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: Dabnasty 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: GreenEggs 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: Dabnasty 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: Dabnasty 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: Wexler 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: Wexler 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: Dabnasty 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 in