New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
A reasonably diligent background check, a two-month period for people to come forward, and a "speak now or forever hold your peace" seems like a practical and effective approach.

Extending the process indefinitely to accommodate people who had ample opportunity to come forward and chose not to, or who insist on speaking not now but later, does not.
Click to expand...

As noted upthread - this is actually entirely routine. FBI background checks for judicial appointees have been re-opened 10 times in the last 3 months. The call to re-open this one isn't what makes it an anomaly, the refusal to do so is.
 
theprestige said:
A reasonably diligent background check, a two-month period for people to come forward, and a "speak now or forever hold your peace" seems like a practical and effective approach.

Extending the process indefinitely to accommodate people who had ample opportunity to come forward and chose not to, or who insist on speaking not now but later, does not.


See, this is a much better way of putting it, in my opinion. Direct and honest. If that's how you feel, and you don't care to mount an argument for it, then just say so. No need to bumble around with some half-assed analogy, just to say "I reject your argument out of hand."



The knowledge that I'm not a perfect person and I don't always live up to my ideals? It gives me pause every damn day, Belz...

Luckily for me, we're not in that situation. And luckily for you, you're not trying to hypocritically excuse such tricks.
Click to expand...


Let us hope some regulations are made that are bipartisan agreed upon and put in place before the next fiasco.
 
theprestige said:
A reasonably diligent background check, a two-month period for people to come forward, and a "speak now or forever hold your peace" seems like a practical and effective approach.

Extending the process indefinitely to accommodate people who had ample opportunity to come forward and chose not to, or who insist on speaking not now but later, does not.
Click to expand...

Why not?

What matters is whether the nominee is fit, not whether the allegations were made in a timely manner. Surely, if someone came forward at the (artificially chosen) eleventh hour with evidence that a nominee was a murderer or a traitor to the country, then this should matter to the Senate.

Of course, Kavanaugh is accused of something a long time ago, though sexual assault is serious and the fact that he has explicitly denied the incident and will do so tomorrow under oath (presumably) should certainly matter (given that there is good evidence that such denial is a lie).

Suppose that right before Ginsburg, say, was approved, we learned that she had shot a man in Reno just to watch him die. Are you seriously suggesting that if the information came after your two month deadline, then it shouldn't be considered and the stone-cold Ginsburg should have been approved? What sort of arbitrary nonsense is that? All this guarantees is that some folks who shouldn't be approved would be.
 
phunk said:
Incel doesn't just mean "someone who can't get laid", it is a specific set of people who can't get laid because they are creeps, and blame women for that instead of themselves.
Click to expand...

Well, again, I'm getting conflicting information on this. Yours is one interpretation. I'm happy to concede that it may reflect the general reality of this group.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
As noted upthread - this is actually entirely routine. FBI background checks for judicial appointees have been re-opened 10 times in the last 3 months. The call to re-open this one isn't what makes it an anomaly, the refusal to do so is.
Click to expand...

This does seem to get ignored. There is even precedent for doing so in SCOTUS nominations. Why this is being called odd is beyond me.

Also, I'm seeing conflicting information as to whether it was legal for Kav to be drinking while a senior in high school. I know the ages were in flux at that time, because my brother missed the cutoff in Texas by just a few months.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Do you not think that her therapist's notes from 2012 will establish what she said in 2012?
Click to expand...

The notes certainly describe Kavanaugh, but do not explicitly name him, far as I know.

They might describe other people, too, but surely not too darned many.
 
Belz... said:
That's rather uncalled for. Some could just be unattractive, shy, socially awkward or a host of other, non-creepy alternatives. It's very easy for those in a situation to denigrate those who aren't or can't.

I met my wife-to-be at 35. Was I creepy before that?
Click to expand...

No, incels (a hybrid of the words involuntary and celibate) are members of an intent culture. It's this weird, truly cult-like thing that arose on reddit. They have their own lingo, like calling pretty girls who won't sleep with them "Stacys", and guys who have pretty girlfriends "Chads".

Genuinely alarming stuff like this has arisen out of that internet culture:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43892189

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43883052
 
Belz... said:
That's rather uncalled for. Some could just be unattractive, shy, socially awkward or a host of other, non-creepy alternatives. It's very easy for those in a situation to denigrate those who aren't or can't.

I met my wife-to-be at 35. Was I creepy before that?
Click to expand...


I have no idea. Were you?

Were you celibate but not by choice until you were 35?

Did you blame that on women?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Well, you're going about it all wrong.
Click to expand...

Not really. That the information that I was seeking isn't the information that I'm getting doesn't mean the information I'm getting is worth less than what I was seeking.

I wouldn't say it's your fault, exactly. It's your choice how to engage with me. It's my choice how to respond to your engagement. I don't hold you responsible for my choices. I've told you how it's playing out on my side. What you choose to do about it is up to you.

You want me to give you information. I don't particularly want to give you information. Is there anything you can do to change the situation and get the information you want? Perhaps. Will you choose to try it? That's up to you, not me.
Click to expand...

The cost/benefit doesn't appear to be on the side of letting you dictate my wording to deal with your 'vibes'. It simply isn't worth ceding expressing frustration or bewilderment that what should be an easily answered question establishing common ground has been repeatedly (and very nonsensically) dodged.

That you don't want to particularly give me information is in itself useful information, providing more insight into what your goals are here. This ties in nicely with kind of control over the discussion you're actually seeking.

If you want to convince me to interact with you differently, you'll have to give me actual worthwhile incentive to do so. You could try by defining what is causing your 'vibes' or what is 'browbeating'. I'm not going to stop calling stonewalling and deflection bad, bad ideas.

But alright. You want information? Let's do this: You say you've already gotten one person to agree with you. Point me at that discussion, and I'll read through it. If there's anything for me to add, I'll do so. If there isn't, I'll let you know. Either way, you'll have the information you seek.
Click to expand...

You can't add anything to someone else's agreeing that perjury on salient judicial issues should be disqualifying for SCOTUS, so why should I go back the two weeks? The only other bits were my being corrected about the timing of the Federalist's Society nomination list. It was productive, in that it added confirmation to my idea that evidence should be gathered and released. It's one reason I still believe the stolen memos are so disqualifying for him, even more so than lying about the allegations (although I haven't read the latest, so that could very well move up on my list of 'what everyone should agree disqualifies him').
 
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ugh-calls-third-womans-accusations-ridiculous

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday blasted new allegations of misconduct against him, calling them "ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone."

"I don’t know who this is and this never happened," Kavanaugh said in a statement circulated by the White House.
Click to expand...

That's not the point...

I don't believe any of it, Ford or Ramirez either, but I think it may well end Kavanaugh's chances.

I don't see any way to defend against long ago accusations that are vague as to times and locations, except to deny them, which always seems ineffective.
 
kellyb said:
No, incels (a hybrid of the words involuntary and celibate) are members of an intent culture. It's this weird, truly cult-like thing that arose on reddit. They have their own lingo, like calling pretty girls who won't sleep with them "Stacys", and guys who have pretty girlfriends "Chads".

Genuinely alarming stuff like this has arisen out of that internet culture:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43892189

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43883052
Click to expand...

That's troubling.

People posting here are expected to know these things? I'm not a reddit fan or reader.
 
quadraginta said:
I have no idea. Were you?

Were you celibate but not by choice until you were 35?
Click to expand...

Almost every human on the planet has been involuntarily celibate at some point in their lives for some period of time.

"Incels" only refers to members of that horrible online self-selected culture that does really bad things to people's heads.

They got banned from reddit. They're probably on 4 chan and voat now. They also have a website, incel.me.
 
River said:
That's troubling.

People posting here are expected to know these things? I'm not a reddit fan or reader.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that stuff is exactly common knowledge. Obviously a lot of people here are confused. Those folks are pretty obscure.
 
kellyb said:
No, incels (a hybrid of the words involuntary and celibate) are members of an intent culture. It's this weird, truly cult-like thing that arose on reddit. They have their own lingo, like calling pretty girls who won't sleep with them "Stacys", and guys who have pretty girlfriends "Chads".

Genuinely alarming stuff like this has arisen out of that internet culture:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43892189

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43883052
Click to expand...

I'm not even pretending to understand humans anymore.

quadraginta said:
I have no idea. Were you?

Were you celibate but not by choice until you were 35?
Click to expand...

Well, I'd be lying if I said I made every effort to find a partner, but my previous efforts were unrewarded. You know, not everyone is particularily desirable. I was lucky to find a Japanese woman who's completely nuts! In my defense, I never, ever blamed anyone but myself for my situation.

But my point is that sweeping statements about single men isn't productive, though more information on incels seems... troubling.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Also, I'm seeing conflicting information as to whether it was legal for Kav to be drinking while a senior in high school. I know the ages were in flux at that time, because my brother missed the cutoff in Texas by just a few months.
Click to expand...

Raised to 21 when he was 17, IIRC.
 
Trump Tweets

"Avenatti is a third rate lawyer who is good at making false accusations, like he did on me and like he is now doing on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. He is just looking for attention and doesn’t want people to look at his past record and relationships - a total low-life!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom