New SCOTUS Judge

[Minoosh]

Me too, he obviously lies when it is to his benefit (like all Ten Commandment believers it would appear). And there was that illegal/unethical leaking of stuff from the Ken Starr investigation to the press to hurt Clinton.

Plus, now he thinks presidents shouldn't be subpoenaed/indicted. In the '90s his thinking was not so evolved

 

[The Big Dog]

You're right. It's probably a combination of the two.

I've noticed that you manage to avoid making claims of your own by putting things in a passive voice.

Instead of saying, "Yes," you say, "That is the position of numerous commentators and seems like a reasonable position. " That's a 25-syllable response that does not answer the question, "Is it your position?"

HI! I wasn't asked if that was "my position." I was asked if I was suggesting that.

Because I am awesome, I went ahead and said no, I was not suggesting it, but I thought it was reasonable.

I received a very rude response, and a follow up equally rude response. Yay.

My "position" is that Feinstein sat on it because she thought the claim was ********.

I hope I answered all super questions to all of my inquisitors' super duper satisfaction!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're right. It's probably a combination of the two.

I've noticed that you manage to avoid making claims of your own by putting things in a passive voice.

Instead of saying, "Yes," you say, "That is the position of numerous commentators and seems like a reasonable position. " That's a 25-syllable response that does not answer the question, "Is it your position?"

Perhaps he learned it from 'people are saying' Trump.

 

[phiwum]

TBD: post #850, please?

Please, use links.

On tapatalk, the numbering can be weird if you ignore posters.

Thanks.

 

[The Big Dog]

No prob. Who hasn’t missed a post now and again?

Well, what with the tendency for senators from both sides of the aisle to grandstand now and again, we can set that aside.

My concern is that anyone can issue a public statement, knowing there’s no potential downside apart from living with oneself should it be false. Making the same statement under oath, however, carries a significantly greater risk, not to mention adding weight to the denial or affirmation, surely a plus to the other party.

This is obvious, yes? Am I missing something?

BK has already given a statement under oath on this subject. The three others have been requested to do so as well, and i do not know their present status. Ford has thus far refused, although slightly walked back her condition to testifying.

 

[Meadmaker]

So Much For Stealing Second

“New Year's Eve 1984 I will never forget. I was 15. As the ball dropped, I leaned over to hug a friend and she met me instead with an overwhelming kiss. As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next 'move' as if it were a chess game.

“With the 'Top Gun' slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my mark.

“Our groping ended soon and while no relationship ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn't really know what she was doing.”

-- Cory "Spartacus" Booker (The Stanford Daily 1992)

*Snicker*

If everyone who ever touched a woman's breast without her consent was disqualified from the Supreme Court, then an awful lot of men and a few women would be disqualified.


However, one of the great dangers of situations like this is that people get confused about what is really important here. Most of the nonconsensual breast-groping that occurs during teenage years is similar to Mr. Booker's experience, where the girl is willing to kiss, so we try to see what else she's willing to do, and we stop when she says no......if she says no. And, we might try again. Yeah. It's what we do. (Looking back at my teenage years, I've wondered what they might have been thinking. Was "I'll let him get to second base, but not to third" part of their conscious thought process?)

That isn't what happened here (allegedly). When it comes to Mr. Kavanaugh's alleged behavior, I am less concerned about a hand that might have touched her breast over her clothes, than I am about the hand that (allegedly) covered her mouth. This wasn't two teenagers exploring sexuality and seeing how far they could go. This was (allegedly) a violent attack where lack of consent was obvious and forceful. It really isn't the same thing, and it's quite dangerous to confuse the two situations.

 

[xjx388]

They would not be investigating it for potential criminal charges. They would instead be investigating it as part of the background check for Kavanaugh - a much lower standard of evidence (ETA - no standard, really. Just gathering information, with no conclusions drawn).

It could be as little as interviewing witnesses. See if anyone remembers the party, remembers who else was there. See if there is anything to contradict Kavanaugh's or Ford's versions of events.

Rather than a full report, they might just produce something that says "K makes five claims, two of which were corroborated by witnesses, one which was disputed by witnesses, two or which neither be verified nor disproven".

This would not be in depth. The FBI investigated Anita Hill's accusations against Clarence Thomas and it only took three days.



ETA: The presumption of innocence is a thing in legal proceedings. This is not a legal proceeding, although parts of this do take place under oath. This is just a job interview for Kavanaugh. If the charges against him have some evidence, then maybe it is time to find another candidate. That does not mean Kavanaugh is guilty, it just means that the charges are plausible enough to warrant looking for a better candidate.

Yes, I understand the presumption of innocence is a concept for criminal proceedings, but I think the principle holds beyond that. In any type of accusation against a person, should we just assume they are guilty of the accusation or should we give them the benefit of the doubt until we get good evidence? In this case, it will be impossible to get good evidence. How are they ever going to pinpoint where a high school party took place in 1982 and who attended it? It will end up her word against his (and the words of whoever backs them up) -FBI investigation or not.

In those kinds of cases with no evidence other than words, how do you determine who's words to believe? I think that fairness dictates the benefit of the doubt to the accused. Otherwise, you are punishing someone for something that may not have happened.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

I thought the same thing, that her willingness/eagerness to have a full investigation bolsters her case, and casts doubt on the Republican side, but on further reflection, I'm not so sure.


Let's consider the three possibilities you brought up.

1) She's telling the truth.
2) She thinks she's telling the truth, but is mistaken due to some combination of mistaken identification, bad memory, delusion.

3) She's lying. (i.e. she is knowingly providing false information.)


In case 1) she would want an FBI investigation because she knows there are other witnesses or people with knowledge about the situation who are reluctant to come forward, but the investigation might cajole them into coming forward and providing the needed corroboration.


From her perspective, case 2 is the same as case 1.


What about case 3? It's tempting to say that if she were lying she would not want an investigation because it might bring forward people who could contradict her story. However, that's not really how liars think. Liars make up lies because they think they can get away with the lies. If you look at her story, there's very little that an investigation could uncover (she thinks) that could disprove her story. She has provided very little data that can be confirmed. She has named only a few names, and they have clear incentives to lie. If she were lying, she would be pretty sure that an investigation would turn up nothing, in which case it's still her word against Judge and Kavanaugh, with everyone else just not being able to remember. Meanwhile, the willingness to be investigated looks good to the "jury" of public opinion.



What about from his perspective?


Case 1. If she's telling the truth, he definitely does not want an investigation.


Case 2. If her story is not true, then it would be tempting to say that he ought to want an investigation. However, the investigation would have to go into a lot of things that happened back in the days when he was in the 100 keg club, or something similar. I remember those days myself. (Well, most of them anyway.) Even if they don't prove the story is true, or indeed even if they somehow manage to disprove it, goodness knows what else they might uncover. It might not be criminal, or anything like that, but it could be quite embarrassing. Nothing can be gained from his perspective, and a fair amount could be lost, even if her allegations are false.


Case 3. From his perspective, same as case 2.



So, even if her story is not true, she gains, or thinks she would gain, from an investigation. Even if her story is not true, Kavanaugh still has a lot to lose from an investigation.


And on top of that, it would just take some time. If it keeps him off the court until after the first Monday in October, that still means he misses the chance to be part of any cases at the beginning of the term.


So, on further reflection, their attitude toward an FBI investigation really doesn't tell us much. Both of them have incentives to take the positions they have taken, regardless of whose version of events is true.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, I understand the presumption of innocence is a concept for criminal proceedings, but I think the principle holds beyond that. In any type of accusation against a person, should we just assume they are guilty of the accusation or should we give them the benefit of the doubt until we get good evidence? In this case, it will be impossible to get good evidence. How are they ever going to pinpoint where a high school party took place in 1982 and who attended it? ….

The way she has described it, she has given enough detail that, if it happened, there will be a handful of people involved who are already able to recognize the party in question, and will remember some of what happened. Depending on what they say, it could go a long way to confirming or refuting what happened.


The fact that they haven't come forward doesn't really tell us much of anything, though. Either the party never happened, or the people in attendance don't want a horde of reporters and Senators poking into their distant past. Either possibility is perfectly plausible.

Even if they cannot confirm what happened in the bedroom, the mere fact that a similar party happened at all would make it obvious that Kavanaugh has been guilty of misleading people and withholding knowledge.


In my opinion, an FBI investigation would increase the chance that we could be confident about the truth or falsehood of her story. However, it is unlikely to prove anything. I have decided that it ought not take place, because the people who went to school with Kavanaugh and Blasey, not to mention any living parents, siblings, or school officials who might have information, ought to be left alone if they don't wish to come forward.

 

[crescent]

*Snicker*

If everyone who ever touched a woman's breast without her consent was disqualified from the Supreme Court, then an awful lot of men and a few women would be disqualified.


However, one of the great dangers of situations like this is that people get confused about what is really important here. Most of the nonconsensual breast-groping that occurs during teenage years is similar to Mr. Booker's experience, where the girl is willing to kiss, so we try to see what else she's willing to do, and we stop when she says no......if she says no. And, we might try again. Yeah. It's what we do. (Looking back at my teenage years, I've wondered what they might have been thinking. Was "I'll let him get to second base, but not to third" part of their conscious thought process?)

That isn't what happened here (allegedly). When it comes to Mr. Kavanaugh's alleged behavior, I am less concerned about a hand that might have touched her breast over her clothes, than I am about the hand that (allegedly) covered her mouth. This wasn't two teenagers exploring sexuality and seeing how far they could go. This was (allegedly) a violent attack where lack of consent was obvious and forceful. It really isn't the same thing, and it's quite dangerous to confuse the two situations.

Not to mention, in the linked article Brookes points out that he later saw how his actions could be improper. In an article published 20 years ago.

This compares to a man who still denies anything happened, and the Pussy-Grabber in Chief who is still proud of this sort of behavior.


The Stanford Daily, Volume 201, Issue 12, 19 February 1992

My polar leap had little to do with residential education. It had to do with a deluge of reality. You see, I had begun listening to the raw truth from men and women discussing rape about two years ago as a peer counselor. The conversations were personal accounts, not rhetoric; they were real life, not dorm programing. It was a wake-up call — I will never be the same. I find myself with no conclusion for this column. A conclusion would speak of a simplicity I do not feel. I can find little clarity in the torment of emotions I now experience when even allusions to this issue are made. All I have are poignant visions. I see that preceding all the horrors of rape are a host of skewed attitudes. I see my friends seeking to "get some" or to "score." I see people making power plays. I see myself at 15 trotting around the bases and stealing second. I now see the crowds, no, not the spectators, but the thousands, the millions who are rarely seen or heard. I've seen enough.

ETA: The Faux new article Slings and Arrows linked to is doing a repeat of the Shirley Sherrod attack. Quote the beginning where the person admits to misdeeds, ignore the part where the person also admits that they have seen the error of their ways. "Fair and Balanced" my butt.

 

[Minoosh]

With that clarification, "Are you suggesting the Dems are playing around and manipulating when information is being released to delay the vote to after the mid-terms," That is the position of numerous people commentators and seems like a reasonable position.

Maybe you honestly don't realize it, but all that verbiage did not answer a yes-or-no question.

HI! I wasn't asked if that was "my position." I was asked if I was suggesting that.

Because I am awesome, I went ahead and said no, I was not suggesting it, but I thought it was reasonable.

Your answer was not that direct.

I received a very rude response, and a follow up equally rude response. Yay.

Tell me which of my posts were rude:

A stalling tactic on the eve of a major election? Who would do such a thing?

Not that I agree that it's a stalling tactic, but if it were, that would be a GOP innovation.

Did you have to learn how to construct such fabulous evasions, or does it just come naturally?

The first was sarcastic. The third was snark, but it was also sincere. You are skilled at evasion and I wondered if it was a tactic you have cultivated.

My "position" is that Feinstein sat on it because she thought the claim was ********.

I hope I answered all super questions to all of my inquisitors' super duper satisfaction!

Yes, you have finally answered the question(s?). You didn't get a hit, but it was a good at-bat.

 

[sylvan8798]

In my opinion, an FBI investigation would increase the chance that we could be confident about the truth or falsehood of her story. However, it is unlikely to prove anything. I have decided that it ought not take place, because the people who went to school with Kavanaugh and Blasey, not to mention any living parents, siblings, or school officials who might have information, ought to be left alone if they don't wish to come forward.

The question is whether what would or could be gained is important enough to warrant the disturbance, disruption, potential embarrassment, etc. to these other parties. Without knowing more about where this is going to lead, or where it could lead, I don't feel confident in saying one way or the other. I do know that I would not want to be one of those periphery people, but if I were, I would tell the truth as I knew it when the FBI came knocking.

 

[Checkmite]

If everyone who ever touched a woman's breast without her consent was disqualified from the Supreme Court, then an awful lot of men and a few women would be disqualified.

Which is fine really considering the Supreme Court only has nine seats, only one of which tends to be up for grabs at a time, so we're ostensibly being fairly selective already.

 

[Babbylonian]

Which is fine really considering the Supreme Court only has nine seats, only one of which tends to be up for grabs at a time, so we're ostensibly being fairly selective already.

Seriously. It used to be that we were comfortable disqualifying people for the highest positions in government for all kinds of reasons. Apparently, though, electing a rapist president is considered carte blanche to install potential rapists in any critically important position.

 

[Minoosh]

And on top of that, it would just take some time. If it keeps him off the court until after the first Monday in October, that still means he misses the chance to be part of any cases at the beginning of the term.

It's not a Monday in October the GOP is worried about. It's a Tuesday in November. Senate Republicans would be blatantly hypocritical if they argued that timeliness is important here.

But then they are blatantly hypocritical anyway. Even those who make token dissents are enabling a megalomaniac they can't stand and don't trust.

 

[Stacyhs]

So Much For Stealing Second

“New Year's Eve 1984 I will never forget. I was 15. As the ball dropped, I leaned over to hug a friend and she met me instead with an overwhelming kiss. As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next 'move' as if it were a chess game.

“With the 'Top Gun' slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my mark.

“Our groping ended soon and while no relationship ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn't really know what she was doing.”

-- Cory "Spartacus" Booker (The Stanford Daily 1992)

You don't see the difference between this incident and what Blasey-Ford has described? If not, let me 'splain it to you, Lucy.

A couple of consenting teenagers fumbling around over their clothes is normal. The fact they remained friends is evidence that there was no force being used.

According to B-Ford, Kavanaugh tried to remove herclothing against her will and held his hand over her mouth. She then escaped and locked herself in the bathroom. That is evidence that she was in fear of K. They had no relationship either before or after.

That you should attempt to compare the two is mind-boggling.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's not a Monday in October the GOP is worried about. It's a Tuesday in November.

 

[The Big Dog]

You don't see the difference between this incident and what Blasey-Ford has described? If not, let me 'splain it to you, Lucy.

A couple of consenting teenagers fumbling around over their clothes is normal. The fact they remained friends is evidence that there was no force being used.

According to B-Ford, Kavanaugh tried to remove herclothing against her will and held his hand over her mouth. She then escaped and locked herself in the bathroom. That is evidence that she was in fear of K. They had no relationship either before or after.

That you should attempt to compare the two is mind-boggling.

Yeah, Spartacus attempted molestation actually happened.

 

[Minoosh]

That you should attempt to compare the two is mind-boggling.

That's the beauty of it; there is no attempt to compare the two. It's just a meme that the poster is spreading. Cory Booker called himself out on it 26 years ago and now trolls are using his words against him. Moral of the story: Don't call yourself out, I guess. If you do your soul-searching in print, someone is liable to use it against you.

Conservatives are good at this. So are politically unaffiliated international trolls who have all the time in the world to stir up **** in the U.S. I hope Democrats/liberals are learning how to play the same "game."

 

[quadraginta]

*Snicker*

If everyone who ever touched a woman's breast without her consent was disqualified from the Supreme Court, then an awful lot of men and a few women would be disqualified.

<snip>

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I suspect there are quite a few men who managed to make it through their teenage years without grabbing tits when they were not welcome. That's a pretty low bar to get over.

If we were desperate for qualified candidates I might feel differently, but we aren't.

The only ones desperate to get Kavanaugh onto the SCOTUS are the ones who want him there because they believe he will run interference for Trump, and rearrange his convictions about the Constitution whenever it will be to the benefit of conservatives and the GOP.