No, I think that as of right now the GOP line is that this whole thing is a liberal hit job, totally fabricated for political reasons.

And part of me kind of wishes that was true, because it would look like some kind of justice for the Merrick Garland debacle if it WAS just a purely partisan hit job.  They made no bones about scuttling Garland for partisan reasons, after all, so it would be delicious irony if liberals had returned the favor.  Sadly, this looks like an actual history of assault against multiple women who want to testify under oath, and nobody willing to defend him under oath, so the odds of it being a "sham" as Lindsey Graham claims are pretty slim.

I still think he'll be confirmed without so much as an investigation into these accusations.  They are not legally required to investigate.  Republicans have total control of two of the three branches of government, and they will use that control to take control of the third branch tomorrow.  Voters have no say.  Public opinion doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is McConnell holding together 51 republican senators despite today's testimonies, so he can basically say "We don't care if it's true or not, we're putting him on the SC anyway" and then it will happen, and nobody else can do a damn thing about it.

In the long run, the electoral consequences of that kind of abuse are probably detrimental to the GOP and to the country as a whole, but that's not exactly at the forefront of the thought processes right now.

The last statement is what I don't get all these guys just want to swing their power dicks but aren't thinking about the magnitude this could have on the future of their party.

I doubt it. Every Trump supporter on my FB feed has posted horrible things about women who accuse men of power and/or made jokes about sexual harassment and assault.

Is this what you are eluding to:

Every Trump supporter you know has posted horrible things about sexual harassment and assault therefore all Trump supporters are misogynists or worse?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 05:20:12 AM
I have a question.

Is it possible that they are both right?  But, maybe she just remembered the wrong guy?  They both seemed credible in my estimation. 

Evidence we do have:

Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

That's all we have for evidence other than his calendar (which I would throw out because I don't think it documents every day or every day well enough from what I can tell).

So does anyone here have any doubts, however unlikely, that it may not have been Kavanaugh?

Or are you absolutely positive that it happened and it was him.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 05:31:33 AM
I have a question.

Is it possible that they are both right?  But, maybe she just remembered the wrong guy?  They both seemed credible in my estimation. 

Evidence we do have:

Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

That's all we have for evidence other than his calendar (which I would throw out because I don't think it documents every day or every day well enough from what I can tell).

So does anyone here have any doubts, however unlikely, that it may not have been Kavanaugh?

Or are you absolutely positive that it happened and it was him.

Dr Ford knew Kavanaugh well enough to name two of his drinking buddies.  There's no suggestion she got those names from anywhere except her memory, right?  And Kavanaugh's calendar confirms the names of those two people as two of his drinking buddies.

Kavanaugh has been unable under oath to deny knowing Dr Ford or her friend.

This quite clearly isn't a case where Dr Ford is trying to identify a stranger.  She is 100% certain of her identification of him. 

Kavanaugh has denied any incident.  In the famous words of a woman in a somewhat similar case in the UK, when it was put to her that the defendant denied his involvement she said "well he would, wouldn't he?"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 05:40:33 AM
I have a question.

Is it possible that they are both right?  But, maybe she just remembered the wrong guy?  They both seemed credible in my estimation. 

Evidence we do have:

Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

That's all we have for evidence other than his calendar (which I would throw out because I don't think it documents every day or every day well enough from what I can tell).

So does anyone here have any doubts, however unlikely, that it may not have been Kavanaugh?

Or are you absolutely positive that it happened and it was him.

Dr Ford knew Kavanaugh well enough to name two of his drinking buddies.  There's no suggestion she got those names from anywhere except her memory, right?  And Kavanaugh's calendar confirms the names of those two people as two of his drinking buddies.

Kavanaugh has been unable under oath to deny knowing Dr Ford or her friend.

This quite clearly isn't a case where Dr Ford is trying to identify a stranger.  She is 100% certain of her identification of him. 

Kavanaugh has denied any incident.  In the famous words of a woman in a somewhat similar case in the UK, when it was put to her that the defendant denied his involvement she said "well he would, wouldn't he?
"

You didn't answer the question.  You just threw up a bunch of stuff and most of it isn't evidence based.

Your use of the term "Drinking Buddies" shows a bias.  They were his friends.  I had friends in High School.  I never in my life have used the term "Drinking Buddies" to identify any of them.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on September 28, 2018, 05:49:07 AM
I have a question.

Is it possible that they are both right?  But, maybe she just remembered the wrong guy?  They both seemed credible in my estimation. 

Evidence we do have:

Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

That's all we have for evidence other than his calendar (which I would throw out because I don't think it documents every day or every day well enough from what I can tell).

So does anyone here have any doubts, however unlikely, that it may not have been Kavanaugh?

Or are you absolutely positive that it happened and it was him.

They can't possibly both be right. Because Ford testified that she was 100% certain it was Kavanaugh. She doesn't seem to have some hazy memory of the event. Kavanaugh didn't seem convincing at all. In fact he sounded very rude and egotistical. When asked about his drinking he went on and on about his academic record and how great the school was and routinely evaded the question by trying to redirect it. He painted himself as the perfect little virgin choir boy. He spewed some bullshit about the vile things he wrote in yearbooks.

When all is said and done it will once again become purely political. Republicans will push the nomination through without a thorough investigation so they can have their conservative Supreme Court. And all the bullshit they spewed about caring about Ford and sympathizing will prove to be pure posture.

I have a better question for you. Who stand to gain more? What does Ford gain from knowingly lying about the accuser? Certainly not a cabinet position. I am sure it's costing her a fortune.  We all know what Kavanaugh stands to gain.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 05:51:16 AM
I have a question.

Is it possible that they are both right?  But, maybe she just remembered the wrong guy?  They both seemed credible in my estimation. 

Evidence we do have:

Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

That's all we have for evidence other than his calendar (which I would throw out because I don't think it documents every day or every day well enough from what I can tell).

So does anyone here have any doubts, however unlikely, that it may not have been Kavanaugh?

Or are you absolutely positive that it happened and it was him.

Dr Ford knew Kavanaugh well enough to name two of his drinking buddies.  There's no suggestion she got those names from anywhere except her memory, right?  And Kavanaugh's calendar confirms the names of those two people as two of his drinking buddies.

Kavanaugh has been unable under oath to deny knowing Dr Ford or her friend.

This quite clearly isn't a case where Dr Ford is trying to identify a stranger.  She is 100% certain of her identification of him. 

Kavanaugh has denied any incident.  In the famous words of a woman in a somewhat similar case in the UK, when it was put to her that the defendant denied his involvement she said "well he would, wouldn't he?
"

You didn't answer the question.  You just threw up a bunch of stuff and most of it isn't evidence based.

Your use of the term "Drinking Buddies" shows a bias.  They were his friends.  I had friends in High School.  I never in my life have used the term "Drinking Buddies" to identify any of them.

I provided corroborating evidence that the two people named by Dr Ford as being present at a drinking party with Kavanaugh were people Kavanaugh went to drinking parties with.

You are asking "is there any doubt as to the identity of Kavanaugh".  Dr Ford was unequivocal, and her evidence as to identity (which in the specific circumstances necessarily includes the identity of his companions) is unchallenged.  Kavanaugh does not challenge her evidence of identity: he denies it but provides no evidence to refute it.

Whether "drinking buddies" is merely accurate or shows bias is irrelevant to 1) the existence of the corroborating evidence I mention and 2) any evidence provided in relation to the incident: I am not a witness and nothing I say affects the evidence available.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:14:32 AM
I have a question.

Is it possible that they are both right?  But, maybe she just remembered the wrong guy?  They both seemed credible in my estimation. 

Evidence we do have:

Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

That's all we have for evidence other than his calendar (which I would throw out because I don't think it documents every day or every day well enough from what I can tell).

So does anyone here have any doubts, however unlikely, that it may not have been Kavanaugh?

Or are you absolutely positive that it happened and it was him.

Dr Ford knew Kavanaugh well enough to name two of his drinking buddies.  There's no suggestion she got those names from anywhere except her memory, right?  And Kavanaugh's calendar confirms the names of those two people as two of his drinking buddies.

Kavanaugh has been unable under oath to deny knowing Dr Ford or her friend.

This quite clearly isn't a case where Dr Ford is trying to identify a stranger.  She is 100% certain of her identification of him. 

Kavanaugh has denied any incident.  In the famous words of a woman in a somewhat similar case in the UK, when it was put to her that the defendant denied his involvement she said "well he would, wouldn't he?
"

You didn't answer the question.  You just threw up a bunch of stuff and most of it isn't evidence based.

Your use of the term "Drinking Buddies" shows a bias.  They were his friends.  I had friends in High School.  I never in my life have used the term "Drinking Buddies" to identify any of them.

I provided corroborating evidence that the two people named by Dr Ford as being present at a drinking party with Kavanaugh were people Kavanaugh went to drinking parties with.

You are asking "is there any doubt as to the identity of Kavanaugh".  Dr Ford was unequivocal, and her evidence as to identity (which in the specific circumstances necessarily includes the identity of his companions) is unchallenged.  Kavanaugh does not challenge her evidence of identity: he denies it but provides no evidence to refute it.

Whether "drinking buddies" is merely accurate or shows bias is irrelevant to 1) the existence of the corroborating evidence I mention and 2) any evidence provided in relation to the incident: I am not a witness and nothing I say affects the evidence available.

Did you know her friend said she never met Kavanaugh? 

The statements of those other people that Dr Ford said was there doesn't count as evidence?

Do you have any doubts?  Step up.  Answer the question.  Doubts or no?


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:17:21 AM
I have a question.

Is it possible that they are both right?  But, maybe she just remembered the wrong guy?  They both seemed credible in my estimation. 

Evidence we do have:

Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

That's all we have for evidence other than his calendar (which I would throw out because I don't think it documents every day or every day well enough from what I can tell).

So does anyone here have any doubts, however unlikely, that it may not have been Kavanaugh?

Or are you absolutely positive that it happened and it was him.

Dr Ford knew Kavanaugh well enough to name two of his drinking buddies.  There's no suggestion she got those names from anywhere except her memory, right?  And Kavanaugh's calendar confirms the names of those two people as two of his drinking buddies.

Kavanaugh has been unable under oath to deny knowing Dr Ford or her friend.

This quite clearly isn't a case where Dr Ford is trying to identify a stranger.  She is 100% certain of her identification of him. 

Kavanaugh has denied any incident.  In the famous words of a woman in a somewhat similar case in the UK, when it was put to her that the defendant denied his involvement she said "well he would, wouldn't he?
"

You didn't answer the question.  You just threw up a bunch of stuff and most of it isn't evidence based.

Your use of the term "Drinking Buddies" shows a bias.  They were his friends.  I had friends in High School.  I never in my life have used the term "Drinking Buddies" to identify any of them.

I provided corroborating evidence that the two people named by Dr Ford as being present at a drinking party with Kavanaugh were people Kavanaugh went to drinking parties with.

You are asking "is there any doubt as to the identity of Kavanaugh".  Dr Ford was unequivocal, and her evidence as to identity (which in the specific circumstances necessarily includes the identity of his companions) is unchallenged.  Kavanaugh does not challenge her evidence of identity: he denies it but provides no evidence to refute it.

Whether "drinking buddies" is merely accurate or shows bias is irrelevant to 1) the existence of the corroborating evidence I mention and 2) any evidence provided in relation to the incident: I am not a witness and nothing I say affects the evidence available.

Did you know her friend said she never met Kavanaugh? 

The statements of those other people that Dr Ford said was there doesn't count as evidence?

Do you have any doubts?  Step up.  Answer the question.  Doubts or no?

What does this prove?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 06:39:29 AM
Kavanaugh's testimony yesterday sealed it for me, even if one completely ignored the issue of whether he did or didn't do what Ford has accused him of.

No one deserves to serve on the supreme court. Not Kavanakugh, not the current 8 justices nor any of the previous ones. It is an honor and a privilege to be on the court, and is a pool of hundreds - if not thousands - of top tier, experienced, best-in-class candidates who could perform the duties required with distinction and integrity.  A justice must take arguments and criticisms from all sides and all Americans while ultimately evaluating what the constitution says, what the framers intended and the precedence that has been set by the lower courts.

Brett Kavanaugh has lost sight of all of that. Most of all he came off as entitled to the post.  "I have done everything you asked" and "I have top grades - an impeccable career" were his go-to responses, yet neither are sufficient for the post nor relevant to the hearing at hand. His cries about this being an elaborate character-assasination were far more troubling.  The constitution clearly gives senators this role, and while a great deal of politicking was certainly going on, he showed distain for the entire process.  The open skepticism he showed for our nation's top investigative body to do its job and provide useful information was nothing short of appalling. 

Part of a justice's workload is to hear cases from felons and determine whether their rights are being violated (see Miranda v. Arizona). Kavanaugh did not even attempt impartiality with members of the US Senate. His strategy with each of the Democrat's questions was to run out the clock while highlighting how great his academic career had been, but this was not a hearing to determine if he was legally and experienced. There has never been a question that Kavanaugh has met a minimal accepted standard.

Ultimately I found Ford's testimony to be gut-wrenching and credible. I found Kavanaugh to be combative and evasive.  While I would personally prefer a candidate who is more centrist and would be more in the mold of Justice Kennedy, the constitution makes clear that its this president and senate that will nominate and approve a candidate, and political will being what it is I have no doubt it will be someone who holds very conservative views.  But Kavanaugh does not deserve the honor to be a member of the Supreme Court of the UNited States.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FrugalToque on September 28, 2018, 06:43:31 AM

Did you know her friend said she never met Kavanaugh? 

The statements of those other people that Dr Ford said was there doesn't count as evidence?

Do you have any doubts?  Step up.  Answer the question.  Doubts or no?

Yes, we know that her friend said that.  Though notably not under oath at the time, there's no reason to remember a small summer gathering at some house when you were 15 years old 36 years ago.  Unless, of course, you were raped (or nearly raped) at the party.  I'm very confident, in my teenage summers, I visited many houses with random groups of friends that I now don't recall.  Unless something terrible happened to me, like I got beat up, or something great happened to me, that would easily slip out of my memory.

Also, the deal with "evidence" is that there's a difference between a public statement and testimony under oath as part of an FBI investigation.

For myself, I have very little doubt about Dr. Ford's testimony.  Judge Kavanaugh's testimony, however, raises a number of red flags about his poor temperament and belligerence.

Toque.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 28, 2018, 06:49:24 AM
I have a question.

Is it possible that they are both right?  But, maybe she just remembered the wrong guy?  They both seemed credible in my estimation. 

Evidence we do have:

Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

That's all we have for evidence other than his calendar (which I would throw out because I don't think it documents every day or every day well enough from what I can tell).

So does anyone here have any doubts, however unlikely, that it may not have been Kavanaugh?

Or are you absolutely positive that it happened and it was him.

Again, this is not true and I think it shows your bias when you try to characterize a failure to remember an event as a denial/refutation of the event happening.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 06:59:39 AM
Did you know her friend said she never met Kavanaugh? 

The statements of those other people that Dr Ford said was there doesn't count as evidence?

Do you have any doubts?  Step up.  Answer the question.  Doubts or no?

Yes I know what her friend has said.  She has said that she does not recall the party but that she believes Dr Ford.

Judge and PJ appear to have said they have no memory or recollection of the party (as per the transcript of the hearing).   Those statements neither add to or detract from Dr Ford's identification of Kavanaugh.

Let me ask you something.  Dr Ford has said that in the summer of 1982 Kavanaugh was out drinking at a party with Judge and PJ  Kavanaugh has not denied going out drinking with Judge and PJ, and there is an entry in his calendar about going out drinking with Judge and PJ.  If Dr Ford did not meet Kavanaugh at a party that summer, how could she have known that Kavanaugh was out drinking with Judge and PJ that summer?  Unless you think she is lying as part of a deep State conspiracy, of course.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FrugalToque on September 28, 2018, 07:01:37 AM
Four people were named by Dr. Ford to have been present at the party.  All of them, under penalty of perjury denied/refuted that the event every happened including her friend.  Three of the four weren't in the room, so their deposition is meaningless.  The only other person present was one of the four and he refuted that it never happened.

I wasn't aware that Mark Judge made a statement under oath, but I see now that he swore under oath that he couldn't recall anything like that - which isn't much considered he also said he's a recovering alcoholic who wrote an autobiography called "Wasted: Tales of a Gen X Drunk".

But let's remember that if he cops to Ford's version of events, he's also accessory (and inadvertent saviour via his clumsiness), so it's not like he's an unbiased source, either.

My suspicion is that the number of credible women who credibly accuse Kavanaugh of sexual assault will become so overwhelming, all doubt will disappear.

Toque.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Mariposa on September 28, 2018, 07:08:16 AM
I think that, sadly, if the senate judiciary committee is going through with the vote this morning, they probably have Flake's vote, and Kavanaugh's more likely than not to be confirmed next week.

I agree with Michelle Goldberg's assessment:

"But thanks to the Republican majority in the Senate, Kavanaugh didn’t have to be convincing to Democrats. His performance was for the conservative base, to whom he now appears as a martyr to the vicious left, a paragon of a man brought low by the inquisitorial forces of #MeToo. What seemed to the left like a tantrum over thwarted entitlement was, to the right, a moving display of indignation. “That was simply tremendous — appropriately angry, personal, wrenching, detailed, persuasive,” tweeted Rich Lowry, editor of National Review. “He helped himself immensely.”

In her opening statement, Blasey described why she’d been reluctant to go public with her story. “I believed that if I came forward, my voice would be drowned out by a chorus” of Kavanaugh’s powerful supporters, she said. She may have been correct. By the time the hearing ended, the right seemed more committed to Kavanaugh than ever, and his confirmation appeared inevitable. “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him,” tweeted President Trump. He did indeed."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/opinion/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-hearing.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 07:10:48 AM
I'm asking the question to determine what the posters on this board think about guilt.  Whether or not he is qualified for the position is not the purpose of my question.  I can already see that most posters here feel he isn't qualified.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 28, 2018, 07:11:02 AM
Reversing Roe v Wade has become the sole purpose of the entire Republican party: there is nothing they will not sell out in advancement of that goal, not even basic principles.

I think they imply it's the sole purpose, but they really want to line their pockets with more dollar bills. These folks are, in some cases, ordering abortions for their girlfriends (in one case supplying a smoothie with an abortion pill in it to a girlfriend). So these guys? I doubt they care one bit about abortion. They want money.

Another idea: There is compromising information on some of them, and that is why they are so gung-ho on Kavanaugh.

Another idea: They know they'll be caught in the Russian web, so they want Kavanaugh to shut that down somehow.

This is bigger than abortion as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 07:13:44 AM
I think that, sadly, if the senate judiciary committee is going through with the vote this morning, they probably have Flake's vote, and Kavanaugh's more likely than not to be confirmed next week.

I agree with Michelle Goldberg's assessment:

"But thanks to the Republican majority in the Senate, Kavanaugh didn’t have to be convincing to Democrats. His performance was for the conservative base, to whom he now appears as a martyr to the vicious left, a paragon of a man brought low by the inquisitorial forces of #MeToo. What seemed to the left like a tantrum over thwarted entitlement was, to the right, a moving display of indignation. “That was simply tremendous — appropriately angry, personal, wrenching, detailed, persuasive,” tweeted Rich Lowry, editor of National Review. “He helped himself immensely.”

In her opening statement, Blasey described why she’d been reluctant to go public with her story. “I believed that if I came forward, my voice would be drowned out by a chorus” of Kavanaugh’s powerful supporters, she said. She may have been correct. By the time the hearing ended, the right seemed more committed to Kavanaugh than ever, and his confirmation appeared inevitable. “Judge Kavanaugh showed America exactly why I nominated him,” tweeted President Trump. He did indeed."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/opinion/blasey-ford-kavanaugh-hearing.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront

That is a lucid and unbiased in my estimation.  Pretty much parallels my thoughts.  YMMBTD
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 07:14:26 AM
Reversing Roe v Wade has become the sole purpose of the entire Republican party: there is nothing they will not sell out in advancement of that goal, not even basic principles.

I think they imply it's the sole purpose, but they really want to line their pockets with more dollar bills. These folks are, in some cases, ordering abortions for their girlfriends (in one case supplying a smoothie with an abortion pill in it to a girlfriend). So these guys? I doubt they care one bit about abortion. They want money.

Another idea: There is compromising information on some of them, and that is why they are so gung-ho on Kavanaugh.

Another idea: They know they'll be caught in the Russian web, so they want Kavanaugh to shut that down somehow.

This is bigger than abortion as far as I can tell.

They're rich. Abortion is OK for them. They'll send their girlfriend's to Canada and England. 
Abortion is not OK for poor people.

Honestly- I think it's about 90% about abortion. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 07:15:28 AM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral(edit; assuming it even happened). But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on September 28, 2018, 07:15:42 AM
Kavanaugh's really going to be one nasty mean SOB after all this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 07:20:08 AM
Kavanaugh's really going to be one nasty mean SOB after all this.

I guess you know him better than I.  I didn't know he was a vindictive type.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on September 28, 2018, 07:24:25 AM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral. But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

This is loathsome.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PoutineLover on September 28, 2018, 07:24:56 AM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral. But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?
Wait, is this a joke? That's not at all what was alleged and if you've been following the case you'd know that.
The reason we care (or at least why I care) is that a man who has been credibly accused of sexual assault is potentially (probably) going to be elevated to the highest court of the country, where he will have the power to influence millions of people's lives. There is a pretty high standard of moral integrity and honesty required to reach that level that he has pretty clearly violated, even if the allegations turn out to be false. Which I really don't think they are, having watched both of them testify. He came off as a dishonest asshole who would say anything to save his skin, except give a straight answer. She has a credible story and wants an investigation to find the truth, while he wants this whole thing to go away to he can get a cushy lifetime appointment.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on September 28, 2018, 07:25:37 AM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral. But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

Did you listen to the testimony? She did not willingly go into a room with him. You've lost credibility because you've missed a major point. She was on her way to the bathroom and was pushed from behind into a bedroom.

This post of yours isn't accurate and seems to deliberately change the testimony to fit the argument you want to make.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 28, 2018, 07:30:07 AM
Kavanaugh's really going to be one nasty mean SOB after all this.

I guess you know him better than I.  I didn't know he was a vindictive type.

Did you watch the hearing yesterday...?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 07:30:17 AM
Quote
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Sounds a lot like saying those who have nothing to hide shouldn't fear mass surveillance or warantless searches...

I don't really see how.

Mass surveillance is an invasion of privacy that is executed against everyone without cause.
Warrantless searches are an invasion of privacy that are executed on targeted individuals without cause.
An investigation of sexual allegations made against someone is an invasion of privacy of both the accuser and accused with cause.

Without an investigation, we have two people making claims and not enough evidence to make a judgement.  Investigating an accusation removes some of the 'he said/she said' and gives additional information that can only benefit the party telling the truth.  I've mentioned several times that I have no idea if the allegations are true or false.  Neither do you.  That's the purpose of an investigation . . . to shed some light on the issue and get a better understanding of what really happened.  Standing in the way of this only benefits the person who is lying.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 07:31:07 AM
I'm asking the question to determine what the posters on this board think about guilt.  Whether or not he is qualified for the position is not the purpose of my question.  I can already see that most posters here feel he isn't qualified.

I suspect this question isn't being answered more directly because it doesn't really pertain to the matter at hand and it should go without saying. Of course there is doubt. I have doubts and any responsible person judging the situation based on the evidence should as well. In fact, up to the point where I can watch recorded evidence of the event, I'll have some doubt. If this were a criminal investigation where Kavanaugh faced the possibility of jail time I would see the evidence as insufficient, but that's not what's happening here.

I do think there is sufficient evidence to move on for the sake of the country. I do not think doing so would set the precedent that erroneous claims can be made in the future for political gains, which is the issue that would concern me the most had he been passed over at the first sign of an accusation, but we're well beyond that at this point.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 07:31:45 AM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral(edit; assuming it even happened). But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

This is a completely unhelpful post.  You are definitely biased.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 07:35:17 AM
h2r35 has always seemed a decent poster to me, so I did a double take on their post and deemed it a sarcastic imaginative rendering of Republican thought processes.

Although probably more accurate than sarcastic.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 07:37:50 AM

Did you know her friend said she never met Kavanaugh? 

The statements of those other people that Dr Ford said was there doesn't count as evidence?

Do you have any doubts?  Step up.  Answer the question.  Doubts or no?

Yes, we know that her friend said that.  Though notably not under oath at the time, there's no reason to remember a small summer gathering at some house when you were 15 years old 36 years ago.  Unless, of course, you were raped (or nearly raped) at the party.  I'm very confident, in my teenage summers, I visited many houses with random groups of friends that I now don't recall.  Unless something terrible happened to me, like I got beat up, or something great happened to me, that would easily slip out of my memory.

Also, the deal with "evidence" is that there's a difference between a public statement and testimony under oath as part of an FBI investigation.

For myself, I have very little doubt about Dr. Ford's testimony.  Judge Kavanaugh's testimony, however, raises a number of red flags about his poor temperament and belligerence.

Toque.

This exactly. I am the exact same age as Dr. Ford. There are plenty of people I hung out with in high school at random times whose names and faces I can't remember at all. This was illustrated to me about three weeks ago, when a good friend of mine from HS was in town. In the course of the conversation, I told him about seeing the Facebook post of a former HS student in our grade -- someone who we both knew at the time. He couldn't remember her name or her face.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 07:38:39 AM

Did you listen to the testimony? She did not willingly go into a room with him. You've lost credibility because you've missed a major point. She was on her way to the bathroom and was pushed from behind into a bedroom.

This post of yours isn't accurate and seems to deliberately change the testimony to fit the argument you want to make.
No, I've got better things to do than watch a 45 min vid. I am an anonymous internet poster, we all are, none of us have credibility.

He made a drunken pass at her, you know at a high school party, with, you guessed it, beer. Her vibe was 'No' and he left. She sounds like the most unviolated woman in the United States of America and this is a disgrace to every woman who has been sexually assaulted.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 07:40:00 AM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral(edit; assuming it even happened). But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

I'm going to repeat a post I made earlier because it asks questions that I think apply to your post as well as they do to Jrr's:

Here's Ford's testimony on the event - she clearly states she thinks he was going to rape her:
Quote
Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music already playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me. I yelled, hoping someone downstairs might hear me, and tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was so drunk, and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit under my clothes. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from screaming. This was what terrified me the most, and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They both seemed to be having a good time. Mark was urging Brett on, although at times he told Brett to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not.

Attempted [whatever crime] isn't based on the subjective experience of the victim.  I believe it's based on what a reasonable observer would think.  There's quite a big distance to cover between grinding on somebody and forcefully penetrating them with any body part. 

Are you reading the same thing that I am?

- Two people were involved in the attack
- Locked bedroom door
- Loud music turned up to drown out screams
- Victim is knocked down
- Assailant #1 climbs on top
- Sexual grinding
- Groping
- Assailant attempts to tear clothing away, but is drunk and has difficulty removing bathing suit
- Victim screams, silenced by assailant covering her mouth
- Victim can't breathe

Does the above not pretty clearly qualify as attempted rape?  If not, what would need to happen for it to qualify?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 07:41:53 AM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral. But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

This is loathsome.

Yes it is.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 07:42:34 AM
h2r35 has always seemed a decent poster to me, so I did a double take on their post and deemed it a sarcastic imaginative rendering of Republican thought processes.

Although probably more accurate than sarcastic.


Apologies. Apparently every word of my thoughts as expressed in my previous post was wrong.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 07:42:53 AM
Quote
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Sounds a lot like saying those who have nothing to hide shouldn't fear mass surveillance or warantless searches...

I don't really see how.

Mass surveillance is an invasion of privacy that is executed against everyone without cause.
Warrantless searches are an invasion of privacy that are executed on targeted individuals without cause.
An investigation of sexual allegations made against someone is an invasion of privacy of both the accuser and accused with cause.

Without an investigation, we have two people making claims and not enough evidence to make a judgement.  Investigating an accusation removes some of the 'he said/she said' and gives additional information that can only benefit the party telling the truth.  I've mentioned several times that I have no idea if the allegations are true or false.  Neither do you.  That's the purpose of an investigation . . . to shed some light on the issue and get a better understanding of what really happened.  Standing in the way of this only benefits the person who is lying.

Absolutely. If You or I were accused of an attack like this we would be investigated. Is it possible that the allegations were fabricated? Sure. Would our privacy therefore be unfairly invaded? Yep. What other way do you see around this predicament?

And I'd take it a step further. Anyone who would like to become a member of the Supreme Court has sacrificed a significant portion of their privacy. They are going to be one of the most powerful people in the country and have already submitted themselves to thorough background checks which if conducted on a random citizen without cause would also be an invasion of privacy.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 07:44:37 AM

Did you listen to the testimony? She did not willingly go into a room with him. You've lost credibility because you've missed a major point. She was on her way to the bathroom and was pushed from behind into a bedroom.

This post of yours isn't accurate and seems to deliberately change the testimony to fit the argument you want to make.
No, I've got better things to do than watch a 45 min vid. I am an anonymous internet poster, we all are, none of us have credibility.

He made a drunken pass at her, you know at a high school party, with, you guessed it, beer. Her vibe was 'No' and he left. She sounds like the most unviolated woman in the United States of America and this is a disgrace to every woman who has been sexually assaulted.

Did you miss the part where she testified under oath she was worried he would accidentally kill her?

I've had guys make drunken passes at me. They were generally verbal (I've also been "danced on"), and they left when I said no. I have not been sexually assaulted.  What happened to her is not even CLOSE to a "drunken pass".  It's OK for a drunk guy to talk to a drunk girl. It's not OK to trap her in a room, to hold her down, cover her mouth, and try to move her clothes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 28, 2018, 07:49:18 AM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral. But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

This is loathsome.

Yes it is.

+1
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 07:55:52 AM
ok, something unpleasant happens to you, by someone, years ago. You have decided to keep this quite, for various reasons. Now, 35 years later you decide you should speak up. What is the point?

It wasn't bad enough to warrant an investigation at the time(for the time or dare I say even in this time). He was 17 and has likely matured, likely to not do something like this since. If he has not matured and just kept getting worse and violating women, yet that does not(credibly) seem to be happening(I am sorry but three weak accusations comes across and political/fame opportunism).  Yet, she brought this into the public light and has to give her story. She has kept up the victimization. I get why she wants to say 'Something happened to me; he is not fit for office.' But that has simply come down to her story and hers alone, from that long ago...why is everyone worked up over this???


Just admit you are upset this could change the dynamic of the Court some and he might disfavor some abortion law. If Republicans are too weak in the knees to confirm I hope Trump nominates Cruz. At this point just for the smear in the face.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 07:59:04 AM

Did you listen to the testimony? She did not willingly go into a room with him. You've lost credibility because you've missed a major point. She was on her way to the bathroom and was pushed from behind into a bedroom.

This post of yours isn't accurate and seems to deliberately change the testimony to fit the argument you want to make.
No, I've got better things to do than watch a 45 min vid. I am an anonymous internet poster, we all are, none of us have credibility.

He made a drunken pass at her, you know at a high school party, with, you guessed it, beer. Her vibe was 'No' and he left. She sounds like the most unviolated woman in the United States of America and this is a disgrace to every woman who has been sexually assaulted.

If that's really how you feel you wouldn't bother reading or posting here.

Based on past conversations, you have some pretty strong feelings about abortion and you're more than willing to waste some time going down the political rabbit hole. We've been there. Putting these two pieces of information together I would posit that your bias on the matter of abortion has caused you to completely ignore/avoid any details of the matter at hand while simultaneously having a very strong opinion about it. This is an intriguing example of the capabilities of the human brain. Thank you for providing yourself as an insight into this behavior. It may help us to understand how many of our fellow Americans continue to support what an outsider would view as insanity.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on September 28, 2018, 08:00:15 AM
ok, something unpleasant happens to you, by someone, years ago. You have decided to keep this quite, for various reasons. Now, 35 years later you decide you should speak up. What is the point?

It wasn't bad enough to warrant an investigation at the time(for the time or dare I say even in this time). He was 17 and has likely matured, likely to not do something like this since. If he has not matured and just kept getting worse and violating women, yet that does not(credibly) seem to be happening(I am sorry but three weak accusations comes across and political/fame opportunism).  Yet, she brought this into the public light and has to give her story. She has kept up the victimization. I get why she wants to say 'Something happened to me; he is not fit for office.' But that has simply come down to her story and hers alone, from that long ago...why is everyone worked up over this???


Just admit you are upset this could change the dynamic of the Court some and he might disfavor some abortion law. If Republicans are too weak in the knees to confirm I hope Trump nominates Cruz. At this point just for the smear in the face.

You have it all backwards. She should bring up the attempted rape precisely because Kavanaugh is being nominated to the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 08:01:00 AM
@hoping2retire35.  Dr Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault and attempted rape.  Period.  Whether you believe her testimony and the evidence available is up for everyone in this thread to opine on.

One thing that has been made clear from yesterday's hearings is a crime was committed.  Either Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault and/or attempted rape, or Ford is guilty of perjury.   Whichever one is true there are almost certainly other people involved who's sworn statements could be called into question. 

This would seem to warrant a full investigation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 08:04:03 AM
@hoping2retire35.  Dr Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault and attempted rape.  Period.  Whether you believe her testimony and the evidence available is up for everyone in this thread to opine on.

One thing that has been made clear from yesterday's hearings is a crime was committed.  Either Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault and/or attempted rape, or Ford is guilty of perjury.   Whichever one is true there are almost certainly other people involved who's sworn statements could be called into question. 

This would seem to warrant a full investigation.
Agreed.

Edit; Actually, without a doubt, at least one of them is guilty of perjury.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on September 28, 2018, 08:06:46 AM
I was very busy at work yesterday and didn't follow along with this topic, but did catch up quickly just now and I spent last night reviewing the events of yesterday.

If you continue to support Kavanaugh's nomination at this point, then your motivations appear to be purely partisan, full stop.

His opening statement, his ridiculous answers to legitimate questions, his contradictions (arguing against testimony from Mark Judge, but then deflecting questions about Judge, saying in effect 'go ask him'), his outright lies (didn't watch Ford's testimony, oh but oops, WSJ reported that he did). His belligerence, his close-mindedness, his dismissal of an entire political party, his conspiracy theories about Clinton-backers out for revenge (dude, no one cares that you gave Clinton a much harder time than you are willing to endure, they just point it out now to fully reveal your hippocracy). None of this should be tolerated in a county judge, much less an appellate judge or supreme court judge. Irregardless of these allegations, this person is not fit for the SCOTUS.

He should have his nomination pulled, he should be impeached from the DC Circuit Court, he should have any law licenses revoked, and if he is appointed to SCOTUS, he should be impeached at the first opportunity. There is no argument that changes these realities.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 08:07:46 AM
ok, something unpleasant happens to you, by someone, years ago. You have decided to keep this quite, for various reasons. Now, 35 years later you decide you should speak up. What is the point?

It wasn't bad enough to warrant an investigation at the time(for the time or dare I say even in this time). He was 17 and has likely matured, likely to not do something like this since. If he has not matured and just kept getting worse and violating women, yet that does not(credibly) seem to be happening(I am sorry but three weak accusations comes across and political/fame opportunism).  Yet, she brought this into the public light and has to give her story. She has kept up the victimization. I get why she wants to say 'Something happened to me; he is not fit for office.' But that has simply come down to her story and hers alone, from that long ago...why is everyone worked up over this???


Just admit you are upset this could change the dynamic of the Court some and he might disfavor some abortion law. If Republicans are too weak in the knees to confirm I hope Trump nominates Cruz. At this point just for the smear in the face.

To everyone frustrated by the erroneous nature of these posts, and assuming some of us would like to continue the intelligent conversation, I would ask that we all agree to ignore H2R35 until they can provide something more based in reality. My urge to correct them is strong and I'm sure others feel it too but there really is no point.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FrugalToque on September 28, 2018, 08:09:06 AM
ok, something unpleasant happens to you, by someone, years ago.

That's pretty over the top, considering the "unpleasantness" is forcible confinement, reckless endangerment and attempted rape.

And the perpetrator wants one of the highest offices of the nation.

"Unpleasantness" indeed.  It's hard to take the rest of your post seriously if you characterize it that way.

Toque.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 08:09:16 AM

Did you listen to the testimony? She did not willingly go into a room with him. You've lost credibility because you've missed a major point. She was on her way to the bathroom and was pushed from behind into a bedroom.

This post of yours isn't accurate and seems to deliberately change the testimony to fit the argument you want to make.
No, I've got better things to do than watch a 45 min vid. I am an anonymous internet poster, we all are, none of us have credibility.

He made a drunken pass at her, you know at a high school party, with, you guessed it, beer. Her vibe was 'No' and he left. She sounds like the most unviolated woman in the United States of America and this is a disgrace to every woman who has been sexually assaulted.

If that's really how you feel you wouldn't bother reading or posting here.

Based on past conversations, you have some pretty strong feelings about abortion and you're more than willing to waste some time going down the political rabbit hole. We've been there. Putting these two pieces of information together I would posit that your bias on the matter of abortion has caused you to completely ignore/avoid any details of the matter at hand while simultaneously having a very strong opinion about it. This is an intriguing example of the capabilities of the human brain. Thank you for providing yourself as an insight into this behavior. It may help us to understand how many of our fellow Americans continue to support what an outsider would view as insanity.

I was actually disappointed in his nomination and my subsequent interest in his confirmation has been delayed.

As to our credibility, yes we are all anonymous. Any credibility is only in the ideas we present, not in ourselves, or past ideas associated with 'Dabnasty' or 'Hoping2retire35'.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 08:11:03 AM
ok, something unpleasant happens to you, by someone, years ago.

That's pretty over the top, considering the "unpleasantness" is forcible confinement, reckless endangerment and attempted rape.

And the perpetrator wants one of the highest offices of the nation.

"Unpleasantness" indeed.  It's hard to take the rest of your post seriously if you characterize it that way.

Toque.
I meant it in the general sense, not in what you are implying, no.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 08:12:01 AM

Did you listen to the testimony? She did not willingly go into a room with him. You've lost credibility because you've missed a major point. She was on her way to the bathroom and was pushed from behind into a bedroom.

This post of yours isn't accurate and seems to deliberately change the testimony to fit the argument you want to make.
No, I've got better things to do than watch a 45 min vid. I am an anonymous internet poster, we all are, none of us have credibility.

He made a drunken pass at her, you know at a high school party, with, you guessed it, beer. Her vibe was 'No' and he left. She sounds like the most unviolated woman in the United States of America and this is a disgrace to every woman who has been sexually assaulted.

If that's really how you feel you wouldn't bother reading or posting here.

Based on past conversations, you have some pretty strong feelings about abortion and you're more than willing to waste some time going down the political rabbit hole. We've been there. Putting these two pieces of information together I would posit that your bias on the matter of abortion has caused you to completely ignore/avoid any details of the matter at hand while simultaneously having a very strong opinion about it. This is an intriguing example of the capabilities of the human brain. Thank you for providing yourself as an insight into this behavior. It may help us to understand how many of our fellow Americans continue to support what an outsider would view as insanity.

I was actually disappointed in his nomination and my subsequent interest in his confirmation has been delayed.

As to our credibility, yes we are all anonymous. Any credibility is only in the ideas we present, not in ourselves, or past ideas associated with 'Dabnasty' or 'Hoping2retire35'.

Interesting. What about him was lacking in your opinion?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 08:13:26 AM
@hoping2retire35.  Dr Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault and attempted rape.  Period.  Whether you believe her testimony and the evidence available is up for everyone in this thread to opine on.

One thing that has been made clear from yesterday's hearings is a crime was committed.  Either Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault and/or attempted rape, or Ford is guilty of perjury.   Whichever one is true there are almost certainly other people involved who's sworn statements could be called into question. 

This would seem to warrant a full investigation.

Your missing another option.  They are both telling the truth and she got the person wrong.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: x02947 on September 28, 2018, 08:16:15 AM
I have seen several memes on FB that go to the effect of "On every decision for the next 40 years, Kavanaugh will remember that Democrats insulted him, his family, and his legacy."  I keep people like that on my FB list as a reminder that yes, there are plenty of people out there who think everything is a political us or them game. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 08:16:27 AM
Flake confirms he will vote to appoint.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 28, 2018, 08:18:39 AM
@hoping2retire35.  Dr Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault and attempted rape.  Period.  Whether you believe her testimony and the evidence available is up for everyone in this thread to opine on.

One thing that has been made clear from yesterday's hearings is a crime was committed.  Either Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault and/or attempted rape, or Ford is guilty of perjury.   Whichever one is true there are almost certainly other people involved who's sworn statements could be called into question. 

This would seem to warrant a full investigation.

Your missing another option.  They are both telling the truth and she got the person wrong.

Or they are both telling the truth and he was too drunk to remember it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 08:19:43 AM
ok, something unpleasant happens to you, by someone, years ago. You have decided to keep this quite, for various reasons. Now, 35 years later you decide you should speak up. What is the point?

It wasn't bad enough to warrant an investigation at the time(for the time or dare I say even in this time). He was 17 and has likely matured, likely to not do something like this since. If he has not matured and just kept getting worse and violating women, yet that does not(credibly) seem to be happening(I am sorry but three weak accusations comes across and political/fame opportunism).  Yet, she brought this into the public light and has to give her story. She has kept up the victimization. I get why she wants to say 'Something happened to me; he is not fit for office.' But that has simply come down to her story and hers alone, from that long ago...why is everyone worked up over this???


Just admit you are upset this could change the dynamic of the Court some and he might disfavor some abortion law. If Republicans are too weak in the knees to confirm I hope Trump nominates Cruz. At this point just for the smear in the face.

I assume you are not a woman, and if you are you have not been traumatically assaulted.
Many women do not report, for many reasons. Many women have now stood up to explain why they have not.

She stood up now because she felt it was her civic duty to say something.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 08:20:37 AM
Two things have become abundantly clear:

1. Kavanaugh is not a good enough candidate for the Supreme Court. Even assuming he's entirely innocent of the accusations that have been made, the process has made it very clear that he can't reasonably be trusted to be impartial. There is no way he can ever be seen as a fair judge in any case involving the Democratic party. And if one of the senators on the panel ends up becoming President down the line - how on earth can Kavanaugh claim impartiality in that situation?

I'm not sure why you think it's clear that he can't be trusted to be impartial.  But it's certainly unreasonable for Democrats to treat him horribly and then claim that's a reason he's not fit.  If you are worried that hiding an allegation until the committee hearings are over, and then leaking them to the press and hashing them out publicly with a circus and also giving treating ridiculous accusations as credible on their face would prejudice a potential judge against you, maybe don't do that???  If democrats followed the process, this would be over by now and there wouldn't be this stink.  Not that there is really anything for the FBI to do for an allegation that doesn't provide a time or place or a corroborating witness, but it would have been included in the 6th background check they did.  Of course that tells you why they didn't follow the process.  They know it's a nothing burger if they follow the procedure, but if they engage in a cynical character assassination, it possibly lets them score enough political points that they can get a few vulnerable republican senators to vote against him. 


2. He's going to be confirmed anyway, because the Republican party is terrified that the Democrats will win the Senate in a few weeks and refuse to confirm any of Trump's picks. Why are they scared this will happen? Because it's exactly what they did with Merrick Garland. Reversing Roe v Wade has become the sole purpose of the entire Republican party: there is nothing they will not sell out in advancement of that goal, not even basic principles.

The Senate has another three months to get a nomination through and Kavanaugh is more or less interchangeable with other potential nominees (except that not all of them would have handled the process this well and be willing to fight) and his replacement would probably be better in the eyes of most republican voters.  Not as good as exchanging Harriet Meyers for Alito, but Kavanaugh for Amy Coney Barrett would probably be a trade most voters would like. 

The only reason to move forward with Kavanaugh is that letting it be successful would ensure that every future supreme court nominee (at least from the right) will have to face a last second character smear after the committee proceedings have wrapped up.  Why would democrats not do that if it's successful this time???  And how many good potential nominees would decline if they know they are going to be subjected to a character smear that will follow them forever.  There will be a significant minority of people in the country that go to their grave thinking Kavanaugh is a rapist and Thomas is guilty of sexual harassment, despite any lack of evidence.  For politicians looking at their next election, this is probably an ok tactice.  But for democrats as a whole, succeeding would be worse for them long term.  They'd not only likely end up with a justice that they hate more than Kavanaugh, they will also make it more likely that future nominees are partisan, because partisans who think they are fighting against an evil force in democrats will be more likely to put up with the process. 

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 08:20:52 AM
@hoping2retire35.  Dr Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault and attempted rape.  Period.  Whether you believe her testimony and the evidence available is up for everyone in this thread to opine on.

One thing that has been made clear from yesterday's hearings is a crime was committed.  Either Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault and/or attempted rape, or Ford is guilty of perjury.   Whichever one is true there are almost certainly other people involved who's sworn statements could be called into question. 

This would seem to warrant a full investigation.

Your missing another option.  They are both telling the truth and she got the person wrong.
No I am not.  She stated unequivocally that her attacker was Kavanaugh.  She said under questioning that she was '100% certain' and that there was no doubt.  She rejected claims that it could have been someone else.  It was an accusation against Kavanaugh under oath.

Or they are both telling the truth and he was too drunk to remember it.

If this is the case Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault and attempted rape.  A crime was still committed even if the defendant was 'too drunk' to remember it afterwards. 
That said, if that were the case Kavanaugh would still be guilty of perjury for saying he had never blacked out from drinking before.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 08:20:59 AM
@hoping2retire35.  Dr Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault and attempted rape.  Period.  Whether you believe her testimony and the evidence available is up for everyone in this thread to opine on.

One thing that has been made clear from yesterday's hearings is a crime was committed.  Either Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault and/or attempted rape, or Ford is guilty of perjury.   Whichever one is true there are almost certainly other people involved who's sworn statements could be called into question. 

This would seem to warrant a full investigation.

Your missing another option.  They are both telling the truth and she got the person wrong.

In the hypothetical situation where we could know with certainty that she has the wrong person, and considering that she claimed 100% certainty that it was Kavanaugh, would she be guilty of perjury? She would in effect be lying but honestly believe her lie and given the circumstances it's fairly well established that it would be possible for her to say this will no ill intent, but how would anyone but her know her intent?

ETA: In other words, does the 100% claim make a difference in terms of her committing perjury? This is a hypothetical that gets a bit off track so feel free to ignore. I'm just thinking that she could in fact theoretically be charged with perjury.

Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 08:21:15 AM
So the GOP line is Ford got assaulted...just not by Kavanaugh?

No, I think that as of right now the GOP line is that this whole thing is a liberal hit job, totally fabricated for political reasons.

And part of me kind of wishes that was true, because it would look like some kind of justice for the Merrick Garland debacle if it WAS just a purely partisan hit job.  They made no bones about scuttling Garland for partisan reasons, after all, so it would be delicious irony if liberals had returned the favor.  Sadly, this looks like an actual history of assault against multiple women who want to testify under oath, and nobody willing to defend him under oath, so the odds of it being a "sham" as Lindsey Graham claims are pretty slim.

I still think he'll be confirmed without so much as an investigation into these accusations.  They are not legally required to investigate.  Republicans have total control of two of the three branches of government, and they will use that control to take control of the third branch tomorrow.  Voters have no say.  Public opinion doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is McConnell holding together 51 republican senators despite today's testimonies, so he can basically say "We don't care if it's true or not, we're putting him on the SC anyway" and then it will happen, and nobody else can do a damn thing about it.

In the long run, the electoral consequences of that kind of abuse are probably detrimental to the GOP and to the country as a whole, but that's not exactly at the forefront of the thought processes right now.

The last statement is what I don't get all these guys just want to swing their power dicks but aren't thinking about the magnitude this could have on the future of their party.

I doubt it. Every Trump supporter on my FB feed has posted horrible things about women who accuse men of power and/or made jokes about sexual harassment and assault.

Is this what you are eluding to:

Every Trump supporter you know has posted horrible things about sexual harassment and assault therefore all Trump supporters are misogynists or worse?

Specifically, I meant that they believe this to be a liberal conspiracy, but that it wouldn't matter if it were true. Just this morning one posted that they are so proud of Trump and planning to vote for him in 2020. I don't know any of these repentant Trump voters you hear so much about.

But the ones who post actively on FB are indeed misogynistic, sadly even the single mother of two girls on the verge of womanhood.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 08:23:01 AM
Quote
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Sounds a lot like saying those who have nothing to hide shouldn't fear mass surveillance or warantless searches...

I don't really see how.

Mass surveillance is an invasion of privacy that is executed against everyone without cause.
Warrantless searches are an invasion of privacy that are executed on targeted individuals without cause.
An investigation of sexual allegations made against someone is an invasion of privacy of both the accuser and accused with cause.

Without an investigation, we have two people making claims and not enough evidence to make a judgement.  Investigating an accusation removes some of the 'he said/she said' and gives additional information that can only benefit the party telling the truth.  I've mentioned several times that I have no idea if the allegations are true or false.  Neither do you.  That's the purpose of an investigation . . . to shed some light on the issue and get a better understanding of what really happened.  Standing in the way of this only benefits the person who is lying.

Absolutely. If You or I were accused of an attack like this we would be investigated. Is it possible that the allegations were fabricated? Sure. Would our privacy therefore be unfairly invaded? Yep. What other way do you see around this predicament?

And I'd take it a step further. Anyone who would like to become a member of the Supreme Court has sacrificed a significant portion of their privacy. They are going to be one of the most powerful people in the country and have already submitted themselves to thorough background checks which if conducted on a random citizen without cause would also be an invasion of privacy.

You or I would not be investigated.  Police would take the alleged victim's statement and possibly just put it aside because a 36 year old allegation that doesn't name a time or place is going to be low priority.  But at most, the investigation would be less than what has already taken place in this case.  They would reach out to the people identified, and when every single person identified by the alleged victim denies any knowledge, including her lifelong friend, they would close the file.  What else could they do?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 08:24:46 AM
I was very busy at work yesterday and didn't follow along with this topic, but did catch up quickly just now and I spent last night reviewing the events of yesterday.

If you continue to support Kavanaugh's nomination at this point, then your motivations appear to be purely partisan, full stop.

His opening statement, his ridiculous answers to legitimate questions, his contradictions (arguing against testimony from Mark Judge, but then deflecting questions about Judge, saying in effect 'go ask him'), his outright lies (didn't watch Ford's testimony, oh but oops, WSJ reported that he did). His belligerence, his close-mindedness, his dismissal of an entire political party, his conspiracy theories about Clinton-backers out for revenge (dude, no one cares that you gave Clinton a much harder time than you are willing to endure, they just point it out now to fully reveal your hippocracy). None of this should be tolerated in a county judge, much less an appellate judge or supreme court judge. Irregardless of these allegations, this person is not fit for the SCOTUS.

He should have his nomination pulled, he should be impeached from the DC Circuit Court, he should have any law licenses revoked, and if he is appointed to SCOTUS, he should be impeached at the first opportunity. There is no argument that changes these realities.

Sure.  THe people skeptical of a 36 year old allegation with no corroborating evidence are the partisan ones.  Wanting to impeach him is just pure objectivity.  :eye roll:
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 08:25:18 AM
h2r35 has always seemed a decent poster to me, so I did a double take on their post and deemed it a sarcastic imaginative rendering of Republican thought processes.

Although probably more accurate than sarcastic.


Apologies. Apparently every word of my thoughts as expressed in my previous post was wrong.

I was also shocked by your post defending h2r.  Decent?  What did I miss?  I'm actually kind of surprised it took this long for h2r to show up in this thread.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 08:26:32 AM
I was very busy at work yesterday and didn't follow along with this topic, but did catch up quickly just now and I spent last night reviewing the events of yesterday.

If you continue to support Kavanaugh's nomination at this point, then your motivations appear to be purely partisan, full stop.

His opening statement, his ridiculous answers to legitimate questions, his contradictions (arguing against testimony from Mark Judge, but then deflecting questions about Judge, saying in effect 'go ask him'), his outright lies (didn't watch Ford's testimony, oh but oops, WSJ reported that he did). His belligerence, his close-mindedness, his dismissal of an entire political party, his conspiracy theories about Clinton-backers out for revenge (dude, no one cares that you gave Clinton a much harder time than you are willing to endure, they just point it out now to fully reveal your hippocracy). None of this should be tolerated in a county judge, much less an appellate judge or supreme court judge. Irregardless of these allegations, this person is not fit for the SCOTUS.

He should have his nomination pulled, he should be impeached from the DC Circuit Court, he should have any law licenses revoked, and if he is appointed to SCOTUS, he should be impeached at the first opportunity. There is no argument that changes these realities.

Sure.  THe people skeptical of a 36 year old allegation with no corroborating evidence are the partisan ones.  Wanting to impeach him is just pure objectivity.  :eye roll:

Most democrats (senate, or just part of the general population) are asking for an investigation. 
The judiciary committee is not allowing corroborating evidence to be heard. None of the supporting statements have been put under oath.  The FBI has not reviewed all involved parties, because they have not been allowed to.

Today a senator moved to subpoena Mark Judge. The motion did not carry.  Republicans won't LET others testify. What are they scared he will say? Because what he said to Fox News was not under oath, it could be a totally different story...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 08:29:46 AM
ok, something unpleasant happens to you, by someone, years ago.

That's pretty over the top, considering the "unpleasantness" is forcible confinement, reckless endangerment and attempted rape.

And the perpetrator wants one of the highest offices of the nation.

"Unpleasantness" indeed.  It's hard to take the rest of your post seriously if you characterize it that way.

Toque.

Exactly.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 08:30:08 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 08:34:08 AM
Most democrats (senate, or just part of the general population) are asking for an investigation. 
The judiciary committee is not allowing corroborating evidence to be heard. None of the supporting statements have been put under oath.  The FBI has not reviewed all involved parties, because they have not been allowed to.

Today a senator moved to subpoena Mark Judge. The motion did not carry.  Republicans won't LET others testify. What are they scared he will say? Because what he said to Fox News was not under oath, it could be a totally different story...

Hell, the ABA now supports a re-opening of the background check. You know, the group that gave Kavanugh a "well-qualified" designation and that Grassley and Kavanaugh kept mentioning yesterday.

And, yes, the wiki entry for "Devil's Triangle" was altered by someone in the US House.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 08:39:22 AM
Quote
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Sounds a lot like saying those who have nothing to hide shouldn't fear mass surveillance or warantless searches...

I don't really see how.

Mass surveillance is an invasion of privacy that is executed against everyone without cause.
Warrantless searches are an invasion of privacy that are executed on targeted individuals without cause.
An investigation of sexual allegations made against someone is an invasion of privacy of both the accuser and accused with cause.

Without an investigation, we have two people making claims and not enough evidence to make a judgement.  Investigating an accusation removes some of the 'he said/she said' and gives additional information that can only benefit the party telling the truth.  I've mentioned several times that I have no idea if the allegations are true or false.  Neither do you.  That's the purpose of an investigation . . . to shed some light on the issue and get a better understanding of what really happened.  Standing in the way of this only benefits the person who is lying.

Absolutely. If You or I were accused of an attack like this we would be investigated. Is it possible that the allegations were fabricated? Sure. Would our privacy therefore be unfairly invaded? Yep. What other way do you see around this predicament?

And I'd take it a step further. Anyone who would like to become a member of the Supreme Court has sacrificed a significant portion of their privacy. They are going to be one of the most powerful people in the country and have already submitted themselves to thorough background checks which if conducted on a random citizen without cause would also be an invasion of privacy.

You or I would not be investigated.  Police would take the alleged victim's statement and possibly just put it aside because a 36 year old allegation that doesn't name a time or place is going to be low priority.  But at most, the investigation would be less than what has already taken place in this case.  They would reach out to the people identified, and when every single person identified by the alleged victim denies any knowledge, including her lifelong friend, they would close the file.  What else could they do?

Fortunately, your view of how police fail to investigate and ignore rape victims is not borne out by evidence:

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/crime/2018/06/20/west-texas-priest-alleged-sexual-assault-child-during-confession-el-paso-church/716266002/ (https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/crime/2018/06/20/west-texas-priest-alleged-sexual-assault-child-during-confession-el-paso-church/716266002/)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91695&page=1 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91695&page=1)

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/05/19/priest-arrested-in-wisconsin-after-being-accused-of-abusing-altar-boy-at-least-100-times/ (https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/05/19/priest-arrested-in-wisconsin-after-being-accused-of-abusing-altar-boy-at-least-100-times/)

There are many, many instances where the police take an old sexual assault charge seriously, investigate it, and if enough evidence is found they press charges.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 08:39:58 AM
h2r35 has always seemed a decent poster to me, so I did a double take on their post and deemed it a sarcastic imaginative rendering of Republican thought processes.

Although probably more accurate than sarcastic.


Apologies. Apparently every word of my thoughts as expressed in my previous post was wrong.

I was also shocked by your post defending h2r.  Decent?  What did I miss?  I'm actually kind of surprised it took this long for h2r to show up in this thread.


I've obviously not been reading the right (wrong?) threads, or not adequately tracking individual posters.  My bad, apparently, that I couldn't believe something so vile was meant seriously.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 08:41:03 AM
Quote
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Sounds a lot like saying those who have nothing to hide shouldn't fear mass surveillance or warantless searches...

I don't really see how.

Mass surveillance is an invasion of privacy that is executed against everyone without cause.
Warrantless searches are an invasion of privacy that are executed on targeted individuals without cause.
An investigation of sexual allegations made against someone is an invasion of privacy of both the accuser and accused with cause.

Without an investigation, we have two people making claims and not enough evidence to make a judgement.  Investigating an accusation removes some of the 'he said/she said' and gives additional information that can only benefit the party telling the truth.  I've mentioned several times that I have no idea if the allegations are true or false.  Neither do you.  That's the purpose of an investigation . . . to shed some light on the issue and get a better understanding of what really happened.  Standing in the way of this only benefits the person who is lying.

Absolutely. If You or I were accused of an attack like this we would be investigated. Is it possible that the allegations were fabricated? Sure. Would our privacy therefore be unfairly invaded? Yep. What other way do you see around this predicament?

And I'd take it a step further. Anyone who would like to become a member of the Supreme Court has sacrificed a significant portion of their privacy. They are going to be one of the most powerful people in the country and have already submitted themselves to thorough background checks which if conducted on a random citizen without cause would also be an invasion of privacy.

You or I would not be investigated. Police would take the alleged victim's statement and possibly just put it aside because a 36 year old allegation that doesn't name a time or place is going to be low priority.  But at most, the investigation would be less than what has already taken place in this case.  They would reach out to the people identified, and when every single person identified by the alleged victim denies any knowledge, including her lifelong friend, they would close the file.  What else could they do?

Actually, you might be right here. But not because it would be against our rights to privacy, rather because the resources to follow up would be unjustified. In a high profile case such as this, the resources spent on an investigation would be well worth it.

Also, this doesn't counter the second point that a nominee has already given up this level of privacy.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on September 28, 2018, 08:42:57 AM
Just let the investigation begin. Kavanaugh should have expected the mess.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 08:43:43 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 08:51:36 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 08:52:27 AM
Surely if there's so much research on it, someobdy can point to a study, provide the definition they are using, and give the numbers? 

That has been done, just for you, multiple times now.  Why do you keep asking for the same information you've already been provided?  Are you deliberately ignoring it?
  No, a bunch of crap studies that are self referential back to the same BS claims have been provided.  It shouldn't be that hard to find the study that looks at actual incidents of rape and/or sexual assault, provide the definition used, and then the prevalence among different groups.  I'm not going to pour through the crap studies to try to find one that's legitimate.  If it's so well established by research, then it should be easy enough to find a study showing it that doesn't rely on sleight of hand. 

Bumping b/c I'm still curious if a study exists to back this argument up. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 08:56:40 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.
Not to be partisan(but maybe this is what is leading to the disagreement) but what would come from or even lead to an investigation? A page and reply from the last 14 pages? My point being, one of them without a doubt, is guilty of perjury, but which one? How do we know?

I believe she has the greater burden of proof and therefore he can quite easily sue her. It doesn't criminally prove anything one way or the other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.c2e5e6523886

It has been months since Ford decided her story was relevant yet, she has not asked for the investigation.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 09:01:04 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.
Not to be partisan(but maybe this is what is leading to the disagreement) but what would come from or even lead to an investigation? A page and reply from the last 14 pages? My point being, one of them without a doubt, is guilty of perjury, but which one? How do we know?

I believe she has the greater burden of proof and therefore he can quite easily sue her. It doesn't criminally prove anything one way or the other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.c2e5e6523886

It has been months since Ford decided her story was relevant yet, she has not asked for the investigation.

She has asked repeatedly for an investigation. Originally she wanted one as a condition to testify, but relented when it was clear an investigation would not be called for.

Where the heck are you getting your information from?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 09:15:29 AM
It has been months since Ford decided her story was relevant yet, she has not asked for the investigation.

You're clearly not following the news, because this is false.  Ford has been asking for an investigation since the outset.  She tried to make it a precondition for her testimony, but the republicans refused and threatened to vote to confirm without allowing her to testify.

I think it's telling that every republican is refusing to stall even three or four days in order to let an investigation happen, and then claiming "this has never been about truth" like Graham just did.  It IS about truth!  That's why there should be an investigation, to help find the truth!  How can anyone claim democrats are smearing Brett Kavanaugh's good name when all they are asking for is that the FBI be allowed to investigate, to find the turth , while republicans are pretending to be indignant while refusing to allow an investigation at all.

One side is asking for truth and the other side is trying to cover it up.  The republicans want to conceal the truth and vote to confirm despite the allegations, and yet they're accusing democrats of tearing the country apart.  What harm would a few days of delay cause, if you were really interested in clearing his name?  Why rush through while still under this cloud?  If he's innocent, let the FBI document why.

You think democrats have executed a cravenly partisan plan to delay the confirmation until after the next election, even though they're only asking for a week's delay, tops?  Does that cravenly partisan accusation maybe remind anyone in Congress of the republican's history with Merrick Garland?  At least Kavanaugh has a real reason to ask for a few meager days of delay.  With Garland, they stalled for over a year based on absolutely nothing.  So maybe don't complain too much about that one?

Most telling in yesterday's testimony, for me, was Kavanaugh's impassioned pleas of "I'm innocent!  I'm telling the truth! " immediately followed by senators asking him "do you support an investigation into these matters to clear your name" and then he fidgets uncomfortably while refusing to say yes (https://youtu.be/QbJgtZbU8LU?t=577).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Aelias on September 28, 2018, 09:18:40 AM
I had a guy in college try to get me very drunk to have sex with me.  I sure as fuck remember who it was.  With 100% certainty.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner on September 28, 2018, 09:22:59 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening.  I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 09:28:19 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

Yes, but it's so unlikely as to be ignored. It's also far less likely than forgetting an event that occurred 36 years ago. One "memory" is reinforced every day while the other becomes more distant, an odd choice for comparison. Even so I see an extremely small chance that she is mistaken, perhaps also small enough to be ignored.

Let's be clear, I'm not trying to cast doubt on her statements, just commenting on the notion of "100% certainty". It's debatable whether such a thing even exists but this isn't the place for that debate so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 09:29:17 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 09:30:42 AM
Surely if there's so much research on it, someobdy can point to a study, provide the definition they are using, and give the numbers? 

That has been done, just for you, multiple times now.  Why do you keep asking for the same information you've already been provided?  Are you deliberately ignoring it?
  No, a bunch of crap studies that are self referential back to the same BS claims have been provided.  It shouldn't be that hard to find the study that looks at actual incidents of rape and/or sexual assault, provide the definition used, and then the prevalence among different groups.  I'm not going to pour through the crap studies to try to find one that's legitimate.  If it's so well established by research, then it should be easy enough to find a study showing it that doesn't rely on sleight of hand. 

Bumping b/c I'm still curious if a study exists to back this argument up.

Please see the dozens of referenced studies mentioned by Gin and me.  They would be the ones that you called 'crap studies' and dismissed out of hand.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OurTown on September 28, 2018, 09:38:03 AM
Okay, yesterday was pretty disgusting.  If I acted that way in a courtroom, I would be held in contempt.  He was belligerent and evasive.  Whatever you think of the allegations, yesterday's performance alone was disqualifying. 

He reminded me of some of our clients.  When we prep someone for a depo, we tell him/her to stay calm, play it straight, answer the question presented, tell the truth, don't be evasive, and don't argue with the other lawyer.  Same goes for in court testimony, even more so, with the added caveat of showing respect for the court (i.e. the judge).  Every now and then, despite our preparation, the client goes ape shit during testimony.  That's what I saw yesterday with Kav.  People who behave that way during testimony absolutely destroy their own credibility.

And don't tell me that's how a "man" is supposed to act because he is a "fighter."  Bullshit.  He's a coward.  A real man owns up to his mistakes.  He was too afraid to "man up."  Kav doesn't have the proper demeanor to be a competent attorney, much less a judge.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 09:38:46 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening.  I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

This is not what I was getting at, not at all. She actually has a fairly detailed memory of the events and the things she does not remember are exactly the type of things no one would remember. I think her testimony is highly credible.

Why would you believe she was raped, even she doesn't think that? Are you paying attention to the story or just jumping in with some loosely founded opinions?

To everyone claiming 100% certainty of any memories, we have different definitions of 100%. Let's leave it at that or start a new thread.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 28, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

Which side is politicizing this process again? (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17912102/feinstein-christine-blasey-ford-letter-leak)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 09:41:05 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

This particular party was extraordinarily remarkable for Dr. Ford. She was assaulted, during which she feared she would be killed. It wasn't just some random party.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: turketron on September 28, 2018, 09:43:28 AM
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: charis on September 28, 2018, 09:43:45 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

I remember a house party as an older teen (much more recently than incident at issue) when the police arrived. I did not know the location, the exact year, who the house belonged to, how I got there, where I went after, or how I got home. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 09:45:34 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening.  I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I went to my wedding in a car that belonged to my Dad's friend. I couldn't tell you the make, model, or color.  I have no idea how I got home (that was after my honeymoon). I know we went to the airport the next day but I don't know if someone I knew drove me or if we took the hotel shuttle. Of course I can tell you the date, but I couldn't tell you the time of my wedding or reception. I have no idea what time we left the reception.  My Dad wore a tux, but I don't know if it had a cumberbund or a vest. I have NO idea what my vows were, except they were the standard Catholic ones, and I think we went with "honor" over "obey", maybe it was "cherish". IDK. I don't have any clue what the readings I picked were, the gospel was from Matthew. Some details are very clear, like Ford's ability to know her attacker; others didn't stick- as you mentioned there were many parties. The location of the party wasn't super important to her; the action that happened during it was.
(I should also note, I did not drink at my wedding, and rarely do drink at all.)

The events that Ford presented and Kavanaugh presented differ. An INVESTIGATION could help clear that up.  Republicans will not let that investigation happen.
Sworn testimony from other named parties might help. Republicans won't let that be heard.
An investigation could clear Kavanaugh, or make it clear that there isn't enough information to tell.  So why not have one?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on September 28, 2018, 09:46:38 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

Yes, but it's so unlikely as to be ignored. It's also far less likely than forgetting an event that occurred 36 years ago. One "memory" is reinforced every day while the other becomes more distant, an odd choice for comparison. Even so I see an extremely small chance that she is mistaken, perhaps also small enough to be ignored.

Let's be clear, I'm not trying to cast doubt on her statements, just commenting on the notion of "100% certainty". It's debatable whether such a thing even exists but this isn't the place for that debate so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

I was the victim of attempted rape in college, 30 years ago.  I don't remember the exact date or even the exact dorm room, but I can guarantee 100% I will never forget who the hell it was or my feelings of shame when I reported it and the university acted like it was my fault and refused to do anything.  I've been reliving it as I'm sure many other people have been lately. 

That we have gone this far is sad and disgraceful.  Kavanaugh has shown himself to be an angry partisan who will lie over anything.  He could not answer a single freaking question. He refused to say he wanted an FBI investigation.  It's telling that when Rachel Mitchell started questioning him on an entry in his calendar that showed the parties named by Dr. Ford drinking beer on a Thursday in July he stumbled.  Lindsey Graham stepped in and Rachel Mitchell did not ask another question.  Republicans lit themselves on fire with this issue, it's possible they put the Senate in play. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 09:48:35 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

Yes, but it's so unlikely as to be ignored. It's also far less likely than forgetting an event that occurred 36 years ago. One "memory" is reinforced every day while the other becomes more distant, an odd choice for comparison. Even so I see an extremely small chance that she is mistaken, perhaps also small enough to be ignored.

Let's be clear, I'm not trying to cast doubt on her statements, just commenting on the notion of "100% certainty". It's debatable whether such a thing even exists but this isn't the place for that debate so I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

Trauma, for many victims, IS reinforced daily.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 09:49:27 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

This particular party was extraordinarily remarkable for Dr. Ford. She was assaulted, during which she feared she would be killed. It wasn't just some random party.

Yes. That is true. But it was "some random party" until that moment. That is my point. As was the party I mentioned above. The actual assault was extraordinarily remarkable. That is what she remembered. Which is completely reasonable.

I remember the first time I was physically assaulted by a man. I remember the scene in vivid detail. I remember who it was. I remember exactly what happened. I do not remember the date. I do not remember the precise address. I do not remember how I got home afterward. I do not remember what I did afterward for the rest of the day. I do not remember what I was doing immediately before it happened -- because up until that extraordinarily remarkable moment, the day was unremarkable.

Are you saying that I was not physically assaulted because I do not remember those details? Because that's what you seem to be arguing about Ford.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 09:52:57 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

This particular party was extraordinarily remarkable for Dr. Ford. She was assaulted, during which she feared she would be killed. It wasn't just some random party.

Yes. That is true. But it was "some random party" until that moment. That is my point. As was the party I mentioned above. The actual assault was extraordinarily remarkable. That is what she remembered. Which is completely reasonable.

I remember the first time I was physically assaulted by a man. I remember the scene in vivid detail. I remember who it was. I remember exactly what happened. I do not remember the date. I do not remember the precise address. I do not remember how I got home afterward. I do not remember what I did afterward for the rest of the day. I do not remember what I was doing immediately before it happened -- because up until that extraordinarily remarkable moment, the day was unremarkable.

Are you saying that I was not physically assaulted because I do not remember those details? Because that's what you seem to be arguing about Ford.

I'm sorry Kris, in the large quoting, I seem to have gotten mixed up who was saying what. You and I are arguing the same point. I 100% do not doubt Dr. Ford's memory. I think it is not at all unusual that she remembers what she does, and that she does not remember the details she does not remember.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 09:55:23 AM
Taking a step back I think she is intelligent enough to know that she isn't 100% certain as no one's memory is perfectly infallible, even when it comes to significant errors like this would be if she was wrong. She may actually feel she is 99.999% certain but to say so would have invited more doubt and would be a huge mistake considering all eyes are on her and everyone is looking for even the slightest chink in her armor.


Let me try this one: let's say someone has been married 36 years.  Do you think that their memory of the person they married would be fallible?

Some things are unarguable.  Dr Ford's memory of Kavanaugh's attempted rape appears to me to be one of them, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

I got married 14 years ago.  I don't remember all the details of the wedding.  I do know with 100% certainty the name of the person I married.  But I see him daily, so maybe that counts.  I know with 100% certainty the name of all 5 of my bridesmaids, many of whom I have not seen in more than a decade.

I was in first grade about 30 years ago. I don't remember very many details of it. I know with 100% certainty the name we called the teacher.

Being raped by someone you know is a similar thing you do not forget; I believe her if she says with 100% certainty she knows the identity of the man who raped her.

And I'm sure you remember how you got to your wedding, where it was, how you got home from your wedding, the date of the event, the YEAR of the event, what you father wore, and the people in your wedding will confirm that it happened......

Personally, I believe Dr. Ford was raped and drugged at that party.  It is the only thing that makes sense of her blatant lack of memory on many events of the evening. I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

Democrats have openly stated that they want to stall the vote until after the midterms, and then leave the seat open hoping they win in 2020.
Video. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-10/kavanaugh-pick-kicks-off-long-shot-bid-by-democrats-to-block-him)


On what grounds would we not believe that is their motivations?

I completely disagree. One's wedding -- a remarkable, hopefully once in a lifetime event the details of which are planned out meticulously for months or longer -- is quite different from one otherwise unremarkable party among many in a young person's life. I certainly can't remember the details of how many parties I went to in high school, or exactly where they were, etc. They all totally blur together in those details.

I am exactly Ford's age. I remember one party when I was probably the age she was when the events occurred. It was a party where I was offered marijuana for the first time, by an older guy who almost certainly was trying to get me high in order to take advantage of me. Thankfully, I was sober enough and had my wits about me enough to decline and to get out of there. I remember him, very well. I remember that conversation, very well. But I do not remember the address of the party, or the date of the party, or how I got there, or who I had gotten there with, or how I got home.

That does not mean it didn't happen. It means that those details were unremarkable.

This particular party was extraordinarily remarkable for Dr. Ford. She was assaulted, during which she feared she would be killed. It wasn't just some random party.

Yes. That is true. But it was "some random party" until that moment. That is my point. As was the party I mentioned above. The actual assault was extraordinarily remarkable. That is what she remembered. Which is completely reasonable.

I remember the first time I was physically assaulted by a man. I remember the scene in vivid detail. I remember who it was. I remember exactly what happened. I do not remember the date. I do not remember the precise address. I do not remember how I got home afterward. I do not remember what I did afterward for the rest of the day. I do not remember what I was doing immediately before it happened -- because up until that extraordinarily remarkable moment, the day was unremarkable.

Are you saying that I was not physically assaulted because I do not remember those details? Because that's what you seem to be arguing about Ford.

I'm sorry Kris, in the large quoting, I seem to have gotten mixed up who was saying what. You and I are arguing the same point. I 100% do not doubt Dr. Ford's memory. I think it is not at all unusual that she remembers what she does, and that she does not remember the details she does not remember.

Okay, yes, that's what I was trying to figure out, as well.

Texasrunner, however, would seem to believe that I was not physically assaulted by the person I remember being physically assaulted by, because I can't remember every detail before and after the event.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 09:57:15 AM
Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.

One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.

We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.

An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes

A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.

Democrats see this a part of a problem among ...rich, white dudes getting away with more crimes. Republicans see this instance as either; political opportunism or something we will never know. In the first instance, confirm him now, but in the second instance what do you do?

I have been, with red hot anger, following the Catholic abuse stuff. I certainly will not be giving money to the RCC anytime soon. They paid money in settlements, an admission of guilt, on many occasions. There was an overwhelming amount of allegations, without priestly disciple(nevermind lacization or excommunication). The top leadership has lied, and apparently still are, about what they knew. Horrendous. Yet I still would not vilify an individual priest criminally or even socially without some amount of credibility to the accusations.

Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof. If there was a police report from 1987 saying he got rough with his girlfriend at the time, then that is it, he is out, period. But nothing exists. Bring on the investigation, but I don't see us finding anything, so be it let's do it anyways. He could be an awful SOB, but we, at this point, are unlikely to find that out.

'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.

So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.

So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 09:59:39 AM
So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.

You're right. It's murky.

How 'bout we have an investigation?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 28, 2018, 10:00:01 AM
I'm asking the question to determine what the posters on this board think about guilt.  Whether or not he is qualified for the position is not the purpose of my question.  I can already see that most posters here feel he isn't qualified.

I think there has been a strong thread of thinking that the testimony is very credible and should be investigated by the FBI, not a partisan committee who has not conducted interviews with enough people to have done it thoroughly.

Nobody is saying he isn't qualified in the legal sense. Many are saying that he is not appropriate in the moral, temperament, or partisan (as in, he is gratuitously partisan) sense.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 10:00:30 AM

So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty?

I found his testimony to be much less credible than his accusers. 

However, I think the fact that those in power refuse an investigation certainly says something.  An investigation can clear someone- why would they not want to do that?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: turketron on September 28, 2018, 10:01:31 AM
Repeating my question for Texasrunner from the other page, but I'm curious what h2r35 says as well:
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

Set aside the entire assault allegation. He's lied under oath about multiple things that have been corroborated by multiple parties besides Dr. Ford. How is this acceptable for a candidate to the Supreme Court?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 10:03:50 AM
Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.

One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.

We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.

An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes

A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.

Democrats see this a part of a problem among ...rich, white dudes getting away with more crimes. Republicans see this instance as either; political opportunism or something we will never know. In the first instance, confirm him now, but in the second instance what do you do?

I have been, with red hot anger, following the Catholic abuse stuff. I certainly will not be giving money to the RCC anytime soon. They paid money in settlements, an admission of guilt, on many occasions. There was an overwhelming amount of allegations, without priestly disciple(nevermind lacization or excommunication). The top leadership has lied, and apparently still are, about what they knew. Horrendous. Yet I still would not vilify an individual priest criminally or even socially without some amount of credibility to the accusations.

Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof. If there was a police report from 1987 saying he got rough with his girlfriend at the time, then that is it, he is out, period. But nothing exists. Bring on the investigation, but I don't see us finding anything, so be it let's do it anyways. He could be an awful SOB, but we, at this point, are unlikely to find that out.

'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.

So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.

So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.

I don't think you understand the meaning of "proof" or "evidence".  Sworn testimony is evidence.  The demeanour of a person giving sworn testimony is evidence.  Written statements from the time in question and from a number of years ago are corroborating evidence.

To say that there is no evidence, no "proof" against Kavanaugh is a dirty lie.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 10:04:38 AM
Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.

One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.

We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.

An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes

A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.

Democrats see this a part of a problem among ...rich, white dudes getting away with more crimes. Republicans see this instance as either; political opportunism or something we will never know. In the first instance, confirm him now, but in the second instance what do you do?

I have been, with red hot anger, following the Catholic abuse stuff. I certainly will not be giving money to the RCC anytime soon. They paid money in settlements, an admission of guilt, on many occasions. There was an overwhelming amount of allegations, without priestly disciple(nevermind lacization or excommunication). The top leadership has lied, and apparently still are, about what they knew. Horrendous. Yet I still would not vilify an individual priest criminally or even socially without some amount of credibility to the accusations.

Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof. If there was a police report from 1987 saying he got rough with his girlfriend at the time, then that is it, he is out, period. But nothing exists. Bring on the investigation, but I don't see us finding anything, so be it let's do it anyways. He could be an awful SOB, but we, at this point, are unlikely to find that out.

'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.

So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.

So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty? Politicians want power, the media want stories ergo money, and everyone else....their piece of political candy and they know it will be a little less with his confirmation.

After yesterday's testimony, it is irrelevant. He clearly knows what to say "I don't blame Dr. Ford," but not what it means to not blame her "I do blame everyone who took her accusation into consideration."

He said the process was a circus. Yes, it was. A circus that his cronies rigged in his favor by having a prosecutor question his accuser at every chance, but barely letting her approach him. A circus because they insisted on this farse without an investigation. And then Flake goes and makes some damn fool comment about due process? Please. Due process involves fact finding, which takes time.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malaysia41 on September 28, 2018, 10:05:00 AM
Repeating my question for Texasrunner from the other page, but I'm curious what h2r35 says as well:
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

Set aside the entire assault allegation. He's lied under oath about multiple things that have been corroborated by multiple parties besides Dr. Ford. How is this acceptable for a candidate to the Supreme Court?
Yes. Plus, consider the vile hatefully partisan comments he made in his testimony yesterday. How is that conduct at all in line with what we'd expect of a SCOTUS appointee?

This isn't a criminal trial, it's a job interview. How anyone can think he's passed it is beyond me.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 10:06:45 AM
Quote from: newsweek
“For 12 years, everyone who has appeared before me on the D.C. Circuit has praised my judicial temperament,” said Kavanaugh Thursday evening. “That’s why I have the unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association.”

Quote from: ABA President
“The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less than a careful examination of the accusations and facts by the FBI.”

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 10:07:38 AM
Quote
If I was facing a bunch of serious allegations that I know are patently false, the first thing I'd be pushing for is to get someone to investigate.  The investigation would clear my name and show the people making claims for the liars they are . . . especially if they're all easily dismissed bullshit claims.

I'd be really angry and want to do everything possible to stop the investigation if I had something to hide though.

I don't know what Kavenaugh has to hide (the allegations may not be true, he just may be hiding some other dark secret) . . . but he's certainly acting like someone guilty of something.

Sounds a lot like saying those who have nothing to hide shouldn't fear mass surveillance or warantless searches...

I don't really see how.

Mass surveillance is an invasion of privacy that is executed against everyone without cause.
Warrantless searches are an invasion of privacy that are executed on targeted individuals without cause.
An investigation of sexual allegations made against someone is an invasion of privacy of both the accuser and accused with cause.

Without an investigation, we have two people making claims and not enough evidence to make a judgement.  Investigating an accusation removes some of the 'he said/she said' and gives additional information that can only benefit the party telling the truth.  I've mentioned several times that I have no idea if the allegations are true or false.  Neither do you.  That's the purpose of an investigation . . . to shed some light on the issue and get a better understanding of what really happened.  Standing in the way of this only benefits the person who is lying.

Absolutely. If You or I were accused of an attack like this we would be investigated. Is it possible that the allegations were fabricated? Sure. Would our privacy therefore be unfairly invaded? Yep. What other way do you see around this predicament?

And I'd take it a step further. Anyone who would like to become a member of the Supreme Court has sacrificed a significant portion of their privacy. They are going to be one of the most powerful people in the country and have already submitted themselves to thorough background checks which if conducted on a random citizen without cause would also be an invasion of privacy.

You or I would not be investigated.  Police would take the alleged victim's statement and possibly just put it aside because a 36 year old allegation that doesn't name a time or place is going to be low priority.  But at most, the investigation would be less than what has already taken place in this case.  They would reach out to the people identified, and when every single person identified by the alleged victim denies any knowledge, including her lifelong friend, they would close the file.  What else could they do?

Fortunately, your view of how police fail to investigate and ignore rape victims is not borne out by evidence:

https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/crime/2018/06/20/west-texas-priest-alleged-sexual-assault-child-during-confession-el-paso-church/716266002/ (https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/crime/2018/06/20/west-texas-priest-alleged-sexual-assault-child-during-confession-el-paso-church/716266002/)


https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91695&page=1 (https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91695&page=1)


https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/05/19/priest-arrested-in-wisconsin-after-being-accused-of-abusing-altar-boy-at-least-100-times/ (https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2018/05/19/priest-arrested-in-wisconsin-after-being-accused-of-abusing-altar-boy-at-least-100-times/)

There are many, many instances where the police take an old sexual assault charge seriously, investigate it, and if enough evidence is found they press charges.

Well, one of the ones you cited involved a confession.  One involved somebody who participated in a NAMBLA meeting, and all involved people with known relationships to the victim in question.  That's a little different investigation than "Here's what happened but I don't know where or when, nobody can confirm that I was ever in the same room as the alleged perpetrator, and I can't provide any details that could be corroborated, like how I got to or from the party, a contemporaneous discussion with a third party about the events, etc." 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 10:08:00 AM
Set aside the entire assault allegation. He's lied under oath about multiple things that have been corroborated by multiple parties

Hell, let's set aside the assault allegations and the perjury, what about his gambling problem?  Or his drinking problem? 

How about we set those aside too.  What about his failure to report his former boss (now resigned in disgrace) for sexual harassment in the workplace, which he has admitted to witnessing?

The man is a walking shitshow as a judicial nominee.  I can only think of one successful candidate for high office with a worse record for personal conduct and character, but that's the man who nominated him.

The committee will vote to confirm Kavanaugh in approximately 90 minutes.  America, Fuck Yea!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 10:09:42 AM
Surely if there's so much research on it, someobdy can point to a study, provide the definition they are using, and give the numbers? 

That has been done, just for you, multiple times now.  Why do you keep asking for the same information you've already been provided?  Are you deliberately ignoring it?
  No, a bunch of crap studies that are self referential back to the same BS claims have been provided.  It shouldn't be that hard to find the study that looks at actual incidents of rape and/or sexual assault, provide the definition used, and then the prevalence among different groups.  I'm not going to pour through the crap studies to try to find one that's legitimate.  If it's so well established by research, then it should be easy enough to find a study showing it that doesn't rely on sleight of hand. 

Bumping b/c I'm still curious if a study exists to back this argument up.

Please see the dozens of referenced studies mentioned by Gin and me.  They would be the ones that you called 'crap studies' and dismissed out of hand.
  If they're not crap studies, surely you can point to a definition of sexual assault and/or rape and the number of incidents per that definition? 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 10:16:19 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay.  It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner on September 28, 2018, 10:19:26 AM
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

He admitted several times that he and all of his friends drank in High School...?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 10:20:36 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay.  It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.


Are you referring to the work of the committee chairman's staff?  Who are not law enforcement officers, who are not trained investigators and who are not politically neutral?

In no way is what they did equivalent to what the FBI would do.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 10:20:54 AM
Trying to break this down to see if I can make some more sense of it.

One of the highest levels of political appointments are in question.

We want to know every possible, remotely tangible, thing about the person. This we all agree.

No.  We don't all agree about this.

The Republican party has fought as hard as possible to prevent people from knowing as much as possible about Kavenaugh.  They refused to release documents about his time with the Bush administration, and they refuse to allow an investigation into the sex assault allegations.

That's kinda the biggest problem with this whole farce of a confirmation proceeding.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 28, 2018, 10:21:02 AM


'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

Do you seriously think that every potential republican nominee to the supreme Court could have credible accusations of attempted rape brought against them?  I'm concerned for why you would think that...


Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 28, 2018, 10:21:13 AM
Imagine this, for a moment.

Imagine if Dr. Ford refused to answer direct yes or no questions. Imagine if Dr. Ford yelled "let me finish" at Senators while filibustering their 5 minute time windows with drawn out stories of irrelevance. Imagine if a Democratic Senator burst into a screaming fit, raging at the Republican Senators and said "Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham." Imagine if Dr. Ford dodged questions about further investigation. Imagine if Dr. Ford did not want other material witnesses present at the hearing.

Imagine if Judge Kavanaugh was calm and professional and respectful. Imagine if Judge Kavanaugh answered questions clearly, respectfully, and without deliberate distraction. Imagine if Judge Kavanaugh advised he would welcome an FBI investigation in order to clear his name. Imagine if Judge Kavanaugh expressed dismay that his close personal friend and alleged witness to the incident in question was not present in order to testify under oath.

Now tell me if the result of this "investigation" would have been any different.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 28, 2018, 10:22:04 AM


'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

Do you seriously think that every potential republican nominee to the supreme Court could have credible accusations of attempted rape brought against them?  I'm concerned for why you would think that...


Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Seems h2r is under the impression that every guy in society has attempted to rape someone at one point or another.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: turketron on September 28, 2018, 10:23:07 AM
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

He admitted several times that he and all of his friends drank in High School...?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2018/09/25/ea5e50d4-c0eb-11e8-9005-5104e9616c21_story.html?utm_term=.124555ba81f2&noredirect=on
https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/another-yale-classmate-extremely-disappointed-by-kavanaugh.html

Quote
“I watched the whole hearing, and a number of my Yale colleagues and I were extremely disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh’s characterization of himself and the way that he evaded his excessive drinking questions. There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember. In fact, I would witness to the night that he got tapped into that fraternity, and he was stumbling drunk in a ridiculous costume saying really dumb things. I can almost guarantee that there’s no way that he remembers that night … There were a lot of emails and a lot of texts flying around about how he was lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee today.”
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 10:24:01 AM
I do not believe Kavanaugh did it, though I do believe that he partied in High School (So What?).

So what? How about because he's lied about the partying, under oath, repeatedly? With corroborating evidence from other classmates, not just Dr. Ford.

He admitted several times that he and all of his friends drank in High School...?

He also earlier said in the proceedings that he didn't ever remember getting blackout drunk.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 10:27:10 AM

An allegation is made (essentially unprovable, in any form (criminal, simply opinion or otherwise)). It happen a very long time ago. They were essentially kids. Definitely drunk....three strikes

A few more allegations are made, none of which seem to be provable.

Kavanaugh has had similar accusations. All seem to be without proof.


It is the points bolded above that I disagree with.  They certainly could be proven, but it is possible they will remain unresolved.  That possibility should not preclude us from trying to do whatever we can to ascertain the truth.

Quote
If there are 100 accusers then there should be at least a few police reports. If there 3-4 accusations either they are lying or he has 3 times where he lost control of himself.
The victims of sexual assault rarely report, and sexual predators tend to prey on people who are least likely to report - younger, shy, etc.
I abhor the term 'lost control of himself' as a description of sexual assault. Once is not ok.  Think about how absurd a defense it would be for a person who had robbed three banks to say "I lost control of myself - this isn't me". 


Quote
So there a couple of accusations for which we have no idea what is correct. Then there is an overwhelming body of evidence that his is a good and decent person. If it turns out that after all of this he is Bill Cosby pt 2 he can be impeached. He is not being elected to dictator for life. Republicans don't want the stain of a sexual harasser on their hands.
If he is confirmed, there is every expectation that he will sit as a justice for at least a quarter century. Impeachment carries a much higher standard than appointment, ergo it would be much harder to impeach than confirm.
What frustrates me most is that this appointment is likely going to be generational, and the GOP will control the senate and WH for at least three more months.  The argument that we need to get this done now is entirely political.  If it were only political that would be ok, but now this is an issue of jurisprudence.  As a matter of law, it is only proper to investigate direct criminal accusations made before appointing someone to a lifetime position, especially when that person will then be making decisions about how our judicial system functions.

Quote
So back to my question, why is everyone adamant he is guilty?
I wrote about this in detail about two pages back. In short his conduct at this hearing was disqualifying to me, even if one ignored these accusations entirely. No one has a right to be on SCOTUS, it is both an honor and priviledge to serve, yet Kavanaugh's entire attitude was about how he deserved to be on the court, how unfair these proceedings were for him, and how he despised the democratic Senators for doing the things which were clearly in their purview under the constitution and previous precedent.

That said, I found Dr Ford credible and it is particularly noteworthy to me that she has volunteered to be investigated, polygraphed, interviewed, cross examined.  In sharp contrast, Kavanaugh complained loudly about the hearings, did not invite further investigation, and views the entire process as insulting. He absolutely refused to answer several direct questions and 'ran out the clock' - choosing instead to repeat how qualified he was for the job (which has never been a matter of contention).  His supporters did not allow other witnesses to testify either to corroborate or to provide exculpatory testimony.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 10:27:19 AM


'But this is the highest court in the land, they should be beyond reproach', well, if this is the best we have against him, he should be confirmed. Democrats can find someone to do this for Every. Single. Nominee.

Do you seriously think that every potential republican nominee to the supreme Court could have credible accusations of attempted rape brought against them?  I'm concerned for why you would think that...


Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Certainly, no democrat was happy about the Gorsuch nomination.  There were no rape allegations brought against him.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on September 28, 2018, 10:32:09 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 10:36:19 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

I think this is the heart of it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez on September 28, 2018, 10:42:19 AM
The difference between an FBI investigation and anything else is that it's a crime to lie to the FBI. Also, I'm sure they have access to much more information and databases than any newspaper or private investigator. Private and govt positions routinely go through very thorough vetting procedures. In certain jobs they specifically ask previous aquaintances about your character. Nothing in these hearings is out of bounds for determining the next justice who will likely decide cases and fates of millions of Americans for the next 20-30 years.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 10:46:16 AM
The difference between an FBI investigation and anything else is that it's a crime to lie to the FBI. Also, I'm sure they have access to much more information and databases than any newspaper or private investigator.

Yup. This is why Kavanaugh, Trump, and the GOP refuse to allow an investigation. Because Kavanaugh's whole confirmation rests on a bed of lies. So he'd have to commit a serious federal crime if the FBI investigates. And he would almost certainly be found out.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 10:47:07 AM
The difference between an FBI investigation and anything else is that it's a crime to lie to the FBI. Also, I'm sure they have access to much more information and databases than any newspaper or private investigator.

Right. It's telling that the accused doesn't want an investigation.


(Wow, Booker can talk. Yield already!)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 10:48:13 AM
The difference between an FBI investigation and anything else is that it's a crime to lie to the FBI. Also, I'm sure they have access to much more information and databases than any newspaper or private investigator.

Right. It's telling that the accused doesn't want an investigation.


(Wow, Booker can talk. Yield already!)

LOL! Everything Booker says these days is a campaign speech. So, yeah.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 10:51:50 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 10:53:36 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

McConnell carried out a very high risk political maneuver that is going to further make nominations difficult.  But he basically Borked him without the character assassination and while protecting vulnerable republicans from having to vote against him.  That was bad and a further breakdown of our political process, but again, it was basically a variation of Borking.  It wasn't some massive departure of norms.  Just another tit for tat. 

There is a massive difference between that and carrying out underhanded political tricks to engage in a character assassination.  If Democrats had actually wanted an FBI investigation rather than just to try to delay the nomination by any means possible, it would have been done way before now.  If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 10:57:15 AM
If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?

How do you figure?  Feinstein has been calling for an investigation for weeks.  Republicans have been refusing.  Do you want an investigation, or not?  Keep in mind it would stall the vote by about a week, still well before the upcoming election

As for "getting what they want" I still think Kav will be confirmed, without an investigation, despite these credible allegations and without offering any serious defense for his behavior.  That doesn't look like "getting what they want" to me at all.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 10:58:17 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

McConnell carried out a very high risk political maneuver that is going to further make nominations difficult.  But he basically Borked him without the character assassination and while protecting vulnerable republicans from having to vote against him.  That was bad and a further breakdown of our political process, but again, it was basically a variation of Borking.  It wasn't some massive departure of norms.  Just another tit for tat. 

There is a massive difference between that and carrying out underhanded political tricks to engage in a character assassination.  If Democrats had actually wanted an FBI investigation rather than just to try to delay the nomination by any means possible, it would have been done way before now.  If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?

And no one ever seems to ask why it was up to the Democrats to request such an investigation. I mean, beyond dereliction of duty by the leading Republicans, but of course we can't talk about that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 11:00:24 AM
Blumenthal is speaking truth. Kavanaugh had rancor yesterday.

Foxnews has this headline,

Quote from: foxnews
New York Times slammed for depicting Ford as calm, Kavanaugh as angry: ‘Photos are the perfect liberal narrative’

I assume that's for people who didn't have the time to watch any of the proceedings. He was definitely angry. That was the whole "turning point" of the proceedings!

And now the ABA is "left-wing." That's the first time I've ever heard the ABA called that. It's laughable.

Quote from: foxnews
The left-wing American Bar Association, which had previously given Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh a strong rating, on late Thursday urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay the vote to confirm him pending a full FBI investigation, according to multiple reports.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 11:02:14 AM
Three days.
When George H W Bush directed the FBI to investigate Anita Hill's allegations it took them three days.
This could have been done already, and the vote could be occurring in exactly the same timeframe.

Instead the GOP is going to vote on a nominee after some gut-wrenching testimony and a rather chaotic public hearing.

Damage has already been done to SCOTUS, and there is the potential for it to be much, much worse should new testimony come out anytime in the next several months. If Dems somehow gain control of the Senate they will be able to hold hearings and subpoena a whole list of people including Mike Judge.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:03:40 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 11:04:23 AM


I don't think you understand the meaning of "proof" or "evidence".  Sworn testimony is evidence.  The demeanour of a person giving sworn testimony is evidence.  Written statements from the time in question and from a number of years ago are corroborating evidence.

To say that there is no evidence, no "proof" against Kavanaugh is a dirty lie.
And that is hyperbole. ;)

You know what I mean, she has no corroborating evidence. From everything I have researched, while investigating for my posts for this morning, indicates there is no mechanism to even initiate an investigation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 11:06:57 AM


I don't think you understand the meaning of "proof" or "evidence".  Sworn testimony is evidence.  The demeanour of a person giving sworn testimony is evidence.  Written statements from the time in question and from a number of years ago are corroborating evidence.

To say that there is no evidence, no "proof" against Kavanaugh is a dirty lie.
And that is hyperbole. ;)

You know what I mean, she has no corroborating evidence. From everything I have researched, while investigating for my posts for this morning, indicates there is no mechanism to even initiate an investigation.

The judiciary committee or President Trump could request an investigation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 11:08:10 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

McConnell carried out a very high risk political maneuver that is going to further make nominations difficult.  But he basically Borked him without the character assassination and while protecting vulnerable republicans from having to vote against him.  That was bad and a further breakdown of our political process, but again, it was basically a variation of Borking.  It wasn't some massive departure of norms.  Just another tit for tat. 

There is a massive difference between that and carrying out underhanded political tricks to engage in a character assassination.  If Democrats had actually wanted an FBI investigation rather than just to try to delay the nomination by any means possible, it would have been done way before now.  If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?

And no one ever seems to ask why it was up to the Democrats to request such an investigation. I mean, beyond dereliction of duty by the leading Republicans, but of course we can't talk about that.

Nobody asks it because finding a member of the Republican party taking a morally defensible position in this day and age is akin to finding a leprechaun riding a unicorn.  The party sold whatever remaining principals they may have had in the deal that made Trump their leader.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 11:09:28 AM


I don't think you understand the meaning of "proof" or "evidence".  Sworn testimony is evidence.  The demeanour of a person giving sworn testimony is evidence.  Written statements from the time in question and from a number of years ago are corroborating evidence.

To say that there is no evidence, no "proof" against Kavanaugh is a dirty lie.
And that is hyperbole. ;)

You know what I mean, she has no corroborating evidence. From everything I have researched, while investigating for my posts for this morning, indicates there is no mechanism to even initiate an investigation.

The judiciary committee or President Trump could request an investigation.

Yes.  For a precident, see Anita Hill.  President George W H Bush instructed the FBI to investigate the claims Hill had made.
HOnestly, what are you possibly researching that would lead you to that conclusion?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:09:36 AM
Blumenthal is speaking truth. Kavanaugh had rancor yesterday.

Foxnews has this headline,

Quote from: foxnews
New York Times slammed for depicting Ford as calm, Kavanaugh as angry: ‘Photos are the perfect liberal narrative’

I assume that's for people who didn't have the time to watch any of the proceedings. He was definitely angry. That was the whole "turning point" of the proceedings!

And now the ABA is "left-wing." That's the first time I've ever heard the ABA called that. It's laughable.

Quote from: foxnews
The left-wing American Bar Association, which had previously given Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh a strong rating, on late Thursday urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay the vote to confirm him pending a full FBI investigation, according to multiple reports.

Then you haven't been paying attention.  They're considered left wing like the NYT is considered left wing.  Maybe some people disagree with that characterization, but it's not new.  At least ten years ago there was a dustup over them giving a nominee a bad rating because they disagreed with his philosophy on legal aid when he was early in his career.  He basically wanted it to focus on providing services to individuals, while people on the left wanted it doing things like test cases and advancing policy through the courts.  Can't think of the nominee off hand, but it was I think for the 5th circuit and I think he ended up not being confirmed. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 11:10:34 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 11:11:36 AM
Then you haven't been paying attention.  They're considered left wing like the NYT is considered left wing.  Maybe some people disagree with that characterization, but it's not new.  At least ten years ago there was a dustup over them giving a nominee a bad rating because they disagreed with his philosophy on legal aid when he was early in his career.  He basically wanted it to focus on providing services to individuals, while people on the left wanted it doing things like test cases and advancing policy through the courts.  Can't think of the nominee off hand, but it was I think for the 5th circuit and I think he ended up not being confirmed.

Yesterday, the ABA was being used as an endorsement for Kavanaugh. Today, it's "left-wing" and to be dismissed. Which is it?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:14:17 AM
What else could they do?
This has been detailed out over, and over, and over again upthread.  You have constantly ignored all of the ways in which an investigation could be useful, and fixated on one possible (and frankly unlikely) outcome - that nothing new is learned.

In essence, your argument is "in investigation might not yield anything, so why bother?"  The answer is self evident: it's likely to provide either corroborative or exculpatory statements towards the divergent narratives being presented.

No, my argument is that the same basic investigation has already been performed.  They have contacted the people identified by Ms. Ford, none can corroborate her story.  The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.  They don't have a time or a place, there wouldn't be any physical evidence if they did.  What kind of magic are you expecting the FBI to perform?

The only purpose of an FBI investigation is delay. It would have a benefit of people not understanding what they do in these instances thinking Kavanaugh has been cleared.  Or maybe Feinstein will pull something sleazy out and claim the FBI didn't clear kavanaugh (which they wouldn't do regardless) rather than acknowleding that they didn't find anything to corroborate the claim.  But certainly during the interim, there will be more anonymous claims and immediately retracted claims that the media breathlessly report and democrat politicians give credence to until it's time to bring them up in a hearing when they will ignore it because they know they would be made to look stupid.  And it would also ensure that the tactics happen again in the future.  They probably will regardless for seats viewed as particularly important.  But it will be worse if they are rewarded.

If you truly believe all these things are true then nothing anyone can say will convince you otherwise.  A partisan investigation by people like Garrett Ventry, who has associations with extreme right wing groups (the same group that brought us Swift Boat allegations) is not the same as an FBI investigation.  The FBI found the individual responsible for the Birmingham church bombings from over 30 years ago, they are the experts.  And if you find Feinstein sleazy, but not everyone involved with delaying and denying Merrick Garland sleazy, then I'm sad for you.

McConnell carried out a very high risk political maneuver that is going to further make nominations difficult.  But he basically Borked him without the character assassination and while protecting vulnerable republicans from having to vote against him.  That was bad and a further breakdown of our political process, but again, it was basically a variation of Borking.  It wasn't some massive departure of norms.  Just another tit for tat. 

There is a massive difference between that and carrying out underhanded political tricks to engage in a character assassination.  If Democrats had actually wanted an FBI investigation rather than just to try to delay the nomination by any means possible, it would have been done way before now.  If they were serious about wanting an FBI investigation, they woudl have already started the process to censure Feinstein.  But they are getting what they want so why censure Feinstein for giving it to them?

And no one ever seems to ask why it was up to the Democrats to request such an investigation. I mean, beyond dereliction of duty by the leading Republicans, but of course we can't talk about that.

Are you shitting me?  It was up to Democrats because they were the only ones with information on the event.  All they had to do was share it with the FBI and it would have been followed up on as part of the background check.  But they didn't want it investigated (or at least Feinstein didn't want it investigated).  She wanted to use it to spring a last second character smear and to try to delay the process. 

So yes, it was up to Democrats to request an investigation about an event that only they knew about.  How would you propose REpublicans ask for that investigation?  "hey, FBI, can you investigate any potential claim that Democrats may be sitting on in bad faith to spring after the committee proceedings are done?"  What is the FBI supposed to do with that.  They already do pretty thorough background checks.  What else could they do to find out whether democrats are keeping a last second allegation in their pocket?   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 11:14:49 AM
Then you haven't been paying attention.  They're considered left wing like the NYT is considered left wing.  Maybe some people disagree with that characterization, but it's not new.  At least ten years ago there was a dustup over them giving a nominee a bad rating because they disagreed with his philosophy on legal aid when he was early in his career.  He basically wanted it to focus on providing services to individuals, while people on the left wanted it doing things like test cases and advancing policy through the courts.  Can't think of the nominee off hand, but it was I think for the 5th circuit and I think he ended up not being confirmed.

Yesterday, the ABA was being used as an endorsement for Kavanaugh. Today, it's "left-wing" and to be dismissed. Which is it?

We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:20:55 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying.  At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:24:53 AM
Quote
Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.

A letter is not a sworn statement.  Neither is a statement to a journalist.  A sworn statement is one made under oath under penalty of perjury.  You're wrong on this one.

I am going by what the AP and CNBC have reported.  Certainly there are plenty of idiots that work there just like other news organizations, so they could be wrong.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 11:26:50 AM
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 11:28:02 AM
@Jrr85 - you keep repeating "we cannot learn anything" from an investigation and "We will still be in the same place" should an investigation take place.
As myself and many, many others have pointed out, that is not a foregone conclusion. 
Why are you so resistant to further scrutiny, particularly when it could be completed well before the midterm elections (even now)? If Ford is lying and committed perjury, why not find that out?  If the same is true for the man nominated to SCOTUS, it seems even more important.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ncornilsen on September 28, 2018, 11:28:48 AM
After watching the testimonies, this is apparent to me:

Kavanaugh is unfit for the supreme court. Full stop. He is unfit for reasons having nothing to do with the truth of the accusations made against him. I think a Supreme Court Justice should conduct themselves with more control and professionalism than B.K. did during his testimony. While I am sure that an accusation of this type, true or false, can be stressful but I don't think that's an excuse for how he handled himself.

That said, this issue is owed an FBI investigation.
Shame on Trump and the republicans for not calling for one as soon as this broke. and double shame on Fienstien/Democrats for not calling for one as soon as they had this information. The timing of the release of this was clearly calculated for maximum impact and shows how cynically the Democrat's view the #meToo movement... they view it as a tool for their political purposes, not as a means of getting victim's justice.

Anyway, we'll see how the vote goes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
Then you haven't been paying attention.  They're considered left wing like the NYT is considered left wing.  Maybe some people disagree with that characterization, but it's not new.  At least ten years ago there was a dustup over them giving a nominee a bad rating because they disagreed with his philosophy on legal aid when he was early in his career.  He basically wanted it to focus on providing services to individuals, while people on the left wanted it doing things like test cases and advancing policy through the courts.  Can't think of the nominee off hand, but it was I think for the 5th circuit and I think he ended up not being confirmed.

Yesterday, the ABA was being used as an endorsement for Kavanaugh. Today, it's "left-wing" and to be dismissed. Which is it?

It's apparently different things to different people.  I was just pointing out that them being considered left wing is not new.  I don't consider their endorsements to be particularly helpful.  They usually can't tell you anything you wouldn't know by looking at the nominee's resume.  And the only time I've paid attention enough to look at someone they gave a poor rating to it was obviously political.  But I've never paid attention to any nominations for district court judge, so they may provide more usual information for those nominees that don't have much of a public track record. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 11:29:38 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying.  At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

Even if we assume that you're correct (which is quite debatable) at least you'll be able to say that you did all that could be done to get to the truth of the matter.  As it stands now, opposing an investigation is obstructing at attempt to get to the truth.  Surely an investigation would improve your own position - regardless of the outcome?


But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

She did refer the information to the FBI though, redacting the information that could have identified the accuser who at the time did not want to go public with the information.

"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.  I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html)



Clearly the redacted information was insufficient for the FBI to investigate.  Should she have broken the confidence of the woman who told her about the sexual assault but didn't want to be identified in a partisan effort to have Kavenaugh outed as a sexual predator?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 11:30:05 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on September 28, 2018, 11:31:28 AM
If I understand correctly, part of the issue with Kavanaugh is the threat to Roe V Wade. Problem is Roe V Wade is going to have to be reconsidered as advances in Genetic Engineering technology happen. (If a woman wants to edit the genetics of her fetus, can anyone argue no?)

Seems to me that Democrats are kicking the issue down the road.

As for the assault, there should be an investigation. It is just how modern day confirmation hearings work.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:33:01 AM
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

Where is he opposing it?  I did not see the entire proceedings, but the only questions I saw he said he would welcome whatever process the committee recommended.  I'm sure he would prefer to not have another week for ridiculous allegations to be parroted by democrats, but it's not up to him to decide the process (any more than it was up to Ford) and of course he's not going to be the one to recommend that the circus be extended. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HPstache on September 28, 2018, 11:33:08 AM
That said, this issue is owed an FBI investigation.
Shame on Trump and the republicans for not calling for one as soon as this broke. and double shame on Fienstien/Democrats for not calling for one as soon as they had this information. The timing of the release of this was clearly calculated for maximum impact and shows how cynically the Democrat's view the #meToo movement... they view it as a tool for their political purposes, not as a means of getting victim's justice.

Couldn't have said it better.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 11:36:22 AM
Then you haven't been paying attention.  They're considered left wing like the NYT is considered left wing.  Maybe some people disagree with that characterization, but it's not new.  At least ten years ago there was a dustup over them giving a nominee a bad rating because they disagreed with his philosophy on legal aid when he was early in his career.  He basically wanted it to focus on providing services to individuals, while people on the left wanted it doing things like test cases and advancing policy through the courts.  Can't think of the nominee off hand, but it was I think for the 5th circuit and I think he ended up not being confirmed.

Yesterday, the ABA was being used as an endorsement for Kavanaugh. Today, it's "left-wing" and to be dismissed. Which is it?

It's apparently different things to different people.  I was just pointing out that them being considered left wing is not new.  I don't consider their endorsements to be particularly helpful.  They usually can't tell you anything you wouldn't know by looking at the nominee's resume.  And the only time I've paid attention enough to look at someone they gave a poor rating to it was obviously political.  But I've never paid attention to any nominations for district court judge, so they may provide more usual information for those nominees that don't have much of a public track record.

Fair enough. Foxnews has shifted its stance, though. The endorsement was a badge of honor; now, it's part of the left-wing smear campaign. That's not an unexpected shift, of course.

To their credit, none of the Senators have turned on the ABA. That would be pretty embarrassing when, just yesterday, Grassley was using it in a "whip" speech during the proceedings.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on September 28, 2018, 11:37:04 AM
If I understand correctly, part of the issue with Kavanaugh is the threat to Roe V Wade. Problem is Roe V Wade is going to have to be reconsidered as advances in Genetic Engineering technology happen. (If a woman wants to edit the genetics of her fetus, can anyone argue no?)

Seems to me that Democrats are kicking the issue down the road.

As for the assault, there should be an investigation. It is just how modern day confirmation hearings work.

Just as concerning is the Gamble case which starts hearing arguments this Friday. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:37:46 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

Because Ford could have mental issues where she has substituted the identify or made the whole situation up that do not involve malice.   Tell me what could be going on with Kavanaugh that you would describe as "mentally troubled" that would explain Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and not knowing it. 

IF that's possible, that wouldn't be mentally troubled; it'd be psychotic.  I sort of doubt he could have the career he has had while being psychotic.  You'll notice I didn't entertain the possibility that Ford is psychotic either for the same reason.  But sure...sexism explains everything 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 11:41:20 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

Because Ford could have mental issues where she has substituted the identify or made the whole situation up that do not involve malice.   Tell me what could be going on with Kavanaugh that you would describe as "mentally troubled" that would explain Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and not knowing it. 

IF that's possible, that wouldn't be mentally troubled; it'd be psychotic.  I sort of doubt he could have the career he has had while being psychotic.  You'll notice I didn't entertain the possibility that Ford is psychotic either for the same reason.  But sure...sexism explains everything

Alcoholism. Alcoholics forget things.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on September 28, 2018, 11:41:29 AM
That said, this issue is owed an FBI investigation.
Shame on Trump and the republicans for not calling for one as soon as this broke. and double shame on Fienstien/Democrats for not calling for one as soon as they had this information. The timing of the release of this was clearly calculated for maximum impact and shows how cynically the Democrat's view the #meToo movement... they view it as a tool for their political purposes, not as a means of getting victim's justice.

Couldn't have said it better.


You seriously think Feinstein was playing partisan games by respecting Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality and to not share the information publically???  That is just sad. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:42:34 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying.  At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

Even if we assume that you're correct (which is quite debatable) at least you'll be able to say that you did all that could be done to get to the truth of the matter.  As it stands now, opposing an investigation is obstructing at attempt to get to the truth.  Surely an investigation would improve your own position - regardless of the outcome?


But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

She did refer the information to the FBI though, redacting the information that could have identified the accuser who at the time did not want to go public with the information.

"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.  I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html)



Clearly the redacted information was insufficient for the FBI to investigate.  Should she have broken the confidence of the woman who told her about the sexual assault but didn't want to be identified in a partisan effort to have Kavenaugh outed as a sexual predator?

According to that source, she didn't refer the letter until Wednesday, September 12th. 

As far as whether she should have broken confidence or not, she should have done it or not in July. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on September 28, 2018, 11:43:31 AM
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

Where is he opposing it?  I did not see the entire proceedings, but the only questions I saw he said he would welcome whatever process the committee recommended.  I'm sure he would prefer to not have another week for ridiculous allegations to be parroted by democrats, but it's not up to him to decide the process (any more than it was up to Ford) and of course he's not going to be the one to recommend that the circus be extended.

Well he was asked point blank on several occasions and never gave a straight yes or no answer. So one could claim he didn't oppose it while also claiming he didn't accept an investigation. And why not welcome an investigation, if it will clear his name? Seems only logical. Kavanaugh also declined to endorse the ideal of testimony from Judge. Why did the Republicans decline to subpoena Judge?

You can attempt to downplay the role the Republicans are playing all you want. They most certainly don't want an investigation and will stifle it at every attempt.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 11:44:15 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

Because Ford could have mental issues where she has substituted the identify or made the whole situation up that do not involve malice.   Tell me what could be going on with Kavanaugh that you would describe as "mentally troubled" that would explain Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and not knowing it. 

IF that's possible, that wouldn't be mentally troubled; it'd be psychotic.  I sort of doubt he could have the career he has had while being psychotic.  You'll notice I didn't entertain the possibility that Ford is psychotic either for the same reason.  But sure...sexism explains everything

Alcoholism. Alcoholics forget things.

They generally don't forget that they are alcoholics, even if theyh dont' admit it by name.  So that wouldn't be a separate possibility from lying.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on September 28, 2018, 11:49:15 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying.  At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

Even if we assume that you're correct (which is quite debatable) at least you'll be able to say that you did all that could be done to get to the truth of the matter.  As it stands now, opposing an investigation is obstructing at attempt to get to the truth.  Surely an investigation would improve your own position - regardless of the outcome?


But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

She did refer the information to the FBI though, redacting the information that could have identified the accuser who at the time did not want to go public with the information.

"I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. "That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision.  I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities,"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html)



Clearly the redacted information was insufficient for the FBI to investigate.  Should she have broken the confidence of the woman who told her about the sexual assault but didn't want to be identified in a partisan effort to have Kavenaugh outed as a sexual predator?

According to that source, she didn't refer the letter until Wednesday, September 12th. 

As far as whether she should have broken confidence or not, she should have done it or not in July.

I guess I don't understand the difference.

The result would have been the same unless she broke confidence, as Ford didn't choose to come forward publicly until it seemed certain that Kavenaugh would be confirmed.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 28, 2018, 11:49:49 AM
1. Feinstein does not have the authority to call an FBI investigation on her own.
2. Even if the timing of sending the letter was political, that does not change the veracity of the allegations... which seem credible even if not ironclad at this point. Kavanaugh certainly has some temperament and credibility issues coming out of yesterday.

What will an investigation do? At least one of the things will be to conduct consistent parallel interviews that look for documentation of common threads of who/what/where when. This type of information can be quite compelling and is a far cry from the shame-circus we saw yesterday. What did Brett write in every one else's yearbook? Anyone else have a calendar? Does the country club have membership records?

Will the FBI pass judgement? No, of course not. Will they provide an internally consistent and qualified set of common facts, and documentation to work from? Yes. Will there still be gaps and ambiguity? Yes. To think that that would not be the case in absolutely any investigation is just folly and a red herring.

As said above, what if the investigation simply reveals that Kavanaugh repeatedly perjured himself?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 28, 2018, 11:52:37 AM
The only two alleged eye witnesses have provided sworn testimony denying anything like what alleged by Ms. Ford happened.

You are mistaken, Jrr, and this has been pointed out to you several times now and yet you keep repeating the same false claim.

Just to repeat, no one has provided sworn testimony denying that any of the accusations are true.  You can stop saying that, unless you are just lying on purpose.

Some people have gone on tv to say "I don't remember" or "I was not present", neither of which are denials that it happened.  A denial would be "I was present, and it did not happen as described" and no one has said that in any context, sworn or otherwise. 

Saying you cannot confirm something is true is not the same as saying you can confirm it is false.  I also cannot confirm it is true, since I wasn't in the room.  Will you now cite me as someone denying this assault ever happened?  Because that's what you keep doing with everyone else.

Are you lying on purpose?  Or are you dense?  Kavanaugh spent basically hours yesterday providing testimony under oath that it wasn't true. 

Mark Judge submitted a sworn statement that he has never seen Kavanaugh act in the manner described.  I'm not a math genius, but by my count that's two.  The only two people who were alleged to have been in the room other than Ford (unless you credit what she supposedly told her therapists, but nobody has identified who the other two people would be in that case).

There are also other people who were identified Ford who are also unable to corroborate her claims regarding the event she says took place, including her lifelong friend that says she was never at a party with Kavanaugh to her knowledge.  That doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means Ford can't even provide corroborating evidence that a party existed where it could have happened.   

If what you're claiming is all true, then what is your objection to having this properly investigated?  The FBI will find out that Ford was lying or at least that there's no corroborating evidence of any kind.  You can then point to that information as vindication that you were right.

The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.  Short of her just breaking down and confessing she is lying, she hasn't given a detail specific enough where she could be caught in a lie.  And the FBI investigation won't provide any information that can be pointed to as vindication.  We will still be in the same place.  We will have a completely uncorroborated claim that can't be corroborated because the only person with information about the incident can only identify people that have no recollection of it and she can't provide any other details that could be corroborated. 

The possibilities will still be that Ford is lying, Ford is mentally troubled, or Kavanaugh is lying. At that point presumably the sleazier democrats would switch to a new talking point about the FBI not being able to disprove the allegations against Kavanaugh. 

But again, if the investigation is so important, why isn't Feinstein being censured?  According to some people here, her acting in bad faith is going to allow a serial rapist to be put on teh supreme court.  But nobody is upset about her not being censured and/or removed from office?

Why isn't it one of your options that Kavanaugh is "mentally troubled"?


(Answer: either deliberate or unreflexive sexism.)

Because Ford could have mental issues where she has substituted the identify or made the whole situation up that do not involve malice.   Tell me what could be going on with Kavanaugh that you would describe as "mentally troubled" that would explain Kavanaugh being a serial rapist and not knowing it. 

IF that's possible, that wouldn't be mentally troubled; it'd be psychotic.  I sort of doubt he could have the career he has had while being psychotic.  You'll notice I didn't entertain the possibility that Ford is psychotic either for the same reason.  But sure...sexism explains everything

Alcoholism. Alcoholics forget things.

They generally don't forget that they are alcoholics, even if theyh dont' admit it by name.  So that wouldn't be a separate possibility from lying.

It's been well established that he has in fact lied about his drinking habits and I'm actually not claiming he is an "alcoholic" but rather he had an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. Maybe that equals alcoholic?

Anyway, it can be both. He is lying about his relationship with alcohol and if he was so drunk he forgot that he sexually assaulted someone I would consider that "mentally troubled". Beyond that it is also possible that the incident was blocked from his own memory. These events can be traumatic for the perpetrator as well as the victim.

Oh, and your use of "serial" is incorrect. Ford only accused him of one incident.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 11:53:01 AM
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 11:59:35 AM
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?

I think they assume he will cave in a general vote. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 12:04:41 PM
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?

I think they assume he will cave in a general vote.

Probably.

That'll look really bad if they try to hold a floor vote without doing what Flake agreed to with the Democrats though. It gives huge cover to the red-state Dems and Collins and Murkowski.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on September 28, 2018, 12:11:59 PM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral(edit; assuming it even happened). But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

Are we done with this yet? You people indeed.  We're fine. But Jesus Christ-what is wrong with you?

1. She testified that she was pushed from behind into the bedroom-forced. Not willing.

2.  He didn't run away.  He fell off the bed with her under him because his disgusting friend wanted to get in on his assault.  In the tumult, she fled from the room and locked herself in the bathroom.  He never stopped of his own accord.  He.did.not.stop.  She escaped.

It's one thing to not believe her testimony, but it's just rotten to argue based on things you are making up for the sole purpose of turning an assault into drunk flirting.  Neither party is claiming your set of "facts".  Also, your whitewashed version is still really gross, and I'm concerned about what you think is acceptable flirting behavior. I truly hope that this is something you are making up out of partisan zeal and that this does not reflect your own moral code.



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 12:15:29 PM
A person can withdraw consent at anytime. Even if she did change her mind (which is NO ONE's version of the events)- that's totally within her right.

heck, they could be mid sex, either party could say "never mind, I want to stop" and if the other person does not stop a consensual situation has turned non-consensual.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JetBlast on September 28, 2018, 12:16:46 PM
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and there’s an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they won’t like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 12:18:58 PM
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and there’s an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they won’t like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

If Flake wanted any control, he wouldn't have let it leave committee until that investigation happened. Now, the committee has literally said "We just don't fucking care, get over it."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 28, 2018, 12:20:13 PM
According to that source, she didn't refer the letter until Wednesday, September 12th. 

As far as whether she should have broken confidence or not, she should have done it or not in July.

She did "not in July".  In case you missed it. (https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17912102/feinstein-christine-blasey-ford-letter-leak)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on September 28, 2018, 12:21:19 PM
Also, his story about the 60k or 200k for baseball tickets is totally fishy.  Who takes out a second mortgage to act as the bank for a group of friends buying baseball tickets?  I've floated 2-3k in  tickets before, but that's about all I'd do for my friends. I certainly wouldn't eat the 2-3k transaction fees associated with a second mortgage because my buddies were inconvenienced in getting me a check for baseball tickets.  Plus, I make more than Brett Kavanaugh.  Who are these friends?  How much are they making?  Why ask the guy on a government salary to float the 60k?  Are any of these friends making way more in private practice (likely)?  Why did they decide on Brett being the bank?  Dr. Ford's story may be difficult to prove, but this story should be easy to verify.  Where are the baseball ticket receipts?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on September 28, 2018, 12:25:53 PM
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and there’s an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they won’t like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

If Flake wanted any control, he wouldn't have let it leave committee until that investigation happened. Now, the committee has literally said "We just don't fucking care, get over it."
This is right.  Susan Collins made demands before they passed the Tax Bill.  It gave her cover to vote yes and then got ignored.  This is the same bull.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JetBlast on September 28, 2018, 12:26:44 PM
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and there’s an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they won’t like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

If Flake wanted any control, he wouldn't have let it leave committee until that investigation happened. Now, the committee has literally said "We just don't fucking care, get over it."
Even if rejected by the committee the nomination can go to a floor vote. Bork was rejected 9-5 and still got a floor vote. Flake just made a lot harder for Republicans to get Collins or Murkowski on board without an investigation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: kenmoremmm on September 28, 2018, 12:37:21 PM
what happens if kavanaugh is confirmed and ford seeks to continue her case in a private court? i'm not versed on much legalese, but it seems like this particular hearing was for public opinion (5%) and dog and pony for (R) senators (95%) to say they did due diligence.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 12:42:55 PM
what happens if kavanaugh is confirmed and ford seeks to continue her case in a private court? i'm not versed on much legalese, but it seems like this particular hearing was for public opinion (5%) and dog and pony for (R) senators (95%) to say they did due diligence.

It is highly unlikely she CAN continue her case. He was a minor at the time, so he would need to be charged as a juvenile. From what I have read sexual assault, at the time, was a misdemeanor, which means it has a very short statute of limitations. They have long since run out.  Since she is not claiming he successfully raped her, there isn't much that can be done.

Whether or not he could be tried criminally really has no bearing on his 'job interview'.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 12:43:30 PM
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

Have you been following along?   The FBI gathers pertinent "FACTS" and hands them over to the committee to draw conclusions.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 12:44:39 PM
Flake asked for a delay.

He's a "no" until after the investigation.


Eta: Ok, they voted to send it to the floor anyway. Interesting. Did they just run roughshod over Flake?
No. I think Flake just ran roughshod over everyone. He basically tried to take control over this nomination.

He forced an investigation or himself, Collins, and Murkowski all have the justification they need to vote no. By voting to send it to the full Senate, Flake took some of the Republican time
pressure out of the picture. If the timeline holds and there’s an up or down vote on Kavanaugh in a week then there is still time for a new appointment if Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed. Democrats are still going to get a new Justice they won’t like, but it may not be Kavanaugh.

If Flake wanted any control, he wouldn't have let it leave committee until that investigation happened. Now, the committee has literally said "We just don't fucking care, get over it."
Even if rejected by the committee the nomination can go to a floor vote. Bork was rejected 9-5 and still got a floor vote. Flake just made a lot harder for Republicans to get Collins or Murkowski on board without an investigation.

It takes quite a bit to pull a vote out of committee without the committee passing it along. 2/3, right?

But the committee didn't reject it- they moved it along.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: J Boogie on September 28, 2018, 12:47:57 PM
Plus, I make more than Brett Kavanaugh. 

Wexler, more like Flexler. Because you're flexin' on us.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 12:52:55 PM
The FBI will not find out Ford is lying.

That's certainly one possible outcome of an investigation.  Another is that they find out that she is lying, or that Kavanaugh is lying.  Wouldn't it be nice to know which of those possible conclusions the FBI might come to, instead of just speculating that you already know what an investigation might discover?

I'll ask you again.  Do you support an FBI investigation to try to uncover the truth in this matter, or not?  If you really believe that Kavanaugh is innocent, shouldn't he also support an effort to clear his name?  Why do you think he is opposing it?

Have you been following along?   The FBI gathers pertinent "FACTS" and hands them over to the committee to draw conclusions.

The FBI will reach conclusions on the facts - ie a conclusion on what is the truth, where it finds the truth ascertainable.  It will not reach a conclusion on whether or not Kavanaugh should be voted onto the Supreme Court.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 01:12:55 PM
Have you been following along?   

I have!

I have been following along as republicans refuse to subpoena witnesses, corroborate testimony, or construct a timeline of events.  I have been following along as multiple accusers have painfully come forward with accounts of their trauma, and as many of Brett's colleagues have come forward to either say they did not see this specific sexual assault committed, refuse to testify about this specific sexual assault (Mark Judge), or to confirm that he illegally drank too much as a minor and sometimes got aggressively handsy with girls before passing out.  I have followed his own admissions of his struggles with alcohol and gaps in his memory, his confirmation that he did attend many such parties, and his admission that he did know and interact with her when he was in high school. 

I have also watched approximately 80% of the country, uncertain about what is true, plead for more information about these accusations and I have watched 48 republican senators refuse to gather any more information.  This part baffles me.  If he's truly innocent, then go ahead and start compiling evidence OTHER than the angry protestation of the alcoholic frat boy accused of this misconduct.  Put all of that evidence together in report, and release it to the public so we can all have the right information. 

I don't know what Brett Kavanaugh did in 1982, and neither do you.  But everyone seems to agree that he drank too much, at an age when it was illegal to do so, and sometimes got a little too gropey with girls as a result.  This does not seem at all out of character, for a rich white prep school kid in the 80s, and it is a characterization backed up by multiple witnesses, his own testimony, and contemporary records like his yearbook.  That doesn't mean he attempted to rape Christine Ford, however.

It does mean he has been lying under oath for several weeks now, which isn't a good look for a man who desperately wants us to believe his denials of sexual assault.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on September 28, 2018, 01:14:26 PM
Plus, I make more than Brett Kavanaugh. 

Wexler, more like Flexler. Because you're flexin' on us.

To be fair, I don't make that much more.  In any case, a dude making 200k/year has no business acting as the Bank of Brett for 60k in baseball tickets. 

 I've been burned for $500 in similar situations, and that's bad enough. I can't imagine going through the trouble of applying for a second mortgage and then sending polite but firm emails reminding people to pay me back.  Who am I kidding?  Brett probably just gets blackout drunk, devil's triangles, boofs, FFFFFs his friends and their wives, and the money appears.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 01:44:33 PM
The GOP wanted to confirm a justice well before the midterms to give campaigning members a "W" they could use on the campaign trail.

First they made the decision to limit the release of documents, hoping that would give Dems less ammunition.  That strategy largely failed

When Ford's allegation came out they tried to push the vote through, saying it was the "11th hour" and too late to hold any relevant hearings.  That largely failed, and they had to hold a hearing

Sensing how bad the optics were to have 11 old white men questioning an alleged sexual assault survivor, they hired an outside council (female) to ask questions. She failed to make Dr. Ford less credible, and the GOP senators grew tired of staying silent during Kavanaugh's testimony and came out with effusive praise for someone who had just been accused of being sexual assault and attempted rape. The hope appears to be that putting him on the court is worth the risk of looking like they are supporting a sex offender. Even the kindest reading shows it didn't go particularly well for Kavanaugh.

Now here we are: Flake and Murkowski are calling for
 a limited 1 week FBI investigation. The GOP is weighing the potential risk and reward.  If they deny any investigation they risk losing the vote, and it will be horrific if new accusers (perhaps emboldened by Ford's gripping testimony) come forward in the days to come.  If they push for an investigation they are in an equally tough spot - the best case scnerio is that nothing new emerges, whereas it would be catastrophic if either i) others corroborate parts of Ford's story or if ii) new allegations emerge.  Then they are left with the following choice: dump him or approve. Dumping him then would be the long-term play, but likely infuriate their base just weeks before the midterm. So I'll imagine they'd continue to make the bad choice, and vote, and put every Senator on record.

Avenati is just itching to toss more gasoline on the fire, and every single former classmate, girlfriend and buddy of Kavanaugh just heard him talk about how he was a model student, a virgin and had never blacked out in his life.  It seems extremely likely that at least a few might say "hey, not at all how I remember him".  More than a few probably have some yearbooks, polaroids (remember those?) or letters stashed away in memory boxes. How many of them will spend this weekend digging through them, looking for anything with his name or image on it?

tl;dr - the GOP continues to play a very dangerous PR game.  With each step they are betting that nothing else comes out, and nothing more can be corroborated. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 01:49:51 PM
OK, I am not normally this crude, but am I the only one that has been thinking "If he was drinking that much, I don't doubt that he was, technically, a virgin."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 01:58:25 PM
OK, I am not normally this crude, but am I the only one that has been thinking "If he was drinking that much, I don't doubt that he was, technically, a virgin."

The virginity claim was to me a very odd one to make. It seems to be only to appeal to evangelicals who claim not to approve of sex before marriage (yet repeatedly support adulterous candidates), and Kavanaugh is not up for general election in anything.

It also seems likely a risky thing to say if not true. His claim on Fox was that he was a virgin throughout highschool "and for many years later".  Statistically that's possible, but unlikely.  More to the point, if untrue it would only take one to contradict him, and give then close-quarters of prep-school and college that need not be a former lover. Former roommates, friends, friends-of-former lovers... any one of them could say "hey, i know for a fact you were sexually active!".

Another oddity with that statement is that he *didn't* claim to wait until marriage, nor are the allegations of Ford or Ramirez claiming he had sex.  "I was a virgin" is not incongruous with "I exposed myself."  He did categorically deny sexual assault as well to be fair, but it's still a weird defense.  Like if someone was accused of unsuccessfully shop-lifting a candy bar and they said "I've never eaten candy in my life!"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: tct on September 28, 2018, 02:01:34 PM
Have you been following along?   

I have!

I have been following along as republicans refuse to subpoena witnesses, corroborate testimony, or construct a timeline of events.  I have been following along as multiple accusers have painfully come forward with accounts of their trauma, and as many of Brett's colleagues have come forward to either say they did not see this specific sexual assault committed, refuse to testify about this specific sexual assault (Mark Judge), or to confirm that he illegally drank too much as a minor and sometimes got aggressively handsy with girls before passing out.  I have followed his own admissions of his struggles with alcohol and gaps in his memory, his confirmation that he did attend many such parties, and his admission that he did know and interact with her when he was in high school. 

I have also watched approximately 80% of the country, uncertain about what is true, plead for more information about these accusations and I have watched 48 republican senators refuse to gather any more information.  This part baffles me.  If he's truly innocent, then go ahead and start compiling evidence OTHER than the angry protestation of the alcoholic frat boy accused of this misconduct.  Put all of that evidence together in report, and release it to the public so we can all have the right information. 

I don't know what Brett Kavanaugh did in 1982, and neither do you.  But everyone seems to agree that he drank too much, at an age when it was illegal to do so, and sometimes got a little too gropey with girls as a result.  This does not seem at all out of character, for a rich white prep school kid in the 80s, and it is a characterization backed up by multiple witnesses, his own testimony, and contemporary records like his yearbook.  That doesn't mean he attempted to rape Christine Ford, however.

It does mean he has been lying under oath for several weeks now, which isn't a good look for a man who desperately wants us to believe his denials of sexual assault.

I've been following along as well. I watched every last word spoken during yesterdays proceedings. After watching, I visited each of the major news networks to listen to commentaries. Each one presented a very one-sided view of the facts. When reading these forums, I will occasionally scroll through looking for comments from specific contributors that over time I have found make informed comments. You are one of those contributors. In this particular post, its clear to me, after following the Kavanaugh proceedings for last few weeks, that you have taken a very one-side view of the facts. That's not to say that anything you said was blatantly false, but not a fair representation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 28, 2018, 02:03:13 PM

Avenati is just itching to toss more gasoline on the fire, and every single former classmate, girlfriend and buddy of Kavanaugh just heard him talk about how he was a model student, a virgin and had never blacked out in his life.  It seems extremely likely that at least a few might say "hey, not at all how I remember him".  More than a few probably have some yearbooks, polaroids (remember those?) or letters stashed away in memory boxes. How many of them will spend this weekend digging through them, looking for anything with his name or image on it?


Probably not too far from the truth.
Quote

Following Kavanaugh's testimony on Thursday, two former classmates from Yale spoke out that the nominee wasn't being truthful when it came to his drinking habits in college.

"I'll tell you, Chris, I watched the whole hearing, and a number of my Yale colleagues and I were extremely disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh's characterization of himself and the way that he evaded his excessive drinking question," Lynne Brookes told CNN's Chris Cuomo Thursday night. "There is no doubt in my mind that while at Yale, he was a big partier, often drank to excess, and there had to be a number of nights where he does not remember."



Another classmate, Elizabeth Swisher, a Seattle physician, told ABC News that Kavanaugh ran with the varsity basketball crowd in college and drank hard with them, often getting loud and slurring his words.

"I feel like he's perjured himself, and that's extremely problematic," Swisher said. Swisher has previously told the New York Times that "Brett was a sloppy drunk, and I know because I drank with him."

Both women were roommates of Deborah Ramirez, who accused an inebriated Kavanaugh of pulling down his pant and waiving his genitals in her face at a drunken college party. Kavanaugh has vehemently denied her allegations.
Image of Kavanaugh with Swisher, in case people were curious if she actually knew him:
(http://www2.philly.com/resizer/K4RZTciEuX9MVj49-1bw3GSPbIM=/1400x0/center/middle/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-pmn.s3.amazonaws.com/public/4LDLTWHCTBAXLNFGYO62SCSU7E.jpg)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Mappocalypse on September 28, 2018, 02:04:10 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DaMa on September 28, 2018, 02:05:21 PM

 There will be a significant minority of people in the country that go to their grave thinking Kavanaugh is a rapist and Thomas is guilty of sexual harassment, despite any lack of evidence. 

There is evidence of both.  Anita Hill and Christine Ford gave sworn testimony.  That is evidence.   Granted it is he said/she said, and neither is enough for a criminal conviction.  Both were enough to make me think that he should have withdrawn and another person nominated.  I'm sure that there is a better person for the job.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on September 28, 2018, 02:09:38 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.
Imagine if Kavanaugh had recommended a high fee investment account! Lordy!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on September 28, 2018, 02:10:24 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

Supreme Court nominations should not be political.  This is a problem.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 02:12:16 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

There is something to be said about one's circle of control (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/).

However, it should be noted that this thread is in the "Off Topic" subforum.  As such, it's not on topic to the rest of the MMM-verse.

Why make your 3rd ever post in this thread if it does not interest you?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on September 28, 2018, 02:15:12 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 28, 2018, 02:16:56 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Lovelywings on September 28, 2018, 02:17:56 PM
Have you been following along?   

I have!

I have been following along as republicans refuse to subpoena witnesses, corroborate testimony, or construct a timeline of events.  I have been following along as multiple accusers have painfully come forward with accounts of their trauma, and as many of Brett's colleagues have come forward to either say they did not see this specific sexual assault committed, refuse to testify about this specific sexual assault (Mark Judge), or to confirm that he illegally drank too much as a minor and sometimes got aggressively handsy with girls before passing out.  I have followed his own admissions of his struggles with alcohol and gaps in his memory, his confirmation that he did attend many such parties, and his admission that he did know and interact with her when he was in high school. 

I have also watched approximately 80% of the country, uncertain about what is true, plead for more information about these accusations and I have watched 48 republican senators refuse to gather any more information.  This part baffles me.  If he's truly innocent, then go ahead and start compiling evidence OTHER than the angry protestation of the alcoholic frat boy accused of this misconduct.  Put all of that evidence together in report, and release it to the public so we can all have the right information. 

I don't know what Brett Kavanaugh did in 1982, and neither do you.  But everyone seems to agree that he drank too much, at an age when it was illegal to do so, and sometimes got a little too gropey with girls as a result.  This does not seem at all out of character, for a rich white prep school kid in the 80s, and it is a characterization backed up by multiple witnesses, his own testimony, and contemporary records like his yearbook.  That doesn't mean he attempted to rape Christine Ford, however.

It does mean he has been lying under oath for several weeks now, which isn't a good look for a man who desperately wants us to believe his denials of sexual assault.

I've been following along as well. I watched every last word spoken during yesterdays proceedings. After watching, I visited each of the major news networks to listen to commentaries. Each one presented a very one-sided view of the facts. When reading these forums, I will occasionally scroll through looking for comments from specific contributors that over time I have found make informed comments. You are one of those contributors. In this particular post, its clear to me, after following the Kavanaugh proceedings for last few weeks, that you have taken a very one-side view of the facts. That's not to say that anything you said was blatantly false, but not a fair representation.

If nothing he has said about the "facts" as you call them is "blatantly false", what is the problem?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 02:18:58 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

By that logic, several people have also said Kavanaugh is lying, not by deduction, but by what the observed. But of course, you just want to bash Ford, so actual logic doesn't enter this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Lovelywings on September 28, 2018, 02:20:25 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus. What else are we not allowed to talk about?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 02:22:02 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus.

Sometimes, but I don't remember our supreme leader ever telling us to ignore politics.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Lovelywings on September 28, 2018, 02:26:23 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus.

Sometimes, but I don't remember our supreme leader ever telling us to ignore politics.

LOL.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
There is evidence of both.  Anita Hill and Christine Ford gave sworn testimony.  That is evidence.   Granted it is he said/she said, and neither is enough for a criminal conviction.  Both were enough to make me think that he should have withdrawn and another person nominated.  I'm sure that there is a better person for the job.

Can you imagine a future in which no high government officials are accused of sexual assault, harassment, or rape?  A country totally run by people of such unimpeachable character that nobody would even dream of making such accusations, people whose lives have been carefully documented since childhood to be free of any criminal activity whatsoever?  Does it sound so terrible?

Because Graham and friends have suggested that every nominee from here out will be subject to baseless accusations, despite nobody since Thomas having this problem.  Kagan and Sotomayer and even Gorsuch had no such accusations, and I imagine there are at least a few other judges with similarly noncriminal histories of sexual conduct.  Any nominee who is accused of such things should be able to immediately and enthusiastically call for a full investigation, support any and all new fact finding missions, offer unconditional access to personal records and contacts, and not have to cry about partisan witch hunts or smear campaigns because the evidence should speak for itself.  Why can't Kavanaugh do any of that?

When reading these forums, I will occasionally scroll through looking for comments from specific contributors that over time I have found make informed comments. You are one of those contributors. In this particular post, its clear to me, after following the Kavanaugh proceedings for last few weeks, that you have taken a very one-side view of the facts. That's not to say that anything you said was blatantly false, but not a fair representation.

Okey dokey. 

Would you also like to offer a specific criticism of my writing, or a rebuttal to a particular argument I have made, or did you just chime in to express your disappointment with my overall tone?  I would welcome your contributions to this discussion, if you have any.

Personally, I would be much more comfortable with the news today if Kavanaugh was fully exonerated of any wrongdoing by an FBI investigation.  That is the best case scenario at this point, IMO, because I think he's going to be confirmed no matter what the truth is and I would rather we have a SC justice who was a genuine altar boy instead of one actually did all of this stuff (underage drinking, partying, spiking punch to get girls drunk, boorish groping, etc).  In my fantasy world, the FBI finds 20 credible witnesses that say Brett never drank to excess or touched women inappropriately in his life, and finds evidence to discredit the allegations against him as a liberal plot, and we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief that the truth came out.

Do I think that scenario is likely?  Have you ever met a drunk frat boy who respected women?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on September 28, 2018, 02:28:42 PM
If I understand correctly, part of the issue with Kavanaugh is the threat to Roe V Wade. Problem is Roe V Wade is going to have to be reconsidered as advances in Genetic Engineering technology happen. (If a woman wants to edit the genetics of her fetus, can anyone argue no?)

Seems to me that Democrats are kicking the issue down the road.

As for the assault, there should be an investigation. It is just how modern day confirmation hearings work.

Just as concerning is the Gamble case which starts hearing arguments this Friday.

Which case is that? The one I found was from 1976.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on September 28, 2018, 02:32:21 PM
There is evidence of both.  Anita Hill and Christine Ford gave sworn testimony.  That is evidence.   Granted it is he said/she said, and neither is enough for a criminal conviction.  Both were enough to make me think that he should have withdrawn and another person nominated.  I'm sure that there is a better person for the job.

Can you imagine a future in which no high government officials are accused of sexual assault, harassment, or rape?  A country totally run by people of such unimpeachable character that nobody would even dream of making such accusations, people whose lives have been carefully documented since childhood to be free of any criminal activity whatsoever?  Does it sound so terrible?

We get to be ruled by saints who have no patience for human failings.

Or AI. We could just let computers take over.

And recording every second of everyday does sound more and more reasonable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 28, 2018, 02:35:35 PM
OK, I am not normally this crude, but am I the only one that has been thinking "If he was drinking that much, I don't doubt that he was, technically, a virgin."

The virginity claim was to me a very odd one to make. It seems to be only to appeal to evangelicals who claim not to approve of sex before marriage (yet repeatedly support adulterous candidates), and Kavanaugh is not up for general election in anything.

It also seems likely a risky thing to say if not true. His claim on Fox was that he was a virgin throughout highschool "and for many years later".  Statistically that's possible, but unlikely.  More to the point, if untrue it would only take one to contradict him, and give then close-quarters of prep-school and college that need not be a former lover. Former roommates, friends, friends-of-former lovers... any one of them could say "hey, i know for a fact you were sexually active!".

Another oddity with that statement is that he *didn't* claim to wait until marriage, nor are the allegations of Ford or Ramirez claiming he had sex.  "I was a virgin" is not incongruous with "I exposed myself."  He did categorically deny sexual assault as well to be fair, but it's still a weird defense.  Like if someone was accused of unsuccessfully shop-lifting a candy bar and they said "I've never eaten candy in my life!"


I'm wondering whether one of Kavanaugh's problems is that his audience includes his parents and his wife.  For instance, I don't think revealing his calendar for 1982 has done him any good at all and he must have known that it could be hugely problematic, but his parents will have known about the calendar and would have been highly suspicious if he hadn't used it as evidence.  Similarly, who knows what he told his wife about his previous sexual experience?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 02:37:25 PM
If I understand correctly, part of the issue with Kavanaugh is the threat to Roe V Wade. Problem is Roe V Wade is going to have to be reconsidered as advances in Genetic Engineering technology happen. (If a woman wants to edit the genetics of her fetus, can anyone argue no?)

Seems to me that Democrats are kicking the issue down the road.

As for the assault, there should be an investigation. It is just how modern day confirmation hearings work.

Just as concerning is the Gamble case which starts hearing arguments this Friday.

Which case is that? The one I found was from 1976.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gamble-v-united-states/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/

Can two "sovereigns" prosecute for the same crime?


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 02:49:01 PM
How's this for Irony?

President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
OK, I am not normally this crude, but am I the only one that has been thinking "If he was drinking that much, I don't doubt that he was, technically, a virgin."

The virginity claim was to me a very odd one to make. It seems to be only to appeal to evangelicals who claim not to approve of sex before marriage (yet repeatedly support adulterous candidates), and Kavanaugh is not up for general election in anything.

It also seems likely a risky thing to say if not true. His claim on Fox was that he was a virgin throughout highschool "and for many years later".  Statistically that's possible, but unlikely.  More to the point, if untrue it would only take one to contradict him, and give then close-quarters of prep-school and college that need not be a former lover. Former roommates, friends, friends-of-former lovers... any one of them could say "hey, i know for a fact you were sexually active!".

Another oddity with that statement is that he *didn't* claim to wait until marriage, nor are the allegations of Ford or Ramirez claiming he had sex.  "I was a virgin" is not incongruous with "I exposed myself."  He did categorically deny sexual assault as well to be fair, but it's still a weird defense.  Like if someone was accused of unsuccessfully shop-lifting a candy bar and they said "I've never eaten candy in my life!"

He was basically alleged to have been a hard drinking, hard partying, sexual deviant.  Not sure if the allegations that he gang raped people had come out and routinely tried to date rape people had been made at the time of that interview, but it is responsive to the allegations members of the media and other democrats were repeating and the image they were trying to portray.     
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 02:52:41 PM
OK, I am not normally this crude, but am I the only one that has been thinking "If he was drinking that much, I don't doubt that he was, technically, a virgin."

The virginity claim was to me a very odd one to make. It seems to be only to appeal to evangelicals who claim not to approve of sex before marriage (yet repeatedly support adulterous candidates), and Kavanaugh is not up for general election in anything.

It also seems likely a risky thing to say if not true. His claim on Fox was that he was a virgin throughout highschool "and for many years later".  Statistically that's possible, but unlikely.  More to the point, if untrue it would only take one to contradict him, and give then close-quarters of prep-school and college that need not be a former lover. Former roommates, friends, friends-of-former lovers... any one of them could say "hey, i know for a fact you were sexually active!".

Another oddity with that statement is that he *didn't* claim to wait until marriage, nor are the allegations of Ford or Ramirez claiming he had sex.  "I was a virgin" is not incongruous with "I exposed myself."  He did categorically deny sexual assault as well to be fair, but it's still a weird defense.  Like if someone was accused of unsuccessfully shop-lifting a candy bar and they said "I've never eaten candy in my life!"

He was basically alleged to have been a hard drinking, hard partying, sexual deviant.  Not sure if the allegations that he gang raped people had come out and routinely tried to date rape people had been made at the time of that interview, but it is responsive to the allegations members of the media and other democrats were repeating and the image they were trying to portray.     

Yeah, but being a virgin and being a sexual predator are not mutually exclusive. I mean, Brock Turner was just dry humping an unconscious girl behind a dumpster.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Dancin'Dog on September 28, 2018, 02:57:37 PM
Okay, yesterday was pretty disgusting.  If I acted that way in a courtroom, I would be held in contempt.  He was belligerent and evasive.  Whatever you think of the allegations, yesterday's performance alone was disqualifying. 

He reminded me of some of our clients.  When we prep someone for a depo, we tell him/her to stay calm, play it straight, answer the question presented, tell the truth, don't be evasive, and don't argue with the other lawyer.  Same goes for in court testimony, even more so, with the added caveat of showing respect for the court (i.e. the judge).  Every now and then, despite our preparation, the client goes ape shit during testimony.  That's what I saw yesterday with Kav.  People who behave that way during testimony absolutely destroy their own credibility.

And don't tell me that's how a "man" is supposed to act because he is a "fighter."  Bullshit.  He's a coward.  A real man owns up to his mistakes.  He was too afraid to "man up."  Kav doesn't have the proper demeanor to be a competent attorney, much less a judge.




Thanks for pointing that out from your professional experience.  I felt the exact same way about what I viewed yesterday.  It was an insult that he and the GOP acted that way.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: boarder42 on September 28, 2018, 02:58:43 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus. What else are we not allowed to talk about?

Who's Jesus. Why is he being brought into this thread. What does the most common Mexican name have to do with scotus
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: boarder42 on September 28, 2018, 03:02:06 PM
How's this for Irony?

President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

It's the right thing to do here. Someone is lying. We all lean the way we think is correct. See what the FBI can dig up. Better than just putting him in the chair.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 28, 2018, 03:02:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHBvOImIZNU

My mouth is hanging open. When he is being ever asked by senator Klobauch if he has ever drank so much he does not remember all or some of the night before, he turns it around, and says I don't know, what about you, have you ever been black out drunk. Not once but TWICE. To the senator who is questioning him.

This guy is going to be the next supreme court justice? His sense of entitlement towards getting this position and contempt toward women, showing.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malaysia41 on September 28, 2018, 03:05:11 PM
Okay, yesterday was pretty disgusting.  If I acted that way in a courtroom, I would be held in contempt.  He was belligerent and evasive.  Whatever you think of the allegations, yesterday's performance alone was disqualifying. 

This is exactly my take-away. How anyone could vote 'yeah' for him to SCOTUS after that bile-spitting testimony is beyond me.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 03:07:40 PM
President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

And Trump has reportedly agreed.  So it looks like we're going to get an investigation, of some sort, from the FBI after all. 

Any bets on what their conclusions will be?  Will Kavanaugh withdraw before it concludes to avoid having his past exploits exposed?  Will the FBI say "we couldn't determine anything at all" and we'll be right back where we started?  Will they find evidence to prove he perjured himself with his testimony? 

My bet is that the FBI confirms that he was a belligerent heavy drinker when he was underage, that he did often attend parties where multiple people report he touched women inappropriately, that Mark Judge's account confirms Dr. Ford's, and that none of it will matter and they'll confirm him anyway.  They'll write it off as "youthful indiscretions" or some such, and he'll be a SC justice in a week.

Within two years he'll have overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for colluding with Russia no matter what the Mueller investigation finds, and the tit for tat will be complete.  Even if democrats take control of both houses of congress, Trump will be protected by the five republicans on the supreme court, just like he was previously protected by the republican majority in Congress.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 03:07:54 PM
There is evidence of both.  Anita Hill and Christine Ford gave sworn testimony.  That is evidence.   Granted it is he said/she said, and neither is enough for a criminal conviction.  Both were enough to make me think that he should have withdrawn and another person nominated.  I'm sure that there is a better person for the job.

Can you imagine a future in which no high government officials are accused of sexual assault, harassment, or rape?  A country totally run by people of such unimpeachable character that nobody would even dream of making such accusations, people whose lives have been carefully documented since childhood to be free of any criminal activity whatsoever?  Does it sound so terrible?

Because Graham and friends have suggested that every nominee from here out will be subject to baseless accusations, despite nobody since Thomas having this problem.  Kagan and Sotomayer and even Gorsuch had no such accusations, and I imagine there are at least a few other judges with similarly noncriminal histories of sexual conduct.  Any nominee who is accused of such things should be able to immediately and enthusiastically call for a full investigation, support any and all new fact finding missions, offer unconditional access to personal records and contacts, and not have to cry about partisan witch hunts or smear campaigns because the evidence should speak for itself.  Why can't Kavanaugh do any of that?
  If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 

When reading these forums, I will occasionally scroll through looking for comments from specific contributors that over time I have found make informed comments. You are one of those contributors. In this particular post, its clear to me, after following the Kavanaugh proceedings for last few weeks, that you have taken a very one-side view of the facts. That's not to say that anything you said was blatantly false, but not a fair representation.

Okey dokey. 

Would you also like to offer a specific criticism of my writing, or a rebuttal to a particular argument I have made, or did you just chime in to express your disappointment with my overall tone?  I would welcome your contributions to this discussion, if you have any.

Personally, I would be much more comfortable with the news today if Kavanaugh was fully exonerated of any wrongdoing by an FBI investigation.  That is the best case scenario at this point,
there's literally no possibility that he can be exonerated.  That would involve accounting for every minute of his life of the time between Ford was 15 (and possibly for 15-19 if you credit her therapists notes).

IMO, because I think he's going to be confirmed no matter what the truth is and I would rather we have a SC justice who was a genuine altar boy instead of one actually did all of this stuff (underage drinking, partying, spiking punch to get girls drunk, boorish groping, etc).  In my fantasy world, the FBI finds 20 credible witnesses that say Brett never drank to excess or touched women inappropriately in his life,
this wouldn't help at all.  He's already had plenty of credible people give testament to his good character.  I think in this very thread someone stated something along the lines of not being impressed that he managed to not rape or assault so many women he knew because it didn't mean he didn't rape or assault the other ones.

and finds evidence to discredit the allegations against him as a liberal plot, and we can all breathe a deep sigh of relief that the truth came out.

Do I think that scenario is likely?  Have you ever met a drunk frat boy who respected women?
  Show me on the doll where the frat boy touched you. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 28, 2018, 03:12:29 PM
Trump in a press conference has called Ford a "very credible witness".
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 28, 2018, 03:22:51 PM
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before,

I am totally fine with the idea of all future Supreme Court nominees coming from the ranks of teetotalers or folks who have at least never been visibly drunk in front of anyone before.  Maybe it would be good to entrust people who have never compromised their mental functions with the sacred duty of passing moral judgments that affect the entire country.

I have been drunk lots of times in my life, and I am quite certain nobody would ever accuse of me attempted rape.  On the contrary, you could probably dig up a handful of women who were kind of disappointed I didn't have sex with them when we had both been drinking.  My history is still probably disqualifying for a supreme court justice.

Remember when Justice Ginsburg was withdrawn because he got high once?  Kavanaugh has all but admitted to regularly getting blackout drunk in high school, why is that suddenly okay for a supreme court nominee?  You know that's blatantly illegal, right?  Will the FBi investigation report on his history of criminal underage drinking?

there's literally no possibility that he can be exonerated. 

Sure there is.  The Duke lacrosse team was exonerated.  The FBI estimates that between 1% and 8% of the sexual assault and rape cases they investigate are ultimately abandoned as false for one reason or another, usually because the accuser recants the accusation when presented with contradictory evidence or inconsistencies in their story.  The consequences for making false accusations are especially severe, I might add.

Show me on the doll where the frat boy touched you.

Right on the Jrr.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 03:36:59 PM
How's this for Irony?

President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

It's the right thing to do here. Someone is lying. We all lean the way we think is correct. See what the FBI can dig up. Better than just putting him in the chair.
i concur it is the right thing to do.  I was just struck by the irony of the man who has himself been accused of sexual assault and who has railed against FBI special investigations now being coerced into calling for just such an investigation on his own nominee.
Perhaps "karma" would be more apt here?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 03:46:01 PM
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Michael in ABQ on September 28, 2018, 04:00:38 PM
Maybe he'll get dropped in favor of Amy Coney Barrett. It's going to be a bit hard to attack her character. Also, she would be the first justice in many decades to have gone to law school somewhere other than Yale, Harvard, or Columbia.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: cats on September 28, 2018, 04:06:49 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

This is ridiculous.  In my younger days, there was a lot of pressure to drink at parties, bars, etc, and when I was at gatherings with booze around I would often take a bottle of whatever and then drink it verrrrrrry slowly over the course of the evening.  Often I would wind up leaving the bottle still half full after leaving the party.  I don't find it all that unbelievable that a 15-year old at a gathering with older teenagers would have felt pressure to drink, taken a beer, and then drunk it fairly slowly to avoid taking more.  Sounds like my experience at multiple parties.

For what it's worth, my parents both think a legal drinking age of 21 is ridiculous and my father in particular has been quite open with me about how much drinking he did in college and how he was totally fine with his kids also drinking.  I don't think he would have been that outraged to find out I had 2 beers at a party at age 15, had I done so.  And I really don't think he would care one way or the other if he found out about it now, when it's 20 years in the past.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 04:09:23 PM
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 04:15:50 PM
Dr. Ford doesnt seem to be some random crazy.
She's a well educated professional.

If she came across less credibly, I might think it was politically motivated, but nothing about her testimony seemed that way.

She wasn't some people of Walmart figure making a claim that it sounds like she was paid for.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 04:18:26 PM
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before,

I am totally fine with the idea of all future Supreme Court nominees coming from the ranks of teetotalers or folks who have at least never been visibly drunk in front of anyone before.  Maybe it would be good to entrust people who have never compromised their mental functions with the sacred duty of passing moral judgments that affect the entire country.

I have been drunk lots of times in my life, and I am quite certain nobody would ever accuse of me attempted rape.  On the contrary, you could probably dig up a handful of women who were kind of disappointed I didn't have sex with them when we had both been drinking.  My history is still probably disqualifying for a supreme court justice.
  Nobody will probably ever accuse of attempted rape because you're not being nominated for a supreme court seat, not because you can prevent an allegation simply by being innocent.


Remember when Justice Ginsburg was withdrawn because he got high once?
  I don't remember that.  I do remember the idiocy that led to "I smoked but I didn't inhale".  I think we are less crazy with respect to that issue (obviously not with respect to many others). 

Kavanaugh has all but admitted to regularly getting blackout drunk in high school, why is that suddenly okay for a supreme court nominee?  You know that's blatantly illegal, right?  Will the FBi investigation report on his history of criminal underage drinking?
  Ignoring the fact that he hasn't admitted that at all, it's not suddenly ok for a supreme court nominee.  It's always been ok to my knowledge.  I don't think a prior judge has been asked about his or her drinking habits in high school because we hadn't devolved to the craziness where we pretended it was relevant compared to the behavior in all the decades since then. 



there's literally no possibility that he can be exonerated. 

Sure there is.  The Duke lacrosse team was exonerated.  The FBI estimates that between 1% and 8% of the sexual assault and rape cases they investigate are ultimately abandoned as false for one reason or another, usually because the accuser recants the accusation when presented with contradictory evidence or inconsistencies in their story.  The consequences for making false accusations are especially severe, I might add.
Not withstanding the fact that the allegation was made basically contemporaneously, the false accuser in the duke case named a place and time of her alleged abuse.  One of the first things that helped the case fall apart was the fact that one of the boys she identified had an atm receipt from the time the event was supposed to have taken place.  Short of Ford just confessing to lying or deciding that she misremembered, there's no way the FBI is going to determine that Kavanaugh  never could have been around her for a one or four year period from 36 years ago. 



Show me on the doll where the frat boy touched you.

Right on the Jrr.
I chuckled. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 04:19:19 PM
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better.

So you are claiming that Ford is a crazy making a false accusation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 04:24:56 PM
Dr. Ford doesnt seem to be some random crazy.
She's a well educated professional.

If she came across less credibly, I might think it was politically motivated, but nothing about her testimony seemed that way.

She wasn't some people of Walmart figure making a claim that it sounds like she was paid for.
The third accuser supposedly had at least some level of security clearances.  Future accusers might not be as educated as Ford, but if they aren't crossed, it's not that hard to be come off as credible and they might not put such off the wall stuff in their allegations.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Jrr85 on September 28, 2018, 04:26:06 PM
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better.

So you are claiming that Ford is a crazy making a false accusation.

No.  How would I know if Ford is crazy or not? 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 04:27:50 PM
There is someone in my extended family who was falsely accused of sexual assault. There were no witnesses. He had no good alibi, as he was with the woman when it was said to occur.

Investigation cleared him. She was jailed for false accusations.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 04:30:07 PM
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better.

So you are claiming that Ford is a crazy making a false accusation.

No.  How would I know if Ford is crazy or not?

If you are not claiming that she is a crazy making an accusation, then why is she setting a precedent for crazies making accusations?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 28, 2018, 04:36:55 PM
Within two years he'll have overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for colluding with Russia no matter what the Mueller investigation finds, and the tit for tat will be complete.
You forgot the part where he single-handedly kills the other 8 innocent justices who all want to do what's right.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 05:08:44 PM
If all it takes to derail a nomination going forward is an uncorroborated allegation that is also too vague to be disproven and also having had alcohol before, it will probably take a few dozen tries to fill each position.  Or possibly we will start only nominating people who have been devout muslims or mormons or possibly baptists for their entire life. 


History does not seem to support this dystopian prediction.  Gorsuch was strongly opposed by the Democratic minority of 48, yet no one accused him of sexual assault, and three Dems even voted yes.  Nor were Roberts of Alito or Kagan or Sotomayor for that matter accused of criminal acts.  Roberts got 78 votes, the first  justice after the whole Clinton impeachment proceedings for perjury and sexual misconduct.

I'm not claiming the history is somehow going to be changed.  I'm pointing out that going forward, there will always be a crazy to make an allegation.
 If politicians nad media act like it is a battle for good or evil, and the precedent is set that just an allegation is enough (or an allegation combined with a nominee that has drank alcohol before), there is going to be somebody that convinces themselves they're doing the right thing by making up an allegation.  It's just a matter of finding someone that could have plausibly been in the vicinity of the nominee at some time in the past, the further back the better.

Right, and you are presenting this as if its some brand new strategy that people have suddenly stumbled upon and will be used for every single nominee going forward.  You are using that to disregard the current accusations, saying that all future nominees will be dogged by similar 'crazies'.
The problem is that this strategy is as old as politics itself. Accuse a person of some socially taboo behavior and hope he flounders.  But it isn't a frequently used tactic in democracies like ours precisely because it puts the accuser in legal and moral jeopardy. Otherwise we'd see if used all the time, and we don't - hence the reference to former SCOTUS nominees, none of which faced such accusations, even though many faced bitter partisan fights.  Even Bork (perhaps the most notoriously catankerous fight of all) wasn't focused on unfounded allegations.  Where you do see this tactic used frequently is in dictatorships where the court system is weak.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Mappocalypse on September 28, 2018, 05:13:40 PM

There is something to be said about one's circle of control (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/).

However, it should be noted that this thread is in the "Off Topic" subforum.  As such, it's not on topic to the rest of the MMM-verse.

Why make your 3rd ever post in this thread if it does not interest you?

The circle of control is exactly correct. Discussion is great and all, but everyone appears to be getting increasingly hostile over something they cannot control (individually).
I see no endgame here other than one side turning into Mob 1 and the other as Mob 2 running headfirst into each other.
This thread interested me enough to make that small quip about things.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 28, 2018, 05:54:15 PM

There is something to be said about one's circle of control (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/).

However, it should be noted that this thread is in the "Off Topic" subforum.  As such, it's not on topic to the rest of the MMM-verse.

Why make your 3rd ever post in this thread if it does not interest you?

The circle of control is exactly correct. Discussion is great and all, but everyone appears to be getting increasingly hostile over something they cannot control (individually).
I see no endgame here other than one side turning into Mob 1 and the other as Mob 2 running headfirst into each other.
This thread interested me enough to make that small quip about things.


Enough to make an account and make multiple comments about the thread that really concerns you because it's a thread.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 06:21:13 PM

There is something to be said about one's circle of control (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/07/how-big-is-your-circle-of-control/).

However, it should be noted that this thread is in the "Off Topic" subforum.  As such, it's not on topic to the rest of the MMM-verse.

Why make your 3rd ever post in this thread if it does not interest you?

The circle of control is exactly correct. Discussion is great and all, but everyone appears to be getting increasingly hostile over something they cannot control (individually).
I see no endgame here other than one side turning into Mob 1 and the other as Mob 2 running headfirst into each other.

This thread interested me enough to make that small quip about things.

stick around long enough, you'll see we just like to debate and pontificate.  Stay even longer and you'll start to notice some posters actually developing their opinions.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:26:21 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't supply any information which is useful

You aren't being objective.   You are protecting her.  You're surmising. Did anyone ask her if she drank beer normally?  How much beer did she drink?  Could she "stomach" beer?  Of course they didn't.  It wasn't germane to the #metoo movement.  They certainly asked Kavanaugh those questions ad infinitum. We can't possibly ask those questions of an accuser, could we?  The accuser in this case has become untouchable.  I feel that this is a slippery slope and that all of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Husbands, Sons, Brothers are now open game for retaliatory abuse even if they are innocent.  There needs to be a more thorough investigation (that is obvious)

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MarciaB on September 28, 2018, 06:27:17 PM
I kept wondering this morning why none of the senators mentioned that an investigation would be to Kavenaugh's benefit in the long run. If he's investigated and cleared for instance, he could be then appointed to the bench without a cloud of suspicion following him around (like it still does for Justice Thomas). What's another week when we're looking at decades of service?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:28:13 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus. What else are we not allowed to talk about?

Not really....  This has become a mob/hag him forum topic.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 28, 2018, 06:28:24 PM
Interesting. When I talked to guy i am seeing off and on what he thought of this (he's a Republican), he had taken the time to watch Ford's testimony. He said he believes her. From her testimony, that she mentioned this privately before he was nominated for the position, and that he has more motivation to lie than she does. He feels he they should move on and pick another nominee. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:33:26 PM
President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

And Trump has reportedly agreed.  So it looks like we're going to get an investigation, of some sort, from the FBI after all. 

Any bets on what their conclusions will be?  Will Kavanaugh withdraw before it concludes to avoid having his past exploits exposed?  Will the FBI say "we couldn't determine anything at all" and we'll be right back where we started?  Will they find evidence to prove he perjured himself with his testimony? 

My bet is that the FBI confirms that he was a belligerent heavy drinker when he was underage, that he did often attend parties where multiple people report he touched women inappropriately, that Mark Judge's account confirms Dr. Ford's, and that none of it will matter and they'll confirm him anyway.  They'll write it off as "youthful indiscretions" or some such, and he'll be a SC justice in a week.

Within two years he'll have overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for colluding with Russia no matter what the Mueller investigation finds, and the tit for tat will be complete.  Even if democrats take control of both houses of congress, Trump will be protected by the five republicans on the supreme court, just like he was previously protected by the republican majority in Congress.

Again, the FBI doesn't provide conclusions.  Get with the program, Sol.  I thought you were smarter than that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:39:46 PM
Dr. Ford doesnt seem to be some random crazy.
She's a well educated professional.

If she came across less credibly, I might think it was politically motivated, but nothing about her testimony seemed that way.

She wasn't some people of Walmart figure making a claim that it sounds like she was paid for.

So those that have less character in your estimation don't deserve benefit of doubt?  Wow, you sound like a limousine liberal.  Have you considered her political bias may have led to her "truth".  There is a wide variety of possibilities here.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 06:41:21 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't supply any information which is useful

You aren't being objective.   You are protecting her.  You're surmising. Did anyone ask her if she drank beer normally?  How much beer did she drink?  Could she "stomach" beer?  Of course they didn't.  It wasn't germane to the #metoo movement.  They certainly asked Kavanaugh those questions ad infinitum. We can't possibly ask those questions of an accuser, could we?  The accuser in this case has become untouchable.  I feel that this is a slippery slope and that all of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Husbands, Sons, Brothers are now open game for retaliatory abuse even if they are innocent.  There needs to be a more thorough investigation (that is obvious)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:41:48 PM
I kept wondering this morning why none of the senators mentioned that an investigation would be to Kavenaugh's benefit in the long run. If he's investigated and cleared for instance, he could be then appointed to the bench without a cloud of suspicion following him around (like it still does for Justice Thomas). What's another week when we're looking at decades of service?

You're missing the point that the right thinks the left is delaying so that the nomination confirmation takes place after the November elections.  This is ALL politically motivated on both sides.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 28, 2018, 06:47:37 PM
President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

And Trump has reportedly agreed.  So it looks like we're going to get an investigation, of some sort, from the FBI after all. 

Any bets on what their conclusions will be?  Will Kavanaugh withdraw before it concludes to avoid having his past exploits exposed?  Will the FBI say "we couldn't determine anything at all" and we'll be right back where we started?  Will they find evidence to prove he perjured himself with his testimony? 

My bet is that the FBI confirms that he was a belligerent heavy drinker when he was underage, that he did often attend parties where multiple people report he touched women inappropriately, that Mark Judge's account confirms Dr. Ford's, and that none of it will matter and they'll confirm him anyway.  They'll write it off as "youthful indiscretions" or some such, and he'll be a SC justice in a week.

Within two years he'll have overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for colluding with Russia no matter what the Mueller investigation finds, and the tit for tat will be complete.  Even if democrats take control of both houses of congress, Trump will be protected by the five republicans on the supreme court, just like he was previously protected by the republican majority in Congress.

Again, the FBI doesn't provide conclusions.  Get with the program, Sol.  I thought you were smarter than that.

perhaps you missed this comment from former plater upthread:
Quote

The FBI will reach conclusions on the facts - ie a conclusion on what is the truth, where it finds the truth ascertainable.  It will not reach a conclusion on whether or not Kavanaugh should be voted onto the Supreme Court.

i believe that iswhat all of us mean when we say an investigation my provide some conclusions, particularly along the most contested but verifiable points (i.e. Kavanaugh's level and frequency of drinking)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:50:41 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't supply any information which is useful

You aren't being objective.   You are protecting her.  You're surmising. Did anyone ask her if she drank beer normally?  How much beer did she drink?  Could she "stomach" beer?  Of course they didn't.  It wasn't germane to the #metoo movement.  They certainly asked Kavanaugh those questions ad infinitum. We can't possibly ask those questions of an accuser, could we?  The accuser in this case has become untouchable.  I feel that this is a slippery slope and that all of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Husbands, Sons, Brothers are now open game for retaliatory abuse even if they are innocent.  There needs to be a more thorough investigation (that is obvious)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

If this were in court she would be asked those questions.  If everyone wants to pull the "further investigation by the FBI" card, then we need to hold this to those standards.  Doing otherwise would be unjust to Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:51:58 PM
President Trump is now being called on by his own party to have the FBI open a special investigation into his own nominee.

And Trump has reportedly agreed.  So it looks like we're going to get an investigation, of some sort, from the FBI after all. 

Any bets on what their conclusions will be?  Will Kavanaugh withdraw before it concludes to avoid having his past exploits exposed?  Will the FBI say "we couldn't determine anything at all" and we'll be right back where we started?  Will they find evidence to prove he perjured himself with his testimony? 

My bet is that the FBI confirms that he was a belligerent heavy drinker when he was underage, that he did often attend parties where multiple people report he touched women inappropriately, that Mark Judge's account confirms Dr. Ford's, and that none of it will matter and they'll confirm him anyway.  They'll write it off as "youthful indiscretions" or some such, and he'll be a SC justice in a week.

Within two years he'll have overturned Roe v. Wade and ruled that Trump can't be prosecuted for colluding with Russia no matter what the Mueller investigation finds, and the tit for tat will be complete.  Even if democrats take control of both houses of congress, Trump will be protected by the five republicans on the supreme court, just like he was previously protected by the republican majority in Congress.

Again, the FBI doesn't provide conclusions.  Get with the program, Sol.  I thought you were smarter than that.

perhaps you missed this comment from former plater upthread:
Quote

The FBI will reach conclusions on the facts - ie a conclusion on what is the truth, where it finds the truth ascertainable.  It will not reach a conclusion on whether or not Kavanaugh should be voted onto the Supreme Court.

i believe that iswhat all of us mean when we say an investigation my provide some conclusions, particularly along the most contested but verifiable points (i.e. Kavanaugh's level and frequency of drinking)

A conclusion involves guilt.  The FBI will not determine guilt.  They will provide evidence.  Period.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JanetJackson on September 28, 2018, 06:52:29 PM
I am ready for the "Lock her up!" chants. This is defamation of character, libel and slander; she has nothing, not even her best friend. Feinstein too; she sat for months on supposed 'evidence.' Whether he gets it or not I hope he sues her and her employer goes out of business.

I don't even understand what she is getting at; she willing went into a room with him then changed her mind so she yelled; he covered her mouth while she yelled in his hear, then what...he ran away? Oh no, rubbing her shoulders, while drunkenly mumbling or whatever, you know drunk flirting; she shows her dis-appreciation of it and he stopped. Ok, for the benefit of the doubt for all this, we will go along with a strict Judeo-Christian ethic and say what he did was immoral(edit; assuming it even happened). But seriously, all this for two weeks. I get why the media is doing this, they need ratings, something to talk about, etc; but you people?

Are we done with this yet? You people indeed.  We're fine. But Jesus Christ-what is wrong with you?

1. She testified that she was pushed from behind into the bedroom-forced. Not willing.

2.  He didn't run away.  He fell off the bed with her under him because his disgusting friend wanted to get in on his assault.  In the tumult, she fled from the room and locked herself in the bathroom.  He never stopped of his own accord.  He.did.not.stop.  She escaped.

It's one thing to not believe her testimony, but it's just rotten to argue based on things you are making up for the sole purpose of turning an assault into drunk flirting.  Neither party is claiming your set of "facts".  Also, your whitewashed version is still really gross, and I'm concerned about what you think is acceptable flirting behavior. I truly hope that this is something you are making up out of partisan zeal and that this does not reflect your own moral code.
@hoping2retire35  @Wexler
I was hoping to stay away from this thread as it's giving me a dang headache, but I just could not stop thinking about what hoping2retire35 said here... it's... shocking, for lack of a better word.
This is what you would refer to as "flirting?"  That's unacceptable.  Both the behavior AND the dismissive tone you are using to describe it.  If what she said happened did indeed happen, it's TEXTBOOK ASSAULT, not "flirting gone wrong". 
These types of comments  shine a spotlight on the attitudes and beliefs in our society that are problematic.  Like problematic in ways that get people harassed, assaulted, and raped. 
Groping someone is not flirting. 
Covering someones mouth when they try to scream is not flirting. 
....I don't even know what else to say.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on September 28, 2018, 06:57:56 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't supply any information which is useful

You aren't being objective.   You are protecting her.  You're surmising. Did anyone ask her if she drank beer normally?  How much beer did she drink?  Could she "stomach" beer?  Of course they didn't.  It wasn't germane to the #metoo movement.  They certainly asked Kavanaugh those questions ad infinitum. We can't possibly ask those questions of an accuser, could we?  The accuser in this case has become untouchable.  I feel that this is a slippery slope and that all of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Husbands, Sons, Brothers are now open game for retaliatory abuse even if they are innocent.  There needs to be a more thorough investigation (that is obvious)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

If this were in court she would be asked those questions.  If everyone wants to pull the "further investigation by the FBI" card, then we need to hold this to those standards.  Doing otherwise would be unjust to Kavanaugh.
Why?  An FBI investigation doesn't involve court.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 06:59:57 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't supply any information which is useful

You aren't being objective.   You are protecting her.  You're surmising. Did anyone ask her if she drank beer normally?  How much beer did she drink?  Could she "stomach" beer?  Of course they didn't.  It wasn't germane to the #metoo movement.  They certainly asked Kavanaugh those questions ad infinitum. We can't possibly ask those questions of an accuser, could we?  The accuser in this case has become untouchable.  I feel that this is a slippery slope and that all of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Husbands, Sons, Brothers are now open game for retaliatory abuse even if they are innocent.  There needs to be a more thorough investigation (that is obvious)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

Questioning her about her drinking at the "event" or "party" doesn't suggest anything other than she may have not remembered who did what".   It doesn't have anything to do with culpability. Obviously, someone who has been sexually assaulted and their condition at the time have nothing to do with the victim being culpable.  That would be unacceptable and really disturbing.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on September 28, 2018, 07:09:45 PM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't supply any information which is useful

You aren't being objective.   You are protecting her.  You're surmising. Did anyone ask her if she drank beer normally?  How much beer did she drink?  Could she "stomach" beer?  Of course they didn't.  It wasn't germane to the #metoo movement.  They certainly asked Kavanaugh those questions ad infinitum. We can't possibly ask those questions of an accuser, could we?  The accuser in this case has become untouchable.  I feel that this is a slippery slope and that all of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Husbands, Sons, Brothers are now open game for retaliatory abuse even if they are innocent.  There needs to be a more thorough investigation (that is obvious)

Well that's because there is a difference in asking such questions to Kavanaugh and to Dr Ford.  In her testimony, Ford stated that Kavanaugh was extremely drunk during the incident, a charge that he vehemently, but in his sworn statement as well as in a televised interview.  Kavanaugh even went so far as to claim he had never in his life been blackout drunk, a claim which has been refuted by multiple other people and his own yearbook and calendar.

The drinking habits of Ford have never been at issue, and frankly questioning an alleged victim of sexual assualt about whether they were sober comes off as suggesting she somehow was culpable in the attack. as such, the only question that needs to be addressed for a first-person account is whether they can identify their attackers and describe the pertinent events surrounding the crime.  As Dr Ford testified that she was '100% certain' it was Kavanaugh and Judge, and could give a detailed account of her attack there wasn't much reason to question her further about alcohol.

If this were in court she would be asked those questions.  If everyone wants to pull the "further investigation by the FBI" card, then we need to hold this to those standards.  Doing otherwise would be unjust to Kavanaugh.
Why?  An FBI investigation doesn't involve court.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

The left felt that statement given and entered into the Senate record by those that were supposedly present wasn't good enough.  They felt that being questioned by the FBI and lying would make it a federal offense and that was the reasoning for more investigation.  If someone is being questioned by the FBI and they provide false information, they can be charged with various crimes which are considered felonies. 

More so, anyone that lies to the Senate or Congress can be prosecuted for a Felony Federal Offense.  Why should questions during her testimony be any different than those question in a court?  It is done under oath.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 28, 2018, 07:18:07 PM
Dr. Ford doesnt seem to be some random crazy.
She's a well educated professional.

If she came across less credibly, I might think it was politically motivated, but nothing about her testimony seemed that way.

She wasn't some people of Walmart figure making a claim that it sounds like she was paid for.

So those that have less character in your estimation don't deserve benefit of doubt?  Wow, you sound like a limousine liberal.  Have you considered her political bias may have led to her "truth".  There is a wide variety of possibilities here.

Less character deserve less benefit of doubt?  Yes. If you have shown to be of poor character, I will doubt your statements.

Low education doesn't mean poor character, Poor doesn't mean poor character. Odd dress doesn't mean poor character.  None of those things taken on it's own would make me question your character. "People of Walmart" characterization was poor on my part. Hell, I shop at Walmart.

But had Dr. Ford had behaved as Kavanaugh did, I would question hers.  If she was irratic and unclear, I'd wonder if she was paid for the story. If it seemed she had something to gain, I'd question her more. She had everything to lose making this accusation. That's why I bring up she's a well educated professional. She's not looking to milk this into reality TV appearances on some half rate cable channel.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 28, 2018, 07:41:03 PM
Amazing that "I went to Yale" was used as a defense by Kavanaugh to sexual assault allegations.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 28, 2018, 07:45:18 PM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914308/kavanaugh-ford-question-dodge-hearing-chart

Yikes.

Kavanaugh proved himself to be the political operative that he is. No nominee worthy of the Supreme Court would go the conspiracy route as he did.  He had the audacity to ask a sitting Senator if she drank to the point of blacking out.  Truth aside on the allegations, he is unqaulified to serve on the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter.

Also, Avenatti will apparently be dropping new information this weekend and that guy does not mess around.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: BZB on September 28, 2018, 07:57:23 PM
Watching all this play out has made for a stressful few days. Randy Rainbow is helping to keep me sane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gG0-6Ntx7w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gG0-6Ntx7w).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: redbirdfan on September 28, 2018, 08:40:21 PM
I do believe this is partially political.  Everything with the Senate is to a certain degree.  On the other hand, I believe many people, including myself, watched two people testify.  One was credible...it was clear that she made he accusations prior to Trump winning the election (therapy records) and before Kavanaugh was the nominee (July 6th tip).  She didn't make up facts when she could have.  She acknowledged that she didn't have all the information that she wanted to.  There was nothing about her testimony that felt contrived or exaggerated.  This shouldn't matter (but it does) - she came across as a nice person.  She also welcomed an FBI investigation.

In contrast, Kavanaugh came off like an entitled-A-hole.  I understand being upset that your past is being used as political info-tainment.  I understand being upset because you feel you're innocent.  But the Clinton-conspiracy rebuke of the Senate Democrats in the opening statement mixed with the random tears was jarring for me.  Not in a good way.  I went from being undecided to questioning whether he could actually serve as an impartial judge.  He didn't appear to be a person who should weigh in on the extent of executive power.  The yelling at Senators asking them if they had drinking problems reminded me of friends/family members who were alcoholics in denial.

I'm going out on a limb here.  The FBI investigation will be much easier because (wait for it) HE HAS CALENDARS DATING BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL.  The FBI can locate the people's homes mentioned in the calendar.  They can get Judge's testimony under oath.  They can ask Brett if he's ever had therapy for drinking.  Those notes could contain admissions of being black out drunk.  They can talk to all the people listed by name in his calendars who were drinking buddies.  The FBI can talk to his frat brothers, the members of the Renate group, pull blueprints of the homes he visited, etc.  Kav can't just say he doesn't have calendars now that he's explained that he's kept them since he was 9 or 10.

Now, I don't know how this will play out.  It could be a cursory investigation, but there's a lot of info out there to dig into.  Plus, lying to the FBI can be harder to get away with than lying in front of the Senate when the Senate is likely to remain in Republican hands.  We'll see how this plays out.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: calimom on September 28, 2018, 09:33:24 PM
It's possible this decision rests on the well shod shoulders of Jeff Flake. The furrowed brow under his expensively coiffed waterfall of hair tells a story of a man conflicted. Sure, he's an Arizona Republican. But, he's no fan of rapey drunken bro culture. But a woman's right to choose! Should women be able to have rights!! Oh gay marriage, so challenging for Jeff. His Mormonism! His daughters! His Party! His moral disdain of Trump!  FBI investigation! Oh the conundrum of being Jeff.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 28, 2018, 09:39:55 PM
It's not just one. It's two Republicans who have to go against Cocaine Mitch.  Like always, it's down to Murkowski and Collins actually showing they care about women.  Flake will get offered a Fox News job and get back in line by next Friday.

It's really too bad the Senate is a wholly undemocratic body.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: doggyfizzle on September 28, 2018, 09:48:19 PM
It's not just one. It's two Republicans who have to go against Cocaine Mitch.  Like always, it's down to Murkowski and Collins actually showing they care about women.  Flake will get offered a Fox News job and get back in line by next Friday.

It's really too bad the Senate is a wholly undemocratic body.

Don’t forget Capito from West Virginia; she isn’t up for re-election this year and I could see her going whichever way Manchin goes based on how his poll numbers are doing.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2018, 11:12:11 PM
For a website/forum dedicated to badassery, you people certainly like to whine a lot.
When something happens in politics, and you make it sound like the end of the world, that seems to be the antithesis of everything MMM stands for.

Is this the Cult of MMM? I didn't know he was our Jesus. What else are we not allowed to talk about?

Not really....  This has become a mob/hag him forum topic.

So now an investigation is as bad as a hanging???
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: marty998 on September 29, 2018, 03:25:08 AM
I went from being undecided to questioning whether he could actually serve as an impartial judge. 

Bears pointing out that his nomination to in 2003 and confirmation to the lower court he currently serves in was held up for three years over concerns about impartiality.

During that three year period he worked for President Bush*.

I don't know enough about the decisions he has taken and judgements he has made on that court the last 12 years to comment on whether his perceived bias does shine through so I'll leave that alone.

I actually think it's a miracle of democracy that you guys have a formalised confirmation process, and that, on the face of it, however ugly, it seems to be working as intended in drawing skeletons out of the proverbial closet. Is the airing of very dirty laundry not the point of the whole process? Otherwise why have a confirmation process at all and just let the president say sign here and the job is yours?

*As an aside, never thought I'd say I almost look back with fondness on George Dubya. But then I remember Dick Cheney and Halliburton's role in Iraq and think... oh, the swamp was ever thus...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on September 29, 2018, 04:34:15 AM
Do you think Kav will cave and throw in the towel? I can imagine his speech. It would be about the hardship to his children and wife. How this 'witch hunt' has destroyed his life, his career, his fine reputation.

If the FBI digs and finds out things and people keep popping out of the woodwork to tell their experience with Kav, why would he think this is going to turn out good?

He showed his true colors while being questioned. Arrogant, belligerent, entitled. He apparently did not want the FBI to look into this and would NOT suggest it himself while Ford said she would be okay with it.

I like this new theory that Kav has a doppleganger and Ford is mistaken him for Kav. What next? Does Kav have an evil twin that his mother hid in the attic his entire life but escapes now and then?

What will happen if they prove he has lied under oath? Will he go to jail? Or maybe his evil twin will.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 29, 2018, 04:43:31 AM

A conclusion involves guilt.  The FBI will not determine guilt.  They will provide evidence.  Period.
a verdict provides guilt, but if you want to split hairs and say that the FBI is only going to provide evidence whch will allow others to make conclusions, i don't think anyone is arguing that.  the hope is that, one way or the other, an investigation will yield conclusions on at least a few key discrepancies.

It should be noted that an investigation could help Kavanaugh as well, should the FBI corroborate statements about his activities in 1982 that he testified about under oath (with interviews of 'Smyth', 'Squi" and many others...)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Aelias on September 29, 2018, 06:01:44 AM
I was thinking the other day about why wouldn't the Republicans just cut bait on Kavanaugh when they have a literal list of other very conservative judges with the standard legal and ideological qualifications (albeit without Kavanaugh's uniquely deferential view of executive power).  You want to look like you care about women?  Cut Kavanaugh loose and nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  She's a reliable vote and the evangelicals will be ecstatic. Done.

But then I thought about what kept coming up again and again in the Republican senators' comments, particularly in Lindsey Graham's meltdown during the testimony.  Timing.  They are furious that these allegations did not come out earlier and that the Democrats "held" them.

And I think the reason that matters is that it is now too late to even get through the document production portion of the confirmation progress, even for someone like Barrett with a relatively short document trail.  This suggests that had this info come out earlier, they very well might have pulled Kavanaugh, but now they feel like they can't because if the Dems take the Senate, the Republicans believe they'll Garland (and, yes, that should be a verb like "Bork") their nominees for the next two years.

It's interesting because most publically available polling suggests that taking a majority of the Senate is a real long shot for Democrats.  Fivethirtyeight has been giving a steady 30% chance of Democrats taking the Senate for at least a month. If they really believed those were the odds, I would think they'd take the risk.  The fact that they won't, and that they appear so genuinely incensed about how this played out, suggests to me that their internal polling has them spooked.

For whatever it's worth, I sincerely hope no one ever does to another nominee what Mitch McConnell did to Garland.  It's a terrible, unconstitutional precedent, and I hope it's a one-off.  Any Supreme Court nominee from any presidendent deserves a hearing and a vote.  From a practical standpoint, I'm not even sure that it's possible to for Democrats to Garland a nominee because they have a number of moderate Senators and they're not as lock-step as Republicans. But I find the fact that Republicans are terrified that Democrats will use their own tactic against them very telling.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on September 29, 2018, 06:22:22 AM
Thought my strong preference was that this information came out earlier, and was investigated privately, hopefully before Kavanaugh was made a pick, I do feel it was the Republicans unwillingness to do a serious inquiry on this allegation including interviewing all relevant witnesses including Judge, and instead wanted to push forward, and hoped this woman would be too afraid to testify. Honestly the only thing what could happen the other day, was examining the credibility of the two people testifying. Again one person was credible. She answered all the questions. She said when she did not know the answer, rather than redirect or say something off topic. The other was not, avoiding the questions, being aggressive with the questioners, and making misleading statements.

The Republican I know didn't feel the next step was the FBI investigation. He feels the public inquiry did what it was supposed to do (separate the credible from the not-credible) and the next step should be, move to the next candidate.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on September 29, 2018, 06:54:58 AM
Well, I now know who is lying. Stay with me.

First off I am guessing either her parents are still alive or she has teenage children. I could google this, but I am already sure of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqAf2ySs9ew

Try around the 4:20 mark or a little later maybe 5:00. She said she had one beer...

I remember when I was 21 I saw a family friend, someone my senior by ~14 years at a college bar he had attended and I was currently attending. He was smoking and asked me not to tell his dad.  A ~35 yo man is vigilantly hiding cigarette smoking from his parents and asking mutual friends to do the same. We laughed pretty hard about that when I told my siblings.

In high school I knew a lot of girls who couldn't stomach beer. They would get one glass at parties and nurse it so they wouldn't look uncool, even though they hated it.


Anecdotal evidence doesn't supply any information which is useful

You aren't being objective.   You are protecting her.  You're surmising. Did anyone ask her if she drank beer normally?  How much beer did she drink?  Could she "stomach" beer?  Of course they didn't.  It wasn't germane to the #metoo movement.  They certainly asked Kavanaugh those questions ad infinitum. We can't possibly ask those questions of an accuser, could we?  The accuser in this case has become untouchable.  I feel that this is a slippery slope and that all of our Grandfathers, Fathers, Husbands, Sons, Brothers are now open game for retaliatory abuse even if they are innocent.  There needs to be a more thorough investigation (that is obvious)

I am replying to h2r’s somewhat ridiculous assumption that it is not possible for a fifteen year-old girl to have one beer.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 29, 2018, 07:14:09 AM
I was thinking the other day about why wouldn't the Republicans just cut bait on Kavanaugh when they have a literal list of other very conservative judges with the standard legal and ideological qualifications (albeit without Kavanaugh's uniquely deferential view of executive power).  You want to look like you care about women?  Cut Kavanaugh loose and nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  She's a reliable vote and the evangelicals will be ecstatic. Done.

But then I thought about what kept coming up again and again in the Republican senators' comments, particularly in Lindsey Graham's meltdown during the testimony.  Timing.  They are furious that these allegations did not come out earlier and that the Democrats "held" them.

And I think the reason that matters is that it is now too late to even get through the document production portion of the confirmation progress, even for someone like Barrett with a relatively short document trail.  This suggests that had this info come out earlier, they very well might have pulled Kavanaugh, but now they feel like they can't because if the Dems take the Senate, the Republicans believe they'll Garland (and, yes, that should be a verb like "Bork") their nominees for the next two years.

It's interesting because most publically available polling suggests that taking a majority of the Senate is a real long shot for Democrats.  Fivethirtyeight has been giving a steady 30% chance of Democrats taking the Senate for at least a month. If they really believed those were the odds, I would think they'd take the risk.  The fact that they won't, and that they appear so genuinely incensed about how this played out, suggests to me that their internal polling has them spooked.

For whatever it's worth, I sincerely hope no one ever does to another nominee what Mitch McConnell did to Garland.  It's a terrible, unconstitutional precedent, and I hope it's a one-off.  Any Supreme Court nominee from any presidendent deserves a hearing and a vote.  From a practical standpoint, I'm not even sure that it's possible to for Democrats to Garland a nominee because they have a number of moderate Senators and they're not as lock-step as Republicans. But I find the fact that Republicans are terrified that Democrats will use their own tactic against them very telling.

Unique User and bacchi  (replies  764 and 814 above) have mentioned the Gamble case in relation to the timeline.  That is a Supreme Court case which could make a ruling on the double jeopardy rule which would result in a Presidential pardon for federal crimes also blocking some or all of any State prosecution based on the same facts.   (Interestingly, Orin Hatch who just voted for Kavanaugh has intervened in the Gamble case to argue for that proposition.)  Getting Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court bench by 1st October could mean that he would be an extra vote in favour of extending the scope of Presidential pardons in that way.
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/gamble-v-united-states/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/

(links helpfully supplied by bacchi)

I haven't been able to find any rules about how far a case needs to be advanced before a new Supreme Court justice can take part in the decision.  Logically I would have thought that a justice who wasn't present for an oral hearing would have difficulty in reaching a judgment on a case but haven't found a rule to that effect.  The Supreme Court opens for business next Monday and could start hearing cases immediately: it appears that it will hear the Gamble case in time to rule before Christmas, so pretty soon.

Less immediately, there is also a federal court decision yesterday allowing Congress to bring a lawsuit against Trump for breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  There might be a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court on that case, on which a Kavanaugh vote could be very useful to Trump -
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/28/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-ruling-853272


All of which is a rather long way of saying: the Republican's problem may not be that they don't think they can confirm a different justice before a new, potentially Democrat, Senate starts work on January 21 2019.  Their problem may be that they want a 5th reliably Conservative vote on the Supreme Court for decisions that the Court will be making this autumn, starting 1st October.  If so, it would make their panic over timing and desire not to delay even by a few days, more understandable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: redbirdfan on September 29, 2018, 09:09:40 AM
Quote
Less immediately, there is also a federal court decision yesterday allowing Congress to bring a lawsuit against Trump for breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  There might be a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court on that case, on which a Kavanaugh vote could be very useful to Trump -

Serious question.  After Kavanaugh went full heel in his opening statement about a political hit from those upset about the Clintons and the shameful actions of the Senate Democrats, would he have to recuse himself from this case? He has basically lived at the White House for the last two weeks, and he's accused Senate Democrats of "searching and destroying."  I believe Blumenthal is the named plaintiff.  That doesn't seem like something that a newly minted Justice K could be impartial or unbiased about. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ixtap on September 29, 2018, 09:17:02 AM
Quote
Less immediately, there is also a federal court decision yesterday allowing Congress to bring a lawsuit against Trump for breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  There might be a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court on that case, on which a Kavanaugh vote could be very useful to Trump -

Serious question.  After Kavanaugh went full heel in his opening statement about a political hit from those upset about the Clintons and the shameful actions of the Senate Democrats, would he have to recuse himself from this case? He has basically lived at the White House for the last two weeks, and he's accused Senate Democrats of "searching and destroying."  I believe Blumenthal is the named plaintiff.  That doesn't seem like something that a newly minted Justice K could be impartial or unbiased about.

The Google says financial interests and close relatives. Nothing about screaming like a lunatic about liberal conspiracies.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on September 29, 2018, 09:21:10 AM
Quote
Less immediately, there is also a federal court decision yesterday allowing Congress to bring a lawsuit against Trump for breaches of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.  There might be a speedy appeal to the Supreme Court on that case, on which a Kavanaugh vote could be very useful to Trump -

Serious question.  After Kavanaugh went full heel in his opening statement about a political hit from those upset about the Clintons and the shameful actions of the Senate Democrats, would he have to recuse himself from this case? He has basically lived at the White House for the last two weeks, and he's accused Senate Democrats of "searching and destroying."  I believe Blumenthal is the named plaintiff.  That doesn't seem like something that a newly minted Justice K could be impartial or unbiased about.

Chief Justice doesn't want the Court to become a political circus. He'd probably make Kavanaugh stand down.

The real clue to the important of this case is that Orrin Hatch wrote an amicus brief for it. He, of course, wants the exception struck down.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/trump-pardon-orrin-hatch-supreme-court/571285/

If you read to the end, it'd probably mean another SC case to determine if Trump could pardon state crimes as well as federal crimes. We know which way Kavanuagh would vote on that one, too.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on September 29, 2018, 09:22:30 AM
After FBI reports its findings, who receives the report? Will the Repubs reveal what is in the report or hide it?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: redbirdfan on September 29, 2018, 11:01:46 AM
I believe the report goes to the White House and is then sent to the Senate.  The Washington Post has five pages of the 1982 calendar that can be viewed.  If I recall correctly, Dr. Ford said she spent most of the summer at a country club in Chevy Chase.  Judge K said that he couldn't have been at the party bc he didn't live in that area.  According to the calendar, it looks like he played "B-Ball at Chevy Chase (I can't make out the last word)" on June 27th.  I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but it looks like he made it out to Chevy Chase on the 27th.  There's no telling what's on his other calendars that would be relevant to the other claims. 

I don't know if Kavanaugh did it or not.  By all means he strikes me as a guy who had a drinking problem when he was young and who was fully steeped in "bro/frat" culture.  Many people were.  If he just admitted it and said that he's changed his life, etc., I'm not sure we would be in this position.  He seems more focused on not undermining his own choir boy self-image than he is on being honest.  I feel bad for him if the allegations aren't true, but the standard for sitting on the SC can't be whether he could be convicted as a criminal.  This isn't an issue of guilt or innocence.  You wouldn't hire (or keep) a CEO with the same baggage.  In a karmic sense, he had no problem with similar inquiries during his Starr days based on very similar allegations. 

I do want a conservative justice on the court, but I hope the Republicans cut bait.  Even if the FBI investigation is only allowed to last a week, there's no time limit to what the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. can turn up.  On some level I do not want to reward or incentivize political gamesmanship.  On the other hand, I'd rather pull Kavanaugh than be so politically entrenched that someone who seems to be overtly political and less than honest is given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Lovelywings on September 29, 2018, 03:37:37 PM
I believe the report goes to the White House and is then sent to the Senate.  The Washington Post has five pages of the 1982 calendar that can be viewed.  If I recall correctly, Dr. Ford said she spent most of the summer at a country club in Chevy Chase.  Judge K said that he couldn't have been at the party bc he didn't live in that area.  According to the calendar, it looks like he played "B-Ball at Chevy Chase (I can't make out the last word)" on June 27th.  I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but it looks like he made it out to Chevy Chase on the 27th.  There's no telling what's on his other calendars that would be relevant to the other claims. 

I don't know if Kavanaugh did it or not.  By all means he strikes me as a guy who had a drinking problem when he was young and who was fully steeped in "bro/frat" culture.  Many people were.  If he just admitted it and said that he's changed his life, etc., I'm not sure we would be in this position.  He seems more focused on not undermining his own choir boy self-image than he is on being honest.  I feel bad for him if the allegations aren't true, but the standard for sitting on the SC can't be whether he could be convicted as a criminal.  This isn't an issue of guilt or innocence.  You wouldn't hire (or keep) a CEO with the same baggage.  In a karmic sense, he had no problem with similar inquiries during his Starr days based on very similar allegations. 

I do want a conservative justice on the court, but I hope the Republicans cut bait.  Even if the FBI investigation is only allowed to last a week, there's no time limit to what the Washington Post, NY Times, etc. can turn up.  On some level I do not want to reward or incentivize political gamesmanship.  On the other hand, I'd rather pull Kavanaugh than be so politically entrenched that someone who seems to be overtly political and less than honest is given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Pretty much this. I'm a liberal. But if Kavanaugh had acted in a restrained, forthright manner during his testimony and not lied about being a goody choirboy to Fox, we will not be here today. I would have felt bad for Ford, but would have had the objective view that it's hard to tell who is being truthful or who has a memory lapse.

As a judge, Kavanaugh has decades of experience with cases. His meltdown during his testimony showed him as the worst candidate in history. just the "I like beer. Do you like beer?" portion was sickening and betrayed an arrogance that does not belong on any court, much less the supreme one.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: YttriumNitrate on September 29, 2018, 04:50:43 PM
You're missing the point that the right thinks the left is delaying so that the nomination confirmation takes place after the November elections.  This is ALL politically motivated on both sides.
Indeed. There two factors in play, A) having the final vote before/after the midterms and B) trying to use the confirmation hearing for political gain. Having the FBI investigate after Kavanaugh was out of committee seems to be a good move by the Republicans because it further limits the ability for the Democrats to push back the vote while simultaneously providing the Republicans cover for the mid-terms (assuming nothing else comes up).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: YttriumNitrate on September 29, 2018, 04:56:50 PM
As a judge, Kavanaugh has decades of experience with cases. His meltdown during his testimony showed him as the worst candidate in history. just the "I like beer. Do you like beer?" portion was sickening and betrayed an arrogance that does not belong on any court, much less the supreme one.
I wouldn't call it a meltdown...it was a move purposefully pulled straight out of the Clarence Thomas play book.

Quote
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
--Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 29, 2018, 05:00:53 PM
... (assuming nothing else comes up).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on September 29, 2018, 05:54:52 PM
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on September 29, 2018, 06:02:11 PM
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
It will be the greatest investigation this country has ever seen. That the world has ever seen, some say. But we'll see what happens. It will be great. It will be great.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on September 29, 2018, 06:41:58 PM
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
It will be the greatest investigation this country has ever seen. That the world has ever seen, some say. But we'll see what happens. It will be great. It will be great.

Well played sir.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on September 29, 2018, 07:25:24 PM
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
It will be the greatest investigation this country has ever seen. That the world has ever seen, some say. But we'll see what happens. It will be great. It will be great.

Well it won't be huge, since they apparently can only talk to a small list of people pre-approved by Trump.

What a sham
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on September 29, 2018, 08:31:52 PM
As a judge, Kavanaugh has decades of experience with cases. His meltdown during his testimony showed him as the worst candidate in history. just the "I like beer. Do you like beer?" portion was sickening and betrayed an arrogance that does not belong on any court, much less the supreme one.
I wouldn't call it a meltdown...it was a move purposefully pulled straight out of the Clarence Thomas play book.

Quote
This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
--Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearing

My goodness. Just got around to watching and I would definitely call that a meltdown. Regardless of the words he used, that display was an embarrassment. Textbook behavior of someone being dishonest: couldn't stop squirming, getting defensive very quickly, answering questions that weren't even asked. After dodging a plain yes or no question about whether he favors an investigation 5 times, he just stops and stares. That's what little children do when they know they've been caught. At multiple points, I really thought he as going to cry.

The last time I heard someone lie so poorly:

https://www.popsugar.com/news/Old-Clip-Paul-Manafort-Unable-Answer-Russia-Question-43340296 (https://www.popsugar.com/news/Old-Clip-Paul-Manafort-Unable-Answer-Russia-Question-43340296)

And we all know how that turned out.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 29, 2018, 09:20:14 PM
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 30, 2018, 05:20:37 AM
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

Sadly it seems the GOP still doesn't sense the potential danger they are in.  Rather than use this investigation to be as certain as they can be that there are no more skeletons in Kavanaugh's closet, they seem more focused on limiting scope in order to not find anything out. 

It would be absolutely catastrophic for the party and for SCOTUS if more credibly allegations came out after confirmation and we learned it was because the FBI was prevented from interviewing certain individuals.  The GOP, it seems, is 'all-in' in their calculation that there's nothing unsavory left in Kavanaugh's past.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 30, 2018, 06:57:27 AM
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

Sadly it seems the GOP still doesn't sense the potential danger they are in.  Rather than use this investigation to be as certain as they can be that there are no more skeletons in Kavanaugh's closet, they seem more focused on limiting scope in order to not find anything out. 

It would be absolutely catastrophic for the party and for SCOTUS if more credibly allegations came out after confirmation and we learned it was because the FBI was prevented from interviewing certain individuals.  The GOP, it seems, is 'all-in' in their calculation that there's nothing unsavory left in Kavanaugh's past.

The other conclusion is not that the Republicans are certain there is nothing else bad to come out about Kavanaugh but that they just don't care.   They probably think there will be no price to pay if other accusations come out because Kavanaugh will have been a done deal for two years and not even discussed by 2020.

Even if there are political consequences down the line then to them it is worth the risk for 40 years of partisan Supreme Court judgements: protecting corrupt Republican presidents, suppressing the vote and allowing big money donations.  After all, Clarence Thomas is still on the court after all these years, giving them the judgments they want, and Kavanaugh would be just the same. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on September 30, 2018, 07:29:17 AM
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

But then Grandpa Ranty started tweeting that they did not impose limits on the FBI.  Since they have all claimed that his twitter is official, that might have effectively taken off any previous limits the White House did put on the FBI. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on September 30, 2018, 07:58:43 AM
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

But then Grandpa Ranty started tweeting that they did not impose limits on the FBI.  Since they have all claimed that his twitter is official, that might have effectively taken off any previous limits the White House did put on the FBI.
Nah - the FBI are composed of the ultimate G-men. They need the appropriate form signed by the appropriate office and delivered to the correct department in order to do anything.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on September 30, 2018, 08:52:52 AM
The cover up has already started. The White House is working to limit just how far the FBI investigation will go.

But then Grandpa Ranty started tweeting that they did not impose limits on the FBI.  Since they have all claimed that his twitter is official, that might have effectively taken off any previous limits the White House did put on the FBI.
Nah - the FBI are composed of the ultimate G-men. They need the appropriate form signed by the appropriate office and delivered to the correct department in order to do anything.

If Trump is trying to cut out Avenati's client from the FBI investigation then I wonder what the response will be.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on September 30, 2018, 09:08:11 AM
I like how Lindsey Graham and others are saying Kavanaugh didn't do what Ford claims. Was Lindsey Graham attached at the hip with Kavanaugh back when they were teens? Ford took a lie detector test. Kavanaugh didn't. Ford acted with dignity unlike Kavanaugh who was totally off the rails with his tantrums. If Ford had acted half as bad as he did, they would have thrown her out and dismissed her statements as a ranting crazy woman. Funny, how these old geezers side with Kavanaugh and seems it doesn't matter if he is guilty of these allegations or not. Why are men supposed to be believed and woman not? Ford has nothing to gain from this at all and in fact everything to lose. Who would do that? No one!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 30, 2018, 09:40:49 AM
This morning's development is that a new allegation against Kavanaugh, that he raped a woman on a boat, was investigated and found... wait for it...  NOT credible!  (It looks like a case of mistaken identity.)  Republicans are outraged about what they're calling a "false accusation" and calling for criminal investigation into the accuser.  That didn't take long, senate republicans, where was this enthusiasm to investigate misdeeds 48 hours ago?

So the really interesting part to me is what this will mean for everyone else.  We've had several people here, and in Congress, say that an investigation cannot possibly exonerate Kavanaugh of these accusations, and yet here we apparently have a concrete example of exactly that happening.  Some people will look at this development and say "An FBI investigation CAN determine whether or not a sexual assault allegation is truthful or not" and others will look at it and say "Since this one accusations appears to be false, the other three must also be false, it's a liberal plot!"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on September 30, 2018, 09:49:28 AM
What exactly is the FBI investigation going to look like?
It will be the greatest investigation this country has ever seen. That the world has ever seen, some say. But we'll see what happens. It will be great. It will be great.

Well it won't be huge, since they apparently can only talk to a small list of people pre-approved by Trump.

What a sham

I think it will be of limited use.
1. If it was anything like my small town you could find several underage drinking parties each weekend. They all probably blended together after some point. (I never partook because I knew it could ruin my life.)
2. Peoples opinions could be colored by rumors and gossip.
3. Add to the hearsay part, now you have the sepia tones of nostalgia.
4. This has been on the news for the past week. Now anger and confusion will be a part of the interview.

I can understand Kavanaugh anger.

My friends came back from college with the attitude that "drinking is cool now." I went to a bonfire. I was the only sober person there minding my own business when a drunk woman came up and started rubbing her crotch on my knee. Instead of saying no, I opted to try and pull her in. (She is attractive and we had chemistry at the time.) She spun away and wagged her finger at me while walking away.

If in thirty years she says "He attacked me" and decades of work unravels, my allies abandon me, and the media portrays me as a monster while being unable to defend myself, I would be furious too.

I'm not defending Kavanaugh, I can relate to his position though. His best play would have been to shrug his shoulders and go along with the investigation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PDXTabs on September 30, 2018, 09:51:35 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."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on September 30, 2018, 10:16:40 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.' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/21/mitch-mcconnell-were-going-plow-right-through-ford-allegation/1380905002/)"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy 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
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: One 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 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.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach 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.' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/21/mitch-mcconnell-were-going-plow-right-through-ford-allegation/1380905002/)"

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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee 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.' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/21/mitch-mcconnell-were-going-plow-right-through-ford-allegation/1380905002/)"

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."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Turkey Leg 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!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Hula Hoop 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 30, 2018, 02:11:47 PM
Why are Republicans scared of a real investigation?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach 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.' (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/21/mitch-mcconnell-were-going-plow-right-through-ford-allegation/1380905002/)"

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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda 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 ...)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: redbirdfan 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on September 30, 2018, 09:19:50 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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 (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/flake-fbi-kavanaugh-investigation/index.html) 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on October 01, 2018, 04:56:51 AM
Mr. Belligerent at Yale:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kavanaughs-yale-classmate-brett-once-started-a-fight-that-ended-with-our-friend-in-jail/ar-BBNLLck

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash 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.






Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OurTown 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User 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.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: wenchsenior 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?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache 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
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner 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/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo 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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Michael in ABQ 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
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache 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" ?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 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 (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/why-everyone-should-oppose-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation).  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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol 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 (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/why-everyone-should-oppose-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation).  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 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/why-was-kavanaugh-obsessed-with-vince-foster.html). 

You might as well say "I worry about the influence of corporate money in politics, so I'm voting ExxonMobil for President."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty 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/ (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.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez 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?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: rocketpj 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).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 02, 2018, 05:26:37 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).

I have a sneaking suspicion what I'll remember from all of this is Matt Damon's performance on SNL
But I agree with rocketpj - anyone who sexually assaulted another should lose their eligibility to sit on any federal court.  There are so many hundreds of qualified candidates that we need not elevate any that committed a violent criminal act.  If true, the fact that there has been no atonement, no attempt to make amends negates any forgiveness of time.

For Kavanaugh, the alleged assault is not the only disqualifier IMO.  His partisan testimony, lack of temperment and sense of entitlement should be prohibitive on their own.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 02, 2018, 07:01:49 AM
Mitch McConnell is promising a floor vote on Friday.

Really Mitch??!! The same day that the FBI is supposed to submit their investigation?  That seems pretty risky - you're going to force your members to vote on something before they have time to read it.  I realize this may be the whole point, but if there's anything in there you've hung your most vulnerable members out to dry, and if there is nothing new in the report you've gained nothing by rushing the vote instead of giving everyone the weekend.

Vote Friday or vote Monday.  Friday is filled with potential land mines.  Don't keep forcing your members to keep crossing mindfields, Mitch - schedule the vote for Monday
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 02, 2018, 07:06:53 AM
I don't think it's possible to have a non-partisan court for reasons explained very well in this article (https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/08/why-everyone-should-oppose-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation).  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 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/why-was-kavanaugh-obsessed-with-vince-foster.html). 

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

Well, I don't think that's quite what I was trying to say.  I'm sure we could make some changes to the nomination process to at least mitigate the outright partisan warfare that occurs during that process.  I'm just not sure that it's healthy to cultivate the expectation that the judiciary will ever be completely non-partisan except on issues where we have a settled objective interpretation of the law.  And it seems like the judiciary actually plays a key role in determining that settled objective interpretation by adjudicating between the different subjective interpretations.  So it kind of feels like we're trying to put the cart before the horse if you will.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 02, 2018, 07:22:51 AM
Mitch McConnell is promising a floor vote on Friday.

Really Mitch??!! The same day that the FBI is supposed to submit their investigation?  That seems pretty risky - you're going to force your members to vote on something before they have time to read it.  I realize this may be the whole point, but if there's anything in there you've hung your most vulnerable members out to dry, and if there is nothing new in the report you've gained nothing by rushing the vote instead of giving everyone the weekend.

Vote Friday or vote Monday.  Friday is filled with potential land mines.  Don't keep forcing your members to keep crossing mindfields, Mitch - schedule the vote for Monday

I'm somewhat surprised that Mitch didn't pick Thursday for the vote.  People were complaining a lot about an investigation, so the Republicans reluctantly agreed to have one (severely handicapped and with limited scope).  They've kept their word as far as it goes, and can tell everyone that they had the investigation.  Nobody on the Republican party promised to care about the results of the investigation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 08:29:20 AM
Nobody on the Republican party promised to care about the results of the investigation.

Technically, they only agreed to have an investigation.  They didn't agree to read it, or publish the findings, or even postpone the vote until after it was finished.

Mitch played this same game with health care and the tax bill.  He can make all kinds of promises to his members in order to get them on board, and then he can completely disregard those promises because he holds all of the power and is beholden to no one.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 02, 2018, 08:49:44 AM
Nobody on the Republican party promised to care about the results of the investigation.

Technically, they only agreed to have an investigation.  They didn't agree to read it, or publish the findings, or even postpone the vote until after it was finished.

Mitch played this same game with health care and the tax bill.  He can make all kinds of promises to his members in order to get them on board, and then he can completely disregard those promises because he holds all of the power and is beholden to no one.

Also because he is entirely dishonourable and takes no account of his oath of office or obligation to uphold the Constitution if it gets in the way of his exercising power for his own purposes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 02, 2018, 09:14:11 AM
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 02, 2018, 09:23:46 AM
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

Is current drinking disqualifying for you?
Also, I suspect your comments were about George W Bush - I don't think people's opposition to him were based on his drinking and drug use in college, just as few are pointing towards drinking in highschool as sufficient to vote against Kavanaugh in and of itself (misrepresentation today and lying under oath seem far more relevant charges).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 02, 2018, 09:28:23 AM
I really don't care that Kavanaugh drank underage (note- he was NOT 18 when the party in question happened), or that he drank excessively in college.

I care that he has lied repeatedly under oath.  I care that he does not show a temperament to be non-partisan and thoughtful.

And, if true, I care that he has sexually assaulted multiple women.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 02, 2018, 09:33:20 AM
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

The refusal to answer questions about his current drinking (beyond saying the he likes beer) are really the primary concern related to alcohol.  I think you'll find few people who would say that getting drunk as a teenager should prohibit Kavenaugh from being a supreme court justice, just as few people who thought that GW Bush was a terrible president will point to his former alcoholism as the reason.  Kavenaugh answered that he had never been blackout drunk when directly questioned about it ("No . . . have you?"), so we will see what the FBI investigation reveals regarding the veracity of this statement.

Kavenaugh's actions related to sexual assault while drinking as a teenager are certainly under scrutiny though, as they should be.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 02, 2018, 09:35:12 AM
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

Is current drinking disqualifying for you?
Also, I suspect your comments were about George W Bush - I don't think people's opposition to him were based on his drinking and drug use in college, just as few are pointing towards drinking in highschool as sufficient to vote against Kavanaugh in and of itself (misrepresentation today and lying under oath seem far more relevant charges).

Drinking alcohol as an adult is not disqualifying. Full blown alcoholic in denial, yes, disqualifying.

Denying black outs doesnt  seem to me to be lying. I think the boys did some pretty heavy drinking, and often. Likely they thought they were more in control than they actually were.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 02, 2018, 09:40:20 AM
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

The refusal to answer questions about his current drinking (beyond saying the he likes beer) are really the primary concern related to alcohol...

You know, this is the first post in any forum I have seen that suggests his current drinking is the real issue. I honestly have not heard that is a concern. So, that is interesting and I have scanned quite a few discussion sites without ever hearing this.

Who else here is truly focused, when it comes to the drinking issue, on his current drinking? Do you think he has a drinking problem, and if so, why?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 02, 2018, 09:42:34 AM
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

Is current drinking disqualifying for you?
Also, I suspect your comments were about George W Bush - I don't think people's opposition to him were based on his drinking and drug use in college, just as few are pointing towards drinking in highschool as sufficient to vote against Kavanaugh in and of itself (misrepresentation today and lying under oath seem far more relevant charges).

Drinking alcohol as an adult is not disqualifying. Full blown alcoholic in denial, yes, disqualifying.

Denying back outs doesnt  seem to me to be lying.

Denying black outs when contemporaries are saying that's bullshit seems to be lying.

When asked how much he drank, he seemed to say he was just at a legal limit on a chart- so his excessive drinking was 2-3 beers? Uh, no.

He evaded more questions than he answered.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 02, 2018, 09:42:36 AM
I really don't care that Kavanaugh drank underage (note- he was NOT 18 when the party in question happened), or that he drank excessively in college.

I care that he has lied repeatedly under oath.  I care that he does not show a temperament to be non-partisan and thoughtful.

And, if true, I care that he has sexually assaulted multiple women.

I dont agree with anything 100% and as such, I agree with most of this to some extent. That doesnt mean that I do not, in the end, support
Kavanaugh’s nomination,  but these are areasa of concern for me.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 02, 2018, 09:45:29 AM
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

I'm personally troubled that Brett thinks that the law doesn't apply to him while simultaneously asking us to appoint him to be its arbiter on the highest court of the land. The drinking, now or then, is not the issue.  The issue is the lying about the drinking.  The lying is something he's doing right now.  I mean-we can all agree that he lied about Renate and Devil's Triangle, right?  These are lies that would be understandable if he were merely a loutish 17 year old brought up in front in front of his parents.  BUT, he is an adult lying under oath.  And he can't really pretend he doesn't know better. 

I know that telling the truth will make him look bad, but he doesn't have a choice in the matter.  It's kind of the underpinning of this whole process. Devil's triangle is not a drinking game; it's a crude sex term. It's actually not disqualifying to me that he used crude sex terms as a 17 year old.  It is disqualifying that, as an adult, he thinks that the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to him, and that he should get away with lying under oath because telling the truth makes him look bad.  We don't let criminals get away with that.  Brett-just say that you thought Renate was the village bicycle.  Hell-Trump will probably personally murder a few senators to push the confirmation through he'd be so impressed.

 Iris-are you OK with someone who lies under oath in front of the whole country being on the Supreme Court?  How many lies is OK?  Is it OK to lie about drinking while under oath?  Is there a list of acceptable topics to lie about while under oath? 

Also, it figures that this asshole would get into a bar fight over UB40.  What a tool.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 09:46:18 AM
As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff?

He's on record as saying "I liked beer.  I still like beer" so I think we can safely assume he is not a reformed drunk. 

The most recent allegation of sexual assault while drinking (that I know of) was in 1998.  That's 16 years after the first allegation, and he was already a judge. 

But by most accounts, Kavanaugh has mostly turned his life around from his days of getting lit, starting bar fights, and making the Devil's Triangles with unconscious freshman girls.  Presumably he treats his wife and daughters with more respect than he previously showed Christine Ford, Julie Swetnick, Deborah Ramirez, or Renate Dolphin.

In today's news (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/kavanaugh-s-testimony-starting-look-more-more-problematic-n915771), it looks like Kavanaugh tried the equivalent of witness tampering by calling some of his old friends about the penis-in-face episode before the story broke on September 23rd, and then lied under oath when he said he first heard of the accusation when the press broke the story.  Brett, don't you know that people can save your text messages and then give them to the FBI?  Why do you insist on lying about things that are so easily disproven?

Quote
Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho

Oh he definitely lied.  According to his own calendar, he lied under oath about ever attending any social events with Ford and the other people she reports were there (see the July 1st entry).  According to his classmates he lied under oath about the yearbook mentions of ralphing at beach weak being about spicy food, not alcohol consumption.  He lied about the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in Judge's book being about someone else, not him.  He lied when he said witnesses refuted Ford's testimony, when in fact they said they did not remember this specific party.  He lied under oath about the timing of his accusations, which seems ridiculous because they were all made publicly, and about Feinstein's handling of the information, which appears to be in accordance with the victim's wishes.  He lied under oath about the proximity of his school to Ford's school and the country club, facts easily established with any map of Bethesda.  And now we've learned that he lied under oath about not having any memory of the time he shoved his exposed penis in a woman's face, thinking it was a joke, causing her to inadvertently touch it as she tried to escape his floppy dong.  (edit:  I do not know for a fact that his dong was floppy at the time.)

And in part because he has so obviously lied about so many of these things, it sure looks like he lied about sexually assaulting Christine Ford.  If he wanted us to think his denials credible, he probably shouldn't have lied so much about everything else.

The man can't seem to tell the truth about anything, for some unknown reason.  I mean if you're going to lie about stuff, maybe try to pick stuff that some rando on the internet can't refute with two minutes on google maps, or that witnesses can't easily disprove with text messages, or about obvious stuff like "I never drank too much in high school" which 13 separate witnesses from high school and college have now contradicted.  (edit:  Donald Trump, man of unimpeachable personal integrity and a beacon of honesty himself, has volunteered to be a character witness for Brett Kavanaugh, saying he never lied. (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/01/trump-kavanaugh-drinking-bts-ip-vpx.cnn))

The fact that this liar is even still on anyone's short list of judicial nominees for any position is somewhat amazing.  Why should any defendant who goes before him ever feel compelled to tell the truth under oath after what Kavanaugh has done on national tv?  And yet here we are, about to put him on the Supreme Court, without even reading the FBI report about these lies.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: pbkmaine on October 02, 2018, 09:48:08 AM
The thing that troubled me first about him, and that still troubles me, is that his numbers don’t add up. He lives beyond his means. That makes him susceptible to all kinds of outside influences.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 02, 2018, 10:13:35 AM
Constant lying about easily disproved things, sexual assault, coming from a privileged but troubled background . . . It's so strange that Donald Trump and Kavenaugh have formed some sort of bond.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 02, 2018, 10:22:03 AM
You know how everything Trump touches turns to shit?  This is another example.  This is turning the sort of nice people who just want Roe overturned and more prayer in school into low-life scoundrels who, when polled, say it's OK to having an attempted rapist on the supreme court.  I hope they enjoyed their time on the high road before they tumbled down. 

Conservatives: you are selling your souls to Trump.  A man who raw-dogged a porn star right after his son was born.  It's not a good bargain (n.b. any bargain with Trump involved is only a good bargain for him, not you).  He gets to be president with a fancy plane and a toy solider army like all big boys want.  You get to have corrupted your moral principles and have shown the world the emptiness beneath your rhetoric, for the low low cost of your self-respect and a generation of voters. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on October 02, 2018, 10:26:39 AM
I'm curious what the semi-hostile remark was. "Squi could lift more than you on any Thursday" ?

I couldn't let this pass without enlightening you and others. Kavanaugh and friends had just seen UB40 in concert, and were having a discussion about whether another guy in the bar was the lead singer, Ali Campbell. This man apparently took offense to the stares and asked them to stop. At which point Kavanaugh allegedly (per the police report and an account from one of his friends) either threw a beer or ice at the man. They then grappled (I think I saw one story use the word "embraced"), and then Kavanaugh's friend allegedly smashed a glass into the guy's face or person, cutting his ear. Police were called and filed a report, but there is no record of an arrest.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/us/politics/kavanaugh-bar-fight.html)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 02, 2018, 11:05:34 AM
As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff?

He's on record as saying "I liked beer.  I still like beer" so I think we can safely assume he is not a reformed drunk. 

The most recent allegation of sexual assault while drinking (that I know of) was in 1998.  That's 16 years after the first allegation, and he was already a judge. 

But by most accounts, Kavanaugh has mostly turned his life around from his days of getting lit, starting bar fights, and making the Devil's Triangles with unconscious freshman girls.  Presumably he treats his wife and daughters with more respect than he previously showed Christine Ford, Julie Swetnick, Deborah Ramirez, or Renate Dolphin.

In today's news (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/kavanaugh-s-testimony-starting-look-more-more-problematic-n915771), it looks like Kavanaugh tried the equivalent of witness tampering by calling some of his old friends about the penis-in-face episode before the story broke on September 23rd, and then lied under oath when he said he first heard of the accusation when the press broke the story.  Brett, don't you know that people can save your text messages and then give them to the FBI?  Why do you insist on lying about things that are so easily disproven?

Quote
Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho

Oh he definitely lied.  According to his own calendar, he lied under oath about ever attending any social events with Ford and the other people she reports were there (see the July 1st entry).  According to his classmates he lied under oath about the yearbook mentions of ralphing at beach weak being about spicy food, not alcohol consumption.  He lied about the character "Bart O'Kavanaugh" in Judge's book being about someone else, not him.  He lied when he said witnesses refuted Ford's testimony, when in fact they said they did not remember this specific party.  He lied under oath about the timing of his accusations, which seems ridiculous because they were all made publicly, and about Feinstein's handling of the information, which appears to be in accordance with the victim's wishes.  He lied under oath about the proximity of his school to Ford's school and the country club, facts easily established with any map of Bethesda.  And now we've learned that he lied under oath about not having any memory of the time he shoved his exposed penis in a woman's face, thinking it was a joke, causing her to inadvertently touch it as she tried to escape his floppy dong.  (edit:  I do not know for a fact that his dong was floppy at the time.)


And in part because he has so obviously lied about so many of these things, it sure looks like he lied about sexually assaulting Christine Ford.  If he wanted us to think his denials credible, he probably shouldn't have lied so much about everything else.

The man can't seem to tell the truth about anything, for some unknown reason.  I mean if you're going to lie about stuff, maybe try to pick stuff that some rando on the internet can't refute with two minutes on google maps, or that witnesses can't easily disprove with text messages, or about obvious stuff like "I never drank too much in high school" which 13 separate witnesses from high school and college have now contradicted.  (edit:  Donald Trump, man of unimpeachable personal integrity and a beacon of honesty himself, has volunteered to be a character witness for Brett Kavanaugh, saying he never lied. (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/10/01/trump-kavanaugh-drinking-bts-ip-vpx.cnn))

The fact that this liar is even still on anyone's short list of judicial nominees for any position is somewhat amazing.  Why should any defendant who goes before him ever feel compelled to tell the truth under oath after what Kavanaugh has done on national tv?  And yet here we are, about to put him on the Supreme Court, without even reading the FBI report about these lies.

To the bolded:

I think it likely that if I listened to the entire testimony in context of the things that you named, I would come up with a different conclusion than “he lied.”  That is why I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony and refurting them. I don’t remember hearing any of these but then I was listening to it on the radio, blaring outdoorswhile we did garden work all day. I missed much of Ford’s speech altho heard much of the questioning. I heard most of his initial speech, and missed most of the questioning of him.

I did entirely miss his angry face since I was getting audio, not tv, but I thought the audio version showed righteous indignation, not entirely inappropriate in this situation. i would rather see calm and cool deliverence of facts, though. But then I suppose he would be accused of bring slick and practiced if that was his demeanor.


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 02, 2018, 11:28:07 AM
Iris-What are the rules to Devil's Triangle?

Whitehouse asked what "Devil's triangle" referred to, and Kavanaugh replied that it was a drinking game with three glasses in a triangle played in a similar fashion to quarters.

Do you think Brett Kavanaugh is lying about a Devil's Triangle or is the rest of the pre-2018 internet lying?  There are no pre-September 2018 references to a Devil's Triangle drinking game.  However, there are several references to a sexual practice.

How about what a Renate Alumnus is?

"That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us…It was not related to sex."

If several member of the football team had printed in the yearbook that they were "Iris Lily Alumnus", would you have been flattered at this sign of respect that is not about sex?  How about if several members of the football team had written that about your daughter?  And then, decades later, testified under oath about how affectionate and respectful their gesture was?   Would you have considered that a lie or just the gosh-darn-honest truth?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 02, 2018, 11:39:19 AM
I think it likely that if I listened to the entire testimony in context of the things that you named, I would come up with a different conclusion than “he lied.” 

I'd be interesting in the "different conclusion" you can come up with for the following -

Ford: "One evening that summer, after a day of diving at the club, I attended a small gathering at a house in the Bethesda area. There were four boys I remember specifically being there: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, a boy named P.J., and one other boy whose name I cannot recall. I also remember my friend Leland attending." "When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house."

Kavanaugh: "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation."

Kavanaugh's calendar, 1 July 1982 "Go to Timmy's for skis [beers] with Judge, Tom, PJ, Bernie, Squi".

I mean, in what sense is that not a small gathering at a house in Bethesda with Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, PJ and another boy drinking beer?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 02, 2018, 11:44:00 AM
I think it likely that if I listened to the entire testimony in context of the things that you named, I would come up with a different conclusion than “he lied.”  That is why I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony and refurting them.

With respect, I don't entirely understand this thought process.

You think that you would come to a different conclusion if you heard what had been said in the testimony in context . . . so you're not going to go back and listen to things in context?

I'm not the smartest person in the world, but often I need to listen to a complicated story or legal case multiple times before I can keep every fact straight.  You appear to be saying that you feel a certain way and therefore are not going to check the evidence because you would rather trust your feelings.  That's not a very defensible position to take.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 11:44:34 AM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?

I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on October 02, 2018, 11:49:05 AM
I think the drinking and the lying about drinking are huge problems.  I say this as a reformed ex-drunk.

As a Kavanaugh partisian (just getting that out there) I would like to know if that drinking has continued into adult age? Or are we r still talking about college boy stuff? My question is not rhetorical, it is sincere even if my stance is  not entirely objective.

Agreed that any lying if it actually happened is bad, not sure he actually lied tho as there are degerees of drinking, drunkenness and we dont even have to parse those discussions as carefully as we had to when determing what “is” is.


We had one recent reformed alcohoic in the
White House  who ya,ll couldn't stand back  then, I bet you would much prefer him over the current occupant.

How do you define "college boy stuff"?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 02, 2018, 11:53:47 AM
Renate has said she has not had sex with any of the men who claimed "alumnus". 

Not to say that isn't what they were intending it to appear as though.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PDXTabs on October 02, 2018, 12:01:16 PM
You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

It's the ultimate short-termism combined with party over country. Where did the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower go?

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

I'm really surprised that McConnell isn't more concerned about the long term health of the party. I really thought that he would be the adult in the room. Once upon a time I would even vote Republican part of the time, no more.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 02, 2018, 12:12:00 PM
Appropros of nothing I wanted to post Garland's yearbook. I just wish that no matter what the side of the aisle one is on, one would want to choose someone for the supreme court, who was known for and did their job with distinction, versus picking someone with minimal acceptable standards who is a partisan shoo-in.  I think everyone in the US regardless of political leanings would be better served. Serving on the Supreme Court is an honor and there should be a high bar.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 02, 2018, 12:16:10 PM
I'm pretty sure that those are all just drinking games.  :P
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 02, 2018, 12:21:08 PM
I'm pretty sure that those are all just drinking games.  :P

Except the White Certificate. That's clearly from the KKK.


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Samuel on October 02, 2018, 12:21:42 PM
Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

One can only hope. I guess Republicans think failing to seat Kavanaugh would cost them more in the midterms. Or perhaps they're just more fixated on countering what they consider a dirty political maneuver by Democrats than actually assessing the fitness of the person or the electoral ramifications of plowing ahead.

It is somewhat baffling to see such a undistinguished candidate (when compared to the others on the published "under consideration" list) being fought for so maniacally as more and more serious flaws are revealed. It's clear why Trump would favor him (his abnormally expansive views on executive power) but what exactly do Senate Republicans see in Kavanaugh that they wouldn't find in any of the other conservatives on the short list?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 12:27:11 PM
I guess Republicans think failing to seat Kavanaugh would cost them more in the midterms.

Or have learned from history that there are no electoral consequences for playing dirty pool.

Quote
what exactly do Senate Republicans see in Kavanaugh that they wouldn't find in any of the other conservatives on the short list?

In the candidate?  I doubt they see much at all.  But in the situation, they see an opportunity to flex on the democrats.  To exercise their total and complete power to do whatever the hell they want, totally unopposed, just because they can and because it makes 70% of the country cry.  They're Eric Cartman. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48H34ukFe8g)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 02, 2018, 12:31:10 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broadcast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happen about each incident of “lying” you point out. That’ why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sherr on October 02, 2018, 12:47:29 PM
what exactly do Senate Republicans see in Kavanaugh that they wouldn't find in any of the other conservatives on the short list?

In the candidate?  I doubt they see much at all.  But in the situation, they see an opportunity to flex on the democrats.  To exercise their total and complete power to do whatever the hell they want, totally unopposed, just because they can and because it makes 70% of the country cry.  They're Eric Cartman. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48H34ukFe8g)

No it's not that, Senate Republicans just know that complete subservience to Trump is what Republican Voters want. They're not stupid, they poll their base and keep up on the issues. Trump has something like an 87% approval rating among Republicans, constantly. Look at how Republicans like McCain or Flake who dare to cross Trump are instantly demonized.

The Republican party is now the Party of Trump, wholly and completely. Whether that changes later I have no idea, but the Republican Senators are clinging for dear life to the Trump train and terrified of crossing him. Kavanaugh is Trump's nominee, and voting against him would be considered intra-party treason by an enormous percentage of Republican voters.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 02, 2018, 12:53:46 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sherr on October 02, 2018, 01:13:19 PM
A good - and relevant - read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: golden1 on October 02, 2018, 01:16:21 PM
Quote
And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?

I think this article neatly answers that question.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/02/brett-kavanaugh-lying-politics-220812

It simply doesn't matter in sight of the big picture or "higher truth'.  The higher truth that most of these people believe in (or have been convinced of) is that the democrats/liberals are the bigger danger to society and that if they have their way, it will be hell on earth.

A lady may have been sexually assaulted as a teen, and the guy might be lying about being a drunk or womanizer, but the idea of the democrats winning this one is WAY more upsetting emotionally to them.  The idea is to crush the liberals so much and demoralize them to the point that they don't try to fight back.  They think that the only way to win against an opponent so evil is to fight dirty.  Many of them also believe that liberals are literally MURDERING BABIES, and this guy might be a big step in making that illegal.  If you think your opponents are MURDERING BABIES, then you will do anything, including supporting a potential sexual assaulter, in order to stop that asap. 

The end justifies the means.  It's pretty much that simple. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 02, 2018, 01:20:24 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

Despite what the Trump administration would have you believe, objective truth exists.  Feelings are not facts.  You are free to come up with whatever conclusions you want to, but if they conflict with objective truth others are free to point out that you are perpetuating lies.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 02, 2018, 01:32:41 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 02, 2018, 01:38:11 PM
This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.
To be fair, the official statements that I've seen have all varying shades of "I have no recollection".  While its hard to prove a negative, it's equally hard to say whether someone is lying when the can't speak to the specific circumstances (understandably, 36 years later). 
'
It seems pretty well substantiated that Ford and Kavanaugh did run in the same social circles, so it would seem equally odd for them to have never been at the same social function.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 02, 2018, 01:44:00 PM
This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

What do you mean by this?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 02, 2018, 01:46:58 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 02, 2018, 01:47:50 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it. Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

"Holding a class on semantics" appears to be necessary because you don't appear to get it.

Words mean things.  If you're going to say "it's just semantics", a fucking Supreme Court Justice nomination is not the place for that argument.  Words matter.  Specific phrasing and nuance of language matters.  There's a reason that court opinions are long -- it's because "it's just semantics" is not permitted as a way of rationalizing an opinion.

Refuting and failing to confirm do not end up with the same result.  "I don't remember if I had breakfast yesterday" vs "I did not eat eggs for breakfast yesterday" are two very, very different things. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 02, 2018, 02:04:31 PM
Renate alumnus.  If you need a date and it's getting late.  Nothing to do with sex.  Affection. Clumsy.

No thoughts on this?  Is it too distasteful to engage with this obvious Kavanaugh lie? Imagine how Renate felt listening to him lie to the country knowing that the whole country knew full well they meant she was the village bicycle.  This one's not so easy to squirm away from.

Kavanaugh was a dick.  It's recoverable.  But then he lied about it.  No Republican seems to care.  We are witnessing in real time the fingers in ears lalalalala.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: turketron on October 02, 2018, 02:05:08 PM
"Holding a class on semantics" appears to be necessary because you don't appear to get it.

Words mean things.  If you're going to say "it's just semantics", a fucking Supreme Court Justice nomination is not the place for that argument.  Words matter.  Specific phrasing and nuance of language matters.  There's a reason that court opinions are long -- it's because "it's just semantics" is not permitted as a way of rationalizing an opinion.

Refuting and failing to confirm do not end up with the same result.  "I don't remember if I had breakfast yesterday" vs "I did not eat eggs for breakfast yesterday" are two very, very different things.

Case in point- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 02, 2018, 02:42:08 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.

To the bolded:

Witnesses did not corraborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, that is the main point.

What Kavanaugh said about what the witnesses said and how they said it, and how HE said it—are of far less interest to me than to you and others here.



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 02, 2018, 02:44:53 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broadcast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happen about each incident of “lying” you point out. That’ why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.


In order that you wouldn't have to spend more than two minutes checking one instance of lying, in my previous post I set out for you one example of a single definite statement by Kavanaugh that is comprehensively refuted by Kavanaugh's own calendar.  It would have been quicker for you to read that example than write your post saying why you weren't going to bother.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 02, 2018, 02:53:21 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.

To the bolded:

Witnesses did not corraborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, that is the main point.

What Kavanaugh said about what the witnesses said and how they said it, and how HE said it—are of far less interest to me than to you and others here.

But should be of interest to anyone hearing the testimony.  Kavanaugh is a federal judge. He very much knows the difference between these phrases.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 02, 2018, 02:54:33 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.

To the bolded:

Witnesses did not corraborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, that is the main point.

What Kavanaugh said about what the witnesses said and how they said it, and how HE said it—are of far less interest to me than to you and others here.

Witness did not corroborate Dr. Ford's testimony. Because they had no memory of it. (Though Mark Judge just talked to the FBI. There is the possibility that his story could change.)

Witnesses to events referenced in Kavanaugh's testimony have outright denied his statements, and have said that he is lying.

That is of far more interest to me.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 03:01:18 PM
Witnesses to events referenced in Kavanaugh's testimony have outright denied his statements, and have said that he is lying.

That is of far more interest to me.

Right.  As of right now, no one has refuted Ford's testimony or found any holes or contradictions in it.  She appears truthful.  Lots of people have specifically refuted Kavanaugh's testimony, calling him an outright liar and proving it with documents.  He appears to be lying, at least about some things.

If this were really just a "he said she said" story between two witnesses who appeared equally credible, I could maybe see the senate voting to promote him because they just aren't sure if he's guilty of sexual assault or not.  But this is not a case where we have two credible witnesses. 

Indeed, we appear to have one credible witness alleging one version of events, and then a witness who provably lies about all kinds of stuff denying the testimony of the credible witness.  It doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty of sexual assault just because he lied about everything else in his story, but it certainly doesn't make him look believable either.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 02, 2018, 03:51:59 PM
This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.
To be fair, the official statements that I've seen have all varying shades of "I have no recollection".  While its hard to prove a negative, it's equally hard to say whether someone is lying when the can't speak to the specific circumstances (understandably, 36 years later). 
'
It seems pretty well substantiated that Ford and Kavanaugh did run in the same social circles, so it would seem equally odd for them to have never been at the same social function.

especially if it never happened.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 02, 2018, 03:57:49 PM
This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

What do you mean by this?

You can't refute something that happened if you weren't present.  But, you can say you don't recall something ever happening because you weren't present.  If the witnesses all say they don't recall something happening, yet she says they were there, then either all three are lying or she is lying.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 02, 2018, 04:00:18 PM
I wont bother to invest my time in looking up actual bits of testimony

You are not alone among Kavanaugh supporters in refusing to look at facts, or listen to testimony, to determine if he is fit for the court.  Even republican senators have joined you in this complete abdication of responsibility to the truth.

And I'm not asking you to refute anything, I was just laying out some of the times we know that he lied under oath about his youthful indiscretions.  How can you say you disagree with these facts if you won't even go look at the evidence?  Is your party loyalty so strong that you will deliberately preserve your ignorance of these facts long enough to maintain plausible deniability through the end of the confirmation process?


I understand that there are lots of Americans who like Brett Kavanaugh's stated position on total executive autonomy and unchecked power, and on abortion.  I have no qualms with those views, though they differ from mine, because you are allowed to hold them and support candidates who share them.  But there are lots of other candidates who share those views who are not sniveling liars, who don't voluntarily perjure themselves to conceal their personal failings, and who have never committed a sexual assault.  Just nominate one of those.

Even if the nomination had to wait a few months, the Senate is approximately 75% likely to stay in republican hands after the midterms.  I think the only possible way for the republicans to lose the Senate is to needlessly push through the Kavanaugh confirmation.  I think that's the one thing that might actually piss off enough voters to turn the senate red. 

Have you seen the polls that suggest 34% of Americans want Kavanaugh confirmed?  Millions of conservative republicans and independents, many of them women and survivors of sexual assault, are watching the republican party push through a truly toxic man to the highest court in the land.  They may vote their displeasure if Mitch goes through with this.

To the bolded:

My time has value. I am old and have had enough experience to know that you and i can listen to the same tv broad ast ast and draw different conclusions. That is likely what would happene abouit each incident of “lying” you point out. That,s why I wont spend any more time on it.

As it is,
I spent the time noted above and came to conclusions noted above.

So you care enough to peruse multiple discussion boards and add your opinion to the discussion here, but not enough to view the material in question?

There is at least one point that is a provable lie, he stated that three witnesses have "refuted" he ever attacked Ford. That's not true, they said they were not aware of the attack. Doesn't that mean it's a lie?

And before you bring it up, Kavanaugh is a judge. He clearly knows the difference between failing to confirm something and refuting it. Even if he misspoke he could have clarified, he did not.

This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

None of the witnesses said they were not there.  They said they did not recall, or were unaware of such an occasion.

I can refute with absolute certainty that I was not in Alaska on December 2, 1986.  I could not tell you that I wasn't in HEB in Austin Texas on that date; I could only say I don't recall being there.

One is refuting, the other is failing to confirming.
Legally, this is a BIG difference, not semantics.

To the bolded:

Witnesses did not corraborate Dr. Ford’s testimony, that is the main point.

What Kavanaugh said about what the witnesses said and how they said it, and how HE said it—are of far less interest to me than to you and others here.

This, I agree with.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 02, 2018, 04:00:50 PM
This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

What do you mean by this?

You can't refute something that happened if you weren't present.  But, you can say you don't recall something ever happening because you weren't present.  If the witnesses all say they don't recall something happening, yet she says they were there, then either all three are lying or she is lying.

No. I'm the same age as Ford. There are plenty of things that happened in my life that I don't remember now, because they were unremarkable events to me. That doesn't mean I wasn't there. 

Eg: one of my students telling me about a conversation we had that profoundly impacted them, but I don't remember the conversation. That doesn't mean either the student is lying or I'm lying. It means that the conversation was remarkable and memorable to her/him, but not to me.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 04:09:18 PM
You can't refute something that happened if you weren't present.  But, you can say you don't recall something ever happening because you weren't present.  If the witnesses all say they don't recall something happening, yet she says they were there, then either all three are lying or she is lying.

You're not following along, Cache.

Some of the witnesses say they don't remember this specific party, but they all agree that they did attend such parties in this time frame, with these people.  Christine Ford certainly remembers it, and Brett even wrote it on his calendar!  This supports Ford's version of events, not Kavanaugh's.  You have mischaracterized this situation, just like Brett has, by saying that someone who says "I don't remember this night" is really saying "this never happened".  Lawyers (and judges) definitely know the difference.

Only three of those people were present in the bedroom during the alleged assault.  One is the victim, she says it happened.  One is the supreme court nominee, he says it didn't.  The third is a famous addict who said he couldn't remember, just like he can't remember other large portions of his life as a result of his lifelong alcohol addiction.  That's not a refutation.  A refutation would be "I clearly remember the night in question, and Dr. Ford is lying."  Instead, he seemingly said "I am not a reliable witness to anything, because I often drank to the point of blacking out."

Then he was interviewed by the FBI, and we don't yet know what he told them.  Hold your horses until Friday!  Would you change your mind if the FBI report says "Mark Judge confirms that he and Brett Kavanaugh pushed Christine Ford into a bedroom while drunk, wrestled with her, and then she escaped."?  Would that do it for you?  If two of the three people present offered the same story, in direct opposition to what Brett is claiming?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 02, 2018, 04:16:16 PM
You can't refute something that happened if you weren't present.  But, you can say you don't recall something ever happening because you weren't present.  If the witnesses all say they don't recall something happening, yet she says they were there, then either all three are lying or she is lying.

You're not following along, Cache.

The three witnesses say they don't remember this specific party, but they all agree that they did attend such parties in this time frame, with these people.  Brett even wrote it on his calendar!  This supports Ford's version of events, not Kavanaugh's.  You have mischaracterized this situation, just like Brett has, by saying that "I don't remember this night" is the same thing as "this never happened".  Lawyers (and judges) definitely know the difference.

Only three of those people were present in the bedroom during the alleged assault.  One is the victim, she says it happened.  One is the supreme court nominee, he says it didn't.  The third is a famous addict who said he couldn't remember, just like he can't remember other large portions of his life as a result of his lifelong alcohol addiction.  That's not a refutation.  A refutation would be "I clearly remember the night in question, and Dr. Ford is lying."

Then he was interviewed by the FBI, and we don't yet know what he told them.  Hold your horses until Friday!  Would you change your mind if the FBI report says "Mark Judge confirms that he and Brett Kavanaugh pushed Christine Ford into a bedroom while drunk, wrestled with her, and then she escaped."?  Would that do it for you?  If two of the three people present offered the same story, in direct opposition to what Brett is claiming?

That would do it.  Corrborating evidence.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 02, 2018, 04:23:25 PM
This is the problem with each side.  Refuting or failing to confirm end up with the same result.  She said the witnesses were there and each one denied it.  Yet, you are holding a class in semantics and trying to draw a conclusion of lying based on such.

Ridiculous.

What do you mean by this?

You can't refute something that happened if you weren't present.  But, you can say you don't recall something ever happening because you weren't present.  If the witnesses all say they don't recall something happening, yet she says they were there, then either all three are lying or she is lying.

ETA: I realized I misunderstood one of your points and my other point was already covered better by other posters.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 04:29:47 PM
Would you change your mind if the FBI report says "Mark Judge confirms that he and Brett Kavanaugh pushed Christine Ford into a bedroom while drunk, wrestled with her, and then she escaped."?  Would that do it for you?  If two of the three people present offered the same story, in direct opposition to what Brett is claiming?

That would do it.  Corrborating evidence.

What if he told the FBI something like "I certainly acted in regrettable ways when I was young, but due to my heavy drinking there are many nights I cannot remember, and this may be one of those nights."

What if he told the FBI something like "I remember attending many drunken parties with Brett Kavanaugh, and we sometimes engaged in rough horseplay with girls, but I always assumed it was consensual.  I regret to learn that Christine didn't think so."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 02, 2018, 05:08:09 PM
Would you change your mind if the FBI report says "Mark Judge confirms that he and Brett Kavanaugh pushed Christine Ford into a bedroom while drunk, wrestled with her, and then she escaped."?  Would that do it for you?  If two of the three people present offered the same story, in direct opposition to what Brett is claiming?

That would do it.  Corrborating evidence.

What if he told the FBI something like "I certainly acted in regrettable ways when I was young, but due to my heavy drinking there are many nights I cannot remember, and this may be one of those nights."

What if he told the FBI something like "I remember attending many drunken parties with Brett Kavanaugh, and we sometimes engaged in rough horseplay with girls, but I always assumed it was consensual.  I regret to learn that Christine didn't think so."



If he can't defend himself or his behavior, then yes.  In your second supposition, I would say there are too many variables that haven't reared their head to address.e
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 05:24:35 PM
I voted nay, not because of the allegations but because how emotionally stirred he was and how partisan he seemed.

Contrast that with calm demeanor Gina Haspel displayed when she went through her hearings, I found him too temperamental for my own comfort. I understand being accused of a sexual assault perpetrator (whether true or false) definitely played a part in his reactions, but still, perhaps I am asking for too much.

EDIT: WHAT I DID WAS NOT FACTUAL. DELETED.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 02, 2018, 05:41:26 PM
Ugh math. So, the false accusation rate is 5% (just taking your numbers). If there are 100 accusations, then there will be 5 who were wrongfully accused. Your math is using multiplication of probabilities out of order.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 02, 2018, 05:44:23 PM
I voted nay, not because of the allegations but because how emotionally stirred he was and how partisan he seemed.

Contrast that with calm demeanor Gina Haspel displayed when she went through her hearings, I found him too temperamental for my own comfort. I understand being accused of a sexual assault perpetrator (whether true or false) definitely played a part in his reactions, but still, perhaps I am asking for too much.

Regarding the allegations, aside from waiting for the FBI investigation results, this is something I whipped up and I would like to run it by some of the more mathematically attuned posters:

Suppose you suspect that you are allergic to something, which 1% of the population does, you went to the clinic and did a test. The test turned out to be positive.

The test has a false positive rate of 10% and a false negative rate of 20%. What's the chance of you actually being allergic?

The standard 2x2 table would look like this

                              1% have it                      test yes                          test no
Have allergy                10                                 8                                      2
Don't have                 990                                99                                   891
                                1000                              107                                  893

so, 107 people are test positive but only 8 people are actually allergic; even with a positive test, your chances of being actually allergic is only 7%, despite the test having only 20% false negative rate.

Now, I am going to do the same math but using stats related to male on female rape. I am assuming 5% of the male are rapists. The false accusation rate is known to be 2-10%, so I will take the avg 5% as false positive rate. Only about 1/3 rape are reported, so I am using 2/3 as false negative rate. You can substitute numbers you find reasonable.

The 2x2 table would look like this

                              5%                             accused                          not accused
Rapists                   50                                  17                                   33
Not rapists              950                                48                                  902
                             1000                               65                                  935

so, 65 people are accused but only 17 people are actually rapists; that's 28% chance of a person being actual guilty when accused of rape, despite the false accusation rate being only 2-10%. Obviously with multiple accusers this number would go up, classic Bayesian results. This is why I always refrain from making judgements without hard forensic evidences. Hopefully the FBI will clear things up.

Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

“If you make the same claim to me today,” he said, “it would be scorched-earth. I don’t care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, I’ve worked too hard for it, I’ve earned it, you can’t just blow me up like that.” - Matt Damon more than a year ago.

Then he goes and spoofs Kavanaugh on SNL.  That is some truly sad hypocritical BS. 

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 05:50:03 PM
Not being rude or anything, but I think you are mistaken Glen. As far as I remember, this is how to describe the probabilities of an event, based on our prior knowledge of conditions. As long as there is a false positive rate and a false negative rate, this is how we would calculate the actual probabilities and not just the "intuitive" 5 people wrongly accused out of 100 because of the 5% false accusation rate.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/probability-false-negatives-positives.html

Statistics is often counter intuitive (to me at least), recall the monty hall problem.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 05:52:35 PM
Why are we talking about arbitrary probabilities?  In addition to not knowing what the correct numbers to use might be, this is an individual case.  It's either a yes or a no.  Probabilities do not apply to individuals.

And this individual wasn't able to credibly deny the allegations against him.  Why worry about math, when you already know the guy is a liar?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 05:56:01 PM
Why are we talking about arbitrary probabilities?  In addition to not knowing what the correct numbers to use might be, this is an individual case.  It's either a yes or a no.  Probabilities do not apply to individuals.

And this individual wasn't able to credibly deny the allegations against him.  Why worry about math, when you already know the guy is a liar?

How do you (or any of us) know what really happened without hard forensic evidence. Statistics is important when we have no information on the case whatsoever other than what he said and what she said and what they said.

To me, Kavanaguh is just a random guy who is being accused, I dont know anything else concrete about the case. Then yes, the probabilities definitely apply, and there is 28% of chance that he is actually guilty based on a single allegation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 02, 2018, 05:58:59 PM
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

“If you make the same claim to me today,” he said, “it would be scorched-earth. I don’t care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, I’ve worked too hard for it, I’ve earned it, you can’t just blow me up like that.” - Matt Damon more than a year ago.

Then he goes and spoofs Kavanaugh on SNL.  That is some truly sad hypocritical BS.

... you may want to put that quote in context to realize what he was actually saying.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/matt-damon-opens-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-confidentiality/story?id=51792548

What he is saying was taken out of context in a lot of ways, and he could have said things better. But, he also was a bit prescient where he said effectively what Sol has been saying: people will shift to total denial regardless of the truth because those who admit are pilloried regardless of level of contrition and level of offense. He was also pretty clear that none of it was acceptable. The specific quote above was in the context of confidentiality agreements and that he would rather go court than pay someone off to avoid a public fight.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 02, 2018, 06:06:35 PM
Not being rude or anything, but I think you are mistaken Glen. As far as I remember, this is how to describe the probabilities of an event, based on our prior knowledge of conditions. As long as there is a false positive rate and a false negative rate, this is how we would calculate the actual probabilities and not just the "intuitive" 5 people wrongly accused out of 100 because of the 5% false accusation rate.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/probability-false-negatives-positives.html

Statistics is often counter intuitive (to me at least), recall the monty hall problem.

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".Yes. Math is fun.

Lack of reporting is not a false negative rate. Your analogy to allergy testing is incorrectly formulated.

And yes, as Sol pointed out the statistics fall away once you get to an individual boolean case.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 02, 2018, 06:12:11 PM
And in the word of Bart O'Kavanaugh himself, he certainly didn't seem like a choir boy who had no intention of fooling around with girls. To the contrary, hooking up appears to have been a much wanted "wish" and that the group was an "obnoxious" group of drunks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/brett-kavanaugh-georgetown-prep.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/03/business/03PREP-ltr1/03PREP-ltr1-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp)

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/10/03/business/03PREP-ltr2/03PREP-ltr2-jumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 02, 2018, 06:20:33 PM
He told Senator Leahy he wasn't Bart O'Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 02, 2018, 06:27:27 PM
He told Senator Leahy he wasn't Bart O'Kavanaugh.
Actually, he just purposefully dodges the question by throwing up chaff.

Quote
LEAHY: Judge Kavanaugh, I’ve heard your — your line (ph) and you state it over and over again. And I have that well in mind. But let me ask you this. He authored a book titled, “Wasted: Tales of a Genx Drunk.” He references a Barthold (ph) Kavanaugh vomiting on someone’s car during Beach Week and then passing out. Is that you that he’s talking about?

KAVANAUGH: Senator, Mark Judge was…

LEAHY: To your knowledge, is that you that he’s talking about?

KAVANAUGH: I’ll explain it if you let me.

LEAHY: Proceed, please.

KAVANAUGH: Mark Judge was a friend of ours in high school who developed a very serious drinking problem, an addiction problem that lasted decades and was very difficult for him to escape from.

And he nearly died. And then developed — then he had leukemia as well, on top of it.

Now, as part of his therapy — or part of his coming to grips with sobriety, he wrote a book that is a fictionalized book and an account….

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I think he picked out names of friends of ours to throw them in as kind of close to what — for characters in the book. So, you know, we can sit here…

LEAHY: So you don’t know — you don’t know whether that’s you or not?

KAVANAUGH: … we can sit here and you (ph) like (ph), make — make fun of some guy who has an addiction.

LEAHY: I’m not making…

(CROSSTALK)

KAVANAUGH: I don’t think that really makes — is really good…

LEAHY: … Judge Kavanaugh, I’m trying to get a straight answer from you under oath. Are you Bart (ph) Kavanaugh that he’s referring to, yes or no? That’s it (ph)…

KAVANAUGH: You’d have to ask him.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 02, 2018, 06:50:22 PM
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

Actually the first step of the grieving process is denial. Perhaps you are grieving? (Feel free to fact check that). 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 06:52:15 PM
How do you (or any of us) know what really happened without hard forensic evidence. Statistics is important when we have no information on the case whatsoever other than what he said and what she said and what they said.

But we do!  We have SO much more. 

Quote
To me, Kavanaguh is just a random guy who is being accused, I dont know anything else concrete about the case. Then yes, the probabilities definitely apply, and there is 28% of chance that he is actually guilty based on a single allegation.

How about if there are three allegations?

Also, I feel it only right to point that your math is deliberately misleading.  You can't put an a priori 1% infection rate under a test with a 10% false positive rate and then claim you "only have a 7% chance" of being infected.  A single positive test gives you a 700% increased chance from the random 1% chance of being infected.  The 7% is artificially low because the false positive rate is artificially high relative to the specified infection rate. 

But I'm presuming you already knew that, if you're the kind of person who would pose such an example.  Which leads me to believe it was done with bad intentions. 

In such instances, with high false positive rates, what would a doctor do?  He'd order a repeat test.  Kavanaugh now has three accusers.  Go ahead, run the numbers on three positive tests on the same patient, and then report back with the likelihood of infection.  I'll wait.

Here's an inverse test for you that I think is more relevant.  If you have a list of 25 nominees for the supreme court and only one of them stands credibly accused of sexual assault, what are the odds that congressional republicans go the mattresses for that one specific guy?

It still won't matter.  I think Brett will be confirmed on Friday, no matter what the FBI investigation finds.  Remember boys and girls: sexual assault isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 06:54:17 PM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.


Lack of reporting is not a false negative rate. Your analogy to allergy testing is incorrectly formulated.

And yes, as Sol pointed out the statistics fall away once you get to an individual boolean case.



You are more than welcome to suggest an alternative false negative rate with good reasoning. I used what I thought was suitable (rapists not being accused).

Statistics are meaningless when we get to the individual case ONLY if we have additional information that changes the prior conditions. See the allergy testing analogy, it is as individual as it gets (you being allergic) yet the calculation still applies. So no, I disagree on this completely.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 02, 2018, 06:59:06 PM
He didn't say he wasn't Bart OKavanagh, he just refused to answer the question.

I think something needs to be said, is that false rape claims fall into certain patterns of who reports them and for what reason. Ford's accusation doesn't fall into any of those patterns.
In turn Kavanaugh displayed a number of risk factors for men in the community that self-report non consensual sex.
So, it's not just a numbers game; it's using what information we have to determine what is a credible versus non-credible account. 

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/9/18/17874504/kavanaugh-assault-allegation-christine-blasey-ford


If you don't think that Kavanaugh could have possibly done it, men who commit sexual assault are commonly out there in population and often do not consider themselves as doing anything wrong. Some do it only 1 or two times, and stop. Others become repeat offenders. The vast majority, never accused or prosecuted.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/health/men-rape-sexual-assault.html

"...Dosage of what? Certain factors — researchers call them “risk factors” while acknowledging that these men are nonetheless responsible for their actions — have an outsize presence among those who commit sexual assaults.

Heavy drinking, perceived pressure to have sex, a belief in “rape myths” — such as the idea that no means yes — are all risk factors among men who have committed sexual assault. A peer group that uses hostile language to describe women is another one."

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 02, 2018, 07:06:40 PM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 07:15:32 PM

How about if there are three allegations?

Also, I feel it only right to point that your math is deliberately misleading.  You can't put an a priori 1% infection rate under a test with a 10% false positive rate and then claim you "only have a 7% chance" of being infected.  A single positive test gives you a 700% increased chance from the random 1% chance of being infected.  The 7% is artificially low because the false positive rate is artificially high relative to the specified infection rate. 

But I'm presuming you already knew that, if you're the kind of person who would pose such an example.  Which leads me to believe it was done with bad intentions. 

In such instances, with high false positive rates, what would a doctor do?  He'd order a repeat test.  Kavanaugh now has three accusers.  Go ahead, run the numbers on three positive tests on the same patient, and then report back with the likelihood of infection.  I'll wait.


Hi what? bad intentions? Did you not take any statistics in college? That's how the stat questions are usually framed? You can see the link I provided earlier to Glen.

How else would you frame the question: Given 1% of population are allergic, test has 10% false positive and 20% false negative, what's the chance you are actually allergic with a positive result. Stat is stat, don't bring ideology (bad intentions) into everything please.

And yes, I did mention multiple allegations would bring the numbers up quickly. We need to keep in mind the nature of exposing oneself (to Ramirez) is different from rape and should be removed from this calculation. If we include Swetnick's accusation and run the calculation twice we would be around 70%.

I think the FBI investigation result matters, even if he gets confirmed. The result may provide grounds for impeachment, he could be the second one!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 07:17:27 PM
You are more than welcome to suggest an alternative false negative rate with good reasoning. I used what I thought was suitable (rapists not being accused).

In the normal parlance of sexual assault allegations, a "false allegation" is one in which the accused is proven innocent.  Don't conflate that with a "false positive" in your medical exam example.  They are very different.

In your example, a better "false negative" would be someone who was evaluated for a history of sexual assault and found to be free of all credible charges, and yet was still an abuser.  Jerry Sandusky was a false positive for years, repeatedly exonerated of molesting children.  Whoops!

Quote
See the allergy testing analogy, it is as individual as it gets (you being allergic) yet the calculation still applies. So no, I disagree on this completely.

As I've already tried to point out, it is deliberately misleading.  We're not talking about a population of people who all take a test to determine if they are abusers.  Most of the population in this case is untested.  We're only talking about the population of people who stand accused of sexual assault (in your example, people who have already tested positive at least once), and those people are uniformly more likely to have committed sexual assault than the population at large and Glen's formulation is more appropriate.  If you just wanted to pursue this purely mathematical analysis of guilt, then multiple allegations against the same person would increase the likelihood that he's an abuser.  I think we can all see the problems with that idea.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 07:23:02 PM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 02, 2018, 07:25:57 PM
yes, the formulation is assuming that accusations are made randomly. Yet common sense dictates that people who actually committed sexual assault will be accused at a higher rate than the population at large.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 07:36:30 PM
Sol, I disagree on your "false allegation" definition, if you want to use

false negative" would be someone who was evaluated for a history of sexual assault and found to be free of all credible charges, and yet was still an abuser.

then the population breakdown would need to be redefined. Because by your definition then rapists are tried and proven guilty, instead of simply having committed an act with or without being accused. Anyone know whats the % of male rapist in the male populationÉ

its not deliberately misleading, this is how stat scenarios are framed in academics, its just that in daily life we (and most people) are not used to such way of thinking. I have said multiple times yes more allegation would raise the likelihood and I have shown you the result, classic Bayesian, perhaps you missed it somehow.

Another poster: common sense dictates that people who actually committed sexual assault will be accused at a higher rate than the population at large.


Yup, hence the low false positive rate.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 07:43:10 PM
Hi what? bad intentions? Did you not take any statistics in college?

Lol.  Yes.  Also in graduate school!  Also as part of my job (which I just quit because I got tired of arguing about statistics).

Quote
How else would you frame the question: Given 1% of population are allergic, test has 10% false positive and 20% false negative, what's the chance you are actually allergic with a positive result. Stat is stat, don't bring ideology (bad intentions) into everything please.

The bad intentions aren't in how you state the problem, they're in the problem you've chosen.  You don't get meaningful results from a test with a 10% false positive rate if the true incidence is only 1%.  MOST of the positives will be false in that scenario, as you've chosen to highlight, because you've structured a problem with almost no true sick people, and a really shitty test.  This has no bearing at all on the veracity of sexual assault allegations, unless you a priori believe that the incidence of sexual assault is much lower than the incidence of false accusations of sexual assault.

But the math is a distraction here, anisotropy.  You've already told us you don't think Brett shouldn't be confirmed.  But there are multiple people in this thread who think the whole series of allegations are a Chinese Hoax, and your poorly chosen example lends them credence.  It teaches them to discount the allegations as "probably false" when that is entirely unwarranted in this case.  Your mathematical approach is equally valid for Ford as it is for Kavanaugh, in the absence of other information, so it's not really very helpful.  What is helpful is looking at the details of the two accounts and determining which seems more reliable.  Brett Kavanaugh is clearly not a reliable witness, on a whole laundry list of topics, so his denials don't carry much weight with me.  Why should I believe a man who lies about easily disproven stuff, dodges questions, refuses to answer, changes the subject, opposes an investigation to find the truth, and and then screams about a vast Clinton conspiracy?  Dude is a single engine train to crazy town, and I think anyone who watches his testimony can see it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 02, 2018, 08:43:21 PM
Iris-What are the rules to Devil's Triangle?

Whitehouse asked what "Devil's triangle" referred to, and Kavanaugh replied that it was a drinking game with three glasses in a triangle played in a similar fashion to quarters.

Do you think Brett Kavanaugh is lying about a Devil's Triangle or is the rest of the pre-2018 internet lying?  There are no pre-September 2018 references to a Devil's Triangle drinking game.  However, there are several references to a sexual practice.

How about what a Renate Alumnus is?

"That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us…It was not related to sex."

If several member of the football team had printed in the yearbook that they were "Iris Lily Alumnus", would you have been flattered at this sign of respect that is not about sex?  How about if several members of the football team had written that about your daughter?  And then, decades later, testified under oath about how affectionate and respectful their gesture was?   Would you have considered that a lie or just the gosh-darn-honest truth?

I dont even know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 08:49:02 PM
Sol,

Congratz on leaving a job that brought you headaches. I think I can relate to that, I also did stat (for the purpose of reservoir characterization) for a living and it was at times incredibly difficult trying to explain things to non tech (or even non stat) people.

I am sorry if you feel my post is providing ammunition to the group that are pro-Kavanaguh. Yet I believe math is math, ideology should not be part of it, so I choose to present things as they are. The back of envelope calculation is meant to demonstrate (and perhaps counter) that commonly touted "believe all women no matter what because false accusation rate is only 2-10%" is very misleading when we actually work things out and the likelihood of being actually guilty off one single allegation is low. Instead of 90%, its 26%.

Like you and I both noted, however, given multiple allegations (I used 2), the chance of him being guilty is now ~70% based on calculation alone. Note how even with two allegations, its still lower than 90%.

For what it's worth, most of medical conditions (or any low chance occurances) occur less than 1% of the time, and this is what people have to deal with using stats so I think its entirely valid. I merely applied the same method to evaluating the odds of this guy being actually guilty given the known stats, like I said, math is math (objective truth perhaps), it should not be partisan.

At the end of the day, stat is just stat, once the FBI releases the result, we can all make better decisions from there.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Turkey Leg on October 02, 2018, 08:53:49 PM
Iris-What are the rules to Devil's Triangle?

Whitehouse asked what "Devil's triangle" referred to, and Kavanaugh replied that it was a drinking game with three glasses in a triangle played in a similar fashion to quarters.

Do you think Brett Kavanaugh is lying about a Devil's Triangle or is the rest of the pre-2018 internet lying?  There are no pre-September 2018 references to a Devil's Triangle drinking game.  However, there are several references to a sexual practice.

How about what a Renate Alumnus is?

"That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us…It was not related to sex."

If several member of the football team had printed in the yearbook that they were "Iris Lily Alumnus", would you have been flattered at this sign of respect that is not about sex?  How about if several members of the football team had written that about your daughter?  And then, decades later, testified under oath about how affectionate and respectful their gesture was?   Would you have considered that a lie or just the gosh-darn-honest truth?

I dont even know what you are talking about.
Then your opinion about Kavanaugh is uninformed and should be disregarded.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 02, 2018, 09:17:16 PM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 02, 2018, 09:47:24 PM
I voted nay, not because of the allegations but because how emotionally stirred he was and how partisan he seemed.

Contrast that with calm demeanor Gina Haspel displayed when she went through her hearings, I found him too temperamental for my own comfort. I understand being accused of a sexual assault perpetrator (whether true or false) definitely played a part in his reactions, but still, perhaps I am asking for too much.

Regarding the allegations, aside from waiting for the FBI investigation results, this is something I whipped up and I would like to run it by some of the more mathematically attuned posters:

Suppose you suspect that you are allergic to something, which 1% of the population does, you went to the clinic and did a test. The test turned out to be positive.

The test has a false positive rate of 10% and a false negative rate of 20%. What's the chance of you actually being allergic?

The standard 2x2 table would look like this

                              1% have it                      test yes                          test no
Have allergy                10                                 8                                      2
Don't have                 990                                99                                   891
                                1000                              107                                  893

so, 107 people are test positive but only 8 people are actually allergic; even with a positive test, your chances of being actually allergic is only 7%, despite the test having only 20% false negative rate.

Now, I am going to do the same math but using stats related to male on female rape. I am assuming 5% of the male are rapists. The false accusation rate is known to be 2-10%, so I will take the avg 5% as false positive rate. Only about 1/3 rape are reported, so I am using 2/3 as false negative rate. You can substitute numbers you find reasonable.

The 2x2 table would look like this

                              5%                             accused                          not accused
Rapists                   50                                  17                                   33
Not rapists              950                                48                                  902
                             1000                               65                                  935

so, 65 people are accused but only 17 people are actually rapists; that's 28% chance of a person being actual guilty when accused of rape, despite the false accusation rate being only 2-10%. Obviously with multiple accusers this number would go up, classic Bayesian results. This is why I always refrain from making judgements without hard forensic evidences. Hopefully the FBI will clear things up.


Your supposed stats suffer from the usual problem of "garbage in, garbage out".  Firstly, why are you using an example of rape when the accusation is attempted rape and sexual assault?  Why are you assuming 5% of males as rapists?  Why are you assuming 5% of false accusations, and why are you basing this on a range of 2% to 8% which is not "known" but is itself an uninformed guess?


And why are you specifying the need for "hard forensic evidence"?  That's a scientists approach, not a law courts approach or a job interview approach, and is both inappropriate and I suspect a misunderstanding of "forensic" as meaning "scientific".  In either a court or a job interview it is entirely appropriate to take into account witness demeanour: this is why witnesses in court are required to give evidence in person - contrast Ford's demeanour with Kavanaugh's).  And there is hard evidence in Kavanaugh's calendar, which proves the existence of a party as mentioned by Ford as the occasion of the assault: location and place (Bethesda, house) people present (Kavanaugh, PJ, Judge, and another), and activity (drinking beer).    Why don't you apply your stats to the chances of Ford imagining that party out of nothing and then getting all those details right?  And there is hard evidence in Kavanaugh's lying, evasions and inconsistencies.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 10:05:00 PM
Dabnasty,

Quote
I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

Let's use your numbers and work backwards and see what we get in terms of population breakdown. Based on your replies, we will assume the % of false positive is 20%. For simplicity sake we will keep the false negative (rapists not accused) to be the same number I used, ie, 2/3

                                                            accused                          not accused
Rapists                   A                                 1/3A                                   2/3A
Not rapists              B                                0.2B                                    0.8B
                                                           
we need to find values of A and B so that 1/3A / (0.2B+1/3A) = ~95%, so that it satisfy 2-10% being the final result (again, I took the avg here to be 5%)

We get A/B = 11.5, in English, this means in the population more than 90% of the men are rapists. Here's the breakdown for population of 1000.

                            A/B=11.5                             accused                          not accused
Rapists                   920                                     307                                613
Not rapists              80                                        16                                  64
                             1000                                   323                                 679

16/323= 0.05

This is what we get by using 2-10% being the final result, which is clearly unrealistic and wrong, 92% of men are rapists? Like I said, if we assume 2-10% being the final result, we will get unrealistically large numbers of rapists in the population, or super low false-accusation rate.

So no, my calculation was right based on the numbers I used. The 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be treated as an input.  Given a single accuser, the likelihood of the guy being guilty is low, its only with multiple accusations the likelihood increases as I have demonstrated earlier, with 2, its at 70%.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 02, 2018, 10:14:15 PM
This is what we get by using 2-10% being the final result, which is clearly unrealistic and wrong, 92% of men are rapists? Like I said, if we assume 2-10% being the final result, we will get unrealistically large numbers of rapists in the population, or super low false-accusation rate.

You're still assuming that every man has been accused. 

The fundamental problem with your example is that you have a high false positive rate compared to the rate of actual offenses.  If you make those assumptions, then yes of course the majority of accusations will be false.  You've designed the problem that way.  That doesn't make it instructive.

And as many people have pointed out now, it's totally irrelevant in this case because we literally have testimony from multiple people, calendars, text messages, books, etc that dispute one version of events and not the other.  We are no longer considering probabilities of an arbitrary candidate with a single accusation who exists in a vacuum of no other information, we're considering Brett Kavanaugh, who is apparently a really bad liar with a history of getting blackout drunk and behaving in sexually inappropriate ways.  As determined by real evidence about this real person.  Not probabilistically.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 10:22:01 PM
I voted nay, not because of the allegations but because how emotionally stirred he was and how partisan he seemed.

Contrast that with calm demeanor Gina Haspel displayed when she went through her hearings, I found him too temperamental for my own comfort. I understand being accused of a sexual assault perpetrator (whether true or false) definitely played a part in his reactions, but still, perhaps I am asking for too much.

Regarding the allegations, aside from waiting for the FBI investigation results, this is something I whipped up and I would like to run it by some of the more mathematically attuned posters:

Suppose you suspect that you are allergic to something, which 1% of the population does, you went to the clinic and did a test. The test turned out to be positive.

The test has a false positive rate of 10% and a false negative rate of 20%. What's the chance of you actually being allergic?

The standard 2x2 table would look like this

                              1% have it                      test yes                          test no
Have allergy                10                                 8                                      2
Don't have                 990                                99                                   891
                                1000                              107                                  893

so, 107 people are test positive but only 8 people are actually allergic; even with a positive test, your chances of being actually allergic is only 7%, despite the test having only 20% false negative rate.

Now, I am going to do the same math but using stats related to male on female rape. I am assuming 5% of the male are rapists. The false accusation rate is known to be 2-10%, so I will take the avg 5% as false positive rate. Only about 1/3 rape are reported, so I am using 2/3 as false negative rate. You can substitute numbers you find reasonable.

The 2x2 table would look like this

                              5%                             accused                          not accused
Rapists                   50                                  17                                   33
Not rapists              950                                48                                  902
                             1000                               65                                  935

so, 65 people are accused but only 17 people are actually rapists; that's 28% chance of a person being actual guilty when accused of rape, despite the false accusation rate being only 2-10%. Obviously with multiple accusers this number would go up, classic Bayesian results. This is why I always refrain from making judgements without hard forensic evidences. Hopefully the FBI will clear things up.

Your supposed stats suffer from the usual problem of "garbage in, garbage out".  Firstly, why are you using an example of rape when the accusation is attempted rape and sexual assault?  Why are you assuming 5% of males as rapists?  Why are you assuming 5% of false accusations, and why are you basing this on a range of 2% to 8% which is not "known" but is itself an uninformed guess?


Are you suggesting I should treat Dr. Ford's accusation separately from swetnicks' because it's "not" rape?

I am usually pretty polite and constructive in a serious conversation, it is only when some random person shows up wholly uninformed I get annoyed. You must have never had a disagreement with me here, otherwise you would know I usually use pretty well-sourced data.

Assuming 5% are rapists: "6.4% of men openly admitted of committing the strictest possible definition of rape", I rounded it so it's easier to run calculations.
https://davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf

Assuming 5% false accusation: Most experts agree it's between 2-10%. "A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found a 7.1% of false reports (Lonsway, Archambault, & Lisak, 2009)." Again, I rounded it so it's easier to run calc.
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
http://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1238871

You are more than welcome to provide your own numbers provided they are backed by research.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 02, 2018, 10:42:06 PM
This is what we get by using 2-10% being the final result, which is clearly unrealistic and wrong, 92% of men are rapists? Like I said, if we assume 2-10% being the final result, we will get unrealistically large numbers of rapists in the population, or super low false-accusation rate.

You're still assuming that every man has been accused. 

The fundamental problem with your example is that you have a high false positive rate compared to the rate of actual offenses.  If you make those assumptions, then yes of course the majority of accusations will be false.  You've designed the problem that way.  That doesn't make it instructive.

And as many people have pointed out now, it's totally irrelevant in this case because we literally have testimony from multiple people, calendars, text messages, books, etc that dispute one version of events and not the other.  We are no longer considering probabilities of an arbitrary candidate with a single accusation who exists in a vacuum of no other information, we're considering Brett Kavanaugh, who is apparently a really bad liar with a history of getting blackout drunk and behaving in sexually inappropriate ways.  As determined by real evidence about this real person.  Not probabilistically.

I used the false positive rate suggested by Dabnasty, you can use something low for FP like 1% and the population breakdown would still look horrendous.

Sol, once again I believe stats has a place here because we don't know anything other than what they said and he's just a random guy as far as I know. I was in the audience when Henry Lee  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_(forensic_scientist))(forensic scientist) gave a vivid description of what beyond reasonable doubt means, and so far we don't have enough "evidence".

It is very common for there to be inconsistencies in people's stories. In fact, it's so common that from my perspective being a scientist/engineer, I find most people (myself included) are unreliable narrators under pressure, and I prefer verifiable physical evidence. Perhaps you are good at spotting lies and judging people's characters in general, most people, including myself are not so fortunate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-humans-are-bad-at-spotting-lies/?ex_cid=story-twitter).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-humans-are-bad-at-spotting-lies/?ex_cid=story-twitter

My view is that I am not willing to pass judgement regarding the allegations (chance of being guilt now 70% given 2 allegations) until the FBI investigation concludes. I don't think he is a good candidate for other reasons I mentioned, but I can not condemn him for something he's yet to be proven guilty of.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ice_beard on October 02, 2018, 11:07:32 PM
His behavior last week was not judicial.  He has already shown that he is politically biased.  Oh and there is the sexual assault and alcohol abuse stuff too.   
I keep wondering, why him?  Why not one of the other dozens of judges the Heritage Foundation has approved??  Oh yeah, because he has this singular view that sitting presidents cannot be charged with crimes.  Who would be interested in such a whack ass not based on existing standards of law position?? 

This administration doesn't even try to hide their sliminess, it's shameful. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: laserlady on October 02, 2018, 11:12:02 PM
You can't apply the false accusation rate as a false negative because the false negative needs to be based on the population as a whole, while the false accusation rate is based on a subset of the population.

In your allergy analogy, 107 people test positive for allergies, but only 8 have allergies.  Thus, if having allergies were a crime and people could be convicted of having allergies based on an allergy test that is given to everyone in the population, then ~93% of allergy convictions would be wrongful convictions, since only 7% of people who test positive for allergies would turn out to actually have allergies. 

In the rape context, on the other hand, we don't need to solve for the false conviction/accusation number because we already have an estimate.  You estimate that approximately 5% of accusations are false.  Thus, in a population of 107 accused rapists, we can estimate that approximately 102 would be actual rapists -- 95% of people who are accused of rape turn out to actually be rapists. 

You're trying to solve for X in an equation when we already know X, and that's making your numbers wrong.  Using your assumptions, we'll say that 5% of the male population are rapists, that only 33% of rapes are reported, and that 5% of rape reports are false.  That should lead to these figures:


                              5%                             accused                          not accused
Rapists                   50                                  17                                   33
Not rapists              950                                1                                    949
                             1000                               18                                  982


Of our 18 men accused of rape, 1 is a false report, which is consistent with your estimate of a 5% false report rate for those who are accused of rape.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 12:13:08 AM
You can't apply the false accusation rate as a false negative because the false negative needs to be based on the population as a whole, while the false accusation rate is based on a subset of the population.


I didn't apply the false accusation rate as a false negative, I used non-reported rape as false-negative, which is 2/3. You must have meant false positive.

Like you said, the false accusation (false positive) rate is based on a subset of the population, ie, the "not rapists", not the final result.

Let's review what false accusation means,: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 2-10% applies to 950, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent. If we go by your table, the false accusation rate is then 1/950, not the 2-10% range.

I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand/wrap our heads around:
Given 2-10% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 26%.

In your scenario/table,
Given 0.1% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 95%.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 03, 2018, 01:21:15 AM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

Or (and I find it deeply unrealistic that this didn't occur to you, because it's been the core of one of the most visible public debates in modern history for the last year), the number of rapists in the general population is uncomfortably large, and the number of false accusations is very low. Didn't someone link a study upthread that indicated that an appalling percentage of men admitted to rape when it was phrased as something other than rape?

I also take exception to your maths: you have a calculation that takes a 5% false accusation rate, and somehow turns that into 72% of accusations being false. Without a very clear explanation of how that works, I can only conclude that there's either an error or some sleight of hand going on. A 5% false accusation rate is not compatible with 72% of accusations being false. And given that I've already seen you on another thread substituting the ECHR's judgement on Turkish politics for EU policy on Muslim immigrants, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a remarkable quirk of statistics I'm just not getting.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 03, 2018, 01:39:39 AM
I'm going to apply a test I like to use in cases like these: I change something that doesn't impact in the maths, then reread the changed outcomes and see if it looks even vaguely sensible.

Let's replace "false accusation" with "wrongful conviction", and leave all the numbers as they are. The vast majority of the population has never been wrongfully convicted, but now almost three-quarters of our prison populations quite literally never did anything illegal. If anisotropy's math holds up, and if we accept a wrongful conviction rate of 5% (not a mad figure), then the numbers lead us directly to the conclusion that the prison system is designed to punish completely innocent people.

I hold no great love for the American prison system, but even I don't think 3/4 of prisoners are as pure as the driven snow. And yet, if anisotropy's math is correct, that's the case. There are two possible conclusions: the math is fatally flawed, or Western society is a brutalised hellscape. Bad as things are, I really don't think the second is true.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 03, 2018, 01:40:32 AM
I voted nay, not because of the allegations but because how emotionally stirred he was and how partisan he seemed.

Contrast that with calm demeanor Gina Haspel displayed when she went through her hearings, I found him too temperamental for my own comfort. I understand being accused of a sexual assault perpetrator (whether true or false) definitely played a part in his reactions, but still, perhaps I am asking for too much.

Regarding the allegations, aside from waiting for the FBI investigation results, this is something I whipped up and I would like to run it by some of the more mathematically attuned posters:

Suppose you suspect that you are allergic to something, which 1% of the population does, you went to the clinic and did a test. The test turned out to be positive.

The test has a false positive rate of 10% and a false negative rate of 20%. What's the chance of you actually being allergic?

The standard 2x2 table would look like this

                              1% have it                      test yes                          test no
Have allergy                10                                 8                                      2
Don't have                 990                                99                                   891
                                1000                              107                                  893

so, 107 people are test positive but only 8 people are actually allergic; even with a positive test, your chances of being actually allergic is only 7%, despite the test having only 20% false negative rate.

Now, I am going to do the same math but using stats related to male on female rape. I am assuming 5% of the male are rapists. The false accusation rate is known to be 2-10%, so I will take the avg 5% as false positive rate. Only about 1/3 rape are reported, so I am using 2/3 as false negative rate. You can substitute numbers you find reasonable.

The 2x2 table would look like this

                              5%                             accused                          not accused
Rapists                   50                                  17                                   33
Not rapists              950                                48                                  902
                             1000                               65                                  935

so, 65 people are accused but only 17 people are actually rapists; that's 28% chance of a person being actual guilty when accused of rape, despite the false accusation rate being only 2-10%. Obviously with multiple accusers this number would go up, classic Bayesian results. This is why I always refrain from making judgements without hard forensic evidences. Hopefully the FBI will clear things up.

Your supposed stats suffer from the usual problem of "garbage in, garbage out".  Firstly, why are you using an example of rape when the accusation is attempted rape and sexual assault?  Why are you assuming 5% of males as rapists?  Why are you assuming 5% of false accusations, and why are you basing this on a range of 2% to 8% which is not "known" but is itself an uninformed guess?


Are you suggesting I should treat Dr. Ford's accusation separately from swetnicks' because it's "not" rape?

I am usually pretty polite and constructive in a serious conversation, it is only when some random person shows up wholly uninformed I get annoyed. You must have never had a disagreement with me here, otherwise you would know I usually use pretty well-sourced data.

Assuming 5% are rapists: "6.4% of men openly admitted of committing the strictest possible definition of rape", I rounded it so it's easier to run calculations.
https://davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf

Assuming 5% false accusation: Most experts agree it's between 2-10%. "A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found a 7.1% of false reports (Lonsway, Archambault, & Lisak, 2009)." Again, I rounded it so it's easier to run calc.
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
http://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1238871

You are more than welcome to provide your own numbers provided they are backed by research.

But what is the correlation between the admitted 5% rapists and the 5% false accusations?  There is a very significant underreporting of rape and sexual assault.  The 5% false accusations is 5% of all accusations, right?  So you need to take account of the underreporting rate too.  I see laserlady has made this point

And as sol says, you are ignoring that 1) this is an individual case not one based on probabilities, and 2) as numerous people including me have pointed out, there is strong evidence supporting Dr Ford's testimony and disputing Kavanaugh's.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 02:08:09 AM

Or (and I find it deeply unrealistic that this didn't occur to you, because it's been the core of one of the most visible public debates in modern history for the last year), the number of rapists in the general population is uncomfortably large, and the number of false accusations is very low. Didn't someone link a study upthread that indicated that an appalling percentage of men admitted to rape when it was phrased as something other than rape?

I also take exception to your maths: you have a calculation that takes a 5% false accusation rate, and somehow turns that into 72% of accusations being false. Without a very clear explanation of how that works, I can only conclude that there's either an error or some sleight of hand going on. A 5% false accusation rate is not compatible with 72% of accusations being false. And given that I've already seen you on another thread substituting the ECHR's judgement on Turkish politics for EU policy on Muslim immigrants, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a remarkable quirk of statistics I'm just not getting.

First off, if i recall correctly, i listed ECHR's judgment of certain parts of Sharia law being incompatible with democracy. I mistook ECHR as part of EU, that is true and I corrected myself once pointed out. You have to realize this mistake on my part in no way reverses their finding and the judgment stands. You are free to disagree with that judgement if you so desire. But say it out loud explicitly.

Secondly, LOL seriously? Because we disagreed on the topic regarding muslim immigrants, more specifically, that I agreed with ECHR that the Sharia laws are not compatible with democracy, it automatically disqualifies anything I say? How tribal can you get? Don't be ridiculous, how's this behavior any different from the tribal Republicans you seem to enjoy making fun of?

Lastly, I think with the sole exception of Sol (perhaps some others), most of you don't really understand how to perceive, let alone how to calculate, conditional probabilities when it involves false positives and false negatives.

It did not "somehow turn that into 72% of accusations being false", there is no slight of hand, take (or retake) stat 101 in college, you will run into similar questions in class, and hopefully learn to do them for the first (or this) time.

Let's review what false accusation means: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 2-10% applies to 950, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent.

I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand/wrap your head around runbikerun:
Given 2-10% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 26%.

-----------------------------------------------

Quote
I'm going to apply a test I like to use in cases like these: I change something that doesn't impact in the maths, then reread the changed outcomes and see if it looks even vaguely sensible.

Let's replace "false accusation" with "wrongful conviction", and leave all the numbers as they are. The vast majority of the population has never been wrongfully convicted, but now almost three-quarters of our prison populations quite literally never did anything illegal. If anisotropy's math holds up, and if we accept a wrongful conviction rate of 5% (not a mad figure), then the numbers lead us directly to the conclusion that the prison system is designed to punish completely innocent people.

I hold no great love for the American prison system, but even I don't think 3/4 of prisoners are as pure as the driven snow. And yet, if anisotropy's math is correct, that's the case. There are two possible conclusions: the math is fatally flawed, or Western society is a brutalised hellscape. Bad as things are, I really don't think the second is true.
Again, your wrongfully accused

If your premise is wrongful conviction, you must then first # people convicted, and # of people charged. Then you need to identify the false positive rate, which i have no clue what, but let's say we use the same 5%. What would you then use as false negative? crimes unreported?

Until we change the numbers to reflect the new premise, we can not have sensible outcomes. Luckily someone already did some of the hard work for us:

"How many other Glenn Fords are still behind bars? How many will die there? Just how often does our venerated justice system fail? Rarely, at least according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In a 2006 opinion he cited an approximate error rate of 0.027 percent, based on back-of-the-envelope calculations by an Oregon district attorney in a fiery op-ed for the New York Times. The op-ed was in response to a report by Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, cataloguing 340 exonerations between 1989 and 2003. “Let’s give the professor the benefit of the doubt,” the op-ed read. “Let’s assume that he understated the number of innocents by roughly a factor of 10, that instead of 340 there were 4,000 people in prison who weren’t involved in the crime in any way. During that same 15 years, there were more than 15 million felony convictions across the country. That would make the error rate .027 percent — or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent.”

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/

The error rate, when it comes to being wrongly convicted, is a much smaller 0.027% leading to a success rate of 99.973%. When you use 0.027% as the false positive rate, and do the calculation as Sam Gross did, you arrive at wrongfully convicted being ~4%. I am afraid based on what you said you dont understand conditional probabilities at all.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 02:19:37 AM
formerplayer,

The under reporting is being accounted for in my calculation as "False negatives", namely, crime went unreported, which is 2/3 based on studies.

And one more time, Let's review what 5% false accusation means: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 5% applies to 950, the subset, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent.

I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand:
Given 2-10% (avg 5%) false accusation rate (in the not rapist subset), the likelihood someone actually is a rapist, in the entire population, based on one accusation is 26%.

Again, I believe stats apply here, because as far as I am concerned, this is a random guy in the population being accused. With two accusations the guilty likelihood is ~70% based on stats alone, but without hard physical evidence or a positive FBI investigation result, I must decline to see him as guilty.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 03, 2018, 02:34:18 AM
formerplayer,

The under reporting is being accounted for in my calculation as "False negatives", namely, crime went unreported, which is 2/3 based on studies.

And one more time, Let's review what 5% false accusation means: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 5% applies to 950, the subset, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent.

I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand:
Given 2-10% (avg 5%) false accusation rate (in the not rapist subset), the likelihood someone actually is a rapist, in the entire population, based on one accusation is 26%.

Again, I believe stats apply here, because as far as I am concerned, this is a random guy in the population being accused. With two accusations the guilty likelihood is ~70% based on stats alone, but without hard physical evidence or a positive FBI investigation result, I must decline to see him as guilty.


Let's put your stats to one side: whether accurate or not they are in fact a distraction from the facts that is a diversion tactic from the question of whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed as Supreme Court justice.  Unless you saying that Kavanaugh was just a random guy picked on by Dr Ford to make an accusation against?  That the sworn statements and appearance before the Senate of a serious and respected professional woman were a complete fiction made up for some unknown reason?  That she didn't know Kavanaugh when she was younger?  That she randomly made up the existence of a party described in Kavanaugh's calendar?  That she invented the details of the house in which she was pushed into a bedroom, sexually assaulted and feared suffocation from an attempt by Kavanaugh to keep her quiet, to the extent that decades later she built an extra escape route into her own house?  You are really discounting all of that?  On what rational grounds?  You seem keen on logic, please try and logic all that away, point by point.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Dollar Slice on October 03, 2018, 02:43:16 AM
And one more time, Let's review what 5% false accusation means: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 5% applies to 950, the subset, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent.

No. You're getting this wrong and it's not because of the math.

It's 2-10% *of rape allegations* that are false.

It is NOT that 2-10% of innocent men are accused. Go check your source and I'm sure you'll see that it says 2-10% *of allegations*.

That means you do not apply it to the population. You apply it to the number of rape allegations that happened. So if there were 17 real allegations of rape there should be 0-2 false accusations. You take 2-10% of 17, because that is the number of allegations. And your statistic is a percent of allegations, not a percent of a population of people.

This is why they teach word problems in school... :-)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 03, 2018, 03:11:41 AM
anisotropy - I don't doubt you because we disagree on Muslim immigration. I doubt you because I think you're intellectually dishonest.

And I can see what you're doing with these numbers. You're taking "5% of accusations are false" and "this test is 95% accurate" to be equal concepts, when they're not. The data you're starting with deals only with accusations, or positive tests, and the 5% number applies here. "This test is 95% accurate" and "95% of positive results on this test are correct" are two very different statements, but you've muddied the waters to produce the results you want.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 03, 2018, 05:37:11 AM
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 03, 2018, 05:41:12 AM
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

“If you make the same claim to me today,” he said, “it would be scorched-earth. I don’t care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, I’ve worked too hard for it, I’ve earned it, you can’t just blow me up like that.” - Matt Damon more than a year ago.

Then he goes and spoofs Kavanaugh on SNL.  That is some truly sad hypocritical BS.

... you may want to put that quote in context to realize what he was actually saying.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/matt-damon-opens-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-confidentiality/story?id=51792548

What he is saying was taken out of context in a lot of ways, and he could have said things better. But, he also was a bit prescient where he said effectively what Sol has been saying: people will shift to total denial regardless of the truth because those who admit are pilloried regardless of level of contrition and level of offense. He was also pretty clear that none of it was acceptable. The specific quote above was in the context of confidentiality agreements and that he would rather go court than pay someone off to avoid a public fight.

Which makes no difference in how he said he would feel about accusations.  Which is the point. SMH
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 03, 2018, 05:49:27 AM
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

Actually the first step of the grieving process is denial. Perhaps you are grieving? (Feel free to fact check that).

You're correct.  Followed by anger.  The stages can come more than one at a time and there can be reversion, as well.  They can also come in a different order.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

The point was, anger is a substantial part of grieving process and has nothing to do with your your point but everything to do with my point.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 03, 2018, 05:57:24 AM
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.
hi Ben!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 03, 2018, 06:30:55 AM
And one more time, Let's review what 5% false accusation means: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 5% applies to 950, the subset, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent.

No. You're getting this wrong and it's not because of the math.

It's 2-10% *of rape allegations* that are false.

It is NOT that 2-10% of innocent men are accused. Go check your source and I'm sure you'll see that it says 2-10% *of allegations*.

That means you do not apply it to the population. You apply it to the number of rape allegations that happened. So if there were 17 real allegations of rape there should be 0-2 false accusations. You take 2-10% of 17, because that is the number of allegations. And your statistic is a percent of allegations, not a percent of a population of people.

This is why they teach word problems in school... :-)

This is what I was trying to point out...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on October 03, 2018, 06:56:11 AM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.
Per research done on young men (normally freshman and sophomore college students) the repeat rapists averaged 5.8 rapes each.  The 120 rapists were responsible for 1,225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape, battery, and child physical and sexual abuse. Lisak, 2002.
Studies of unreported rape, mainly on college samples, indicate that from 6% to 14.9% of men report acts that meet legal definitions for rape or attempted rape (Collings, 1994; Greendlinger & Byrne, 1987; Koss, Leonard, Beezley, & Oros, 1985;
Koss, Gidycz, & Wisniewski, 1987; Krahe, 1998; Lisak & Roth, 1988; Merrill et aI., 1998; Mosher & Anderson, 1986; Ouimette & Riggs, 1998; Rubenzahl & Corcoran, 1998).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on October 03, 2018, 07:02:47 AM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Actually 2-10% were not concluded false. Included in that 2-10% are reports the police officers, in some districts, do not find credible.  This does not mean the police officer has any proof in either direction.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 03, 2018, 07:09:01 AM
You can't apply the false accusation rate as a false negative because the false negative needs to be based on the population as a whole, while the false accusation rate is based on a subset of the population.


I didn't apply the false accusation rate as a false negative, I used non-reported rape as false-negative, which is 2/3. You must have meant false positive.

Like you said, the false accusation (false positive) rate is based on a subset of the population, ie, the "not rapists", not the final result.

Let's review what false accusation means,: you are accused but you are not a rapist, hence, the 2-10% applies to 950, not the entire population, the 2x2 table should make that apparent. If we go by your table, the false accusation rate is then 1/950, not the 2-10% range.

I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand/wrap our heads around:
Given 2-10% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 26%.

In your scenario/table,
Given 0.1% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 95%.

Who exactly forms this subset of 1000 then? You're applying the 5% of all men are rapists figure to the 1000 to get 50 men are rapists - does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?

Then you're applying the 2-10%(5% avg) of false accusations to the same 1000 men.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 03, 2018, 07:24:12 AM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Actually 2-10% were not concluded false. Included in that 2-10% are reports the police officers, in some districts, do not find credible.  This does not mean the police officer has any proof in either direction.

Quote
False report
A false report is a reported crime to a law enforcement agency that an investigation factually proves never occurred.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf (https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf)

Quote
DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape)

The definition of false accusation is not entirely agreed upon which is why the range (2-10%) is significant, but as far as I can tell most studies are referring to the % of cases which were concluded to be false.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: pbkmaine on October 03, 2018, 07:36:11 AM
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes. It’s reminding me of Economics 101, where there are so many assumptions that the conclusions make no sense.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 03, 2018, 07:42:41 AM
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes. It’s reminding me of Economics 101, where there are so many assumptions that the conclusions make no sense.

Please, don't let anisotropy reduce your opinion of statistics.  He's just using them poorly.  Statistics can actually be very useful when applied correctly.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: pbkmaine on October 03, 2018, 07:52:04 AM
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Yes. It’s reminding me of Economics 101, where there are so many assumptions that the conclusions make no sense.

Please, don't let anisotropy reduce your opinion of statistics.  He's just using them poorly.  Statistics can actually be very useful when applied correctly.

Agreed. Just not here.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 03, 2018, 08:00:47 AM
Bayesian math can actually be tremendously useful as a tool for understanding the concept of false positives, particularly when looking at rare outcomes.

If a test is 95% accurate and administered to an entire population, and the thing it's testing for is present in 1% of the population, then you'll get four or five false positives for every true positive. Imagine a 200-rider bike race, in which two riders are doping, and at the end everyone is tested. The two dopers are almost certainly going to return true positives; however, the 198 clean riders will also produce nine or ten false positives. This is what anisotropy is getting at; most positives in this scenario are actually false.

However, if 95% of positives on the test are accurate (which is what we're actually dealing with), then we get a very different result. When that's the test, we only get two positives, and they're almost guaranteed to be the two doped riders. This is the case we're actually faced with.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 03, 2018, 08:07:00 AM
Yes! you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random. They are not random. Not every man in the US is accused of rape, sexual assault, which is what your scenario presumes. And the situations and people who bring false accusations (teens caught having sex and so make up a story and parents press charges, someone in trouble with the law, someone with mental health problems) don't have any similarity with Ford's situation. And we know she told people about her and Kavanaugh YEARS before the SCOTUS nominee, so unless the "left wing crazies" have a time machine at a disposal, a conspiracy theory is stupid.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gaja on October 03, 2018, 08:21:33 AM
Yes! you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random. They are not random. Not every man in the US is accused of rape, sexual assault, which is what your scenario presumes. And the situations and people who bring false accusations (teens caught having sex and so make up a story and parents press charges, someone in trouble with the law, someone with mental health problems) don't have any similarity with Ford's situation. And we know she told people about her and Kavanaugh YEARS before the SCOTUS nominee, so unless the "left wing crazies" have a time machine at a disposal, a conspiracy theory is stupid.

Left wing crazies with a time machine could explain Trump. There are a lot of time machine narratives based on someone travelling back to fix somethine (e.g. kill Hitler), but they end up making everything worse (e.g. the nazis get a better leader and win the war).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 03, 2018, 09:09:41 AM
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.
+1
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 03, 2018, 09:33:01 AM
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

Actually the first step of the grieving process is denial. Perhaps you are grieving? (Feel free to fact check that).

You're correct.  Followed by anger.  The stages can come more than one at a time and there can be reversion, as well.  They can also come in a different order.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

The point was, anger is a substantial part of grieving process and has nothing to do with your your point but everything to do with my point.

Well one would have to evaluate said behavior on a nonpartisan basis (you have on more than one occasion called out liberals). You have an obvious bias which would explain why your original assertion about grief stages was incorrect. Of course his behavior also falls into the realm of denial and defensiveness. Extremely defensive really. That's not a stage of grief but can be a sign of lying. I'm no expert and neither are you so neither of our opinions means anything. I will say too his behavior has been called out now by several hundred law professors. That doesn't look good for Kavanaugh.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 09:48:46 AM
Who exactly forms this subset of 1000 then? You're applying the 5% of all men are rapists figure to the 1000 to get 50 men are rapists - does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?

Then you're applying the 2-10%(5% avg) of false accusations to the same 1000 men.

Right, this is the key point that anisotropy has missed in his poorly formulated statistical model.  He's taken an analysis of infection rates and applied it to rape allegations, but totally overlooked that that infection and testing are uncorrelated, and rape and alleged rape are not.  Anisotropy's analysis is only valid if you randomly allege rape to everyone (in order get lots of false positives of innocent people), just like you would randomly test everyone for infection.  The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.

And then on top of that fundamental misunderstanding, he's artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.  This assumption guarantees that most accusations will be false, just by the nature of the problem setup.  This has no bearing on reality, even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables.  Which as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, they are not.

I will try to paraphrase it so it's easier to understand:
Given 2-10% (avg 5%) false accusation rate (in the not rapist subset), the likelihood someone actually is a rapist, in the entire population, based on one accusation is 26%.

No!  So much no.  Restating this error more clearly does not make it correct.  This is some Breitbart-level BS.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2018, 09:49:34 AM
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

Actually the first step of the grieving process is denial. Perhaps you are grieving? (Feel free to fact check that).

You're correct.  Followed by anger.  The stages can come more than one at a time and there can be reversion, as well.  They can also come in a different order.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

The point was, anger is a substantial part of grieving process and has nothing to do with your your point but everything to do with my point.

Even if we assume that the anger is due to the grieving process, it does not tell us if that is in response to the trauma of being found out or being wrongly accused. An isolated incidence of anger also does not tell us if it is part of him grieving, being a generally belligerent person, or a craft piece of courtroom drama. Honestly, it is most likely some Venn diagram of all 3 (noting that in his professional life he is not known to be belligerent, but has described incidences of being so).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2018, 09:59:02 AM
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

“If you make the same claim to me today,” he said, “it would be scorched-earth. I don’t care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, I’ve worked too hard for it, I’ve earned it, you can’t just blow me up like that.” - Matt Damon more than a year ago.

Then he goes and spoofs Kavanaugh on SNL.  That is some truly sad hypocritical BS.

... you may want to put that quote in context to realize what he was actually saying.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/matt-damon-opens-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-confidentiality/story?id=51792548

What he is saying was taken out of context in a lot of ways, and he could have said things better. But, he also was a bit prescient where he said effectively what Sol has been saying: people will shift to total denial regardless of the truth because those who admit are pilloried regardless of level of contrition and level of offense. He was also pretty clear that none of it was acceptable. The specific quote above was in the context of confidentiality agreements and that he would rather go court than pay someone off to avoid a public fight.

Which makes no difference in how he said he would feel about accusations.  Which is the point. SMH

Honestly, I thought his spot was pretty funny and played more to the way in which he responded than to actually saying he was guilty as charged. You implied that it was hyprocritical of Matt Damon to spoof Kavanaugh because Damon said that he would fight hard to defend his own name. The presumption was that Damon assumed he was innocent. If he believes that the spoofing on SNL is justified, then it is not hypocritical. If Damon saw that Kavanaugh was innocent and fighting for his name and lampooned him specifically as a sexual predator and for then defending his name, then it would be hypocritical.

If you want to point out hypocrisy on the left, Keith Ellison is much, much more fertile ground. The DNC should be pushing for investigation there.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2018, 10:02:42 AM
This forum is so strange, 21 pages and the thread has come down to lies, damned lies, and statistics.

True. But part of what makes this forum so fun is that there are at least 3 PhDs (and maybe more) with a background in statistics in this thread that have already chimed in to intelligently discuss the statistics.

So far it has mostly been soft lies of omission instead of damned lies. ;)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: laserlady on October 03, 2018, 10:06:22 AM
In your scenario/table,
Given 0.1% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 95%.

Yes, this is how the math works out given your statistical assumptions.  If only 5% of rape accusations turn out to be false -- your own figure -- then there's a 95% chance that someone who has been accused of rape is actually a rapist.  The 0.1% false accusation rate that I calculated from your assumptions is the false accusation rate for the male population as a whole.  Based on your assumptions (5% of men are rapists, only 1/3 of rapes are reported, and 1/20 rape accusations turns out to be false), then the odds that a random man in the population will be accused of rape is only 0.1%.  Again, you're trying to solve for X when we already know X.  If X is the percentage of men accused of rape who are actually rapists, then we already know that X is 5% because that's the assumption you've chosen to use in this stats problem (that 5% of rape accusations turn out to be false).  Using X, we can solve for Y -- the percentage of men in the population as a whole who will be falsely accused of rape --  and this number is indeed 0.1%  If the math is done right on your statistical assumptions, it's actually very damning to your cause. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 03, 2018, 10:20:21 AM
In your scenario/table,
Given 0.1% false accusation rate, the likelihood someone actually is a rapist based on one accusation is 95%.

Yes, this is how the math works out given your statistical assumptions.  If only 5% of rape accusations turn out to be false -- your own figure -- then there's a 95% chance that someone who has been accused of rape is actually a rapist.  The 0.1% false accusation rate that I calculated from your assumptions is the false accusation rate for the male population as a whole.  Based on your assumptions (5% of men are rapists, only 1/3 of rapes are reported, and 1/20 rape accusations turns out to be false), then the odds that a random man in the population will be accused of rape is only 0.1%.  Again, you're trying to solve for X when we already know X.  If X is the percentage of men accused of rape who are actually rapists, then we already know that X is 5% because that's the assumption you've chosen to use in this stats problem (that 5% of rape accusations turn out to be false).  Using X, we can solve for Y -- the percentage of men in the population as a whole who will be falsely accused of rape --  and this number is indeed 0.1%  If the math is done right on your statistical assumptions, it's actually very damning to your cause.

Or to put it back into real numbers (using anisotropy's own inputs)
For every 1,000 men:

1 out of 1,000 is falsely accused of rape
17 of every 1,000 is correctly accused of rape
51 of every 1,000 committed rape, but it was not reported

From those outputs, what is the most pressing societal concern?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 03, 2018, 10:24:48 AM
The false accusation, of course.

Because men's stories still matter more than women's in this society.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2018, 10:26:37 AM
When will society finally start punishing women for using their feminine wiles to drive men to such actions?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 10:50:47 AM
When will society finally start punishing women for using their feminine wiles to drive men to such actions?

Right after we start punishing democrats for trying to hold sexual abusers accountable?  We need to have priorities, after all.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 10:51:19 AM
Who exactly forms this subset of 1000 then? You're applying the 5% of all men are rapists figure to the 1000 to get 50 men are rapists - does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?

Then you're applying the 2-10%(5% avg) of false accusations to the same 1000 men.

Right, this is the key point that anisotropy has missed in his poorly formulated statistical model.  He's taken an analysis of infection rates and applied it to rape allegations, but totally overlooked that that infection and testing are uncorrelated, and rape and alleged rape are not.  Anisotropy's analysis is only valid if you randomly allege rape to everyone (in order get lots of false positives of innocent people), just like you would randomly test everyone for infection.  The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.

And then on top of that fundamental misunderstanding, he's artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.  This assumption guarantees that most accusations will be false, just by the nature of the problem setup.  This has no bearing on reality, even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables.  Which as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, they are not.

Hi all,

I can see many still do not grasp the reason why 2-10% should be applied to the (not-rapist) subset. I will focus on answering those that understood it, at least partially.

The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.
This is true, what I formulated here is if we picked anyone at random without paying any attention whatsoever regarding the specifics of each persons case. Of course it doesnt work if only sick people/actual rapists were to get tested, because that would mean you are dealing with a completely different population composition (rapists only). Statistically it would translate to 0 false positive, which is not useful nor appropriate when determining the likelihood of someone being actually guilty when we are dealing with a random person in the population.

does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?
What we can do, is we expand the population to include the entire US male population, as long as the composition doesnt change, 5% rapists 95% not-rapists, we will get the same result, try it out. Therefore this criticism is invalid.

artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.
my chosen rate of false accusation is 2-10%, avg 5%. What did you mean with "true" incidence of rape? True positives? It is low because 1. rapist population is relatively low, and 2. false negative rate (non-reported incident) being 2/3. This result directly spawns from these realistic/researched rates. You can tweak it if you want.

even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables. | you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random
Of ALL the criticisms, I find this the most relevant. Some people are good at statistics here! What you are really asking is does the 2-10% fp rate really apply to the "not rapist" subset, because surely they would be accused less frequently than a real rapist? It is true the 2-10% remain an estimate, past studies put the figure between 0.5% to 90%. Your guess on this is as good as mine. If you can provide studies that shed more light, I would be happy to reformulate the scenario.

Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

We can also sit here and quibble if treating the Kavanaguh case as a random sample (the way i formulated it) is appropriate, but the method is sound.

In the absence of physical evidence, I think what I did here is relevant by seeing it as a random sample.

Finally runbikerun,
You say i am intellectually dishonest. But let's look at your bikers doping test example. I do not possess knowledge on how bikers are drug tested, so i went searching on line. This is what i found
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-cyclists-are-drug-tested-2015-9#once-riders-return-from-the-restroom-to-the-doping-control-station-they-sit-back-down-with-the-dco-who-checks-whether-the-urine-sample-is-suitable-10

"If the sample is suitable, the DCO tells the rider to select a "urine kit," a box that contains two small glass bottles into which riders will pour their urine. The rider is instructed to check that the bottles are correctly labeled and that there is nothing inside them.

One bottle is labeled "A" and the other "B." Later, after a lab analysis, if the A sample tests positive for a banned substance, the rider has the right to have the B sample tested."


This sounds exactly like what i formulated here: one positive result gives you low certainty, but two positive result boosts it to much higher certainty. And whats more, its super prevalent.

"Teddy Cutler of SportingIntelligence.com recently took a an excellent and detailed look at all the top cyclists from 1998 through 2013 and whether or not they have ever been linked to blood doping or have links to doping or a doctor linked to blood doping.

During this 16-year period, 12 Tour de France races were won by cyclists who were confirmed dopers. In addition, of the 81 different riders who finished in the top-10 of the Tour de France during this period, 65% have been caught doping, admitted to blood doping, or have strong associations to doping and are suspected cheaters."


https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france-2015-1

Your arguments here are thoroughly debunked, doping was found to be common, and the drug test method is similar to what i formulated here. Together with how you thought the conditional rates from one set of statistics would apply to a wholly different scenario (wrongful conviction) your thinking pattern is hilariously original to say the least. I called you banal once, but it's clear to me now you don't lack originality per se, you lack assiduity and cognition.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 03, 2018, 11:00:46 AM
This really is truly ridiculous. There is no point whatsoever in trying to argue with someone who writes four exhaustively researched paragraphs on a hypothetical scenario drawn up for illustration, then says literally nothing about the actual argument being made except insults from a thesaurus and a laughable air of superiority. I'm not going to engage any further with a troll.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 11:07:08 AM
even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables. | you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random
Of ALL the criticisms, I find this the most relevant. Some people are good at statistics here! What you are really asking is does the 2-10% fp rate really apply to the "not rapist" subset, because surely they would be accused less frequently than a real rapist?

More accurately, I think, is not whether the 2-10% fp rate apply to nonrapists, but whether it applies equally to rapists and nonrapists.  And the simple logical deduction here is that rapists get accused of rape far more often than norapists get accused of rate.  Because, you know, they're rapists.  You don't need math to figure that one out.

This is an entirely different conceptual model than a doctor testing a population for infection.  Your construct is inappropriate, because you've assumed everyone has been accused and some percentage of them are thus falsely accused, and that's not how rape allegations work. 

The initial and more obvious interpretation is correct in this case.  If you are already accused of rape (you have tested positive for infection), and 5% of positive tests are false postives, then you have a 95% chance of being a rapist (or being infected).  You can then skew that math by introducing extraneous assumptions, like that only 1% of people are actually infected, but you don't know that in this case and there is no need to make that assumption. 

You don't need to confuse it.  In the absence of any other information, if 5% of rape allegations are false and 95% are true, then in 100 people accused of rape we would expect 5 of them to be falsely accused and 95 to be correctly accused.  Your statistical approach is mathematically correct for a different problem, one that we are not discussing here and bears no resemblance to rape allegations.

Quote
Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

We are not dealing with a random sample, and your insistence to treat rape allegations as a random sample is the root of the problem.  Well, that and your choice of input variables.

I'm not going to engage any further with a troll.

Don't be grumpy, rbr, it's just the internet.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 03, 2018, 11:10:46 AM
Who exactly forms this subset of 1000 then? You're applying the 5% of all men are rapists figure to the 1000 to get 50 men are rapists - does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?

Then you're applying the 2-10%(5% avg) of false accusations to the same 1000 men.

Right, this is the key point that anisotropy has missed in his poorly formulated statistical model.  He's taken an analysis of infection rates and applied it to rape allegations, but totally overlooked that that infection and testing are uncorrelated, and rape and alleged rape are not.  Anisotropy's analysis is only valid if you randomly allege rape to everyone (in order get lots of false positives of innocent people), just like you would randomly test everyone for infection.  The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.

And then on top of that fundamental misunderstanding, he's artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.  This assumption guarantees that most accusations will be false, just by the nature of the problem setup.  This has no bearing on reality, even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables.  Which as I pointed out in the previous paragraph, they are not.

Hi all,

I can see many still do not grasp the reason why 2-10% should be applied to the (not-rapist) subset. I will focus on answering those that understood it, at least partially.

The math doesn't work out if only sick people were to get tested.
This is true, what I formulated here is if we picked anyone at random without paying any attention whatsoever regarding the specifics of each persons case. Of course it doesnt work if only sick people/actual rapists were to get tested, because that would mean you are dealing with a completely different population composition (rapists only). Statistically it would translate to 0 false positive, which is not useful nor appropriate when determining the likelihood of someone being actually guilty when we are dealing with a random person in the population.

does this not suggest that these 1000 men are a random subset which is representative of the male population?
What we can do, is we expand the population to include the entire US male population, as long as the composition doesnt change, 5% rapists 95% not-rapists, we will get the same result, try it out. Therefore this criticism is invalid.

artificially deflated the numbers by assuming a "true" incidence of rape that is much lower than the rate of false accusations.
my chosen rate of false accusation is 2-10%, avg 5%. What did you mean with "true" incidence of rape? True positives? It is low because 1. rapist population is relatively low, and 2. false negative rate (non-reported incident) being 2/3. This result directly spawns from these realistic/researched rates. You can tweak it if you want.

even if the allegations and the guilt were truly independent variables. | you are using statistics like who are accused and who makes false accusations are random
Of ALL the criticisms, I find this the most relevant. Some people are good at statistics here! What you are really asking is does the 2-10% fp rate really apply to the "not rapist" subset, because surely they would be accused less frequently than a real rapist? It is true the 2-10% remain an estimate, past studies put the figure between 0.5% to 90%. Your guess on this is as good as mine. If you can provide studies that shed more light, I would be happy to reformulate the scenario.

Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

We can also sit here and quibble if treating the Kavanaguh case as a random sample (the way i formulated it) is appropriate, but the method is sound.

In the absence of physical evidence, I think what I did here is relevant by seeing it as a random sample.

Finally runbikerun,
You say i am intellectually dishonest. But let's look at your bikers doping test example. I do not possess knowledge on how bikers are drug tested, so i went searching on line. This is what i found
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-cyclists-are-drug-tested-2015-9#once-riders-return-from-the-restroom-to-the-doping-control-station-they-sit-back-down-with-the-dco-who-checks-whether-the-urine-sample-is-suitable-10

"If the sample is suitable, the DCO tells the rider to select a "urine kit," a box that contains two small glass bottles into which riders will pour their urine. The rider is instructed to check that the bottles are correctly labeled and that there is nothing inside them.

One bottle is labeled "A" and the other "B." Later, after a lab analysis, if the A sample tests positive for a banned substance, the rider has the right to have the B sample tested."


This sounds exactly like what i formulated here: one positive result gives you low certainty, but two positive result boosts it to much higher certainty. And whats more, its super prevalent.

"Teddy Cutler of SportingIntelligence.com recently took a an excellent and detailed look at all the top cyclists from 1998 through 2013 and whether or not they have ever been linked to blood doping or have links to doping or a doctor linked to blood doping.

During this 16-year period, 12 Tour de France races were won by cyclists who were confirmed dopers. In addition, of the 81 different riders who finished in the top-10 of the Tour de France during this period, 65% have been caught doping, admitted to blood doping, or have strong associations to doping and are suspected cheaters."


https://www.businessinsider.com/lance-armstrong-doping-tour-de-france-2015-1

Your arguments here are thoroughly debunked, doping was found to be common, and the drug test method is similar to what i formulated here. Together with how you thought the conditional rates from one set of statistics would apply to a wholly different scenario (wrongful conviction) your thinking pattern is hilariously original to say the least. I called you banal once, but it's clear to me now you don't lack originality per se, you lack assiduity and cognition.

Your still misusing your 2-10% statistic.  It is not the percentage of non-rapists who are accused of rape, it is the percentage of accusations that are determined to be false.  Seriously, dude, quit trying to misrepresent that statistic.

Quote
A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.[1][2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape)

ETA:  So, basically, even if your model were appropriate for this use, your using the wrong number for your false positive input because that's not what they were measuring when they came up with the 2-10% number.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 11:42:50 AM
Quote
More accurately, I think, is not whether the 2-10% fp rate apply to nonrapists, but whether it applies equally to rapists and nonrapists.  And the simple logical deduction here is that rapists get accused of rape far more often than norapists get accused of rate.  Because, you know, they're rapists.  You don't need math to figure that one out.

This is an entirely different conceptual model than a doctor testing a population for infection.  Your construct is inappropriate, because you've assumed everyone has been accused and some percentage of them are thus falsely accused, and that's not how rape allegations work. 

The initial and more obvious interpretation is correct in this case.  If you are already accused of rape (you have tested positive for infection), and 5% of positive tests are false postives, then you have a 95% chance of being a rapist (or being infected).  You can then skew that math by introducing extraneous assumptions, like that only 1% of people are actually infected, but you don't know that in this case and there is no need to make that assumption. 

You don't need to confuse it.  In the absence of any other information, if 5% of rape allegations are false and 95% are true, then in 100 people accused of rape we would expect 5 of them to be falsely accused and 95 to be correctly accused.  Your statistical approach is mathematically correct for a different problem, one that we are not discussing here and bears no resemblance to rape allegations.


Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

Yes simple logical deduction would say the rates are not likely to be equal for the two groups, I am all for that. If you would like to provide a proper fp rate for the non rapist population i can take a look.

What you are implicitly implying when you treat the 5% false positive as the final outcome is this: There is no subset, the entire population consists of only rapists. This is clearly absurd. Do you really think breaking the population into subsets (rapists and not-rapists) are extraneous assumptions??

What i assumed is if one was accused by chance (random), again we can argue till the FBI result comes out if it applies here, but for the 10th time, in the absence of hard physical evidence, I can not place more weight on one party over another, because we are inherently bad at spotting liars (link upthread).

I understand absence of evidence does not equate absence of crime, but that's how our legal system works on, also why the wrongful conviction rate is so low (link upthread). 

Quote
This really is truly ridiculous. There is no point whatsoever in trying to argue with someone who writes four exhaustively researched paragraphs on a hypothetical scenario drawn up for illustration, then says literally nothing about the actual argument being made except insults from a thesaurus and a laughable air of superiority. I'm not going to engage any further with a troll.

oh so i am a troll now? and it's just a hypothetical now? you seemed pretty certain of your case just a moment ago. I treat serious matters like this seriously, allegations should not be thrown around lightly in the absence of hard evidence. In fact, if you wish to participate in serious discussions, you should do your research before you show up and spew easily debunked bs like bike doping, false incarceration,etc. Run and Hide as you always do. Consider changing your name to runhiderun.

But just to amuse myself, i will do a 2x2 table with doping using stats from links upthread. 5% fp. I have no data on fn but conventional wisdom would suggest its between 10-20% given the fp being 5%. I am invoking the tradeoff of type I and type II for those of you following.

                              65% dope                      test yes                          test no
Real doper                     650                              520                                   130
normal bikers                 450                               23                                    427
                                   1000                              543                                 557

Test positive and actual doper: 520/543 = ~95%

It's not hard, runhiderun.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 03, 2018, 11:50:11 AM
Please adhere to the forum rules.  Attack an argument, not another poster (#2).
Thanks
~n~

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/ (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 03, 2018, 11:50:19 AM
Can Kavanaugh sue and win a case against Ford for slander(because, you know, no one used a cell phone to record what did or did not happen)?

The answer appears to be no and I am a little confused as to why. I understand the biggest hurdle is he is now a public persona but the other problem is that he, like anyone else, would essentially have to prove a negative.
So if after moving into your house for 20 years your neighbors build a grind against you. At some point you become an official of your PTO or church group or just some minor local thing. Then you neighbor says 20 years ago, when you first moved in, that you (the man in this instance) ogled her with binoculars. The neighbors have defamed you and you family, yet you have no recourse???

Is there seriously no recourse to this, I don't get it?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: asiljoy on October 03, 2018, 11:55:12 AM
Kavanaugh is most likely going through the grieving process.  He has a sense of loss from what his family has gone through, his honor being trashed, etc...  The first stage of the process is anger.  Let that soak in.

“If you make the same claim to me today,” he said, “it would be scorched-earth. I don’t care if it would cost me $10 million in court for 10 years, you are not taking my name from me, you are not taking my name and reputation from me, I’ve worked too hard for it, I’ve earned it, you can’t just blow me up like that.” - Matt Damon more than a year ago.

Then he goes and spoofs Kavanaugh on SNL.  That is some truly sad hypocritical BS.

... you may want to put that quote in context to realize what he was actually saying.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/matt-damon-opens-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment-confidentiality/story?id=51792548

What he is saying was taken out of context in a lot of ways, and he could have said things better. But, he also was a bit prescient where he said effectively what Sol has been saying: people will shift to total denial regardless of the truth because those who admit are pilloried regardless of level of contrition and level of offense. He was also pretty clear that none of it was acceptable. The specific quote above was in the context of confidentiality agreements and that he would rather go court than pay someone off to avoid a public fight.

Which makes no difference in how he said he would feel about accusations.  Which is the point. SMH

Honestly, I thought his spot was pretty funny and played more to the way in which he responded than to actually saying he was guilty as charged. You implied that it was hyprocritical of Matt Damon to spoof Kavanaugh because Damon said that he would fight hard to defend his own name. The presumption was that Damon assumed he was innocent. If he believes that the spoofing on SNL is justified, then it is not hypocritical. If Damon saw that Kavanaugh was innocent and fighting for his name and lampooned him specifically as a sexual predator and for then defending his name, then it would be hypocritical.

If you want to point out hypocrisy on the left, Keith Ellison is much, much more fertile ground. The DNC should be pushing for investigation there.

Not sure what the DNC is doing, but the DFL (the party in MN) has pushed for an investigation: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/10/01/attorney-ellison-abuse-claim-unsubstantiated
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 12:00:36 PM
If you would like to provide a proper fp rate for the non rapist population i can take a look.

Using different inputs isn't going to help when the approach is fundamentally incorrect for the problem at hand.

Quote
What you are implicitly implying when you treat the 5% false positive as the final outcome is this: There is no subset, the entire population consists of only rapists.

No, I'm suggesting that 100% of the population of accused rapists are accused rapists, and 5% of them are falsely accused.   I'm not saying anything at all about the population at large, but for some reason you are. 

Quote
Do you really think breaking the population into subsets (rapists and not-rapists) are extraneous assumptions??

In this case, yes.  Because you're not only only introducing an unknown variable with an incidence below the fp rate, which by itself means you have a bad test, you're also implicitly incorporating the entire population of nonrapists into the population of accused rapists, just like a doctor would incorporate the entire population of healthy people into infection screening.  This doesn't make any sense, though, for reasons that seem obvious to me but apparently not to you. 

We're not talking about the entire population, unless the entire population stands accused of rape.  Your math assumes the entire population is accused of rape, generating many false positives, and then uses those false positives to argue that most people accused of rape are not rapists.  A better and more relevant approach to determining the likelihood of guilt of a specific existing allegation is to ignore the population at large that no one is talking about, and determine what percentage of people who ARE accused of rape are falsely vs correctly accused.  The answer to that question is more transparently given by fp, without any complications.

Quote
What i assumed is if one was accused by chance (random)

No one is accused of rape by random chance.

Quote
in the absence of hard physical evidence, I can not place more weight on one party over another

Does testimony carry no weight with you?  What if one person's story checks out and the other person is shown to be a dirty rotten liar?  Regardless of which side is which, I don't think you need physical evidence of a crime to establish the credibility of a witness.

Quote
that's how our legal system works on, also why the wrongful conviction rate is so low (link upthread). 

This is not a thread about criminal conviction, it's a thread about promoting a man to the Supreme Court.  And this has been one epic threadjack of that topic.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 03, 2018, 12:00:57 PM
Can Kavanaugh sue and win a case against Ford for slander(because, you know, no one used a cell phone to record what did or did not happen)?

The answer appears to be no and I am a little confused as to why. I understand the biggest hurdle is he is now a public persona but the other problem is that he, like anyone else, would essentially have to prove a negative.
So if after moving into your house for 20 years your neighbors build a grind against you. At some point you become an official of your PTO or church group or just some minor local thing. Then you neighbor says 20 years ago, when you first moved in, that you (the man in this instance) ogled her with binoculars. The neighbors have defamed you and you family, yet you have no recourse???

Is there seriously no recourse to this, I don't get it?

The recourse is to be a decent person and to build good relationships with the people around you.  If you do that the chances of you being accused of anything gross are infinitesimally small and the chances that anyone who matters to you will believe the accusation are even smaller.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 03, 2018, 12:03:12 PM
Can Kavanaugh sue and win a case against Ford for slander(because, you know, no one used a cell phone to record what did or did not happen)?

The answer appears to be no and I am a little confused as to why. I understand the biggest hurdle is he is now a public persona but the other problem is that he, like anyone else, would essentially have to prove a negative.
So if after moving into your house for 20 years your neighbors build a grind against you. At some point you become an official of your PTO or church group or just some minor local thing. Then you neighbor says 20 years ago, when you first moved in, that you (the man in this instance) ogled her with binoculars. The neighbors have defamed you and you family, yet you have no recourse???

Is there seriously no recourse to this, I don't get it?

That would be an unfortunate situation but what exactly would that punishment look like? How would you propose this situation be handled? Should we punish someone for making a claim where they don't have hard evidence to prove what happened?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 03, 2018, 12:05:11 PM
Quote
More accurately, I think, is not whether the 2-10% fp rate apply to nonrapists, but whether it applies equally to rapists and nonrapists.  And the simple logical deduction here is that rapists get accused of rape far more often than norapists get accused of rate.  Because, you know, they're rapists.  You don't need math to figure that one out.

This is an entirely different conceptual model than a doctor testing a population for infection.  Your construct is inappropriate, because you've assumed everyone has been accused and some percentage of them are thus falsely accused, and that's not how rape allegations work. 

The initial and more obvious interpretation is correct in this case.  If you are already accused of rape (you have tested positive for infection), and 5% of positive tests are false postives, then you have a 95% chance of being a rapist (or being infected).  You can then skew that math by introducing extraneous assumptions, like that only 1% of people are actually infected, but you don't know that in this case and there is no need to make that assumption. 

You don't need to confuse it.  In the absence of any other information, if 5% of rape allegations are false and 95% are true, then in 100 people accused of rape we would expect 5 of them to be falsely accused and 95 to be correctly accused.  Your statistical approach is mathematically correct for a different problem, one that we are not discussing here and bears no resemblance to rape allegations.


Look, we can sit here and quibble if the rates i used (fp, fn, pop comp) are appropriate, but the method i used is sound when we are dealing with a random sample.

Yes simple logical deduction would say the rates are not likely to be equal for the two groups, I am all for that. If you would like to provide a proper fp rate for the non rapist population i can take a look.

What you are implicitly implying when you treat the 5% false positive as the final outcome is this: There is no subset, the entire population consists of only rapists. This is clearly absurd. Do you really think breaking the population into subsets (rapists and not-rapists) are extraneous assumptions??

What i assumed is if one was accused by chance (random), again we can argue till the FBI result comes out if it applies here, but for the 10th time, in the absence of hard physical evidence, I can not place more weight on one party over another, because we are inherently bad at spotting liars (link upthread).

I understand absence of evidence does not equate absence of crime, but that's how our legal system works on, also why the wrongful conviction rate is so low (link upthread). 

Quote
This really is truly ridiculous. There is no point whatsoever in trying to argue with someone who writes four exhaustively researched paragraphs on a hypothetical scenario drawn up for illustration, then says literally nothing about the actual argument being made except insults from a thesaurus and a laughable air of superiority. I'm not going to engage any further with a troll.

oh so i am a troll now? and it's just a hypothetical now? you seemed pretty certain of your case just a moment ago. I treat serious matters like this seriously, allegations should not be thrown around lightly in the absence of hard evidence. In fact, if you wish to participate in serious discussions, you should do your research before you show up and spew easily debunked bs like bike doping, false incarceration,etc. Run and Hide as you always do. Consider changing your name to runhiderun.

But just to amuse myself, i will do a 2x2 table with doping using stats from links upthread. 5% fp. I have no data on fn but conventional wisdom would suggest its between 10-20% given the fp being 5%. I am invoking the tradeoff of type I and type II for those of you following.

                              65% dope                      test yes                          test no
Real doper                     650                              520                                   130
normal bikers                 450                               23                                    427
                                   1000                              543                                 557

Test positive and actual doper: 520/543 = ~95%

It's not hard, runhiderun.

That is...a truly remarkable amount of effort expended on entirely the wrong point.

For the third time: "this test is 95% accurate" and "95% of positives on this test are correct" are not the same thing. You've taken the numbers from the latter, assumed the former, and then managed to produce nonsense. While accusing other posters of not being smart enough to get it. This was the entire point I was making regarding my hypothetical bike race: that's actually exactly the kind of situation your analysis works on, which is why A and B samples are used (incidentally, there's a superb documentary on Netflix called Icarus which deals with the Rusada scandal and explains a lot about the anti-doping process). The accusations against Kavanaugh are different, and we already know that 95% of accusations are credible.

If we know that 95% of claims are credible, and our math indicates that less than 30% of claims are credible, then our math has to be wrong. This isn't one of those cases like Simpson's paradox, or the three doors of Marilyn vos Savant, where the true answer seems counterintuitive; this is simply a case where it's logically impossible for both statements to be true. Either 5% of rape accusations are false, or 73% of rape accusations are false; it is a literal impossibility for both percentages to be accurate, and if plugging the first into your equations produces the second, then something has gone badly wrong.

You are absolutely correct that the ratio of false positives to true positives on a 95% accurate test is wildly variable depending on the frequency of what's being tested for. However, that's a misstatement of the original 95% claim, which is that about 5% of rape claims are false, not that we have a 95% accurate rape test.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OurTown on October 03, 2018, 12:07:55 PM
So false accusations do happen, but they are pretty rare.  It's usually 1) a jilted ex-lover, or 2) a child accuser being coached by the vindictive other parent in a divorce (usually the mother, sorry to say).  Still, these instances are vanishingly rare, and the truth usually comes out by a thorough investigation and/or cross examination by a competent attorney.  I suppose as #metoo runs its course we may see more "bandwagon" hoaxes and false accusations against famous people / celebrities who have already been outed as abusers.  That doesn't mean you automatically disbelieve all accusers, you just have to take each allegation on its own merits.         
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on October 03, 2018, 12:15:39 PM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Actually 2-10% were not concluded false. Included in that 2-10% are reports the police officers, in some districts, do not find credible.  This does not mean the police officer has any proof in either direction.

Quote
False report
A false report is a reported crime to a law enforcement agency that an investigation factually proves never occurred
.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf (https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf)

Quote
DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape)

The definition of false accusation is not entirely agreed upon which is why the range (2-10%) is significant, but as far as I can tell most studies are referring to the % of cases which were concluded to be false.
Your own link disagrees with you:
Quote
While some police departments may follow these guidelines, it is not mandatory, and as a result, many do not. In addition, gaps in law enforcement training may inadvertently encourage identifying any of the following factors as indicators of a false report: delayed reporting, victim indifference to injuries, vagueness, or victim’s attempt to steer away from unsafe details, suspect description, or location of offense (Archambault, 2005). As a result, many reports are classified as “false.”
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 03, 2018, 12:16:10 PM
Is there seriously no recourse to this, I don't get it?

You can only successfully sue for slander if you can prove that the allegations against you were untrue, that the person who made them knew that they were untrue, and that the accusations caused you harm.  It would seem harm is a given if the allegations were false, but given what is known it is unclear how Kavanaugh would make the case Ford made intentionally false statements against him. 
There doesn't seem to be a motive as Ford herself has suffered harm throughout this process, and the evidence available (her polygraph, her therapist's notes, Kavanaugh's own calendar, and statements about his drinking, etc) make his own testimony problematic.

What he would likely need is a paper trail of correspondence where Ford discussed how best to go about falsely accusing him of sexual assault or an admission to someone that she made it all up. A clear motive for why she'd upend her and her family's life would also be necessary.  to date no such evidence supporting this has come up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 03, 2018, 12:29:59 PM
Just thinking about the entire Ford situation and why I feel conflicted; I have a very good personal, hopefully never, example of its complexity.

I am the father of boy-girl twins.

(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?

The two extreme responses;
1."Boys will be boys!"
2. Send my son to boarding school in a third world country and never speak to him again. Sue, bury, and destroy the entire family of the other male, who potentially assaulted my daughter, until they are utterly, socially, financially and any other way obliterated.

Many here, on this forum, seem to be adamant to do the second. I think that seems, well, extreme.

In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

What do you do if the boy's parents do not think anything needs to be done(or just a stern talking to and him promising it won't happen again)? What if the girl's parents say they want harsher punishment?

What if years later(for argument's sake he was given proper punishment) he applies for a job at the business you own?

I have thought of all this before but have had to think about it a little more in the last week or so.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: doggyfizzle on October 03, 2018, 12:38:16 PM
(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?


Why not choose to involve the legal system in both cases?  Hire a defense attorney for you son if he is going to be charged criminally, or take your daughter to the police ASAP and have her go on the record so the attempted rapist does not go unpunished.  No need for vigilante justice...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 03, 2018, 12:40:55 PM

in your math, you have a total of 65 accusations of which 48 are not rapists, eg false accusations. That is a 73% false accusation rate. The false accusation rate (which you apply at 5%) is the number of accusations that are in the category "not rapists".


Exactly, the false accusation rate only applies to the "non rapists". Thus, when we combine both real rapists and non rapists who are accused, we arrive at a grand total of 73% false accusation rate. This back of envelope calculation shows the much publicized 2-10% false accusation rate is very misleading when we actually take a look deeper.

No, I'm pretty sure Glenstache is right.  The false accusation rate is the percentage of accusations where an investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.  Not the percentage of "not rapists" that are accused as you seem to be using.  I don't think your analogy works.

I see where the confusion is, I believe the 2-10% is the false positive rate and should be used as an input, you guys believe its the final result.

If we assume this 2-10% false accusation rate is the final result and not the mere "false positive" rate, we would arrive at some  troubling result. Either the number of rapists in the general population would need to be incredibly large (approaching 60%), or the false positive rate need to be super tiny, ie, sub 0.001%. I find these assumptions unrealistic.

I don't think you do. 2-10% is the final result, as in, 2-10% of accusations are concluded false. The actual % of false accusations is almost certainly higher. For reference, only ~20% of accusations are concluded positive and that's with ~80% guilty pleas.

You could add to the equation lots of other variables too:
-This is a highly politicized figure at a very divisive time. I would suggest this makes the chance of a false accusation much higher than normal.
-The accuser is well educated, mentally stable, and has no potential personal gain (excluding the previous point). This makes a false accusation less likely.
-The numerous lies Kavanaugh has told to protect his character takes away from his credibility. Boofing is not a term for flatulence. C'mon Brett, we have the internet.
-The body language displayed at the hearing. Sure, anyone falsely accused would rightfully be upset, but the way he squirmed when he just couldn't dodge the question any longer suggests he's lying. The way he refused to answer questions or at other times gave more information than was requested. People often do this when they lie. In contrast, Ford was calm and spoke directly.

What I'm getting at here is that applying general statistics to this case is all but meaningless. And you're doing it wrong.
Actually 2-10% were not concluded false. Included in that 2-10% are reports the police officers, in some districts, do not find credible.  This does not mean the police officer has any proof in either direction.

Quote
False report
A false report is a reported crime to a law enforcement agency that an investigation factually proves never occurred
.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf (https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf)

Quote
DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape)

The definition of false accusation is not entirely agreed upon which is why the range (2-10%) is significant, but as far as I can tell most studies are referring to the % of cases which were concluded to be false.
Your own link disagrees with you:
Quote
While some police departments may follow these guidelines, it is not mandatory, and as a result, many do not. In addition, gaps in law enforcement training may inadvertently encourage identifying any of the following factors as indicators of a false report: delayed reporting, victim indifference to injuries, vagueness, or victim’s attempt to steer away from unsafe details, suspect description, or location of offense (Archambault, 2005). As a result, many reports are classified as “false.”
https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Overview_False-Reporting.pdf

This is why the figure has a wide range agreed upon by researchers of 2-10%. Researchers believe proven false accusations fall somewhere in this range despite the fact that in some cases the reported number is much higher than 10%. These cases are what the above quote are referring to and they've been taken into account to arrive at 2-10%.

Again from Wikipedia:

Quote
DiCanio (1993) states that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of cases in which there was sufficient evidence to conclude that allegations were false, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%.

It's been stated many times throughout this thread that if 5% (simplified 2-10%) are false accusations then the other 95% are guilty. That is almost certainly not the case as only ~20% are convicted. This leaves ~75% of accusations in limbo, neither proven nor disproven. Considering what portion of those are true/false would be an entirely different question.

Of course it's possible that I'm still wrong but that quote doesn't dispute my understanding.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 12:49:31 PM
In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

My son is 15.  Over the past 5-6 years, we've had to intervene several times to correct sexually inappropriate behavior.  Boys need to learn.

For example, several years ago, the normal brother/sister hitting problems that all families seem to experience ("Mommm!  She hit me!") started to get weird, when he would slap her on the butt.  She didn't see it as any different from the normal hitting that everyone gets in trouble for, but I felt like I had to pull him aside and have a little talk.  Like "not only do we not hit our siblings, now that you're growing up you also need to know that we definitely don't touch girls without their permission.  Not your sister and not anyone else.  Don't make me kick your ass."  And he seemed to understand, and he doesn't do that anymore.  Of course, I think I may have taken it too far because now he's utterly terrified of girls and is lamenting how he will never get a girlfriend.

In the example you've posed, if this is just hurt feelings and not sexual assault, I'd still want a full accounting.  I want his version of the story, and hers, and everyone else's, and then (since this doesn't appear to be an emotionally traumatic event) I'd want everyone and their parents to sit down and talk about appropriate behaviors.  Sometimes boys don't recognize when they have crossed lines, and sometimes girls don't adequately express their discomfort with situations, and all parties can do better in avoiding these kinds of problems.  Most such situations are not the result of malevolence, but boys who cross lines are still the ones at fault and thus are the ones who need to understand their mistakes and make appropriate apologies.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gaja on October 03, 2018, 12:52:06 PM
Just thinking about the entire Ford situation and why I feel conflicted; I have a very good personal, hopefully never, example of its complexity.

I am the father of boy-girl twins.

(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?

The two extreme responses;
1."Boys will be boys!"
2. Send my son to boarding school in a third world country and never speak to him again. Sue, bury, and destroy the entire family of the other male, who potentially assaulted my daughter, until they are utterly, socially, financially and any other way obliterated.

Many here, on this forum, seem to be adamant to do the second. I think that seems, well, extreme.

In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

What do you do if the boy's parents do not think anything needs to be done(or just a stern talking to and him promising it won't happen again)? What if the girl's parents say they want harsher punishment?

What if years later(for argument's sake he was given proper punishment) he applies for a job at the business you own?

I have thought of all this before but have had to think about it a little more in the last week or so.

Luckily, you don't have to sit back and wait for disaster to strike. There is good evidence out there that teaching boys not to rape is very efficient, especially if you at the same time teach girls self defence and self confidence: https://www.parent24.com/Child_7-12/Development/these-consent-classes-have-reduced-rape-by-51-in-nairobi-20180322

How to do it: https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-new-teen-age/201501/teaching-our-sons-not-rape
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 03, 2018, 12:53:06 PM
Just thinking about the entire Ford situation and why I feel conflicted; I have a very good personal, hopefully never, example of its complexity.

I am the father of boy-girl twins.

(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?

The two extreme responses;
1."Boys will be boys!"
2. Send my son to boarding school in a third world country and never speak to him again. Sue, bury, and destroy the entire family of the other male, who potentially assaulted my daughter, until they are utterly, socially, financially and any other way obliterated.

Many here, on this forum, seem to be adamant to do the second. I think that seems, well, extreme.

In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

What do you do if the boy's parents do not think anything needs to be done(or just a stern talking to and him promising it won't happen again)? What if the girl's parents say they want harsher punishment?

What if years later(for argument's sake he was given proper punishment) he applies for a job at the business you own?

I have thought of all this before but have had to think about it a little more in the last week or so.

If that's your conclusion, you're not paying attention. Most of us think that Kavanaugh should not have the privilege to serve on the supreme court and the primary reasons are his partisan feelings, lack of honesty about issues unrelated to the accusation and his temperament.

ETA: Oh, and if you go back to the beginning, pretty much everyone was just asking for an investigation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 03, 2018, 01:01:38 PM
(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?


Why not choose to involve the legal system in both cases?  Hire a defense attorney for you son if he is going to be charged criminally, or take your daughter to the police ASAP and have her go on the record so the attempted rapist does not go unpunished.  No need for vigilante justice...
Because my son potentially did something very wrong.

Sure, I'll hire a defense attorney if necessary. But more importantly I want to be sure my son understands, is sorry, and never does it again.

 Or what if one or both boys flat deny it even happened. "Hey son, just tell them you are sorry and we will forget about this"-a dad. Either boy-"Nope, I never did that." It is easy when everything is clear and the girls motivation for telling a lie would be low but what if there is only circumstantial evidence; they know each other, were in the same area/building at the same time. What if it is dark and she couldn't see him but recognized his voice.

In the immediate aftermath of it happening to your daughter it is probably best to go to the police; but then what? If the kid is a real SOB, then sure lock him up. But what if he seems more like an immature idiot, then what?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 01:05:03 PM
Quote
I'm suggesting that 100% of the population of accused rapists are accused rapists, and 5% of them are falsely accused.   I'm not saying anything at all about the population at large, but for some reason you are. 

Quote
A better and more relevant approach to determining the likelihood of guilt of a specific existing allegation is to ignore the population at large that no one is talking about, and determine what percentage of people who ARE accused of rape are falsely vs correctly accused. 

Ok, I understand where our differences are, thank you. You are not saying anything at all about the population at large, and if I understand correctly, you believe all the rape-related statistics have no bearing whatsoever on the population at large, thus one can not do the calculations I had done here.

I reject this notion completely.
1. your view implies rapists and the population at large are completely independent, its as if they exist on different planes of existence or live on two different planets. But we know this is not true, rapists unfortunately form a subset of the population at large.

2. When you ignore the population at large completely, you are effectively treating the false accusation rate regarding the population as 0. We also know this is not true, it is definitely lower than 2-10%, but it is not zero.

3. Given that the two groups coexist with known composition, my method is correct. What we need is to find an appropriate false positive rate so that the output is 2-10%. Interestingly, in laserlady's calculation, it was achieved with a false positive rate of 0.1%. So now we need to ask ourselves, is this rate reasonable? I have no clue if it is, if you have studies that assert this I would be happy to see them.

Quote
No one is accused of rape by random chance.

This is both true and false. Because conventionally, to be named a suspect by the victim, one must already know (or usually have some form of prior contact) the victim beforehand. But one needs not to be accused randomly. I am not claiming one is accused of rape by random chance.

My method details that given only the fp and fn rates, the likelihood of some random person I see on the news being actually guilty is y in the absence of hard physical evidence. It is very important to understand this part.

Quote
Does testimony carry no weight with you?  What if one person's story checks out and the other person is shown to be a dirty rotten liar?  Regardless of which side is which, I don't think you need physical evidence of a crime to establish the credibility of a witness.

I have seen enough people poking holes to both versions of the stories, with both parties changing their versions overtime. If I had to pick a side, then yes, I found Dr. Ford's testimonies to be much more credible, but I can not condemn BK on this ground alone. People are naturally unreliable narrators, especially under pressure. I will fully accept the final FBI result, whatever the outcome, because I believe in due process. I believe in due process so much that even IF, against all odds, Mueller came out and said there were no collusion by Trump, I would still accept it.
 
I am sorry if you feel I've hijacked the thread.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PoutineLover on October 03, 2018, 01:13:47 PM
(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?


Why not choose to involve the legal system in both cases?  Hire a defense attorney for you son if he is going to be charged criminally, or take your daughter to the police ASAP and have her go on the record so the attempted rapist does not go unpunished.  No need for vigilante justice...
Because my son potentially did something very wrong.

Sure, I'll hire a defense attorney if necessary. But more importantly I want to be sure my son understands, is sorry, and never does it again.

 Or what if one or both boys flat deny it even happened. "Hey son, just tell them you are sorry and we will forget about this"-a dad. Either boy-"Nope, I never did that." It is easy when everything is clear and the girls motivation for telling a lie would be low but what if there is only circumstantial evidence; they know each other, were in the same area/building at the same time. What if it is dark and she couldn't see him but recognized his voice.

In the immediate aftermath of it happening to your daughter it is probably best to go to the police; but then what? If the kid is a real SOB, then sure lock him up. But what if he seems more like an immature idiot, then what?
Well if he is an immature idiot who did a crime, then he should be punished according to the laws in the jurisdiction where it occurred. As far as I know that's not a defense that exempts you from the law (although in practice, we all know that privilege and connections can lessen the sentence).
Having allegations investigated by the police, charges brought if warranted, and a trial, are the commonly accepted steps to deal with sexual assault and attempted sexual assault. No need for vigilante justice, grounding, or taking away cell phones.
But more importantly, if you teach all of your children what consent is and how to respect boundaries and enforce their own, the chances of either situation occurring are dramatically reduced, although not eliminated.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 03, 2018, 01:24:07 PM

If that's your conclusion, you're not paying attention. Most of us think that Kavanaugh should not have the privilege to serve on the supreme court and the primary reasons are his partisan feelings, lack of honesty about issues unrelated to the accusation and his temperament.

ETA: Oh, and if you go back to the beginning, pretty much everyone was just asking for an investigation.
Acutally I am paying attention and what you've said is the problem. People using the ruse of rape to justify partisan feelings (and yes, every judge is partisan, that is why decision are split 5-4 by the president who appointed them), diminish the experience of those who have been raped or potentially raped.

As my example states, it is extremely difficult to know what happened, especially since it was 35 years ago. Even if something like Ford said did happen, how much intention was there, what were the circumstance and if we(forum members) were one of the parents then (as one of us could be the parents in the future) do you still try to punish a dumb kid 10 or 15 years later?

So now the situation we have is everyone yelling 'Rape!' I would be 110% behind an investigation if I thought he was an evil and awful dude, but that doesn't seem the case; it is just more political haggling.

Gaja-yes, we all try to raise good and wholsesome boys, but they are growing and maturing and as sol said sometimes they don't get it and you have to tell them something they are doing is inappropriate. And sometimes they can get into real trouble, possibly even from something that started out innocently; I just hope it isn't one of my sons, you know because I am selfish and don't want to deal with that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2018, 01:31:40 PM
So now the situation we have is everyone yelling 'Rape!' I would be 110% behind an investigation if I thought he was an evil and awful dude, but that doesn't seem the case; it is just more political haggling.

I never thought that Bill Cosby was an evil and awful dude.  I mean, it certainly didn't seem to be the case.  For an awful long time there were no allegations about him, and it certainly didn't seem to be the case that he was a serial rapist.  I'm sure glad that an investigation was done into his past regardless of my personal opinion though.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 03, 2018, 01:37:24 PM
Quote
I'm suggesting that 100% of the population of accused rapists are accused rapists, and 5% of them are falsely accused.   I'm not saying anything at all about the population at large, but for some reason you are. 

Quote
A better and more relevant approach to determining the likelihood of guilt of a specific existing allegation is to ignore the population at large that no one is talking about, and determine what percentage of people who ARE accused of rape are falsely vs correctly accused. 

Ok, I understand where our differences are, thank you. You are not saying anything at all about the population at large, and if I understand correctly, you believe all the rape-related statistics have no bearing whatsoever on the population at large, thus one can not do the calculations I had done here.

I reject this notion completely.
1. your view implies rapists and the population at large are completely independent, its as if they exist on different planes of existence or live on two different planets. But we know this is not true, rapists unfortunately form a subset of the population at large.

2. When you ignore the population at large completely, you are effectively treating the false accusation rate regarding the population as 0. We also know this is not true, it is definitely lower than 2-10%, but it is not zero.

3. Given that the two groups coexist with known composition, my method is correct. What we need is to find an appropriate false positive rate so that the output is 2-10%. Interestingly, in laserlady's calculation, it was achieved with a false positive rate of 0.1%. So now we need to ask ourselves, is this rate reasonable? I have no clue if it is, if you have studies that assert this I would be happy to see them.

Quote
No one is accused of rape by random chance.

This is both true and false. Because conventionally, to be named a suspect by the victim, one must already know (or usually have some form of prior contact) the victim beforehand. But one needs not to be accused randomly. I am not claiming one is accused of rape by random chance.

My method details that given only the fp and fn rates, the likelihood of some random person I see on the news being actually guilty is y in the absence of hard physical evidence. It is very important to understand this part.

Quote
Does testimony carry no weight with you?  What if one person's story checks out and the other person is shown to be a dirty rotten liar?  Regardless of which side is which, I don't think you need physical evidence of a crime to establish the credibility of a witness.

I have seen enough people poking holes to both versions of the stories, with both parties changing their versions overtime. If I had to pick a side, then yes, I found Dr. Ford's testimonies to be much more credible, but I can not condemn BK on this ground alone. People are naturally unreliable narrators, especially under pressure. I will fully accept the final FBI result, whatever the outcome, because I believe in due process. I believe in due process so much that even IF, against all odds, Mueller came out and said there were no collusion by Trump, I would still accept it.
 
I am sorry if you feel I've hijacked the thread.

How the false accusation rate is calculated: accusations "factually" determined to be false / total number of accusations.

How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

If you can't see the difference at this point I think it's because you're choosing not to.  But just in case, let me illustrate.

                              5%                             accused                          not accused
Rapists                   A                                 B                                   D
Not rapists              B                                 E                                   F
                             G                                 H                                   I

B would be the total negatives (which is the divisor in the false positive equation), whereas H would be the total accusations (which is the divisor in the false accusation equation).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 03, 2018, 01:42:48 PM
So now the situation we have is everyone yelling 'Rape!' I would be 110% behind an investigation if I thought he was an evil and awful dude, but that doesn't seem the case; it is just more political haggling.

I never thought that Bill Cosby was an evil and awful dude.  I mean, it certainly didn't seem to be the case.  For an awful long time there were no allegations about him, and it certainly didn't seem to be the case that he was a serial rapist.  I'm sure glad that an investigation was done into his past regardless of my personal opinion though.

My first reaction to the accusation against Bill Cosby was, "No way he did that, this is some terrible woman trying to get his money and make herself famous".

My bad.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 01:43:58 PM
Because my son potentially did something very wrong.
...
what if he seems more like an immature idiot, then what?

I'm a little upset by the insinuation that someone shouldn't be held accountable for rape if they are a) your family, or b) an immature idiot. 

Aren't all rapists immature idiots?  How is that an excuse?
 
If my son commits rape, he goes to jail.  Ditto for murder, or embezzling corporate profits.  Why would you willingly defend a known criminal just because it's your failure as a parent that caused them to turn to a life of crime?   Part of being a good parent is teaching you kids to take responsibility for their choices in life, right?

Quote
So now the situation we have is everyone yelling 'Rape!' I would be 110% behind an investigation if I thought he was an evil and awful dude, but that doesn't seem the case; it is just more political haggling.

Just so we're clear, Judge Kavanaugh is not accused of rape, and it's not just political haggling.  He's accused of being a handsy and belligerent drunk when he was 17, of thinking it was funny to swing his dick at drunk girls at parties, of being present at parties where he knew rape was taking place, and then lying about all of it under oath.  Since then, he's tried to make the accusations into some sort of partisan conspiracy, rather than addressing the allegations themselves.

And by all other accounts, he seems to have solved his "immature idiot" problems as an adult.  He appears to have conducted himself mostly professionally since since the last known allegation in 1998, or at least we don't yet have any more recent reports of misconduct until this confirmation hearing started.  Unfortunately, he has lied repeatedly about his immature idiot phase, under oath and to congress, which is a federal crime and should probably be disqualifying for a supreme court nominee.  I think he would have been easily confirmed if he had instead owned up to his mistakes and offered sincere apologies.  The fact that he hasn't done so suggests to me that he knows he is guilty AF of these allegations and more, and that the truth can never come to light if he wants to sit on the SC.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 03, 2018, 02:02:36 PM
Because my son potentially did something very wrong.
...
what if he seems more like an immature idiot, then what?

I'm a little upset by the insinuation that someone shouldn't be held accountable for rape if they are a) your family, or b) an immature idiot. 

Aren't all rapists immature idiots?  How is that an excuse?
 
If my son commits rape, he goes to jail.  Ditto for murder, or embezzling corporate profits.  Why would you willingly defend a known criminal just because it's your failure as a parent that caused them to turn to a life of crime?   Part of being a good parent is teaching you kids to take responsibility for their choices in life, right?

Because my example didn't include rape, it included horseplay that got out of hand or sexually inappropriate behavior or whatever you want to call, not clothes off, not rape.

I believe you are thinking of doggyfizzle, reply #1094



Just so we're clear, Judge Kavanaugh is not accused of rape, and it's not just political haggling.  He's accused of being a handsy and belligerent drunk when he was 17, of thinking it was funny to swing his dick at drunk girls at parties, of being present at parties where he knew rape was taking place, and then lying about all of it under oath.  Since then, he's tried to make the accusations into some sort of partisan conspiracy, rather than addressing the allegations themselves.

And by all other accounts, he seems to have solved his "immature idiot" problems as an adult.  He appears to have conducted himself mostly professionally since since the last known allegation in 1998, or at least we don't yet have any more recent reports of misconduct until this confirmation hearing started.  Unfortunately, he has lied repeatedly about his immature idiot phase, under oath and to congress, which is a federal crime and should probably be disqualifying for a supreme court nominee.  I think he would have been easily confirmed if he had instead owned up to his mistakes and offered sincere apologies.  The fact that he hasn't done so suggests to me that he knows he is guilty AF of these allegations and more, and that the truth can never come to light if he wants to sit on the SC.
Because most of what we are talking about centers on Ford's testimony.

Let's be honest, Democrats and people on the this forum(holding steady at 3-to-1) and aren't going to just throw their hands up and say "We tried!" once the FBI says later this week they got nothing. This is partisan politics using the implication of rape. Shameful.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 02:10:52 PM
Shenlong,

The standard 2x2 errors table in this case looks like this

True Positive       False Negative
False Positive      True Negative

False positive is the proportion of negatives that still yield positive test outcomes, ie FP.

Thus, False positive rate = FP / (FP+TN). Instead, you wrote

Quote
How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

ie, False positive rate = FP / (FN+TN)

Surely you made a typo? What you are suggesting is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate

The contention is regarding my treatment of the 2-10% as FP, some believe it's not appropriate. I've avoided using jargons thus far, but fundamentally this is an inference problem using multiple comparisons.

Sorry if I am being rude, but if you can't even define FP rate correctly, I see very little merit in discussing the technical side of this with you. Again, statistics is often counter intuitive. Most people can tell you the odds of flipping a fair coin is 50%, but it can get really ugly real fast.

As the inference remains valid given the relations of the two subsets. The goal now is to justify IF 0.1% serves as a realistic false positive for the not-rapist population so that the final output gets to 5%. Personally I have seen no literature that points to this direction.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 02:11:22 PM
This is partisan politics using the implication of rape. Shameful.

My dad tried this same argument with me a few days ago.  He said "the real problem here is the way the democrats have handled these allegations" and I was basically dumbfounded.  Just maybe, the "real problem" is sexual assault of a minor and not how a bunch of geriatric politicians argue with each other?  Why is everyone on the right suddenly in such a rush to defend the rights of the accused?  Where was this advocacy when it came to the war on drugs, or prison reform, or immigration hearings? 

And if you're genuinely upset about partisan politics influencing the way these accusations impacted the nomination, how do you feel about the Senate refusing to uphold it's constitutionally defined obligation to hold a hearing for Merrick Garland?  That was purely partisan shenanigans.  At least in this case, partisan liberals are correctly handling allegations of sexual assault (in a way that happens to align with their partisan interests) instead of just blatantly saying "no, we don't like the President so we're going to refuse this nominee or any other nominee from this President."  I think it speaks volumes about the status of our politics that the very people who cheered the Garland debacle are now crying crocodile tears over Kavanaugh, who genuinely appears unfit for the court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 03, 2018, 02:23:41 PM
As a sexual assault victim, this thread sucks balls.
Just FYI.

No shit.

I'm sorry, @hoping2retire35 , but every time you use the word "horseplay" to casually dismiss sexual violation it makes me want to freaking flip tables.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 03, 2018, 02:25:02 PM
(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?


Why not choose to involve the legal system in both cases?  Hire a defense attorney for you son if he is going to be charged criminally, or take your daughter to the police ASAP and have her go on the record so the attempted rapist does not go unpunished.  No need for vigilante justice...
Because my son potentially did something very wrong.

Sure, I'll hire a defense attorney if necessary. But more importantly I want to be sure my son understands, is sorry, and never does it again.

 Or what if one or both boys flat deny it even happened. "Hey son, just tell them you are sorry and we will forget about this"-a dad. Either boy-"Nope, I never did that." It is easy when everything is clear and the girls motivation for telling a lie would be low but what if there is only circumstantial evidence; they know each other, were in the same area/building at the same time. What if it is dark and she couldn't see him but recognized his voice.

In the immediate aftermath of it happening to your daughter it is probably best to go to the police; but then what? If the kid is a real SOB, then sure lock him up. But what if he seems more like an immature idiot, then what?

What you are describing is the desire to protect your child at all costs vs your societal obligation to report all crimes.
It's a horrible place to be in, and I hope the outcomes are as good as possible for everyone involved.
My only advice for you is to hire good legal council and make sure that you are doing everything you can as a parent to teach right from wrong.
If the kid is an immature idiot that genuinely didn't understand what harm was being done, that will be factored in during a plea, particularly the kid shows remorse and now understands what he/she did wrong.  Our judicial system really will go out of its way to not lock up young, first-time offenders who try to cooperate.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PoutineLover on October 03, 2018, 02:28:13 PM
As a sexual assault victim, this thread sucks balls.
Just FYI.

No shit.

I'm sorry, @hoping2retire35 , but every time you use the word "horseplay" to casually dismiss sexual violation it makes me want to freaking flip tables.
Same.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: wenchsenior on October 03, 2018, 02:41:25 PM
As a sexual assault victim, this thread sucks balls.
Just FYI.

No shit.

I'm sorry, @hoping2retire35 , but every time you use the word "horseplay" to casually dismiss sexual violation it makes me want to freaking flip tables.
Same.

Why apologize? The past few days of posts (not just h2r's) actually make me feel like our collective IQ is dropping as we read them. 

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 02:42:04 PM
I've avoided using jargons thus far, but fundamentally this is an inference problem using multiple comparisons.

No, it's not.  We keep explaining that you're using the wrong tool.

Multiple comparison test are only valid when comparing simultaneous application of independent probabilities.  In the case of the problem you've posed, those are 1) the chance a random person is accused of rape, and 2) the chance that a random person is actually a rapist.  You've correctly identified the tiny overlap between two probabilities that have nothing to do with whether or not a specific person who stands accused is actually a rapist.

Random people are not accused of rape.  If you are accused of rape, you are not a random person.  You are accused because there is some evidence beyond random probability that you are guilty of rape.  Rapists get accused of rape.  As a general rule, nonrapists do not get accused of rape. 

Your two tests are not independent of each other (unless everyone is accused of rape).  Your methodology is not applicable.  Tweaking the numbers will not help, because you're answering the wrong question.  We don't care about the chance that a random person will be accused of rape and will also be guilty of rape, we care about the probability that a person who is already accused of rape as a defined precondition of any further tests will then turn out to be guilty, aka fp.  The non-accused population should not appear in your equations in any form.  They don't matter, in determining how many accused rapists are guilty.

As a sexual assault victim, this thread sucks balls.

Sorry.  Imagine how much better you'll feel after republicans put a second sexual abuser on the Supreme Court and then use that majority to curtail women's rights. 

This whole stats discussion feels like a targeted refutation of the #metoo movement.  What ever happened to "I believe the women"?  This is like something cooked up in a dark corner of the internet by red-pill loving math grad students.  #notallstatisticians
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malaysia41 on October 03, 2018, 02:56:51 PM
#notallstatisticians

lol
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 03:00:53 PM

Random people are not accused of rape.  If you are accused of rape, you are not a random person.  You are accused because there is some evidence beyond random probability that you are guilty of rape.  Rapists get accused of rape.  As a general rule, nonrapists do not get accused of rape. 


WOw I wrote "multiple comparison"? SORRY! that's super embarrassing! I will correct it now. Now everyone knows what I was thinking of doing next.

Your way of interrupting it is wrong. As long a non-zero fp exists, a population that can be broken down in subsets with known compositions, and fp with fn that are independent of the results, you don't need "everyone is accused of rape". It's "suppose someone is accused of rape given the fp".

So really, the problem is to find appropriate fp

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 03, 2018, 03:03:43 PM
As a sexual assault victim, this thread sucks balls.
Just FYI.

No shit.

I'm sorry, @hoping2retire35 , but every time you use the word "horseplay" to casually dismiss sexual violation it makes me want to freaking flip tables.
Same.

Yep. 

Beyond the shock that sexual assault seems to be okay with some on this forum because (1) it was a long time ago and (2) there are no witnesses, I'm also truly shocked that they think this is the only reason Kavanaugh does not belong on any court.  He lied prior to this last hearing about things unrelated to Dr. Ford.  He lied in his written answers to Chuck Grassley.  He lied in his 2006 hearing, it took 3 years to get him confirmed because he was considered "too partisan".  He lied and advocated for sleazy tactics against Clinton when he was on Ken Starr's commission.   I absolutely agree that Clinton lied, but Kavanaugh went a bit too far with his Vince Foster conspiracy nonsense.  Just the lies alone should be enough to keep him off any court. 
 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 03, 2018, 03:05:36 PM

Random people are not accused of rape.  If you are accused of rape, you are not a random person.  You are accused because there is some evidence beyond random probability that you are guilty of rape.  Rapists get accused of rape.  As a general rule, nonrapists do not get accused of rape. 


WOw I wrote "multiple comparison"? SORRY! that's super embarrassing! I will correct it now. Now everyone knows what I was thinking of doing next.

Your way of interrupting it is wrong. As long a non-zero fp exists, you don't need "everyone is accused of rape". It's "suppose someone is accused of rape given the fp".

You are starting with the fact that about 5% of rape allegations are found to be false.

You go from there to a point where you find that 73% of rape allegations are false.

It is a logical impossibility for both of these to be the case.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2018, 03:10:00 PM
Can we just stop with the statistics. As much as I LOVE talking about statistics (really), this is getting way off topic and even if resolved/reconciled isn't really going anywhere.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 03, 2018, 03:17:58 PM
As a sexual assault victim, this thread sucks balls.
Just FYI.

No shit.

I'm sorry, @hoping2retire35 , but every time you use the word "horseplay" to casually dismiss sexual violation it makes me want to freaking flip tables.
Same.
How about you not get mad at one thing you read and nothing else I wrote?

How more clear can I be other than...(hypothetical scenario)
"My son potentially did something very wrong."

The scenario describes a situation going from(wait for it) horseplay to, possibly a sexual violation; the problem is no one really knows, not the victim not the potential perps.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 03:19:26 PM

Random people are not accused of rape.  If you are accused of rape, you are not a random person.  You are accused because there is some evidence beyond random probability that you are guilty of rape.  Rapists get accused of rape.  As a general rule, nonrapists do not get accused of rape. 


WOw I wrote "multiple comparison"? SORRY! that's super embarrassing! I will correct it now. Now everyone knows what I was thinking of doing next.

Your way of interrupting it is wrong. As long a non-zero fp exists, you don't need "everyone is accused of rape". It's "suppose someone is accused of rape given the fp".

You are starting with the fact that about 5% of rape allegations are found to be false.

You go from there to a point where you find that 73% of rape allegations are false.

It is a logical impossibility for both of these to be the case.

rbr, try this

recall the link I provided regarding Sam Gross article

"How many other Glenn Fords are still behind bars? How many will die there? Just how often does our venerated justice system fail? Rarely, at least according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In a 2006 opinion he cited an approximate error rate of 0.027 percent, based on back-of-the-envelope calculations by an Oregon district attorney in a fiery op-ed for the New York Times. The op-ed was in response to a report by Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, cataloguing 340 exonerations between 1989 and 2003. “Let’s give the professor the benefit of the doubt,” the op-ed read. “Let’s assume that he understated the number of innocents by roughly a factor of 10, that instead of 340 there were 4,000 people in prison who weren’t involved in the crime in any way. During that same 15 years, there were more than 15 million felony convictions across the country. That would make the error rate .027 percent — or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent.”

This incredibly small error rate, becomes 4% when Sam gross did it regarding potentially innocent inmates wrongly convicted. This is the same technique I used.

Note this 4% is wrongful CONVICTION rate (accused, charged, then convicted), it is entirely in-line with my conclusion given we know low conviction rate on rape in general, to have a much higher wrongful rate when we consider accusation alone.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 03, 2018, 03:19:51 PM
Shenlong,

The standard 2x2 errors table in this case looks like this

True Positive       False Negative
False Positive      True Negative

False positive is the proportion of negatives that still yield positive test outcomes, ie FP.

Thus, False positive rate = FP / (FP+TN). Instead, you wrote

Quote
How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

ie, False positive rate = FP / (FN+TN)

Surely you made a typo? What you are suggesting is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate

The contention is regarding my treatment of the 2-10% as FP, some believe it's not appropriate. I've avoided using jargons thus far, but fundamentally this is an inference problem using multiple comparisons.

Sorry if I am being rude, but if you can't even define FP rate correctly, I see very little merit in discussing the technical side of this with you. Again, statistics is often counter intuitive. Most people can tell you the odds of flipping a fair coin is 50%, but it can get really ugly real fast.

As the inference remains valid given the relations of the two subsets. The goal now is to justify IF 0.1% serves as a realistic false positive for the not-rapist population so that the final output gets to 5%. Personally I have seen no literature that points to this direction.

No, no mistake on my part.  Just more attempts by you to muddy the waters.  Total negatives include both false positives and true negatives, as both are 'actual' negatives.  From your link...

Quote
...where FP is the number of false positives, TN is the number of true negatives and N=FP+TN is the total number of negatives.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 03, 2018, 03:21:21 PM

How more clear can I be other than...(hypothetical scenario)
"My son potentially did something very wrong."

The scenario describes a situation going from(wait for it) horseplay to, possibly a sexual violation; the problem is no one really knows, not the victim not the potential perps.

There is no ambiguity with sexual assault.  I do not understand what you mean by the term "sexual violation". 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 03, 2018, 03:23:58 PM
As a sexual assault victim, this thread sucks balls.
Just FYI.

No shit.

I'm sorry, @hoping2retire35 , but every time you use the word "horseplay" to casually dismiss sexual violation it makes me want to freaking flip tables.
Same.

Why apologize? The past few days of posts (not just h2r's) actually make me feel like our collective IQ is dropping as we read them.

Right here with all of you.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 03:24:33 PM
Shenlong,

The standard 2x2 errors table in this case looks like this

True Positive       False Negative
False Positive      True Negative

False positive is the proportion of negatives that still yield positive test outcomes, ie FP.

Thus, False positive rate = FP / (FP+TN). Instead, you wrote

Quote
How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

ie, False positive rate = FP / (FN+TN)

Surely you made a typo? What you are suggesting is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate

The contention is regarding my treatment of the 2-10% as FP, some believe it's not appropriate. I've avoided using jargons thus far, but fundamentally this is an inference problem using multiple comparisons.

Sorry if I am being rude, but if you can't even define FP rate correctly, I see very little merit in discussing the technical side of this with you. Again, statistics is often counter intuitive. Most people can tell you the odds of flipping a fair coin is 50%, but it can get really ugly real fast.

As the inference remains valid given the relations of the two subsets. The goal now is to justify IF 0.1% serves as a realistic false positive for the not-rapist population so that the final output gets to 5%. Personally I have seen no literature that points to this direction.

No, no mistake on my part.  Just more attempts by you to muddy the waters.  Total negatives include both false positives and true negatives, as both are 'actual' negatives.  From your link...

Quote
...where FP is the number of false positives, TN is the number of true negatives and N=FP+TN is the total number of negatives.

YOU were the one that said total number of negatives,
Quote
How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

total negatives are defined as TN+FN. I am really not sure how this is not getting through.

What then did you mean by total negatives? and how would you write out the equation? 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 03, 2018, 03:33:42 PM

Random people are not accused of rape.  If you are accused of rape, you are not a random person.  You are accused because there is some evidence beyond random probability that you are guilty of rape.  Rapists get accused of rape.  As a general rule, nonrapists do not get accused of rape. 


WOw I wrote "multiple comparison"? SORRY! that's super embarrassing! I will correct it now. Now everyone knows what I was thinking of doing next.

Your way of interrupting it is wrong. As long a non-zero fp exists, you don't need "everyone is accused of rape". It's "suppose someone is accused of rape given the fp".

You are starting with the fact that about 5% of rape allegations are found to be false.

You go from there to a point where you find that 73% of rape allegations are false.

It is a logical impossibility for both of these to be the case.

rbr, try this

recall the link I provided regarding Sam Gross article

"How many other Glenn Fords are still behind bars? How many will die there? Just how often does our venerated justice system fail? Rarely, at least according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In a 2006 opinion he cited an approximate error rate of 0.027 percent, based on back-of-the-envelope calculations by an Oregon district attorney in a fiery op-ed for the New York Times. The op-ed was in response to a report by Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, cataloguing 340 exonerations between 1989 and 2003. “Let’s give the professor the benefit of the doubt,” the op-ed read. “Let’s assume that he understated the number of innocents by roughly a factor of 10, that instead of 340 there were 4,000 people in prison who weren’t involved in the crime in any way. During that same 15 years, there were more than 15 million felony convictions across the country. That would make the error rate .027 percent — or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent.”

This incredibly small error rate, becomes 4% when Sam gross did it regarding potentially innocent inmates wrongly convicted. This is the same technique I used.

Note this 4% is wrongful CONVICTION rate (accused, charged, then convicted), it is entirely in-line with my conclusion given we know low conviction rate on rape in general, to have a much higher wrongful rate when we consider accusation alone.

This is madness, and makes absolutely no sense in any direction. You started off with the 5% figure in your first post on this. Now you're working off a seemingly entirely random 4% figure that bears no relation to anything you wrote above. There's nothing further to be gained from discussing this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 03:40:03 PM

Random people are not accused of rape.  If you are accused of rape, you are not a random person.  You are accused because there is some evidence beyond random probability that you are guilty of rape.  Rapists get accused of rape.  As a general rule, nonrapists do not get accused of rape. 


WOw I wrote "multiple comparison"? SORRY! that's super embarrassing! I will correct it now. Now everyone knows what I was thinking of doing next.

Your way of interrupting it is wrong. As long a non-zero fp exists, you don't need "everyone is accused of rape". It's "suppose someone is accused of rape given the fp".

You are starting with the fact that about 5% of rape allegations are found to be false.

You go from there to a point where you find that 73% of rape allegations are false.

It is a logical impossibility for both of these to be the case.

rbr, try this

recall the link I provided regarding Sam Gross article

"How many other Glenn Fords are still behind bars? How many will die there? Just how often does our venerated justice system fail? Rarely, at least according to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In a 2006 opinion he cited an approximate error rate of 0.027 percent, based on back-of-the-envelope calculations by an Oregon district attorney in a fiery op-ed for the New York Times. The op-ed was in response to a report by Samuel Gross, a law professor at the University of Michigan, cataloguing 340 exonerations between 1989 and 2003. “Let’s give the professor the benefit of the doubt,” the op-ed read. “Let’s assume that he understated the number of innocents by roughly a factor of 10, that instead of 340 there were 4,000 people in prison who weren’t involved in the crime in any way. During that same 15 years, there were more than 15 million felony convictions across the country. That would make the error rate .027 percent — or, to put it another way, a success rate of 99.973 percent.”

This incredibly small error rate, becomes 4% when Sam gross did it regarding potentially innocent inmates wrongly convicted. This is the same technique I used.

Note this 4% is wrongful CONVICTION rate (accused, charged, then convicted), it is entirely in-line with my conclusion given we know low conviction rate on rape in general, to have a much higher wrongful rate when we consider accusation alone.

This is madness, and makes absolutely no sense in any direction. You started off with the 5% figure in your first post on this. Now you're working off a seemingly entirely random 4% figure that bears no relation to anything you wrote above. There's nothing further to be gained from discussing this.

I am SHOWING you how using the similar inference tool, you can get from 5% false positive to 75% innocent rate, just like how you can get from 0.02% error rate to 4% wrongful conviction rate. Did you even read the article(s)? otherwise you would not have called 4% figure i cited from article as random.

It is completely relevant because it's a similar idea/tool, if you can't understand one I don't expect you to understand the other.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 03, 2018, 03:41:31 PM
Shenlong,

The standard 2x2 errors table in this case looks like this

True Positive       False Negative
False Positive      True Negative

False positive is the proportion of negatives that still yield positive test outcomes, ie FP.

Thus, False positive rate = FP / (FP+TN). Instead, you wrote

Quote
How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

ie, False positive rate = FP / (FN+TN)

Surely you made a typo? What you are suggesting is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate

The contention is regarding my treatment of the 2-10% as FP, some believe it's not appropriate. I've avoided using jargons thus far, but fundamentally this is an inference problem using multiple comparisons.

Sorry if I am being rude, but if you can't even define FP rate correctly, I see very little merit in discussing the technical side of this with you. Again, statistics is often counter intuitive. Most people can tell you the odds of flipping a fair coin is 50%, but it can get really ugly real fast.

As the inference remains valid given the relations of the two subsets. The goal now is to justify IF 0.1% serves as a realistic false positive for the not-rapist population so that the final output gets to 5%. Personally I have seen no literature that points to this direction.

No, no mistake on my part.  Just more attempts by you to muddy the waters.  Total negatives include both false positives and true negatives, as both are 'actual' negatives.  From your link...

Quote
...where FP is the number of false positives, TN is the number of true negatives and N=FP+TN is the total number of negatives.

YOU were the one that said total number of negatives,
Quote
How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

total negatives are defined as TN+FN. I am really not sure how this is not getting through.

What then did you mean by total negatives? and how would you write out the equation?

Seriously, you didn't even read the post your responding to or the link that you posted?  Here you go...

False positive rate = number of false positive / total negatives
Total negatives = false positives + true negatives

Same as is described at the link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate) you posted.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZbZbFPV/False_Positive_Rate.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 03:50:33 PM
Shenlong,

The standard 2x2 errors table in this case looks like this

True Positive       False Negative
False Positive      True Negative

False positive is the proportion of negatives that still yield positive test outcomes, ie FP.

Thus, False positive rate = FP / (FP+TN). Instead, you wrote

Quote
How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

ie, False positive rate = FP / (FN+TN)

Surely you made a typo? What you are suggesting is wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate

The contention is regarding my treatment of the 2-10% as FP, some believe it's not appropriate. I've avoided using jargons thus far, but fundamentally this is an inference problem using multiple comparisons.

Sorry if I am being rude, but if you can't even define FP rate correctly, I see very little merit in discussing the technical side of this with you. Again, statistics is often counter intuitive. Most people can tell you the odds of flipping a fair coin is 50%, but it can get really ugly real fast.

As the inference remains valid given the relations of the two subsets. The goal now is to justify IF 0.1% serves as a realistic false positive for the not-rapist population so that the final output gets to 5%. Personally I have seen no literature that points to this direction.

No, no mistake on my part.  Just more attempts by you to muddy the waters.  Total negatives include both false positives and true negatives, as both are 'actual' negatives.  From your link...

Quote
...where FP is the number of false positives, TN is the number of true negatives and N=FP+TN is the total number of negatives.

YOU were the one that said total number of negatives,
Quote
How the false positive rate is calculated: number of false positive results / total number of negatives.

total negatives are defined as TN+FN. I am really not sure how this is not getting through.

What then did you mean by total negatives? and how would you write out the equation?

Seriously, you didn't even read the post your responding to or the link that you posted?  Here you go...

False positive rate = number of false positive / total negatives
Total negatives = false positives + true negatives

Same as is described at the link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate) you posted.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZbZbFPV/False_Positive_Rate.png) (https://postimages.org/)

When you say total negatives, you are implicitly saying total negatives=True Neg + False Neg, this is not right. Note how the page explicitly defined N being (FP+TN). The correct way is to include ONLY True negatives with FP, NOT false negatives.

So, FP rate = FP / (FP+TN)

Again you said
Quote
False positive rate = number of false positive / total negatives

I am not sure what else to add here. I am going to conclude and end here. Yes I am going to pull a run and hide, provided no one provokes me again. Like Sol said, arguing about stat is too much work, especially against novices. Basically we have 3 kinds of replies here

1. How do you go from 5% to 75%???
These include all the novices that cant seem to wrap their heads around inference/conditional probabilities.

2. Your method doesn't apply because of independence / wrong formulation
It certainly does, this is how inference works.

3. You are misusing 2-10% as fp
I can buy that, makes some sense, but is there any evidence suggesting the fp being as small as 0.1% for the general population?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 03, 2018, 04:05:02 PM
Seriously, you didn't even read the post your responding to or the link that you posted?  Here you go...

False positive rate = number of false positive / total negatives
Total negatives = false positives + true negatives

Same as is described at the link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_rate) you posted.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7ZbZbFPV/False_Positive_Rate.png) (https://postimages.org/)

When you say total negatives, you are implicitly saying total negatives=True Neg + False Neg, this is not right. Note how the page explicitly defined N being (FP+TN). The correct way is to include ONLY True negatives with FP, NOT false negatives.

So, FP rate = FP / (FP+TN)

Again you said
Quote
False positive rate = number of false positive / total negatives

I am not sure what else to add here.

One last time, from your link...

Quote
N=FP+TN is the total number of negatives.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2018, 04:28:43 PM
Can we just stop with the statistics. As much as I LOVE talking about statistics (really), this is getting way off topic and even if resolved/reconciled isn't really going anywhere.
again...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PDXTabs on October 03, 2018, 04:44:11 PM
Quote
N=FP+TN is the total number of negatives.

I just want to say that I really like the turn that this thread has taken.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 04:52:05 PM
Quote
N=FP+TN is the total number of negatives.

I just want to say that I really like the turn that this thread has taken.

Haha glad you liked it PDXT, much more fun to take a break from partisan politics ya?

Shenlong, that definition (the N=FP+TN equation) was missing in your original post that started this, so don't parade what I told you from the link I provided to pretend that's what you meant all along.

When you mentioned total number of negatives WITHOUT explicitly stating N=FP+TN, you are implicitly saying that
total negatives = true negatives + false negatives. Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 03, 2018, 05:07:26 PM
Just thinking about the entire Ford situation and why I feel conflicted; I have a very good personal, hopefully never, example of its complexity.

I am the father of boy-girl twins.

(Never) Scenario; 10 years from now my son is accused by another teenage girl of pushing her down and possible attempted rape. The next day my daughter tells me a male, approximately their age, did something similar to her. What do I do?

The two extreme responses;
1."Boys will be boys!"
2. Send my son to boarding school in a third world country and never speak to him again. Sue, bury, and destroy the entire family of the other male, who potentially assaulted my daughter, until they are utterly, socially, financially and any other way obliterated.

Many here, on this forum, seem to be adamant to do the second. I think that seems, well, extreme.

In the heat of the moment, dealing with an older teenage boy it would difficult to not do something physical. I would probably take away anything that gave him social access; phone, internet, cars. I might even homeschool him for a semester. But it could come down to the facts of how it happened. Were they horseplaying with other people there, as part of a game or something? Did she not want to be apart of what was going on or did the boy in both situations take their part too far? I would be mad but still try to remember they are teenagers who did something stupid not 25 y.o. I would want to know that the other boy is punished and I would reassure the girl's parents that our son is being punished. Which kind of leads to another problem.

What do you do if the boy's parents do not think anything needs to be done(or just a stern talking to and him promising it won't happen again)? What if the girl's parents say they want harsher punishment?

What if years later(for argument's sake he was given proper punishment) he applies for a job at the business you own?

I have thought of all this before but have had to think about it a little more in the last week or so.

please tell me you don't have children. What you have written is really offensive. I'm imagining a daughter telling a father what happened if she is sexually assaulted, and him telling her that it was possibly horseplay? Possibly a sexual violation? But no one really knows. No. Two people know: the assaulter and the assaulted. I'm thinking from your views, you would side with the boy over your own daughter.

And where in the hell is ANYONE saying in the forum this is what should happen to Kavanaugh "Sue, bury, and destroy the entire family of the other male, who potentially assaulted my daughter, until they are utterly, socially, financially and any other way obliterated." When you create these straw men and misrepresent other people's views, not only is it disrespectful it really looks like you aren't actually reading or understanding what people are saying, and discredits whatever you are attempting to say.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 05:21:19 PM
Men who want to be allies?
Stop engaging.
Please.
It’s NOT HELPING.

I have difficultly letting counterfactual attacks be used to cause people offense, without speaking up.  Would you prefer the entire world just let the red pill people do their own thing as loudly and publicly as they want to?  From my perspective, arguing with anisotropy about this is like being a counterprotestor at a white supremacy rally.  Man or woman doesn't matter, someone needs to stand up and say "this is not okay." 

But not everyone.  For anyone who is uncomfortable with this topic, by all means please protect yourselves by limiting your exposure to ugly content. 

In fact, for struggling survivors of sexual assault, I recommend you just totally avoid national news for at least the next week.  Shit's about to go down.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 05:26:52 PM
Men who want to be allies?
Stop engaging.
Please.
It’s NOT HELPING.

I have difficultly letting counterfactual attacks be used to cause people offense, without speaking up.  Would you prefer the entire world just let the red pill people do their own thing as loudly and publicly as they want to?  From my perspective, arguing with anisotropy about this is like being a counterprotestor at a white supremacy rally.  Man or woman doesn't matter, someone needs to stand up and say "this is not okay." 

But not everyone.  For anyone who is uncomfortable with this topic, by all means please protect yourselves by limiting your exposure to ugly content. 

In fact, for struggling survivors of sexual assault, I recommend you just totally avoid national news for at least the next week.  Shit's about to go down.

Sol, for what it's worth, I applaud you for this. We may not agree on the way I formulated the case or that what I presented are counterfactual, but your behavior is admirable.

You know what, just to settle this, I will reach out to experts in this field, whether that be Statistics or Sexual violence. Give me sometime, if I am wrong I will surely apologize to you and everyone else. Thanks.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PDXTabs on October 03, 2018, 05:28:24 PM
Men who want to be allies?
Stop engaging.
Please.
It’s NOT HELPING.

I have difficultly letting counterfactual attacks be used to cause people offense, without speaking up.  Would you prefer the entire world just let the red pill people do their own thing as loudly and publicly as they want to?  From my perspective, arguing with anisotropy about this is like being a counterprotestor at a white supremacy rally.  Man or woman doesn't matter, someone needs to stand up and say "this is not okay." 

I would add that while I want to be an "ally" and will literally help you in real life if I get the chance, I also want to live in a world where facts matter. I want to have an administration that believes in facts (like what has Kavanaugh actually done). Math would seem to be an important part of that world.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2018, 05:39:05 PM
Meanwhile, it looks like a timeline for the FBI report is solidifying along with how the report will be distributed. Bottom line is that one copy of the report will be made available to the entire senate and that it will be available for viewing in one hour increments.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409786-senators-will-view-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh-thursday?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

This process strains credulity and is absolute bullshit. One copy for a body of 100 senators with one hour viewing intervals something on the order of a day before McConnell wants to call the vote. This setup makes it an absolute impossibility for senators to process the information before voting.

Want people to believe that Kavanaugh has nothing to hide? Don't hide the information!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 03, 2018, 05:48:31 PM
Meanwhile, it looks like a timeline for the FBI report is solidifying along with how the report will be distributed. Bottom line is that one copy of the report will be made available to the entire senate and that it will be available for viewing in one hour increments.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409786-senators-will-view-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh-thursday?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

This process strains credulity and is absolute bullshit. One copy for a body of 100 senators with one hour viewing intervals something on the order of a day before McConnell wants to call the vote. This setup makes it an absolute impossibility for senators to process the information before voting.

Want people to believe that Kavanaugh has nothing to hide? Don't hide the information!

Politics under Trump continue to become more and more like reality TV. This sounds like some sort of challenge to the contestants.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 03, 2018, 05:50:46 PM

This process strains credulity and is absolute bullshit. One copy for a body of 100 senators with one hour viewing intervals something on the order of a day before McConnell wants to call the vote. This setup makes it an absolute impossibility for senators to process the information before voting.


Maybe Mitch is trying to save money on the photocopying budget?

What baffles me is the basic math.  100 senators.  1 copy, 1 hour per senator = 100 hours.  24 hours in a day, 20(ish) hours before the vote is called.... anyone else seeing the problem?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Laserjet3051 on October 03, 2018, 05:56:15 PM
Meanwhile, it looks like a timeline for the FBI report is solidifying along with how the report will be distributed. Bottom line is that one copy of the report will be made available to the entire senate and that it will be available for viewing in one hour increments.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409786-senators-will-view-fbi-report-on-kavanaugh-thursday?__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

This process strains credulity and is absolute bullshit. One copy for a body of 100 senators with one hour viewing intervals something on the order of a day before McConnell wants to call the vote. This setup makes it an absolute impossibility for senators to process the information before voting.

Want people to believe that Kavanaugh has nothing to hide? Don't hide the information!

Is that really true? I dont know the exact technology they will employ for viewing the report, but it is most certainly not impossible for all to read. Could not all dem senators gather in a single room with a video screen where all eyes can view and thereafter, republican senators do the same? I'm not saying this is how it will work, but it seems like this is a reasonable approach to allow all eyes to read it. If the report is 500 pages, then it is a totally different story. My guess, on the time limitation, is that republicans don't want to risk dems deploying additional delay tactics that might jeopardize the final vote timeline/schedule.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2018, 05:57:45 PM
As a sexual assault victim, this thread sucks balls.
Just FYI.

No shit.

I'm sorry, @hoping2retire35 , but every time you use the word "horseplay" to casually dismiss sexual violation it makes me want to freaking flip tables.
Same.
How about you not get mad at one thing you read and nothing else I wrote?

How more clear can I be other than...(hypothetical scenario)
"My son potentially did something very wrong."

The scenario describes a situation going from(wait for it) horseplay to, possibly a sexual violation; the problem is no one really knows, not the victim not the potential perps.

You kinda keep writing offensive things though.

Like when you earlier wrote that you didn't want Kavenaugh investigated because you felt he didn't look like "an evil and awful dude" - the implication being that you can tell at a glance if a man is a rapist/guilty of sexual assault (which I pointed out didn't work very well for known rapists like Bill Cosby).  Or like in this post where you seem to be implying that neither the victim or aggressor know when sexual assault has occurred.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 03, 2018, 06:00:22 PM
.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: annnnnnooooon on October 03, 2018, 06:00:54 PM
Men who want to be allies?
Stop engaging.
Please.
It’s NOT HELPING.

I have difficultly letting counterfactual attacks be used to cause people offense, without speaking up.  Would you prefer the entire world just let the red pill people do their own thing as loudly and publicly as they want to?  From my perspective, arguing with anisotropy about this is like being a counterprotestor at a white supremacy rally.  Man or woman doesn't matter, someone needs to stand up and say "this is not okay." 

But not everyone.  For anyone who is uncomfortable with this topic, by all means please protect yourselves by limiting your exposure to ugly content. 

In fact, for struggling survivors of sexual assault, I recommend you just totally avoid national news for at least the next week.  Shit's about to go down.

Sol, for what it's worth, I applaud you for this. We may not agree on the way I formulated the case or that what I presented are counterfactual, but your behavior is admirable.

You know what, just to settle this, I will reach out to experts in this field, whether that be Statistics or Sexual violence. Give me sometime, if I am wrong I will surely apologize to you and everyone else. Thanks.

Sol, I hear that you are doing what you can to try to address a huge issue, and at the same time, as a woman, what you say here does not feel like allyship at all. Your arguments upthread did, but this does not.

Please listen to this. I realize it sucks, as you are very actively trying to be an ally. I would not have sleuthed through my email trying to find one of my old logins if I did not respect your opinions and your intentions. I even occasionally chose to engage a troll or two to test my communication skills, if I've got the bandwidth and the time. I understand the temptation, and there can be a time and place for it - you often hit that line, and I appreciate your voice. Up until this last post I even felt you were mostly pretty solidly doing awesome.

Women don't get to chose to walk away from what is happening with Kavenaugh. We live it, every day of our lives. We also live the experience of being told to go away in online contexts. I know it is not your intention, and at the same time what I felt when I read your comment, and the thread that came before it, was the following:

1) almost all of the outspoken women dropped out of the conversation several pages ago. This was not a coincidence.
2) The statistics debate is a deliberate derail and consists of a couple red pill bros deliberately reframing the debate to silence it. I wish that the ally men had enough experience with what it is like to be a woman on the internet to see that.
3) YAY! several women directly called it out, now the smart/not awful men will stop feeding it!
4) HOLY FUCK one of the more well spoken non-awful men just accidentally told us women to get off the internet and leave it for the boys to argue so he can argue and rescue all us damsels in distress from the feels and the bad math monsters of the deep, and he has no idea what he just said/implied/tapped into/added to our fuck this shit 2018 overwhelm.

I stopped reading the statistics pages ago, but was increasingly upset by how many allies were letting the derail happen. Your response to being asked to stop feels worse then the red pill nonsense that crept in here, because it comes from someone who is generally worth respecting. #listentowomen. We're trying to tell you something you need to hear - stop engaging with the math, in this place, in this time. There will be another time, probably in this thread, where your voice will be welcome, and supportive. The stats are no longer it. And when women tell you to stop, stop.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 03, 2018, 06:03:14 PM
Haha glad you liked it PDXT, much more fun to take a break from partisan politics ya?

Shenlong, that definition (the N=FP+TN equation) was missing in your original post that started this, so don't parade what I told you from the link I provided to pretend that's what you meant all along.

When you mentioned total number of negatives WITHOUT explicitly stating N=FP+TN, you are implicitly saying that
total negatives = true negatives + false negatives. Hope this helps.

Anisotropy,

I apologize for assuming that you would be familiar with the terminology of the subject that you've been talking about for pages now.  Just FYI, Wikipedia is where I originally got the formula for false positive rate.

Malkynn (and anyone else hurt by this math distraction),

I apologize for any pain I caused you by engaging him, although I do think it is important to fight back against misinformation like this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on October 03, 2018, 06:19:35 PM
Men who want to be allies?
Stop engaging.
Please.
It’s NOT HELPING.

I have difficultly letting counterfactual attacks be used to cause people offense, without speaking up.  Would you prefer the entire world just let the red pill people do their own thing as loudly and publicly as they want to?  From my perspective, arguing with anisotropy about this is like being a counterprotestor at a white supremacy rally.  Man or woman doesn't matter, someone needs to stand up and say "this is not okay." 

But not everyone.  For anyone who is uncomfortable with this topic, by all means please protect yourselves by limiting your exposure to ugly content. 

In fact, for struggling survivors of sexual assault, I recommend you just totally avoid national news for at least the next week.  Shit's about to go down.

Sol, for what it's worth, I applaud you for this. We may not agree on the way I formulated the case or that what I presented are counterfactual, but your behavior is admirable.

You know what, just to settle this, I will reach out to experts in this field, whether that be Statistics or Sexual violence. Give me sometime, if I am wrong I will surely apologize to you and everyone else. Thanks.
Dr David Lisak, one of the premier professors on rapists who be someone to listen to.  I wonder what experts you will chose to contact.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 03, 2018, 06:28:54 PM
Women don't get to chose to walk away from what is happening with Kavenaugh.

Neither do I. 

But when I get exposed to triggering content, and I assure you it happens to all trauma survivors, I look away to protect my own sanity.  I know it's still out there.  The President tweeting about it doesn't help.

Quote
4) HOLY FUCK one of the more well spoken non-awful men just accidentally told us women to get off the internet and leave it for the boys to argue so he can argue and rescue all us damsels in distress from the feels and the bad math monsters of the deep, and he has no idea what he just said/implied/tapped into/added to our fuck this shit 2018 overwhelm.

That was definitely not my intent.  I didn't tell anyone to go away, I suggested that we all self-limit our exposure to awful things if we feel it necessary to do so for our own mental health. 

I'm not trying to rescue anyone, there are no distressed damsels here.

And perhaps most importantly, I did exactly I was asked.  I stopped engaging the stupid stats discussion and instead engaged the self-identified victim who was asking to be heard.  And then someone shouted HOLY FUCK at me anyway.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Gin1984 on October 03, 2018, 06:42:17 PM
Women don't get to chose to walk away from what is happening with Kavenaugh.

Neither do I. 

But when I get exposed to triggering content, and I assure you it happens to all trauma survivors, I look away to protect my own sanity.  I know it's still out there.  The President tweeting about it doesn't help.

Quote
4) HOLY FUCK one of the more well spoken non-awful men just accidentally told us women to get off the internet and leave it for the boys to argue so he can argue and rescue all us damsels in distress from the feels and the bad math monsters of the deep, and he has no idea what he just said/implied/tapped into/added to our fuck this shit 2018 overwhelm.

That was definitely not my intent.  I didn't tell anyone to go away, I suggested that we all self-limit our exposure to awful things if we feel it necessary to do so for our own mental health. 

I'm not trying to rescue anyone, there are no distressed damsels here.

And perhaps most importantly, I did exactly I was asked.  I stopped engaging the stupid stats discussion and instead engaged the self-identified victim who was asking to be heard.  And then someone shouted HOLY FUCK at me anyway.
Honestly Sol, as a woman and a scientist I appreciated that you spoke up and argued the misuse of the statistics.  I know not all women would/did but some of us did. And just a side note, not all women were not involved in that conversation, I just was at work and could not argue as much as I wanted to.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 03, 2018, 07:02:49 PM
Men who want to be allies?
Stop engaging.
Please.
It’s NOT HELPING.

I have difficultly letting counterfactual attacks be used to cause people offense, without speaking up.  Would you prefer the entire world just let the red pill people do their own thing as loudly and publicly as they want to?  From my perspective, arguing with anisotropy about this is like being a counterprotestor at a white supremacy rally.  Man or woman doesn't matter, someone needs to stand up and say "this is not okay." 

But not everyone.  For anyone who is uncomfortable with this topic, by all means please protect yourselves by limiting your exposure to ugly content. 

In fact, for struggling survivors of sexual assault, I recommend you just totally avoid national news for at least the next week.  Shit's about to go down.

Sol, for what it's worth, I applaud you for this. We may not agree on the way I formulated the case or that what I presented are counterfactual, but your behavior is admirable.

You know what, just to settle this, I will reach out to experts in this field, whether that be Statistics or Sexual violence. Give me sometime, if I am wrong I will surely apologize to you and everyone else. Thanks.
Dr David Lisak, one of the premier professors on rapists who be someone to listen to.  I wonder what experts you will chose to contact.

Gin,

First I need to address the criticism that my framing and formulation is flawed, I will reach out to local college professors that do researches in Bayesian statistics.

If it turns out I was wrong, then I would stop there. If it turns out my method was correct, then I would talk to sexual violence professionals to determine if I misused the 2-10%, and if so, what would be the appropriate number.

Does that sound like a good plan to you?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 03, 2018, 07:34:52 PM
Guys, I know the real issue is whether a demonstrably dishonest, partisan politician is being fast-tracked to an incredible position of influence despite a demonstrably credible allegation (or four) of being, at the very least, a skeezball.

But I started a distracting argument about statistics, and it's really important that I convince some internet strangers that I'm smart. So can we work on that first rather than discuss the big picture like adults?

Thank god SOMEONE said it!

Seriously.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 03, 2018, 07:35:08 PM
Apparently the Republican staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a tweet stating that there was no "whiff" in the previous 6 background reports on Kavanaugh of any concerns about alcohol use or sexual impropriety.

Democrats on the Committee have now said 1) given that background reports are confidential this tweet should not have been published, and 2) its contents are inaccurate and should be withdrawn.

That means that there are previous indications in FBI reports about either Kavanaugh's drinking or his sexual behaviour.

The latest FBIi report?  Christopher Wray, Trump appointee as FBI Director, was at Yale Law School at the same time as Brett Kavanaugh  (two years behind, but it's a small school).  I wonder how hard the FBI has been pushing back against any constraints on its investigation.

Oh, and there's a letter in the New York Times from 650 (and counting) law professors saying that Kavanaugh does not have the judicial temperament to sit on the Supreme Court.  Including some from Yale.


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: nereo on October 04, 2018, 05:06:49 AM
early reporting indicates the FBI probe was severely curtailed in scope.  It appears they were not allowed to probe the frequency of his drinking and interviewed a relatively limited number of people.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on October 04, 2018, 05:38:15 AM
Politics is evil. If these people worked for a corporation how would anything ever get done when no one can agree on anything and they are only out for their own political gain. Their attitude is what is in it for me. Do they ever do anything for their constituents? Pathetic and despicable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 04, 2018, 06:11:04 AM
I am wondering which party it would be better for if Kavanaugh does not get it. Democrats can say "We won!" and Republicans would come across as incompetent losers. Or; Democrats could look like partisan hacks who are willing to character assassinate someone for the own political gain and Republicans could say they need more Republicans to approve Trumps nominees.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 04, 2018, 06:22:03 AM
Never once in my life have I made voting decisions based on "which party is this better for." Nor would I judge character based on party or excuse basic violations of a person based on party.

A supreme court justice should be the best model of a person with character, and of choosing to do what's right for as many people as possible, rather than taking the selfish choice or basing decisions on political party.
Are you referencing my above post? It seems like it, I am just not sure how.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 04, 2018, 06:27:15 AM
I am wondering which party it would be better for if Kavanaugh does not get it. Democrats can say "We won!" and Republicans would come across as incompetent losers. Or; Democrats could look like partisan hacks who are willing to character assassinate someone for the own political gain and Republicans could say they need more Republicans to approve Trumps nominees.
Democrats opposed to Kavanaugh know that the next nominee will have views abhorrent to them.  That's what makes this a moral fight for them, not just a political fight.  They will lose on what kind of nominee the Supreme Court gets.

The fight is to stop a sexual predator from being on the court.  It's to stop someone whose entire career has been based on partisan attack from being on the court.  It's to stop someone who demonstrates that he can't listen to criticism of himself without launching a counterattack on the court.

Trump is always going to nominate someone the Democrats disagree with.  He doesn't have to nominate someone who is unfit for the position as well.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 04, 2018, 06:36:42 AM
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2018/09/27/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Well, I guess I understand some of the Democrats vigilance and vitriol now. Ginsburg gone in Jan. 2019.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 04, 2018, 06:44:34 AM
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2018/09/27/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Well, I guess I understand some of the Democrats vigilance and vitriol now. Ginsburg gone in Jan. 2019.
This is pretty major news.  It's weird that no major outlet has picked it up...  Particularly because she said she'll remain on the court for five more years, this summer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/30/ruth-bader-ginsburg-says-she-has-at-least-5-more-years-on-the-supreme-court-her-fans-rejoice/?utm_term=.ec898dd5c799 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/30/ruth-bader-ginsburg-says-she-has-at-least-5-more-years-on-the-supreme-court-her-fans-rejoice/?utm_term=.ec898dd5c799)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 04, 2018, 06:46:34 AM
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2018/09/27/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Well, I guess I understand some of the Democrats vigilance and vitriol now. Ginsburg gone in Jan. 2019.
This is pretty major news.  It's weird that no major outlet has picked it up...
yeah, i saw it last week and just thought "I know what we will be talking about over the weekend." Crickets. I looked again for it today and was surprised this is the only article. I am guessing other networks can't get a source. Still weird.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 04, 2018, 06:48:06 AM
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2018/09/27/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Well, I guess I understand some of the Democrats vigilance and vitriol now. Ginsburg gone in Jan. 2019.
This is pretty major news.  It's weird that no major outlet has picked it up...
yeah, i saw it last week and just thought "I know what we will be talking about over the weekend." Crickets. I looked again for it today and was surprised this is the only article. I am guessing other networks can't get a source. Still weird.
I'm pretty sure it's because it's fake.  She's been pretty clear about her timeline.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 04, 2018, 06:48:31 AM
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2018/09/27/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Well, I guess I understand some of the Democrats vigilance and vitriol now. Ginsburg gone in Jan. 2019.
This is pretty major news.  It's weird that no major outlet has picked it up...
yeah, i saw it last week and just thought "I know what we will be talking about over the weekend." Crickets. I looked again for it today and was surprised this is the only article. I am guessing other networks can't get a source. Still weird.

Lol. Dude, it’s weird because it isn’t true.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 04, 2018, 06:50:34 AM
https://www.smobserved.com/story/2018/09/27/politics/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-will-retire-from-the-us-supreme-court-in-january-2019/3658.html

Well, I guess I understand some of the Democrats vigilance and vitriol now. Ginsburg gone in Jan. 2019.
This is pretty major news.  It's weird that no major outlet has picked it up...
yeah, i saw it last week and just thought "I know what we will be talking about over the weekend." Crickets. I looked again for it today and was surprised this is the only article. I am guessing other networks can't get a source. Still weird.

Lol. Dude, it’s weird because it isn’t true.
I love that he mentions that other networks can't get a source, but the article referenced also has no sources!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 04, 2018, 06:59:17 AM
Some other select Headlines from the Santa Monica Observer:

"Kanye West Appointed Under-Secretary of the Interior After Meeting at Trump Tower"

"We Have Detected 234 Alien Civilizations, Say Laval, Cornell University Astronomers"

Source: http://www.santamonicanext.org/2016/12/fake-news-santa-monica-edition/ (http://www.santamonicanext.org/2016/12/fake-news-santa-monica-edition/)

The odd thing is it doesn't seem to be satire or completely illegitimate, just not big on verifying their sources. Lot's of normal local news there too.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 04, 2018, 07:04:48 AM
I always thought fake news was supposed to have a twist or just be deceptive, not blatantly wrong. You read stuff like this in the new yorker but they always give you a snippet so you know it is made up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2018, 07:10:37 AM
Some other select Headlines from the Santa Monica Observer:

"Kanye West Appointed Under-Secretary of the Interior After Meeting at Trump Tower"


The only thing that seems unusual about this headline is that Trump is appointing a black dude.  It's not unusual for the president to decide to fill an important position with an unqualified candidate that he hasn't vetted on a whim.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 04, 2018, 07:10:41 AM
I always thought fake news was supposed to have a twist or just be deceptive, not blatantly wrong. You read stuff like this in the new yorker but they always give you a snippet so you know it is made up.

Fake news is made up to make people who are susceptible to it attribute blatantly partisan intentions to the other side.

Which worked on you, in this case.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: YttriumNitrate on October 04, 2018, 07:12:08 AM
Democrats opposed to Kavanaugh know that the next nominee will have views abhorrent to them.
This is only true if A) the Republicans think they can ram the next nominee through in a lame duck session, or B) the Republicans retain control of the Senate in the midterms.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 04, 2018, 07:20:54 AM
Democrats opposed to Kavanaugh know that the next nominee will have views abhorrent to them.
This is only true if A) the Republicans think they can ram the next nominee through in a lame duck session, or B) the Republicans retain control of the Senate in the midterms.
It looks like both of those things are likely to be true.  In addition, Senators usually cross party lines on Supreme Court confirmation and even though the Republicans unilaterally blocked Merrick Garland's nomination without precedent, it's unlikely that Democrats would follow that playbook, particularly with two years of Trump's term remaining.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: By the River on October 04, 2018, 07:25:12 AM
I am wondering which party it would be better for if Kavanaugh does not get it. Democrats can say "We won!" and Republicans would come across as incompetent losers. Or; Democrats could look like partisan hacks who are willing to character assassinate someone for the own political gain and Republicans could say they need more Republicans to approve Trumps nominees.
Democrats opposed to Kavanaugh know that the next nominee will have views abhorrent to them.  That's what makes this a moral fight for them, not just a political fight.  They will lose on what kind of nominee the Supreme Court gets.

The fight is to stop a sexual predator from being on the court.
It's to stop someone whose entire career has been based on partisan attack from being on the court.  It's to stop someone who demonstrates that he can't listen to criticism of himself without launching a counterattack on the court.

Trump is always going to nominate someone the Democrats disagree with.  He doesn't have to nominate someone who is unfit for the position as well.

Kavanaugh was nominated on July 9.  The Connecticut Mirror on July 10 published that senators Blumenthal and Murphy had already announced that they would vote no on Kavanaugh. https://ctmirror.org/2018/07/10/theres-reason-ct-dems-among-first-say-theyll-vote-no-kavanaugh/ (https://ctmirror.org/2018/07/10/theres-reason-ct-dems-among-first-say-theyll-vote-no-kavanaugh/) This was way before the bolded items had been alleged.  Per the article  “Judge Gorsuch had a different record and different writings,” Blumenthal said Tuesday, explaining his immediate rejection of Kavanaugh. “This is filling a different seat. This is a swing seat.” 

I do agree with your last sentence but it works in reverse as well..."Democrats are always going to disagree with whoever Trump nominates"
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 04, 2018, 09:13:21 AM
I am wondering which party it would be better for if Kavanaugh does not get it. Democrats can say "We won!" and Republicans would come across as incompetent losers. Or; Democrats could look like partisan hacks who are willing to character assassinate someone for the own political gain and Republicans could say they need more Republicans to approve Trumps nominees.
Democrats opposed to Kavanaugh know that the next nominee will have views abhorrent to them.  That's what makes this a moral fight for them, not just a political fight.  They will lose on what kind of nominee the Supreme Court gets.

The fight is to stop a sexual predator from being on the court.
It's to stop someone whose entire career has been based on partisan attack from being on the court.  It's to stop someone who demonstrates that he can't listen to criticism of himself without launching a counterattack on the court.

Trump is always going to nominate someone the Democrats disagree with.  He doesn't have to nominate someone who is unfit for the position as well.

Kavanaugh was nominated on July 9.  The Connecticut Mirror on July 10 published that senators Blumenthal and Murphy had already announced that they would vote no on Kavanaugh. https://ctmirror.org/2018/07/10/theres-reason-ct-dems-among-first-say-theyll-vote-no-kavanaugh/ (https://ctmirror.org/2018/07/10/theres-reason-ct-dems-among-first-say-theyll-vote-no-kavanaugh/) This was way before the bolded items had been alleged.  Per the article  “Judge Gorsuch had a different record and different writings,” Blumenthal said Tuesday, explaining his immediate rejection of Kavanaugh. “This is filling a different seat. This is a swing seat.” 

I do agree with your last sentence but it works in reverse as well..."Democrats are always going to disagree with whoever Trump nominates"
Just because some Democrats were initially opposed to Kavanaugh doesn't make your last statement true.  Gorsuch was a contentious nominee (because of the Republicans' treatment of Garland), but some Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for him.  All members of a party opposing a nominee is unusual.  To date, the Republicans have a monopoly on it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: By the River on October 04, 2018, 09:48:36 AM
Just because some Democrats were initially opposed to Kavanaugh doesn't make your last statement true.  Gorsuch was a contentious nominee (because of the Republicans' treatment of Garland), but some Democrats crossed the aisle to vote for him.  All members of a party opposing a nominee is unusual.  To date, the Republicans have a monopoly on it.

True, 52 Democrat senators voted against Bork but 2 voted in his favor and of course 3 Democrats voted for Gorsuch.  So I will restate my sentence to "Almost all Democrats are going to disagree with whoever Trump nominates" 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 04, 2018, 10:00:17 AM
Reporting on the thoroughness of the FBI investigation. The theme appears to be that there were a lot of skipped interviews with people who had corroborating testimony.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-fbi-ignore-testimonies-from-kavanaughs-former-classmates

I don't think it is so much draining the swamp as just telling people that "there is no swamp." Four lights!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 04, 2018, 10:11:13 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 04, 2018, 10:17:45 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

How is this "relevant info"?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2018, 10:27:24 AM
I don't understand how paying either party money helps anything, but have to echo JLee here . . . how is that relevant to anything?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: 2Birds1Stone on October 04, 2018, 11:22:37 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Thank you, I did my part to help his family.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 04, 2018, 11:38:30 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Thank you, I did my part to help his family.

Middle and lower income Americans donating to help unmustachian Brett fucking Kavanaugh's Nationals box seat and beer fund is peak 2018. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Fireball on October 04, 2018, 11:49:52 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Thank you, I did my part to help his family.

Middle and lower income Americans donating to help unmustachian Brett fucking Kavanaugh's Nationals box seat and beer fund is peak 2018.

"What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit." 

Yes, by all means let's give $600,000 to help cover those pesky country club fees.


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on October 04, 2018, 11:51:50 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Thank you, I did my part to help his family.

Middle and lower income Americans donating to help unmustachian Brett fucking Kavanaugh's Nationals box seat and beer fund is peak 2018.

"What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit." 

Yes, by all means let's give $600,000 to help cover those pesky country club fees.

Or a much needed trip to Hawaii because of all the stress he has gone thru...LOL!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 04, 2018, 11:58:49 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Thank you, I did my part to help his family.

Middle and lower income Americans donating to help unmustachian Brett fucking Kavanaugh's Nationals box seat and beer fund is peak 2018.

"What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit." 

Yes, by all means let's give $600,000 to help cover those pesky country club fees.

Trump unearthed a population of gullible Americans who love to give their limited funds (and votes) away to those who already have more money and power than they could ever dream of.  Brett doesn't need your money. He's already squandering his ample paycheck on the kind of bullshit you'd face punch him for if he showed up around here.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: cats on October 04, 2018, 12:24:06 PM
I’d rather they give the money to Kavanaugh than the re-election campaigns of anyone voting for him!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 04, 2018, 12:55:11 PM
My previous predictions still stand; I think republicans will hold together and confirm Kavanaugh with a 51 seat majority, effectively telling Christine Ford and survivors across the country that coming forward with their stories is pointless.  We will officially retire the #metoo hashtag as having run its course, and return to the status quo where sexual assault typically goes unreported and unpunished.  Abusers will continue to rise to positions of power and influence.

And the ongoing escalation in the partisan warfare over judicial nominees will continue to escalate.  Mitch McConnell certainly took it to new heights, and democrats would be dumb to not follow suit.  From this point forward, I expect that no judges will get appointed to any benches without one party controlling both the presidency and the senate.  For periods of two to six years between elections that might produce that result, when the presidency and the senate are split, no judges will be appointed and we'll have hundreds or thousands of vacancies on federal courts as people continue to retire.  Case backlogs will grow to crazy lengths, trials will have to be delayed, and defendants will sit in jail for months or years waiting for their turn.  Then one election will restore single-party control, and they'll have a pre-approved list of a thousand judges that will all get approved all at once on day one, regardless of qualifications, over the outcries of the other party.  Advise and consent is done.  From here on out, I think the entire federal judiciary from the supreme court on down is just an arm of one political party or the other, depending on which party has most recently had control and stacked the deck with partisan hacks.

American jurisprudence at its finest, friends.  Try to stay out of trouble.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 04, 2018, 12:57:08 PM
My previous predictions still stand; I think republicans will hold together and confirm Kavanaugh with a 51 seat majority, effectively telling Christine Ford and survivors across the country that coming forward with their stories is pointless.  We will officially retire the #metoo hashtag as having run its course, and return to the status quo where sexual assault typically goes unreported and unpunished.  Abusers will continue to rise to positions of power and influence.

And the ongoing escalation in the partisan warfare over judicial nominees will continue to escalate.  Mitch McConnell certainly took it to new heights, and democrats would be dumb to not follow suit.  From this point forward, I expect that no judges will get appointed to any benches without one party controlling both the presidency and the senate.  For periods of two to six years between elections that might produce that result, when the presidency and the senate are split, no judges will be appointed and we'll have hundreds or thousands of vacancies on federal courts as people continue to retire.  Case backlogs will grow to crazy lengths, trials will have to be delayed, and defendants will sit in jail for months or years waiting for their turn.  Then one election will restore single-party control, and they'll have a pre-approved list of a thousand judges that will all get approved all at once on day one, regardless of qualifications, over the outcries of the other party.  Advise and consent is done.  From here on out, I think the entire federal judiciary from the supreme court on down is just an arm of one political party or the other, depending on which party has most recently had control and stacked the deck with partisan hacks.

American jurisprudence at its finest, friends.  Try to stay out of trouble.

I feel like I'm living in the bad reality inside one of those split-reality movies/television series.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: 2Birds1Stone on October 04, 2018, 01:21:35 PM
My previous predictions still stand; I think republicans will hold together and confirm Kavanaugh with a 51 seat majority, effectively telling Christine Ford and survivors across the country that coming forward with their stories is pointless.  We will officially retire the #metoo hashtag as having run its course, and return to the status quo where sexual assault typically goes unreported and unpunished.  Abusers will continue to rise to positions of power and influence.

And the ongoing escalation in the partisan warfare over judicial nominees will continue to escalate.  Mitch McConnell certainly took it to new heights, and democrats would be dumb to not follow suit.  From this point forward, I expect that no judges will get appointed to any benches without one party controlling both the presidency and the senate.  For periods of two to six years between elections that might produce that result, when the presidency and the senate are split, no judges will be appointed and we'll have hundreds or thousands of vacancies on federal courts as people continue to retire.  Case backlogs will grow to crazy lengths, trials will have to be delayed, and defendants will sit in jail for months or years waiting for their turn.  Then one election will restore single-party control, and they'll have a pre-approved list of a thousand judges that will all get approved all at once on day one, regardless of qualifications, over the outcries of the other party.  Advise and consent is done.  From here on out, I think the entire federal judiciary from the supreme court on down is just an arm of one political party or the other, depending on which party has most recently had control and stacked the deck with partisan hacks.

American jurisprudence at its finest, friends.  Try to stay out of trouble.
I never did understand why so many folks want to get pounded too.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2018, 01:29:58 PM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Thank you, I did my part to help his family.

Middle and lower income Americans donating to help unmustachian Brett fucking Kavanaugh's Nationals box seat and beer fund is peak 2018.

"What I'd like to do is raise money for Brett Kavanaugh's family to use for security or however they see fit." 

Yes, by all means let's give $600,000 to help cover those pesky country club fees.

Or a much needed trip to Hawaii because of all the stress he has gone thru...LOL!

If the FBI investigation comes back and it turns out that Kavenaugh sexually assaulted all of the women . . . do you get your money back?  Or at least a 'PROUD to support A SEX OFFENDER' bumper sticker?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: 2Birds1Stone on October 04, 2018, 01:31:03 PM
Hope no one thought I was serious lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 04, 2018, 01:36:36 PM
Hope no one thought I was serious lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I thought you were serious.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Bateaux on October 04, 2018, 01:38:58 PM
I'm just glad I'm a white male with a big ass stash right now.  This country is about to get very rough for those who are not.  These are very scary times.  It reeks of 1930s Germany.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on October 04, 2018, 01:54:13 PM
I'm just glad I'm a white male with a big ass stash right now.  This country is about to get very rough for those who are not.  These are very scary times.  It reeks of 1930s Germany.

I finally met one of my neighbors one block over, one of the few houses to sport a Trump sign in 2016 in our area which is normally an 80%+ Republican voting area. I couldn't get out of that conversation fast enough once he started telling me about how he got himself the "best Jew doctor" for a surgery he needed a while back. Now I know there's going to be someone who says that's not necessarily derogatory, but I mean come on. I wish I could say he was 90 something but I'd say probably closer to 50-ish.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malaysia41 on October 04, 2018, 01:56:22 PM
I'm just glad I'm a white male with a big ass stash right now.  This country is about to get very rough for those who are not.  These are very scary times.  It reeks of 1930s Germany.

I finally met one of my neighbors one block over, one of the few houses to sport a Trump sign in 2016 in our area which is normally an 80%+ Republican voting area. I couldn't get out of that conversation fast enough once he started telling me about how he got himself the "best Jew doctor" for a surgery he needed a while back. Now I know there's going to be someone who says that's not necessarily derogatory, but I mean come on. I wish I could say he was 90 something but I'd say probably closer to 50-ish.

What did you say in response? I hope you called him out.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 04, 2018, 01:57:13 PM
My previous predictions still stand; I think republicans will hold together and confirm Kavanaugh with a 51 seat majority, effectively telling Christine Ford and survivors across the country that coming forward with their stories is pointless.  We will officially retire the #metoo hashtag as having run its course, and return to the status quo where sexual assault typically goes unreported and unpunished.  Abusers will continue to rise to positions of power and influence.

And the ongoing escalation in the partisan warfare over judicial nominees will continue to escalate.  Mitch McConnell certainly took it to new heights, and democrats would be dumb to not follow suit.  From this point forward, I expect that no judges will get appointed to any benches without one party controlling both the presidency and the senate.  For periods of two to six years between elections that might produce that result, when the presidency and the senate are split, no judges will be appointed and we'll have hundreds or thousands of vacancies on federal courts as people continue to retire.  Case backlogs will grow to crazy lengths, trials will have to be delayed, and defendants will sit in jail for months or years waiting for their turn.  Then one election will restore single-party control, and they'll have a pre-approved list of a thousand judges that will all get approved all at once on day one, regardless of qualifications, over the outcries of the other party.  Advise and consent is done.  From here on out, I think the entire federal judiciary from the supreme court on down is just an arm of one political party or the other, depending on which party has most recently had control and stacked the deck with partisan hacks.

American jurisprudence at its finest, friends.  Try to stay out of trouble.

You forgot: the next party to control multiple branches will expand the supreme court to be able to place more of their nominees.  It's size is not set by the constitution.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Bateaux on October 04, 2018, 02:08:46 PM
I'm just glad I'm a white male with a big ass stash right now.  This country is about to get very rough for those who are not.  These are very scary times.  It reeks of 1930s Germany.

We will continue to fight for all and not just the privileged.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 04, 2018, 02:10:08 PM
My previous predictions still stand; I think republicans will hold together and confirm Kavanaugh with a 51 seat majority, effectively telling Christine Ford and survivors across the country that coming forward with their stories is pointless.  We will officially retire the #metoo hashtag as having run its course, and return to the status quo where sexual assault typically goes unreported and unpunished.  Abusers will continue to rise to positions of power and influence.

And the ongoing escalation in the partisan warfare over judicial nominees will continue to escalate.  Mitch McConnell certainly took it to new heights, and democrats would be dumb to not follow suit.  From this point forward, I expect that no judges will get appointed to any benches without one party controlling both the presidency and the senate.  For periods of two to six years between elections that might produce that result, when the presidency and the senate are split, no judges will be appointed and we'll have hundreds or thousands of vacancies on federal courts as people continue to retire.  Case backlogs will grow to crazy lengths, trials will have to be delayed, and defendants will sit in jail for months or years waiting for their turn.  Then one election will restore single-party control, and they'll have a pre-approved list of a thousand judges that will all get approved all at once on day one, regardless of qualifications, over the outcries of the other party.  Advise and consent is done.  From here on out, I think the entire federal judiciary from the supreme court on down is just an arm of one political party or the other, depending on which party has most recently had control and stacked the deck with partisan hacks.

American jurisprudence at its finest, friends.  Try to stay out of trouble.
I'm going to venture a different guess.  Murkowski votes against Kavanaugh.  All Democrats and all other Republicans vote in their bloc.  Pence makes the tie-breaking vote.  End result is the same, but I think we end up there a different way.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 04, 2018, 02:46:56 PM
This is another reminder that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath about what he meant by 1. Renate Alumnus and 2. Devil's Triangle.  For those who find his drinking history irrelevant, this is a reminder that you still don't get to lie under oath just because you don't like the questions.  Something Brett made his name on when he helped Ken Starr go after Bill Clinton, eventually landing on his affair with Monica Lewinksy during an investigation of Arkansas real estate transactions. 

If you support Brett Kavanaugh, you are fully OK with lying under oath.  Unless you have some kind of convincing explanation as to why Brett Kavanaugh was a church-going, service-minded, sensitive-stomached, nice young man who never drank but bragged about a drinking game that the rest of the world understood to be a sexual practice.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 04, 2018, 03:02:17 PM
^^^ Yes.

Former SC Justice John Paul Stephens says Kavanaugh's behavior at the hearings was disqualifying. He withdraws his support.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/800007/former-supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-says-kavanaughs-performance-during-hearings-disqualifying
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: aaahhrealmarcus on October 04, 2018, 03:15:49 PM
My previous predictions still stand; I think republicans will hold together and confirm Kavanaugh with a 51 seat majority, effectively telling Christine Ford and survivors across the country that coming forward with their stories is pointless.  We will officially retire the #metoo hashtag as having run its course, and return to the status quo where sexual assault typically goes unreported and unpunished.  Abusers will continue to rise to positions of power and influence.

That was always going to happen. This is all just academic. Nothing could have ever made them vote against Kavanaugh. Literally nothing.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 04, 2018, 03:23:35 PM
^^^ Yes.

Former SC Justice John Paul Stephens says Kavanaugh's behavior at the hearings was disqualifying. He withdraws his support.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/800007/former-supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-says-kavanaughs-performance-during-hearings-disqualifying

I wish it mattered.  I wish any of it mattered.

Democratic senators like Booker are pushing back against the republican talking point that the FBI report exonerates Kavanaugh.  He says it was too limited to either corroborate or refute the allegations, but at least confirms that Ford's story is consistent with known facts.  And that there are a number of things in the report that suggest Kavanaugh has been lying to the Senate.  Remember that Jeff Flake and Donald Trump both said that lying to the Senate would be disqualifying, and yet here we are forging ahead with the confirmation anyway.

McConnell pushed this same strategy with tax reform (successfully) and with health care reform (unsuccessfully).  Rather than work out a back room deal to get everyone on board, which is the usual strategy in closely contested decisions, he's just going to dare his fellow republicans to oppose him by forcing the vote as-is.  They only failed on healthcare because John McCain was staring death in the face and decided to do what he thought was right. 

I'm pretty sure Flake will fold, because he always does.  Murkowski and Collins might try to make a stand of it, but Mitch will whip them back into line.  At best, the two of them will work out a deal where one gets to oppose on principal as long as the other one caves and "saves" the confirmation, allowing the no-voter to appear sympathetic to sexual assault victims while simultaneously promoting a sexual assault perpetrator. 

I have no optimism left.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 04, 2018, 03:30:10 PM
^^^ Yes.

Former SC Justice John Paul Stephens says Kavanaugh's behavior at the hearings was disqualifying. He withdraws his support.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/800007/former-supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-says-kavanaughs-performance-during-hearings-disqualifying

I wish it mattered.  I wish any of it mattered.

Democratic senators like Booker are pushing back against the republican talking point that the FBI report exonerates Kavanaugh.  He says it was too limited to either corroborate or refute the allegations, but at least confirms that Ford's story is consistent with known facts.  And that there are a number of things in the report that suggest Kavanaugh has been lying to the Senate.  Remember that Jeff Flake and Donald Trump both said that lying to the Senate would be disqualifying, and yet here we are forging ahead with the confirmation anyway.

McConnell pushed this same strategy with tax reform (successfully) and with health care reform (unsuccessfully).  Rather than work out a back room deal to get everyone on board, which is the usual strategy in closely contested decisions, he's just going to dare his fellow republicans to oppose him by forcing the vote as-is.  They only failed on healthcare because John McCain was staring death in the face and decided to do what he thought was right. 

I'm pretty sure Flake will fold, because he always does.  Murkowski and Collins might try to make a stand of it, but Mitch will whip them back into line.  At best, the two of them will work out a deal where one gets to oppose on principal as long as the other one caves and "saves" the confirmation, allowing the no-voter to appear sympathetic to sexual assault victims while simultaneously promoting a sexual assault perpetrator. 

I have no optimism left.

Flake and Collins have both already said they're satisfied with the FBI's report. They'll vote for him. There's no moral compass left in the GOP at all.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 04, 2018, 04:17:09 PM
Kinda makes me feel democracy is a bit of a farce at this point, isn't it? I live in North Carolina, and I feel our politics have been taken hostage.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: asiljoy on October 04, 2018, 04:42:11 PM
Kinda makes me feel democracy is a bit of a farce at this point, isn't it? I live in North Carolina, and I feel our politics have been taken hostage.
It's discouraging and frustrating. We're at the end of a 30-year power grab strategy.  It isn't the first and won't be the last.

If you're feeling overwhelmed and down, stop watching the dumpster fire that is national news and get involved locally. Go to your city council meetings, school board meetings etc, volunteer where you can. Vote and get your friends to vote. There's good that can be done.

And I disagree with the idea that this has all been a wasted effort by Ford. Her testimony was inspiring. The number of toolkits I've seen published, the discussions etc on sites other than here has been fantastic in terms of what men/women can do when they find themselves in bad situations, what recourse they have, how they don't 'owe' anyone anything, even phrasing for how to say 'No'...  Like I'm from Nowhere, USA and that kind of toolkit was def not available to me and we definitely didn't discuss any of that as kids. It's great they're doing it now and it will have a lasting impact.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Bateaux on October 04, 2018, 05:02:29 PM
I'm just going to build my stash pile bigger and bigger.   FIRE may be put on hold for a while.   Things could get very expensive going forward and I'm not feeling the confidence to put away the cash FIRE hose yet.  We can lose so many things if they hold the court, House, Senate and Whitehouse.   We could lose Social Security and Medicare.  You'd better have a damn good plan B.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: electriceagle on October 04, 2018, 06:16:52 PM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

The first gofundme shows that people have donated $536,000
The second gofundme shows that people have donated $594,000

This is the worst episode of the twilight zone ever.

I'm going to venture a different guess.  Murkowski votes against Kavanaugh.  All Democrats and all other Republicans vote in their bloc.  Pence makes the tie-breaking vote.  End result is the same, but I think we end up there a different way.

What for? Flake is the only one who has nothing to lose, since he is retiring. The other two are keeping their seats and will need to ask favors from the Republican leadership from time to time.

The three of them are perfectly capable of talking to each other and determining among themselves which way the wind is going to blow. They're also perfectly capable of telling the Republican leadership their plans to avoid an embarrassing failed vote and the stronger retribution that would come with it. Either the vote is canceled at the last minute, they vote "yes" as a bloc, or only Flake votes no (nothing to lose, Pence breaks the tie).

I could be wrong if either Collins or Murkowski sees more benefit in potentially gaining home-state Democratic voters than the loss from potentially weathering a re-election challenge from the right.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 04, 2018, 06:27:45 PM
So... Kavanaugh has penned an editorial for the Wall Street Journal effectively on the eve of his vote.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an-independent-impartial-judge-1538695822

Quote
Against that backdrop, I testified before the Judiciary Committee last Thursday to defend my family, my good name and my lifetime of public service. My hearing testimony was forceful and passionate. That is because I forcefully and passionately denied the allegation against me. At times, my testimony—both in my opening statement and in response to questions—reflected my overwhelming frustration at being wrongly accused, without corroboration, of horrible conduct completely contrary to my record and character. My statement and answers also reflected my deep distress at the unfairness of how this allegation has been handled.

I was very emotional last Thursday, more so than I have ever been. I might have been too emotional at times. I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said. I hope everyone can understand that I was there as a son, husband and dad. I testified with five people foremost in my mind: my mom, my dad, my wife, and most of all my daughters.

I think writing something like this to advocate for himself is unheard of in SCOTUS nominations that I am aware of. Granted, this process has been a bit off the rails relative to historic norms as well in many, many, many ways.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ministashy on October 04, 2018, 06:37:43 PM
For all those still debating about whether to believe Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh's other accusers, you might want to read this and mull it over:

http://chronolith.tumblr.com/post/178741746255/tbc-since-tumblrs-posting-methods-changed-linked (http://chronolith.tumblr.com/post/178741746255/tbc-since-tumblrs-posting-methods-changed-linked)

Brief synopsis--people in the past have offered up to 1 MILLION DOLLARS for anyone to come forward with an accusation of rape/sexual assault/having an affair against a politician ... and the only takers were 2 women, one who backed out before ever going through with it, and the other whose accusations were admitted as true by the politician she accused.

Let that sink in.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Lovelywings on October 04, 2018, 08:02:14 PM
Men who want to be allies?
Stop engaging.
Please.
It’s NOT HELPING.

I have difficultly letting counterfactual attacks be used to cause people offense, without speaking up.  Would you prefer the entire world just let the red pill people do their own thing as loudly and publicly as they want to?  From my perspective, arguing with anisotropy about this is like being a counterprotestor at a white supremacy rally.  Man or woman doesn't matter, someone needs to stand up and say "this is not okay." 

But not everyone.  For anyone who is uncomfortable with this topic, by all means please protect yourselves by limiting your exposure to ugly content. 

In fact, for struggling survivors of sexual assault, I recommend you just totally avoid national news for at least the next week.  Shit's about to go down.

Sol, for what it's worth, I applaud you for this. We may not agree on the way I formulated the case or that what I presented are counterfactual, but your behavior is admirable.

You know what, just to settle this, I will reach out to experts in this field, whether that be Statistics or Sexual violence. Give me sometime, if I am wrong I will surely apologize to you and everyone else. Thanks.

Sol, I hear that you are doing what you can to try to address a huge issue, and at the same time, as a woman, what you say here does not feel like allyship at all. Your arguments upthread did, but this does not.

Please listen to this. I realize it sucks, as you are very actively trying to be an ally. I would not have sleuthed through my email trying to find one of my old logins if I did not respect your opinions and your intentions. I even occasionally chose to engage a troll or two to test my communication skills, if I've got the bandwidth and the time. I understand the temptation, and there can be a time and place for it - you often hit that line, and I appreciate your voice. Up until this last post I even felt you were mostly pretty solidly doing awesome.

Women don't get to chose to walk away from what is happening with Kavenaugh. We live it, every day of our lives. We also live the experience of being told to go away in online contexts. I know it is not your intention, and at the same time what I felt when I read your comment, and the thread that came before it, was the following:

1) almost all of the outspoken women dropped out of the conversation several pages ago. This was not a coincidence.
2) The statistics debate is a deliberate derail and consists of a couple red pill bros deliberately reframing the debate to silence it. I wish that the ally men had enough experience with what it is like to be a woman on the internet to see that.
3) YAY! several women directly called it out, now the smart/not awful men will stop feeding it!
4) HOLY FUCK one of the more well spoken non-awful men just accidentally told us women to get off the internet and leave it for the boys to argue so he can argue and rescue all us damsels in distress from the feels and the bad math monsters of the deep, and he has no idea what he just said/implied/tapped into/added to our fuck this shit 2018 overwhelm.

I stopped reading the statistics pages ago, but was increasingly upset by how many allies were letting the derail happen. Your response to being asked to stop feels worse then the red pill nonsense that crept in here, because it comes from someone who is generally worth respecting. #listentowomen. We're trying to tell you something you need to hear - stop engaging with the math, in this place, in this time. There will be another time, probably in this thread, where your voice will be welcome, and supportive. The stats are no longer it. And when women tell you to stop, stop.

Pretty much this. This whole thread makes me reconsider mutachianism if the red pillers are indeed long standing members of this community.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2018, 05:36:21 AM
For all those still debating about whether to believe Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh's other accusers, you might want to read this and mull it over:

http://chronolith.tumblr.com/post/178741746255/tbc-since-tumblrs-posting-methods-changed-linked (http://chronolith.tumblr.com/post/178741746255/tbc-since-tumblrs-posting-methods-changed-linked)

Brief synopsis--people in the past have offered up to 1 MILLION DOLLARS for anyone to come forward with an accusation of rape/sexual assault/having an affair against a politician ... and the only takers were 2 women, one who backed out before ever going through with it, and the other whose accusations were admitted as true by the politician she accused.

Let that sink in.

It doesn't matter. The GOP will stop at nothing to push their agenda. Sexual assault did not stand in the way of electing Trump and it most certainly won't stand in the way of confirming Kavanaugh. When they can't deny it happened it's just "locker room talk" or "horseplay."  Or you know it happened so long ago so who cares. The women will be mocked (see Trump's latest shitty rant about Ford), scolded as liars and the men will be put into higher positions of power. It's truly sad to see how the party has literally de-evolved.

The only thing we can do is vote these despicable assholes out of office and show the people who continue to support them that their misogyny has no place in today's society. I don't know if it will happen, but I know I am going to do my part.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 05, 2018, 06:19:02 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

The first gofundme shows that people have donated $536,000
The second gofundme shows that people have donated $594,000

This is the worst episode of the twilight zone ever.

I'm going to venture a different guess.  Murkowski votes against Kavanaugh.  All Democrats and all other Republicans vote in their bloc.  Pence makes the tie-breaking vote.  End result is the same, but I think we end up there a different way.

What for? Flake is the only one who has nothing to lose, since he is retiring. The other two are keeping their seats and will need to ask favors from the Republican leadership from time to time.

The three of them are perfectly capable of talking to each other and determining among themselves which way the wind is going to blow. They're also perfectly capable of telling the Republican leadership their plans to avoid an embarrassing failed vote and the stronger retribution that would come with it. Either the vote is canceled at the last minute, they vote "yes" as a bloc, or only Flake votes no (nothing to lose, Pence breaks the tie).

I could be wrong if either Collins or Murkowski sees more benefit in potentially gaining home-state Democratic voters than the loss from potentially weathering a re-election challenge from the right.
My thought was that Murkowski is a small state incumbent, which helps independence a lot.  She has superior name recognition and (in Alaska) cross aisle appeal, represented by her successful write-in campaign a few years back.  However, I will revise my opinion, now that Kavanaugh has written an "I'm sorry" Op-Ed and given cover along with the FBI "Investigation".
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on October 05, 2018, 06:57:33 AM
It is sickening watching these opinionated old geezers brush off Kavanaugh's past. They are from another time when women were barefoot and pregnant. Melania said it is 'boy talk' when it came to the filth that came out of her husbands mouth. Like it is okay to broadcast sexual exploits and laugh about it ast someones expense.

Grassley, Feinstein are 85 years old, Orin Hatch 84 years old. McConnell is 76 years old. Why don't these people step down and hand over the reigns to some young blood. Also, let us start rewarding people for doing the right thing. Not rewarding them for the evil, underhanded crap they pull.

Why are people supporting Trump when he says degrading, hurtful things and nicknames to belittle everyone around him. He is not funny. Our country is going to hell with this ugliness.

I have nothing against geezers because I am headed that way too but I am retired. I respect older people for their opinions but there is a time when they need to go.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner on October 05, 2018, 07:00:37 AM
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Punching_Back20181004122524.jpg)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 05, 2018, 07:01:47 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

The first gofundme shows that people have donated $536,000
The second gofundme shows that people have donated $594,000

This is the worst episode of the twilight zone ever.

I'm going to venture a different guess.  Murkowski votes against Kavanaugh.  All Democrats and all other Republicans vote in their bloc.  Pence makes the tie-breaking vote.  End result is the same, but I think we end up there a different way.

What for? Flake is the only one who has nothing to lose, since he is retiring. The other two are keeping their seats and will need to ask favors from the Republican leadership from time to time.

The three of them are perfectly capable of talking to each other and determining among themselves which way the wind is going to blow. They're also perfectly capable of telling the Republican leadership their plans to avoid an embarrassing failed vote and the stronger retribution that would come with it. Either the vote is canceled at the last minute, they vote "yes" as a bloc, or only Flake votes no (nothing to lose, Pence breaks the tie).

I could be wrong if either Collins or Murkowski sees more benefit in potentially gaining home-state Democratic voters than the loss from potentially weathering a re-election challenge from the right.
My thought was that Murkowski is a small state incumbent, which helps independence a lot.  She has superior name recognition and (in Alaska) cross aisle appeal, represented by her successful write-in campaign a few years back.  However, I will revise my opinion, now that Kavanaugh has written an "I'm sorry" Op-Ed and given cover along with the FBI "Investigation".

Having grown up in an abusive household it feels very much like a "I'm sorry you made me hit you" type of non-apology. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 05, 2018, 07:16:59 AM
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Punching_Back20181004122524.jpg)

Am I weird that one of the thing that bugs me most about this cartoon that the dude doesn't even look like Kavanaugh?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2018, 07:21:07 AM
I'm confused, it's partisan to discuss Kavenaugh's past?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 05, 2018, 07:25:50 AM
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Punching_Back20181004122524.jpg)
The fact that you and others see wanting to investigate credible accusations of sexual misconduct as a partisan attack seems to be a big part of the problem here.  The right thing to do doesn't change just because it happens to benefit the other party.  But conservatives just assume that liberals are only doing this because it benefits them in order to give themselves an excuse to go all in on partisanship, even going so far as to have their Supreme Court nominee go off the rails with some conspiracy theory rant in front of the Senate and the entire country.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 05, 2018, 07:28:22 AM
Relevant info

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

The first gofundme shows that people have donated $536,000
The second gofundme shows that people have donated $594,000

This is the worst episode of the twilight zone ever.

I'm going to venture a different guess.  Murkowski votes against Kavanaugh.  All Democrats and all other Republicans vote in their bloc.  Pence makes the tie-breaking vote.  End result is the same, but I think we end up there a different way.

What for? Flake is the only one who has nothing to lose, since he is retiring. The other two are keeping their seats and will need to ask favors from the Republican leadership from time to time.

The three of them are perfectly capable of talking to each other and determining among themselves which way the wind is going to blow. They're also perfectly capable of telling the Republican leadership their plans to avoid an embarrassing failed vote and the stronger retribution that would come with it. Either the vote is canceled at the last minute, they vote "yes" as a bloc, or only Flake votes no (nothing to lose, Pence breaks the tie).

I could be wrong if either Collins or Murkowski sees more benefit in potentially gaining home-state Democratic voters than the loss from potentially weathering a re-election challenge from the right.
My thought was that Murkowski is a small state incumbent, which helps independence a lot.  She has superior name recognition and (in Alaska) cross aisle appeal, represented by her successful write-in campaign a few years back.  However, I will revise my opinion, now that Kavanaugh has written an "I'm sorry" Op-Ed and given cover along with the FBI "Investigation".

Having grown up in an abusive household it feels very much like a "I'm sorry you made me hit you" type of non-apology.
I totally agree, but they only need the tiniest amount of cover to point to.  They're getting what they want by voting for him. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 05, 2018, 08:06:32 AM
Not my country, so sad to be watching this.  But if we are going into editorial cartoons, here is one from your neighbours.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 05, 2018, 08:16:32 AM
Not my country, so sad to be watching this.  But if we are going into editorial cartoons, here is one from your neighbours.

Very interesting to see this version of this cartoon. I don't know what the original version is (this or another) but the version I saw was posted by a Libertarian, and there were difference symbols on each sleeve - one for Republicans and one for Democrats. (I do think this one makes more sense, though.)

This is the original version.

Leave it to the libertarians to make everything about them.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2018, 08:18:09 AM
Not my country, so sad to be watching this.  But if we are going into editorial cartoons, here is one from your neighbours.

Very interesting to see this version of this cartoon. I don't know what the original version is (this or another) but the version I saw was posted by a Libertarian, and there were difference symbols on each sleeve - one for Republicans and one for Democrats. (I do think this one makes more sense, though.)

This is the original version.

Leave it to the libertarians to make everything about them.

It's consistent at least . . . libertarians have never been big on copyright.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malaysia41 on October 05, 2018, 08:18:28 AM
It blows my mind that people here are focusing on the GOP v DNC team sport aspect of this nomination. I expect better of mustachians.

How can anyone have watched Kavanaugh's full testimony and think he's fit for the supreme court?

Based on his testimony and his testimony alone, he failed to demonstrate impartiality, temperament, staid consideration, cool-headedness, and judgement.

Try this: imagine a young liberal federal judge - a 2018 version of a young Ruth Bader Ginsburg - giving the following testimony in a spiteful rage.

Quote
"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president Obama and the 2012 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Bushes and millions of dollars in money from right-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque, character assassination will dissuade confident and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country and as we all know in the political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around."

Would you want someone giving this testimony on the Supreme court? I can tell you without a doubt I would not.

That was Kavanaugh's testimony, word for word, where only bolded words have been changed.

How could this judge be impartial in any way toward citizens who are registered republican (as I was for 20 years)?

Then you add on to that all of the obvious lies under sworn testimony. What the fuck people? Get off this hyper-partisan merry-go-round and take a good look. We have two privately funded parties. And they are taking political bullshit to way outside the bounds of what any of us should be tolerating. Some more than others. Stop tolerating it. Demand better. Stop getting sucked into the 'my team' 'your team' bullshit aspect of it. This is our country. Fellow citizens lives will be affected by this nomination. And if bile-spitting Kavanaugh is put on the Supreme court, God help them.

And then you add in all the character testimonies by people who know him - including multiple women who report he sexually assaulted him and come on.

REALLY? You're going to post these pro-GOP political cartoons? FFS, I think you need to look yourself in the mirror and consider the standards we ought to hold our elected officials to. Especially those who are given lifetime appointments.

Even if you still consider yourself 'team GOP', surely you can see why this candidate is unfit for the supreme court. If you can't, well, it's beyond me how you get to that conclusion.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 05, 2018, 09:34:22 AM
Murkowski showed integrity.  I had just said I doubted she would.  Glad to be wrong.  I still think it won't matter.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2018, 09:46:15 AM
Murkowski showed integrity.  I had just said I doubted she would.  Glad to be wrong.  I still think it won't matter.

What are you commenting on?  Her vote against advancing his nomination to a full Senate vote?  That little tidbit mostly went under the radar, because Manchin (a democrat) voted to advance it, and so I think most people just assumed the reported 51-49 vote went along party lines.

I'm still unconvinced Murkowski will vote against him on the senate floor.  From where I'm sitting it seems obvious that five or six republican senators would vote against him given recent events, but I routinely underestimate the strength of Mitch McConnell's arm twisting.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: thd7t on October 05, 2018, 09:51:59 AM
Murkowski showed integrity.  I had just said I doubted she would.  Glad to be wrong.  I still think it won't matter.

What are you commenting on?  Her vote against advancing his nomination to a full Senate vote?  That little tidbit mostly went under the radar, because Manchin (a democrat) voted to advance it, and so I think most people just assumed the reported 51-49 vote went along party lines.

I'm still unconvinced Murkowski will vote against him on the senate floor.  From where I'm sitting it seems obvious that five or six republican senators would vote against him given recent events, but I routinely underestimate the strength of Mitch McConnell's arm twisting.
I was referencing her vote against advancing his nomination.  I do think she'll hold out and it won't matter.  She has four years after this before her next election and if she gets primaried, it'll seem like ancient history.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 05, 2018, 10:00:59 AM
Not my country, so sad to be watching this.  But if we are going into editorial cartoons, here is one from your neighbours.

Very interesting to see this version of this cartoon. I don't know what the original version is (this or another) but the version I saw was posted by a Libertarian, and there were difference symbols on each sleeve - one for Republicans and one for Democrats. (I do think this one makes more sense, though.)

This is the original version.

Leave it to the libertarians to make everything about them.

It's consistent at least . . . libertarians have never been big on copyright.

I got it from the cartoonist 's twitter account, it was the original.                          Americans don't respect copyright in other countries?  Libertarians don't respect copyright in other countries?  It is not like it was a random GIF.


We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2018, 10:06:01 AM
I do think she'll hold out and it won't matter.

Yea, it looks like even if Murkowski holds to her no vote, it won't matter.  Jeff Flake appears to have folded, like always, and is almost certainly a yes.  That means both Collins AND Manchin would have to vote no to sink it.  I expect Manchin to ultimately vote no, but Collins to vote yes.

Which will be hugely hypocritical of her, since she was the deciding vote that got Al Franken expelled from the Senate for lesser crimes.  She called the allegations against him "credible, disgusting, and appalling" and called for his resignation.  I guess she's become a lot more accepting of sexual assault in the past 12 months?

I got it from the cartoonist 's twitter account, it was the original.

I thought it was a powerful image.  Many people are kind of wishy washy on sexual assault until they actually see what it looks like.  The political undertones are relevant, but probably not the most important part.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 05, 2018, 10:09:16 AM
"say no to mob rule"
-the leader of the mob

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/05/654552328/senate-to-take-decisive-vote-on-kavanaugh-amid-protest-from-democrats
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 10:33:38 AM
(https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Punching_Back20181004122524.jpg)

Utter bullshit. Republicans have been waging scorched-earth total war for my entire politically-aware lifetime.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 05, 2018, 10:40:02 AM


Yea, it looks like even if Murkowski holds to her no vote, it won't matter.  Jeff Flake appears to have folded, like always, and is almost certainly a yes.  That means both Collins AND Manchin would have to vote no to sink it.  I expect Manchin to ultimately vote no, but Collins to vote yes.

Which will be hugely hypocritical of her, since she was the deciding vote that got Al Franken expelled from the Senate for lesser crimes.
Enormous difference in level of evidence.
(https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.talkmedianews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2FFranken1.jpg&sp=01e6aede832ccb6896f3af3a8446766b)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2018, 10:45:19 AM
Enormous difference in level of evidence.

Just so we're clear, that picture doesn't show sexual assault.  It shows him posing for a demeaning and sexually humiliating joke, but he's not touching her.

He also profusely apologized, saying that in the culture of the time he thought sexist jokes were funny.  Then he paid for his mistakes with his entire career, along his reputation and his credibility as an advocate for women.

Brett Kavanaugh did much worse.  With touching.  With his penis!  With violent force!  Not only is he not paying for it, we're promoting him to be nation's moral authority. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FIRE_Buckeye on October 05, 2018, 11:22:27 AM
This has been a fascinating topic to follow over the last month.
The fitness (or lacktherof) of Kavanaugh aside, it seems pretty clear that those so adamantly against him either haven't considered, or don't care about the alternative or the affect their furor has had on the political climate.

Alternative: Let's say Kavanaugh loses the vote tomorrow (unlikely, but possible). Then let's say Republicans remain in control of the Senate on Nov 7th (looking likely). We'll be left with an angry, vindictive President intent on punishing the left as well as an irate Senate majority. Trump will nominate the youngest, most far right candidate he can find, that the angry Republican senators will be more than happy to ram through.

Political climate: The process began with a moderately conservative nominee, and a disinterested republican base heading into the midterms. As things stand, we have now have a fired up republican base, along with a fired up conservative nominee who its safe to assume will be affected by his treatment throughout this process if he makes it onto the SC.

This is looking like a gross miscalculation by the left, and a poorly selected hill to die on so to speak.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 11:25:29 AM
We'll be left with an angry, vindictive President intent on punishing the left as well as an irate Senate majority.

So, worst case scenario, same as we have now, except the replacement nominee (possibly) won't be a rapist?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malaysia41 on October 05, 2018, 11:27:50 AM
This has been a fascinating topic to follow over the last month.
The fitness (or lacktherof) of Kavanaugh aside, it seems pretty clear that those so adamantly against him either haven't considered, or don't care about the alternative or the affect their furor has had on the political climate.

Alternative: Let's say Kavanaugh loses the vote tomorrow (unlikely, but possible). Then let's say Republicans remain in control of the Senate on Nov 7th (looking likely). We'll be left with an angry, vindictive President intent on punishing the left as well as an irate Senate majority. Trump will nominate the youngest, most far right candidate he can find, that the angry Republican senators will be more than happy to ram through.

Political climate: The process began with a moderately conservative nominee, and a disinterested republican base heading into the midterms. As things stand, we have now have a fired up republican base, along with a fired up conservative nominee who its safe to assume will be affected by his treatment throughout this process if he makes it onto the SC.

This is looking like a gross miscalculation by the left, and a poorly selected hill to die on so to speak.

are you suggesting appeasement?

We've seen where that leads.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 05, 2018, 11:34:01 AM
This has been a fascinating topic to follow over the last month.
The fitness (or lacktherof) of Kavanaugh aside, it seems pretty clear that those so adamantly against him either haven't considered, or don't care about the alternative or the affect their furor has had on the political climate.

Alternative: Let's say Kavanaugh loses the vote tomorrow (unlikely, but possible). Then let's say Republicans remain in control of the Senate on Nov 7th (looking likely). We'll be left with an angry, vindictive President intent on punishing the left as well as an irate Senate majority. Trump will nominate the youngest, most far right candidate he can find, that the angry Republican senators will be more than happy to ram through.

Political climate: The process began with a moderately conservative nominee, and a disinterested republican base heading into the midterms. As things stand, we have now have a fired up republican base, along with a fired up conservative nominee who its safe to assume will be affected by his treatment throughout this process if he makes it onto the SC.

This is looking like a gross miscalculation by the left, and a poorly selected hill to die on so to speak.
On what basis do you say that Kavanaugh is "moderately" conservative?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FIRE_Buckeye on October 05, 2018, 11:36:59 AM

So, worst case scenario, same as we have now, except the replacement nominee (possibly) won't be a rapist?
Cute, but no.
You'd end up with a much more conservative judge on the Supreme Court.

And "rapist"? Really?
If you're actually going to attach yourself to a cause that can disqualify this nominee, it'd probably be prudent to attach yourself to one that can actually be corroborated, like say perjury about his drinking habits. I know liberals aren't a fan of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but like it or not, it's still one of the core principals on which this country stands.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 11:41:18 AM
Kavanaugh is radically conservative, but more importantly for Trump he's strongly on the side of broad interpretation of executive powers. He'll rule that sitting presidents can't be indicted, he'll rule that presidents can pardon themselves, and he'll rule that presidential pardons protect against prosecution for state-level crimes. That's why he, specifically, was nominated by Trump. It's to protect Trump, his family, and everyone in his cabinet and Congress who will be implicated for treason when Mueller eventually releases his findings. That is, if Mueller is ever even allowed to release his findings. With former swing vote Kennedy gone, the hope left for the Supreme Court stopping this is Roberts, and even he is only the tiniest sliver of hope. It's looking very likely that no Republican will face any consequences whatsoever for their crimes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 05, 2018, 11:53:16 AM
Men who want to be allies?
Stop engaging.
Please.
It’s NOT HELPING.

I have difficultly letting counterfactual attacks be used to cause people offense, without speaking up.  Would you prefer the entire world just let the red pill people do their own thing as loudly and publicly as they want to?  From my perspective, arguing with anisotropy about this is like being a counterprotestor at a white supremacy rally.  Man or woman doesn't matter, someone needs to stand up and say "this is not okay." 

But not everyone.  For anyone who is uncomfortable with this topic, by all means please protect yourselves by limiting your exposure to ugly content. 

In fact, for struggling survivors of sexual assault, I recommend you just totally avoid national news for at least the next week.  Shit's about to go down.

Sol, for what it's worth, I applaud you for this. We may not agree on the way I formulated the case or that what I presented are counterfactual, but your behavior is admirable.

You know what, just to settle this, I will reach out to experts in this field, whether that be Statistics or Sexual violence. Give me sometime, if I am wrong I will surely apologize to you and everyone else. Thanks.

Sol, I hear that you are doing what you can to try to address a huge issue, and at the same time, as a woman, what you say here does not feel like allyship at all. Your arguments upthread did, but this does not.

Please listen to this. I realize it sucks, as you are very actively trying to be an ally. I would not have sleuthed through my email trying to find one of my old logins if I did not respect your opinions and your intentions. I even occasionally chose to engage a troll or two to test my communication skills, if I've got the bandwidth and the time. I understand the temptation, and there can be a time and place for it - you often hit that line, and I appreciate your voice. Up until this last post I even felt you were mostly pretty solidly doing awesome.

Women don't get to chose to walk away from what is happening with Kavenaugh. We live it, every day of our lives. We also live the experience of being told to go away in online contexts. I know it is not your intention, and at the same time what I felt when I read your comment, and the thread that came before it, was the following:

1) almost all of the outspoken women dropped out of the conversation several pages ago. This was not a coincidence.
2) The statistics debate is a deliberate derail and consists of a couple red pill bros deliberately reframing the debate to silence it. I wish that the ally men had enough experience with what it is like to be a woman on the internet to see that.
3) YAY! several women directly called it out, now the smart/not awful men will stop feeding it!
4) HOLY FUCK one of the more well spoken non-awful men just accidentally told us women to get off the internet and leave it for the boys to argue so he can argue and rescue all us damsels in distress from the feels and the bad math monsters of the deep, and he has no idea what he just said/implied/tapped into/added to our fuck this shit 2018 overwhelm.

I stopped reading the statistics pages ago, but was increasingly upset by how many allies were letting the derail happen. Your response to being asked to stop feels worse then the red pill nonsense that crept in here, because it comes from someone who is generally worth respecting. #listentowomen. We're trying to tell you something you need to hear - stop engaging with the math, in this place, in this time. There will be another time, probably in this thread, where your voice will be welcome, and supportive. The stats are no longer it. And when women tell you to stop, stop.

Pretty much this. This whole thread makes me reconsider mutachianism if the red pillers are indeed long standing members of this community.

I have updated the statistics thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/statistics-update/) for those interested, read the Prof’s comment, and if you so desire, we can continue the statistics related conversation there, as some here find it offensive. Bottom line, and I quote :“As far as I could see (from a quick glance), your calculations are correct (up to rounding error). You framed it fine. There is no logic trap.” “The 26% and 5% are conditional probabilities for two different events, and either one may (in general) be larger or smaller than the other. “

So no, I was not spewing “counterfactual attacks” or “derailing the conversation out of bad intention” or “red pill nonsense” as some members assert here. A genuine issue needed to be addressed, namely, most people think of the implied guilty rate of 2-10% false allegation in the wrong way.

I understand I have unpopular opinions here, in fact I have unpopular opinions EVERYWHERE, precisely because I don’t choose sides, I don’t let ideology dictate how things should be, I am only concerned with how things are.

You’ve heard of Galileo and Copernicus ya? What did they do? They were also accused of spreading lies and offensive/dangerous ideas by the dominating groups because it went against their dogma.

In this thread alone I have been called, both implicitly and explicitly, a “troll”, “like being at a white supremacy rally”, “red pill bro”, “awful”, because I presented logically, against dogma and prevailing notion, what 2-10% false allegation translates into when we consider if a person is guilty based on a single accusation.

I see these as serious accusations, and once again, it is amazing to see such serious accusations levelled, casually, not only without adducing a shred of supporting evidence, but also in the face of contrary evidence.

I have said MULTIPLE TIMES I oppose BK, that Dr. Ford is more believable, and with additional accusations the guilty likelihood would go much higher very quickly (70% given 2). How these made me a “red pill bro” still elude me.

I got lucky this time that my framing turned out to be correct and logical, but what if I were wrong, would that make me guilty of spewing “counterfactual attacks” or “derailing the conversation out of malice” or “red pill nonsense”?? No that would simply mean I made a logical error at the time. Did you notice how I began doubting my own conclusion and offered to reach out to experts? Is that something a troll would do?

Now let’s look at your actions throughout:
Oh you don’t agree with us? Here, let us just put these stickers on your forehead because we can’t possibly be wrong.

Some one said my calculation “give the other side credence” and “provided them with ammunition”. Let me ask you this, what is more important: winning by being wrong or simply being right? Are you like Trump?

How would you feel if I accused you of being trump supporters because you shared his idea that facts don’t matter as long as you get what you want?

And to those that condone and even encourage such behavior, aka the “allies”. Shame on you. Your behavior is no less shameful and despicable, for you have traded in reason and integrity for dogma and zealotry. If we don’t present the objective reality as is, reflexive virtue signaling ultimately dilutes the causes it purports to support.

Partisanship has no place when it comes to objective reality. It seems you have learned the wrong lessons from the likes of Trump. We are all entitled to our opinions, but we share ONE objective reality. What you are doing is effectively misrepresenting what the numbers tell us.

If this is the path you have chosen, then I am exactly where I belong: alone, between you and the objective reality you seek to dress up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2018, 11:55:12 AM
Let's say Kavanaugh loses the vote tomorrow (unlikely, but possible). Then let's say Republicans remain in control of the Senate on Nov 7th (looking likely). We'll be left with an angry, vindictive President intent on punishing the left as well as an irate Senate majority. Trump will nominate the youngest, most far right candidate he can find, that the angry Republican senators will be more than happy to ram through.

Oh no!  You mean he might nominate someone just like Bret Kavenaugh?  As far as I can tell, this is the youngest most far-right candidate that Trump could find . . . but we probably won't be talking about this because Republican senators are more than happy to ram him through.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Fireball on October 05, 2018, 12:11:12 PM
Political climate: The process began with a moderately conservative nominee, and a disinterested republican base heading into the midterms. As things stand, we have now have a fired up republican base, along with a fired up conservative nominee who its safe to assume will be affected by his treatment throughout this process if he makes it onto the SC.

This is looking like a gross miscalculation by the left, and a poorly selected hill to die on so to speak.

Meh. Midterms are a month away which is an eternity in this news cycle.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 05, 2018, 12:21:33 PM

So, worst case scenario, same as we have now, except the replacement nominee (possibly) won't be a rapist?
Cute, but no.
You'd end up with a much more conservative judge on the Supreme Court.

And "rapist"? Really?
If you're actually going to attach yourself to a cause that can disqualify this nominee, it'd probably be prudent to attach yourself to one that can actually be corroborated, like say perjury about his drinking habits. I know liberals aren't a fan of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but like it or not, it's still one of the core principals on which this country stands.

If you're rich and white (and male), yeah it sure is!

If you're not, nobody seems to give a shit.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 05, 2018, 12:39:24 PM
The innocent unless you are proven guilty, applies only to criminal trials. It does not apply to job applications or civil trials.

He was being asked additional follow up questions, under oath, to see whether he is fit for a position that is the highest in his profession, which demands good temperament, impartiality, and nuance. He blew it.

Regarding civil trials, It's preponderance of evidence. Although you say "no evidence", in both civil and criminal trials sworn statements of witnesses, conflicting testimony by the defense, and lying or refusing are all evidence that can be used to determine guilt or innocence. Regarding that, Kavanaugh also blew it.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 05, 2018, 12:50:52 PM
The innocent unless you are proven guilty, applies only to criminal trials. It does not apply to job applications or civil trials.

He was being asked additional follow up questions, under oath, to see whether he is fit for a position that is the highest in his profession, which demands good temperament, impartiality, and nuance. He blew it.

Regarding civil trials, It's preponderance of evidence. Although you say "no evidence", in both civil and criminal trials sworn statements of witnesses, conflicting testimony by the defense, and lying or refusing are all evidence that can be used to determine guilt or innocence. Regarding that, Kavanaugh also blew it.

YES.

Also, people are acting as if this is something that Kavanaugh has by right -- that if he doesn't get nominated, someone took something from him.  That is so very far from the truth...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2018, 12:54:51 PM
The innocent unless you are proven guilty, applies only to criminal trials. It does not apply to job applications or civil trials.

He was being asked additional follow up questions, under oath, to see whether he is fit for a position that is the highest in his profession, which demands good temperament, impartiality, and nuance. He blew it.

Regarding civil trials, It's preponderance of evidence. Although you say "no evidence", in both civil and criminal trials sworn statements of witnesses, conflicting testimony by the defense, and lying or refusing are all evidence that can be used to determine guilt or innocence. Regarding that, Kavanaugh also blew it.

YES.

Also, people are acting as if this is something that Kavanaugh has by right -- that if he doesn't get nominated, someone took something from him.  That is so very far from the truth...

Oddly enough though, these people who believe that Kavenaugh has the right to be a supreme court judge were fine with purely partisan blocking of the same 'right' for Garland.  Even though he didn't have a shady history of sexual assault, and was generally liked/well spoken of by the Republican party.  Fucking hypocrites.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: laserlady on October 05, 2018, 12:55:10 PM
The fact that you and others see wanting to investigate credible accusations of sexual misconduct as a partisan attack seems to be a big part of the problem here.  The right thing to do doesn't change just because it happens to benefit the other party.  But conservatives just assume that liberals are only doing this because it benefits them in order to give themselves an excuse to go all in on partisanship, even going so far as to have their Supreme Court nominee go off the rails with some conspiracy theory rant in front of the Senate and the entire country.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Please call them Republicans, not conservatives.  Not all conservatives have gone to crazy-town with the Republican party (for that matter, not all Republicans have gone crazy either, even though the party leadership has).  I know plenty of conservatives who are appalled at the devolution of the GOP, and I doubt I'm the only conservative who voted "nay" on this poll.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 05, 2018, 12:56:02 PM
Political climate: The process began with a moderately conservative nominee, and a disinterested republican base heading into the midterms. As things stand, we have now have a fired up republican base, along with a fired up conservative nominee who its safe to assume will be affected by his treatment throughout this process if he makes it onto the SC.

This is looking like a gross miscalculation by the left, and a poorly selected hill to die on so to speak.

Meh. Midterms are a month away which is an eternity in this news cycle.

I read something similar on 538 last night. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/

Nate concluded it's likely as far as senate races are concerned.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gaja on October 05, 2018, 01:08:08 PM
This might be a small comfort in this strange world, where attempted rape is renamed horseplay:

The Nobel Peace Price was today awarded Nadia Murad and Denis Mukwege for their fight against rape:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/world/nobel-peace-prize.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2018, 01:20:08 PM
Looks like Collins is voting to confirm, as expected.  Kavanaugh will sit on the Supreme Court.

She's currently on tv talking about how great it is.  She apparently thinks he's going to be not only totally nonpartisan, but a liberal vote on the court who will support women's rights and limit executive power. 

I think she's going to live to regret her decision, when he turns out to be everything he claims to be instead of what she envisions he will become.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 05, 2018, 01:21:25 PM
Looks like Collins is voting to confirm, as expected.  Kavanaugh will sit on the Supreme Court.

I am starting to wonder if we've reached a tipping point that we can't recover from.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: annnnnnooooon on October 05, 2018, 01:33:20 PM
Looks like Collins is voting to confirm, as expected.  Kavanaugh will sit on the Supreme Court.

I am starting to wonder if we've reached a tipping point that we can't recover from.

I come from the mountaineering/wilderness professional subculture. I was raised to, and trained to assess the facts with as clear an eye as I can, and then focus not on what is most likely, but on what is most likely to give me the best chance of the results I want. When you're trapped in a slot canyon with your arm under a boulder, you figure out how to cut your arm off with the damn pocketknife. Most of the time you will die, but unless you can focus on that next step, you've guaranteed your death.

Edited to add: In this case we figure out how the hell to win the senate, and how to get Manchin to not throw away his base, and then we reassess.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 01:37:28 PM
Looks like Collins is voting to confirm, as expected.  Kavanaugh will sit on the Supreme Court.

She's currently on tv talking about how great it is.  She apparently thinks he's going to be not only totally nonpartisan, but a liberal vote on the court who will support women's rights and limit executive power. 

I think she's going to live to regret her decision, when he turns out to be everything he claims to be instead of what she envisions he will become.

She knows exactly what he is.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 01:39:29 PM
Looks like Collins is voting to confirm, as expected.  Kavanaugh will sit on the Supreme Court.

I am starting to wonder if we've reached a tipping point that we can't recover from.

Very likely yes, but I'm still going to vote.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 05, 2018, 01:40:23 PM
Looks like Collins is voting to confirm, as expected.  Kavanaugh will sit on the Supreme Court.

I am starting to wonder if we've reached a tipping point that we can't recover from.

Very likely yes, but I'm still going to vote.

Oh so am I, but...fucking hell, I want to be optimistic but I'm not sure I can keep it up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 05, 2018, 01:50:16 PM
Collins has just described Dr Ford as a "survivor".  Just who and what does she think Dr Ford survived?

The disconnect is astonishing.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 01:56:17 PM
Looks like Collins is voting to confirm, as expected.  Kavanaugh will sit on the Supreme Court.

She's currently on tv talking about how great it is.  She apparently thinks he's going to be not only totally nonpartisan, but a liberal vote on the court who will support women's rights and limit executive power. 

I think she's going to live to regret her decision, when he turns out to be everything he claims to be instead of what she envisions he will become.
i bet she never regrets a goddamn thing and dies in peace of old age surrounded by her loved ones, just like Nobel Peace Prize Award Winner Heinz Alfred "Henry" Kissinger and Sir James Wilson Vincent "Jimmy" Savile
Yep.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2018, 02:01:35 PM
Collins is voting yes.

Manchin is also voting yes.  A democrat is voting for Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 02:03:29 PM
Collins has just described Dr Ford as a "survivor".  Just who and what does she think Dr Ford survived?

The disconnect is astonishing.
Sexual assault and attempted rape.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 05, 2018, 02:05:54 PM
Collins has just described Dr Ford as a "survivor".  Just who and what does she think Dr Ford survived?

The disconnect is astonishing.
Sexual assault and attempted rape.

By whom?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 02:07:23 PM
Collins has just described Dr Ford as a "survivor".  Just who and what does she think Dr Ford survived?

The disconnect is astonishing.
Sexual assault and attempted rape.

By whom?
Brett Kavanaugh and one of his friends.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 05, 2018, 02:09:29 PM
Collins has just described Dr Ford as a "survivor".  Just who and what does she think Dr Ford survived?

The disconnect is astonishing.
Sexual assault and attempted rape.

By whom?
Brett Kavanaugh and one of his friends.

Did she actually say that?  (I had to turn her off, couldn't stand hearing her any more.) If she did say that, did she expressly acknowledge that she is voting a sexual predator onto the Supreme Court?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 05, 2018, 02:10:04 PM
Collins has just described Dr Ford as a "survivor".  Just who and what does she think Dr Ford survived?

The disconnect is astonishing.
Sexual assault and attempted rape.

Perhaps Collins is still stuck on the idea of mistaken identity, as in it happened but it wasn't Kavanaugh. Or perhaps that's what she's telling herself so she can sleep at night.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 02:11:30 PM
Is there a communication disconnect here? I didn't actually listen to Collin's speech, because why the fuck would I. Did she call Kavanaugh a survivor? Or Russell Ford? Neither of those make sense. Then again, acknowledging that Christine Blasey Ford is a survivor and then still voting to confirm Kavanaugh also makes no sense, unless Collins just doesn't give a fuck. Which sounds about right.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: caffeine on October 05, 2018, 02:15:47 PM
Is there a communication disconnect here? I didn't actually listen to Collin's speech, because why the fuck would I. Did she call Kavanaugh a survivor? Or Russell Ford? Neither of those make sense. Then again, acknowledging that Christine Blasey Ford is a survivor and then still voting to confirm Kavanaugh also makes no sense, unless Collins just doesn't give a fuck. Which sounds about right.

I believe the communication broke down when you didn't listen to the speech.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2018, 02:16:53 PM
Is there a communication disconnect here? I didn't actually listen to Collin's speech, because why the fuck would I. Did she call Kavanaugh a survivor? Or Russell Ford? Neither of those make sense. Then again, acknowledging that Christine Blasey Ford is a survivor and then still voting to confirm Kavanaugh also makes no sense, unless Collins just doesn't give a fuck. Which sounds about right.

She called Christine Ford a survivor.  She also said that since there were no witnesses to the assuault, the entire Senate should side with the "presumption of innocence" argument and assume he didn't do it.  Sexual assault survivors everywhere, sit up and take note; you need a witness to your assault if you want to press charges.  Unless you are literally raped in front of credible witnesses, there can be no justice.  Republican Senator Susan Collins said so.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 05, 2018, 02:18:09 PM
Is there a communication disconnect here? I didn't actually listen to Collin's speech, because why the fuck would I. Did she call Kavanaugh a survivor? Or Russell Ford? Neither of those make sense. Then again, acknowledging that Christine Blasey Ford is a survivor and then still voting to confirm Kavanaugh also makes no sense, unless Collins just doesn't give a fuck. Which sounds about right.

Collins called Dr Ford a survivor, while voting for Kavanaugh.


By acknowledging that Dr Ford is a survivor she should also, logically, be acknowledging that Kavanaugh is the perpetrator.  But she is voting him onto the Supreme Court.  So either she is knowingly voting a perpetrator onto the Supreme Court or she is inventing some unknown perpetrator that assaulted Dr Ford, despite Dr Ford's 100'% certainty of Kavanaugh's identity as the perpetrator.

Collins has just made a long speech all based on "logic" as to why none of the reasons put forward against Kavanaugh apply.  But she has totally undermined any credibility by her illogical response regarding Dr Ford.

That is what I meant.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 05, 2018, 02:58:00 PM
So, do we think Brett will have a somewhat awkward first day at work on Monday?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: YttriumNitrate on October 05, 2018, 02:59:35 PM
So, do we think Brett will have a somewhat awkward first day at work on Monday?
Nah, he'll get a warm reception from Clarence Thomas.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 05, 2018, 03:08:53 PM
So, do we think Brett will have a somewhat awkward first day at work on Monday?
Nah, he'll get a warm reception from Clarence Thomas.
Warm, but likely silent.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2018, 03:13:30 PM
So, do we think Brett will have a somewhat awkward first day at work on Monday?
Nah, he'll get a warm reception from Clarence Thomas.

"Hey Brett!  Broski!  Welcome to Tit and Clit, senior citizen edition.  Did you know your wife can be a republican lobbyist and take unlimited financial donations from defendants in the cases we rule on?" 

Warm, but likely silent.

Thomas is quiet because he's been way out of his depth since day one.  Did you know he was only a judge for two years before they put him on the Supreme Court?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: jrhampt on October 05, 2018, 03:32:32 PM
Just a reminder that midterms are in 4 weeks or so.  We only have control over our own actions.  I will be voting.  Save the despair for after the midterms, please.  Until then I will be crossing my fingers.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez on October 05, 2018, 03:55:08 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing. I doubt Ds will make much headway against the R machine with the way every conservative has lined up for Trump lately. The narrative has change not one iota since 2016. Trump has pulled all the air out of the room, not even a NYT expose can wobble this machine. Unemployment is below 4% for fcks sake, Trump is "winning" on all fronts, and now we got a conservative court to go along with the Trumpian executive and legislation branches. I predict a bloodbath for Ds. Rs will come out in full force, and the dejected Ds won't even bother...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 03:55:59 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

I hope the sage isn't over. I hope he gets impeached.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez on October 05, 2018, 04:01:10 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

I hope the sage isn't over. I hope he gets impeached.

Not likely. Democrats set to take the House can wish it, but it is pointless without the Senate on board.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 04:05:39 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

I hope the sage isn't over. I hope he gets impeached.

Not likely. Democrats set to take the House can wish it, but it is pointless without the Senate on board.

If Democrats don't win the Senate in 2018, then do it after 2020, or 2022, or whenever the next time Democrats elect enough people to do it is.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez on October 05, 2018, 04:15:21 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

I hope the sage isn't over. I hope he gets impeached.

Not likely. Democrats set to take the House can wish it, but it is pointless without the Senate on board.

If Democrats don't win the Senate in 2018, then do it after 2020, or 2022, or whenever the next time Democrats elect enough people to do it is.

And what exactly would the grounds be for impeachment? This would set a terrible precedent. And then we'd have Republican controlled Senate trying to impeach every damn Democrat appointed SC justice based on something, anything found in the past. RBJ smoked a joint in college, ermagerd impeach her!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 04:16:58 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

I hope the sage isn't over. I hope he gets impeached.

Not likely. Democrats set to take the House can wish it, but it is pointless without the Senate on board.

If Democrats don't win the Senate in 2018, then do it after 2020, or 2022, or whenever the next time Democrats elect enough people to do it is.

And what exactly would the grounds be for impeachment?

Lying under oath is a slam-dunk. Sexual assault and attempted rape are harder to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but only that's the standard for criminal conviction, not impeachment.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 04:23:45 PM
Also, everyone involved in squelching the FBI's investigation and report should be charged with obstruction of justice.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 05, 2018, 04:30:17 PM
This might be a small comfort in this strange world, where attempted rape is renamed horseplay:

The Nobel Peace Price was today awarded Nadia Murad and Denis Mukwege for their fight against rape:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/world/nobel-peace-prize.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

So inspiring.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 05, 2018, 05:04:33 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

I hope the sage isn't over. I hope he gets impeached.

Not likely. Democrats set to take the House can wish it, but it is pointless without the Senate on board.

If Democrats don't win the Senate in 2018, then do it after 2020, or 2022, or whenever the next time Democrats elect enough people to do it is.

And what exactly would the grounds be for impeachment? This would set a terrible precedent. And then we'd have Republican controlled Senate trying to impeach every damn Democrat appointed SC justice based on something, anything found in the past. RBJ smoked a joint in college, ermagerd impeach her!

Lying under oath.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 05, 2018, 05:17:20 PM
You can give Kavanaugh the reasonable benefit of the doubt that he didn't sexually assault a woman, and still vote no.
He clearly lied under oath. He showed he does not have the temperament to be a supreme court justice very clearly.

I have ZERO thought that he will not predecide cases. There will be no point in even arguing them in front of him.

I think we will see a lot of corruption of the court with him sitting on it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 05:25:27 PM
You can give Kavanaugh the reasonable benefit of the doubt that he didn't sexually assault a woman, and still vote no.

I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman. We already have affidavits from four other people corroborating Ford's story. It wouldn't be admissible in a criminal trial since it's hearsay (it's other witness recalling things Ford said, after the incident) but again, this isn't a criminal trial and the standards of evidence are different.

I think we will see a lot of corruption of the court with him sitting on it.

There was already a lot of corruption on the court even before Kavanaugh, but he'll make it worse.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: One on October 05, 2018, 05:28:08 PM
Term limits for house, senate, supreme court? Also mandatory retirement age 80? Already Have to be a certain age to be president so don't see a problem with age discrimination. Too many problems, need change.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 05, 2018, 05:29:23 PM
A man credibly accused of sexual assault nominated a man credibly accused of sexual assault to the Supreme Court so that soon, women who are raped will be forced to carry their babies to term against their will.

Abolish the Republican Party.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 05, 2018, 05:43:47 PM
A man credibly accused of sexual assault nominated a man credibly accused of sexual assault to the Supreme Court so that soon, women who are raped will be forced to carry their babies to term against their will.

More importantly, millions of American citizens are smugly congratulating themselves for helping to make this happen.  Hey guys, we did it!  High fives all around!  Let's go vote for more republicans!  Maybe Roy Moore can go up for the next available Supreme Court seat?  He was a judge, right?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Fireball on October 05, 2018, 05:48:01 PM
Want to know why Democrats hold no branch of federal government in this country? Decisions like this one. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, only that one party is willing to do whatever takes and one party isn't.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-election/liberal-groups-wont-support-democrats-backing-kavanaugh-idUSKCN1MF2GM
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 05, 2018, 06:43:53 PM
You can give Kavanaugh the reasonable benefit of the doubt that he didn't sexually assault a woman, and still vote no.

I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman. We already have affidavits from four other people corroborating Ford's story. It wouldn't be admissible in a criminal trial since it's hearsay (it's other witness recalling things Ford said, after the incident) but again, this isn't a criminal trial and the standards of evidence are different.

I think we will see a lot of corruption of the court with him sitting on it.

There was already a lot of corruption on the court even before Kavanaugh, but he'll make it worse.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he sexually assaulted multiple women. But let's say someone isn't. He still shouldn't be seated on the court.

My heart breaks for the women who will soon here what I did with my first pregnancy. "I'm sorry your baby isn't viable but termination its not legal here (at this gestation) The only thing I can do for you is pray the baby dies before he is born."
I hope there is a network and support for women to travel for their medical needs.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: marty998 on October 05, 2018, 06:59:33 PM
You can give Kavanaugh the reasonable benefit of the doubt that he didn't sexually assault a woman, and still vote no.

I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman. We already have affidavits from four other people corroborating Ford's story. It wouldn't be admissible in a criminal trial since it's hearsay (it's other witness recalling things Ford said, after the incident) but again, this isn't a criminal trial and the standards of evidence are different.

I think we will see a lot of corruption of the court with him sitting on it.

There was already a lot of corruption on the court even before Kavanaugh, but he'll make it worse.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he sexually assaulted multiple women. But let's say someone isn't. He still shouldn't be seated on the court.

My heart breaks for the women who will soon here what I did with my first pregnancy. "I'm sorry your baby isn't viable but termination its not legal here (at this gestation) The only thing I can do for you is pray the baby dies before he is born."
I hope there is a network and support for women to travel for their medical needs.

Oh that is so incredibly cruel and horrific to inflict on a woman. Honestly worse than Gitmo torture.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 05, 2018, 07:09:04 PM
You can give Kavanaugh the reasonable benefit of the doubt that he didn't sexually assault a woman, and still vote no.

I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman. We already have affidavits from four other people corroborating Ford's story. It wouldn't be admissible in a criminal trial since it's hearsay (it's other witness recalling things Ford said, after the incident) but again, this isn't a criminal trial and the standards of evidence are different.

I think we will see a lot of corruption of the court with him sitting on it.

There was already a lot of corruption on the court even before Kavanaugh, but he'll make it worse.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he sexually assaulted multiple women. But let's say someone isn't. He still shouldn't be seated on the court.

My heart breaks for the women who will soon here what I did with my first pregnancy. "I'm sorry your baby isn't viable but termination its not legal here (at this gestation) The only thing I can do for you is pray the baby dies before he is born."
I hope there is a network and support for women to travel for their medical needs.

Oh that is so incredibly cruel and horrific to inflict on a woman. Honestly worse than Gitmo torture.

My doctor's were kind and caring and did what they could to provide me options. Politicians who thought they knew better than doctor's tied their hands though, so the doctor's could not do what they and their patient thought best.

It's the future we will have when Roe is gone. My case was not unique, but rare, as I was third trimester before there were indications of problems. (It was genetic so I don't know WTF happened early on...I had all recommended prenatal care.) But now it's going to happen to so many more women.

This is so personal to me. No one should be in the position I was in. No one should have to travel for medical care, assuming they can even afford it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 05, 2018, 07:55:29 PM
I already submitted my absentee ballot.  I hope everyone votes out the Republicans on every level.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 05, 2018, 08:08:41 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing. I doubt Ds will make much headway against the R machine with the way every conservative has lined up for Trump lately. The narrative has change not one iota since 2016. Trump has pulled all the air out of the room, not even a NYT expose can wobble this machine. Unemployment is below 4% for fcks sake, Trump is "winning" on all fronts, and now we got a conservative court to go along with the Trumpian executive and legislation branches. I predict a bloodbath for Ds. Rs will come out in full force, and the dejected Ds won't even bother...

Yeah, it's possible. The D's chances are slipping, per 538. Mueller could have footage of Trump promising Putin to get rid of Magnitsky and it wouldn't change Republican support.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 05, 2018, 08:55:19 PM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on October 05, 2018, 09:14:08 PM
ATTENTION: THIS THREAD HAS NOW REACHED ITS TOP.
DO NOT PROCEED FURTHER.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: radram on October 05, 2018, 09:28:49 PM
In my opinion, Republicans will NEVER overturn Roe vs. Wade.

If they do, they INSTANTLY lose at least 20% of their voters. I can't tell you how many people I have talked to that tell me anti-choice is the ONLY reason they vote republican.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 05, 2018, 09:55:21 PM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 05, 2018, 09:57:05 PM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 05, 2018, 10:38:11 PM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 05, 2018, 11:25:07 PM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 12:33:19 AM
Fuck waiting for Trump to be out of office. If Democrats retake the Senate (which is admittedly unlikely, but still possible) they should just confirm Merrick Garland. He's been nominated. So what if it isn't the current president that nominated him? He was still nominated, and he never got his due confirmation hearing.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on October 06, 2018, 01:06:26 AM
Fuck waiting for Trump to be out of office. If Democrats retake the Senate (which is admittedly unlikely, but still possible) they should just confirm Merrick Garland. He's been nominated. So what if it isn't the current president that nominated him? He was still nominated, and he never got his due confirmation hearing.

Garland's nomination expired when the 114th Congress adjourned on Jan 3 2017.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on October 06, 2018, 02:05:05 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

I had never heard of it in either context, and I'm about the same age as K. In that era, the Devil's Triangle was a place where ships disappeared near Bermuda. We talked a lot about sex in high school, and threesomes (all theoretically). Somewhere it is a slang term for a threesome. Maybe it was also back in 1980 in Georgetown. Any 50-something years old Georgetowners here who can chime in?

There is no clear, unbiased source for any of these allegations either way. If you liked K before the nomination, you probably still do. If you are still bitter about Clinton's legal troubles back in the 90s, you probably hate K. I see nothing but partisan payback for Garland, who was partisan payback for Thomas, Bork and many others going back a generation.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 02:22:41 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

I had never heard of it in either context, and I'm about the same age as K. In that era, the Devil's Triangle was a place where ships disappeared near Bermuda. We talked a lot about sex in high school, and threesomes (all theoretically). Somewhere it is a slang term for a threesome. Maybe it was also back in 1980 in Georgetown. Any 50-something years old Georgetowners here who can chime in?

There is no clear, unbiased source for any of these allegations either way. If you liked K before the nomination, you probably still do. If you are still bitter about Clinton's legal troubles back in the 90s, you probably hate K. I see nothing but partisan payback for Garland, who was partisan payback for Thomas, Bork and many others going back a generation.
It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on October 06, 2018, 02:58:24 AM

[/quote]
It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
[/quote]

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 06, 2018, 04:33:12 AM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 06, 2018, 04:47:35 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
[/quote]

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

Perhaps instead of asking a woman or ally to do your work for you, you could do it for yourself?

Because why the fuck should someone do for you something you are too lazy to do for yourself.

And perhaps next time you could inform yourself before adding your comment too.

Because from here your quoted comment looks like the sort of unthinking, entitled male response that has been all too prevalent lately.


Edited to add: oh, and please get your quotes right.  The formatting of your post was a mess.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 05:11:37 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 05:15:39 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
[/quote]

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 06, 2018, 05:25:17 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.
[/quote]

Please see my previous post.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 06, 2018, 05:35:24 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.
[/quote]

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

The 4 so-called corroborating witnesses include her husband who she allegedly told about the assault in 2012 (without mentioning Kavanaugh) and some friends/neighbors she told in 2018 that Kavanaugh assaulted her.  This was after his name was floated as a SCOTUS nominee.  These "witnesses" do not corroborate the alleged assault.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 05:39:19 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.
[/quote]

Please see my previous post.  Thank you.
[/quote]

I did. They don't exist because not even her best friend can corroborate her story.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 06, 2018, 05:39:41 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

The 4 so-called corroborating witnesses include her husband who she allegedly told about the assault in 2012 (without mentioning Kavanaugh) and some friends/neighbors she told in 2018 that Kavanaugh assaulted her.  This was after his name was floated as a SCOTUS nominee.  These "witnesses" do not corroborate the alleged assault.
[/quote]


You appear to be forgetting 1) her therapist - medical witnesses are counted as strong witnesses in court, were we in court, and 2) the lie detector test and the ex  FBI agent who took it.

Please do not try to mislead the conversation by providing inaccurate information.  If you cannot give accurate information you are not advancing the discussion and should not be posting.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 06, 2018, 05:48:40 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.

Please see my previous post.  Thank you.
[/quote]

I did. They don't exist because not even her best friend can corroborate her story.
[/quote]

You appear not to understand the meaning of "corroboration", either inside or outside of a court of law.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 06, 2018, 06:19:55 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

I had never heard of it in either context, and I'm about the same age as K. In that era, the Devil's Triangle was a place where ships disappeared near Bermuda. We talked a lot about sex in high school, and threesomes (all theoretically). Somewhere it is a slang term for a threesome. Maybe it was also back in 1980 in Georgetown. Any 50-something years old Georgetowners here who can chime in?

There is no clear, unbiased source for any of these allegations either way. If you liked K before the nomination, you probably still do. If you are still bitter about Clinton's legal troubles back in the 90s, you probably hate K. I see nothing but partisan payback for Garland, who was partisan payback for Thomas, Bork and many others going back a generation.

What do you need?  Other people saying I saw Kavanaugh assault someone before you believe them?  There may not have been witnesses who are willing (who knows how willing Mark Judge is) to say they saw Kavanaugh assault Christine Ford, but there were witnesses to his actions against Deborah Ramirez.  The FBI didn't f*&%king follow up.  And they didn't follow up with the people that have written proof that Kavanaugh tried to stop that story from coming out even though he testified before the Senate on Sept 27th that he only found out about that story when it appeared in the news.  Written proof of just one of his lies.  He lied.  He lied repeatedly.  He lied about stupid things like home improvements for which he would need permits that have been proven to not exist.  He is a lying liar who lies.  This is not about bitterness toward his actions against the Clintons, it's about the fact that he is an entitled, lying hack with shady finances who has no business on the Supreme Court or any court. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 06, 2018, 06:30:02 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 06:31:58 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

I would like to know, too. There are no corroborating witnesses as far as I saw, and I have read and watched this from the beginning.

Please see my previous post.  Thank you.

I did. They don't exist because not even her best friend can corroborate her story.
[/quote]

You appear not to understand the meaning of "corroboration", either inside or outside of a court of law.
[/quote]

I never claimed to be a lawyer, but those therapy notes don't mention Brett Kavanaugh, but do say the attack happened when she was in her late teens in the mid-80s. They are pretty inconsistent with her Senate testimony. Sorry, I don't see them as corroborating evidence.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 06:40:17 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


His high school classmates have confirmed his version of events and his definition of Devil's Triangle, whether you agree or not. He admits to drinking a lot. I don't see the inconsistencies in his story that you are seeing.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 06, 2018, 06:46:44 AM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on October 06, 2018, 07:05:48 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.
[/quote]

Perhaps instead of asking a woman or ally to do your work for you, you could do it for yourself?

Because why the fuck should someone do for you something you are too lazy to do for yourself.

And perhaps next time you could inform yourself before adding your comment too.

Because from here your quoted comment looks like the sort of unthinking, entitled male response that has been all too prevalent lately.


Edited to add: oh, and please get your quotes right.  The formatting of your post was a mess.
[/quote]

Sorry about the quotes. I was trying to snip the length to make it easier. Obviously failed.

As to doing it myself. I had immediately tried Googling, and failed to find anything like 4 strong, well-corroborated witnesses. Just more partisan bickering. I was hoping some kind person would help, if they knew of a reliable, reasonably even-handed accounting. I want neither the New York Times version nor the Fox News version, and if nothing better is offered, I'll assume you have nothing better.

You say you have strong evidence. If you make strong statements, you should be ready to back them up. So far just insults and name-calling.

Perhaps some other person here knows who these 4 people are and has a link to a source that is not insanely Repub or Dem? I honestly looked through several Google pages, and found only links to hotheads.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 06, 2018, 07:08:12 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


His high school classmates have confirmed his version of events and his definition of Devil's Triangle, whether you agree or not. He admits to drinking a lot. I don't see the inconsistencies in his story that you are seeing.

No they haven't. I'll repeat one more time, but I think it's pretty clear you are simply trolling now:
Saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her."

James Roche, Kavanaugh's former roommate, claimed it was common knowledge that the phrase "Devils' Triangle" was sexual in nature.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 06, 2018, 07:47:17 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.

The 4 so-called corroborating witnesses include her husband who she allegedly told about the assault in 2012 (without mentioning Kavanaugh) and some friends/neighbors she told in 2018 that Kavanaugh assaulted her.  This was after his name was floated as a SCOTUS nominee.  These "witnesses" do not corroborate the alleged assault.
[/quote]


You appear to be forgetting 1) her therapist - medical witnesses are counted as strong witnesses in court, were we in court, and 2) the lie detector test and the ex  FBI agent who took it.

Please do not try to mislead the conversation by providing inaccurate information.  If you cannot give accurate information you are not advancing the discussion and should not be posting.  Thank you.
[/quote]

Therapist conversation took place in 2012.  30 some years after the alleged incident occurred.  How does this corroborate the assault?  Also my understanding that Kavanaugh's name not mentioned.

Lie detector even if valid only means that she believes the story she's telling, not that it actually happened.  lie detector tests are not considered reliable and are not admissible as evidence in court.

Initially she did not even remember the year of the alleged assault much less the month and day.  Apparently settled on 1982 as the year after talking to her Democrat activist legal team.

Ramirez didn't even initially remember who waved the willie.  Called potential witnesses to see if they could pin it on Kavanaugh.  After a week consulting with her attorneys, decided it was Kavanaugh.  This looks extremely fishy.

Seems like you are the one not advancing the conversation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 06, 2018, 07:51:02 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


His high school classmates have confirmed his version of events and his definition of Devil's Triangle, whether you agree or not. He admits to drinking a lot. I don't see the inconsistencies in his story that you are seeing.

No they haven't. I'll repeat one more time, but I think it's pretty clear you are simply trolling now:
Saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her."

James Roche, Kavanaugh's former roommate, claimed it was common knowledge that the phrase "Devils' Triangle" was sexual in nature.

Kavanaugh used that phrase in his high school yearbook.  He went to high school in suburban Maryland.  Yale is in New Haven, CT.  Find it difficult to believe that Yalies were using lingo from Kavanaugh's prep school in MD.

Also, I'm the same age as Kavanaugh and from the same geographic area and never heard that expression or "boof".  How are you so sure what it means?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 06, 2018, 07:55:20 AM

It's not a political hack job. Four other people have corroborated Ford's testimony. Yes, he really did assault her.

I thought I had been following this pretty closely. Please a link to who the 4 are.


Perhaps instead of asking a woman or ally to do your work for you, you could do it for yourself?

Because why the fuck should someone do for you something you are too lazy to do for yourself.

And perhaps next time you could inform yourself before adding your comment too.

Because from here your quoted comment looks like the sort of unthinking, entitled male response that has been all too prevalent lately.


Edited to add: oh, and please get your quotes right.  The formatting of your post was a mess.
[/quote]

Sorry about the quotes. I was trying to snip the length to make it easier. Obviously failed.

As to doing it myself. I had immediately tried Googling, and failed to find anything like 4 strong, well-corroborated witnesses. Just more partisan bickering. I was hoping some kind person would help, if they knew of a reliable, reasonably even-handed accounting. I want neither the New York Times version nor the Fox News version, and if nothing better is offered, I'll assume you have nothing better.

You say you have strong evidence. If you make strong statements, you should be ready to back them up. So far just insults and name-calling.

Perhaps some other person here knows who these 4 people are and has a link to a source that is not insanely Repub or Dem? I honestly looked through several Google pages, and found only links to hotheads.
[/quote]

Link attached.  All 4 "corroborating" witnesses say that she told them something about an assault in the 2012-2018 timeframe.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-told-four-people-sexual-assault-claims/1429270002/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 06, 2018, 08:04:04 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

So you accuse Ford of lying, without actual evidence. But when it's pointed out that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate you shrug your shoulders and simply don't care.

For the record, not that it matters because integrity in't something you concern yourself with, saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her." And yes folks do back her story.

"Dr. Ford’s counsel has provided a statement from Keith Koegler, Ford’s friend and corroborating witness who was not permitted to testify or be interviewed by the FBI. In a signed declaration, he shared an account of two interactions he had with Ford in which she spoke about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual assault years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court."


His high school classmates have confirmed his version of events and his definition of Devil's Triangle, whether you agree or not. He admits to drinking a lot. I don't see the inconsistencies in his story that you are seeing.

No they haven't. I'll repeat one more time, but I think it's pretty clear you are simply trolling now:
Saying "I don't remember the alleged incident" isn't the same thing as "Kavanaugh did nothing to her."

James Roche, Kavanaugh's former roommate, claimed it was common knowledge that the phrase "Devils' Triangle" was sexual in nature.

Kavanaugh's name was being discussed openly as early as 2012 as a top potential Supreme Court nominee for a Republican President (Romney in that case).

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/20/10-Top-Court-Candidates-If-Romney-Wins

Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 06, 2018, 08:48:03 AM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

You are correct sir. There are better ways. The current political atmosphere though is that "If you look at Roe V Wade the wrong way, prepare to be blitzed."

And that is unhelpful if you want to put nuance on a topic. I can already see the headlines "Congress wants to curtail Gene editing in the womb, abortion is next!"

So people need to start dialing down the rhetoric and consider what compromises would be acceptable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 06, 2018, 09:33:02 AM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

You are correct sir. There are better ways. The current political atmosphere though is that "If you look at Roe V Wade the wrong way, prepare to be blitzed."

And that is unhelpful if you want to put nuance on a topic. I can already see the headlines "Congress wants to curtail Gene editing in the womb, abortion is next!"

So people need to start dialing down the rhetoric and consider what compromises would be acceptable.

I see a supreme court that is far right of the majority of Americans, and an appointment who is very likely to repeal Roe V Wade wholesale.  What compromises exactly are you talking about?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 06, 2018, 10:00:48 AM
Kavanaugh used that phrase in his high school yearbook.  He went to high school in suburban Maryland.  Yale is in New Haven, CT.  Find it difficult to believe that Yalies were using lingo from Kavanaugh's prep school in MD.

Weird that "Kavanugh and High School friends only" lingo would appear online with meanings of sexual connotation. And that you would assert he never used the phrase past High School. Except that he did regularly use that phrase, according to his college roomate. And in the context of meaning something sexual.

Of course there is this:
"“The explanation of Devil’s Triangle does not hold water for me,” said William Fishburne, who managed the football team during Judge Kavanaugh’s senior year."

and this:
“Our senior yearbook pages were a place to have a little bit of fun with commemorating inside jokes,” said Bill Barbot, who overlapped with Judge Kavanaugh at Georgetown Prep, an all-boys Catholic school. “However, the spin that Brett was putting on it was a complete overstatement of the innocence with which they were intended.”

Quote
Also, I'm the same age as Kavanaugh and from the same geographic area and never heard that expression or "boof".  How are you so sure what it means?

I never claimed to nor made any mention of "boof." Nice straw-man though.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 06, 2018, 10:07:19 AM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

You are correct sir. There are better ways. The current political atmosphere though is that "If you look at Roe V Wade the wrong way, prepare to be blitzed."

And that is unhelpful if you want to put nuance on a topic. I can already see the headlines "Congress wants to curtail Gene editing in the womb, abortion is next!"

So people need to start dialing down the rhetoric and consider what compromises would be acceptable.

I see a supreme court that is far right of the majority of Americans, and an appointment who is very likely to repeal Roe V Wade wholesale.  What compromises exactly are you talking about?

There are no centrist Democrat appointees.  All are hard left, well outside the mainstream.  The only "centrist" left is Roberts, a Republican appointee, who is right of center.  The recently departed centrist is Kennedy who was a Reagan appointee.  Repubs also appointed Souter, who was a liberal jurist.  Sounds like the Dems are well outside the mainstream when it comes to judicial appointments.  Kavanaugh is closer to the center by any reasonable measure than Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: El_Viajero on October 06, 2018, 10:12:43 AM
I never claimed to be a lawyer, but those therapy notes don't mention Brett Kavanaugh, but do say the attack happened when she was in her late teens in the mid-80s. They are pretty inconsistent with her Senate testimony. Sorry, I don't see them as corroborating evidence.

Just because you "don't see [an instance corroborating evidence] as corroborating evidence" matters little. There is corroborating evidence of Dr. Ford's claims, the type of which puts sexual assailants in jail all the time. The Republican Party has an interest in the public not understanding that.

See: http://time.com/5406765/christine-blasey-ford-statements-brett-kavanaugh/

See also: https://hillreporter.com/keith-koegler-releases-significant-evidence-corroborating-dr-fords-claims-9543
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 06, 2018, 10:13:49 AM
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable! 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 06, 2018, 10:23:52 AM
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

I wonder if this is from a lack of experience.

If you've never been involved in something traumatic like a sexual assault, you'd assume it would be seared into your memory. One would assume that the victim would remember exact dates, exact times, the paint color on the walls, etc, when, in reality, only certain things stand out exactly because it was traumatic.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 06, 2018, 10:30:07 AM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You're concerned about a theoretical potential problem.  That's perfectly valid and is forward thinking.  Roe V Wade solves common, real problems that exist today.  While there's no reason that a future ruling can't modify and place specific limitations on the descision should it be deemed necessary in the future, a move today to wholesale repeal the descision (even if there's the possibility of needing to do so at some point in the future) will negatively impact hundreds of thousands of people.  Even if the theoretical problem you have outlined does become a real one in the future, I feel that there are better ways to decide about it than appointing a man who has indicated that he wants to change decades of precedent purely for religious and partisan reasons.

You are correct sir. There are better ways. The current political atmosphere though is that "If you look at Roe V Wade the wrong way, prepare to be blitzed."

And that is unhelpful if you want to put nuance on a topic. I can already see the headlines "Congress wants to curtail Gene editing in the womb, abortion is next!"

So people need to start dialing down the rhetoric and consider what compromises would be acceptable.

I see a supreme court that is far right of the majority of Americans, and an appointment who is very likely to repeal Roe V Wade wholesale.  What compromises exactly are you talking about?

There are no centrist Democrat appointees.  All are hard left, well outside the mainstream.  The only "centrist" left is Roberts, a Republican appointee, who is right of center.  The recently departed centrist is Kennedy who was a Reagan appointee.  Repubs also appointed Souter, who was a liberal jurist.  Sounds like the Dems are well outside the mainstream when it comes to judicial appointments.  Kavanaugh is closer to the center by any reasonable measure than Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan and Breyer.

Hang on, you're trying to argue that Garland wasn't centrist?  I seem to remember him being appointed by a Democratic president recently . . .

Regardless, you appear to have missed my point.  The current make up of the supreme court will tilt hard right of the majority of voters with the appointment of Kavenaugh, who has made a lot of signals that he'll repeal Roe v Wade for partisan/religious reasons.  There was a suggestion that people should consider acceptable compromises, but I'm not sure what exactly is up for consideration in this regard.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 06, 2018, 10:38:16 AM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

And there it is. You do not care that a nominee for the Supreme Court lied under oath.

That pretty well sums it up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 06, 2018, 10:39:58 AM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

CRISPR really can't be used in humans yet. Yes, they can edit genes but there are too many unintended consequences because don't know how they interact. Hey, your baby has got blue eyes now, sorry it's liver doesn't work anymore.  It also can't be done in utero, by the time we know about a pregnancy it's too late. They'd have to be IVF babies as gene's need to be edited at conception
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 06, 2018, 10:41:30 AM
In my opinion, Republicans will NEVER overturn Roe vs. Wade.

If they do, they INSTANTLY lose at least 20% of their voters. I can't tell you how many people I have talked to that tell me anti-choice is the ONLY reason they vote republican.

But the ones who rely on votes can't control the supreme Court they stacked.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 06, 2018, 10:43:44 AM
And there it is. You do not care that a nominee for the Supreme Court lied under oath.

That pretty well sums it up.

Evangelical: (muttering) "It's all for Roe. It's all for Roe. It's all for Roe."

What would happen if a potential Justice was anti-choice AND wanted to remove the non-profit status of churches? Or was anti-choice AND wanted to prevent all home-schooling. Would heads explode?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 06, 2018, 10:50:07 AM
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

I wonder if this is from a lack of experience.

If you've never been involved in something traumatic like a sexual assault, you'd assume it would be seared into your memory. One would assume that the victim would remember exact dates, exact times, the paint color on the walls, etc, when, in reality, only certain things stand out exactly because it was traumatic.

Lack of experience but also a serious lack of empathy. Empathy is apparently partisan as well.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 06, 2018, 11:02:04 AM
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

I wonder if this is from a lack of experience.

If you've never been involved in something traumatic like a sexual assault, you'd assume it would be seared into your memory. One would assume that the victim would remember exact dates, exact times, the paint color on the walls, etc, when, in reality, only certain things stand out exactly because it was traumatic.

Lack of experience but also a serious lack of empathy. Empathy is apparently partisan as well.

Having been raised deep in the religious right, I am inclined to agree.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on October 06, 2018, 11:22:05 AM


Sorry about the quotes. I was trying to snip the length to make it easier. Obviously failed.

As to doing it myself. I had immediately tried Googling, and failed to find anything like 4 strong, well-corroborated witnesses. Just more partisan bickering. I was hoping some kind person would help, if they knew of a reliable, reasonably even-handed accounting. I want neither the New York Times version nor the Fox News version, and if nothing better is offered, I'll assume you have nothing better.

You say you have strong evidence. If you make strong statements, you should be ready to back them up. So far just insults and name-calling.

Perhaps some other person here knows who these 4 people are and has a link to a source that is not insanely Repub or Dem? I honestly looked through several Google pages, and found only links to hotheads.
[/quote]

Link attached.  All 4 "corroborating" witnesses say that she told them something about an assault in the 2012-2018 timeframe.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-told-four-people-sexual-assault-claims/1429270002/
[/quote]

Thank you. That was an interesting article.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 11:43:07 AM
The other four witnesses I mentioned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/

Under the section "other witnesses".

I'm not sure if these would be admissible in a criminal trial (does this fall under hearsay?) but nevertheless I take them as very compelling evidence. I find it completely implausible and ridiculous to think that this is all a long con to discredit Kavanaugh that Ford has been planning and planting evidence for since 2012. That's absurd. The much more reasonable explanation, as distasteful as it might be, is that yes, she really was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 12:14:11 PM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You seem to expect liberals to be opposed to gene-editing technology on the basis of "social inequality" and you seem to think that's somehow contradictory with support of Roe v. Wade, but I'm not opposed to gene-editing technology. I think it count be a very useful, probably sometimes life-saving, medical technique. I wish my parents had used it on me to cure me of my color-blindness. If you're worried this will result in a Gattaca-like dystopia of inequality based on genetics, then the solution isn't to outlaw the technology; the solution is universal healthcare so everyone has access to the technology.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez on October 06, 2018, 12:30:12 PM
And beside that, gene editing has many other reasons to be opposed. Frankly, the ethical quandaries aren't that important to me. To me what's important is mitigating the risk of a major fuckup. Plowing headfirst with profits or pride in mind has cost a lot of lives in the past, there isn't any correcting for defective genes once born. As far as I know anyway.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 06, 2018, 12:38:05 PM
The other four witnesses I mentioned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/

Under the section "other witnesses".

I'm not sure if these would be admissible in a criminal trial (does this fall under hearsay?) but nevertheless I take them as very compelling evidence. I find it completely implausible and ridiculous to think that this is all a long con to discredit Kavanaugh that Ford has been planning and planting evidence for since 2012. That's absurd. The much more reasonable explanation, as distasteful as it might be, is that yes, she really was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.

The first mention of Kavanaugh to one of these witnesses was allegedly in 2016 not 2012.  She allegedly was talking about being assaulted by someone in 2012.  We know next to nothing about her (Blasey-Ford).  From what I have heard, she had a serious drinking problem as a teen and her parents sent her off to CA to live with a relative to get away from the party scene.  I bet there is a lot more damaging information about her in that report.  That's why the Dems haven't leaked it.

She made this a political attack when she engaged her "resist" lawyer and let the Dems use her to delay the vote.  This should have been handled in confidence.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 01:00:54 PM
The other four witnesses I mentioned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/

Under the section "other witnesses".

I'm not sure if these would be admissible in a criminal trial (does this fall under hearsay?) but nevertheless I take them as very compelling evidence. I find it completely implausible and ridiculous to think that this is all a long con to discredit Kavanaugh that Ford has been planning and planting evidence for since 2012. That's absurd. The much more reasonable explanation, as distasteful as it might be, is that yes, she really was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.

The first mention of Kavanaugh to one of these witnesses was allegedly in 2016 not 2012.  She allegedly was talking about being assaulted by someone in 2012.  We know next to nothing about her (Blasey-Ford).  From what I have heard, she had a serious drinking problem as a teen and her parents sent her off to CA to live with a relative to get away from the party scene.  I bet there is a lot more damaging information about her in that report.  That's why the Dems haven't leaked it.

She made this a political attack when she engaged her "resist" lawyer and let the Dems use her to delay the vote.  This should have been handled in confidence.

We live on different planets. It's obvious to me she was sexually assaulted. And Kavanaugh is the one with the drinking problem.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 06, 2018, 01:10:56 PM
The other four witnesses I mentioned:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/

Under the section "other witnesses".

I'm not sure if these would be admissible in a criminal trial (does this fall under hearsay?) but nevertheless I take them as very compelling evidence. I find it completely implausible and ridiculous to think that this is all a long con to discredit Kavanaugh that Ford has been planning and planting evidence for since 2012. That's absurd. The much more reasonable explanation, as distasteful as it might be, is that yes, she really was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.

The first mention of Kavanaugh to one of these witnesses was allegedly in 2016 not 2012.  She allegedly was talking about being assaulted by someone in 2012.  We know next to nothing about her (Blasey-Ford).  From what I have heard, she had a serious drinking problem as a teen and her parents sent her off to CA to live with a relative to get away from the party scene.  I bet there is a lot more damaging information about her in that report.  That's why the Dems haven't leaked it.

She made this a political attack when she engaged her "resist" lawyer and let the Dems use her to delay the vote.  This should have been handled in confidence.

Do you have anything to back up those claims? Literally anything at all?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DreamFIRE on October 06, 2018, 01:23:06 PM

I've followed this story and agree with the previous poster who stated it was a waste of time and energy.

Ford doesn't seem credible - doesn't remember things.
There's no evidence that Ford's claims are true.
Kavenaugh denies Ford's false claims.
The only other person in the room claims to have no memory of such a thing happening.
It was supposedly 36 years ago when Kavenaugh was in high school and shouldn't be part of the discussion in 2018.
Everyone who knows Kavenaugh has described him as an outstanding citizien and doesn't believe Ford's false claims.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DreamFIRE on October 06, 2018, 01:29:04 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing. I doubt Ds will make much headway against the R machine with the way every conservative has lined up for Trump lately. The narrative has change not one iota since 2016. Trump has pulled all the air out of the room, not even a NYT expose can wobble this machine. Unemployment is below 4% for fcks sake, Trump is "winning" on all fronts, and now we got a conservative court to go along with the Trumpian executive and legislation branches. I predict a bloodbath for Ds. Rs will come out in full force, and the dejected Ds won't even bother...

You said it.  The dems made a mistake with this smear campaign.  The republicans are energized now, and the latest poll numbers are way up for republican enthusiasm about the election.  The dems should have been putting out the word about the republicans wanting to repeal Obamacare to improve their odds in the midterms, instead I keep hearing about unsubstantiated claims against Kavenaugh, Trump's business dealings, and collusion with Russia.  Leave it to the dems to fuck up another election.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 06, 2018, 01:41:05 PM
Man. This place got real salty.

The way I see it, as liberals shift towards "equality" Roe V Wade would need to be reconsidered at some point. Reproduction Rights will gradually shift from "preventatives" to "improving offspring" as our understanding of genetics improves. Unless we're cool with Rich people making their children smarter, faster, stronger before birth.

Is Kavanaugh a bad choice? Not sure. I don't have the expertise to evaluate it. As GuitarStv pointed out "Congress has some of the sharpest minds in America" so if they think his jurisprudence is good, that is all that matters. We never really had any control over this.

So go process your grief. A battle that was coming  is now going to be here soon. And hell, Democrats can blame Republicans now for the loss of Roe V Wade instead of dismantling it themselves. (I'm betting big on the social equality becoming a big issue.)
Insightful and thoughtful comments regarding the improvement of the genetic stock of our blood from the NSDAP candidate, Adolf Hitler. Thank you sir! I shall keep your wise remarks in mind as I hasten to the ballot box forthwith

(Sigh)
For your reading.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/designer-babies-and-the-pro-choice-movement

And that was written before CRISPR was found in 2012. We have the means to edit genes individually now.

Okay. Who cares? Is anyone even opposed to this? Has anyone even tried legislating against it? Maybe it will be a hot button issue someday but right now it's pretty far down the list of things I'm concerned about from the new Supreme Court.

That's not to say I don't care about the new Supreme Court. I care immensely and I'm furious at everyone who allowed Kavanaugh to be confirmed, and I hope that Democrats eventually regain control of the government and either pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh or both. But I care about the Supreme Court because of other, much more important issues than this. I didn't even know this was an issue at all.

We are talking about the Supreme Court. Specifically the fact that conservatives will be in charge for decades. The technology is here today. It is being worked on.

I am trying to get you ahead of the curve. People here think Roe V Wade should be an absolute. People here also want social equality. What happens when those things are on a collision course?

Hmm... Maybe pointing out Roe V Wade is going to be challenged on different ethical grounds isn't reassuring.

You seem to expect liberals to be opposed to gene-editing technology on the basis of "social inequality" and you seem to think that's somehow contradictory with support of Roe v. Wade, but I'm not opposed to gene-editing technology. I think it count be a very useful, probably sometimes life-saving, medical technique. I wish my parents had used it on me to cure me of my color-blindness. If you're worried this will result in a Gattaca-like dystopia of inequality based on genetics, then the solution isn't to outlaw the technology; the solution is universal healthcare so everyone has access to the technology.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=964508

A hypothetical scenario is "What if homosexuality has a genetic component?" Does a woman have the right to turn that gene off in her offspring? Do homosexuals have a right to be offended by such an act? If Transgenderism has a genetic component, do women have the right to act in that situation?


Basically could we have a "willful" eugenics situation.

I am pro choice and pro genetic Engineering. I'm playing devil's advocate because there is much gnashing of teeth over an issue that is only going to get more complicated as time goes by.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on October 06, 2018, 02:04:49 PM
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

No. Assaulted people don't forget certain details. As Dr. Ford explained in her testimony, neurotransmitters like epinephrine encode traumatic memories into the hippocampus.

My two friends were attacked in the same fashion Dr. Ford was and in the same geographic area. I was present for one yet we stopped the attack before he got to me. I remember all of the details. You don't forget.

Plenty of other nominees have not had victims come forward, and those could have been chosen instead.

He was wanted by powerful political donors, who have won.




Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 06, 2018, 02:10:24 PM
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

No. Assaulted people don't forget certain details. As Dr. Ford explained in her testimony, neurotransmitters like epinephrine encode traumatic memories into the hippocampus.

My two friends were attacked in the same fashion Dr. Ford was and in the same geographic area. I was present for one yet we stopped the attack before he got to me. I remember all of the details. You don't forget.

Plenty of other nominees have not had victims come forward, and those could have been chosen instead.

He was wanted by powerful political donors, who have won.

I was assaulted twice, by two different people.

You are wrong.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 02:18:40 PM
Yay. I think her story is about as fake as the story of why she has two front doors.

I bet you think that Devil's Triangle is a drinking game, too.

Better yet, I don't care! It was a high school yearbook. He may have been a drunk manwhore, but that does he mean he was a rapist. His friends from high school back his story. No one backs her story. No one.

And there it is. You do not care that a nominee for the Supreme Court lied under oath.

That pretty well sums it up.

Your words, not mine. I think the only person who lied under oath is Dr. Ford.  I just don't care that he drank too much which is something he freely admitted to.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 06, 2018, 02:24:39 PM
Whether you think he sexually assualted a woman, or whether you care if he did, he lied repeatedly under oath. Not lying under oath is basically the foundation of our justice system.

And now he has a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 02:33:06 PM
Whether you think he sexually assualted a woman, or whether you care if he did, he lied repeatedly under oath. Not lying under oath is basically the foundation of our justice system.

And now he has a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 02:45:48 PM
Whether you think he sexually assualted a woman, or whether you care if he did, he lied repeatedly under oath. Not lying under oath is basically the foundation of our justice system.

And now he has a lifetime appointment to the supreme Court.

I would go with presumption of innocence myself.

We don't need to presume either way since we have proof. Yes, he lied under oath, repeatedly.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 06, 2018, 02:50:28 PM
I'm kinda wondering if Russia's covert executions (which are pretty well documented at this point) could soon extend to the Democratic candidates on the supreme court to give Trump even more picks.  Their goal of destabilizing the US by getting Trump elected worked, and this would tip things even further off-kilter.

With Kavenaugh on the court, advocating that the President of the US can't do any wrong, Trump could directly aid the Russians in performing the executions with no repercussions . . . it's not like the Republicans would complain.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 06, 2018, 02:51:40 PM
To anyone defending the republican stance at this point, you believe that there is a possibility Ford is lying. From where I'm sitting, that seems pretty unlikely, but yes, it's possible. So the Democrats took that information and asked for an investigation. Seems reasonable, right? They didn't stand up and point fingers and call Kavanaugh a disgrace. People did, but not democratic leadership.

Now look at the response. Kavanaugh accused Ford of lying, which again, is a possibility. We don't know that, all we have is his word, but it's possible. The proper response would be the same as the democrat's, let's have an investigation. Instead Senator Graham stands up and begins to hurl accusations, point fingers, and call the democrats a disgrace. Does Graham know what happened? Was he there in 1982? Why is OK for Lindsey to call her a liar without proof?

Don't you feel a twinge of hypocrisy here?

There's only two people who know what really happened and possibly only one as Kavanaugh may have been blackout drunk at the time. Which, oh by the way, he lied about under oath. We may not have solid corroboration of what happened that night (not getting into that debate) but we do have solid corroboration of the accusations that he was a sloppy drunk who got belligerently drunk.

ETA: Here's a sample of what I was referring to from an interview with James Roche, freshmen year roommate of Kavanaugh.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/03/kavanaugh_freshman_roommate_i_saw_him_do_stuff_he_said_under_oath_he_didnt_do.html

Quote
"I saw him do this stuff he said under oath that he didn't do. I saw him use words in a different way than the way he said under oath they were used," Roche said.

Quote
"Your bed was just as you said, feet away from his. Did you ever see him black out? He has testified that -- he was asked about blacking out. He said he didn’t. He said maybe sometimes he went to sleep. Did you ever see him black out?" Cooper asked.

"You know I didn’t socialize with Brett. But being in the same room where he slept, I saw him when he arrived at home regularly and I saw him in the morning. And I can tell you that -- that he would come home and he was incoherent, stumbling," Roche responded.

"He would sometimes be singing," Roche explained. "He occasionally would wear this -- I think it was an old leather football helmet and he would throw up. And then in the morning would have a lot of trouble getting out of bed."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 02:58:31 PM
Also maybe give the FBI more than one week to investigate? Benghazi was investigated by Republicans for years. You can spare more than one week to investigate felony allegations against a Supreme Court nominee. And actually let the FBI investigate. Let them interview people. Make more than one fucking copy of the report, and release that report to the public.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 06, 2018, 03:07:32 PM
...release that report to the public.
I was surprised that it wasn't released, but as CNN noted,
This is, quite literally, how the process is designed to work, as guided by a bipartisan Judiciary Committee memorandum of understanding signed in 2009. Background investigations are not supposed to be made public -- in fact, it's against the law to do so. The limited number of people with access, the restrictions on public disclosure, even the number of copies provided, are all dictated by rules the committee agreed to nine years ago. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/senator-fbi-report-review/index.html)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Johnez on October 06, 2018, 03:19:57 PM
Wow, so it came down to Manchin. I was stunned when Hillary lost. I'm worried now. This farce of an investigation  and complete disregard for  country in favor of partisanship may have resulted in a "win," but the anger of the left, the unheard, and the voters who outnumber them in the millions who simply will not accept this result may have cost the party and the govt as a whole the one thing that holds everything together, left, right, or center. Legitimacy.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 03:27:19 PM
Fascists aren't concerned about legitimacy.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FIRE_Buckeye on October 06, 2018, 03:31:01 PM
Wow, so it came down to Manchin.
The job of a state Senator is to represent the people of his or her state. Manchin's state is dark red West Virginia. If people want to place blame, it should probably be directed elsewhere.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 06, 2018, 03:32:37 PM
Wow, so it came down to Manchin. I was stunned when Hillary lost. I'm worried now. This farce of an investigation  and complete disregard for  country in favor of partisanship may have resulted in a "win," but the anger of the left, the unheard, and the voters who outnumber them in the millions who simply will not accept this result may have cost the party and the govt as a whole the one thing that holds everything together, left, right, or center. Legitimacy.

It'll be interesting to see how Roberts plays this. If Kavanaugh (and Thomas) make partisan decisions, is Roberts forced to balance out the decision?

When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 03:35:08 PM
When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

By the populace actually voting, thereby electing Democrats, who impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court or both.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 06, 2018, 03:42:25 PM
When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

By the populace actually voting, thereby electing Democrats, who impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court or both.

The Senate will always lean conservative. It's the nature of the system. 90% of the population could be in 5 states, who elect Democratic Senators, and the other 45 states with 10% of the population could elect Republicans.

Without the Senate, there is no impeaching. There is no packing the court. There is nothing.

Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on October 06, 2018, 03:50:43 PM
When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

By the populace actually voting, thereby electing Democrats, who impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court or both.

The Senate will always lean conservative. It's the nature of the system. 90% of the population could be in 5 states, who elect Democratic Senators, and the other 45 states with 10% of the population could elect Republicans.

Without the Senate, there is no impeaching. There is no packing the court. There is nothing.

Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?
The executive branch is responsible for enforcement when the local governments won't do it. The Brown decision comes to mind.

On the flip side, the executive branch choosing to selectively enforce laws isn't exactly news.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 06, 2018, 03:57:00 PM
When the Court is so far right of the populace, how does it become less partisan?

By the populace actually voting, thereby electing Democrats, who impeach Kavanaugh or pack the court or both.

The Senate will always lean conservative. It's the nature of the system. 90% of the population could be in 5 states, who elect Democratic Senators, and the other 45 states with 10% of the population could elect Republicans.

Without the Senate, there is no impeaching. There is no packing the court. There is nothing.

Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: marty998 on October 06, 2018, 04:00:21 PM
ooof I keep reading page after page about "the only witnesses in the room (Mark Judge & Co.) don't corroborate Dr Ford's testimony.

Do you really think Mr Judge is going to come out and say "yep, we did it, me and Brett are both rapists"? Of course he is going to deny, obfuscate, and claim he had no memory. If the standard of proof you require for an assault to maybe have occurred or to make a victim believable is that co-conspirators need to confess, then you guys might as well implement Sharia Law now (4 male witnesses required for a rape to be prosecuted) and be done with the whole system.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 06, 2018, 04:02:30 PM
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 06, 2018, 04:08:34 PM
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 04:18:12 PM
ooof I keep reading page after page about "the only witnesses in the room (Mark Judge & Co.) don't corroborate Dr Ford's testimony.

Do you really think Mr Judge is going to come out and say "yep, we did it, me and Brett are both rapists"? Of course he is going to deny, obfuscate, and claim he had no memory. If the standard of proof you require for an assault to maybe have occurred or to make a victim believable is that co-conspirators need to confess, then you guys might as well implement Sharia Law now (4 male witnesses required for a rape to be prosecuted) and be done with the whole system.

Her best friend doesn't corroborate her story. Stated repeatedly under oath that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh.

Comparing a 36 year old sexual assault allegation with no collaborating evidence to sharia law is despicable and a straw man to boot.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: marty998 on October 06, 2018, 04:31:19 PM
ooof I keep reading page after page about "the only witnesses in the room (Mark Judge & Co.) don't corroborate Dr Ford's testimony.

Do you really think Mr Judge is going to come out and say "yep, we did it, me and Brett are both rapists"? Of course he is going to deny, obfuscate, and claim he had no memory. If the standard of proof you require for an assault to maybe have occurred or to make a victim believable is that co-conspirators need to confess, then you guys might as well implement Sharia Law now (4 male witnesses required for a rape to be prosecuted) and be done with the whole system.

Her best friend doesn't corroborate her story. Stated repeatedly under oath that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh.

Comparing a 36 year old sexual assault allegation with no collaborating evidence to sharia law is despicable and a straw man to boot.

She doesn't have to "know" exactly who Brett Kavanaugh or to have been in the room to see it happen. I've been to many parties where I haven't known everyone there personally.

She has stated that she believes Dr. Ford was assaulted. People who went to HS and College with Kavanaugh have stated he is outright lying about his drinking habits. I don't care that he drinks, I care that he lies about it.

I stand by the comment. You and others here are asking for eyewitness testimony by people who watched it happen - bearing in mind he is not on trial, we are only looking at character here. No one is asking for criminal evidence.

Circumstantial inferences into his character should be enough to say "nope, not good enough to be one of the 9 people in charge of interpreting the laws of the country".
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 06, 2018, 04:46:11 PM
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 06, 2018, 04:51:18 PM
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I've only got one kid.

Were it my son accused, I'd have been loudly clamouring for a full investigation into the matter to clear his name.  Having a half assed, limited investigation that explicitly ignores evidence, testimony, the prime actors, and three of four charges brought against my son certainly wouldn't do . . . it would just make it look like we were hiding something.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 06, 2018, 05:08:29 PM
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

The 50 Senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and who decided to ignore Garland, represent less than 50% of the populace (one estimate is 37%). They've stacked the court to push their opinions on the rest of the country. It's a tyranny of the minority.

In other words, we already have a legitimacy problem. Even Roberts recognizes that, especially after Kavanaugh's tantrum.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 06, 2018, 05:21:34 PM
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

The 50 Senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and who decided to ignore Garland, represent less than 50% of the populace (one estimate is 37%). They've stacked the court to push their opinions on the rest of the country. It's a tyranny of the minority.

In other words, we already have a legitimacy problem. Even Roberts recognizes that, especially after Kavanaugh's tantrum.

That is how our system works. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. It's a balance against populus states which are supposed to be represented in the house of Representatives.

I'd rather not get into this debate again, (monkey Uncle had a thread on it). If you think there is an issue of legitimacy, I'll leave you to do what you think is necessary.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 06, 2018, 05:29:41 PM
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

The 50 Senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and who decided to ignore Garland, represent less than 50% of the populace (one estimate is 37%). They've stacked the court to push their opinions on the rest of the country. It's a tyranny of the minority.

In other words, we already have a legitimacy problem. Even Roberts recognizes that, especially after Kavanaugh's tantrum.

That is how our system works. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. It's a balance against populus states which are supposed to be represented in the house of Representatives.

I'd rather not get into this debate again, (monkey Uncle had a thread on it). If you think there is an issue of legitimacy, I'll leave you to do what you think is necessary.

Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: anisotropy on October 06, 2018, 05:35:52 PM
As recommended by another member in the Stat thread, I feel I need to apologize here as well. Few days ago I posted several stat posts here arguing given a single allegation, the odds of being guilty was 26%.

I have been wrong this whole time. I sincerely apologize to all. It was not my intention to be malicious or gross, I had genuinely believed what I said was true. Regardless, what I said was indeed counterfactual.  The odds of being guilty off a single accusation is not 26%, it's much higher. I am sorry.

I want to thank Caroline PF and Maize especially as their step-by-step guidance made my error glaringly clear (even to a halfwit such as myself).

Regards,

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 06, 2018, 05:39:11 PM

That is how our system works. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. It's a balance against populus states which are supposed to be represented in the house of Representatives.

I'd rather not get into this debate again, (monkey Uncle had a thread on it). If you think there is an issue of legitimacy, I'll leave you to do what you think is necessary.

Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

Yep. Urbanization and farm-automation has broken the Senate.

I expect Roberts will have to begrudgingly stand in the middle-of-the-road now, as he did for the ACA case.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 06, 2018, 05:47:12 PM
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I've only got one kid.

Were it my son accused, I'd have been loudly clamouring for a full investigation into the matter to clear his name.  Having a half assed, limited investigation that explicitly ignores evidence, testimony, the prime actors, and three of four charges brought against my son certainly wouldn't do . . . it would just make it look like we were hiding something.
Let's hope you (and we) never have to test that theory.

One can reasonably posit two scenarios:
1) Kavanaugh knows he is guilty but that a limited investigation won't find anything.
2) Kavanaugh knows he is innocent but that a long investigation may or may not find anything exculpatory, and would last so long that the Senate balance might shift.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 06, 2018, 05:52:29 PM
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I've only got one kid.

Were it my son accused, I'd have been loudly clamouring for a full investigation into the matter to clear his name.  Having a half assed, limited investigation that explicitly ignores evidence, testimony, the prime actors, and three of four charges brought against my son certainly wouldn't do . . . it would just make it look like we were hiding something.
Let's hope you (and we) never have to test that theory.

One can reasonably posit two scenarios:
1) Kavanaugh knows he is guilty but that a limited investigation won't find anything.
2) Kavanaugh knows he is innocent but that a long investigation may or may not find anything exculpatory, and would last so long that the Senate balance might shift.

3) Kavanaugh is pretty sure he's innocent but can't be absolutely certain, if he's honest with himself, because a) he might've been too drunk to remember; and b) the assault was at one more party during the post-100-keg summer and wasn't memorable for him or Judge.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FINate on October 06, 2018, 06:19:10 PM
Apropos the FBI investigation: Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago (https://politics.theonion.com/senator-feinstein-wondering-if-now-a-good-time-to-discl-1829555909)

Those upset about the short investigation should blame Senator Feinstein for sitting on the allegations for weeks, a blatant political ploy to wait until the 11th hour as a stalling tactic. The time to make these known was when they came to the Senator so they could be investigated in normal due course. The ploy didn't work and now seems this shitshow may have energized the GOP base.

The most surprising thing for me is how quiet it is here in left of left Santa Cruz. This town protests anything and everything at the drop of a hat, yet very little activity today as we biked around with the family (counted one lone protestor). Maybe it will come later, or maybe it's a sign of outrage fatigue?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 06, 2018, 06:45:59 PM
I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I have to wonder if you guys are aware of our civil court system that already exists.  It doesn't use either of the standards of proof that republicans keep implying are sacrosanct ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Innocent until proven guilty").  The civil court system even has the power to force the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff, taking away their already earned belongings as opposed to simply not giving them a prestigious position within our government that they don't yet have and are not entitled to in any way.

So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 06, 2018, 06:58:45 PM
So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?
For me, zero.  Same as the amount of time I've spent arguing against civil asset forfeiture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States).  Not that I agree with the policy, but one has to pick one's battles.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 06, 2018, 07:05:57 PM
I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I have to wonder if you guys are aware of our civil court system that already exists.  It doesn't use either of the standards of proof that republicans keep implying are sacrosanct ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Innocent until proven guilty").  The civil court system even has the power to force the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff, taking away their already earned belongings as opposed to simply not giving them a prestigious position within our government that they don't yet have and are not entitled to in any way.

So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?

I legit don't understand your point. Civil law and criminal law have different burdens of proof. This obviously was not trial except in the court of public opinion, but in a criminal trial there is a presumption of innocence and to be found guilty the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sexual assault would be a criminal matter so there is a higher burden of proof.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 06, 2018, 07:21:10 PM
I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I have to wonder if you guys are aware of our civil court system that already exists.  It doesn't use either of the standards of proof that republicans keep implying are sacrosanct ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Innocent until proven guilty").  The civil court system even has the power to force the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff, taking away their already earned belongings as opposed to simply not giving them a prestigious position within our government that they don't yet have and are not entitled to in any way.

So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?

I legit don't understand your point. Civil law and criminal law have different burdens of proof. This obviously was not trial except in the court of public opinion, but in a criminal trial there is a presumption of innocence and to be found guilty the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sexual assault would be a criminal matter so there is a higher burden of proof.

Higher burden of proof because the punishment is more severe. Years of your life spent in a cell with dangerous people, more years of probation, and being placed on the sex offender registry for life. We're talking about not promoting someone to the supreme court.

Even in criminal matters we put people in jail for days, months, sometimes even years before they see a courtroom. All too often we then find out, they weren't guilty. Another issue I suppose, but as long as we're discussing rights and wrongs of the legal system...

ETA: shoot, sorry shenlong. I gave away the answer :)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 06, 2018, 07:23:28 PM
I would go with presumption of innocence myself.
As parents of a daughter, we want no part of "boys will be boys and the girl was probably asking for it" - we want any assault accusation taken seriously, and the general climate to be one of mutual respect.

As parents of a son, we want "innocent until proven guilty" - it's the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

I have to wonder if you guys are aware of our civil court system that already exists.  It doesn't use either of the standards of proof that republicans keep implying are sacrosanct ("Beyond a reasonable doubt" and "Innocent until proven guilty").  The civil court system even has the power to force the defendant to reimburse the plaintiff, taking away their already earned belongings as opposed to simply not giving them a prestigious position within our government that they don't yet have and are not entitled to in any way.

So I have to ask, how much time have you guys spent lobbying your representative to change this grievously unfair system?

I legit don't understand your point. Civil law and criminal law have different burdens of proof. This obviously was not trial except in the court of public opinion, but in a criminal trial there is a presumption of innocence and to be found guilty the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sexual assault would be a criminal matter so there is a higher burden of proof.

May I ask why you think it is that we have different standards of proof in the two systems?

ETA: @Dabnasty That's okay, @crispy may have a different reason for thinking that it's okay to have a lower standard of proof for civil trials, so the question still stands.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on October 06, 2018, 07:51:50 PM
I'm kinda wondering if Russia's covert executions (which are pretty well documented at this point) could soon extend to the Democratic candidates on the supreme court to give Trump even more picks.  Their goal of destabilizing the US by getting Trump elected worked, and this would tip things even further off-kilter.

With Kavenaugh on the court, advocating that the President of the US can't do any wrong, Trump could directly aid the Russians in performing the executions with no repercussions . . . it's not like the Republicans would complain.

I have wondered when the Russians will begin killing Americans on American soil. They do have Trump in place as they wanted.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 06, 2018, 08:23:11 PM
Maybe that's how he got associated with Blasey-Ford's recovered memory.  She apparently dated a friend of Kavanaugh in high school so she knew of him at least.

Wow, this is very shitty of you, to insist Ford who is 100% certain of who assaulted her is lying. Forgetting the exact day? sure. Forgetting the exact house and/or room? Sure I can see that. Forgetting who actually assaulted you and just throwing out a random name? Fucking bullshit. And to insist otherwise if fucking awful. Despicable!

No. Assaulted people don't forget certain details. As Dr. Ford explained in her testimony, neurotransmitters like epinephrine encode traumatic memories into the hippocampus.

My two friends were attacked in the same fashion Dr. Ford was and in the same geographic area. I was present for one yet we stopped the attack before he got to me. I remember all of the details. You don't forget.

Plenty of other nominees have not had victims come forward, and those could have been chosen instead.

He was wanted by powerful political donors, who have won.

There is literally an entire field of research that contradicts your claim. Heck, it's even well documented that folks can even block out entire traumatic events.

But hey your anecdotes are just more shitty excuses to claim Ford is lying. Deplorable!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 06, 2018, 10:54:15 PM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

It was always a waste of time, from the outset.  Republicans control the Senate, and the Senate controls confirmations, and they could have put a convicted child molester on the court if they wanted to.  It literally couldn't matter any less what anyone said. 

At least with Roy Moore, the public got to vote.  With Kavanaugh, there was nothing anybody was ever going to be able to do as long as Republicans wanted it.  They put the least popular justice in generations on the SC, despite the bar association and former justices opposing him, despite multiple credible accusations of sexual misconduct, despite documented cases of lying under oath, but none of it matters. 

Nothing matters until people learn to vote for people who will represent them.  Until then, money buys power and power makes decisions for people without money.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 07, 2018, 12:59:35 AM
Fighting and losing is not always a waste of time, sol.  In this case new information came out about Kavanaugh (both Dr Ford's and his own behaviour in response to them) which is informative.  The Democrats didn't just roll over and show their bellies either, which is also useful.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Bateaux on October 07, 2018, 01:08:54 AM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

It was always a waste of time, from the outset.  Republicans control the Senate, and the Senate controls confirmations, and they could have put a convicted child molester on the court if they wanted to.  It literally couldn't matter any less what anyone said. 

At least with Roy Moore, the public got to vote.  With Kavanaugh, there was nothing anybody was ever going to be able to do as long as Republicans wanted it.  They put the least popular justice in generations on the SC, despite the bar association and former justices opposing him, despite multiple credible accusations of sexual misconduct, despite documented cases of lying under oath, but none of it matters. 

Nothing matters until people learn to vote for people who will represent them.  Until then, money buys power and power makes decisions for people without money.

I'm close to setting up a touring bicycle and just saying fuck to it all.  The future I'd hoped for our nation isn't happening.  My life clock is ticking louder every day saying just FIRE-FIRE-FIRE.  Many of the everyday people who will be effected the most don't seem to give a shit.  Why the Hell should I? 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on October 07, 2018, 03:50:51 AM
Now that the Kavanaugh saga is almost to a close it feels like a giant waste of energy was spent for nothing.

It was always a waste of time, from the outset.  Republicans control the Senate, and the Senate controls confirmations, and they could have put a convicted child molester on the court if they wanted to.  It literally couldn't matter any less what anyone said. 

At least with Roy Moore, the public got to vote.  With Kavanaugh, there was nothing anybody was ever going to be able to do as long as Republicans wanted it.  They put the least popular justice in generations on the SC, despite the bar association and former justices opposing him, despite multiple credible accusations of sexual misconduct, despite documented cases of lying under oath, but none of it matters. 

Nothing matters until people learn to vote for people who will represent them.  Until then, money buys power and power makes decisions for people without money.

What does matter is that Ford did appear and tell her side of the story and it did come out that Kav is NO choir boy. It is important for women to come forward and be heard. No, we did not get the outcome, we the people, wanted but his reputation is forever stained and it will go into the history books. It takes courageous people to start change. Rosa Parks is an example of a courageous woman who refused to give up her seat to a white person while segregation was still enforced. Change for the better takes time. Maybe once these old geezers are gone, with their backward thinking, change will happen.

I agree with you Sol, they could have put in anyone with any reputation and were hell bent to get what they wanted if they had to lie, cheat or steal to get it done. Then they try to convince everyone that it was done fair and square and they didn't leave any rock unturned to find the truth.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Michael in ABQ on October 07, 2018, 06:02:15 AM
Apropos the FBI investigation: Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago (https://politics.theonion.com/senator-feinstein-wondering-if-now-a-good-time-to-discl-1829555909)

Those upset about the short investigation should blame Senator Feinstein for sitting on the allegations for weeks, a blatant political ploy to wait until the 11th hour as a stalling tactic. The time to make these known was when they came to the Senator so they could be investigated in normal due course. The ploy didn't work and now seems this shitshow may have energized the GOP base.

The most surprising thing for me is how quiet it is here in left of left Santa Cruz. This town protests anything and everything at the drop of a hat, yet very little activity today as we biked around with the family (counted one lone protestor). Maybe it will come later, or maybe it's a sign of outrage fatigue?

This.

Many people saw this as a calculated smear campaign by Democrats and it simply made Republicans all that more defensive about the whole thing, thus ensuring that his nomination would be pushed through. Had these allegations come out during the normal process (and assuming they were true) there would likely have been a quiet decision to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration and pick someone else.


The deeper problem is the politicization of the judicial branch reflects directly on the executive branch amassing power over the last century or so while the legislative branch has continually abdicated it's power. Supreme Court nominee one wouldn't matter so much if Congress did it's job and didn't punt the hard decisions to the Supreme Court in an effort to keep their hands cleaner so they can focus on getting reelected for life.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 07, 2018, 06:52:28 AM
Now, what happens if a state just refuses an SC decision? Let's say California ignores an anti-choice SC decision. What can the courts do about it? Not much, without the executive branch enforcing the Court decisions. If the President is a Democrat, and refuses to enforce federal laws (much like the Schedule I marijuana laws), what then?

I believe that is called "Anarchy." Deciding whether rules are disregarded or enforced sounds like hell.

There is precedent, as I mentioned. Marijuana is still federally illegal but many states have made it legal for anyone. Even LAX now allows pot in luggage. Sessions thinks Reefer Madness is a documentary, and he promised to go after pot fiends, but he'll actively be working against local and state police, who don't give a shit, and local DAs (likewise).

Given that anarchy hasn't spread throughout the land, it's feasible that ignoring far-right conservative opinions on laws wouldn't cause anarchy either.

One law or ruling, no the system will continue. Ignoring several of them, people will start wondering about legitimacy. And inevitably one will be curious if the laws are being selectively applied.

The 50 Senators who voted to confirm Kavanaugh, and who decided to ignore Garland, represent less than 50% of the populace (one estimate is 37%). They've stacked the court to push their opinions on the rest of the country. It's a tyranny of the minority.

In other words, we already have a legitimacy problem. Even Roberts recognizes that, especially after Kavanaugh's tantrum.

That is how our system works. Every state gets equal representation in the Senate. It's a balance against populus states which are supposed to be represented in the house of Representatives.

I'd rather not get into this debate again, (monkey Uncle had a thread on it). If you think there is an issue of legitimacy, I'll leave you to do what you think is necessary.

Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 07, 2018, 07:23:59 AM
Apropos the FBI investigation: Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago (https://politics.theonion.com/senator-feinstein-wondering-if-now-a-good-time-to-discl-1829555909)

Those upset about the short investigation should blame Senator Feinstein for sitting on the allegations for weeks, a blatant political ploy to wait until the 11th hour as a stalling tactic. The time to make these known was when they came to the Senator so they could be investigated in normal due course. The ploy didn't work and now seems this shitshow may have energized the GOP base.

The most surprising thing for me is how quiet it is here in left of left Santa Cruz. This town protests anything and everything at the drop of a hat, yet very little activity today as we biked around with the family (counted one lone protestor). Maybe it will come later, or maybe it's a sign of outrage fatigue?

This.

Many people saw this as a calculated smear campaign by Democrats and it simply made Republicans all that more defensive about the whole thing, thus ensuring that his nomination would be pushed through. Had these allegations come out during the normal process (and assuming they were true) there would likely have been a quiet decision to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration and pick someone else.

I don't buy this for a second. Republicans would have claimed smear campaign no matter the timing. Mitch and others were claiming Kavanaugh would be approved even as the allegations were just coming to light. Let's not pretend people like him would have had some moral compass if the allegations came out a month earlier. That in and of itself also proves that they could give a shit less about the truthful nature of the allegations.

Blaming Feinstein for a short investigation is just another example of some fucked up mental gymnastics to put this all on Dems. Who controlled the investigation and limited it's scope on purpose? Wait for it...... Republicans!!! Kavanaugh was going to get pushed through no matter what. Just ask Mitch!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 07, 2018, 07:46:12 AM
Apropos the FBI investigation: Senator Feinstein Wondering If Now A Good Time To Disclose 7 Highly Credible Murder Allegations Against Kavanaugh She Received Weeks Ago (https://politics.theonion.com/senator-feinstein-wondering-if-now-a-good-time-to-discl-1829555909)

Those upset about the short investigation should blame Senator Feinstein for sitting on the allegations for weeks, a blatant political ploy to wait until the 11th hour as a stalling tactic. The time to make these known was when they came to the Senator so they could be investigated in normal due course. The ploy didn't work and now seems this shitshow may have energized the GOP base.

The most surprising thing for me is how quiet it is here in left of left Santa Cruz. This town protests anything and everything at the drop of a hat, yet very little activity today as we biked around with the family (counted one lone protestor). Maybe it will come later, or maybe it's a sign of outrage fatigue?

This.

Many people saw this as a calculated smear campaign by Democrats and it simply made Republicans all that more defensive about the whole thing, thus ensuring that his nomination would be pushed through. Had these allegations come out during the normal process (and assuming they were true) there would likely have been a quiet decision to withdraw Kavanaugh from consideration and pick someone else.


The deeper problem is the politicization of the judicial branch reflects directly on the executive branch amassing power over the last century or so while the legislative branch has continually abdicated it's power. Supreme Court nominee one wouldn't matter so much if Congress did it's job and didn't punt the hard decisions to the Supreme Court in an effort to keep their hands cleaner so they can focus on getting reelected for life.

The bolded makes me wonder if the Republicans were the ones that leaked the letter to the press.  Christine Ford has stated that her email was hacked and the result was such that Republicans were able to successfully get Kavanaugh through, energize the Republican base and smear Democrats & women.  It also took the focus off the stolen emails from Senator Leahy and Kavanaugh's shady financials. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 07, 2018, 09:05:42 AM
1/3 of the men on the Supreme Court now stand credibly accused of sexual misconduct.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 07, 2018, 09:10:44 AM
The bolded makes me wonder if the Republicans were the ones that leaked the letter to the press.  Christine Ford has stated that her email was hacked and the result was such that Republicans were able to successfully get Kavanaugh through, energize the Republican base and smear Democrats & women.  It also took the focus off the stolen emails from Senator Leahy and Kavanaugh's shady financials.

It was a bad decision, if so. The polling looks poor for the Republicans -- Kavanaugh had low approval, especially among suburban women. They're a big part of Republican support. It'll be interesting to see what the polls show this week.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 07, 2018, 09:16:10 AM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 07, 2018, 02:22:26 PM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 07, 2018, 02:26:24 PM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 07, 2018, 02:52:33 PM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

It is possible to amend the Constitution. The changes have to be made with regard to how it functions in the greater whole.

Right now they want the Senate to be by population. The house is also by population. We go from "tyranny of the minority" to "mob rule." That is not a solution.

If they changed the number of senators to 4 (or however many) for each state, that would be fine.

Or if they are that salty about the confirmation just amend the Constitution to 60% of both the Senate and the house of Representatives. Population gets added and each state still has baseline representation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 07, 2018, 02:54:54 PM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

If the composition of the Senate is going to be the same as the House, why have it.  Just go to a unicameral legislature (i.e., House only).  The Senate was purposely set up to be less representative.  Originally, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures and not by popular vote.  That was changed by amendment in the early 20th century.  The Senate was supposed to be more deliberative and less responsive to the whim of the people.  Hence 6 year terms rather than 2.  Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than the somehow ensure that the Dems never lose.  Is it fair that populous Republican Texas has only two senators and underpopulated liberal Vermont also has 2?  How many people elected Bernie Sanders?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 07, 2018, 02:57:40 PM
Quote from: craimund link=topic=96396.msg2161375#msg2161375
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than the somehow ensure that the Dems never lose.
If Dems always have the majority of voters in the country then they should never lose.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 07, 2018, 03:00:18 PM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

Until the last three election cycles, the Democrats were the overwhelming beneficiaries of gerrymandering, winning a disproportionate number of Congressional seats compared to the actual vote received.  The attached chart is from a CNBC article.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the Dems complain.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 07, 2018, 03:03:54 PM
Quote from: craimund link=topic=96396.msg2161375#msg2161375
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than the somehow ensure that the Dems never lose.
If Dems always have the majority of voters in the country then they should never lose.

Senate and House races aren't determined by the national popular vote.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 07, 2018, 03:15:08 PM
Quote from: craimund link=topic=96396.msg2161375#msg2161375
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish other than the somehow ensure that the Dems never lose.
If Dems always have the majority of voters in the country then they should never lose.

The majority of the electorate in the 2010 and 2014 Senate races was Republican.  In 2012 and 2016 the majority was Democrat.  Democrats don't always get the most votes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2014
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on October 07, 2018, 03:19:51 PM
The bolded makes me wonder if the Republicans were the ones that leaked the letter to the press.  Christine Ford has stated that her email was hacked and the result was such that Republicans were able to successfully get Kavanaugh through, energize the Republican base and smear Democrats & women.  It also took the focus off the stolen emails from Senator Leahy and Kavanaugh's shady financials.

It was a bad decision, if so. The polling looks poor for the Republicans -- Kavanaugh had low approval, especially among suburban women. They're a big part of Republican support. It'll be interesting to see what the polls show this week.

The Russians have interfered before and they will again. Why wouldn't they? They want no sanctions. The billionaires controlling Putin have spoken, and he'd better deliver or be removed.

Russians have hacked emails. The hacked emails could lead to the blackmail of politicians. Trump has said he has dirt on certain people in Congress. I believe him.

If a poll is correct, I'll be pleasantly surprised. With the avoidance of recording people of color on the census and the resulting gerrymandering, the Repubs have managed to take control even though they are the minority.





Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 08, 2018, 04:50:43 AM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

The discussion around only two senators per state was a heated one.  From what I understand they were locked in a room until it and other items were agreed upon.  The reasoning is that small states would have no voice in Washington DC.  This is the purpose of two senators per state.  To give the smaller states a voice.  Changing it would change what the forefathers envisioned and I think the small states need a voice.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 08, 2018, 07:25:20 AM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

The discussion around only two senators per state was a heated one.  From what I understand they were locked in a room until it and other items were agreed upon.  The reasoning is that small states would have no voice in Washington DC.  This is the purpose of two senators per state.  To give the smaller states a voice.  Changing it would change what the forefathers envisioned and I think the small states need a voice.

It would also take a constitutional change, which the small states would never agree to. The large states don't have the votes to change it on their own. 

Senators per state isn't changing anytime soon.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 08, 2018, 07:42:35 AM
Abolish the electoral college, award senators proportional to states' populations, and create congressional districts algorithmically to prevent gerrymandering.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State.  [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]

The philosophy behind that was equality of the states.

Gerrymandering doesn't come into it because they are elected across the entire state.

Read the bolded above.


Quote
I meant that if you guys decided to cede from the union or revolt, you guys go ahead and do that.

What are you going on about?

I keep telling you that the house of Representatives is the one based on population and the Senate has equal representation. That is the compromise. Two legislative bodies each working on different principles that are reconciled in the end. Changing the Senate to reflect population undermines its purpose.

Someone suggested ignoring court rulings due to a lack of legitimacy. That is a form of rebellion right? So you guys do what you have to do.

gentmach, isn't it possible to amend the Constitution?  Including to change the composition of the Senate?  Not that it's likely, but it's a perfectly respectable, democratic and constitutional proposal.

Unless you think any and all amendments to the Constitution are improper of course.  Is that what you think?

The discussion around only two senators per state was a heated one.  From what I understand they were locked in a room until it and other items were agreed upon.  The reasoning is that small states would have no voice in Washington DC.  This is the purpose of two senators per state.  To give the smaller states a voice.  Changing it would change what the forefathers envisioned and I think the small states need a voice.

I agree and I think it is a dangerous concept for the media or politicians to express.  It will only further divide the country.  To me, the more important concept is voting in legislators that are delegates rather than trustees regardless of party.  In a meeting with my Republican congressman in 2017 who was voted in by only a 12% margin over the unknown, severely underfunded Democratic candidate, he expressed he was a trustee type of legislator rather than a delegate type of legislator.  He specifically said that the voters had their say and they voted for him based on his political philosophy and that he saw no reason to have Town Halls.  It's a heavily gerrymandered district in NC and he won with votes representing 29% of 2010 population and I live in an area that has seen 3% population growth year after year since 2010.  When I asked him what about the other 70% in his district he ignored me and went on to another question.  I can express my opinion all I want, but he all but admitted he doesn't care what his constituents think.  I'm helping his opponent all I can this cycle, but gerrymandering is a problem.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Psychstache on October 08, 2018, 07:57:02 AM
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 08, 2018, 08:13:01 AM
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Yes, it could be, and there are studies showing it is infinitely doable and the most non-partisan solution. But it will never happen for that very reason, because politicians suck.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 08, 2018, 08:42:52 AM
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

We also need to decide if 438 people are enough to represent a country of 328 million people. The original Constitution says that every 30,000 people creates a new representative, which creates a new district.

There is supposed to be 10,866 Representatives I the House. I have been told "That is TOO much democracy and they prefer the strong centralized government." Seems the beast has slipped the leash and the consensus is "we need to build a better leash" instead of contemplating what the proper size should be.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 08, 2018, 09:46:32 AM
I've been thinking about how pressure to vote was distributed in the Kavanaugh process. There was a lot of pressure placed on Murkowski and Collins, as female senators and thus considered potential GOP swings. I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone. Mancin and all the other men who voted are just as much to blame. Putting the weight of this on two female senators is also sexist. The political strategy of putting pressure on them and seeing them as the swing votes is simply an extension of that abdication of responsibility.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner on October 08, 2018, 09:48:38 AM
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

We also need to decide if 438 people are enough to represent a country of 328 million people. The original Constitution says that every 30,000 people creates a new representative, which creates a new district.

There is supposed to be 10,866 Representatives I the House. I have been told "That is TOO much democracy and they prefer the strong centralized government." Seems the beast has slipped the leash and the consensus is "we need to build a better leash" instead of contemplating what the proper size should be.

Coming from the other side of things, I would be very much in agreement with this solution.  And it is completely possible now with technology.

But it will never happen because the politicians on both sides like their lifetime power appointments.

Think about it, if you combine this with term limits, all of the sudden you can't buy enough congressmen to get what you want, because there are enough of them that many will say no.  Especially once you remove the lure of decades in office.  Just like term limits, this would take an Article V convention and isn't likely to happen any time soon.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 10:01:15 AM
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!
Sure does seem a reasonable idea.

In the realm of Unintended Consequences, one obstacle is the Voting Rights Act and Majority-minority districts (https://ballotpedia.org/Majority-minority_districts).  If that camel's nose is permitted to stand and disrupt an "equal population with minimum perimeter" or similar district drawing, then we probably end up with the gerrymandered districts we have today.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: jrhampt on October 08, 2018, 10:06:37 AM
I've been thinking about how pressure to vote was distributed in the Kavanaugh process. There was a lot of pressure placed on Murkowski and Collins, as female senators and thus considered potential GOP swings. I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone. Mancin and all the other men who voted are just as much to blame. Putting the weight of this on two female senators is also sexist. The political strategy of putting pressure on them and seeing them as the swing votes is simply an extension of that abdication of responsibility.

I agree. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 08, 2018, 10:12:51 AM
I agree that the "blame" goes to every senator who voted, but I think the weight was on Murkowski and Collins, not because they were female, but because they have crossed the aisle before and are seen as moderates.  No one expected Joni Ernst to vote anything but straight party line, for instance, and she's a female GOP senator. (there are 3 other republican females in the senate too- I don't know anything about them though.)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 08, 2018, 10:29:28 AM
I agree that the "blame" goes to every senator who voted, but I think the weight was on Murkowski and Collins, not because they were female, but because they have crossed the aisle before and are seen as moderates.  No one expected Joni Ernst to vote anything but straight party line, for instance, and she's a female GOP senator. (there are 3 other republican females in the senate too- I don't know anything about them though.)

Valid points. Collins vote has actually helped fuel a huge outpouring of support and funds to basically whoever runs against her. To the point that the website accepting donations crashed.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 08, 2018, 10:56:09 AM
I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone.

Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 08, 2018, 10:59:20 AM
Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman.
I'll buy that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 08, 2018, 11:05:28 AM
I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone.

Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman.

But some people who claim to be "sexual assault survivors" are liars.  UVA Jackie, Crystal Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) and Tawana Brawley are some of the high profile false allegations that were accepted as true and found later to be totally fabricated.  The lives of the falsely accused were ruined as a result.  The truth is that some men sexually assault women and some women lie about being sexually assaulted.  Some people (men and women) are mentally unstable and believe something happened to them in the past that never happened or an accuser may blame the wrong person for a crime.  That's why there should be a presumption of innocence for these types of accusations.  Collins articulated this in her speech on the floor of the Senate, applying a preponderance of evidence standard.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 08, 2018, 11:10:54 AM
I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone.

Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman.

But some people who claim to be "sexual assault survivors" are liars.  UVA Jackie, Crystal Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) and Tawana Brawley are some of the high profile false allegations that were accepted as true and found later to be totally fabricated.  The lives of the falsely accused were ruined as a result.  The truth is that some men sexually assault women and some women lie about being sexually assaulted.  Some people (men and women) are mentally unstable and believe something happened to them in the past that never happened or an accuser may blame the wrong person for a crime.  That's why there should be a presumption of innocence for these types of accusations.  Collins articulated this in her speech on the floor of the Senate, applying a preponderance of evidence standard.

In this particular case, I find it very implausible that Ford would be lying about this and would repeat the same lie to four other witnesses over a period of multiple years before Kavanaugh was ever under consideration for a Supreme Court appointment. I find it much more likely that she's telling the truth.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 08, 2018, 11:18:23 AM
Obviously I know it won't happen because politicians like creating a partisan advantage, but couldn't Congressional districts be drawn by a computer at this point? Plug in the census counts, determine how many districts are in a state and press enter? If there a reason this wouldn't be possible other than the people in per not wanting to!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

We also need to decide if 438 people are enough to represent a country of 328 million people. The original Constitution says that every 30,000 people creates a new representative, which creates a new district.

There is supposed to be 10,866 Representatives I the House. I have been told "That is TOO much democracy and they prefer the strong centralized government." Seems the beast has slipped the leash and the consensus is "we need to build a better leash" instead of contemplating what the proper size should be.

Coming from the other side of things, I would be very much in agreement with this solution.  And it is completely possible now with technology.

But it will never happen because the politicians on both sides like their lifetime power appointments.

Think about it, if you combine this with term limits, all of the sudden you can't buy enough congressmen to get what you want, because there are enough of them that many will say no.  Especially once you remove the lure of decades in office.  Just like term limits, this would take an Article V convention and isn't likely to happen any time soon.

I'd wait on adding term limits. The limits would be up just when people would be getting the hang of things. And such a large change we would have to see how the system changes.

I think there would be too many Congress people to buy (though it would make senators more valuable, but they are still only half the equation.) Counties like mine have 60,000 people, 1 county newspaper and 3 local radio stations so there would be market limits on ads. (You could buy ad space in Chicago papers but there would be several dozen districts also competing.)

Also more diversity and opportunity in Congress.

We have to get people talking. Right now people are trying to reinvent the wheel to bring balance to our system. That needs to stop.

Edit: Actually Congress would have to repeal the Permanent Allocation act of 1929. That seems easier than a convention. Yes, our government size hasn't been adjusted in 90 years.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 08, 2018, 11:26:03 AM
I am (obviously) unhappy with how Collins voted, but I think putting the blame on her is problematic. It is not her responsibility to vote a certain way simply because she is a woman. Her vote counted just as much as any other Senators. The responsibility for not voting for someone like Kavanaugh within the context of sexual assault has to be spread out. It is not appropriate to expect women to carry that load, and voting responsibility, alone.

Collins didn't bear the responsibility of voting a certain way because she is a woman, she bore the responsibility of voting a certain way because she has positioned herself as a champion of women's issue.  When she then publicly denounced the #metoo movement and called a sexual assault survivor a liar, she absolutely earned all of the derision she has received.  That load is hers to carry because she is a deceitful hypocrite, not because she is a woman.

But some people who claim to be "sexual assault survivors" are liars.  UVA Jackie, Crystal Mangum (Duke Lacrosse) and Tawana Brawley are some of the high profile false allegations that were accepted as true and found later to be totally fabricated.  The lives of the falsely accused were ruined as a result.  The truth is that some men sexually assault women and some women lie about being sexually assaulted.  Some people (men and women) are mentally unstable and believe something happened to them in the past that never happened or an accuser may blame the wrong person for a crime.  That's why there should be a presumption of innocence for these types of accusations.  Collins articulated this in her speech on the floor of the Senate, applying a preponderance of evidence standard.

For a job interview?  Have you ever interviewed anyone?  We've rejected people for the wrong clothes, the wrong shoes, typo on resume, asking personal questions, misspelling names in form letters.  And that's the tip of the iceberg.  If we had ever interviewed someone and addressed a glaring problem in their resume, and they came back yelling and sputtering at us, they'd be shown the door.  His behavior at being questioned was outrageous.  His answers about his disgusting comments about Renate Schroeder were clearly lies. And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

Now, maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic to him being the target of accusations against which he had no choice but to angrily defend himself if he hadn't made his career spending millions of dollars trying to prove that Hillary Clinton had an affair with Vince Foster.  Based on (wait for it) nothing.  The evidence against Brett-witness testimony-was a lot more than he had on Hillary.  Brett got years to go after her.  Why did Brett feel entitled to a hair from Foster's daughter but the FBI can't even interview Mark Judge? 

At this point, I'm waiting for him to overturn Roe. Maybe people will start caring then.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 08, 2018, 11:33:08 AM
I've been following this thread closely but haven't posted. 

FWIW, I've voted Democrat in 2 of 3 presidential cycles (including the most recent), have voted Democrat in my local congressional race for six election cycles in a row, and generally consider myself very socially liberal.

All that said, the way Democrats handled this Kavenaugh allegation was the most disgusting political stuff I've ever seen in my lifetime. We went so low that we forget Booker and Harris embarrassing the Senate with their initial questioning.  Then D's completely botched Ford's confidentiality, and in every step of the process regarding the allegation, their goal was delay and embarrassing the nominee into withdrawing, not fairness. 

As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.

And don't give me "this was a job interview" bullshit.  That was an obvious ploy to shift blame from their own shady behavior.  No job interviewer in their right mind goes into whether "Devil's Triangle" means a threesome or a drinking game.  And the intent of this was obvious -- they couldn't prove "A" (sexual assault), so they tried to prove "B" (drinking), and if they proved B, then they could prove A.  It's a lazy lawyer tactic that would be an embarrassment in a personal injury trial, let alone in a Senate Judiciary hearing.

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.

And worst of all, as is being clearly demonstrated by the recent discussion in this thread regarding the Senate, the Democrats conduct has been so outrageous that questioning the legitimacy of our institutions is somehow considered mainstream among the intellectual left.

I've read countless articles questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  I've seen thought pieces about how undemocratic the Senate is.  I've read about how anything Trump has done is illegitimate.  And throughout this entire ordeal, I've seen Democrats stomp on the presumption of innocence and due process.  Wait a minute -- weren't we pissed at Trump for stomping on democratic norms?  And now Democrats are going to act like this?

Do we seriously have to go over the purpose of the Senate? Are us Democrats too stupid and naive to forget hat small liberal states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Oregon, etc. all get two votes as well? Do we really want federal legislation being passed based almost entirely on interests of California, Texas, New York, and Florida?

Sorry, but I'm done with Democrats for a long, long time.  This was disgusting and embarrassing.

I'm voting Republican this November.  My mom, who has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1976, is doing the same.  I will probably never vote for Trump, but if Democrats pull something like this again, I just might.

I am just so utterly disgusted.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 08, 2018, 11:36:10 AM
As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Samuel on October 08, 2018, 11:38:14 AM
Hey I have an idea. How about instead of rejiggering the makeup of the Senate we just require 60 votes to confirm judges? That would help balance things and would likely preclude the most extreme partisans from being nominated, let alone confirmed.

Oh. Right.


Mitch McConnell is a political hatchet man but you can't say he didn't warn us: “I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.” (2013, when Democrats exercised the 'nuclear option' to change the threshold from 60 votes to a simple majority for Federal judges [later expanded, of course, to the Supreme Court too]).

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 08, 2018, 11:40:17 AM
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You're off your goddamn partisan rocker if you legitimately think this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 08, 2018, 11:43:56 AM
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You're off your goddamn partisan rocker if you legitimately think this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3bcd78ae8d1a
"Other witnesses"

You're off your rocker if you think Ford has been planning a long con since 2012 on the off-chance that Donald Trump would win the presidency in 2016 and nominate Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 08, 2018, 11:46:51 AM
I've been following this thread closely but haven't posted. 

FWIW, I've voted Democrat in 2 of 3 presidential cycles (including the most recent), have voted Democrat in my local congressional race for six election cycles in a row, and generally consider myself very socially liberal.

All that said, the way Democrats handled this Kavenaugh allegation was the most disgusting political stuff I've ever seen in my lifetime. We went so low that we forget Booker and Harris embarrassing the Senate with their initial questioning.  Then D's completely botched Ford's confidentiality, and in every step of the process regarding the allegation, their goal was delay and embarrassing the nominee into withdrawing, not fairness. 

As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.

And don't give me "this was a job interview" bullshit.  That was an obvious ploy to shift blame from their own shady behavior.  No job interviewer in their right mind goes into whether "Devil's Triangle" means a threesome or a drinking game.  And the intent of this was obvious -- they couldn't prove "A" (sexual assault), so they tried to prove "B" (drinking), and if they proved B, then they could prove A.  It's a lazy lawyer tactic that would be an embarrassment in a personal injury trial, let alone in a Senate Judiciary hearing.

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.

And worst of all, as is being clearly demonstrated by the recent discussion in this thread regarding the Senate, the Democrats conduct has been so outrageous that questioning the legitimacy of our institutions is somehow considered mainstream among the intellectual left.

I've read countless articles questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  I've seen thought pieces about how undemocratic the Senate is.  I've read about how anything Trump has done is illegitimate.  And throughout this entire ordeal, I've seen Democrats stomp on the presumption of innocence and due process.  Wait a minute -- weren't we pissed at Trump for stomping on democratic norms?  And now Democrats are going to act like this?

Do we seriously have to go over the purpose of the Senate? Are us Democrats too stupid and naive to forget hat small liberal states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Oregon, etc. all get two votes as well? Do we really want federal legislation being passed based almost entirely on interests of California, Texas, New York, and Florida?

Sorry, but I'm done with Democrats for a long, long time.  This was disgusting and embarrassing.

I'm voting Republican this November.  My mom, who has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1976, is doing the same.  I will probably never vote for Trump, but if Democrats pull something like this again, I just might.

I am just so utterly disgusted.

Your anger seems very heartfelt and you should contact some conservative publications.  Much like liberals adore Cletus safaris into the heartland, conservative rags love stories about "liberals" who are walking away.  They would be all over your story.

Did you react the same way when Newt Gingrich uncovered a stained dress during an investigation of Arkansas real estate transactions?  Did you react the same way when Mitch McConnell wouldn't advance Garland for a vote? I'm just asking about when and where disgust is appropriate.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 08, 2018, 11:55:59 AM
Hey I have an idea. How about instead of rejiggering the makeup of the Senate we just require 60 votes to confirm judges? That would help balance things and would likely preclude the most extreme partisans from being nominated, let alone confirmed.

Oh. Right.


Mitch McConnell is a political hatchet man but you can't say he didn't warn us: “I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, you’ll regret this. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.” (2013, when Democrats exercised the 'nuclear option' to change the threshold from 60 votes to a simple majority for Federal judges [later expanded, of course, to the Supreme Court too]).

That's not what the "nuclear option" is about and "60 votes" was never a standard for confirmation of SC Judges. (Hint: How many votes did Thomas get in 1991? How about Alito in 2006?) It's about the votes needed to end filibusters.

The "nuclear option" wasn't exercised in 2013. Its use was threatened, much like Majority Leader Frist (R) threatened its use in 2005, and Obama and the GOP worked out a deal.

There was no filibuster of Kavanaugh so the "nuclear option" wasn't exercised this time either.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 08, 2018, 11:57:18 AM

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.


I am just so utterly disgusted.

Before you grab your chisel to start marking his face into Mt. Rushmore as a friend to the unjustly accused who is willing to die on the hill of presumption of innocence, you may recall that this is how he reacted to the unjustly accused:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-penalty-central-park-five-20180713-story.html

Trump doesn't give a shit about the unjustly accused.  He cares about Trump winning and Trump looking good. In this case, Kavanaugh's success was tied to his own, so he stood up for him.  How do you think Trump will react to a liberal or minority who is unjustly accused?  If this is what makes you vote for the party that wants to see more of your clients in jail, then by all means go for it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: KBecks on October 08, 2018, 12:05:17 PM
And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

That was an example hack, speculative reporting.  He was also doing some home remodeling at the same time.  Taking out a loan for home improvements is very normal, but mentioning baseball tickets is sensational, so that's the story they went with.  It could have been for cash flow purposes to borrow some money for the home improvements.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 08, 2018, 12:08:34 PM
Your anger seems very heartfelt and you should contact some conservative publications.  Much like liberals adore Cletus safaris into the heartland, conservative rags love stories about "liberals" who are walking away.  They would be all over your story.

FOXNEWS NEWSFLASH: Anonymous posters on financial forum convince diehard liberal to become Trump-loving conservative! Voter goes from supporting feminists to supporting Roy Moore in one week.

Full story at 7.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 08, 2018, 12:09:27 PM
And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

That was an example hack, speculative reporting.  He was also doing some home remodeling at the same time.  Taking out a loan for home improvements is very normal, but mentioning baseball tickets is sensational, so that's the story they went with.  It could have been for cash flow purposes to borrow some money for the home improvements.

Could have been.  If only there were some sort of process by which we could have gotten more information about the cash flow.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 12:10:29 PM
That's not what the "nuclear option" is about and "60 votes" was never a standard for confirmation of SC Judges. (Hint: How many votes did Thomas get in 1991? How about Alito in 2006?) It's about the votes needed to end filibusters.

The "nuclear option" wasn't exercised in 2013. Its use was threatened, much like Majority Leader Frist (R) threatened its use in 2005, and Obama and the GOP worked out a deal.

There was no filibuster of Kavanaugh so the "nuclear option" wasn't exercised this time either.
It appears you are unfamiliar with the concept of "cloture".  See Kavanaugh court nomination: What is cloture? Did senators filibuster? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/10/05/senate-terms-cloture-and-filibuster-mean/1533133002/) for context.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 08, 2018, 12:11:20 PM

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.


I am just so utterly disgusted.

Before you grab your chisel to start marking his face into Mt. Rushmore as a friend to the unjustly accused who is willing to die on the hill of presumption of innocence, you may recall that this is how he reacted to the unjustly accused:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-penalty-central-park-five-20180713-story.html

Trump doesn't give a shit about the unjustly accused.  He cares about Trump winning and Trump looking good. In this case, Kavanaugh's success was tied to his own, so he stood up for him.  How do you think Trump will react to a liberal or minority who is unjustly accused?  If this is what makes you vote for the party that wants to see more of your clients in jail, then by all means go for it.

Hah, this was my first thought too. Trump backs whoever is on his side, if the tables were turned he'd be champion of the me too movement right now.

And if you really like that he's criticizing the democrats for this, that's one thing, but are you aware that he's also been mocking Ford? What purpose does that serve? Even if you don't think she had adequate evidence to back her story, that doesn't make her a liar. Do you have adequate evidence to mark her as a liar worthy of ridicule?

Regardless of your stance on the Kavanaugh debate, no one should take away from this that Trump is doing something honorable.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 08, 2018, 12:11:58 PM
Your anger seems very heartfelt and you should contact some conservative publications.  Much like liberals adore Cletus safaris into the heartland, conservative rags love stories about "liberals" who are walking away.  They would be all over your story.

FOXNEWS NEWSFLASH: Anonymous posters on financial forum convince diehard liberal to become Trump-loving conservative! Voter goes from supporting feminists to supporting Roy Moore in one week.

Full story at 7.

Dude.  Where's the proof against Roy?  Some yearbooks and hysterical females?  That does it.  MAGA!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: TexasRunner on October 08, 2018, 12:23:30 PM
And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

That was an example hack, speculative reporting.  He was also doing some home remodeling at the same time.  Taking out a loan for home improvements is very normal, but mentioning baseball tickets is sensational, so that's the story they went with.  It could have been for cash flow purposes to borrow some money for the home improvements.

Could have been.  If only there were some sort of process by which we could have gotten more information about the cash flow.

Your representatives DID.  In the closed door hearings.  As is normal practice....
Or do you want the last 5 years of credit card statements for the next democrat's nomination plastered across the internet?

Which, by the way, would have been the perfect time for Feinstein to introduce the letter and allogations into the process AND keep Dr. Ford's confidentiality intact.

Jeeze some people have no idea how this process works.  There are the public hearings, there are private hearings, and there are individual hearings between each senator and the nominee (if requested by the senator) which I do not believe can be denied.  It was noted in the public hearings that the credit card statements for Kavanaugh were reviewed in that hearing (when one of the R senators was complaining about the timing of the letter).  You have a representative, realize that means you may not be privy into the intimate details of a nominee's life, but they are.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 08, 2018, 12:30:21 PM
That's not what the "nuclear option" is about and "60 votes" was never a standard for confirmation of SC Judges. (Hint: How many votes did Thomas get in 1991? How about Alito in 2006?) It's about the votes needed to end filibusters.

The "nuclear option" wasn't exercised in 2013. Its use was threatened, much like Majority Leader Frist (R) threatened its use in 2005, and Obama and the GOP worked out a deal.

There was no filibuster of Kavanaugh so the "nuclear option" wasn't exercised this time either.
It appears you are unfamiliar with the concept of "cloture".  See Kavanaugh court nomination: What is cloture? Did senators filibuster? (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/10/05/senate-terms-cloture-and-filibuster-mean/1533133002/) for context.

I'm incorrect in that the Democrats did, in fact, vote to end the supermajority needed for cloture for nominations except for SC Justices.

The Republicans voted to end the supermajority needed for cloture for SC Justices in 2017.

There was and is no "60 votes" rule for confirmation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 01:03:42 PM
I've been following this thread closely but haven't posted. 

FWIW, I've voted Democrat in 2 of 3 presidential cycles (including the most recent), have voted Democrat in my local congressional race for six election cycles in a row, and generally consider myself very socially liberal.

All that said, the way Democrats handled this Kavenaugh allegation was the most disgusting political stuff I've ever seen in my lifetime. We went so low that we forget Booker and Harris embarrassing the Senate with their initial questioning.  Then D's completely botched Ford's confidentiality, and in every step of the process regarding the allegation, their goal was delay and embarrassing the nominee into withdrawing, not fairness. 

As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.

And don't give me "this was a job interview" bullshit.  That was an obvious ploy to shift blame from their own shady behavior.  No job interviewer in their right mind goes into whether "Devil's Triangle" means a threesome or a drinking game.  And the intent of this was obvious -- they couldn't prove "A" (sexual assault), so they tried to prove "B" (drinking), and if they proved B, then they could prove A.  It's a lazy lawyer tactic that would be an embarrassment in a personal injury trial, let alone in a Senate Judiciary hearing.

The entire thing was a sham and an embarrassment to the country.  I initially didn't like the Kavenaugh nomination because I would have preferred someone more moderate.  When the allegations first came out, I thought they should withdraw him.  But as it got worse and worse, I thought fuck it, for the first time ever, I was happy that Trump was president, that he was willing to say "fuck you" and stick up for the presumption of innocence and due process. Those are hills worth dying on.

And worst of all, as is being clearly demonstrated by the recent discussion in this thread regarding the Senate, the Democrats conduct has been so outrageous that questioning the legitimacy of our institutions is somehow considered mainstream among the intellectual left.

I've read countless articles questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.  I've seen thought pieces about how undemocratic the Senate is.  I've read about how anything Trump has done is illegitimate.  And throughout this entire ordeal, I've seen Democrats stomp on the presumption of innocence and due process.  Wait a minute -- weren't we pissed at Trump for stomping on democratic norms?  And now Democrats are going to act like this?

Do we seriously have to go over the purpose of the Senate? Are us Democrats too stupid and naive to forget hat small liberal states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Oregon, etc. all get two votes as well? Do we really want federal legislation being passed based almost entirely on interests of California, Texas, New York, and Florida?

Sorry, but I'm done with Democrats for a long, long time.  This was disgusting and embarrassing.

I'm voting Republican this November.  My mom, who has voted Democrat in every presidential election since 1976, is doing the same.  I will probably never vote for Trump, but if Democrats pull something like this again, I just might.

I am just so utterly disgusted.

Are you aware of our civil court system?  Do you have an opinion on why it is okay for the standard of proof to be lower in our civil court system than our criminal court system?  Do you think that because there is no presumption of innocence in the civil court system that defendants aren't afforded due process in that system?  Are you aware that the highest estimate of the false allegation rate is currently ~10%?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 08, 2018, 01:16:00 PM
And it's still not clear to me why he had to take out a second mortgage to buy baseball tickets.

That was an example hack, speculative reporting.  He was also doing some home remodeling at the same time.  Taking out a loan for home improvements is very normal, but mentioning baseball tickets is sensational, so that's the story they went with.  It could have been for cash flow purposes to borrow some money for the home improvements.

Could have been.  If only there were some sort of process by which we could have gotten more information about the cash flow.

Your representatives DID.  In the closed door hearings.  As is normal practice....
Or do you want the last 5 years of credit card statements for the next democrat's nomination plastered across the internet?

Which, by the way, would have been the perfect time for Feinstein to introduce the letter and allogations into the process AND keep Dr. Ford's confidentiality intact.

Jeeze some people have no idea how this process works.  There are the public hearings, there are private hearings, and there are individual hearings between each senator and the nominee (if requested by the senator) which I do not believe can be denied.  It was noted in the public hearings that the credit card statements for Kavanaugh were reviewed in that hearing (when one of the R senators was complaining about the timing of the letter).  You have a representative, realize that means you may not be privy into the intimate details of a nominee's life, but they are.

That's the thing.  I don't know.  I know he had 200k in debt. I don't need to see his cc statements, but I am interested in knowing who paid the debt and why.  I didn't see any reporting on that issue being closed.  Also, his cc statements don't tell me why he got a second mortgage.  They aren't the same as testimony from the people he supposedly bought tickets for.  Both of us are speculating as to why he had such poor cash flow that he needed a second mortgage, and neither of us knows why the sort of person who couldn't afford to pay cash for renovations or baseball tickets (who knows? not us) suddenly was flush enough to pay it all off.  Did his parents pay the debt? The presence of debt and obligations is of interest.   Perhaps this issue was closed, but without knowing for sure, you yourself are speculating that the committee received enough information on this.  Again, this is the committee that couldn't even get Mark Judge to come in, so I don't know why you are so confident that his financial record was carefully reviewed. All available information suggests he kind of sucks at money for someone with such a high income.

I certainly don't know how the process works, mainly because Mitch McConnell seems to be making it up as he goes along. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 08, 2018, 01:40:21 PM
Did you react the same way when Newt Gingrich uncovered a stained dress during an investigation of Arkansas real estate transactions?  Did you react the same way when Mitch McConnell wouldn't advance Garland for a vote? I'm just asking about when and where disgust is appropriate.

Not familiar with the Newt thing, but yes, Republicans' stonewalling of the Garland nomination was a bad faith abandonment of their advice and consent role. That seat was stolen.

Before you grab your chisel to start marking his face into Mt. Rushmore as a friend to the unjustly accused who is willing to die on the hill of presumption of innocence, you may recall that this is how he reacted to the unjustly accused:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-news-trump-death-penalty-central-park-five-20180713-story.html

Trump doesn't give a shit about the unjustly accused.  He cares about Trump winning and Trump looking good. In this case, Kavanaugh's success was tied to his own, so he stood up for him.  How do you think Trump will react to a liberal or minority who is unjustly accused?  If this is what makes you vote for the party that wants to see more of your clients in jail, then by all means go for it.

Trump is an asshole.  I didn't vote for him.  I 99% won't vote for him in 2020.

Are you aware of our civil court system?  Do you have an opinion on why it is okay for the standard of proof to be lower in our civil court system than our criminal court system?  Do you think that because there is no presumption of innocence in the civil court system that defendants aren't afforded due process in that system?  Are you aware that the highest estimate of the false allegation rate is currently ~10%?

I'm an attorney.  I'm very aware of burdens of proof.  This was an incredibly murky situation regarding what burden of proof applied because the tribunal was irregular.

The lowest possible burden of proof here would have been preponderance -- more likely than not.  The plaintiff, or accuser, carries that burden.  Based on my observation and analysis of the evidence, Dr. Ford failed that burden.

And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 08, 2018, 01:49:27 PM

I'm an attorney.  I'm very aware of burdens of proof.  This was an incredibly murky situation regarding what burden of proof applied because the tribunal was irregular.

The lowest possible burden of proof here would have been preponderance -- more likely than not.  The plaintiff, or accuser, carries that burden.  Based on my observation and analysis of the evidence, Dr. Ford failed that burden.

And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on October 08, 2018, 01:51:23 PM

I'm an attorney.  I'm very aware of burdens of proof.  This was an incredibly murky situation regarding what burden of proof applied because the tribunal was irregular.

The lowest possible burden of proof here would have been preponderance -- more likely than not.  The plaintiff, or accuser, carries that burden.  Based on my observation and analysis of the evidence, Dr. Ford failed that burden.

And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

Lawyers keep talking about court proceedings, but this was a job interview and not a trial.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on October 08, 2018, 01:53:58 PM
In sum, I consider Kavanaugh's nomination and appointment to the court as a win for the Russians.

As I read more about Russia, I am connecting dots.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 08, 2018, 01:56:32 PM
A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

To me, voting "no" meant legitimizing the Democrats' conduct, which I found despicable.  It also would have set a dangerous precedent that any allegation -- even one with no corroboration -- could sink a nomination.  That's not a precedent I'm willing to set, even for a nominee that I didn't initially like.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 08, 2018, 01:58:33 PM
A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

To me, voting "no" meant legitimizing the Democrats' conduct, which I found despicable.  It also would have set a dangerous precedent that any allegation -- even one with no corroboration -- could sink a nomination.  That's not a precedent I'm willing to set, even for a nominee that I didn't initially like.

So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 

Whether or not you want to believe the allegation from Dr. Ford, plenty else went on at his hearing that calls his appointment into question.

As to no corroboration, I don't know if that's true or not, because the greatest sham of an investigation occured to find out. And that was on a single allegation; multiple others were not investigated.  People who wanted to give information to the FBI were ignored.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 02:05:38 PM
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 
Until that is proven, one shouldn't state it as a proven fact.  What examples and proofs do you have in mind?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 08, 2018, 02:06:34 PM
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 

Whether or not you want to believe the allegation from Dr. Ford, plenty else went on at his hearing that calls his appointment into question.

This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.

It's all a moving target, it's all a fucking con game to make their base feel that this was illegitimate, and I'm saying this as someone who has voted for a Democratic Congressman since I've been able to vote -- you're in on the shenanigans if you fell for any of it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 02:07:21 PM
Are you aware of our civil court system?  Do you have an opinion on why it is okay for the standard of proof to be lower in our civil court system than our criminal court system?  Do you think that because there is no presumption of innocence in the civil court system that defendants aren't afforded due process in that system?  Are you aware that the highest estimate of the false allegation rate is currently ~10%?

I'm an attorney.  I'm very aware of burdens of proof.  This was an incredibly murky situation regarding what burden of proof applied because the tribunal was irregular.

The lowest possible burden of proof here would have been preponderance -- more likely than not.  The plaintiff, or accuser, carries that burden.  Based on my observation and analysis of the evidence, Dr. Ford failed that burden.

And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I don't think I understand this statement.  Why does the fact that the accusation was a crime lead you to believe that?

ETA:  So, I guess my question to you is if we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 08, 2018, 02:13:25 PM
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 
Until that is proven, one shouldn't state it as a proven fact.  What examples and proofs do you have in mind?

That he never drank to black out (which many people have refuted).
Quote
KAVANAUGH: I — passed out would be — no, but I’ve gone to sleep, but — but I’ve never blacked out. That’s the — that’s the — the allegation, and that — that — that’s wrong.

That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."

That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?

KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.

There are text messages that show this isn't true:
Quote
HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or any of her colleagues or any of their staff asked you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations?

KAVANAUGH: Today.


I also have a very hard time believing he played a drinking game called Devil's Triangle that no one else had ever heard of, when the rest of the country, including his area, seemed to be using the term to mean something very different.



I'm not putting him on trial for perjury, but I would certainly question his testimony and not give him a lifetime appointment to the highest position in our judiciary based on this testimony
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 08, 2018, 02:19:34 PM
To me, voting "no" meant legitimizing the Democrats' conduct, which I found despicable.  It also would have set a dangerous precedent that any allegation -- even one with no corroboration --
There were four corroborating witnesses.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 08, 2018, 02:20:03 PM
According to Lindsey Graham, it wasn't a job interview, it was hell. I'm not sure what the standard of proof for hell is.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 08, 2018, 02:21:38 PM
This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.
They proved both that he sexually assaulted Ford and that he was a drunk. Do you have a source on the Devil's Triangle thing?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 08, 2018, 02:26:05 PM
This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.
They proved both that he sexually assaulted Ford and that he was a drunk. Do you have a source on the Devil's Triangle thing?

(Preferably a source that predates the hearing.)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 08, 2018, 02:27:24 PM


You appear to be forgetting 1) her therapist - medical witnesses are counted as strong witnesses in court, were we in court, and 2) the lie detector test and the ex  FBI agent who took it.


You're right, these could prove to be corroborative.

The problem is, Christine Ford has refused to turn over her therapy notes or any of the documentation from her polygraph test. If she is telling the truth, these would be enormously important corroborative evidence in her favor. If she is not telling the truth, these materials might destroy her case and, at a minimum, open her up to perjury charges. The fact that she will not turn over the evidence seems to indicate that it falls into the latter category, not the former.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 08, 2018, 02:28:08 PM
This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.
They proved both that he sexually assaulted Ford and that he was a drunk. Do you have a source on the Devil's Triangle thing?

(Preferably a source that predates the hearing.)

Jaime Roche, his Yale roommate?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 08, 2018, 02:31:25 PM
This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.
They proved both that he sexually assaulted Ford and that he was a drunk. Do you have a source on the Devil's Triangle thing?

Two letters were sent to the Judiciary Committee:

https://www.nationalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018-10-04-Georgetown-Prep-Letter-re-Devils-Triangle.pdf

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-04%20College%20Letter%20re%20Devil's%20Triangle.pdf

Also, another classmate had in his yearbook had references that make pretty clear it's a drinking game: https://medium.com/@climatebrad/brett-kavanaughs-georgetown-prep-yearbook-explained-1bfea9bc047c

"Roland Goco; Paul G. Murray “Devil’s Triangle 3”; Bernard McCarthy’s entry lists “Devil’s Triangle (founder of the name)”; Juan Carlos del Real “Lost in Devil’s Triangle 3, 4.” Richard Schoeb Jr.: “Devil’s Triangle (participant).”
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 02:35:20 PM
That he never drank to black out (which many people have refuted).
No, people said he was a belligerent drunk, etc., but AFAIK nobody has said he drank to black out.

Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.

Quote
That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?
KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.
"Fits that description" would include Ford "also...present."  Now we're back to the heart of the matter: did Kavanaugh attack Ford?  If yes, the "ever at a gathering that fits" debate is irrelevant due to the more serious matter.  If no, then Kavanaugh is on firm ground.

Quote
I also have a very hard time believing he played a drinking game called Devil's Triangle that no one else had ever heard of, when the rest of the country, including his area, seemed to be using the term to mean something very different.
I'd never heard of it in any context, but he has corroboration from friends that back his story.

Quote
I'm not putting him on trial for perjury, but I would certainly question his testimony and not give him a lifetime appointment to the highest position in our judiciary based on this testimony.
And a bunch of senators who voted against him would agree with you.  Of course, most had pretty much decided to vote against him before any of this came out, or even before he was nominated.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 02:41:02 PM
Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.

Possibly relevant word that I learned recently:  Paltering (https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Cache_Stash on October 08, 2018, 02:45:20 PM
Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.

Possibly relevant word that I learned recently:  Paltering (https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering).

Good word for it.  I think that matches what he was doing.  But, it doesn't make him guilty of lying to the senate under oath. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 08, 2018, 02:59:09 PM
A crime might have been the accusation, but it wasn't a trial.  Voting no doesn't mean you are convicting him of sexual assualt. It means you aren't giving him the job.

Garland certainly didn't get past his 'job interview' for much lesser "crimes". His "crime" was being nominated by a Democrat.

To me, voting "no" meant legitimizing the Democrats' conduct, which I found despicable.  It also would have set a dangerous precedent that any allegation -- even one with no corroboration -- could sink a nomination.  That's not a precedent I'm willing to set, even for a nominee that I didn't initially like.

But you like him now?  How do you think Renate Schroeder feels about all of this?  Do you think he told the truth that all the cracks in the yearbook about her were not about sex? 

He was willing to admit he likes beer, but he couldn't tell the truth about poor Renate. I feel like an echo. I've brought her up 1000 times in this thread, and not one single defender of Kavanaugh is willing to admit that they buy his story that the reason a bunch of football players said they were Renata alumni was "affection" and not a joke about sex.  You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.  By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

If you don't believe me, you could ask Renate how she feels.  Oh yeah-she's devastated and prays that no one does that to these assholes' daughters. That sure sounds like it was about affection.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 08, 2018, 02:59:31 PM

Quote
That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?
KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.
"Fits that description" would include Ford "also...present."  Now we're back to the heart of the matter: did Kavanaugh attack Ford?  If yes, the "ever at a gathering that fits" debate is irrelevant due to the more serious matter.  If no, then Kavanaugh is on firm ground.

I have a lot of trouble with the logic on this one.  Surely the starting point is: Ford described a gathering, Kavanaugh denies there was ever such a gathering, a gathering of that description is recorded in Kavanaugh's calendar.  How did Ford know about that gathering recorded in Kavanaugh's diary if she wasn't there?  The preponderance of evidence suggests that despite Kavanaugh's denials there was a gathering at which Ford and Kavanaugh (and others who were named by Ford) were present and at which beer was drunk.  Kavanaugh's denial is unconvincing, given his calendar.  (I expect that he had to produce the calendar because so many people, including his parents, his wife and his kids all knew about it.)

The secondary question, that comes after the evidence of the gathering, is what happened at the gathering.  Did Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assault Ford at that gathering and put her in fear of her life?  She says yes, he says no, others say they can't remember.   A dispassionate view, from reading the transcript and watching the behaviour of the two witnesses, would say that Ford was the more credible witness (ask any lawyer which of the two they would prefer as a witness on their side).

I just don't see how the logic of "oh the evidence of the gathering is irrelevant because what did or did not happen at it is more important" works.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 03:02:50 PM
Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.
Possibly relevant word that I learned recently:  Paltering (https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering).
Possibly, but now that I went back to see the actual transcript, probably not.  From Kavanaugh hearing: Transcript - The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.5ea2ec0a7b88):
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford has described you as being intoxicated at a party. Did you consume alcohol during your high school years?

KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 03:06:04 PM

Quote
That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?
KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.
"Fits that description" would include Ford "also...present."  Now we're back to the heart of the matter: did Kavanaugh attack Ford?  If yes, the "ever at a gathering that fits" debate is irrelevant due to the more serious matter.  If no, then Kavanaugh is on firm ground.

I have a lot of trouble with the logic on this one.  Surely the starting point is: Ford described a gathering, Kavanaugh denies there was ever such a gathering, a gathering of that description is recorded in Kavanaugh's calendar.  How did Ford know about that gathering recorded in Kavanaugh's diary if she wasn't there?  The preponderance of evidence suggests that despite Kavanaugh's denials there was a gathering at which Ford and Kavanaugh (and others who were named by Ford) were present and at which beer was drunk.  Kavanaugh's denial is unconvincing, given his calendar.  (I expect that he had to produce the calendar because so many people, including his parents, his wife and his kids all knew about it.)

The secondary question, that comes after the evidence of the gathering, is what happened at the gathering.  Did Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assault Ford at that gathering and put her in fear of her life?  She says yes, he says no, others say they can't remember.   A dispassionate view, from reading the transcript and watching the behaviour of the two witnesses, would say that Ford was the more credible witness (ask any lawyer which of the two they would prefer as a witness on their side).

I just don't see how the logic of "oh the evidence of the gathering is irrelevant because what did or did not happen at it is more important" works.
Because now we're talking about "lying under oath to the Senate" and whether that (not "did Kavanaugh attack Ford?") is a proven fact.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 08, 2018, 03:10:00 PM

Quote
That he was never at a gathering like the one described by Dr.Ford.  That gathering, as described,  was just a group of his friends.  Um, really?
Quote
MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?
KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.
"Fits that description" would include Ford "also...present."  Now we're back to the heart of the matter: did Kavanaugh attack Ford?  If yes, the "ever at a gathering that fits" debate is irrelevant due to the more serious matter.  If no, then Kavanaugh is on firm ground.

I have a lot of trouble with the logic on this one.  Surely the starting point is: Ford described a gathering, Kavanaugh denies there was ever such a gathering, a gathering of that description is recorded in Kavanaugh's calendar.  How did Ford know about that gathering recorded in Kavanaugh's diary if she wasn't there?  The preponderance of evidence suggests that despite Kavanaugh's denials there was a gathering at which Ford and Kavanaugh (and others who were named by Ford) were present and at which beer was drunk.  Kavanaugh's denial is unconvincing, given his calendar.  (I expect that he had to produce the calendar because so many people, including his parents, his wife and his kids all knew about it.)

The secondary question, that comes after the evidence of the gathering, is what happened at the gathering.  Did Kavanaugh and Judge sexually assault Ford at that gathering and put her in fear of her life?  She says yes, he says no, others say they can't remember.   A dispassionate view, from reading the transcript and watching the behaviour of the two witnesses, would say that Ford was the more credible witness (ask any lawyer which of the two they would prefer as a witness on their side).

I just don't see how the logic of "oh the evidence of the gathering is irrelevant because what did or did not happen at it is more important" works.
Because now we're talking about "lying under oath to the Senate" and whether that (not "did Kavanaugh attack Ford?") is a proven fact.

If it's lying to the Senate that matters, Kavanaugh's denial of the gathering recorded in his calendar was a lie.    But wasn't it your post that raised the attack itself as "the heart of the matter?  That's why I challenged the logic of your statement on that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
If it's lying to the Senate that matters, Kavanaugh's denial of the gathering recorded in his calendar was a lie.
You may want to believe that it is a lie.  And it's not an indefensible belief, but it's by no means a certainty.  E.g., see Brett Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry that could help Ford’s case, explained - Vox (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914174/brett-kavanaugh-calendar-christine-blasey-ford) for what appears to be a reasonably balanced analysis.

For more, see Transcript: Brett Kavanaugh's Opening Statement from Today | Time (http://time.com/5409283/brett-kavanaugh-opening-statement/):
Quote
Less than two weeks ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event. Her longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me, and does not believe she ever saw me at a party, ever.

Here is the quote from Ms. Keyser’s attorney’s letter: quote, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford,” end quote.

Quote
But wasn't it your post that raised the attack itself as "the heart of the matter?  That's why I challenged the logic of your statement on that.
This side-trip started with
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 
Until that is proven, one shouldn't state it as a proven fact.  What examples and proofs do you have in mind?
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 08, 2018, 03:33:37 PM
If it's lying to the Senate that matters, Kavanaugh's denial of the gathering recorded in his calendar was a lie.
You may want to believe that it is a lie.  And it's not an indefensible belief, but it's by no means a certainty.  E.g., see Brett Kavanaugh’s July 1 calendar entry that could help Ford’s case, explained - Vox (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/28/17914174/brett-kavanaugh-calendar-christine-blasey-ford) for what appears to be a reasonably balanced analysis.

For more, see Transcript: Brett Kavanaugh's Opening Statement from Today | Time (http://time.com/5409283/brett-kavanaugh-opening-statement/):
Quote
Less than two weeks ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event. Her longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me, and does not believe she ever saw me at a party, ever.

Here is the quote from Ms. Keyser’s attorney’s letter: quote, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford,” end quote.

Quote
But wasn't it your post that raised the attack itself as "the heart of the matter?  That's why I challenged the logic of your statement on that.
This side-trip started with
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 
Until that is proven, one shouldn't state it as a proven fact.  What examples and proofs do you have in mind?
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.
Kavanaugh quoted in the transcript of the hearing: "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation."  That is a flat-out lie, testified to by Dr Ford and by Kavanaugh's own calendar.  And it is that lie which allows the gullible to say that as there was no gathering at which Kavanaugh and Ford were present that their was either no assault or that the assault was by somebody else (the Senator Collins defence).  So not, not incorrect and not a trivial lie by Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 03:39:13 PM
Kavanaugh quoted in the transcript of the hearing: "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation."  That is a flat-out lie, testified to by Dr Ford and by Kavanaugh's own calendar.  And it is that lie which allows the gullible to say that as there was no gathering at which Kavanaugh and Ford were present that their was either no assault or that the assault was by somebody else (the Senator Collins defence).  So not, not incorrect and not a trivial lie by Kavanaugh.
At least we are up to a four letter word (like) instead of a two letter word (is) when we debate its meaning.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 08, 2018, 03:47:47 PM
Kavanaugh quoted in the transcript of the hearing: "I never attended a gathering like the one Dr. Ford describes in her allegation."  That is a flat-out lie, testified to by Dr Ford and by Kavanaugh's own calendar.  And it is that lie which allows the gullible to say that as there was no gathering at which Kavanaugh and Ford were present that their was either no assault or that the assault was by somebody else (the Senator Collins defence).  So not, not incorrect and not a trivial lie by Kavanaugh.
At least we are up to a four letter word (like) instead of a two letter word (is) when we debate its meaning.

Right.  Although a debate which is unhelpful to Kavanaugh: he says he never attended a gathering "similar to" the one mentioned by Ford which means that any trivial differences between Ford's account and the calendar entry become irrelevant.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 03:50:17 PM
Quote
That he was legal age to drink the summer in question (though again, perhaps his reference was circular enough to not refer to him. He said "seniors were legal age to drink", most took this to mean he was to himself as a senior, as rising seniors are considered the summer before they begin their final year of school (graduated seniors are considered graduates not seniors). But during the beach week in question, he was 17- not the legal age of 18).
Quote
"KAVANAUGH: Yes, we drank beer. My friends and I, the boys and girls. Yes, we drank beer. I liked beer. Still like beer. We drank beer. The drinking age, as I noted, was 18, so the seniors were legal, senior year in high school, people were legal to drink, and we — yeah, we drank beer, and I said sometimes — sometimes probably had too many beers, and sometimes other people had too many beers."
Don't know what the question was to which that was the answer, but there's no lying under oath in that statement alone.

Possibly relevant word that I learned recently:  Paltering (https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering).

Good word for it.  I think that matches what he was doing.  But, it doesn't make him guilty of lying to the senate under oath.

It may not technically be a lie, since a lie is "an intentionally false statement", but I think the common usage of the term may be closer to "an intentionally deceptive statement".  And I don't know about you, but I feel disrespected and am less inclined to believe a speaker in the future anytime they intentionally deceive me, not just when they intentionally tell me something false.

ETA: I'm also curious if any of you guys are going to address Wexler's questions about Renate Schroeder...

But you like him now?  How do you think Renate Schroeder feels about all of this?  Do you think he told the truth that all the cracks in the yearbook about her were not about sex? 

He was willing to admit he likes beer, but he couldn't tell the truth about poor Renate. I feel like an echo. I've brought her up 1000 times in this thread, and not one single defender of Kavanaugh is willing to admit that they buy his story that the reason a bunch of football players said they were Renata alumni was "affection" and not a joke about sex.  You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.  By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.

If you don't believe me, you could ask Renate how she feels.  Oh yeah-she's devastated and prays that no one does that to these assholes' daughters. That sure sounds like it was about affection.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 04:19:23 PM
ETA: I'm also curious if any of you guys are going to address Wexler's questions about Renate Schroeder...
No idea what went on there, but every time it comes up the following comes to mind: Client/server computing is a little like teenage sex – everyone talks about it, few actually do it, and even fewer do it right. (http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/index.php/2009/03/cloud-computing-and-teenage-sex/)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 08, 2018, 04:33:12 PM
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 

Whether or not you want to believe the allegation from Dr. Ford, plenty else went on at his hearing that calls his appointment into question.

This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.

It's all a moving target, it's all a fucking con game to make their base feel that this was illegitimate, and I'm saying this as someone who has voted for a Democratic Congressman since I've been able to vote -- you're in on the shenanigans if you fell for any of it.

Of course it was political bs - Republicans played Democrats, again.  It's all about projection.  I laughed when I saw the tweets about Soros paying protesters.  Because how convenient that Women for Kavanuagh had a bus and lots of money for ads, not just signs that even I could pay for.  I wonder how that was paid for??? How convenient that the Women for Trump group was started by Ann Stone, ex and former business partner of Roger Stone.  There have been so many dirty tricks on the side of the Republicans that I am more disgusted than I was with Kavanuagh and Gingrich's tricks back in 1990 and 1991.  You remember he said what goes around, comes around?  More projection.  You think the claims of lying were D tricks?

Read this - https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

And the Leahy issue - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/01/brett-kavanaugh-misleading-statements-under-oath/1492254002/

I am inclined to believe the Leahy issue as Grassley and Hatch kept interrupting and giving Kavanaugh cover. 

And disgusting?  That would be Trump and his administration.  Kids in cages, mocking a victim of sexual assault, endless lies, endless corruption, the list goes freaking on and on. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 04:34:55 PM
ETA: I'm also curious if any of you guys are going to address Wexler's questions about Renate Schroeder...
No idea what went on there, but every time it comes up the following comes to mind: Client/server computing is a little like teenage sex – everyone talks about it, few actually do it, and even fewer do it right. (http://pl.atyp.us/wordpress/index.php/2009/03/cloud-computing-and-teenage-sex/)
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 04:49:02 PM
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Then you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "and".  It does not imply "therefore".

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 04:51:38 PM
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Then you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "and".  It does not imply "therefore".

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.

Yeah, I know.  That's not where I got the implication.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 04:59:50 PM
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Then you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "and".  It does not imply "therefore".

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.

Yeah, I know.  That's not where I got the implication.
At least we agree on something. :)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 08, 2018, 05:00:17 PM
So you are OKAY with him lying under oath? 

Whether or not you want to believe the allegation from Dr. Ford, plenty else went on at his hearing that calls his appointment into question.

This is the BS that Dems pulled after the Ford-Kavenaugh hearing.  Couldn't prove sexual assault, so they tried to show he was a drunk.  Couldn't prove that either, so then scoured 36 hours of testimony to determine whether he perjured himself.  And then many of the examples of perjury that D's alleged (e.g., Devil's Triangle) have actually shown that he was telling the truth.

It's all a moving target, it's all a fucking con game to make their base feel that this was illegitimate, and I'm saying this as someone who has voted for a Democratic Congressman since I've been able to vote -- you're in on the shenanigans if you fell for any of it.

Some of Kavanaugh's friends claim it was a drinking game. 2 High School friends claim it was a sexual connotation. Kavanaughs former Yale roommate claimed Kavanaugh used the phrase frequently in college as a sexual connotation. The online entry of the phrase also notes it as a sexual connotation. If you are alleging it's the truth because you simply picked a side, you are as guilty of the same bullshit you accused Dems of doing. 

BTW, Dems didn't have to show he was a drunk. Kavanugh was a well known drunk. Should they have tried to prove he is male as well? Jesus!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: FIRE_Buckeye on October 08, 2018, 05:00:40 PM

And disgusting?  That would be Trump and his administration.  Kids in cages, mocking a victim of sexual assault, endless lies, endless corruption, the list goes freaking on and on.
Fair points.
That said, until liberals stop stomping their feet and crying like children long enough to formulate a reasonable platform beyond "Donald Trump and his Republican party are deplorable", those deplorables will continue winning elections at every level.

The people in the middle who decide elections care about real issues that can or could affect their everyday lives, not partisan rhetoric.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 05:16:25 PM
So yes, I agree that whether or not the attack itself occurred is the heart of the matter, and think the "lying under oath" charges are both trivial and incorrect.

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
Then you are misinterpreting the meaning of the word "and".  It does not imply "therefore".

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.

Yeah, I know.  That's not where I got the implication.
At least we agree on something. :)

So, you're response to the Renate Schroeder question is a non-answer that if anything supports the view that he lied under oath and you think I mistook the meaning of the word "and"?  I think Wexler had it right...

You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.  By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 05:34:08 PM
So, you're response to the Renate Schroeder question is a non-answer that if anything supports the view that he lied under oath and you think I mistook the meaning of the word "and"?
My primary response to the Renate Schroeder question was that I have no idea what went on there.  See https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2163001/#msg2163001 in which the "and" issue had no reference to Ms. Schroeder.

Quote
I think Wexler had it right...
You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.
On this particular point, that may be correct.  Wouldn't be at all surprising if 17-18 year old boys were claiming to have more sex than they did.
Quote
By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Would you prefer that he said something like "yeah, we heard she made it with a few guys so a bunch of us decided to claim credit too"?  Or was it better that he said nice things about her now?  In this instance, even if he was lying about what the yearbook comment implied at the time, no I don't think that in any way disqualifies him as a justice now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 05:45:56 PM
So, you're response to the Renate Schroeder question is a non-answer that if anything supports the view that he lied under oath and you think I mistook the meaning of the word "and"?
My primary response to the Renate Schroeder question was that I have no idea what went on there.  See https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2163001/#msg2163001 in which the "and" issue had no reference to Ms. Schroeder.

I already told you the "and" is not where I got the implication.

Quote
I think Wexler had it right...
You guys all know it was about sex.  And because you know that, you know he lied.  He lied, because telling the truth made him look like the asshole he was when he was 17.
On this particular point, that may be correct.  Wouldn't be at all surprising if 17-18 year old boys were claiming to have more sex than they did.
Quote
By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Would you prefer that he said something like "yeah, we heard she made it with a few guys so a bunch of us decided to claim credit too"?  Or was it better that he said nice things about her now?  In this instance, even if he was lying about what the yearbook comment implied at the time, no I don't think that in any way disqualifies him as a justice now.

So, which part of my previous post was incorrect then?

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?

And maybe you would like to go revise your previous post?

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 06:04:20 PM
So, which part of my previous post was incorrect then?

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
The part where you assumed what I said there included anything about Ms. Schroeder.  It did not.  I was responding to I'm a red panda's points in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2162895/#msg2162895

Quote
And maybe you would like to go revise your previous post?

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.
Nope, not regarding I'm a red panda's points.  As noted, the point regarding Ms. Schroeder is different.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 08, 2018, 07:05:13 PM
Well, according to Trump, he was proven innocent.

Does anyone know when that happened?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 07:09:02 PM
So, which part of my previous post was incorrect then?

It sounds to me more like you think the "lying under oath" charges are trivial and therefore believe them to be incorrect.  If that's the case, why not just come out with it and say "I don't care whether he lied under oath"?
The part where you assumed what I said there included anything about Ms. Schroeder.  It did not.  I was responding to I'm a red panda's points in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2162895/#msg2162895

Quote
And maybe you would like to go revise your previous post?

In other words, one could say "that's right but so what?" - and maybe some think that way - but that's not my opinion.
Nope, not regarding I'm a red panda's points.  As noted, the point regarding Ms. Schroeder is different.

Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: KBecks on October 08, 2018, 07:16:04 PM
On this particular point, that may be correct.  Wouldn't be at all surprising if 17-18 year old boys were claiming to have more sex than they did.
Quote
By lying now, he proves that he's still an asshole at 53 AND a liar who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court.
Would you prefer that he said something like "yeah, we heard she made it with a few guys so a bunch of us decided to claim credit too"?  Or was it better that he said nice things about her now?  In this instance, even if he was lying about what the yearbook comment implied at the time, no I don't think that in any way disqualifies him as a justice now.
[/quote]

At my husband's high school, it was said that a girl gave head to the entire football team.  Rumor or true, who knows. (Sounds like the stuff porn is made of.) But I'm sure it's not the only instance of a rumor or truth about a girl who may have a lot of experience, real or imagined.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 07:20:24 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 07:29:04 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 07:41:33 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 07:57:09 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 08:08:13 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 08:17:06 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....

No, no I don't think it does.  I know it's a common misconception currently that telling the truth requires one to be an asshole, but I am in vehement disagreement with that notion.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 08:23:06 PM
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....
No, no I don't think it does.  I know it's a common misconception currently that telling the truth requires one to be an asshole, but I am in vehement disagreement with that notion.
OK, as I said you have a defensible position.

If the situation is similar to what Kbecks described in https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2163221/#msg2163221, I think Kavanaugh chose the better part of valor not to say it.  You may disagree, and so it goes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 08, 2018, 08:23:11 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....

He could have said something along the lines of, "it was an inside joke among immature high school boys, and I'd rather not elaborate" and if it wasn't true he could add "it wasn't based on her actions, we were being crude and she happened to be the butt of the joke". And then most importantly, "I'm sorry Renate".

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 08, 2018, 08:41:58 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....

He could have said something along the lines of, "it was an inside joke among immature high school boys, and I'd rather not elaborate" and if it wasn't true he could add "it wasn't based on her actions, we were being crude and she happened to be the butt of the joke". And then most importantly, "I'm sorry Renate".

@MDM ^this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 09:04:58 PM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

Or, and this is just an idea, but maybe he could tell the truth and not drag Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud.
Depends on what the truth is, doesn't it?  Depending on what one assumes, defensible cases can be made....
He could have said something along the lines of, "it was an inside joke among immature high school boys, and I'd rather not elaborate" and if it wasn't true he could add "it wasn't based on her actions, we were being crude and she happened to be the butt of the joke". And then most importantly, "I'm sorry Renate".
Ah, so if he said "I'm sorry" all would be forgiven and he would have been confirmed unanimously?

It's important to note that it was not Kavanaugh who dragged this into the open, it was those trying to scuttle his nomination.  It would be reasonable to assume they didn't much care who got hurt along the way.

But I do agree those could have been good things to say if they fit the facts.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 08, 2018, 09:35:28 PM
We’ve reached the: it’s the liberals who brought this up! Why do you make me hit you stage of the argument.
 
It’s abundantly clear that none of you have a good explanation for why Brett threw Renate under the bus. A half-hearted pretense that she was a big old slut and he protected her doesn’t hold much water. His protests were too feeble, and he never came out and said she never deserved to be the butt of his jokes. If it was true and he was trying to protect her and was willing to lie (SO HONORABLE and yet there is little evidence that he is), why lie so inefficiently? Why the mealy-mouthed crap?  If it wasn’t true, and this is where the evidence points but I appreciate all the innuendo that she probably gave head to the whole team bc it tells me you knew perfectly well what Renate alumnus meant, he never apologized. What an asshole.

You know it. I know it. She knows it. He’s a liar. You don’t care. He implied she’s the village bicycle and you whistle past it. You’d rather smear her and pretend it’s true than face that you support a liar. But we see you.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 08, 2018, 10:20:36 PM
it’s the liberals who brought this up!
That is true, correct?  Ford's handlers didn't do her any favors either, if they didn't tell her Grassley offered to come to California, which made her look bad when she said she didn't know that.

Kavanaugh didn't throw Renate under the bus - whoever publicized that part of the high school yearbook did.  There was plenty of speculation in the news that didn't come from him.  We can debate what his best response could have been (e.g., the exact truth, or a no-comment-but-apology, etc.).

My personal $0.02 is the client-server analogy: a whole lotta talk but probably not much (and a good chance not anything) actually happened.  And this high school yearbook entry has no bearing on his fitness to be a justice now.

Of course, others may have a different opinion.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 08, 2018, 10:25:59 PM
As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You keep saying that, but it isn't true.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 09, 2018, 01:57:05 AM
As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You keep saying that, but it isn't true.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaugh-allegations-sexual-misconduct-complete-list/?utm_term=.4584afc4e6bb
"Other witnesses"

They're not direct witnesses to the event, but they are witnesses to Ford's behavior after the fact, and I find their testimony compelling evidence.

Adela Gildo-Mazzon claims that Ford told her, in 2013, that she had been trapped in a room with two drunken guys and was almost raped by one of them, who is now a federal judge. I believe this. I believe Ford really did tell her that, in 2013. And I have no reason to believe Ford is either delusional or a con artist who's been planning to falsely accuse Kavanaugh for the past five years on the off-chance that he might someday be nominated for the Supreme Court.

Russell Ford claims that Christine Ford told this same story in couple's therapy in 2012. Notes from the therapy back this up. Again, I have no reason to believe Ford is delusional or a con artist playing a six year con.

Keith Keogler and Rebecca White both also testified that Ford told them about being sexually assaulted, in 2016 and 2017.

When Ford's been telling the same story, consistently, to four different people over the span of the last six years, and when there's no reason to think Ford is delusion and no apparent ulterior motive for why she'd make up such a story six years ago, and when the story fits with known facts about Kavanaugh's personal timeline, drinking habits and party behavior, the most likely explanation is that the story is true. Occam's Razor.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 09, 2018, 02:07:35 AM
As a public defender, and as someone who also volunteers for legal aid, the left's presumption of *guilt* disgusted me and had me fearing for my clients.  If this allegation -- with absolutely no corroboration -- was enough to sink someone, God help my clients of color, no money, etc.
The allegation has corroboration! Four other people have corroborated it!

You keep saying that, but it isn't true.

What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's.  Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 09, 2018, 03:34:10 AM
it’s the liberals who brought this up!
That is true, correct?  Ford's handlers didn't do her any favors either, if they didn't tell her Grassley offered to come to California, which made her look bad when she said she didn't know that.

Kavanaugh didn't throw Renate under the bus - whoever publicized that part of the high school yearbook did.  There was plenty of speculation in the news that didn't come from him.  We can debate what his best response could have been (e.g., the exact truth, or a no-comment-but-apology, etc.).

My personal $0.02 is the client-server analogy: a whole lotta talk but probably not much (and a good chance not anything) actually happened.  And this high school yearbook entry has no bearing on his fitness to be a justice now.

Of course, others may have a different opinion.

Maybe, and this is a wild idea, the blame for making crude jokes at a young woman’s expense could rest with the people who made the jokes and not the people shining a light on it and asking if a history of cruelty to women may be relevant to an assault charge. Party of personal responsibility strikes again. Why are you so anxious to shield Brett from his own behavior?  He wanted a seat in the highest court in the land and told us he was a church going choir boy and would have never been that drunk or been at a party like that. It turns out that he was a drunk who hung out with a dude who made jokes about women being hosebags and hitting them. The right lesson to learn is not to publish cruel jokes. No, wait. The lesson is that no matter how shit you were, just lie about it and Republicans  will wave it off if you are one of them. Lesson learned.

And you have proven the point here. You don’t disagree that Brett lied. You haven’t even offered a defense that his committee statement about the yearbook entry was true. You yourself agree the yearbook entry implied sex. Your best argument is that the original yearbook entry was just boasting, but pointing out yet another potential Brett Kavaugh lie doesn’t erase the lie he made under oath. , it doesn’t explain 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh offering a false statement  that a yearbook entry  about sex wasn’t  about sex. You excused his lying, but you agree he lied. You said his lying may have been a kindness, but you agree it was a lie. You said you don’t think it matters that he lied, but you agree it was a lie. So you’ve agreed with us all along that Brett Kananaugh lied under oath.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 09, 2018, 07:11:13 AM
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

Dissecting a two-word yearbook entry from 1983 and hypothesizing about its meaning 35 years later? And maybe, maybe, maybe with this slanted interpretation he *might* have perjured himself?

Alleging that there are "corroborating witnesses" when there are, without any question, no corroborating witnesses?

Setting forth an Alex Jones-style conspiracy theory about a calendar entry from July 1, 1982 (when all named by Ford could not corroborate)?

What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's. Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

What? Do you understand how off the damn rails you are? No, no, no, no no.  The bolded statements are just laughably inaccurate.  Ford's team would have jumped ALL OVER the 07/01/1982 date, and screamed to the absolute high heavens, if they could have proven that was the date in question.


I'm just at a loss you guys.  I feel like Democrats mentally toyed with the base and got our hopes up that we could take back the Senate and get a more moderate nominee appointed.  But it all started crumbling, so then things went into silly season (Did he drink? Did he perjure himself about his high school yearbook?)

I don't like admitting this, but anyone who followed this closely without a crazy partisan lens (e.g., took the time to also make sure they were reading WSJ or similar sources to get the right's perspective on things) knows this was all bullshit smear tactics attempting to embarrass and force the nominee to withdraw.

This is an absolute embarrassment, and I'm embarrassed that fellow Democrats are still rambling on about such nonsense.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 09, 2018, 07:28:21 AM

What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's. Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

What? Do you understand how off the damn rails you are? No, no, no, no no.  The bolded statements are just laughably inaccurate.  Ford's team would have jumped ALL OVER the 07/01/1982 date, and screamed to the absolute high heavens, if they could have proven that was the date in question.


Ford's "team"?  Do please explain what opportunity they had to intervene?  The calendar was released on 26 September, Ford and Kavanaugh gave evidence on 28th September.  Ford quite rightly gave evidence of what she knew first hand.  As soon as the Republican's "assistant" asked Kavanaugh about the calendar entry the Republicans stopped her from asking any more questions and derailed the session completely.  The FBI were stopped from asking Ford about the calendar, and were stopped from gathering evidence about Ford's other evidence about the date (dates of Judge's employment at a Safeway).

Your screaming that something is inaccurate when 1) there is no evidence it is inaccurate and 2) opportunities to prove it is accurate have been blocked looks pretty desperate.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 09, 2018, 07:30:05 AM
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

Dissecting a two-word yearbook entry from 1983 and hypothesizing about its meaning 35 years later? And maybe, maybe, maybe with this slanted interpretation he *might* have perjured himself?

Alleging that there are "corroborating witnesses" when there are, without any question, no corroborating witnesses?

Setting forth an Alex Jones-style conspiracy theory about a calendar entry from July 1, 1982 (when all named by Ford could not corroborate)?

What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's. Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

What? Do you understand how off the damn rails you are? No, no, no, no no.  The bolded statements are just laughably inaccurate.  Ford's team would have jumped ALL OVER the 07/01/1982 date, and screamed to the absolute high heavens, if they could have proven that was the date in question.


I'm just at a loss you guys.  I feel like Democrats mentally toyed with the base and got our hopes up that we could take back the Senate and get a more moderate nominee appointed.  But it all started crumbling, so then things went into silly season (Did he drink? Did he perjure himself about his high school yearbook?)

I don't like admitting this, but anyone who followed this closely without a crazy partisan lens (e.g., took the time to also make sure they were reading WSJ or similar sources to get the right's perspective on things) knows this was all bullshit smear tactics attempting to embarrass and force the nominee to withdraw.

This is an absolute embarrassment, and I'm embarrassed that fellow Democrats are still rambling on about such nonsense.

I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 09, 2018, 07:30:53 AM
When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 09, 2018, 07:53:07 AM
I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.

We already do have civil remedies for rape (tort claims for assault, battery, IIED, etc.).  Those require preponderance proof. If proven, plaintiff could recover civil remedies including monetary damages and injunctive relief.  And no, they should not be jailed.  In this country, you can only be deprived of life and liberty if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime.  To set a precedent otherwise for one specific crime could open floodgates that I'm not comfortable opening.

And when I say "corroborating witnesses," I'm referring to witnesses contemporaneous with the event.  That's the standard definition.  What's being referenced above is perhaps character witnesses.


When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.

The FBI did not have jurisdiction to conduct a complete investigation here.  This was an alleged state crime that did not involve federal law.  The FBI did not have subpoena power here.  They could only conduct a "background investigation," and the White House, as the client, has the right to limit that investigation.  I would have wanted a more thorough investigation, without question; my only caveat is that it's clear the democrats would have never been satisfied.

The difference with this and Clarence Thomas was that Justice Thomas was a federal employee, and Professor Hill was also a federal employee, at the time of the alleged harassment.  That involved federal employment law, which gave the FBI more authority to be more thorough.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on October 09, 2018, 07:54:44 AM
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

I've talked to conservatives (anti-trump) who don't like him. They didn't get into the specifics of yearbook notes or stories about his drinking habits, they just watched Brett respond to questions at the hearing and said he didn't seem like the type of person you want on the supreme court. They wanted to move on and pick another conservative judge. That's largely what all this comes down to for me as well (minus the conservative judge, but that's almost beside the point given the situation).

Debating what was really meant by phrases used in high school and trying to figure out what really happened is a response to those who can't see how ridiculous he acted at the hearing and the resistance to an investigation. The extent to which he dodged questions, blamed this on some democrat conspiracy, and just generally acted like an ass is what bothers me. When asked point blank if he wanted an investigation he simply refused to answer, I'm not ok with that from a supreme court judge.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 09, 2018, 08:00:38 AM
When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.

The FBI did not have jurisdiction to conduct a complete investigation here.  This was an alleged state crime that did not involve federal law.  The FBI did not have subpoena power here.  They could only conduct a "background investigation," and the White House, as the client, has the right to limit that investigation.  I would have wanted a more thorough investigation, without question; my only caveat is that it's clear the democrats would have never been satisfied.

The FBI's jurisdiction includes fraud.  They should have been used to investigate the testimony given by Kavenaugh for any falsehood, but were explicitly prevented from doing so.  Why do you think that this was?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 09, 2018, 08:09:41 AM
I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.
We already do have civil remedies for rape (tort claims for assault, battery, IIED, etc.).  Those require preponderance proof. If proven, plaintiff could recover civil remedies including monetary damages and injunctive relief.  And no, they should not be jailed.  In this country, you can only be deprived of life and liberty if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime.  To set a precedent otherwise for one specific crime could open floodgates that I'm not comfortable opening.
And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I'm confused.  I thought you said the reason the burden of proof was so high was because the accusation was a crime.  What I proposed makes it a civil issue.  Sure you could still go to jail, but it wouldn't be a crime anymore.  Why wouldn't that lower the standard of proof for you?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: radram on October 09, 2018, 08:16:58 AM
Alleging that there are "corroborating witnesses" when there are, without any question, no corroborating witnesses?

I agree with your assessment that the democrats got played... again. I also believe that taking it further, pledging impeachment if they take the house will possibly DESTROY the 75% chance of taking the house. They are gonna fuck it up and piss me off again. JUST STOP IT!

I find the phrase "corroborating witnesses" purposefully misleading. There is DEFINITLY a question as to whether or not there are any corroborating witnesses.

One definition: "Corroborating witness is a witness whose testimony supports or confirms testimony that is already given."

Under this definition,it is absolutely true that statements given by others after the fact(friends, spouses, therapists) could be "corroborating witnesses". If you never ask these people to testify, then they are not witnesses then, are they? That is a pretty shitty way to keep your claim true. I do not know, were those statements entered as evidence and accepted? If so, then they are indeed "corroborating witnesses", unless you believe either they made it all up, or it is not clear enough that the federal judge Ford was talking about was not this federal judge, but some other federal judge that grew up near her high school home as around the same time 35 years or so ago.

Are you meaning to say there were no witnesses to the event that can corroborate Dr. Ford's account, or are you using some other definition of what a corroborating witness is?

ETA:

You wrote this after I wrote my response:
And when I say "corroborating witnesses," I'm referring to witnesses contemporaneous with the event.  That's the standard definition.  What's being referenced above is perhaps character witnesses.
Who say's this is the "standard definition". It sounds like a completely different thing to me. There can be corroborating wittnesses, AND contemporaneous witnesses(and both.... which should be the best witnesses of all).

"perhaps a character witness": You have GOT to be joking, right. Am I on candid camera?

Thank you for the information regarding federal vs. state employee's. I am sure all of that is VERY important in an investigation (at least until you lie in a federal conformation hearing, and apparently are not of the same party as those running the hearing)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 09, 2018, 08:22:39 AM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

That's about as clear as it can possibly get -- you think it's okay to lie under oath. 

What the fuck is the point of being under oath if it's okay to lie for (insert whatever reason you use)?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 09, 2018, 08:33:30 AM
I consider myself a moderate conservative.

I was not in the least a fan of Kav's temperament at the Senate hearing that I understand was encouraged by White House Counsel Don McGahn. I also was not a fan that he would not answer fairly simple questions that were posed to him and instead just gave more speeches.

If I were a Senator, I would not have voted to confirm him. I think they could have chosen a better candidate.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: OzzieandHarriet on October 09, 2018, 08:34:19 AM
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

I've talked to conservatives (anti-trump) who don't like him. They didn't get into the specifics of yearbook notes or stories about his drinking habits, they just watched Brett respond to questions at the hearing and said he didn't seem like the type of person you want on the supreme court. They wanted to move on and pick another conservative judge. That's largely what all this comes down to for me as well (minus the conservative judge, but that's almost beside the point given the situation).

Debating what was really meant by phrases used in high school and trying to figure out what really happened is a response to those who can't see how ridiculous he acted at the hearing and the resistance to an investigation. The extent to which he dodged questions, blamed this on some democrat conspiracy, and just generally acted like an ass is what bothers me. When asked point blank if he wanted an investigation he simply refused to answer, I'm not ok with that from a supreme court judge.

^ this!

And I’m dismayed how many people have twisted their arguments into knots defending this guy. In normal times, any whiff of his other issues, completely aside from the assault allegations - the financial stuff, his deeply partisan history, his obvious drinking problem - would have sunk his nomination before it even got to a hearing. But these are not normal times, or rather, the new normal is celebration of vile behavior at the top.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 09, 2018, 08:46:07 AM
Kavanaugh was clearly unqualified for the Supreme Court because of his lying under oath, and the sexual misconduct was never investigated so we'll never know.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 09, 2018, 08:49:22 AM
When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.

The FBI did not have jurisdiction to conduct a complete investigation here.  This was an alleged state crime that did not involve federal law.  The FBI did not have subpoena power here.  They could only conduct a "background investigation," and the White House, as the client, has the right to limit that investigation.  I would have wanted a more thorough investigation, without question; my only caveat is that it's clear the democrats would have never been satisfied.

The FBI's jurisdiction includes fraud.  They should have been used to investigate the testimony given by Kavenaugh for any falsehood, but were explicitly prevented from doing so.  Why do you think that this was?

Fraud is generally a state law crime. The FBI’s jurisdiction regarding fraud only relates to fraud relating to federal statutes.

Perjuring under oath to the Senate presumably falls into that category, but as shown in this thread, there’s a lot of reaching to be done to show that. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 09, 2018, 08:50:37 AM
I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.
We already do have civil remedies for rape (tort claims for assault, battery, IIED, etc.).  Those require preponderance proof. If proven, plaintiff could recover civil remedies including monetary damages and injunctive relief.  And no, they should not be jailed.  In this country, you can only be deprived of life and liberty if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime.  To set a precedent otherwise for one specific crime could open floodgates that I'm not comfortable opening.
And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I'm confused.  I thought you said the reason the burden of proof was so high was because the accusation was a crime.  What I proposed makes it a civil issue.  Sure you could still go to jail, but it wouldn't be a crime anymore.  Why wouldn't that lower the standard of proof for you?

I don’t think Ford met even the lowest standard of proof.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on October 09, 2018, 08:53:40 AM
I’m done with this thread. It’s clear nobody is willing to change their opinion at this point, myself included.

I’ll say again, for the third time, that I’m genuinely sad Democrats are acting like this. This entire thing has been such an embarrassment.

Best to all of your preferred candidates this November. I’m voting Republican for the second time in my life.

I’m out.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 09, 2018, 08:54:16 AM
As a liberal who is dying for Trump to get impeached or run out of office, this thread is hard to follow and digest.  This is our base? Seriously?

This whole thing has made otherwise reasonable, intelligent, not-too-partisan people go off the freaking deep end.  Are you fellow liberals listening to yourselves?

I've talked to conservatives (anti-trump) who don't like him. They didn't get into the specifics of yearbook notes or stories about his drinking habits, they just watched Brett respond to questions at the hearing and said he didn't seem like the type of person you want on the supreme court. They wanted to move on and pick another conservative judge. That's largely what all this comes down to for me as well (minus the conservative judge, but that's almost beside the point given the situation).

Debating what was really meant by phrases used in high school and trying to figure out what really happened is a response to those who can't see how ridiculous he acted at the hearing and the resistance to an investigation. The extent to which he dodged questions, blamed this on some democrat conspiracy, and just generally acted like an ass is what bothers me. When asked point blank if he wanted an investigation he simply refused to answer, I'm not ok with that from a supreme court judge.

As a non Trump voting conservative,  I pretty much agree with this. Note I say “pretty” much.

This thread is amazing. I do appreciate the insight into, well, some thought processes of people here. Hmmm.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 09, 2018, 08:57:14 AM
I’m done with this thread. It’s clear nobody is willing to change their opinion at this point, myself included.

I’ll say again, for the third time, that I’m genuinely sad Democrats are acting like this. This entire thing has been such an embarrassment.

Best to all of your preferred candidates this November. I’m voting Republican for the second time in my life.

I’m out.

Cheers.

You're only sad about Democrats, eh?

It's amazing to me that anyone could have watched Graham's performance at the Senate hearing and thought "well damn, those Democrats sure aren't putting on their best face - I've definitely gotta vote GOP this round."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 09, 2018, 09:11:05 AM
When the authorities who should investigate Ford's charges are prevented from doing so by the ruling party (not to mention the three other women with claims that were simply ignored), it's hard not to try and piece together what really happened with the limited information made publicly available.

ReadySetMillionaire, you've mentioned several times that you have legal experience and that you believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that this should apply in the court appointment.  How many court cases have you been in where the judge told police that they were not allowed to investigate key witnesses, key pieces of evidence, and the veracity of statements made by the person on trial?  Or where the police were told that they had one week to find any information whatsoever or the case would be dismissed entirely?  Why should 'innocent until proven guilty' apply when law enforcement is prevented from properly investigating to determine guilt by those in charge (who stand to gain significantly by suppressing the truth)?

I feel like you're attempting to inconsistently apply legal rules to suit your viewpoint.

The FBI did not have jurisdiction to conduct a complete investigation here.  This was an alleged state crime that did not involve federal law.  The FBI did not have subpoena power here.  They could only conduct a "background investigation," and the White House, as the client, has the right to limit that investigation.  I would have wanted a more thorough investigation, without question; my only caveat is that it's clear the democrats would have never been satisfied.

The FBI's jurisdiction includes fraud.  They should have been used to investigate the testimony given by Kavenaugh for any falsehood, but were explicitly prevented from doing so.  Why do you think that this was?

Fraud is generally a state law crime. The FBI’s jurisdiction regarding fraud only relates to fraud relating to federal statutes.

Perjuring under oath to the Senate presumably falls into that category, but as shown in this thread, there’s a lot of reaching to be done to show that.

Well, that's the thing.  You've come down pretty hard on the Democrats for perceived political ploys.  The FBI was explicitly prevented from investigating into Kavenaugh's (potential) perjury by Republicans . . . so I guess we'll never know the truth of the matter.  But, I'll ask again . . . why do you think that this was?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 09, 2018, 09:25:20 AM
Maybe, and this is a wild idea, the blame for making crude jokes at a young woman’s expense could rest with the people who made the jokes and not the people shining a light on it and asking if a history of cruelty to women may be relevant to an assault charge. Party of personal responsibility strikes again. Why are you so anxious to shield Brett from his own behavior?  He wanted a seat in the highest court in the land and told us he was a church going choir boy and would have never been that drunk or been at a party like that. It turns out that he was a drunk who hung out with a dude who made jokes about women being hosebags and hitting them. The right lesson to learn is not to publish cruel jokes. No, wait. The lesson is that no matter how shit you were, just lie about it and Republicans  will wave it off if you are one of them. Lesson learned.

And you have proven the point here. You don’t disagree that Brett lied. You haven’t even offered a defense that his committee statement about the yearbook entry was true. You yourself agree the yearbook entry implied sex. Your best argument is that the original yearbook entry was just boasting, but pointing out yet another potential Brett Kavaugh lie doesn’t erase the lie he made under oath. , it doesn’t explain 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh offering a false statement  that a yearbook entry  about sex wasn’t  about sex. You excused his lying, but you agree he lied. You said his lying may have been a kindness, but you agree it was a lie. You said you don’t think it matters that he lied, but you agree it was a lie. So you’ve agreed with us all along that Brett Kananaugh lied under oath.
That's about as clear as it can possibly get -- you think it's okay to lie under oath. 

What the fuck is the point of being under oath if it's okay to lie for (insert whatever reason you use)?

RSM sums it up well:
Dissecting a two-word yearbook entry from 1983 and hypothesizing about its meaning 35 years later? And maybe, maybe, maybe with this slanted interpretation he *might* have perjured himself?

Yes, I think whatever Kavanaugh said to the Senate about this two-word yearbook entry from 1983, for all the various reasons that have already been put forth, is completely irrelevant to how he would perform as a justice.  Others may disagree.  Most who disagree also disagree with how they expect Kavanaugh to rule as a justice.  Some who disagree agree with how they expect Kavanaugh to rule as a justice. 

If we want to get back to talking about Kavanaugh's judicial temperament and how he might rule on cases that come before the SC, that could be productive.  Or, given he has already been confirmed, we could see how he does rule and not have to speculate.  But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 09, 2018, 09:37:59 AM
But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

It's no mystery how he's going to rule on many cases, he's an extreme partisan. Environmental regulation will be gutted, workers will have fewer protections in the workplace, he will rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he will not allow Trump to be prosecuted while in office.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 09, 2018, 09:49:18 AM
I want to ask you this again, because you never answered before (maybe you missed it, since it was in an edit).  If we changed how we handled rape allegations so that they go through the civil court system but you could still be jailed if found guilty would the standard of proof for this situation be lowered?

I also want to ask what exactly you mean when you say "corroborating witnesses"?  Because I feel like people may be talking about different things when they say that.
We already do have civil remedies for rape (tort claims for assault, battery, IIED, etc.).  Those require preponderance proof. If proven, plaintiff could recover civil remedies including monetary damages and injunctive relief.  And no, they should not be jailed.  In this country, you can only be deprived of life and liberty if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a crime.  To set a precedent otherwise for one specific crime could open floodgates that I'm not comfortable opening.
And because a crime was the accusation, I believe that the presumption of innocence matters and is a factor to be considered.

I'm confused.  I thought you said the reason the burden of proof was so high was because the accusation was a crime.  What I proposed makes it a civil issue.  Sure you could still go to jail, but it wouldn't be a crime anymore.  Why wouldn't that lower the standard of proof for you?

I don’t think Ford met even the lowest standard of proof.

That's likely because you're starting from an extremely biased perspective.  You can't objectively evaluate two competing claims if your assuming that one party is telling the truth with no evidence to back up that assumption.  In fact, that's pretty much the exact opposite of objectivity.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 09, 2018, 09:51:19 AM
I am amazed at anyone would be embarrassed by Democrats, but NOT embarrassed or rather horrified at what Trump and the Republicans did here. So, you are mad that Democrats are bringing up a 1983 yearbook to corroborate the environment and mentality of the person applying to be the next supreme court justice (and also to show he perjured himself. The Times interviewed a number of people including the Captain of the football team when Kavanaugh was a senior, none had volunteered this alternative definition of the term.)

What people should be disgusted at: that Trump nominates an inexperienced, extremely partisan judge who does not pass the base minimum of judicial impartiality. That he was chosen because he is young, he will most likely side with the most extreme views of the right (such as overturning Roe vs. Wade) and most important has minority and dangerous views on the powers and exemptions of the presidential branch. This is not pursuit of fairness. Not pursuit of the truth. Doesn't matter if you are right or left you should be disgusted. 

And lastly, I do feel, as a women, another sense of deja vu and being "put in one's place". That if I was attacked, led an exemplary life, and then told my story, that I would be believed. Not attacked, have death threats, and conspiracy theories pushed about me. If you watched the testimony of both people, bottom line she was credible, he was not. There is no dancing around this.  Trump being president, is a slap in the face to all women. This is another slap in the face to let us know our voice is neither needed nor wanted nor listened to, no matter how successful, exemplary, or respectable we have lived our life.   

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 09, 2018, 09:51:47 AM
But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

It's no mystery how he's going to rule on many cases, he's an extreme partisan. Environmental regulation will be gutted, workers will have fewer protections in the workplace, he will rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he will not allow Trump to be prosecuted while in office.
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 09, 2018, 09:58:07 AM
Maybe, and this is a wild idea, the blame for making crude jokes at a young woman’s expense could rest with the people who made the jokes and not the people shining a light on it and asking if a history of cruelty to women may be relevant to an assault charge. Party of personal responsibility strikes again. Why are you so anxious to shield Brett from his own behavior?  He wanted a seat in the highest court in the land and told us he was a church going choir boy and would have never been that drunk or been at a party like that. It turns out that he was a drunk who hung out with a dude who made jokes about women being hosebags and hitting them. The right lesson to learn is not to publish cruel jokes. No, wait. The lesson is that no matter how shit you were, just lie about it and Republicans  will wave it off if you are one of them. Lesson learned.

And you have proven the point here. You don’t disagree that Brett lied. You haven’t even offered a defense that his committee statement about the yearbook entry was true. You yourself agree the yearbook entry implied sex. Your best argument is that the original yearbook entry was just boasting, but pointing out yet another potential Brett Kavaugh lie doesn’t erase the lie he made under oath. , it doesn’t explain 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh offering a false statement  that a yearbook entry  about sex wasn’t  about sex. You excused his lying, but you agree he lied. You said his lying may have been a kindness, but you agree it was a lie. You said you don’t think it matters that he lied, but you agree it was a lie. So you’ve agreed with us all along that Brett Kananaugh lied under oath.
That's about as clear as it can possibly get -- you think it's okay to lie under oath. 

What the fuck is the point of being under oath if it's okay to lie for (insert whatever reason you use)?

RSM sums it up well:
Dissecting a two-word yearbook entry from 1983 and hypothesizing about its meaning 35 years later? And maybe, maybe, maybe with this slanted interpretation he *might* have perjured himself?

Yes, I think whatever Kavanaugh said to the Senate about this two-word yearbook entry from 1983, for all the various reasons that have already been put forth, is completely irrelevant to how he would perform as a justice.  Others may disagree.  Most who disagree also disagree with how they expect Kavanaugh to rule as a justice.  Some who disagree agree with how they expect Kavanaugh to rule as a justice. 

If we want to get back to talking about Kavanaugh's judicial temperament and how he might rule on cases that come before the SC, that could be productive.  Or, given he has already been confirmed, we could see how he does rule and not have to speculate.  But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

Why is it so hard for you to just say that you don't care if he lied without going on a tangent about how his yearbook won't affect his performance as a judge.  We all know the yearbook entry doesn't matter, it's his lying about it that we take issue with.  Your strident defense of his lies is making me question your honesty.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: pbkmaine on October 09, 2018, 09:59:55 AM
His financials do not make sense. That worries me.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: YttriumNitrate on October 09, 2018, 10:01:59 AM
If we want to get back to talking about Kavanaugh's judicial temperament and how he might rule on cases that come before the SC, that could be productive.  Or, given he has already been confirmed, we could see how he does rule and not have to speculate.  But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.
I'll speculate a third option, at least based on the current composition of the court, how far to the right Kavanaugh rules will be largely irrelevant. It is not very controversial to say that Kavanaugh is to the right of Roberts, so at least until there is a change in the court Kavanaugh is not going to be the deciding vote on any 5-4 rulings.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 09, 2018, 10:02:45 AM
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

Not all that unlikely.  Obama nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was not a hard left partisan supreme court justice.  Very unlikely that the Republicans will appoint one though, based on recent actions.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: pbkmaine on October 09, 2018, 10:09:44 AM
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

Not all that unlikely.  Obama nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was not a hard left partisan supreme court justice.  Very unlikely that the Republicans will appoint one though, based on recent actions.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland, not Gorsuch.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Bateaux on October 09, 2018, 10:17:42 AM
I'm glad for this thread.  It separated much of the wheat from the chaff.  I've been blocking everyone who supported this confirmation on Facebook.  I feel the same here on MMM, I no longer have use for anything you have to say.  Great thing about FU money.   You can tell anyone FU.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 09, 2018, 10:20:24 AM
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

Not all that unlikely.  Obama nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was not a hard left partisan supreme court justice.  Very unlikely that the Republicans will appoint one though, based on recent actions.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland, not Gorsuch.

Thank you, maybe a sign that I've been discussing this too long.  :P
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 09, 2018, 10:24:51 AM
Obama nominated Neil Gorsuch, who was not a hard left partisan supreme court justice.  Very unlikely that the Republicans will appoint one though, based on recent actions.

Actually Trump nominated Gorsuch.  But you are correct, he is not a hard left partisan :).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 09, 2018, 10:51:45 AM
But while we're speculating, I'll speculate that he will rule somewhere between the wildest hopes of the far right and the wildest fears of the far left.  Again, that's just a guess.

It's no mystery how he's going to rule on many cases, he's an extreme partisan. Environmental regulation will be gutted, workers will have fewer protections in the workplace, he will rule to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he will not allow Trump to be prosecuted while in office.
And someone on the far right could probably come up with an equivalent "extreme partisan" list for what a Clinton-appointed judge would have done.

Rare is the person who would rule in what all would agree is a "bipartisan" fashion.  Unlikely that such a person would be nominated any time soon, regardless of who wins the senate and presidency this year and in 2020. 

The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.

It is not rare for justices to be appointed by some people from the opposing party, because the SCOTUS is not supposed to be a political weapon.

Obama's SCOTUS justices were appointed by 68-31 and 63-37.  The GOP pulled some underhanded bullshit and simply didn't allow a vote for his third nominee.

Trump's SCOTUS justices were appointed by 54-45 and 50-48.

This "elections have consequences" is a pathetic excuse for the abysmal depths the Trump administration has reached and absolutely reeks of a smug "You can't do anything about it, so deal with it" mentality that does nobody any good.

You can pretend what you want. The simple fact is that the GOP will do anything to get their way -- including stonewalling ANY NOMINEE THEY DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN. Might I remind you about what happened during Obama's last term?

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_Supreme_Court_candidates#Nomination_of_Neil_Gorsuch
On February 23, the eleven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to McConnell stating their intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the new president took office.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 09, 2018, 11:17:30 AM
The far right survived eight years of Obama, and the far left will likely survive four or eight years of Trump, but yes, elections do have consequences.


In other words we are becoming a one-party Authoritarian state - and we got there precisely through destroying the democratic process and preventing the will of the majority.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 09, 2018, 11:18:20 AM
Go ahead and perform whatever mental gymnastics make you happy regarding which lies under oath are okay and which are not.  The point is you don't care if he lied under oath and you could have just said that instead of wasting everyone's time asking for evidence.
It appears you don't understand the distinction made.  Or perhaps you do understand but disagree.  That's ok, because with much (all?) of this, defensible cases can be made for various conclusions.  Of course, not all such defensible cases will be correct.  Given that, anyone who claims to know with 100% certainty about any of the debatable points is likely putting political ideology first - regardless of which way that 100% certainty leans.

Well, for the record, I don't think you can make a defensible case that it's okay to lie under oath (particularly for a Supreme Court nominee).
You would prefer that he had dragged Ms. Schroeder's reputation through the mud instead of speaking nicely about her?

I understand how some would say "yes, it's under oath" and that's not completely unreasonable, but in this specific case I come down on the side of "okay to lie".

That's about as clear as it can possibly get -- you think it's okay to lie under oath. 

What the fuck is the point of being under oath if it's okay to lie for (insert whatever reason you use)?

MDM thinks it's not only OK to lie under oath, but it's Ok for a nominee to the highest court in the land to lie under oath.  Surely, surely we should hold such nominees to a higher standard.  No one is asking that he not ever have told a lie, but at least don't lie under oath.  He's a judge and an attorney. If he can't figure out the words to express himself without lying and while preserving the dignity of Renate Schroeder...maybe he isn't that great?

But this is speculation that he lied to protect her dignity. I posit that he lied to make himself look better.  We can't know.  But we all think he lied.  It's pretty telling that RSM, MDM, and Iris Lily are various levels of outraged or embarrassed at our tone and wonder at our thought processes.  But none of them have argued that Kavanaugh didn't lie.  RSM did say that it was a reach to say he was lying, but did not elaborate as to why it was a reach.  Then, he put forth the unusual legal theory that lies under oath are OK so long as the number of words involved is few and/or the subject matter is one that RSM finds to be trivial. 

Frankly, I think all this anger about our tone is because conservatives prefer when we just shut up and let them do what they want.  Then, when we don't, they construct elaborate stories as to why it's backfiring on us in hopes that we'll give up.  Sometimes, they are right.  Sometimes, they are wrong. It's too soon to tell here.  But this is a political argument separate from a consideration of whether it's OK for Brett Kavanaugh to lie under oath.  Btw-I'm pretty sure that's illegal whether or not a bunch of internet commenters are OK with it.



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 09, 2018, 11:19:01 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

All of you can enjoy that.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 09, 2018, 11:24:19 AM
Well, it appears that Collins got something for Maine, at least:
http://bangordailynews.com/2018/09/13/business/defense-bill-with-162m-for-maine-shipyard-upgrades-sent-to-trump-for-signature/

Quote
KITTERY, Maine — U.S. Sen. Susan Collins announced Thursday the fiscal year 2019 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, including more than $162 million for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, is headed to the president’s desk to be signed into law.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 09, 2018, 11:30:15 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

All of you can enjoy that.
   

Good read, thanks for sharing.  I don't normally like what comes from the Atlantic, but this was well written.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Samuel on October 09, 2018, 11:49:27 AM
What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's.  Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

Reportedly Ford and her team would have ruled out the July 1st date if questioned about it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/04/kavanaugh-confirmation-calendar-ford-870982 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/04/kavanaugh-confirmation-calendar-ford-870982)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaugh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 09, 2018, 11:52:28 AM
Why is it so hard for you to just say that you don't care if he lied
I've already said I don't care if he lied about the Renate yearbook entry, because the entry doesn't matter and there is a very plausible (not definite, but at least plausible) and defensible reason why he would say what he did, as has now been discussed ad nauseam.
Quote
without going on a tangent about how his yearbook won't affect his performance as a judge.  We all know the yearbook entry doesn't matter, it's his lying about it that we take issue with.
I'm glad we agree the yearbook entry doesn't matter.   
Quote
Your strident defense of his lies is making me question your honesty.
I suppose stridency is in the eye of the beholder.  You are certainly welcome to disagree with me on the extent to which the discussion about something that doesn't matter is itself relevant.  Yes, I know "the coverup is worse than the crime" saying.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 09, 2018, 11:54:01 AM
What about the entry in Brett's calendar for July 1st 1982?  That corroborates 1) a party, 2) beer, 3) a house 4) near the country club, 5) the presence of Kavanaugh, 6) the presence of Judge and 7) the presence of PJ.   The calendar doesn't mention Dr Ford but neither does it exclude her and there are no credible theories about how she would have known about such a party if she hadn't been there.  The calendar puts it beyond reasonable doubt that she knew about the party and was present at it.

Oh, and the calendar doesn't mention either that she was shoved into a room, sexually attacked and put in fear of her life, but her account of that event was credible and powerful - I haven't heard anyone deny that she credibly stated that she was attacked.  And her remembrance of an otherwise unremarkable party is itself corroboration that something traumatic happened to her there.

That calendar entry is utterly damning.  And there is no credible or reasonable other explanation for it than Dr Ford's.  Which of course is why when the hearing got to the calendar the Republicans promptly and spectacularly sent it careering off the rails.

Reportedly Ford and her team would have ruled out the July 1st date if questioned about it.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/04/kavanaugh-confirmation-calendar-ford-870982 (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/04/kavanaugh-confirmation-calendar-ford-870982)

If true, that would kinda put to bed the "Ford was a partisan hack, attacking Kavenaugh for political gain" narrative doesn't it?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 09, 2018, 11:59:47 AM
MDM thinks it's not only OK to lie under oath, but it's Ok for a nominee to the highest court in the land to lie under oath.
Yes, for this specific case and for the reasons already discsussed.
Quote
Surely, surely we should hold such nominees to a higher standard.  No one is asking that he not ever have told a lie, but at least don't lie under oath.  He's a judge and an attorney. If he can't figure out the words to express himself without lying and while preserving the dignity of Renate Schroeder...maybe he isn't that great?
That's a defensible position, just one with which I don't agree.

Quote
But this is speculation that he lied to protect her dignity. I posit that he lied to make himself look better.  We can't know.  But we all think he lied.  It's pretty telling that RSM, MDM, and Iris Lily are various levels of outraged or embarrassed at our tone and wonder at our thought processes.  But none of them have argued that Kavanaugh didn't lie.  RSM did say that it was a reach to say he was lying, but did not elaborate as to why it was a reach.  Then, he put forth the unusual legal theory that lies under oath are OK so long as the number of words involved is few and/or the subject matter is one that RSM finds to be trivial.
Can't speak for the others but I'm neither outraged nor embarrassed at your tone or your opinion.  I think it's possible to disagree without being outraged or embarrassed.

Quote
Frankly, I think all this anger about our tone is because conservatives prefer when we just shut up and let them do what they want.  Then, when we don't, they construct elaborate stories as to why it's backfiring on us in hopes that we'll give up.  Sometimes, they are right.  Sometimes, they are wrong. It's too soon to tell here.  But this is a political argument separate from a consideration of whether it's OK for Brett Kavanaugh to lie under oath.  Btw-I'm pretty sure that's illegal whether or not a bunch of internet commenters are OK with it.
Well, I guess RSM did come across as angry, so I'll let RSM address that.  Didn't see much anger in Iris Lily, nor (although mirrors can be foggy) in myself, but one can't control others' perceptions.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 09, 2018, 12:04:42 PM



If true, that would kinda put to bed the "Ford was a partisan hack, attacking Kavenaugh for political gain" narrative doesn't it?

Not at all.  Perhaps her legal team was worried the people on the list of that date would give corroborative testimony that contradicted her story.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 09, 2018, 12:06:06 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

All of you can enjoy that.
+1

The conclusion seems particularly hopeful (and, I hope, correct):
Quote
I do know that many people in rival camps vastly overestimate the gulf in values between themselves and many on the other side, that the attendant polarization most advantages demagogues—and that the actual divisions in American society aren’t nearly as stark as we often imagine.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 09, 2018, 12:16:14 PM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

And where is Trump during all of this? Oh that's right, he is mocking and humiliating Ford. Anyone who still thinks she purposefully lied while having nothing to gain but everything to lose is a total asshat. Just putting it bluntly.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 09, 2018, 12:29:05 PM
MDM thinks it's not only OK to lie under oath, but it's Ok for a nominee to the highest court in the land to lie under oath.
Yes, for this specific case and for the reasons already discsussed.
Quote
Surely, surely we should hold such nominees to a higher standard.  No one is asking that he not ever have told a lie, but at least don't lie under oath.  He's a judge and an attorney. If he can't figure out the words to express himself without lying and while preserving the dignity of Renate Schroeder...maybe he isn't that great?
That's a defensible position, just one with which I don't agree.

Quote
But this is speculation that he lied to protect her dignity. I posit that he lied to make himself look better.  We can't know.  But we all think he lied.  It's pretty telling that RSM, MDM, and Iris Lily are various levels of outraged or embarrassed at our tone and wonder at our thought processes.  But none of them have argued that Kavanaugh didn't lie.  RSM did say that it was a reach to say he was lying, but did not elaborate as to why it was a reach.  Then, he put forth the unusual legal theory that lies under oath are OK so long as the number of words involved is few and/or the subject matter is one that RSM finds to be trivial.
Can't speak for the others but I'm neither outraged nor embarrassed at your tone or your opinion.  I think it's possible to disagree without being outraged or embarrassed.

Quote
Frankly, I think all this anger about our tone is because conservatives prefer when we just shut up and let them do what they want.  Then, when we don't, they construct elaborate stories as to why it's backfiring on us in hopes that we'll give up.  Sometimes, they are right.  Sometimes, they are wrong. It's too soon to tell here.  But this is a political argument separate from a consideration of whether it's OK for Brett Kavanaugh to lie under oath.  Btw-I'm pretty sure that's illegal whether or not a bunch of internet commenters are OK with it.
Well, I guess RSM did come across as angry, so I'll let RSM address that.  Didn't see much anger in Iris Lily, nor (although mirrors can be foggy) in myself, but one can't control others' perceptions.

I appreciate this honest response. I don't agree with where you came out on this, but thank you for admitting that you think he lied under oath.   The only silver lining in this whole fiasco is that perhaps people saw these casual cruelties as the sort of thing that can potentially leave a stain.   If we can't get them to have sympathy for the Renates of the world, perhaps we rely on their boundless sympathy for themselves.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 09, 2018, 12:35:21 PM
The only silver lining in this whole fiasco is that perhaps people saw these casual cruelties as the sort of thing that can potentially leave a stain.
And on that we have no disagreement. :)

I'd hope that it goes beyond self-interest, but yes even a self-interested decision to act better is a good thing overall.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 09, 2018, 01:08:27 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

And Sotomayor assaulted him on the bench.  (She pinched him, to illustrate a point in her question.)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 09, 2018, 01:19:20 PM
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2018/10/09/kavanaugh-classmate-fbi-investigation-joke-clumn/1575930002/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MiserlyMiser on October 09, 2018, 01:58:45 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/trump-apologizes-to-kavanaugh-during-swearing-in-ceremony/2018/10/08/d3ee7484-cb5c-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html?utm_term=.9e23a71dc55c
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 09, 2018, 02:15:58 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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


Thanks for the correction!

It did sound like Kavanaugh was comfortable talking to Kagan throughout the day.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on October 10, 2018, 09:21:10 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

I guess what bothers me, one thing anyway, is that clearly Diane Feinstein didn't initially believe the allegations. If she had, she would have brought them up in late July or in August, so they could be discussed in due time. The way it was done clearly indicates she didn't think they were worthwhile to introduce. That last minute play was desperation, and in and of itself enough reason for Repubs to force a vote.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 10, 2018, 09:31:39 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

Are you honestly arguing that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford are better off for having gone public?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2018, 09:32:43 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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


Wow.

Just wow.

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

Jesus.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 10, 2018, 10:31:58 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

wut
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: asiljoy on October 10, 2018, 11:29:05 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

No. She clearly has stated that she left the decision up to Ford and if I were Ford I would absolutely wait until the last possible moment in the vain hope that he would be eliminated for one of the other very viable reasons (not as qualified as others on the list, temperament, the stolen docs, the weird debt thing, etc) in order to avoid the death threats/keep my kids safe.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MiserlyMiser on October 10, 2018, 11:38:26 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

No. She clearly has stated that she left the decision up to Ford and if I were Ford I would absolutely wait until the last possible moment in the vain hope that he would be eliminated for one of the other very viable reasons (not as qualified as others on the list, temperament, the stolen docs, the weird debt thing, etc) in order to avoid the death threats/keep my kids safe.
Yeah, in my opinion, the politically expedient thing for Senator Feinstein would have been to make the allegations public earlier.  She did not, because she respected that it was Dr. Ford's decision to make and she has integrity.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 10, 2018, 11:42:34 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

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

There have been many high profile false rape/sexual assault allegations with much less obvious up side for the accuser.  Some of these are presumably driven by revenge.  In recent times, being a "survivor" of sexual assault is almost a badge of honor.  The UVa hoax seemed to reveal a desire to belong to the "survivor" club among some college women.  In the Blasey-Ford case, her politics and those of her close friends may provide a clear incentive to take down a Trump S. Ct. nominee.  Then again, this may be a false memory.  Who knows.  There is no real corroboration.  The so-called evidence she provided wouldn't be nearly sufficient for a finding of liability in a civil suit (preponderance of evidence) much less in a criminal proceeding (beyond a reasonable doubt).  I believe many of those posting here desperately want for him to be guilty because they don't want him on the court.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 10, 2018, 11:43:10 AM
In my opinion, the politically expedient thing for Senator Feinstein would have been to make the allegations public earlier.  She did not, because she respected that it was Dr. Ford's decision to make and she has integrity.

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

I'm sure as time passes we'll find the truth behind how this circus was handled by Diane Feinstein and the attorneys representing Dr. Ford as well as some extremely deep-pocketed interests. Maybe even more about Dr. Ford herself.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 10, 2018, 11:44:11 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

No. She clearly has stated that she left the decision up to Ford and if I were Ford I would absolutely wait until the last possible moment in the vain hope that he would be eliminated for one of the other very viable reasons (not as qualified as others on the list, temperament, the stolen docs, the weird debt thing, etc) in order to avoid the death threats/keep my kids safe.
Yeah, in my opinion, the politically expedient thing for Senator Feinstein would have been to make the allegations public earlier.  She did not, because she respected that it was Dr. Ford's decision to make and she has integrity.
This information could have been brought to Grassley's attention and investigated confidentially.  That was never the goal of the Dems.  They chose to hold it until the last minute and then drop it into the public domain to derail the nomination.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 10, 2018, 11:53:09 AM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 10, 2018, 12:00:08 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

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

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," Sotomayor said in a speech at 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, law school. She made similar statements at other such events.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sotomayor-explains-wise-latina-comment/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 10, 2018, 12:00:45 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

This is either shamelessly cynical whataboutism or utter madness.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2018, 12:01:35 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

She pinched his *robe.*

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

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

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2018, 12:20:15 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

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

Sure sounds like pretty much the same thing as knocking a woman to the bed, climbing on top of her, holding a hand over her mouth so that she has trouble breathing, and drunkenly ripping the clothes off of her.  To a Republican.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 10, 2018, 12:34:14 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

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

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

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

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/24/feds-say-corroborating-evidence-backed-menendez-prostitution-claims
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 10, 2018, 12:35:34 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

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

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

If you believe that happened.  No evidence it did.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 10, 2018, 12:38:10 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

She pinched his *robe.*

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

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

Ok, I didnt know it was fabric on his person, not his actual person, that she playfully pinched.
That is different, I agtee.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2018, 12:42:58 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

She pinched his *robe.*

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

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

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

Thank you.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 10, 2018, 12:45:55 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

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

Sure sounds like pretty much the same thing as knocking a woman to the bed, climbing on top of her, holding a hand over her mouth so that she has trouble breathing, and drunkenly ripping the clothes off of her.  To a Republican.
Probably no assult is the best course of action, none at all.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 10, 2018, 12:47:45 PM
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

As this is primarily a financial / ER forum, I am curious what would motivate someone to find this place, register here, and start posting exclusively in political threads.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

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

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

In his defense, sort of, when I joined I lurked for a long time, then primarily posted in the financial threads for a while, and now I almost exclusively post in Off Topic.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 10, 2018, 12:56:05 PM
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

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

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

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

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

It's....odd.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2018, 12:58:41 PM
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

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

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

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

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

It's....odd.

Huh. Yeah, I see what you mean.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Lews Therin on October 10, 2018, 01:00:53 PM
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

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

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

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

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

It's....odd.

Huh. Yeah, I see what you mean.

Interestingly, most are fallacy arguments.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2018, 01:08:49 PM
Has anyone else noticed that literally every post by craimund is in a political thread?

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

Someone with an ax to grind, I guess.

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

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

It's....odd.

Huh. Yeah, I see what you mean.

Interestingly, most are fallacy arguments.

Ha -- yeah, I was gonna point out his ridiculous goalpost fallacy argument above, but I've seen enough of Craimund to know it wouldn't make a difference.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2018, 01:31:44 PM
Much more likely that Sen. Menendez had sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican republic.  The Obama Justice Department said they had corroborating evidence.  Outrageous that he still has his Senate seat.  I know - whataboutism.

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

I agree with you on all counts here.

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

It is outrageous that this democratic senator still has his senate seat.  He should be removed, there are better candidates.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 10, 2018, 01:52:55 PM
Craiumud, methinks are a troll. A not super-successful troll, in that his posts contain extreme claims, with no shred of evidence, and not in continuity with the rest of the thread. I'm sure he/she will get better. Even Limbaugh had to start somewhere.

there are a couple forums including this forum I post on because of the topics, the posters are smarter than the average chipmunk and they are not unundated with trolls. I don't see that happening here yet, but once a forum gets past a certain tipping point in trolls, the forum loses control, its usefulness drops, and responsible posters drop out.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 10, 2018, 02:08:28 PM
It sounds like Kavanaugh has already asked more questions than Thomas has in his tenure.

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

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

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

Are you people listening to yourselves?

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

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

If you believe that happened.  No evidence it did.

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

"In systems of proof based on the English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be sponsored by a witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. The bulk of the law of evidence regulates the types of evidence that may be sought from witnesses and the manner in which the interrogation of witnesses is conducted such as during direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Other types of evidentiary rules specify the standards of persuasion (e.g., proof beyond a reasonable doubt) that a trier of fact—whether judge or jury—must apply when it assesses evidence."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 10, 2018, 02:39:34 PM
Don't feed the trolls. If you identify someone as trolling, do not engage.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 10, 2018, 08:35:34 PM
Don't feed the trolls. If you identify someone as trolling, do not engage.

+1. Some trolls are just blatantly obvious. I've seen some come and go and a couple that are surpringsly still around.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 11, 2018, 04:09:02 AM
The Chief Justice has just referred 15 complaints about Kavanaugh's conduct for investigation and determination by a Federal Appeals Court.  Serious enough complaints for the Chief Justice not to be able to dismiss them, then.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/the-ethics-complaints-against-justice-brett-kavanaugh
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on October 11, 2018, 06:45:09 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

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

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

Incidentally, after reading the rest of the posts on this page, I guess I'll stop here. I don't disbelieve Ford, and her story is certainly plausible, but nothing more. At this point in this thread no new info is coming out, so it's all just shouting slogans.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: runbikerun on October 11, 2018, 06:54:56 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

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

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

Not feeding the troll any further.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 11, 2018, 08:58:55 AM
One last thought about Kavanaugh.

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

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

This country is polarized and the media gives the attention to the extremes. I agree it is an important job and just a handful in the country; if there is any question just find someone else. However, that is not the problem. The problem is people are fighting too much, nothing would have satisfied the left so long as the nominee was picked and approved by Republicans. If not Kavanaugh, what are the options?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 11, 2018, 09:04:35 AM
nothing would have satisfied the left so long as the nominee was picked and approved by Republicans. If not Kavanaugh, what are the options?

That seems like a bold assertion when "the left" had just finished confirming other republican nominees, despite congressional republicans refusing to hold hearings on any Obama nominee, no matter how qualified, solely because Obama was a democrat.  I think you're projecting.  The concerns you express are exactly what republicans just did, and not something democrats have ever done, so complaining about democrats for this reason seems silly.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MiserlyMiser on October 11, 2018, 09:15:19 AM

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

Except, there were no allegations made about Neil Gorsuch.  Or Merrick Garland, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, or Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  I'm not aware of any allegations of sexual misconduct that have been made against any Supreme Court nominee, except for Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh.  Opposing someone's candidacy because of how her religious views inform her legal philosophy and her rulings--which is what I understand the Democratic opposition to Amy Barrett to be (I hadn't heard that Sen. Feinstein was calling her a "religious nut," and I definitely wouldn't support that terminology)--is not "character assassination."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 11, 2018, 09:26:42 AM
Expected disgusting reactions from the Kavanugh defenders:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/christine-blasey-ford-apos-t-171631852.html

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

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

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

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

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

Not feeding the troll any further.

Good call. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 11, 2018, 10:37:06 AM
For the next time
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 12, 2018, 01:43:05 PM
This thread eventually moved so quickly that I was unable to keep up. If I was asked any questions to which I didn't respond, I'm sorry. Rather than read, I could only use how recently it had been updated as a measure of whether the Kavanaugh issue was still roiling our Society. I think we've finally had 24 hours in which it wasn't updated.

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

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



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 12, 2018, 02:03:27 PM
about how we're more divided than ever on this matter, and I worry for our country:

Careful, this is what the media wants us to think -- a country divided is good for revenues.  As taught by Alinsky, the media seeks to create the conflicts, they want the violence and chaos -- a divided country gets more eyeballs in the media.  Trump is great for the business of media.

Many of us are exhausted.  The majority of us really could find common ground but we're being shouted down by the extremes on both ends, which is exacerbated by the majority political parties and the media catering more and more to the extremists in each party who represent the small minority. It really is exhausting emotionally. Logic would suggest the eventual rise of a midstream party that plays to what most of us believe. 

Fear and anger are powerful emotions. Motivating voters to turn out is a key issue for politicians. Seeking compromise doesn't drive votes. Good versus evil. Seeking to raise fear/anger in your voters. That's the current goal of political parties. The political parties WANT us to be tribalized and divided.  This happens to be what sells in media too, so the media helps to fulfill this aim.

There are two excellent articles recently put out by The Atlantic.  Can't believe Im admitting that, as I typically think the Atlantic skews too left for my tastes.  But I try to remain objective, no matter the source.

The first was referenced earlier:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

The second also a great read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 12, 2018, 02:26:10 PM
This thread eventually moved so quickly that I was unable to keep up. If I was asked any questions to which I didn't respond, I'm sorry. Rather than read, I could only use how recently it had been updated as a measure of whether the Kavanaugh issue was still roiling our Society. I think we've finally had 24 hours in which it wasn't updated.

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

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

I'm not really seeing too many parallels between Clinton/Kavenaugh.  There was a legit investigation into the Clinton thing, and the truth came out.  There was an obstructed partial investigation into the Kavenaugh thing, and because of that we'll probably never know what the truth was.  The Clinton affair was consensual, the Kavenaugh thing was not.  Clinton ended up being fined, having his legal license suspended and then eventually disbarred for lying about the matter . . . Kavenaugh was awarded a lifetime appointment to a position on the countries highest court with no investigation into the truth of his testimony being made.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 12, 2018, 02:32:14 PM
Thanks for sharing these articles, Dustinst22; I think the internet creates space between us that antagonizes much more than would happen if we were to try to work these things out in person. Two rules I'm trying to follow for my in-person conversations going forward:

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 12, 2018, 02:34:50 PM
This thread eventually moved so quickly that I was unable to keep up. If I was asked any questions to which I didn't respond, I'm sorry. Rather than read, I could only use how recently it had been updated as a measure of whether the Kavanaugh issue was still roiling our Society. I think we've finally had 24 hours in which it wasn't updated.

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

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

I'm not really seeing too many parallels between Clinton/Kavenaugh.  There was a legit investigation into the Clinton thing, and the truth came out.  There was an obstructed partial investigation into the Kavenaugh thing, and because of that we'll probably never know what the truth was.  The Clinton affair was consensual, the Kavenaugh thing was not.  Clinton ended up being fined, having his legal license suspended and then eventually disbarred for lying about the matter . . . Kavenaugh was awarded a lifetime appointment to a position on the countries highest court with no investigation into the truth of his testimony being made.

GuitarStv-
I think you wrote this comparing the Lewinksy-Clinton affair to Kavanaugh, but I was actually considering the Anita Broadrick rape allegations in comparison to Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: crispy on October 12, 2018, 05:16:00 PM
This thread eventually moved so quickly that I was unable to keep up. If I was asked any questions to which I didn't respond, I'm sorry. Rather than read, I could only use how recently it had been updated as a measure of whether the Kavanaugh issue was still roiling our Society. I think we've finally had 24 hours in which it wasn't updated.

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

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

I'm not really seeing too many parallels between Clinton/Kavenaugh.  There was a legit investigation into the Clinton thing, and the truth came out.  There was an obstructed partial investigation into the Kavenaugh thing, and because of that we'll probably never know what the truth was.  The Clinton affair was consensual, the Kavenaugh thing was not.  Clinton ended up being fined, having his legal license suspended and then eventually disbarred for lying about the matter . . . Kavenaugh was awarded a lifetime appointment to a position on the countries highest court with no investigation into the truth of his testimony being made.

GuitarStv-
I think you wrote this comparing the Lewinksy-Clinton affair to Kavanaugh, but I was actually considering the Anita Broadrick rape allegations in comparison to Kavanaugh.

Not to derail, but her name is Juanita Broaddrick in case anyone wanted to look her up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: craimund on October 14, 2018, 05:55:35 AM

...I'm not really seeing too many parallels between Clinton/Kavenaugh.  There was a legit investigation into the Clinton thing, and the truth came out.  ...

The alleged incident that led to the exposure of the Clinton "affair" with Monica Lewinsky was not consensual encounter.  Paula Jones (an Arkansas Government Employee) alleged that then Governor Clinton summoned her up to his hotel room, dropped his pants, and said "kiss it".  She filed a lawsuit against Clinton which resulted in the deposition in which he lied under oath about the Lewinsky matter.  This information as well as information regarding a number of other disturbing sexual "assaults" was widely known in conservative circles (covered extensively in the American Spectator) before the 1992 election.  The American Spectator referenced a "Paula" in an article regarding the incident recounted by an Arkansas State Trooper who was apparently tasked as a pimp to procure women for the governor and who relayed Clinton's request to Paula Jones to visit him up in his hotel room.   These allegations which had corroborating witnesses were never picked up and investigated by the mainstream press who were deeply in love with Bill Clinton and did not want to harm his prospects in the upcoming election.  Instead, there was only coverage at the time of the consensual affair with Genifer Flowers.  Clinton's "I've caused pain in my marriage" response to this allegation which was apparently good enough for the media who quickly went on the cover his preference for boxers or briefs and his saxaphone playing on Arsenio Hall.

Also, the Lewinsky matter would be considered problematic in any workplace and would probably result in the dismissal of an employee in a corporate setting who had a "consensual" affair with a subordinate, particularly an intern.  I was a government employee in 1998 and we were receiving sexual harassment training which clearly forbade such conduct.

There was also the Juanita Broaderick rape allegation which, again, has contemporaneous corroborating evidence.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 14, 2018, 09:38:13 AM

...I'm not really seeing too many parallels between Clinton/Kavenaugh.  There was a legit investigation into the Clinton thing, and the truth came out.  ...

The alleged incident that led to the exposure of the Clinton "affair" with Monica Lewinsky was not consensual encounter.  Paula Jones (an Arkansas Government Employee) alleged that then Governor Clinton summoned her up to his hotel room, dropped his pants, and said "kiss it".  She filed a lawsuit against Clinton which resulted in the deposition in which he lied under oath about the Lewinsky matter.  This information as well as information regarding a number of other disturbing sexual "assaults" was widely known in conservative circles (covered extensively in the American Spectator) before the 1992 election.  The American Spectator referenced a "Paula" in an article regarding the incident recounted by an Arkansas State Trooper who was apparently tasked as a pimp to procure women for the governor and who relayed Clinton's request to Paula Jones to visit him up in his hotel room.   These allegations which had corroborating witnesses were never picked up and investigated by the mainstream press who were deeply in love with Bill Clinton and did not want to harm his prospects in the upcoming election.  Instead, there was only coverage at the time of the consensual affair with Genifer Flowers.  Clinton's "I've caused pain in my marriage" response to this allegation which was apparently good enough for the media who quickly went on the cover his preference for boxers or briefs and his saxaphone playing on Arsenio Hall.

Also, the Lewinsky matter would be considered problematic in any workplace and would probably result in the dismissal of an employee in a corporate setting who had a "consensual" affair with a subordinate, particularly an intern.  I was a government employee in 1998 and we were receiving sexual harassment training which clearly forbade such conduct.

There was also the Juanita Broaderick rape allegation which, again, has contemporaneous corroborating evidence.

I have to confess to knowledge mostly of the Lewinsky affair and little else with Bill Clinton.  Were there no investigations into Bill Clinton's other misdeeds?  Is your contention that Democrats stood in the way of the FBI investigating Clinton's accusations in the same way that Republicans did for Kavenaugh?  Or are you saying that you think Clinton did something bad, therefore it's OK to fail to investigate Kavenaugh?

I'd be as happy to see Bill Clinton's history thoroughly examined as Kavenaugh's (and fully support prison time if the evidence suggests that impropriety took place).  Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 14, 2018, 09:47:40 AM
Fixed the strikeout bit for you.  If impropriety was a criminal offence, who should scape whipping?

I'd be as happy to see Bill Clinton's history thoroughly examined as Kavenaugh's (and fully support prison time if the evidence suggests that impropriety criminal offences meriting imprisonment took place).  Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 14, 2018, 10:08:16 AM
Fixed the strikeout bit for you.  If impropriety was a criminal offence, who should scape whipping?

I'd be as happy to see Bill Clinton's history thoroughly examined as Kavenaugh's (and fully support prison time if the evidence suggests that impropriety criminal offences meriting imprisonment took place).  Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

I was using the word to indicate improper behaviour, and in context thought that illegal/meriting criminal offence would be understood.  But sure, your wording is more clear.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Blueberries on October 14, 2018, 03:00:56 PM

I have to confess to knowledge mostly of the Lewinsky affair and little else with Bill Clinton.  Were there no investigations into Bill Clinton's other misdeeds?  Is your contention that Democrats stood in the way of the FBI investigating Clinton's accusations in the same way that Republicans did for Kavenaugh?  Or are you saying that you think Clinton did something bad, therefore it's OK to fail to investigate Kavenaugh?

I'd be as happy to see Bill Clinton's history thoroughly examined as Kavenaugh's (and fully support prison time if the evidence suggests that impropriety took place).  Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

All of what you wrote, YES.  I can't believe we live in a time when this even needs to be said.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 14, 2018, 03:04:50 PM
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

All of what you wrote, YES.  I can't believe we live in a time when this even needs to be said.

To be fair, I haven't seen anyone express that it is okay, or even insinuate it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 14, 2018, 03:12:04 PM
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

All of what you wrote, YES.  I can't believe we live in a time when this even needs to be said.

To be fair, I haven't seen anyone express that it is okay, or even insinuate it.

It seems to be fairly well implied, first with the election of Trump (remember he actually bragged about it), and now with the half ass investigation of Kavanaugh. I don't think anyone is going to come right out and say "yeah sexual assault is ok." Although I will say in a recent interview with Trump supporters at a local rally, one woman actually said that women need to keep their legs closed or they deserve it.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 14, 2018, 05:54:26 PM
Contrary to what appears to be popular opinion, sexual assault doesn't suddenly become OK if the person doing it belongs to a particular political affiliation.

All of what you wrote, YES.  I can't believe we live in a time when this even needs to be said.

To be fair, I haven't seen anyone express that it is okay, or even insinuate it.

Why the fuck weren't Kavenaugh's charges properly investigated then?  Why are people saying "well yeah, we didn't really look at our guy . . . But Bill Clinton did it, so why should we?"  If people believed that sexual assault was a real problem they should be saying "Look at our guy!  Look at Bill Clinton too!".

If people don't believe that "their" guy should get away with sexual assault, then there is no divisiveness on either issue, and proper investigations would get full support from both sides.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 15, 2018, 01:57:30 AM
I'm a liberal, and I think the rape accusation against Bill Clinton is probably true (though tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt) and he should have been impeached  for committing perjury. President Al Gore would have been fine anyway. I think the rape accusation against Donald Trump is also probably true (though tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 15, 2018, 07:09:30 AM
Paul67-
natural political intertia means that--once he's sworn in--it's much harder for any consequences to arise from the allegations. Senate confirmation requires 50 votes. Impeachment of a Supreme court justice would require 67 votes.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 15, 2018, 07:33:58 AM
Why the fuck weren't Kavenaugh's charges properly investigated then? 
I admit I don't follow american politics a lot and didn't read through this thread, but is there some provision that prevent investigating him after being sworn in?
"There is no point in such a post-appointment investigation because he'd held his position even in case of a conviction."
Ok but even if this is true (I don't know), truth has a value in itself, so this argument should stop dems and libs from keeping asking for a proper investigation,
unless what they wanted wasn't the truth but just to stop Kavanaugh's nomination.
As far as I understand it, reps wouldn't oppose such an investigation

Part of the issue (and the reason that investigation before appointment was so important) is that it's very hard to remove a supreme court justice after they're in.  So difficult that it has never happened in history.  There's a process to impeach that can be started by the house of Representatives, but even if impeached, the senate can acquit the judge.  Given the willingness of the Republican party to even investigate the issue, it's safe to say that a Republican senate will almost certainly acquit Kavenaugh regardless of any information that may come out . . . and that a Republican house will never move to impeach him to begin with.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Roadrunner53 on October 15, 2018, 08:06:03 AM
In the 20 20 interview Trump had with Lesley Stahl trump said: Later, when pressed more by Stahl about whether he believes he treated Ford with respect, Trump said: “W―you know what? I’m not gonna get into it because we won. It doesn’t matter. We won.”

Nothing matters but winning. Doesn't matter that Kavanaugh has a dark background. Yes, it was a long time ago but just seeing him act like a rotten spoiled brat sitting in a dirty diaper when he was questioned, shows his true side.

Full story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-60-minutes-interview-moments_us_5bc39a63e4b040bb4e836a40
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 15, 2018, 08:29:03 AM
In the 20 20 interview Trump had with Lesley Stahl trump said: Later, when pressed more by Stahl about whether he believes he treated Ford with respect, Trump said: “W―you know what? I’m not gonna get into it because we won. It doesn’t matter. We won.”

Nothing matters but winning. Doesn't matter that Kavanaugh has a dark background. Yes, it was a long time ago but just seeing him act like a rotten spoiled brat sitting in a dirty diaper when he was questioned, shows his true side.

Full story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-60-minutes-interview-moments_us_5bc39a63e4b040bb4e836a40

This is f***ing disgusting. Donald Trump is a garbage human being, and anyone who supports him at this point is a garbage human being as well. Period.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: gentmach on October 15, 2018, 08:44:43 AM
about how we're more divided than ever on this matter, and I worry for our country:

Careful, this is what the media wants us to think -- a country divided is good for revenues.  As taught by Alinsky, the media seeks to create the conflicts, they want the violence and chaos -- a divided country gets more eyeballs in the media.  Trump is great for the business of media.

Many of us are exhausted.  The majority of us really could find common ground but we're being shouted down by the extremes on both ends, which is exacerbated by the majority political parties and the media catering more and more to the extremists in each party who represent the small minority. It really is exhausting emotionally. Logic would suggest the eventual rise of a midstream party that plays to what most of us believe. 

Fear and anger are powerful emotions. Motivating voters to turn out is a key issue for politicians. Seeking compromise doesn't drive votes. Good versus evil. Seeking to raise fear/anger in your voters. That's the current goal of political parties. The political parties WANT us to be tribalized and divided.  This happens to be what sells in media too, so the media helps to fulfill this aim.

There are two excellent articles recently put out by The Atlantic.  Can't believe Im admitting that, as I typically think the Atlantic skews too left for my tastes.  But I try to remain objective, no matter the source.

The first was referenced earlier:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

The second also a great read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/

Good finds.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: PathtoFIRE on October 15, 2018, 09:32:35 AM
Paul67-
natural political intertia means that--once he's sworn in--it's much harder for any consequences to arise from the allegations. Senate confirmation requires 50 votes. Impeachment of a Supreme court justice would require 67 votes.

Hey, just got an idea for a Constitutional amendment:

The percent of ayes a SC Justice receives for confirmation shall equal the percent of ayes needed for impeachment (or something of that sort).

So that would give us:
Thomas - 52%
Ginsburg - 97%
Roberts - 78%
Alito - 58%
Sotomayor - 68%
Kagan - 63%
Gorsuch - 55%
Kavanaugh - 51%

Would probably make nominations and confirmations even more political, but I at least found this an interesting thought experiment.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 15, 2018, 09:33:38 AM
I cannot help but wonder if "politcally correct" is going to turn into one of those slur terms, like "socialist" that gets used to dismiss something when the person doesn't want to actually engage with it intellectually.

No one is ever going to want to defend it, merely use it as an epithet.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 15, 2018, 09:44:57 AM
I cannot help but wonder if "politcally correct" is going to turn into one of those slur terms, like "socialist" that gets used to dismiss something when the person doesn't want to actually engage with it intellectually.

No one is ever going to want to defend it, merely use it as an epithet.

Turn into?  Isn't that what it already is?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 15, 2018, 12:53:19 PM
about how we're more divided than ever on this matter, and I worry for our country:

Careful, this is what the media wants us to think -- a country divided is good for revenues.  As taught by Alinsky, the media seeks to create the conflicts, they want the violence and chaos -- a divided country gets more eyeballs in the media.  Trump is great for the business of media.

Many of us are exhausted.  The majority of us really could find common ground but we're being shouted down by the extremes on both ends, which is exacerbated by the majority political parties and the media catering more and more to the extremists in each party who represent the small minority. It really is exhausting emotionally. Logic would suggest the eventual rise of a midstream party that plays to what most of us believe. 

Fear and anger are powerful emotions. Motivating voters to turn out is a key issue for politicians. Seeking compromise doesn't drive votes. Good versus evil. Seeking to raise fear/anger in your voters. That's the current goal of political parties. The political parties WANT us to be tribalized and divided.  This happens to be what sells in media too, so the media helps to fulfill this aim.

There are two excellent articles recently put out by The Atlantic.  Can't believe Im admitting that, as I typically think the Atlantic skews too left for my tastes.  But I try to remain objective, no matter the source.

The first was referenced earlier:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-unites-antagonists-brett-kavanaugh-fight/572125/

The second also a great read. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
Good post, ideas, and links. i skimmed the first article and will go back and spend more time with them.

Yes, media loves controversy, stirring ip the readers and etc.

Just this morning I was thinking about how, when I first moved to this racially divided city, my black friend pointed out that the local city newspaper is a proponent of race baiting, to keep it all stirred up and to keep people reading the “news.” Then today I read dustins post with similar sentiments.


Then,  just two minutes ago, I got an email from that same city newspaper. It is highlighting the video that went viral two days ago. Those of you from St. Louis know which one I’m talking about, the condo video. What is ridiculous about this email is it I’ve already seen the video on 2 other social media sites, why does this old ancient creaking  city news organization think it is at all relevant with its days late race baiting “news.” 

Much of the media is ridiculous. Our free  society cannot function without them, but really, fk them half the time.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 16, 2018, 06:59:00 AM
I cannot agree with this. I can simulataneously believe Ford and agree that no district attorney would bring charges against Kavanaugh based on the evidence we've seen presented.

But I think there is so much political inertia on the Right that nothing that comes out could ever convince many conservatives that Kavanaugh is anything other than a champion of their cause at this point. I think the rapid spinning of the Elizabeth Warren DNA test is another case of this: people are interpreting the results differently based on whether they like Warren or like Trump. We've fragmented our society epistemologically.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 16, 2018, 07:14:48 AM
Paul67-
natural political intertia means that--once he's sworn in--it's much harder for any consequences to arise from the allegations. Senate confirmation requires 50 votes. Impeachment of a Supreme court justice would require 67 votes.

Part of the issue (and the reason that investigation before appointment was so important) is that it's very hard to remove a supreme court justice after they're in.  So difficult that it has never happened in history.  There's a process to impeach that can be started by the house of Representatives, but even if impeached, the senate can acquit the judge.  Given the willingness of the Republican party to even investigate the issue, it's safe to say that a Republican senate will almost certainly acquit Kavenaugh regardless of any information that may come out . . . and that a Republican house will never move to impeach him to begin with.

I get it: even if convicted, there would be no impeachment or removal.
I get it, but the point of my post was the "truth has a value in itself" line.
That means, sometime it is worth to search for the truth no matter which and no matter whether consequences will come out of it.

I understand that politics are not the place for philosophy, but if the dems are really so truth-yearning they should keep asking for a thorough investigation irrespective of whether the outcome will bear any consequences.
They own it to Mrs. Ford and to Mr. Kavanagh anyway.
And if we leave ethics and consider politics, can you imagine the political benefits for the dems if such an investigation should convict Kavanagh?

So, again, and particularly when we know reps wouldn't oppose it, why the dems have stopped from asking for an investigation?

I agree, there's value in finding out the truth for truth's sake and would like to see that happen (even though it's probably too late to fix the problem).  What I'm wondering though, is why this is a partisan obligation in your mind.  Why is the party who selected, vetted, and nominated the man and then blocked attempts to investigate his past not obligated to the people involved to find out the truth in your eyes?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 16, 2018, 08:18:01 AM
Paul67-
natural political intertia means that--once he's sworn in--it's much harder for any consequences to arise from the allegations. Senate confirmation requires 50 votes. Impeachment of a Supreme court justice would require 67 votes.

Part of the issue (and the reason that investigation before appointment was so important) is that it's very hard to remove a supreme court justice after they're in.  So difficult that it has never happened in history.  There's a process to impeach that can be started by the house of Representatives, but even if impeached, the senate can acquit the judge.  Given the willingness of the Republican party to even investigate the issue, it's safe to say that a Republican senate will almost certainly acquit Kavenaugh regardless of any information that may come out . . . and that a Republican house will never move to impeach him to begin with.

I get it: even if convicted, there would be no impeachment or removal.
I get it, but the point of my post was the "truth has a value in itself" line.
That means, sometime it is worth to search for the truth no matter which and no matter whether consequences will come out of it.

I understand that politics are not the place for philosophy, but if the dems are really so truth-yearning they should keep asking for a thorough investigation irrespective of whether the outcome will bear any consequences.
They own it to Mrs. Ford and to Mr. Kavanagh anyway.
And if we leave ethics and consider politics, can you imagine the political benefits for the dems if such an investigation should convict Kavanagh?

So, again, and particularly when we know reps wouldn't oppose it, why the dems have stopped from asking for an investigation?

I'm not sure I agree with you here.

Democrats pushing for an investigation would be spun as "lol elections have consequences, get over it, stop being sore losers."

As GuitarStv said, putting the onus solely on Democrats for this is absurd. They pushed for an investigation, remember?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 16, 2018, 08:20:08 AM
Um. The Dems did ask for an investigation. The Dems stated their piece. And since Flake sided with them, they did a (very cursory) investigation. And Ford did everything asked of her. I'm not sure what else you are asking the Dems to do? They don't have any power in this situation.  What we know is not enough for a criminal conviction. Heck with William Kennedy Smith, with a contemperanous charge, him admitting they had sex, it was insufficient for a conviction.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 16, 2018, 09:02:22 AM
So, again, and particularly when we know reps wouldn't oppose it, why the dems have stopped from asking for an investigation?

Democrats have stopped asking for an investigation because they are the minority party right now, and the way Congress is structured the minority party are basically spectators in government.

I used to work with Congresspeople and their reps with some regularity, and this is one of the more shocking things I learned when I started.  Your senators who's been in Congress since the 1980s can't do shit if the other party is in control.  The majority party sets the agenda for what topics get considered.  The majority party assigns chairs of all of the subcommittees that pass decisions up the chain.  The majority party chooses when to vote, if at all, and when to ignore.  The majority party does absolutely everything, and if you're not part of that majority then you are totally powerless.  You get to show up and have lunch with the people who are actually running the country.  Right now, a democratic rep has just as much power as the Puerto Rico rep.

Would it make sense for the Puerto Rico rep to call for investigation?  There might be some good PR in it, if the press picks up the story, but it's never going to happen so it's kind of pointless.  The Puerto Rico rep (and the democrats right now) can make better use of their time by building relationships with Republicans who actually get to make stuff happen.  In effect, every democrat in congress right now is a lobbyist only, asking for things and cajoling and making arguments, but ultimately having zero power.  Being mad at them is kind of pointless.

So they can, and maybe should, ask for an investigation.  And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and Kevin McCarthy) will just say no, and that will be the end of it.  There is no recourse.  There is no second chance.  The only reason to keep asking is to hope the press reports their efforts and it convinces people to vote against the republicans, but they usually decide that there are more effective messages for that purpose.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 16, 2018, 04:56:35 PM
What Sol says about the Minority party being as effective as Puerto Rico is how I view it.

In National elections that are not for president of the United States, I pretty much vote Republican ticket because I know that whoever I vote for, they are going to caucus with their party. So I vote for them but I give money to Rand  Paul because I want to see Rand stay in the Senate and remind everyone there about fiscal conservatism. Like they will pay any attention, sigh.

I don’t think the minority party is completely irrelevant because they can do all kinds of committee work that is important.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 16, 2018, 05:03:55 PM
What Sol says about the Minority party being as effective as Puerto Rico is how I view it.

In National elections that are not for president of the United States, I pretty much vote Republican ticket because I know that whoever I vote for, they are going to caucus with their party. So I vote for them but I give money to Rand  Paul because I want to see Rand stay in the Senate and remind everyone there about fiscal conservatism. Like they will pay any attention, sigh.

I don’t think the minority party is completely irrelevant because they can do all kinds of committee work that is important.

That Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/361949-rand-paul-to-vote-for-senate-gop-tax-bill
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 16, 2018, 05:17:59 PM
The number of people who have bought the lie that the Republican Party has anything to do with fiscal conservatism in this day and age is truly a testimony to the effectiveness of messaging over fact with their base.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 16, 2018, 06:40:19 PM
Republicans cut taxes on the wealthiest and jeopardize social programs through efforts to slash them.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 16, 2018, 06:44:15 PM

That Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/361949-rand-paul-to-vote-for-senate-gop-tax-bill

Sorry, I'm slow and must not be very smart.  I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find in this article.  It looks like he supports low taxes, which is one of the key principles of fiscal conservatism.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 16, 2018, 06:54:01 PM

That Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative is laughable.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/361949-rand-paul-to-vote-for-senate-gop-tax-bill

Sorry, I'm slow and must not be very smart.  I'm not sure what I'm supposed to find in this article.  It looks like he supports low taxes, which is one of the key principles of fiscal conservatism.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 16, 2018, 07:02:55 PM
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 16, 2018, 07:10:39 PM
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Here are some words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 16, 2018, 07:11:43 PM
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Here are some words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html

Thanks, still didn't address my question.  There seems to be some misunderstanding on what fiscal conservatism is.  Hint: Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  It seems to be that you're implying lower taxes is not part of fiscal conservatism, but this wouldn't make sense because it's part of the very definition of it.  Now you might argue that fiscal conservatism isn't effective, and that's why the pretty graph, but that's something else entirely and I'd have some counter arguments to that position.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 16, 2018, 07:45:39 PM
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Here are some words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html

Thanks, still didn't address my question.  There seems to be some misunderstanding on what fiscal conservatism is.  Hint: Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  It seems to be that you're implying lower taxes is not part of fiscal conservatism, but this wouldn't make sense because it's part of the very definition of it.  Now you might argue that fiscal conservatism isn't effective, and that's why the pretty graph, but that's something else entirely and I'd have some counter arguments to that position.
Perhaps consider "balancing the budget" as a common attribute of fiscal conservatism, and how the tax cut will affect that measure.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Dollar Slice on October 16, 2018, 07:47:28 PM
Thanks, still didn't address my question.  There seems to be some misunderstanding on what fiscal conservatism is.  Hint: Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  It seems to be that you're implying lower taxes is not part of fiscal conservatism, but this wouldn't make sense because it's part of the very definition of it.  Now you might argue that fiscal conservatism isn't effective, and that's why the pretty graph, but that's something else entirely and I'd have some counter arguments to that position.

Fiscal conservatism is three-pronged. Low taxes, low spending, and low debt/deficit. The Republicans have fairly consistently accomplished one of those three (tax cuts), have done nothing about the second (spending), with the result of blowing up the third (debt/deficit). You can build a stool with one leg, but it isn't going to work.  Lowering income without lowering spending is not fiscally conservative, it's a recipe for massive debt.

Real fiscal conservatism is basically what mustachians espouse on a personal level - we can live on a lean income with low spending and as a result we don't need to do any deficit spending, and everyone lives happily ever after. If someone came in here with a case study saying they were in a lot of debt, and were planning to cut their income to $25k/yr and keep their spending at $60k/yr - you would give them a huge facepunch. So why is it OK for Republicans in Congress to do that to the federal budget?

Anyway, you should probably start another thread if you want to discuss this at length because it's pretty OT for this thread.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 16, 2018, 07:52:29 PM
I agree with this ^^^.  Hence, my question. 

Of course, with Obama at the helm our national debt increased almost more than every president in history combined (which can be seen in the pretty graph up above), but that's another discussion.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on October 16, 2018, 08:01:06 PM
I agree with this ^^^.  Hence, my question. 

Of course, with Obama at the helm our national debt increased almost more than every president in history combined (which can be seen in the pretty graph up above), but that's another discussion.
You understand that the deficit was increased under Obama specifically because of this little known event at the beginning of his first term that had Americans squealing like little pigs about how something needed to be done to save their jobs, right?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 16, 2018, 08:04:57 PM

You understand that the deficit was increased under Obama specifically because of this little known event at the beginning of his first term that had Americans squealing like little pigs about how something needed to be done to save their jobs, right?

Yeah, of course.  I won't comment on this any further here as it's not pertinent to the thread.  Suffice to say, I don't think our debt should have increased more than every other president in history combined due to the recession.  Too many bailouts of companies that should have been allowed to fail.  In fact allowing companies to fail is the single most important component of a healthy free market.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Dollar Slice on October 16, 2018, 08:10:59 PM
I agree with this ^^^.  Hence, my question. 

Of course, with Obama at the helm our national debt increased almost more than every president in history combined (which can be seen in the pretty graph up above), but that's another discussion.

Right. Obama is not a fiscal conservative (I know, you're shocked!). The difference here is that the Democrats don't CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives, and therefore are not lying openly about their fiscal policies like the Republicans are. But it all works out OK, because Republican voters seem to like being lied to.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 16, 2018, 08:15:42 PM


Right. Obama is not a fiscal conservative (I know, you're shocked!). The difference here is that the Democrats don't CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives, and therefore are not lying openly about their fiscal policies like the Republicans are. But it all works out OK, because Republican voters seem to like being lied to.

Pretty broad stroke in my view.  Some politicians that run as Republicans are certainly not fiscal conservatives (particularly Trump, who I don't consider a conservative).  But many republicans are true fiscal conservatives.  As far as the Democrats go, there are plenty of things they lie about too when running, this cuts both ways.  All this said, I would like to see a strong fiscally conservative presidential candidate rise.  I think Romney would have fit this. Ben Sasse certainly would, here's hoping it happens.  And also let's all agree (whether conservative or liberal) that Trump is a terrible president.  I certainly agree.  This is why it's so important to ensure the president (and other branches) has very limited power.  Then if/when we get a bad president, it doesn't impact our country too much.  We shouldn't care too much who the sitting president is.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Paul der Krake on October 16, 2018, 08:48:07 PM
This is why it's so important to ensure the president (and other branches) has very limited power.  Then if/when we get a bad president, it doesn't impact our country too much.  We shouldn't care too much who the sitting president is.
(this has nothing to do with Kavanaugh, but since I've already made the mistake of commenting in this thread, might as well get an interesting discussion out of this)

The problem is that whoever gets elected president is the de facto leader of his party, and more often than not, that means he's also the de facto shadow leader of Congress, setting the legislative agenda through both chambers' senior leadership. You could argue that Congress should do its own thing, but between outrageously short terms (seriously, who thought 2 years was a good idea) and a lack of legitimacy for any one congressman to dictate his vision, it's not realistic to expect otherwise.

This isn't just an American problem. Most modern democracies of decent size feature a strong executive branch, because it's really hard to get a large population to agree on anything, so somebody needs to set the tone.

Foreign policy, the other major responsibility of the executive branch, matters enormously and just can't be done through anything than a united front.

So yeah, the importance of presidents isn't going away.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 17, 2018, 04:31:37 AM
But many republicans are true fiscal conservatives. 

I don't think this is true.  It's certainly not true of any the republicans currently in the House or Senate who voted for the Trump tax cuts.  Which is pretty much all of them, isn't it?

It would be more accurate to say that many republicans who don't hold power at the time will say that they are fiscal conservatives but not live up to that statement when they get into power.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2018, 07:07:35 AM


Right. Obama is not a fiscal conservative (I know, you're shocked!). The difference here is that the Democrats don't CLAIM to be fiscal conservatives, and therefore are not lying openly about their fiscal policies like the Republicans are. But it all works out OK, because Republican voters seem to like being lied to.

Pretty broad stroke in my view.  Some politicians that run as Republicans are certainly not fiscal conservatives (particularly Trump, who I don't consider a conservative).  But many republicans are true fiscal conservatives.  As far as the Democrats go, there are plenty of things they lie about too when running, this cuts both ways.  All this said, I would like to see a strong fiscally conservative presidential candidate rise.  I think Romney would have fit this. Ben Sasse certainly would, here's hoping it happens.  And also let's all agree (whether conservative or liberal) that Trump is a terrible president.  I certainly agree.  This is why it's so important to ensure the president (and other branches) has very limited power.  Then if/when we get a bad president, it doesn't impact our country too much.  We shouldn't care too much who the sitting president is.

Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican party right now.  He has had full support on all of his actions from other elected Republicans.  As you said, he's not fiscally conservative.  What does that say about the importance of fiscal conservatism to all of those Republicans who are steadfastly supporting him?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 17, 2018, 07:08:51 AM
Thanks @GuitarSteve,
"Why is the party who selected, vetted, and nominated the man and then blocked attempts to investigate his past not obligated to the people involved to find out the truth in your eyes?“
First, "then blocked attempts to investigate", the basic assumption of my post - which I could be wrong about - was that the Reps didn’t blocked the investigation per se, but they refuted to postpone Kavanagh’s nomination until such an investigation would be over. Which means, now they wouldn’t oppose such an investigation.
Second, "Why are the Reps not obligated to find out the truth in your eyes?"
I never said that. In my eyes the Reps are obligated to find out the truth as much as the Dems.
The question is which side should push nor for an (post-nomination) investigation.
That’s the Dems, because one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that the onus to bring up evidence and investigate lies on the accusing side.
If I accuse you of having raped me, the onus of pushing for an investigation and bringing up evidence lies on me, not on you.
Your obligation is not oppose it.
Since in the Kavanagh’s case the Dems are "representing" Mrs. Ford, the onus to push for an investigation lies on them.

@JLee
"As GuitarStv said, putting the onus solely on Democrats for this is absurd."
The onus of supporting the investigation, of seeking the truth, is a partisan one, it lies on both.
I hope we agree on that.
The question we are debating upon is which side should push for an post-nomination investigation.
That’s the Dems, because one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that the onus to bring up evidence and investigate lies on the accusing side (s. above)

@partgypsy
"I'm not sure what else you are asking the Dems to do?"
Since the Reps didn’t blocked the investigation per se but just refuted to postpone Kavanagh’s nomination until such an investigation would be over, what I’m asking the Dems to do is to keep pushing for an investigation.
Actually they don't need to push a lot, it's enough for them to ask for an investigation, because, as I have already stated, in my opinion the Reps don't oppose it.

Thanks @sol,
"So they (Dems) can, and maybe should, ask for an investigation.  And Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (and Kevin McCarthy) will just say no."
As you can read above, I disagree on this premise


Now I’ll evaporate from this thread because I’m new in this forum and not even USA based, as you can see from my english, and I didn’t came here to get involved in discussions about USA politics.
It looks that I came here to support the Reps. I think if I were american I’ll vote based on the person and not on the party affiliation.
I’m interested in the financial role of precious metals. In those forums there are a lot of conservatives, you know, gold and conservative get along swimmingly.
You can sense that many of the forum members over there are Reps, those old, wealthy Reps who sometimes brag about their wealth, about having been successfull, and who like to call themselves patriots. With one in particular there was once a big clash.
So no, I don't have a particular sympathy for the Reps.
Point is, probably I better stood out of this whole discussion

The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a partisan institution. It is supposed to be independent of party.  There are not supposed to be "sides," but that is what it has become.

Grassley basically said that an investigation is not their job and they have the power to do whatever they want. Direct quote:

Quote from: https://newrepublic.com/minutes/151308/senate-republicans-rule-fbi-investigation-brett-kavanaugh
Grassley struck a conciliatory tone while firmly rejecting the substance of Blasey’s request in his reply. “We have no power to commandeer an executive branch agency into conducting our due diligence,” he wrote. “The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours and ours alone.”

Republicans pushed back hard against an investigation and Trump only ordered one to happen after Jeff Flake (key swing vote) said he wouldn't go through with the nomination/vote/confirmation without an investigation. They kept it severely limited both in scope (they did not interview Kavanaugh's college roommate, who contacted the FBI directly) and in time (less than one week).

Quote from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-judiciary-committee-postpones-kavanaugh-decision-friday-afternoon-n914676
"I've ordered the FBI to conduct a supplemental investigation to update Judge Kavanaugh’s file," Trump said in a statement. "As the Senate has requested, this update must be limited in scope and completed in less than one week."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2018, 07:22:31 AM
Thanks @GuitarSteve,
"Why is the party who selected, vetted, and nominated the man and then blocked attempts to investigate his past not obligated to the people involved to find out the truth in your eyes?“
First, "then blocked attempts to investigate", the basic assumption of my post - which I could be wrong about - was that the Reps didn’t blocked the investigation per se, but they refuted to postpone Kavanagh’s nomination until such an investigation would be over. Which means, now they wouldn’t oppose such an investigation.

Republicans blocked attempts to investigate all the sexual assault allegations other than those from Ms. Ford.  Republicans prevented the FBI from even questioning Ford or Kavenaugh in their investigation.  It was also not allowed for the FBI to investigate the truth of any of the testimony given by Kavenaugh during the hearings.  The Republicans also imposed a completely arbitrary and artificial timeline of a single week on the investigation that did take place.

I don't know what you would consider blocking an investigation if the above doesn't count.




Second, "Why are the Reps not obligated to find out the truth in your eyes?"
I never said that. In my eyes the Reps are obligated to find out the truth as much as the Dems.
The question is which side should push nor for an (post-nomination) investigation.
That’s the Dems, because one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that the onus to bring up evidence and investigate lies on the accusing side.
If I accuse you of having raped me, the onus of pushing for an investigation and bringing up evidence lies on me, not on you.
Your obligation is not oppose it.
Since in the Kavanagh’s case the Dems are "representing" Mrs. Ford, the onus to push for an investigation lies on them.

So, you're not saying that the Republicans aren't obligated to find the truth  . . .  but believe that the Democrats and only the Democrats are obligated to find the truth.  This is because the Republicans didn't bother to find the truth when they selected Kavenaugh for the supreme court and did everything possible to block the truth from coming out and succeeded.  No.  That's bullshit reasoning.

The Democrats aren't accusing Kavenaugh of anything, the people who were sexually assaulted are.  The fact that Republicans aren't interested in finding out the truth shouldn't shift all responsibility to the democrats.  I'd argue that since the Republicans chose Kavenaugh, they are more responsible for ensuring that any hint of impropriety is completely and utterly stamped out.  He's their man, and they didn't do due diligence.  If they had picked one of the dozens of candidates without a history of binge drinking and assault we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: iris lily on October 17, 2018, 07:27:22 AM
Thanks for the pretty graph with colors, but that didn't answer my question.

Here are some words.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/trump-corporate-tax-cut-deficit.html

Thanks, still didn't address my question.  There seems to be some misunderstanding on what fiscal conservatism is.  Hint: Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  It seems to be that you're implying lower taxes is not part of fiscal conservatism, but this wouldn't make sense because it's part of the very definition of it.  Now you might argue that fiscal conservatism isn't effective, and that's why the pretty graph, but that's something else entirely and I'd have some counter arguments to that position.
Thank you, agreed. Trump is not a fiscal conservative.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2018, 08:26:45 AM
He's just the leader of our party, selected by our party, who operates with full party backing . . . but doesn't represent a true Republican.

This level of doublethink must be painful to maintain.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 17, 2018, 09:07:48 AM
That’s the Dems, because one of the basic tenets of our legal system is that the onus to bring up evidence and investigate lies on the accusing side.
If I accuse you of having raped me, the onus of pushing for an investigation and bringing up evidence lies on me, not on you.
Your obligation is not oppose it.
Since in the Kavanagh’s case the Dems are "representing" Mrs. Ford, the onus to push for an investigation lies on them.

This is so very very wrong.

The onus for investigating crimes lies with the government, regardless of party.  You can't say "Democrats are the police and Republicans are the criminals so it's the Democrats' job to find evidence" when we're talking about a sexual assault committed by one individual against another individual.  Party shouldn't enter into it. 

Are we really so lost in partisan bickering that anyone looks at the above quote from Paul67 and isn't immediately revulsed?  How fucking broken are we as a country that anyone can honestly think "This criminal is a Republican, therefore Republicans have no responsibility to enforce the rule of law against this person."  What if the crime were murder instead of sexual assault?  Would anyone argue that the onus lies only on the Democratic party to investigate murders?  Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

This is disgusting, Paul67, and you should know better.  Brett Kavanaugh's history of sexual assault shouldn't be about what party he belongs to, it should be about him being a violent sexual predator who needs to be behind bars instead of sitting on a bench dispensing justice.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 09:21:10 AM

I don't think this is true.  It's certainly not true of any the republicans currently in the House or Senate who voted for the Trump tax cuts.  Which is pretty much all of them, isn't it?



Not sure I follow your logic.  We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 17, 2018, 09:24:23 AM

I don't think this is true.  It's certainly not true of any the republicans currently in the House or Senate who voted for the Trump tax cuts.  Which is pretty much all of them, isn't it?



Not sure I follow your logic.  We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible.  You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 09:32:28 AM


On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible.  You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.

Oh I've already said Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  Not all republicans agree with his overall budget is the problem.  But his tax cuts are in alignment with fiscal conservatism.  Some fiscal conservatives would even like to see taxes cut further.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 17, 2018, 09:37:15 AM
We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

Have we?  You have asserted as much, but that doesn't make it true.

Fiscal conservativism is about prudently managing the nation's finances.  It's about ensuring that our government has the resources it needs to fund the programs it wants to support.  The "lower taxes" portion of fiscal conservativism has been more recently incorporated because some republicans used to argue that "tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic activity" but that certainly hasn't been born out by the past thirty years of experience.  Key to that argument is the implicit assumption that we're not trying to destroy the government, only trying to make sure that it spends in proportion to its income.  They supported "lower taxes" because they argued it would lead to increase government revenues, not because they wanted the government to make less money.

For example, the government makes money from a variety of sources besides income taxes.  We generate billions from leasing federal lands to oil and gas companies, and these lease royalties are federal income.  Do you think fiscal conservatives would suggest that we stop leasing land to oil companies, because the government should have less income? 

Taxes are just income too.  Not just income tax, but corporate taxes and OASDI taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, they all contribute to government coffers and then government uses those funds to pay for stuff.  A prudent financial manager would ensure that we don't pay out more than we make.  I see absolutely no reason why a prudent financial manager would suggest lowering your income.

And that's the great lie of fiscal conservativism.  It's really just angry rich capitalists who don't want to fund the government programs that have made them into rich capitalists (i.e. roads, courts, power grids, education, etc).  They try to couch this "I want to be richer" argument in the language of fiscal conservativism as if there were some moral imperative behind it, instead of personal greed.  The current crop of republican politicians have really turned this argument up to 11, by feeding the angry rich capitalists they lower rates they wanted, while simultaneously increasing spending in a way that very clearly highlights the complete disregard for prudent financial management principals that used to underlie their fiscal conservativism rallying cry.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 17, 2018, 09:40:55 AM
We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

Have we?  You have asserted as much, but that doesn't make it true.

Fiscal conservativism is about prudently managing the nation's finances.  It's about ensuring that our government has the resources it needs to fund the programs it wants to support.  The "lower taxes" portion of fiscal conservativism has been more recently incorporated because some republicans used to argue that "tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic activity" but that certainly hasn't been born out by the past thirty years of experience.  Key to that argument is the implicit assumption that we're not trying to destroy the government, only trying to make sure that it spends in proportion to its income.  They supported "lower taxes" because they argued it would lead to increase government revenues, not because they wanted the government to make less money.

For example, the government makes money from a variety of sources besides income taxes.  We generate billions from leasing federal lands to oil and gas companies, and these lease royalties are federal income.  Do you think fiscal conservatives would suggest that we stop leasing land to oil companies, because the government should have less income? 

Taxes are just income too.  Not just income tax, but corporate taxes and OASDI taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, they all contribute to government coffers and then government uses those funds to pay for stuff.  A prudent financial manager would ensure that we don't pay out more than we make.  I see absolutely no reason why a prudent financial manager would suggest lowering your income.

And that's the great lie of fiscal conservativism.  It's really just angry rich capitalists who don't want to fund the government programs that have made them into rich capitalists (i.e. roads, courts, power grids, education, etc).  They try to couch this "I want to be richer" argument in the language of fiscal conservativism as if there were some moral imperative behind it, instead of personal greed.  The current crop of republican politicians have really turned this argument up to 11, by feeding the angry rich capitalists they lower rates they wanted, while simultaneously increasing spending in a way that very clearly highlights the complete disregard for prudent financial management principals that used to underlie their fiscal conservativism rallying cry.
Maybe this is why Calvin Coolidge didn't get a seat at the table in the now-famous painting of republican presidents having a drink.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 09:41:00 AM
"Fiscal conservatism is a political position (primarily in the United States) that calls for lower levels of public spending, lower taxes and lower government debt."  Thomas Jefferson was was sort of the early champion of this view.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 17, 2018, 09:41:22 AM

I don't think this is true.  It's certainly not true of any the republicans currently in the House or Senate who voted for the Trump tax cuts.  Which is pretty much all of them, isn't it?



Not sure I follow your logic.  We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible.  You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.

Exactly. It's roughly analogous to putting purchases on your credit card while making no preparations to actually pay for the charges. That's not fiscal conservatism.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 17, 2018, 09:42:37 AM


On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible.  You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.

Oh I've already said Trump is not a fiscal conservative.  Not all republicans agree with his overall budget is the problem.  But his tax cuts are in alignment with fiscal conservatism.  Some fiscal conservatives would even like to see taxes cut further.

sol (and now dustin22 and Kris) has made good points above on how tax cuts relate to responsible finances.

I'd just like to state that at this point you cannot separate Trump from the elected republican members of Congress, who have adopted and voted for his financial policies wholesale.   So if Trump is not a fiscal conservative, neither are his republican fellow travellers in Congress.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 09:44:20 AM
the elected republican members of Congress, who have adopted and voted for his financial policies wholesale.   

Thats the point, they haven't voted for his financial policies wholesale.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: former player on October 17, 2018, 09:55:50 AM
the elected republican members of Congress, who have adopted and voted for his financial policies wholesale.   

Thats the point, they haven't voted for his financial policies wholesale.

They've voted for all the financial policies he's put in front of them, haven't they?  Which are all of his financial policies he's ever done anything about, rather than just talk about at rallies.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2018, 10:06:38 AM
"Fiscal conservatism is a political position (primarily in the United States) that calls for lower levels of public spending, lower taxes and lower government debt."  Thomas Jefferson was was sort of the early champion of this view.


Yes, that quote demonstrates that there are three points required for something to be fiscally conservative (as previously mentioned by former player earlier).  Cutting taxes on their own does not constitute fiscal responsibility.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 10:10:56 AM

Yes, that quote demonstrates that there are three points required for something to be fiscally conservative (as previously mentioned by former player earlier).  Cutting taxes on their own does not constitute fiscal responsibility.

Of course.  My point is, one can vote to lower taxes and still be a fiscal conservative.  Congress passing tax cuts does not necessarily mean its out of alignment with fiscal conservative views.

Now the budget, thats where we should be looking, not the tax cuts.  I'd agree that currently much of congress does not represent fiscal conservative views.  Not all, but the majority.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 17, 2018, 10:14:04 AM
Ethically, The Dems already called for an investigation, and they (sort of) did one. So the Dems did their due dilligence; they aired their concerns and called for an investigation at the time it mattered (before he was confirmed).

Politically, it has never happened, that a sitting SCOTUS justice has been removed after being confirmed. So even if more evidence comes out, it is extremely, extremely unlikely that it would have any effect on him being removed. Even if another 3, 4 women come out.
Politically it doesn't help the Dems to continue to call for an investigation. They don't have any power to ask for more, and even if there was one, Republicans make the decision what to do with that information (hint: nothing). Also politically they are getting blowback in conservative states for having the gall to protest Kavanaugh in the first place.

Personally, Ford is NOT asking for legal prosecution and conviction. She didn't want to have this be public in the first place, let alone make this her life. She only came forward because she felt he was unfit to be a supreme court nominee based on her personal knowledge, and was willing to tell her story and be questioned under oath. She has done this two times, one in front of the senate committee, and one with the FBI. 

Legally, for something that happened 25+ years ago and in a he said, she said situation, there is probably no way to arrive at the "truth". Certainly no way for a legal conviction, which is probably the only thing that would convince some people. So I'm not sure what you think an additional investigation would add. For example in the William Kennedy Smith case, 3, 4 additional women came forward with sexual assault claims during the rape trial. However none of their testimony was considered or admitted into evidence. So, it doesn't really matter how many women come forward, if none have an iron tight case against him (which looks to be the case). Which leaves us where we are. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Malloy on October 17, 2018, 10:26:31 AM
We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

Have we?  You have asserted as much, but that doesn't make it true.

Fiscal conservativism is about prudently managing the nation's finances.  It's about ensuring that our government has the resources it needs to fund the programs it wants to support.  The "lower taxes" portion of fiscal conservativism has been more recently incorporated because some republicans used to argue that "tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic activity" but that certainly hasn't been born out by the past thirty years of experience.  Key to that argument is the implicit assumption that we're not trying to destroy the government, only trying to make sure that it spends in proportion to its income.  They supported "lower taxes" because they argued it would lead to increase government revenues, not because they wanted the government to make less money.

For example, the government makes money from a variety of sources besides income taxes.  We generate billions from leasing federal lands to oil and gas companies, and these lease royalties are federal income.  Do you think fiscal conservatives would suggest that we stop leasing land to oil companies, because the government should have less income? 

Taxes are just income too.  Not just income tax, but corporate taxes and OASDI taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, they all contribute to government coffers and then government uses those funds to pay for stuff.  A prudent financial manager would ensure that we don't pay out more than we make.  I see absolutely no reason why a prudent financial manager would suggest lowering your income.

And that's the great lie of fiscal conservativism.  It's really just angry rich capitalists who don't want to fund the government programs that have made them into rich capitalists (i.e. roads, courts, power grids, education, etc).  They try to couch this "I want to be richer" argument in the language of fiscal conservativism as if there were some moral imperative behind it, instead of personal greed.  The current crop of republican politicians have really turned this argument up to 11, by feeding the angry rich capitalists they lower rates they wanted, while simultaneously increasing spending in a way that very clearly highlights the complete disregard for prudent financial management principals that used to underlie their fiscal conservativism rallying cry.

+1  I am worried that Trump has so thoroughly addicted his elderly white base to the joy of "owning the libs" that they will be ready to endorse Paul Ryan's fever dream of cutting SS and Medicare if it's sold to them as cutting off government largesse to the more liberal and diverse younger generations.  The Republican legislators aren't suicidal, so they'll structure it so that racist grandmas get their full benefits while phasing out benefits for younger generations.  So far, every time they've tried it, it's created enough unease among older voters that it hasn't gone anywhere.  I don't think that the unease is worry about their grandkids-more like worry about themselves. But I think there's a needle to be threaded that could work if the Republicans can tie younger generations to brown people who are, of course, undeserving government mooches unlike the people getting benefits now.  That will activate the cruelty pleasure center in these voters at the thought of hurting people who aren't like them, which I think is the driving force for the Trump base.  He certainly knows how to motivate them.



Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 17, 2018, 10:39:13 AM
"Fiscal conservatism is a political position (primarily in the United States) that calls for lower levels of public spending, lower taxes and lower government debt."  Thomas Jefferson was was sort of the early champion of this view.


Yes, that quote demonstrates that there are three points required for something to be fiscally conservative (as previously mentioned by former player earlier).  Cutting taxes on their own does not constitute fiscal responsibility.

Yeah, the current budget is like, we are going to stop collecting rent on our friends who owe us money (cutting taxes), we are going to stop paying for or sevely cut down on investing in retirement, health insurance, college payments, and fixing our house, yard (social security, ACA, education, environment, infrastructure), but we ARE going to buy one or heck a dozen top of the line SUVs (military). Despite cutting the recurring bills, the combined loss from income, and increase of expenditures both blows the budget and makes one vulnerable to future catastrophes. That's not being a fiscal conservative. Long term it's suicidal.   
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2018, 11:11:23 AM

Yes, that quote demonstrates that there are three points required for something to be fiscally conservative (as previously mentioned by former player earlier).  Cutting taxes on their own does not constitute fiscal responsibility.

Of course.  My point is, one can vote to lower taxes and still be a fiscal conservative.  Congress passing tax cuts does not necessarily mean its out of alignment with fiscal conservative views.

Now the budget, thats where we should be looking, not the tax cuts.  I'd agree that currently much of congress does not represent fiscal conservative views.  Not all, but the majority.

By your logic, someone who votes to give every American alive 1 billion dollars a day but cuts tax rates by 1% is a fiscal conservative.  See how silly that argument gets?

No you can't be a fiscal conservative by ignoring two of the three tenants required to be a fiscal conservative.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 11:23:06 AM

No you can't be a fiscal conservative by ignoring two of the three tenants required to be a fiscal conservative.

I never made that claim.  You're making a strawman argument.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 17, 2018, 11:34:50 AM

No you can't be a fiscal conservative by ignoring two of the three tenants required to be a fiscal conservative.

I never made that claim.  You're making a strawman argument.
dustinst22, I'll give you credit for being both quick and smart, so you can probably understand why https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2172328/#msg2172328 makes it appear you were deliberately "ignoring two of the three tenants [sic] required to be a fiscal conservative."
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 11:39:27 AM

No you can't be a fiscal conservative by ignoring two of the three tenants required to be a fiscal conservative.

I never made that claim.  You're making a strawman argument.
dustinst22, I'll give you credit for being both quick and smart, so you can probably understand why https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2172328/#msg2172328 makes it appear you were deliberately "ignoring two of the three tenants [sic] required to be a fiscal conservative."

The logic tree is simple.  Lower taxes is part of fiscal conservatism.   You cannot determine if someone is a fiscal conservative or not by this one policy alone.  Hence, pointing to Rand Paul's stance on lowering taxes is not enough to make that determination.  I never argued Rand Paul is definitely fiscally conservative.  Rather, I responded to a post pointing to his stance on taxes as proof he's not a fiscal conservative.  It seemed to me lacking in elementary logic since lower taxes is one of the key tenets of a fiscal conservative.  It would be like saying "Look, that guy over there is definitely not Mustachian because he rides a bike."  Then again, like I said, I'm slow and not very smart so I probably am missing something obvious.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 17, 2018, 12:05:49 PM

No you can't be a fiscal conservative by ignoring two of the three tenants required to be a fiscal conservative.

I never made that claim.  You're making a strawman argument.
dustinst22, I'll give you credit for being both quick and smart, so you can probably understand why https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2172328/#msg2172328 makes it appear you were deliberately "ignoring two of the three tenants [sic] required to be a fiscal conservative."

The logic tree is simple.  Lower taxes is part of fiscal conservatism.   You cannot determine if someone is a fiscal conservative or not by this one policy alone.  Hence, pointing to Rand Paul's stance on lowering taxes is not enough to make that determination.  I never argued Rand Paul is definitely fiscally conservative.  Rather, I responded to a post pointing to his stance on taxes as proof he's not a fiscal conservative.  It seemed to me lacking in elementary logic since lower taxes is one of the key tenets of a fiscal conservative. It would be like saying "Look, that guy over there is definitely not Mustachian because he lives in a McMansion and uses his F-350 to transport his bike 500 feet down the road to the bike path"  Then again, like I said, I'm slow and not very smart so I probably am missing something obvious.

Fixed. ;)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 12:09:01 PM
Your “fix” doesn’t make sense in the context of my post.  But thanks?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: shenlong55 on October 17, 2018, 12:17:30 PM

No you can't be a fiscal conservative by ignoring two of the three tenants required to be a fiscal conservative.

I never made that claim.  You're making a strawman argument.
dustinst22, I'll give you credit for being both quick and smart, so you can probably understand why https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/brett-kavanaguh-yay-or-nay/msg2172328/#msg2172328 makes it appear you were deliberately "ignoring two of the three tenants [sic] required to be a fiscal conservative."

The logic tree is simple.  Lower taxes is part of fiscal conservatism.   You cannot determine if someone is a fiscal conservative or not by this one policy alone.

Granted, in a vacuum.  But how about if you started out within a relevant context instead, like the real world?  Then you could consider other things like the current state of the national budget/deficit/debt.   Might this one policy then have effects on some of the other tenants of "fiscal conservatism" beyond lower taxes?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Norioch on October 17, 2018, 12:28:16 PM
Lowering taxes is not fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is lowering the deficit and/or balancing the budget. Lowering taxes raises the deficit, which is counterproductive towards that goal.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 17, 2018, 01:14:41 PM
Lowering taxes is not fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is lowering the deficit and/or balancing the budget. Lowering taxes raises the deficit, which is counterproductive towards that goal.

Unless you cut government expenditures by more than you cut government income, which appears to be the real goal.  Republicans have hated America's social safety net since the days of FDR, and they cannot accept that these programs have helped shape our country into the powerhouse it is today.  They desperately want to return to 1930s social policies, where transients roamed the land in search of work and widows starved in dark alleys.  That's the world without the "entitlements" that republicans are trying so hard to get rid of.

Lowering taxes (on rich people only, not on poor people) was just a sacrificial gambit.  They always knew it would bankrupt the country to lose so much income, and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have both publicly stated that they hope to use the looming budget deficits as an excuse to cut entitlement spending.  It's not that lowering taxes was a laudable goal in itself, it was just a ploy to motivate people to vote for the republican's real policy objective (rolling back the New Deal) that they've been harping on for almost a century now.

Fiscal conservatives want the country to be financially solvent.  You don't do that by reducing government income while simultaneously increasing government spending.  What congressional republicans have been doing is the exact opposite of fiscal conservativism.  A true fiscal conservative would advocate for higher taxes and less spending, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 17, 2018, 01:19:13 PM
A true fiscal conservative would advocate for higher taxes and less spending....
Yup.  Hard to find many of those creatures in the political woods.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 01:29:14 PM
Some here seem to want to redefine what Fiscal Conservatism is.  That's fine, but it would be better to use a different term so that we avoid terminological tangle issues.  Debating over the definition of a term is not very useful and only causes confusion.  It's important to use a common definition and then debate the concept.

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

Fiscal conservatism is a political-economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility advocating low taxes, reduced government spending and minimal government debt. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and privatization are the defining qualities of fiscal conservatism.

Of course, "low taxes" is a relative term, so its useless to really discuss it unless we have some sort of bearing on what it means.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 17, 2018, 01:45:52 PM
Dustin is getting pounded for this whole Rand Paul-fiscal conservatism thing.

I will say that Rand Paul has shown at times a willingness to diverge from the GOP line on other matters. Other Neocons favored muscular foreign policy when Paul hasn't. Other Neocons were silent when Police seemed to be killing black citizens without due process, and Paul spoke out then, too. There is a bit of a maverick in him.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 01:49:25 PM
To be clear, I haven't expressed my opinion on whether Rand Paul is a fiscal conservative or not.  I also haven't expressed my own political or economic positions.

I was merely responding to the article posted by Kris in regards to his position on lower taxes.  I don't think this was a good example of trying to illustrate that he's not a fiscal conservative. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sherr on October 17, 2018, 01:51:04 PM
Some here seem to want to redefine what Fiscal Conservatism is.  That's fine, but it would be better to use a different term so that we avoid terminological tangle issues.  Debating over the definition of a term is not very useful and only causes confusion.  It's important to use a common definition and then debate the concept.

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

Fiscal conservatism is a political-economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility advocating low taxes, reduced government spending and minimal government debt. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and privatization are the defining qualities of fiscal conservatism.

Of course, "low taxes" is a relative term, so its useless to really discuss it unless we have some sort of bearing on what it means.

I'll just throw my hat in the ring and agree that you're missing the earlier points. "Fiscal conservatism" is a doctrine that embraces all three (low spending, low taxes, low debt) so that it achieves the goal of being fiscally responsible. If you are voting to lower taxes but increase spending (and therefore increase the debt) you are not a fiscal conservative because you are working in the opposite direction of the goal, regardless of your sound bites that you repeat to your constituents.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 01:51:50 PM


I'll just throw my hat in the ring and agree that you're missing the earlier points. "Fiscal conservatism" is a doctrine that embraces all three (low spending, low taxes, low debt) so that it achieves the goal of being fiscally responsible. If you are voting to lower taxes but increase spending (and therefore increase the debt) you are not a fiscal conservative because you are working in the opposite direction of the goal, regardless of your sound bites that you repeat to your constituents.

I agree with you.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MDM on October 17, 2018, 01:53:37 PM
I was merely responding to the article posted by Kris in regards to his position on lower taxes.  I don't think this was a good example of trying to illustrate that he's not a fiscal conservative.
Yes, that article discussed taxes only, so you have a defensible point there.

Kris' follow-up post showing the debt chart, however, is a different point.  I'll call it a tie between you and Kris here. :)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 01:58:03 PM
I was merely responding to the article posted by Kris in regards to his position on lower taxes.  I don't think this was a good example of trying to illustrate that he's not a fiscal conservative.
Yes, that article discussed taxes only, so you have a defensible point there.

Kris' follow-up post showing the debt chart, however, is a different point.  I'll call it a tie between you and Kris here. :)

I'm not sure what the debt chart was supposed to illustrate either, to be quite honest.  The debt increased dramatically during Obama's era (almost doubled, in fact).  Now of course there are many factors for why this is, but this just further illustrates in my view why you can't use a simple debt chart to determine what economic policies are the most effective in managing the national debt.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 17, 2018, 02:01:04 PM
I was merely responding to the article posted by Kris in regards to his position on lower taxes.  I don't think this was a good example of trying to illustrate that he's not a fiscal conservative.
Yes, that article discussed taxes only, so you have a defensible point there.

Kris' follow-up post showing the debt chart, however, is a different point.  I'll call it a tie between you and Kris here. :)

To clarify, the reason I posted the taxes only post was because I assumed it was common knowledge among informed people (which I generally assume most people to be here) what the effect of that tax cut had been for the debt. I didn't realize that point needed to be explained.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 02:04:48 PM
I didn't realize that point needed to be explained.

Then you greatly underestimated my apparent ignorance.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sherr on October 17, 2018, 02:05:13 PM
I was merely responding to the article posted by Kris in regards to his position on lower taxes.  I don't think this was a good example of trying to illustrate that he's not a fiscal conservative.
Yes, that article discussed taxes only, so you have a defensible point there.

Kris' follow-up post showing the debt chart, however, is a different point.  I'll call it a tie between you and Kris here. :)

I'm not sure what the debt chart was supposed to illustrate either, to be quite honest.  The debt increased dramatically during Obama's era (almost doubled, in fact).  Now of course there are many factors for why this is, but this just further illustrates in my view why you can't use a simple debt chart to determine what economic policies are the most effective in managing the national debt.

Of course the most obvious of the "many factors" is that we were intentionally deficit spending to turn around the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression. And it worked.

What Republicans are doing is increasing deficit spending during an incredibly strong economy, which doesn't make any kind of sense at all. But sure, I suppose there might be some "fiscal conservatives" in there somewhere that just aren't ready to come out of the closet yet.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 17, 2018, 02:06:41 PM
I suppose there might be some "fiscal conservatives" in there somewhere that just aren't ready to come out of the closet yet.

They aren't popular with voters unfortunately.  Popular politicians tend to be big spenders.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 17, 2018, 02:10:40 PM
Fiscal conservatism seems to wrap two things together, that really should be separate. One is fiscal responsibility: that whatever one spends, one should take in, i.e. a balanced budget. Even the most fiscal conservative however know that there are some times the GOV must spend money, for economic stimulus during a recession, etc so even a pure fiscally responsible politician would most likely have some exceptions to balanced budget, 0 deficit in 100% of situations. Still, a balanced budget and reduction in deficit is the goal.

The 2nd is ideology: that government is "too big" and must be made smaller. One of the ways to do that is to starve it: cut taxes to the extent that pretty standard things the government traditionally provides, is unaffordable.
I think people confuse the two.

You can have high taxes, and a balanced budget and a very health economy. In fact during the "good old days" of post war boom, both personal and corporate taxes were much higher than they are now. They did not harm the economy.

In the same way, you can cut taxes, but be financially irresponsible, as in the current case. They are cutting taxes, without balancing the budget, and also INCREASING spending in some areas, particularly the military. Defense is so large that we don't even know what they are doing. They lose/misplace millions on a regular basis.
The Republicans cut taxes first stating that it would stimulate the economy and that stimulated economy would replace the reductions in tax rates with an overall increased base (supply side economics/ aka voodoo economics). Before the tax cuts were enacted, economists explained why this would not really work. https://itep.org/moodys-and-conservative-economists-agree-the-trump-corporate-tax-cut-is-not-helping-workers/
But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

We kind of know this, because Paul Ryan went on record about this, in 2017, before the tax cuts were official. If that was truly the reason for cutting these programs (the deficit), why pass tax cuts? The tax cuts are going to add over a trillion to the deficit. Simple answer: don't do the tax cuts which benefit the 0.01% of Americans?  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/01/gop-eyes-post-tax-cut-changes-to-welfare-medicare-and-social-security/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1294f18823d5
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sherr on October 17, 2018, 02:21:13 PM
Fiscal conservatism seems to wrap two things together, that really should be separate. One is fiscal responsibility: that whatever one spends, one should take in, i.e. a balanced budget. Even the most fiscal conservative however know that there are some times the GOV must spend money, for economic stimulus during a recession, etc so even a pure fiscally responsible politician would most likely have some exceptions to balanced budget, 0 deficit in 100% of situations. Still, a balanced budget and reduction in deficit is the goal.

The 2nd is ideology: that government is "too big" and must be made smaller. One of the ways to do that is to starve it: cut taxes to the extent that pretty standard things the government traditionally provides, is unaffordable.
I think people confuse the two.

You can have high taxes, and a balanced budget and a very health economy. In fact during the "good old days" of post war boom, both personal and corporate taxes were much higher than they are now. They did not harm the economy.

In the same way, you can cut taxes, but be financially irresponsible, as in the current case. They are cutting taxes, without balancing the budget, and also INCREASING spending in some areas, particularly the military. Defense is so large that we don't even know what they are doing. They lose/misplace millions on a regular basis.
The Republicans cut taxes first stating that it would stimulate the economy and that stimulated economy would replace the reductions in tax rates with an overall increased base (supply side economics/ aka voodoo economics). Before the tax cuts were enacted, economists explained why this would not really work. https://itep.org/moodys-and-conservative-economists-agree-the-trump-corporate-tax-cut-is-not-helping-workers/
But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, which they seem to have contempt for.

We kind of know this, because Paul Ryan accidently went on record about this, in 2017, before the tax cuts were official. If that was truly the reason for cutting these programs (the deficit), why pass tax cuts? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/01/gop-eyes-post-tax-cut-changes-to-welfare-medicare-and-social-security/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1294f18823d5

Also known as "starving the beast", the "real live experiment" (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/11/02/441822/kansas-real-live-experiment-trickle-tax-cuts/) that Governor Brownback tried in Kansas. Of course it failed miserably and now the state is in an enormous amount of fiscal trouble.

But of course that's not going to stop them from retrying the experiment on a national scale. There is nothing fiscally responsible about the Republican party.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 18, 2018, 08:13:44 AM
The Federal government is a "monetary sovereign", so can run persistent deficits.

Kansas is not. While I agree that Brownback was a bad governor, saying that something didn't work for a state doesn't automatically imply it would not work for the Federal government. In fact, nearly all states have a constitutional requirement to balance their budgets. Every. Single. Year.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 18, 2018, 08:25:04 AM
States should try to keep a balanced budget, and they should work hard at it. That's why it puzzles me when states cut state income tax, when they know they have essential services (like education) they must provide. It ends up eroding the quality of life of people in those states, as well as reduce companies incentives to move there (no base of educated, healthy populace).
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 18, 2018, 08:38:51 AM
saying that something didn't work for a state doesn't automatically imply it would not work for the Federal government.

In this case, I think it absolutely does. 

Kansas was not trying to run perpetual deficits, which is what the federal government could choose to do.  Kansas dramatically cut income taxes in an effort to create jobs and attract investments, with the thought that they would generate more revenue even with the new lower rates.  It failed.  It was just another example of the "tax cuts pay for themselves" argument, and it didn't work in Kansas just like it has never worked anywhere else either.

What Kansas tried and failed to do also does not work at the federal level.  Deficits are the natural result of cutting taxes without reducing spending.  This is not some complicated voodoo economics theory, this is arithmetic.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 18, 2018, 09:40:22 AM
States should try to keep a balanced budget, and they should work hard at it. That's why it puzzles me when states cut state income tax, when they know they have essential services (like education) they must provide. It ends up eroding the quality of life of people in those states, as well as reduce companies incentives to move there (no base of educated, healthy populace).

Income tax is not the only way to get revenue.  Property tax, sales tax, etc- states have to decide which ones they want to use.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 18, 2018, 11:13:39 AM
But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

I was confused by this until I read an article about how Dominionists and Dominionists within the group the Council for National Policy, became very influential in Trump's campaign and the Republican party.  The membership on the CFNP is interesting - Kellyanne Conway, Brent Bozell, Jay Sekelow, Rich Devos, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, David Bossie, Stuart Epperson, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, etc.  Mercers contribute to the group, but don't show on any membership lists.     https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf

They believe America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state.  What helped me understand the cruelty, is that they consider being rich a mark of God's favor and being poor a mark of God's disfavor.  So you have a bunch of people that are don't want to pay taxes because money is everything to them (like Trump) combined with a bunch of people that think they and what they are doing are favored by God because they are rich (think Betsy Devos).  It's pretty damn scary. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 18, 2018, 12:07:59 PM
But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

I was confused by this until I read an article about how Dominionists and Dominionists within the group the Council for National Policy, became very influential in Trump's campaign and the Republican party.  The membership on the CFNP is interesting - Kellyanne Conway, Brent Bozell, Jay Sekelow, Rich Devos, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, David Bossie, Stuart Epperson, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, etc.  Mercers contribute to the group, but don't show on any membership lists.     https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf

They believe America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state.  What helped me understand the cruelty, is that they consider being rich a mark of God's favor and being poor a mark of God's disfavor.  So you have a bunch of people that are don't want to pay taxes because money is everything to them (like Trump) combined with a bunch of people that think they and what they are doing are favored by God because they are rich (think Betsy Devos).  It's pretty damn scary.

Whenever I hear people who believe this, the prosperity gospel, or that you are rewarded for being good by being materially better of in this world, even if it means screwing other people, I wonder; did they really READ the New Testesmant? Do they have a different Bible than I have? Because the message, is not subtle. I am not practising but the way I was raised, if you are rewarded with prosperity, your reward is to be able to help others (not yourself). 

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you."

"Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways."

"A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge."

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 18, 2018, 12:10:29 PM
But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

I was confused by this until I read an article about how Dominionists and Dominionists within the group the Council for National Policy, became very influential in Trump's campaign and the Republican party.  The membership on the CFNP is interesting - Kellyanne Conway, Brent Bozell, Jay Sekelow, Rich Devos, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, David Bossie, Stuart Epperson, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, etc.  Mercers contribute to the group, but don't show on any membership lists.     https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf

They believe America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state.  What helped me understand the cruelty, is that they consider being rich a mark of God's favor and being poor a mark of God's disfavor.  So you have a bunch of people that are don't want to pay taxes because money is everything to them (like Trump) combined with a bunch of people that think they and what they are doing are favored by God because they are rich (think Betsy Devos).  It's pretty damn scary.

Whenever I hear people who believe this, the prosperity gospel, or that you are rewarded for being good by being materially better of in this world, even if it means screwing other people, I wonder; do they REALLY read the New Testesmant? Do they have a different Bible than I have? Because the message, is not subtle. I am not practizing but the way I was raised, if you are rewarded with prosperity, your reward is to be able to help others (not yourself). 

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you."

"Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways."

"A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge."

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

I have literally never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these passages.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 18, 2018, 12:14:40 PM
But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

I was confused by this until I read an article about how Dominionists and Dominionists within the group the Council for National Policy, became very influential in Trump's campaign and the Republican party.  The membership on the CFNP is interesting - Kellyanne Conway, Brent Bozell, Jay Sekelow, Rich Devos, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, David Bossie, Stuart Epperson, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, etc.  Mercers contribute to the group, but don't show on any membership lists.     https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf

They believe America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state.  What helped me understand the cruelty, is that they consider being rich a mark of God's favor and being poor a mark of God's disfavor.  So you have a bunch of people that are don't want to pay taxes because money is everything to them (like Trump) combined with a bunch of people that think they and what they are doing are favored by God because they are rich (think Betsy Devos).  It's pretty damn scary.

Whenever I hear people who believe this, the prosperity gospel, or that you are rewarded for being good by being materially better of in this world, even if it means screwing other people, I wonder; do they REALLY read the New Testesmant? Do they have a different Bible than I have? Because the message, is not subtle. I am not practizing but the way I was raised, if you are rewarded with prosperity, your reward is to be able to help others (not yourself). 

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you."

"Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways."

"A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge."

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

I have literally never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these passages.

And there's at least a half dozen more.  Here's one for Trump: Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker; he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 18, 2018, 12:15:28 PM
For every cause, people pick and choose the parts of the Bible to listen to.  Prosperity gospel is not alone in this.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 18, 2018, 12:32:23 PM
For every cause, people pick and choose the parts of the Bible to listen to.  Prosperity gospel is not alone in this.

No one is alone in that, in that some parts may speak to you more. But it bothers me, how those who have those beliefs, can very simply look up what are the standard interpretations and teachings, and don't care to.

and the practice of fundamentalist Christians, who will pick on minor things in the Old Testament as important, or twist passages to mean something they don't (while ignoring clear passages that contradict their interpretation), however, ignore the core teachings and message of Christ? How can you call yourself a Christian?

James 2:1-5 "My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"

Ok, I'll stop now : ) But seriously, these quotes happen over and over again. If they were taking a test on the Bible they would flunk.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on October 18, 2018, 12:38:20 PM
There are charlatan preachers who may preach prosperity gospel and related stuff, but those are not mainstream

Not mainstream?  Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen preached to fifty thousand people per week, in person.  That doesn't even count his television audience.  Can you name a a larger congregation anywhere in the world? 

What could possibly be more mainstream than that?  The man literally goes on Oprah to preach his twisted version of Christianity to millions.  Oprah!  She's like the human embodiment of shitty things that have gone mainstream!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 18, 2018, 12:42:56 PM
There are charlatan preachers who may preach prosperity gospel and related stuff, but those are not mainstream

Not mainstream?  Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen preached to fifty thousand people per week, in person.  That doesn't even count his television audience.  Can you name a a larger congregation anywhere in the world? 

What could possibly be more mainstream than that?  The man literally goes on Oprah to preach his twisted version of Christianity to millions.  Oprah!  She's like the human embodiment of shitty things that have gone mainstream!

What I mean by mainstream, is by Biblical scholarship. Not mainstream as in "popular".

Oprah, I love that you do a book club. But some of the people you push, oh Oprah...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 18, 2018, 12:51:57 PM
There are charlatan preachers who may preach prosperity gospel and related stuff, but those are not mainstream

Not mainstream?  Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen preached to fifty thousand people per week, in person.  That doesn't even count his television audience.  Can you name a a larger congregation anywhere in the world? 

What could possibly be more mainstream than that?  The man literally goes on Oprah to preach his twisted version of Christianity to millions.  Oprah!  She's like the human embodiment of shitty things that have gone mainstream!

What I mean by mainstream, is by Biblical scholarship. Not mainstream as in "popular".

Oprah, I love that you do a book club. But some of the people you push, oh Oprah...

So really not mainstream at all?  Biblical scholarship is incredibly niche; extremely limited in scope.

Whereas "popular" pastors have extraordinary reach.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 18, 2018, 02:39:00 PM
For every cause, people pick and choose the parts of the Bible to listen to.  Prosperity gospel is not alone in this.

Yep. Like Pat Robertson saying “thou shalt not kill” is trumped by “totally okay to overlook this one if you’re getting 100 billion in arms sales from the murderers.”

http://deadstate.org/pat-robertson-defends-the-saudis-again-not-worth-losing-100-billion-in-arms-sales-over-a-murdered-journalist/
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Unique User on October 19, 2018, 08:35:36 AM
For every cause, people pick and choose the parts of the Bible to listen to.  Prosperity gospel is not alone in this.

Yep. Like Pat Robertson saying “thou shalt not kill” is trumped by “totally okay to overlook this one if you’re getting 100 billion in arms sales from the murderers.”

http://deadstate.org/pat-robertson-defends-the-saudis-again-not-worth-losing-100-billion-in-arms-sales-over-a-murdered-journalist/

Pat Robertson also said that  Trump’s best course of action after the indictments against his former campaign staffers is to issue a “blanket pardon” to anyone indicted in connection with the investigations into Russia and shut down Robert Mueller’s “tainted” special counsel investigation.  He is also a past president of the Council for National Policy.  I used to make fun of conspiracy theorists, still do, but these people all have weird interconnections that freak me out. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on October 19, 2018, 10:28:45 AM
This thread is officially depressing me again. : /
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 19, 2018, 11:04:05 AM
This thread is officially depressing me again. : /
... especially if the blanket pardon were to make it to SCOTUS and Kavanaugh, who likes executive power, were to be in a deciding position?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 19, 2018, 11:59:56 AM
For a few weeks, I did hope that the family separate at the border was going to wake up Evangelical Christians that maybe the price of Trump was not worth the incredible judges he was giving them.

Then Kennedy announced he was retiring. There was simply no way Evangelicals were going to let that get messed up. And now it seems as though Democrats' behavior during those hearings was outrageous enough that suddenly Trump isn't seeming so terrible through Evangelical eyes.

What would really drive the stake into the heart of Democrats would be having a mass shooting.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 19, 2018, 02:35:34 PM
What would really drive the stake into the heart of Democrats would be having a mass shooting.

I don't think mass shootings move the needle anymore. They happen in suburban high schools in liberal cities and rural churches in conservative counties. It's apolitical.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: SwordGuy on October 19, 2018, 10:07:52 PM
I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan.  Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post.  Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period.  Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

Bork? Robert Bork?

I used to think that Bork got a bum deal.   That's what I heard from the conservative side.

Then I learned WHY Bork got hammered by the Democrats.

When Nixon started order people who were investigating him (over Watergate crimes and the resulting coverup) to be fired, Bork complied.  (Several people above him in the chain of command resigned rather than do so.)

In that manner, Bork actively impeded a criminal investigation into felonious conduct by the President and others.

He should have been raked over the coals for it.

Bork deserved what he got.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on October 20, 2018, 10:17:03 AM
Look at that picture above ^^^^. Nixon is at the table. In polls, almost half of Republicans think he did nothing wrong.

(Unless the painter was making that exact point?)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on October 20, 2018, 10:29:35 AM


Nobody is saying he isn't qualified in the legal sense. Many are saying that he is not appropriate in the moral, temperament, or partisan (as in, he is gratuitously partisan) sense.

With respect to temperament, Judge Kavanaugh did not acquit himself well, especially in the testy question (about drinking) he asked   Senator Klobuchar.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: fuzzy math on October 20, 2018, 08:21:31 PM
Fuck Kansas. I bought groceries there once at a trader joes and the tax was 11%. ON FUCKING GROCERIES. Not like take out prepared meal groceries, but produce, meat, etc. I was so flabbergasted I made some overt ststements to the cashier who had to try to politely explain Brownbackism to me. Never again, Kansas. Talk about a regressive tax on the poor.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 21, 2018, 07:23:00 AM
Fuck Kansas. I bought groceries there once at a trader joes and the tax was 11%. ON FUCKING GROCERIES. Not like take out prepared meal groceries, but produce, meat, etc. I was so flabbergasted I made some overt ststements to the cashier who had to try to politely explain Brownbackism to me. Never again, Kansas. Talk about a regressive tax on the poor.

That just plain sucks.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: DavidAnnArbor on October 21, 2018, 03:33:27 PM
Fuck Kansas. I bought groceries there once at a trader joes and the tax was 11%. ON FUCKING GROCERIES. Not like take out prepared meal groceries, but produce, meat, etc. I was so flabbergasted I made some overt ststements to the cashier who had to try to politely explain Brownbackism to me. Never again, Kansas. Talk about a regressive tax on the poor.

Repellent Republican policies in practice.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Glenstache on October 22, 2018, 10:04:21 AM
Too soon?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpmcW8-XUAAcpND.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: ncornilsen on October 23, 2018, 10:13:09 AM
Fuck Kansas. I bought groceries there once at a trader joes and the tax was 11%. ON FUCKING GROCERIES. Not like take out prepared meal groceries, but produce, meat, etc. I was so flabbergasted I made some overt ststements to the cashier who had to try to politely explain Brownbackism to me. Never again, Kansas. Talk about a regressive tax on the poor.

Repellent Republican policies in practice.

In Oregon, democrats tried to instate a sales tax, er, I mean a "gross receipts" tax (a distinction without a difference) to plug the budget holes left by decades of catering to thier public employee union donors... and it would have applied to groceries. Now they oppose a bill designed specifically to prevent democrats from taxing groceries with such a tax. 

Repellent Leftist policies in practice.

I don't know the details of Brownback's fiscal policy (It sounds reckless and poorly considered), but you CANNOT call a sales tax on groceries an exclusively (repellent) republican policy, nor can you judge an entire tax scheme based on a single element.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on October 29, 2018, 09:29:01 AM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 29, 2018, 09:40:43 AM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.

FFS.

This article is just such garbage.

I'm embarrassed for you, Tom.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 29, 2018, 10:05:19 AM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.

FFS.

This article is just such garbage.

I'm embarrassed for you, Tom.

Don't feed the troll ( :
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 29, 2018, 10:18:05 AM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.

FFS.

This article is just such garbage.

I'm embarrassed for you, Tom.

Don't feed the troll ( :

True. I forget who a lot of the trolls are. It just seems so pointless to spend time being one.

But I guess, if that's all you have going on...
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 29, 2018, 10:41:18 AM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.

Yup, saw this one coming.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 29, 2018, 12:00:49 PM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.

Yup, saw this one coming.

Kavanaugh isn't far behind - https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 29, 2018, 12:10:49 PM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.

Yup, saw this one coming.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Kavanaugh isn't far behind - https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 29, 2018, 12:17:38 PM


Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously.  The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain.  Speculation is that this could net 10+M.  I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on October 29, 2018, 12:41:58 PM


Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously.  The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain.  Speculation is that this could net 10+M.  I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

LOL. Ford has a lot to gain.

LOL.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JLee on October 29, 2018, 12:52:55 PM


Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously.  The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain.  Speculation is that this could net 10+M.  I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

LOL. Ford has a lot to gain.

LOL.

I don't know, you know I've heard from a lot of people, I mean people, you know people are saying, a lot of people are saying that Ford had a lot to gain. Credible people! 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 29, 2018, 01:29:45 PM


Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously.  The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain.  Speculation is that this could net 10+M.  I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

LOL. Ford has a lot to gain.

LOL.

I don't know, you know I've heard from a lot of people, I mean people, you know people are saying, a lot of people are saying that Ford had a lot to gain. Credible people!

Next we'll be told that Clinton and Obama sent bombs to themselves and that jet fuel cannot melt steel.

Should have invested in tin foil hat stock. Doh!
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: marty998 on October 29, 2018, 02:09:04 PM
Question.

Has Kavanaugh made any decisions yet?

If I had been given a job to do and haven't done any work for three weeks I'd probably be fired by now.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on October 29, 2018, 02:37:55 PM
This just in: Liberals say this isn't over, they're going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: calimom on October 29, 2018, 02:51:18 PM
This just in: Liberals say this isn't over, they're going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court

Hilarious. If you change "liberals" to "libtards" you'll be redstate.com worthy.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Poundwise on October 29, 2018, 04:52:54 PM
https://www.theonion.com/woman-probably-just-made-up-rape-story-in-order-to-get-1819578559
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: radram on October 30, 2018, 06:26:03 AM
Next we'll be told that Clinton and Obama sent bombs to themselves ...
Someone told this guy already:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporter-says-hillary-and-obama-probably-sent-bombs-to-themselves_us_5bd4969de4b0d38b58840c62


Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on October 30, 2018, 09:09:12 AM
Next we'll be told that Clinton and Obama sent bombs to themselves ...
Someone told this guy already:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-supporter-says-hillary-and-obama-probably-sent-bombs-to-themselves_us_5bd4969de4b0d38b58840c62

Yep, precisely why I included it with other nonsensical conspiracies. There is a noticeable pattern here with Trump supporters.

https://www.livescience.com/63658-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories.html (https://www.livescience.com/63658-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories.html)
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: talltexan on October 30, 2018, 09:10:40 AM
Question.

Has Kavanaugh made any decisions yet?

If I had been given a job to do and haven't done any work for three weeks I'd probably be fired by now.

He's been part of all hearings--therefore all decisions--since being seated on Oct. 8. Decisions are typically offered after a delay following the hearing.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 30, 2018, 09:49:40 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/new-questions-raised-about-avenatti-claims-regarding-kavanaugh-n924596

relevant article
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: I'm a red panda on October 30, 2018, 10:05:50 AM
Question.

Has Kavanaugh made any decisions yet?

If I had been given a job to do and haven't done any work for three weeks I'd probably be fired by now.

Supreme Court Justices don't make individual decisions. The court issues opinions as a whole.  A justice may choose to write a separate statement to support or dissent when an opinion is released though.
No opinions of the court have been released in 2018.
They are publicly available and will be found here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/18


He has done plenty of work. He has attended all hearings since being seated. He has asked questions and been attentive.


I do not think he should have been confirmed; but there is nothing yet to say the guy has not done his job.  I'll wait until he starts stripping people of their rights to be outraged.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: oldtoyota on October 30, 2018, 09:35:41 PM


Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously.  The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain.  Speculation is that this could net 10+M.  I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

"The opinion of some..." Sounds like something Trump would say.

Troll.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on November 02, 2018, 09:54:54 AM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.

Yup, saw this one coming.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Kavanaugh isn't far behind - https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/justice-kavanaugh-declines-600000-raised-gofundme-campaign-204550626.html
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on November 02, 2018, 11:41:04 AM
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/10/27/nothing_to_gain_kavanaugh_accusers_coffers_are_growing.html

Cashing in. Gotta pay for renovations on that beach house, doncha know.

Yup, saw this one coming.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Kavanaugh isn't far behind - https://www.gofundme.com/support-brett-kavanaugh

Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/justice-kavanaugh-declines-600000-raised-gofundme-campaign-204550626.html

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges (http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges)

Or you could actually read past the headline of the article you linked. It petty much spells it our for you.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on November 02, 2018, 07:16:40 PM
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20%28Munro-Leighton%20Referral%29%20with%20redacted%20enclosures.pdf

One of the accusers has recanted.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on November 02, 2018, 08:01:07 PM
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20%28Munro-Leighton%20Referral%29%20with%20redacted%20enclosures.pdf

One of the accusers has recanted.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted. 

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so.  If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so.  This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting.  The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it.  This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it.  Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: JetBlast on November 02, 2018, 11:56:53 PM
Question.

Has Kavanaugh made any decisions yet?

If I had been given a job to do and haven't done any work for three weeks I'd probably be fired by now.

The justices hold weekly conferences during the term, where they discuss the cases they heard argument for the week before. After the discussion they vote on the outcome. The senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion to one of the members in the majority.

Kavanaugh has certainly voted in conference, and if there were any straightforward unanimous cases he may have been assigned the opinion to get his first one out of the way. He may also be writing a dissenting opinion for any cases where he was not with the majority. IIRC, Gorsuch wrote a descent quite early last term.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on November 03, 2018, 02:58:56 PM
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20%28Munro-Leighton%20Referral%29%20with%20redacted%20enclosures.pdf

One of the accusers has recanted.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted. 

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so.  If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so.  This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting.  The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it.  This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it.  Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?

Thanks for the info. Why would I call it fake news if it's true? That isn't what the link I provided says, but you may have information I have not seen. It was brought up in a committee hearing. 

I have tried to be civil, polite, and look at both sides. I've asked for clarification from people who seem to have info I don't. 
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Tom Bri on November 04, 2018, 02:57:12 PM
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20%28Munro-Leighton%20Referral%29%20with%20redacted%20enclosures.pdf

One of the accusers has recanted.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted. 

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so.  If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so.  This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting.  The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it.  This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it.  Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?

Sorry Sol, went back and looked at it again, and on this one you are wrong. She DID accuse him of rape, and she DID recant. So my original post on this was 100% correct. That she played a weird game with some other person's letter is besides the point. She is just another nutty political activist.

By the way, did you read the letter? Amazing! Like some bodice-ripper. How anyone took that seriously I can't guess.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: bacchi on November 04, 2018, 03:16:55 PM
How anyone took that seriously I can't guess.

There were also people who took Jack Burkman and Jacob Wohl's accusations against Mueller seriously.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: sol on November 04, 2018, 03:39:42 PM
How anyone took that seriously I can't guess.

I don't think anybody did take it seriously, which may be why it was never reported in the national news the way the other allegations were.

And lets not forget that the same process that revealed that this lady's story seems fabricated also determined that the other stores seemed genuine.  Republicans still claimed "we'll never know for sure" and then promoted old Brett anyway.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: partgypsy on November 05, 2018, 01:36:23 PM
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20%28Munro-Leighton%20Referral%29%20with%20redacted%20enclosures.pdf

One of the accusers has recanted.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted. 

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so.  If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so.  This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting.  The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it.  This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it.  Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?

Sorry Sol, went back and looked at it again, and on this one you are wrong. She DID accuse him of rape, and she DID recant. So my original post on this was 100% correct. That she played a weird game with some other person's letter is besides the point. She is just another nutty political activist.

By the way, did you read the letter? Amazing! Like some bodice-ripper. How anyone took that seriously I can't guess.

Hmm. It's almost like you are saying there is a process in place to distinguish between credible, and non-credible accusations. And that it works. Trump admitted that Ford's statement were credible. But then attacked her, a bunch of conspiracy crap thrown at her including fake photoes. After Kavanaugh was confirmed when asked again, Trump stated "it doesn't matter. We won."

That pretty much sums it up.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Davnasty on November 05, 2018, 02:20:06 PM
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-11-02%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20%28Munro-Leighton%20Referral%29%20with%20redacted%20enclosures.pdf

One of the accusers has recanted.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted. 

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so.  If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so.  This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting.  The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it.  This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it.  Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?

Sorry Sol, went back and looked at it again, and on this one you are wrong. She DID accuse him of rape, and she DID recant. So my original post on this was 100% correct. That she played a weird game with some other person's letter is besides the point. She is just another nutty political activist.

By the way, did you read the letter? Amazing! Like some bodice-ripper. How anyone took that seriously I can't guess.

Let's go back to your original statement, "One of the accusers has recanted". Technically speaking this may be a true statement but it is misleading at best and debatably untrue within the context of this thread.

When you say "one of the accusers" this implies one of the 4 accusers who have been discussed in this thread. The woman you are referring to was not one of them. If you had said "One of the accusers" It would have been less misleading, but still largely irrelevant.

Basically the standards for your statement to be true are low enough that any one of us could make an accusation against Kavanaugh today, recant it tomorrow, and the same would be true of us. Do you really think this is relevant to the discussion?

ETA: Just found Trump's tweet regarding this other accuser

"A vicious accuser of Justice Kavanaugh has just admitted that she was lying, her story was totally made up, or FAKE! Can you imagine if he didn’t become a Justice of the Supreme Court because of her disgusting False Statements. What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?"
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 3, 2018

Even Trump didn't go as far as to refer to her as "One of the accusers". His statement is however misleading for other reasons.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: HBFIRE on November 05, 2018, 02:32:38 PM
So let me get this straight.  One accuser has recanted, and one of the "original 4" mentioned above has a history of making false accusations (Julie Swetnick).  She lied to her former employer that she had a degree from John Hopkins University when she didn't.  She made accusations against her employer of making "unwanted sexual innuendo" at her workplace, and later sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority on the grounds that a fall she had on a train cost her a lucrative modeling gig.  She's also been involved in over 6 cases in the past 20 yrs.  This was a lame attempt to get into the media glare.  I hope any false accusers get punished by the maximum amount allowable.

Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: GuitarStv on November 05, 2018, 06:14:28 PM
I hope any false accusers get punished by the maximum amount allowable.

Agreed.  It's one of the reasons that I wanted a full investigation done.  Guilty parties should be held responsible for their actions.  By blocking a proper investigation, the Republicans prevented this from happening.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: MasterStache on November 06, 2018, 06:03:08 AM
I hope any false accusers get punished by the maximum amount allowable.

Agreed.  It's one of the reasons that I wanted a full investigation done.  Guilty parties should be held responsible for their actions.  By blocking a proper investigation, the Republicans prevented this from happening.

+1

The double standard is so blatantly obvious.
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Kris on November 09, 2018, 05:23:57 PM
So yeah. It’s obvious that Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh because of everything she had to gain /s

https://www.scarymommy.com/christine-blasey-ford-death-threats-2/?utm_source=FB
Title: Re: Brett Kavanaguh: Yay or Nay?
Post by: Just Joe on November 27, 2018, 07:44:38 AM
Pat Robertson also said that  Trump’s best course of action after the indictments against his former campaign staffers is to issue a “blanket pardon” to anyone indicted in connection with the investigations into Russia and shut down Robert Mueller’s “tainted” special counsel investigation.  He is also a past president of the Council for National Policy.  I used to make fun of conspiracy theorists, still do, but these people all have weird interconnections that freak me out.

There is a podcast on Stitcher called "The Dream" about MLMs. A good listen. Episode 10 - they connect many of the big names. Wow...