New SCOTUS Judge

[Darat]

Oh for pity's sake, give it a rest. I take you all are annoyed that 'old white men' can be used with a derogatory meaning? It that the problem?

I forgot, all people matter, all police matter, who else? Is there or is there not a problem with all those faces of old white men running the country? Gee, one face is black, that makes it different.

No, Thomas is just like the rest of them. Look how they are treating Ford. Look how they treated Hill. Look how those ******** make sure rich white men stay in control, and in control of women and women's bodies.

Is that the problem you don't get by my post?

No the problem is that you used a racist epitaph to attack someone who has different political views to yourself. Now I'm fine excusing someone if they used a word not knowing its racist background and do a "whoops didn't know that" but your subsequent defence of your usage it indicates that you did indeed mean it as a racist insult.

People who knowingly use racist insults and defend such insults are to my mind usually racists.

 

[Darat]

I don't know why you say this. SCOTUS Justices can be (and have been) impeached using the very same articles of the Constitution and the same process prescribed to do so for a President.

I would concur that it is highly unlikely, but it is most certainly possible.

(from her viewpoint) if he wasn't prevented to being raised to the SC because he had assaulted her why would he be impeached for assaulting her later on?

 

[Darat]

I remember the days when people didn't just yank that same one MLK Jr. Quote out of context...

Thomas's character, as well as those of Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch are...lacking when it comes to these matters.

Yes they are, but it doesn't mean you use racist insults to attack them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They might figure that having him help shape the legal landscape for decades to come to outweigh short term losses. Losing an election or two is small potatoes compared to getting women back in the kitchen.

That, and if they control the legislature, they can rig elections even more than they already do. This is about weakening democracy because they know their policies are not, and never will be, popular to the majority of Americans.

 

[Travis]

Oh, can you explain to me what the woman meant? It is good to have men who refuse to shut up and will “defend” what the woman said by explaining the “point,” the woman was making.

It was pretty obvious she wanted men to stop attacking rape victims and stand beside them.

 

[Matthew Best]

No the problem is that you used a racist epitaph to attack someone who has different political views to yourself.

Wait, Kavanaugh is dead now?????

Honestly, I step away from the news for one day.....

 

[Meadmaker]

A lot of people ask variations on the question, "Why would she come forward if she were not telling the truth?" They cite the problems it causes for her life. The attention. The anonymous threats. The attacks in the press. Why would anyone put themselves through that if she wasn't telling the truth? This, they say, is a reason she ought to be believed. She has no incentive to lie.

It's the wrong question to ask.

The correct question is more like this: There are 300 million people in the United States. Is there one among those 300 million who would be willing to make up a story to defame him, and whose life experience could make that defamation plausible?

When looked at it that way, it becomes clear that we can't draw any inference from the irrationality of making the accusation. When looked at as whether there is one person in the United States who would do such a thing, it's clear that this is not wildly improbable that someone might lie about it. Yes, it would be irrational to invent a false story, but, among all the people in the country who have interacted with Brett Kavanaugh in his life is there at least one person sufficiently irrational to invent a story that might prevent him from being confirmed? There are plenty of irrational people.


The story she tells is certainly plausible. However, the possibility that the story is false is also certainly plausible.

 

[Meadmaker]

It was pretty obvious she wanted men to stop attacking rape victims and stand beside them.

And the reason is was such a stupid thing to say is that it assumed that Ms. Ford is a rape victim. It assumes that anyone who makes an allegation must be believed.

Well, that's one of the stupid things about her statement. There were others.

 

[quadraginta]

yes, in theory he can be impeached (like any judge).
In practice, in the entire history of the US it has happened once, and it was overturned by the Senate.

<snip>

Just a minor correction about terminology.

The impeachment was not "overturned".

Impeachment is the Congressional equivalent of a Grand Jury, which is the function of the HoR. They determine if there is sufficient cause to hold a trial.

The Senate provides the trial function.

They found him 'not guilty'. They didn't overturn anything. The impeachment still stands.

 

[Meadmaker]

With Leland Keyser (the female witness named by Ford) now saying that she did not know Brett Kavanaugh, I think these charges are dead.

Maybe something will happen when she testifies, but in the absence of some dramatic new revelation, I don't think there's sufficient evidence to believe the charges against Brett Kavanaugh.

Stay tuned, but I think we're in the final reel of this film.

 

[quadraginta]

(from her viewpoint) if he wasn't prevented to being raised to the SC because he had assaulted her why would he be impeached for assaulting her later on?

That wasn't the sense of the comment as I read it. It was that impeachment of a SCOTUS Justice was not possible, not that it wasn't possible for this particular accusation.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

A lot of people ask variations on the question, "Why would she come forward if she were not telling the truth?" They cite the problems it causes for her life. The attention. The anonymous threats. The attacks in the press. Why would anyone put themselves through that if she wasn't telling the truth? This, they say, is a reason she ought to be believed. She has no incentive to lie.

It's the wrong question to ask.

The correct question is more like this: There are 300 million people in the United States. Is there one among those 300 million who would be willing to make up a story to defame him, and whose life experience could make that defamation plausible?

When looked at it that way, it becomes clear that we can't draw any inference from the irrationality of making the accusation. When looked at as whether there is one person in the United States who would do such a thing, it's clear that this is not wildly improbable that someone might lie about it. Yes, it would be irrational to invent a false story, but, among all the people in the country who have interacted with Brett Kavanaugh in his life is there at least one person sufficiently irrational to invent a story that might prevent him from being confirmed? There are plenty of irrational people.


The story she tells is certainly plausible. However, the possibility that the story is false is also certainly plausible.

I’ll see your bet and raise razor you.

 

[Leftus]

Is Brett Kavanaugh lying about it today?

There is no way of knowing that either.

I'm going to go with "probably not" since a lie requires knowledge. Events 40 years ago without significant value aren't likely to stick. Even when they do, they are quite fungible. Also, if he was as drunk as has been claimed, it's exceedingly unlikely he would remember any interactions of that day.

They both could be telling the events as they remember it and neither could be accurately relating events as they happened. We are talking about events roughly 4 decades ago where the parties involved were drinking. Not sure if anything can be taken at face value.

So neither may be telling the truth, without either of them lying.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

There is no way of knowing that either.

I'm going to go with "probably not" since a lie requires knowledge. Events 40 years ago without significant value aren't likely to stick. Even when they do, they are quite fungible. Also, if he was as drunk as has been claimed, it's exceedingly unlikely he would remember any interactions of that day.

They both could be telling the events as they remember it and neither could be accurately relating events as they happened. We are talking about events roughly 4 decades ago where the parties involved were drinking. Not sure if anything can be taken at face value.

So neither may be telling the truth, without either of them lying.

Which is why there should be an investigation. Relevant people questioned. And especially those whom we know of, including Mr. Judge, questioned under oath.

 

[The Big Dog]

Leland Ingham Keyser, Ford’s lifelong friend, says she has no recollection of the alleged party.

That makes 4 of the 5 that allegedly attended the party that either flatly deny that it happened or say that they have no memory of it.

What is really fascinating is that her alleged corroboration to her therapist said that there were 4 boys in the room. She said that the therapist note was wrong, there were 4 boys at the party.

Hmmm, it seems Dr. Ford was wrong about that too.

Hmm. #ibelievekavanaugh

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Sen. Lindsay Graham:

”You can’t bring it in a criminal court, you would never sue civilly, you couldn’t even get a warrant,” Graham said on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace. “What am I supposed to do? Go ahead and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation? I don’t know when it happened, I don’t know where it happened, and everybody named in regard to being there said it didn’t happen.”

Hey, who knows?

Well, the right wing knows. How to frame this, that is.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Poor Kavanaugh - this scandal has the potential to make him spend the rest of his life on his lifetime appointment as Circuit Judge.
The shame, the shame...

 

[The Big Dog]

Sen. Lindsay Graham:

Hey, who knows?

Well, the right wing knows. How to frame this, that is.

Frame the candidate you mean?

It is very notable that the pitchfork and torch leftists have studiously avoided Leland Ingham Keyser’s statement, and that fact that that Ford’s excuse that the therpists’s notes were wrong has completely fallen apart.

 

[The Big Dog]

It seems like the committee has tentatively agree to have Ford testify Thursday. I would be surprised if it happens at this point given that the people she identified as witnesses all contradict her.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Frame the candidate you mean?

It is very notable that the pitchfork and torch leftists have studiously avoided Leland Ingham Keyser’s statement, and that fact that that Ford’s excuse that the therpists’s notes were wrong has completely fallen apart.

That she provided under oath?

And that reminds me, in case you missed it and weren’t simply ignoring the question: Post #1155