New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
ahhell said:
<snip>

Lie detector is meaningless. She could know she can fake it(she is a psychologist at the least she should know they are useless.) She could truly believe it but be wrong and thus would pass.

<snip>
Click to expand...


And as well as a a great amount of purely scientific evidence of this, we also have it on the authority of another memorable SCOTUS appointee. Clarence Thomas, who refused to take one while Anita Hill was being steamrollered during his own confirmation.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Then here is another non-partisan strike against him i saw on reddit - he supports polys:

AlertVast7
Why is nobody suggesting that Kavanaugh take a polygraph? He has supported the validity of polygraphs (despite law to the contrary) in his recent opinions.

In Sacks v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir., 2016), Kavanaugh called the polygraph “an important law enforcement tool”. Id at 694. He noted that “The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” Id. In Jackson v. Mabus, 808 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir., 2015) Kavanaugh put to bed the notion that judges don’t discuss polygraphs as evidence, or at least, not as far as Brett Kavanaugh is concerned. In States v. Malenya, 736 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir., 2013) Kavanaugh’s upheld a lower court's requirement that a sex offender be required to take repeated polygraphs.

Given that he is such a firm believer in polygraphs, one wonders why Kavanaugh hasn't offered to take one himself. Or has he, and failed?
Click to expand...


He has precedent under these circumstances. See above.

Supposedly he's a great believer in precedent.

I expect he will be this time, at any rate.
 
Craig4 said:
After seeing what happened to Ted Cruz when he and his wife tried to have dinner, I can't imagine why he still wants it. He'll have a lifetime appointment as the rapist judge. He'll be a pariah. His family life will be ruined. The other children will tell his kids what their parents say about him.
Click to expand...


He'll always have the Koches, and the Greens, and the Adelsons, and the Friess', and the Mercers, and the Thiels, and the ... etc., etc..

And he can send his kids to a nice private fundamentalist religious school, where forgiveness is is always a hypocritical step away.

As long as one is sufficiently and properly conservative.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Sherkeu said:
Do you believe my allegations are false? Maybe ISF should suspend or ban anyone who says 'cute' to a female poster til we get to the bottom of it! You don't want me continuing to feel abused, right? My word on that should be good enough..


As for the SCOTUS process, I think they need to put some rules on how 'new' information is handled or every single nomination will become a circus in its final days. Next time we'll have someone claiming child abuse or prostitution or <insert lurid claim here> an hour before the swearing in.
Click to expand...
Yep. I believe your allegations are false. They are dramatized to milk the most argument points of the situation.

People use the word "cute" all the time to describe situations, arguments, boys, girls, men, women (and numerous other gender identifications).
Click to expand...
I guess it's a good thing Mumbles didn't call her argument "adorable", like he did Brooklynbaby's a few posts earlier (#1766); who I'm not sure has ever evinced a gender in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Shadowdweller said:
I guess it's a good thing Mumbles didn't call her argument "adorable", like he did Brooklynbaby's a few posts earlier (#1766?); who I'm not sure has ever evinced a gender in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't know who knew Sherkeu was a woman in the first place. A just saw a post by a regular denizen in politics who used "he". I actually didn't know. We all use diminutives to diminish the arguments of other combatants. Cute, quaint, how special, adorable... I've used all at one point or another. I've had all of them used on me.

I used to do a variation on this shtick as a youte. If someone used the term bastard I really didn't give a rat's p'toot. If someone used in an argument I was losing? "Look, I'm gonna assume that's inadvertent, but I find it really a cheap shot. I actually am what you call a bastard!" (Mom and dad weren't married and daddy took off, so I wasn't making it up. The point is, I didn't care. It was just a cheap debate tactic in a community of kids who put a lot of store in who could win arguments with their wits.)
 
Last edited:
They're probably bringing in a prosecutor to ask the questions because they're afraid some old fart senator would ask Dr. Ford if she was just "a scorned woman".
 
it is entirely possible that Kavanaugh wanted to play big shot to his friends and told them he would front all the tickets. He might not have wanted them to know that he actually can't afford to buy them. So at best, he is a showboat who will take financial risks in order to look good.

Of course, given his history, there is a good chance that the tickets were the way he had to pay for his gambling debts, and then got some donors to pay his debts for him.
I would very much like the assurance of the FBI that a future supreme court judge isn't on the hook for $200,000 to someone shady.
 
Three more people have come forward who say Dr. B-F told them about Kavanaugh's attack between 2013 and 2017. (CNN)
 
Trump Tweets

"The Democrats are playing a high level CON GAME in their vicious effort to destroy a fine person. It is called the politics of destruction. Behind the scene the Dems are laughing. Pray for Brett Kavanaugh and his family!"
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Questioning Ford directly would most certainly be very bad optics, as she is probably will be feeling very vulnerable and exhausted on Thursday (she is driving to Washington, reportedly because she can't stand the confines of a plane).
The question is: will Mitchell testify to her opinion of the interviews?
Click to expand...


Bring in the sibille to get the truth.

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20...-triumphed-over-her-shocking-rape-and-torture
But the only rings Gentileschi got to wear were those of a sibille: a torture device/lie detector made of metal and rope, that tightened round her digits. “This is the ring that you give me, and these are your promises," she said to Tassi as the cords tightened, before repeating "It's true, it's true, it's true," in defence of her account. She was believed, Tassi deemed guilty – but, being a favoured painter of the Pope, never actually ended up serving a sentence.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
Unless her husband gave that interview to the Post in 2012, his recollection has the same problem as hers.

In fact, he remembers "Kavanaugh" in 2018, after it becomes a household name. It's not even tissue-clad evidence.
Click to expand...

They've not been publicly released, but the Senate and the FBI have reportedly had copies of her therapist's session notes.
 
Stacko said:
This sounds like no Senators are going to able to question Kavanaugh or Ford.

Click to expand...

Democratic senators will ask their questions themselves. Republicans will leave it to the counsel. So said Senator Blumenthal last night on CNN.

This is just going to be weird.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom