New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
The pressure on senators Collins and Murkowski is mounting. This was already going to be a difficult vote for them. And the GOP already has a problem with women voters.

"I'm pro-choice, here's a nominee who will probably vote to overturn Roe, and oops, he may have tried to rape someone" (not an actual quote, for literal minded readers)
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
This is Christine Ford's story so far:

When?
Sometime during the summer of 1982 -- exact date unknown.

Place?
At someone's house -- don't know the address or the owner's name.

Who was there?
Boy's that were drinking.

First mention of the incident?
Thirty years later (2012) during a marriage counseling session with her husband and therapist. Kavanaugh's name is never brought up during the session, only a reference to drunken boy's.

Too bad Mueller's not available, this investigation would be right up his alley.
Click to expand...

But the standard isn't criminal prosecution. The standard seems to be likelihood it is true.If so, that seems like a perfectly adequate basis to have someone testify under oath and look further into it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But the standard isn't criminal prosecution. The standard seems to be likelihood it is true.If so, that seems like a perfectly adequate basis to have someone testify under oath and look further into it.
Click to expand...

And if it was a matter of criminal prosecution, the apparent slight of Mueller's investigation falls flat - so far his investigation appears to have been pretty effective at securing convictions.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I don't think a video tape of Brett raping a girl would sway the Republicans. They will confirm him no matter what. They have no shame and only care about power.
Click to expand...
I doubt that...
Click to expand...
Why? Why doubt that?

What have the current crop of republicans done to show that they have any sort of integrity or morality? When they supported President "Grab 'em" Trump? When they saw children being locked in cages and said "That's good"? When they invoked a non-existent "Biden Rule" to prevent Obama from more supreme court appointments?

Yes, occasionally you will get a republican making some sort of empty statement criticizing Trump. But at the end of the day they all fall in line and do what they can to support the party in power. This is the party that approved the nomination of Pruitt DeVos, and Flynn. This is the party that crammed through a tax bill that drives up the deficit by billions, in which early drafts featured illegible text scribbled in the margins (that congress critters were expected to vote for).

The republicans are currently without morality, and the idea of them voting to confirm someone where actual evidence of assault exists should not be dismissed. I'm sure they would come up with some moral justification. "Give him a mulligan."

ETA: I have to think the republicans may really be worried. This may be their only chance to 'stack' the supreme court with right-wingers.

If Kavenaugh doesn't get confirmed, they probably don't have enough time to cram another nominee through the process before the midterms. And although the Democrats are at a disadvantage and the chance is small, its not impossible for them to pick up a couple of seats in the senate and form a majority. That will limit the ability of Trump to appoint any more right-wing judges. At best, Trump will have to nominate more centerest judges. At worst, we'll get some gridlock for a few years. I suspect the republicans are considering that when they decide to confirm Kavenaugh.

...but do you feel an unconfirmed allegation about the behavior of a some intoxicated teenagers from 30 something years ago should be enough to stop a nomination.
Click to expand...
The legal system often has to deal with uncertainties, and in situations like this instead of dealing with absolutes, you may have to go with a preponderance of evidence.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Why? Why doubt that?

What have the current crop of republicans done to show that they have any sort of integrity or morality? When they supported President "Grab 'em" Trump? When they saw children being locked in cages and said "That's good"? When they invoked a non-existent "Biden Rule" to prevent Obama from more supreme court appointments?

Yes, occasionally you will get a republican making some sort of empty statement criticizing Trump. But at the end of the day they all fall in line and do what they can to support the party in power. This is the party that approved the nomination of Pruitt DeVos, and Flynn. This is the party that crammed through a tax bill that drives up the deficit by billions, in which early drafts featured illegible text scribbled in the margins (that congress critters were expected to vote for).

The republicans are currently without morality, and the idea of them voting to confirm someone where actual evidence of assault exists should not be dismissed. I'm sure they would come up with some moral justification. "Give him a mulligan."

ETA: I have to think the republicans may really be worried. This may be their only chance to 'stack' the supreme court with right-wingers.

If Kavenaugh doesn't get confirmed, they probably don't have enough time to cram another nominee through the process before the midterms. And although the Democrats are at a disadvantage and the chance is small, its not impossible for them to pick up a couple of seats in the senate and form a majority. That will limit the ability of Trump to appoint any more right-wing judges. At best, Trump will have to nominate more centerest judges. At worst, we'll get some gridlock for a few years. I suspect the republicans are considering that when they decide to confirm Kavenaugh.


The legal system often has to deal with uncertainties, and in situations like this instead of dealing with absolutes, you may have to go with a preponderance of evidence.
Click to expand...

Every Single Republican Senator? We are talking about 2 votes being critical here on the Republican side. Blanket statements don't cut it, and grandstanding doesn't either.
 
Last edited:
Slings and Arrows said:
This is Christine Ford's story so far:

When?
Sometime during the summer of 1982 -- exact date unknown.
Click to expand...
I don't think its that unreasonable for a person to remember that an event occurred and even certain details about it, without remembering the exact day or address.

I can tell you all sorts of details about the first woman I ever dated. I can even describe what her apartment looked like. But I couldn't tell you what her actual address was, nor the exact day of our first date.
First mention of the incident?
Thirty years later (2012) during a marriage counseling session with her husband and therapist.
Click to expand...
That might be more significant than you give it credit for.

Kavenaugh was not a well-known figure at the time. (Certainly had less public profile than he has now.) The fact that she was recalling the events independent of the Kavenaugh hearings adds some credibility to her claims.

Kavanaugh's name is never brought up during the session, only a reference to drunken boy's.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't mean she DIDN'T know it was Kavenaugh. Did she claim during the session that it was someone else? If not, it was likely a case of her just not feeling that the names of the boys was important (at the time of the session).
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
Every Single Republican Senator? We are talking about 2 votes being critical here on the Republican side. Blanket statements don't cut it, and grandstanding doesn't either.
Click to expand...
They got the votes to pass their tax cut bill. They got their votes to confirm DeVos, Pruitt and Flynn. And while they did lose on the health care vote, Obamacare was still largely affected by the repeal of the mandate in the tax cut bill.

If republicans actually have any morality, where have they shown it?

And as I pointed out, I'm sure republicans recognize that this may be their last chance to stack the supreme court with right-wingers.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I doubt that but do you feel an unconfirmed allegation about the behavior of a some intoxicated teenagers from 30 something years ago should be enough to stop a nomination.
Click to expand...

I don't. That's why the nomination should only be paused while there is a proper, impartial investigation into the allegation. Once that investigation has come to a conclusion, then people can vote accordingly.

As a bonus, this would also likely prevent the nomination from occurring in a year in which there's an election, as I'm reliably informed the rule is by, amongst others, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell.
 
Segnosaur said:
They got the votes to pass their tax cut bill. They got their votes to confirm DeVos, Pruitt and Flynn. And while they did lose on the health care vote, Obamacare was still largely affected by the repeal of the mandate in the tax cut bill.

If republicans actually have any morality, where have they shown it?

And as I pointed out, I'm sure republicans recognize that this may be their last chance to stack the supreme court with right-wingers.
Click to expand...

Not sure how those votes compare to weighing accusations of sexual assault. Unless by immoral you mean votes in a way I don't agree with, or one thing I think is immoral is equivalent to another thing I think is immoral.
 
Normally I'd object to dredging up 35 year old allegations. But after the Garland fiasco, by any means necessary so far as I'm concerned.

The Garland fiasco was a breaking point in my relationship with the US government. I no longer feel obligated to play by the rules.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I don't. That's why the nomination should only be paused while there is a proper, impartial investigation into the allegation. Once that investigation has come to a conclusion, then people can vote accordingly.

As a bonus, this would also likely prevent the nomination from occurring in a year in which there's an election, as I'm reliably informed the rule is by, amongst others, Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell.
Click to expand...

Call me cynical but in my opinion this is the real reason the Democrats want a full investigation.
While I like to think it isn't maybe it is a main reason I don't want much time spent.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Call me cynical but in my opinion this is the real reason the Democrats want a full investigation.
While I like to think it isn't maybe it is a main reason I don't want much time spent.
Click to expand...

You think the Dems would be OK with accusations of sexual misconduct otherwise? Really?
 
varwoche said:
Normally I'd object to dredging up 35 year old allegations. But after the Garland fiasco, by any means necessary so far as I'm concerned.

The Garland fiasco was a breaking point in my relationship with the US government. I no longer feel obligated to play by the rules.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Democracy's already broken, then.
 
hey, Kavanaugh should testify under oath!

He already did

But these are new allegations!

Feinstein knew about them since July.

But she just released them... after his testimony was done... and after the vote was set.

Sounds legit.
 
The Big Dog said:
hey, Kavanaugh should testify under oath!

He already did

But these are new allegations!

Feinstein knew about them since July.

But she just released them... after his testimony was done... and after the vote was set.

Sounds legit.
Click to expand...

The timing is irrelevant. It's going to hinge on how believable this woman is. My guess is very believable. She also apparently told her husband and a therapist awhile back. The husband's story doesn't carry much weight, but the therapist's sure does.

Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.abf9f741478d

That's devastating.
 
theprestige said:
I guess we could ask Juanita Broaddrick if she thinks the Democrats are consistent about their response to accusations of sexual misconduct.
Click to expand...

This is the #Metoo era. If this were the Democratic party of 1998, Al Franken would still be senator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom