New SCOTUS Judge

[thaiboxerken]

The guy is not on trial, it's a job interview. The standards are and always have been different.

Those job standards have also been changed by the GOP to favor only Republican nominees, in fact, to only allow Republican nominees.

 

[Babbylonian]

innocent until proven guilty is the standard of evidence of the courts before locking somebody up. The standard of evidence for getting a job has a somewhat different threshold of evidence.

Especially when it's one of the most powerful jobs in the world. Just because enough people were fooled into voting for a rapist as president doesn't mean we shouldn't expect better out of the ******* Senate.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

"I was raped by Maxine Waters and Dianne Feinstein. So now they have to be fired. I swear it happened. It isn’t political and I wasn’t paid. I’m a victim I promise."
-- Joe Biggs (Sept 16, 2018)


"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."
-- Hillary Clinton (Nov 22, 2015)

 

[Minoosh]

If that's what you really believe, the way I see it you have three options: Emigrate to Canada, or get to working on that Second Amendment solution.

That's only two options. Excluded middle? False dilemma?

 

[Minoosh]

"Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."
-- Hillary Clinton (Nov 22, 2015)

Not that I agree with what I think she was trying to say, but "every survivor deserves to be heard" starts with the premise that they were sexually assaulted. If we know someone was sexually assaulted, *then* they deserve to be believed. It makes a little more sense that way.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

being "technically" "correct" is best kind of correct!

Yes, why should you care whether the entire basis of your insinuations is true? It's how you can use it to smear, rather than whether or not it's actually true, that matters.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's being reported that there's more evidence of perjury, this time with Kavanaugh's statement that he didn't know about his mentor sexually harassing people

 

[Belz...]

Yes, it is broken. When Brett is confirmed, the Republicans will have ensured it stays broken and is much harder to repair.

Well, that's the problem with a system like that, in a way: when one of the powerful 'sides' shrinks and becomes less relevant, they will find undemocratic ways to keep that power.

 

[Meadmaker]

. (The article cited a woman in the class of 2005, but said that one from the class of 1979 was noteworthy.)

Once again, I failed my pop culture quiz. Apparently, the reason that 1979 alumnus was notable is that she's a quite famous actress. Her name sounded vaguely familiar to me. Julia Louis-Dreyfus. I'm familiar with many of her roles, especially Elaine on Seinfeld, but had no idea of her name.

No word on whether she actually knew Brett Kavanaugh, or just went to high school at approximately the same time.

 

[Cain]

They were teenagers at the time. Who here didn't do some stupid **** when they were that age? It's possible they were all drunk and he got too aggressive. There are lots of other possibilities too. No, it should not have happened, but is nobody allowed to ever mess up even when young and dumb? This culture of outrage has got out of hand.

Democrats are way too uptight. So what if he had a few too many in him and got a little rapey?

 

[eeyore1954]

Through his denials, he is accusing the woman of slander, and he is doing it today, not in his adolescence. If it comes out that he is lying, he shouldn't be confirmed. If the story is uncorroborated with any other witnesses or other evidence, it shouldn't stand in the way.

Stay tuned for a week of sex, lies, and we can only hope no videotape.

Assuming he is not lying it seems denial is appropriate. I agree if he denied it now and it is true he should not be confirmed.

 

[eeyore1954]

Maybe, but Anita Hill was openly slandered during the Clarence Thomas confirmation and the Republicans did just fine.

A president who cared about appearing principled would kick this scumbag loose and find some other ******* who will be just as likely to reliably vote against humanity and for corporations and religion.

A principled president would not just kick someone loose on the basis of an uncorroborated accusation. He/she would look for more evidence either way and then decide what is best. Not saying this is what will happen.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A principled president wouldn't nominate a person for the purpose of protecting himself from legal accountability.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A principled president would not just kick someone loose on the basis of an uncorroborated accusation. He/she would look for more evidence either way and then decide what is best. Not saying this is what will happen.

Does this mean you agree that the vote should be postponed until there has been an impartial investigation?

 

[theprestige]

Fuzzy math

Wait for it.

 

[LSSBB]

Not that I agree with what I think she was trying to say, but "every survivor deserves to be heard" starts with the premise that they were sexually assaulted. If we know someone was sexually assaulted, *then* they deserve to be believed. It makes a little more sense that way.

I wonder why the person you quoted thinks Hillary is relevant here. Obsession, it's such a burden to carry.

 

[Belz...]

I wonder why the person you quoted thinks Hillary is relevant here. Obsession, it's such a burden to carry.

It's because they think anyone who disagrees with Trump must believe Clinton's every word.

 

[Bob001]

Once again, I failed my pop culture quiz. Apparently, the reason that 1979 alumnus was notable is that she's a quite famous actress. Her name sounded vaguely familiar to me. Julia Louis-Dreyfus. I'm familiar with many of her roles, especially Elaine on Seinfeld, but had no idea of her name.

No word on whether she actually knew Brett Kavanaugh, or just went to high school at approximately the same time.

No claim that she knew him or attended the school when the accuser did. The letter was signed by 200+ women who attended Holton-Arms to support a fellow alumna.
https://slate.com/culture/2018/09/b...-julia-louis-dreyfus-high-school-alumnae.html

 

[eeyore1954]

Does this mean you agree that the vote should be postponed until there has been an impartial investigation?

I don’t believe there is such a thing as an impartial investigation in Congress.
I do believe she should be allowed to testify before the Senate.

 

[Bob001]

Not that I agree with what I think she was trying to say, but "every survivor deserves to be heard" starts with the premise that they were sexually assaulted. If we know someone was sexually assaulted, *then* they deserve to be believed. It makes a little more sense that way.

No, the premise is that their accounts deserve to be taken seriously and the matter needs to be properly and thoroughly investigated to determine the truth. Too often women's reports of abuse and assault have been and are dismissed out of hand or even turned against them ("Well, what were you wearing?" "Why were you there?" "He probably didn't mean it." "He just got carried away." Etc.). A man reporting a robbery wouldn't be told "What did you expect? He could see that bulge in your pocket." That's why a lot of assaults against women aren't even reported.