New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
In terms of closest possible to disproving evidence:

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is planning to give the Senate Judiciary Committee calendars from his high school years his legal team argues will back up his denial of sexual misconduct allegations, The New York Times reported on Sunday.

The calendars reportedly show that Kavanaugh was away for most of the summer in 1982, the year that Christine Blasey Ford claims Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party. According to the Times, the calendars include details about other gatherings that he attended, but do not include details about a party similar to the one detailed by Ford.

Kavanaugh's lawyers acknowledged to the Times that Kavanaugh could have attended a party that he did not list on the calendars, but they are planning to argue that it proves there is no corroboration for her account.
Click to expand...

Linky.

If he could show it wasn't possible, then that would be solid. Not having it on the calendar, less so.
 
Last edited:
By the way, have we seen the therapist note yet? My understanding is that she showed the Post the note, but I have been unable to see them for ourselves.

Given the fact that Post did not mention that there were not 4 boys at the party, but printed her claim that her therapist was mistaken...

I told my therapist about it, and here are the notes to prove it.
The notes don’t name the boy and describe a different attack
My therapist’s notes were wrong.

Sounds legit.
 
Fudbucker said:
We finally agree on something. Who keeps calendars from thirty years ago?
Click to expand...

A doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, an accountant might keep records of their professional schedules. But a 17-year-old preppie? He must have known he was Destined For Greatness, and wanted to get an early start on his Presidential Library.
 
thaiboxerken said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's as I say: everybody agrees with democracy so long as it works for them. After it fails to do so, they look for other measures.
 
Only child, his parents probably kept every single thing he ever wrote.

Calendars from 1982. Wow.
 
Fudbucker said:
If Kavanaugh gets nominated after Thursday, and the Dems gain back control, they'll pack the court. Guaranteed.
Click to expand...
They're guaranteed to try to pack the court anyway, IMO. A Kavanaugh confirmation makes the math trickier, though.
 
Fudbucker said:
We finally agree on something. Who keeps calendars from thirty years ago?
Click to expand...

Someone who has future political asperations that's worried their debauchery-ridden past might come back to bite them in the ass.

Someone who was coached well as a teenager by a political/judicial family member (like daddy or uncle Bobby).
 
Last edited:
AnonyMoose said:
Someone who has future political asperations that's worried their debauchery-ridden past might come back to bite them in the ass.

Someone who was coached well as a teenager by a political/judicial family member (like daddy or uncle Bobby).
Click to expand...

Judicial family member? Like his mother you mean?

Although good point, debauched people frequently keep detailed calendars. Lolz!
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
You can't be serious. You think an attempted rapist can fairly adjudicate the constitutionality of laws relating to women?
Click to expand...

I don't think a nominee's status as a rapist, or attempted rapist, would have much bearing on constitutionality of laws relating to women.

If Kavanaugh gets nominated after Thursday, and the Dems gain back control, they'll pack the court. Guaranteed.
Click to expand...


Ain't gonna happen. (Packing the court, that is. The Dems might regain control. If Trump had been able to keep his yap shut, this whole thing would have worked in favor of the Republicans, but Trump's stupid tweets about asking why she didn't come forward in 1982 might be enough to make the whole GOP look bad. I suppose any effects up until this point will probably be overshadowed by whatever theater goes on at the hearing Thursday.)
 
AnonyMoose said:
No less of a viable theory than your 'democrat-libtard-leftie-Ford-lied-from-2012-onward-in-the-hopes-of-some-day-sticking-it-to-Kavanaugh-to-ruin-his-career' theory.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, had someone been taking that position, your silly theory would would still be sillier.
 
Fudbucker said:
We finally agree on something. Who keeps calendars from thirty years ago?
Click to expand...

We could propose the theory that he saved them knowing that, some day in the god-knows-when future, he might need them to prove he really didn't attack Christine Blasey when he became some big wig. We could. But we won't because it is a ludicrous idea.
 
Stacyhs said:
Good grief. You are accusing her of making up a sexual assault lie and telling it to both her therapist and her husband (complete with names) 36 years later? And people wonder why women don't come forward with their sexual assault experiences?

You're a man, right?
Click to expand...
No.

I'm saying it's plausible.

For what it's worth, I'm also a victim of sexual assault, and I don't mean some sort of technical "she groped me without permission" sort of sexual assault. I mean one that did not include penetration, but which was more violent and more invasive that what Ms. Ford alleges happened to her. My attacker succeeded in getting my clothes off, and his.


Forget the stereotypes here. Just look at the evidence, in this specific case, not in a bunch of cases you might find to be similar.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't think that's inevitable. Besides which, the nomination process was already broken - by the GOP, which refused to consider any Obama appointee.
Click to expand...


George Will had a great column in National Review (online) today about this whole situation. Not about the truth or falsehood of Ms. Ford's claim, but about the broken state of the nomination process. It was quite non-partisan, somewhat surprisingly. It called Merrick Garland the most qualified nominee in recent times, and chided the Republicans for not voting on the nomination, and specifically for why they didn't vote on it. Good stuff.

Why are Republicans in such a rush, anyway? This is a serious question.
Click to expand...

The whole point of getting a conservative onto the court is so they can decide cases. The new term starts in eight days. They want him seated so he can decide cases. I don't know how the Supreme Court calendar works. I don't know how long it will be until there's a matter of substance where his vote could influence the outcome. What I do know is that the longer the vacancy exists, the longer they have to wait before one of "their guys" gets to start voting.

If Kavanaugh is confirmed the one hope I have is that he will show an independent, moderate streak. IOW that he will be a good judge.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that be nice. Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor were all Republican appointees, but they ended up being despised by the right wing because they didn't follow the party line. We can hope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom