New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Again, you are confusing the standards of a criminal trial (which takes away rights) with the standards of a supreme court nomination (which grants a privilege).

Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt is the standard that must be passed to remove rights. Much weaker evidence is all that's required to disallow the granting of a privilege.

Would you hire a person rumored to be a thief to manage your finances?

If you can't see the difference then I can't help you remove your partisan blinders.

Well, there is no corroborating evidence supporting Ford’s story at all, which is why you are desperately trying to flip the burden onto BK. If you can’t see that, I suggest you remove your partisan blinders.
 
Which one what?

/I notice you are ducking explaining why you lit into me. No surprise.
The level of confrontation I am giving you right now is one that neither of us finds excessive. I'm just engaging in the discourse. No more, no less.

If you really thing my posts are crossing a line, then I encourage you to report them and set a good example for me and others to follow.


Which one what?
Which of these do you disagree with?
1. Kavanaugh was not being completely honest in his testimony Thursday.
2. Anyone who lies under oath should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.
 
I must admit I'm in a quandary. So much of what people are saying about Kavanaugh is true. He's a political operative. He wasn't honest. At best, he stretched the truth about his drinking habits. Like so many high school and college kids of the era, he drank, a lot, and to excess, but he tried to paint a "choir boy" image. It's kind of weaselly.

Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.

So, either they win, or Kavanaugh wins. If Kavanaugh wins, we get a conservative on the court, with an agenda, who says he doesn't have one. Also, someone who, in his youth, was not exactly a perfect gentleman, and conceivably could have been much, much, worse.

If Kavanaugh loses, the senate Dems win, and they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior. Since they are being rewarded, we can expect more of it in the future. However, Trump nominates someone else, but someone who is likely to vote in a way that is almost identical to how Kavanaugh would have voted.

It's a no win situation, but which is the lesser of two evils?

I would dare to say that, if Kavanaugh loses, the USA wins, not just the Senate Dems. Again, Kavanaugh, on investigation, is quite clearly a man who should not have been nominated in the first place for reasons that have little to do with Ford. The whole matter with Ford just gave him opportunity to show them off loudly and clearly again. That Trump seems to be choosing to draw from a list of people who very likely should not be nominated in the first place is an entirely separate and notable problem. The direct choice is pretty clear, really. On the other hand, Kavanaugh being confirmed would likely lead to even more backlash against the Republicans in the upcoming election and in 2020, very possibly leading Kavanaugh to be impeached and removed early as a belated check and balance.
 
Last edited:
The level of confrontation I am giving you right now is one that neither of us finds excessive. I'm just engaging in the discourse. No more, no less.

If you really thing my posts are crossing a line, then I encourage you to report them and set a good example for me and others to follow.

Which of these do you disagree with?

Ok, I will just forget that you posted several incredibly false statements attacking me out of the blue. :rolleyes:

The first
 
"Sure we could not put a sexual predator on the Supreme Court... but then I'd have to briefly stop poking the other social-political tribe and drop my end of the rope a pointless round of point scoring and their political pee-pee might look a little bigger than my side's political pee-pee for the brief few moments until the Facebook algorithm tells us what the next thing we're to be outraged about is."

Yes, quite a pickle that. It's practically Sophie's Choice.
Woah now. Sophie never had to consider supporting a Democrat.
 
Are we still in the anger phase? Because the bargaining phase is coming up real soon. The acceptance phase is going to take much much longer
 
Ok, I will just forget that you posted several incredibly false statements attacking me out of the blue. :rolleyes:

The first

It's a conversation, not an attack. If my words are too harsh for you to handle, just say so.

And now I know what I need to know. The Big Dog, of the International Skeptic's Forum, upon reviewing Kavanaugh's Thursday testimony, said, "Yeah, that's what a completely honest person looks like."

I appreciate your assistance.
 
Are we still in the anger phase? Because the bargaining phase is coming up real soon. The acceptance phase is going to take much much longer
No, we're still in the denial phase. People are telling themselves that surely, at some point, the adults in the room will take charge and we can all forget any of this ever happened.

You haven't seen the anger phase yet.
 
It's a conversation, not an attack. If my words are too harsh for you to handle, just say so.

And now I know what I need to know. The Big Dog, of the International Skeptic's Forum, upon reviewing Kavanaugh's Thursday testimony, said, "Yeah, that's what a completely honest person looks like."

I appreciate your assistance.

I knew your questions were completely dishonest.

I appreciate your assistance in proving that.
 
Good thing River said "support", rather than either of the words you used.
But that's also false.

Not remembering the event is understandable for everyone aside from Judge, Kavanaugh and Ford. Judge and Kavanaugh have, for obvious reasons, a motive to deny the events.

That others don't remember really matters not at all. It's a lack of evidence, not support, unless we have good reason to believe that that night would've been memorable for them. I don't see why it would.
 
"Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy."

Nobody dragged BK in. He DEMANDED to be heard. No one tried to catch him in a lie. All they did was ask him what it meant. HE chose to lie about it. That is not a perjury trap. It was a reasonable question and he lied because the truth would not reflect well on him.

"they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior"

The DEMS did not accuse BK of sexual assault; Dr. Blasey-Ford did. The Dems didn't make BK lie. The Dems didn't make him behave in such an aggressive, belligerent, aggressive and unacceptable manner. All investigations are an "invasion of privacy". That's what they are.

If you believe that, you are hopelessly naïve.
 
Kellyanne Conway is now a member of the #metoo movement.

But she didn't report it to the police, and she's only speaking up about now... many years later.

Therefore, she's must be lying and has some kind of agenda going on.

Damn republican commies and their damn lying fake news agendas trying to ruin this country and mens' lives !


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/741985b562fdf206a5.gif[/qimg]

I'd back off this kind of approach. Mocking apparent victims of sexual harassment isn't attractive, whether they're on your side or not.

Plenty of legitimate reasons to disparage Conway. Let's not belittle her claims of suffering from harassment without really good evidence that she's lying, not even if your point is to suggest that the other side is hypocritical.
 
Well, there is no corroborating evidence supporting Ford’s story at all, which is why you are desperately trying to flip the burden onto BK. If you can’t see that, I suggest you remove your partisan blinders.

Despite his claims to the contrary, there is corroborating evidence that as a youth BK had black out drunk episodes. The fact that he's trying to hide that is damning for me.There are also other claims against him, as well.

Honestly, I don't even consider it an issue of "flipping the burden". Is it so hard for Trump to find a nominee without such baggage?

Surely that would be the better course for everyone.

But spin it however you want to; that seems to be your mission here.
 
If you believe that, you are hopelessly naïve.

I see you subscribe to the "perjury trap" idea. Please quote one question that was posed to Kav in such a way that it was designed to catch him in a lie. He was asked direct questions. Whether he lied or not depended totally on Kav, not the person who asked the question.
 
Charles Ludington, a former varsity basketball player and friend of Kavanaugh’s at Yale, told The Washington Post on Sunday that he plans to deliver a statement to the FBI field office in Raleigh on Monday detailing violent drunken behavior by Kavanaugh in college.

Ludington, an associate professor at North Carolina State University, provided a copy of the statement to The Post.

In it, Ludington says in one instance, Kavanaugh initiated a fight that led to the arrest of a mutual friend: “When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive. On one of the last occasions I purposely socialized with Brett, I witnessed him respond to a semi-hostile remark, not by defusing the situation, but by throwing his beer in the man’s face and starting a fight that ended with one of our mutual friends in jail.”

Ludington says he was deeply troubled by Kavanaugh appearing to blatantly mischaracterize his drinking in Senate testimony.

“I do not believe that the heavy drinking or even loutish behavior of an 18 or even 21 year old should condemn a person for the rest of his life,” Ludington wrote. “However ... if he lied about his past actions on national television, and more especially while speaking under oath in front of the United States Senate, I believe those lies should have consequences.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...d2d65b86d0c_story.html?utm_term=.36f538e36e99
 
Do you disagree with either of the following:

1. Kavanaugh was not being completely honest in his testimony Thursday.
2. Anyone who lies under oath should not be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

I think that it's incredibly unlikely that he was completely honest. You and I bloody well know that his explanation for "Renate Alumnius" is just laughable.

Doesn't reach perjury, probably, and not really the place to stake one's claim that he should be rejected. Same thing with denial of blackouts. Almost certainly false, but he's literally the only plausible authority on that.

I think his partisan tone was enough to reject him, even if he's not guilty of the alleged sexual assault. We don't need a Supreme Court Justice viewing things explicitly in terms of R vs. D.

Prior to his performance, I could've gone either way. I know that he's mighty conservative and, more significantly, has some remarkable views about Presidential immunity. Those concerned me, could've understood a political vote against him. But his performance sealed the deal. He either doesn't have the temperament to be on the SJC, or he put on a show for Trump and his base, which is just as bad.
 
To The Big Dog:

How many individual, uncorroborated yet credible witnesses against a nominee are necessary before you recognize a pattern and consider it evidence?

Serious question. I'm looking for a number here.
 
I must admit I'm in a quandary. So much of what people are saying about Kavanaugh is true. He's a political operative. He wasn't honest. At best, he stretched the truth about his drinking habits. Like so many high school and college kids of the era, he drank, a lot, and to excess, but he tried to paint a "choir boy" image. It's kind of weaselly.

Then we come to the committee Democrats. They dug through a high school yearbook looking for dirt on a 53 year old man. That's low. That's very, very, low. Dragging a guy in to see if they can catch him in a lie about "boofing". That's bottom of the barrel scummy.

So, either they win, or Kavanaugh wins. If Kavanaugh wins, we get a conservative on the court, with an agenda, who says he doesn't have one. Also, someone who, in his youth, was not exactly a perfect gentleman, and conceivably could have been much, much, worse.

If Kavanaugh loses, the senate Dems win, and they are rewarded for character assassination, invasion of privacy, and generally scummy behavior. Since they are being rewarded, we can expect more of it in the future. However, Trump nominates someone else, but someone who is likely to vote in a way that is almost identical to how Kavanaugh would have voted.

It's a no win situation, but which is the lesser of two evils?

Sorry? Digging through evidence regarding his behavior at the time is way worse than perjury for an SJC nominee?

Seriously? The man is nominated for the Supreme Court of the land. You're willing to grant him a little harmless lying under oath?
 

Back
Top Bottom