New SCOTUS Judge

[theprestige]

Mitch McConnell brutally murdered the argument that we should not delay a Supreme Court appointment vote back in 2016 with his handling of Judge Garland. Remember, the nominee no one had accused of sexual assault? Keeping a respected jurist on the shelf for almost a year out of sheer pique, while demanding a swift vote on Brett “You probably can’t prove I’m I rapist so why bother to try” Kavanaugh, is such a blatant display of partisanship that it defies reason.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Delaying a confirmation vote through Senate procedural shenanigans is one thing. Delaying a confirmation vote through straight-up character assassination is something else entirely.

Garland got an honest "your confirmation is a political non-starter, sorry."

Kavanaugh is getting the same thing, but with a partisan smear job in place of the honesty.

I'll tolerate the former as an unavoidable feature of the system. The latter I find unacceptable.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Kavanaugh is getting the same thing, but with a partisan smear job in place of the honesty

Surely it's only a "smear job" if he hasn't, in fact, sexually assaulted anybody? If he is, in fact, someone who has participated in gang rape, then isn't that relevant?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Delaying a confirmation vote through Senate procedural shenanigans is one thing. Delaying a confirmation vote through straight-up character assassination is something else entirely.

Garland got an honest "your confirmation is a political non-starter, sorry."

Kavanaugh is getting the same thing, but with a partisan smear job in place of the honesty.

I'll tolerate the former as an unavoidable feature of the system. The latter I find unacceptable.

You got it exactly backwards:
The Senator's job is to make up their mind about a candidate in a hearing. If there is a smear campaign they can confirm regardless... unless they lack the spine.
But not even having a hearing means that you rejected the candidate without a hearing - which is very wrong.

 

[luchog]

The guy had a flawless career. But he just isn't good enough for the HONOR of serving on the supreme Court.

Are you so sure he had a flawless career? Are you privy to the contents of the huge pile of documents that he and the GOP are withholding?

 

[Belz...]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Delaying a confirmation vote through Senate procedural shenanigans is one thing. Delaying a confirmation vote through straight-up character assassination is something else entirely.

Character assassination? Are you claiming that the accusations are unfounded? How would you know this?

Garland got an honest "your confirmation is a political non-starter, sorry."

No, that's not what he got. He got a "you're being nominated by someone we swore never to cooperate with, so you can go **** yourself." Hardly very honest.

 

[Segnosaur]

Nah, lets ruin a persons career and take away their opportunities based on allegations alone. No need for proof or authentication. Right? Perhaps we will see this with all new SC appointments now that this fiasco has become the norm. Solid proof. Otherwise, vote. If an FBI investigation is needed, so be it.

Except of course that the white house is not allowing the FBI to do an investigation. Kind of hard to find proof when nobody with any authority is actually LOOKING for proof.

It should not delay these hearings. If he's found guilty of anything he can be removed.

I believe the way to remove a supreme court judge is through impeachment, which means going through congress.

Given the fact that its the republicans in congress who are trying to rush the confirmation process, even if they find stronger evidence of a crime they will be unlikely to remove him, since it would mean them admitting their mistake. So confirming him now with the idea they can remove him later is incredibly foolish.

 

[theprestige]

Surely it's only a "smear job" if he hasn't, in fact, sexually assaulted anybody? If he is, in fact, someone who has participated in gang rape, then isn't that relevant?

One way you can tell it's a smear job is by all the JAQing off.

If this were a legitimate inquiry into relevant facts, instead of a last-ditch effort to delay the confirmation vote by impugning the character of the nominee, Feinstein would have brought Ford's letter to the committee in July instead of waiting till the last possible moment to see if she'd need it.

 

[Belz...]

One way you can tell it's a smear job is by all the JAQing off.

If this were a legitimate inquiry into relevant facts, instead of a last-ditch effort to delay the confirmation vote by impugning the character of the nominee, Feinstein would have brought Ford's letter to the committee in July instead of waiting till the last possible moment to see if she'd need it.

Is he guilty or not?

 

[Random]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Delaying a confirmation vote through Senate procedural shenanigans is one thing. Delaying a confirmation vote through straight-up character assassination is something else entirely.

Garland got an honest "your confirmation is a political non-starter, sorry."

Kavanaugh is getting the same thing, but with a partisan smear job in place of the honesty.

I'll tolerate the former as an unavoidable feature of the system. The latter I find unacceptable.

BS. This isn’t a question of “We don’t believe your allegation so we are moving ahead”, this is, “We refuse to look into your allegations at all, as that would slow down our giving this guy a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court”. The GOP refused to ask for an FBI investigation of these allegations, they tried to pressure Ford into not testifying, they indicated that they would give Kavanaugh the nod regardless of what Ford said, and when they found there was a second accusation they tried to push the vote forward quickly before word got out.

 

[River]

Except of course that the white house is not allowing the FBI to do an investigation. Kind of hard to find proof when nobody with any authority is actually LOOKING for proof.

I believe the way to remove a supreme court judge is through impeachment, which means going through congress.

Given the fact that its the republicans in congress who are trying to rush the confirmation process, even if they find stronger evidence of a crime they will be unlikely to remove him, since it would mean them admitting their mistake. So confirming him now with the idea they can remove him later is incredibly foolish.

Should we instead allow for unsubstantiated 35 year old allegations hold up a SC position? If it is true that the other alleged witnesses have spoken and denied this -- there seems to be not much to investigate much less a valid enough reason to hold up something this important over unsubstantiated allegations. Allegations that had been in the hand of democrats for months and not acted upon until the last minute. We do not need to set precedence of delaying hearings like this using this style of rhetoric. We should instead set the precedence that this should not ever be the case. Frankly, guilty before proven innocent is not how our system works. Period.

If there is something to investigate, investigate. Holding up these hearings is a pony show, and political fluff IMHO. Disgusting.

 

[Belz...]

BS. This isn’t a question of “We don’t believe your allegation so we are moving ahead”, this is, “We refuse to look into your allegations at all, as that would slow down our giving this guy a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court”. The GOP refused to ask for an FBI investigation of these allegations, they tried to pressure Ford into not testifying, they indicated that they would give Kavanaugh the nod regardless of what Ford said, and when they found there was a second accusation they tried to push the vote forward quickly before word got out.

Unfortunately, all of this is just going to push the Democrats into playing by exactly the same book. In fact, if Prestige is correct, that's exactly what they're doing right now.

 

[theprestige]

Is he guilty or not?

If that question actually mattered to Feinstein, she would have brought it to the committee in July.

BS. This isn’t a question of “We don’t believe your allegation so we are moving ahead”, this is, “We refuse to look into your allegations at all, as that would slow down our giving this guy a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court”. The GOP refused to ask for an FBI investigation of these allegations, they tried to pressure Ford into not testifying, they indicated that they would give Kavanaugh the nod regardless of what Ford said, and when they found there was a second accusation they tried to push the vote forward quickly before word got out.

Funny how these accusations only surface right as the vote is about to happen, just in time to delay it.

 

[johnny karate]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Delaying a confirmation vote through Senate procedural shenanigans is one thing. Delaying a confirmation vote through straight-up character assassination is something else entirely.

Garland got an honest "your confirmation is a political non-starter, sorry."

Kavanaugh is getting the same thing, but with a partisan smear job in place of the honesty.

I'll tolerate the former as an unavoidable feature of the system. The latter I find unacceptable.

Since we’re announcing things we find unacceptable, I would like to officially announce that I find special pleading from laughably hypocritical conservatives to be unacceptable.

 

[Belz...]

If that question actually mattered to Feinstein, she would have brought it to the committee in July.

No, no, no. Don't dodge the question. Do you know that he's innocent or not? You seem to indicate that it's a smear job because of the timing, but if he's guilty, then the timing is irrelevant. And if you don't know whether he's guilty or not, then you can't claim that the accusation somehow doesn't matter.

Ironically you're being partisan while accusing others of same.

 

[Random]

Funny how these accusations only surface right as the vote is about to happen, just in time to delay it.

Doesn't have to be a huge delay. Heck, if the FBI had been asked to investigate the Ford allegations when they came out, they would have already presented a report by now. It's a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court for crying out loud! What's the rush?

 

[Segnosaur]

Should we instead allow for unsubstantiated 35 year old allegations hold up a SC position?

Yes, until they can be, you know investigated.

The fact that the white house isn't allowing them to be investigated should raise some red flags.

If it is true that the other alleged witnesses have spoken and denied this...

You mean the one witness who may have been a co-conspirator that talks about getting black-out drunk?

You mean all the people who have stated "I never knew Kavanaugh to do anything wrong". (Sort of like the neighbors of a serial killer who kept saying "He seemed like such a nice guy").

there seems to be not much to investigate much less a valid enough reason to hold up something this important over unsubstantiated allegations.

Then let the FBI investigate. It can be done in less than a week, then Kavanaugh can get on with his work to oppress minorities and abuse women from the supreme court.

Allegations that had been in the hand of democrats for months and not acted upon until the last minute.

This has been explained multiple times. The delay was largely due to a desire for the victim to remain anonymous. Given the type of abuse that she has received since going public, I think her concerns were warranted.

From: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politic...-de-Le-n-agree-Feinstein-blew-it-13239745.php
Feinstein’s actions were also backed by Debra Katz, Ford’s attorney, who said in a CNN interview that the senator had played by the rules Ford set. Ford “made the request that Sen. Feinstein treat her allegations confidentially and Sen. Feinstein agreed to do so,” Katz said. The senator’s staff “was eager for her to come forward,” but left the decision up to Ford.

We do not need to set precedence of delaying hearings like this using this style of rhetoric.

You do realize that other supreme court justices have been confirmed without having to deal with these types of allegations. Heck, even Gorsuch didn't have any allegations against him (even though Democrats and others on the political left had reasons not to want him confirmed.)

So Gorsuch made it through hearings without such sexual assault allegations, while Kavanaugh has multiple accusers. Just why do you think that is? If its a case of "The left wanting to smear all right-wingers" then why wasn't Gorsuch attacked in the same way?

Frankly, guilty before proven innocent is not how our system works. Period.

And once again... this is not a criminal case... it is a job interview where the burden of proof is different.

If there is something to investigate, investigate.

Then TELL THAT TO TRUMP!

Seriously, how many times does it have to be explained to you? The people that are refusing to investigate are on the republican side. Why is that?

Holding up these hearings is a pony show, and political fluff IMHO. Disgusting.

Yes... it is rather disgusting that the republicans hope to let a potential rapist serve on the supreme court, where he will be allowed to rule on cases involving women's rights.

The 'pony show' is all on the republican side, who have done their best to hide and/or excuse Kavenaugh's failings.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

One way you can tell it's a smear job is by all the JAQing off.

If this were a legitimate inquiry into relevant facts, instead of a last-ditch effort to delay the confirmation vote by impugning the character of the nominee, Feinstein would have brought Ford's letter to the committee in July instead of waiting till the last possible moment to see if she'd need it.

It's not an enquiry of any kind. An enquiry is what's being asked for.

But let's say, for the sake of argument that you're right - what's the harm in a delay while there is an investigation? If Anita Hill's investigation is anything to judge by it would have already been over by now, had it happened.

 

[Stacyhs]

Nah, lets ruin a persons career and take away their opportunities based on allegations alone. No need for proof or authentication. Right? Perhaps we will see this with all new SC appointments now that this fiasco has become the norm. Solid proof. Otherwise, vote. If an FBI investigation is needed, so be it. It should not delay these hearings. If he's found guilty of anything he can be removed. This has been a huge pony show.

I couldn't disagree more. The GOP is desperate to push this through before the midterms.
It's not a question of IF an FBI investigation is needed. It most certainly is but this would delay the primary goal of getting K seated ASAP.

It's ridiculous to say rush him in and then try and remove him later. That's like saying "Let's get married now before we know each other very well. We can always get divorced later."

 

[theprestige]

Yes, until they can be, you know investigated.

The fact that the white house isn't allowing them to be investigated should raise some red flags.

The fact that Feinstein sat on it for two months instead of, you know investigating, should also raise some red flags.

 

[River]

Yes, until they can be, you know investigated.

The fact that the white house isn't allowing them to be investigated should raise some red flags.


You mean the one witness who may have been a co-conspirator that talks about getting black-out drunk?

You mean all the people who have stated "I never knew Kavanaugh to do anything wrong". (Sort of like the neighbors of a serial killer who kept saying "He seemed like such a nice guy").


Then let the FBI investigate. It can be done in less than a week, then Kavanaugh can get on with his work to oppress minorities and abuse women from the supreme court.


This has been explained multiple times. The delay was largely due to a desire for the victim to remain anonymous. Given the type of abuse that she has received since going public, I think her concerns were warranted.

From: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politic...-de-Le-n-agree-Feinstein-blew-it-13239745.php
Feinstein’s actions were also backed by Debra Katz, Ford’s attorney, who said in a CNN interview that the senator had played by the rules Ford set. Ford “made the request that Sen. Feinstein treat her allegations confidentially and Sen. Feinstein agreed to do so,” Katz said. The senator’s staff “was eager for her to come forward,” but left the decision up to Ford.


You do realize that other supreme court justices have been confirmed without having to deal with these types of allegations. Heck, even Gorsuch didn't have any allegations against him (even though Democrats and others on the political left had reasons not to want him confirmed.)

So Gorsuch made it through hearings without such sexual assault allegations, while Kavanaugh has multiple accusers. Just why do you think that is? If its a case of "The left wanting to smear all right-wingers" then why wasn't Gorsuch attacked in the same way?


And once again... this is not a criminal case... it is a job interview where the burden of proof is different.

Then TELL THAT TO TRUMP!

Seriously, how many times does it have to be explained to you? The people that are refusing to investigate are on the republican side. Why is that?


Yes... it is rather disgusting that the republicans hope to let a potential rapist serve on the supreme court, where he will be allowed to rule on cases involving women's rights.

The 'pony show' is all on the republican side, who have done their best to hide and/or excuse Kavenaugh's failings.

There are a few problems with your theories. Mostly that not all the alleged witnesses were "in" on the alleged actions. One was a "friend" that was there. This is her released statement.

In an email to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Saturday, Leland Ingham Keyser, a former classmate of Ford's at the Holton-Arms all-girls school in Maryland, said she doesn’t know Kavanaugh or remember being at the party with him.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh III of Bethesda, Md., conveyed in an email to the committee that was obtained by Fox News.

All five witnesses Dr. Ford places at scene have weighed in, now all but Ford say the incident didn’t happen. The four she names besides herself contradict her. Last witness, Leland Keyser, says she doesn’t know Kavanaugh

These alleged witnesses should also be called in to testify under oath, as should the accuser. That is how this should proceed. FBI investigation based on purely this letter/memory? We shall see. I doubt it will happen, and if it does nothing new will come to light. The way this was handled and brought out at the last minute does not speak well of its contents either.

Lets see what happens. I think it's a circus.