New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Worth bearing in mind, when thinking about all of this, is who wants the FBI to investigate and who doesn't want the FBI to investigate. Ford does. Trump Does not.

Now think about which position each is likely to take if they think/know a) that Ford is lying or b) they think/know that Ford is telling the truth.

Trump could make the FBI investigate, but will not and has give two different, false reasons to justify that.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
The ex classmate who allegedly said she heard about the attack has walked it ALL the way back:

"To all media, I will not be doing anymore interviews. No more circus for me. To clarify my post: I do not have first hand knowledge of the incident that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford mentions, and I stand by my support for Christine. That's it. I don't have more to say on the subject. Please don't contact me further."

What a freaking dope. Fortunately that moron from Hawaii who totally **** the bed today and everyone will soon forget this knucklehead
Click to expand...

First hand knowledge means she was a witness to the event. She never claimed to have first hand knowledge. So she didn't walk it back.
 
I was just listening to a memory researcher on NPR’s Science Friday. He pointed out that all memories are edited and altered over time, and the more they are “used” or remembered, the more distorted they likely become.

This is especially the case with the memories of traumatic events... Psychologists have often done experiments with actors portraying “fights” in front of the class and then asking the class to write down the details... Which are often wildly inaccurate.

We police officers are well familiar with this.

Stephen Jay Gould, in one of his essays, said that he found that two of his cherished childhood memories were both wrong.... In significant details.

I don’t have much doubt that this woman is going to get details wrong. However, the salient facts are likely to be correct. This will hinge on the recollections of the witnesses.
 
BobTheCoward said:
First hand knowledge means she was a witness to the event. She never claimed to have first hand knowledge. So she didn't walk it back.
Click to expand...
Yes, clearly. Much less "ALL the way" back as TBD, in characteristic zeal, would have readers think.
 
Bikewer said:
I was just listening to a memory researcher on NPR’s Science Friday. He pointed out that all memories are edited and altered over time, and the more they are “used” or remembered, the more distorted they likely become.

This is especially the case with the memories of traumatic events... Psychologists have often done experiments with actors portraying “fights” in front of the class and then asking the class to write down the details... Which are often wildly inaccurate.

We police officers are well familiar with this.

Stephen Jay Gould, in one of his essays, said that he found that two of his cherished childhood memories were both wrong.... In significant details.

I don’t have much doubt that this woman is going to get details wrong. However, the salient facts are likely to be correct. This will hinge on the recollections of the witnesses.
Click to expand...

You just said significant details alter. What is the evidence that the salient facts are likely to be correct?
 
Bikewer said:
I was just listening to a memory researcher on NPR’s Science Friday. He pointed out that all memories are edited and altered over time, and the more they are “used” or remembered, the more distorted they likely become...
Click to expand...
I was in a car accident in Scotland some decades ago. My friend was new to driving on the "wrong" side of the road. For no good reason whatsoever, she suddenly veered into oncoming traffic. We were scratched up a bit but no significant injuries. (I remember the trivial charge when I was discharged from hospital. Heavy sigh re costs here in the states. But I digress.) I have vivid, detailed memories of the accident in which I have reversed everything to drive-on-the-right format. I clearly remember bruising my right shoulder, but it was actually my left shoulder, etc.

Notwithstanding, there is no question about the basic fact of the accident.
 
varwoche said:
I was in a car accident in Scotland some decades ago. My friend was new to driving on the "wrong" side of the road. For no good reason whatsoever, she suddenly veered into oncoming traffic. We were scratched up a bit but no significant injuries. (I remember the trivial charge when I was discharged from hospital. Heavy sigh re costs here in the states. But I digress.) I have vivid, detailed memories of the accident in which I have reversed everything to drive-on-the-right format. I clearly remember bruising my right shoulder, but it was actually my left shoulder, etc.

Notwithstanding, there is no question about the basic fact of the accident.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. I have it on good authority that memory is completely unreliable and that we can't therefore trust your word that you were even in an accid-- wait, was your friend a Liberal or Conservative? That changes everything, you know?
 
The strangest thing about this is how easily it should be to simply replace Kavenaugh with someone else. Surely there cannot be so precious few judges that have the qualifications to be confirmed by the senate that they are effectively forced to accept him even with these allegations hanging over him?

Then again supreme court nominations in the US have become a complete train wreck and appointments are based on partisan political motivations.

In just about every country under the rule of law judges are appointed because of their professional merits and experience. You don't appoint people because you believe they will make judgments and rulings that you necessarily agree with. This is because if they were to make such a judgement then you simply change the laws. Then they can only make a judgement that's at least tolerable.
 
Travis said:
Damn straight I'll defend it. She has a point.
Click to expand...

uke2se said:
I'd remove "in this country" and defend it vigorously. She's absolutely right in this context.

And you MRAs can save your crocodile tears.
Click to expand...

Oh, you fellas gonna "mansplain" it to me?

Query: how you gonna defend something when defending it requires you to "Shut Up"? Seems like the knucklehead Senator put you into a box.
 
Belz... said:
I have no knowledge of it, either.

Hmmm, everyone forgets about Belz...
Click to expand...

Did the accuser say you were there?

She said PJ was there, he denies it.

Let me know if you need me to walk you through this any further.
 
 
BobTheCoward said:
She isn't nominated for the supreme Court. No one has been arguing she refrained from risky behavior.
Click to expand...

People have been attacking the three men as drunkards, yet we know that there is zero evidence that PJ was impaired.

We still have not heard the fourth guy's name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom