New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Belz... said:
"Honorable members of the committee, my name if Brett Kavanaugh. In recent days there have been allegations against myself that I sexually assaulted a number of women during my student days. I deny these allegations. I will be the first to admit that, during those years, I did drink heavily, to the point of making myself sick. It was a juvenile and irresponsible behaviour that I've thankfully grown out of. It is possible that, at some point, I blacked out, and that I did or said things that I today do not remember. I have never, to my knowledge, sexually assaulted anyone, but it is possible, if perhaps unlikely, that I have said or done reprehensible things while under the influence, and which I do not recall. If that is the case, then I would be horrified at the revelation, and would offer my sincere apologies to anyone that I would have hurt. In any event, I hope that turning my life around since those days shows that I am sincere in my dedication to acting responsibly in a civil, adult world, and that I am still worthy of your consideration. I leave my fate in your hands."

I just wrote that off the top of my head. Saying that wouldn't have taken 45 minutes, and would sound a lot more responsible and respectable.
Click to expand...

I think it could've even been a bit less apologetic. When I was young, I had blackouts on occasion. I behaved badly on occasion under the influence. I sincerely doubt that I ever approached violently forcing myself on a woman, because that's really diametrically opposed to my views. I'm sure that I was at times more insistent than I would have liked to be, from my older self's perspective, but never, ever, ever holding some nigh stranger down against her will.

Totally admit drinking way too much, even admit being a bit over the line in attempting to persuade another to swap juices, would never admit to being violent in the pursuit of sex. Were he to admit similar things, then surely it would be understandable.
 
The history of Kavanaugh as frat boy party animal has been demonstrated. He may of may not have done something. But his Democrat blaming speech and whimpering groveling at the end clearly shows he can never be an impartial judge. We don't need to prove any of her testimony at this point. He failed the job interview. No Democrat will ever vote for him.

There may be political trickery involved here. They may have time to appoint another judge and get one approved in a month. But then the dumping of Kavanaugh will increase angry white male turnout in the election!
 
varwoche said:
Despite how long the thread is, I haven't noticed a single alternate scenario proposed in support of Kavenaugh's testimony. Such as...
  • she's lying, and willingly participating in a conspiracy to sink Kavenaugh
  • she's a delusional mental case
  • she has misidentified the perp
Etc. Anyone?
Click to expand...

While those are all possibilities, nobody has any real evidence to say those things reasonably.

There are two fundamental possibilities here: She is lying or she is telling the truth. The problem is that we have nothing to go on either way so, for me at least, that is an open question. At least until other evidence appears if it ever does.

If she's lying, well, that opens up (and forgive my possibly improper notation here . . .) {a,b,c....} explanations. If she's telling the truth, that opens up {x,y,z . . .} explanations. Since we cannot reasonably answer the fundamental question, given current evidence, there's no sense on speculating on those sets of explanations.
 
Segnosaur said:
You see, this is what I find a bit... strange. You first suggest he "seems to be credible", then you say "he lied" (maybe about other things, but he still lied.) Shouldn't the fact that he was willing to engage in perjury suggest that he is not quite as credible in his denials about the assault? Why are you suggesting he can lie about one thing but is totally believable on other things?
Click to expand...

He said he seemed credible outside of this process. Right there before the bit you bolded.
 
xjx388 said:
. . . this is a very difficult situation to parse.
Click to expand...
Strong disagree:

xjx388 said:
He lied, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
What else is there? A dude lied in a job interview. That would/should be disqualifying for a job frying McNuggets, so it sure as heck is disqualifying for a lifetime seat on the SCOTUS.


If the FBI investigation goes no further to establish the validity of Dr. Ford's accusation we already have the lie(s), weasely lawyer speak instead of direct answers, and the unhinged indignation and conspiracy-laden partisanship from Kavanaugh's own statements.

But there's even more.

Dude, you're about to be confirmed to the SCOTUS. Allegations of drunken sexual aggression have surfaced to threaten that confirmation and you know – or at least you want everyone to think you know –*that they are fabricated and/or conflated with some other events in Dr. Ford's memory. Here's how I would expect and innocent and wrongly accused man to respond:

You humbly and respectfully approach the hearing confident that you will be exonerated and confirmed. I mean, you are a judge, so it's safe to assume that you believe in our judicial system, right?

In your opening statement, you bend over backwards to express your sympathy to Dr. Ford and all victims of sexual assault. You speak calmly, softly, and rationally to express the importance of the freedom victims must feel to be heard so that we can truly promote equality for women.

You deny the allegations – again calmly and rationally – and you might suggest a reason behind them, e.g., that Dr. Ford is confusing you with someone else or some other group of teenagers. You frankly and dispassionately own up to the hard-partying lifestyle you pursued in high school and college, but express again your confidence that you have been falsely accused.

Finally, you not only welcome it, you are one to call for the FBI investigation. You state the reason for this as clearing your name, sure, but the more important reason would be to find the perp still walking the streets out there who did this horrible thing to Dr. Ford.
 
Opinion: For its investigation into Kavanaugh to be comprehensive, the FBI must also get to the bottom of what “boofing” means.
-- Politico (Oct 1, 2018)
Click to expand...


"Our media are now Boofing Truthers. If this isn't a jump the shark moment, I don't know what is."
-- Mollie Hemingway (Oct 1, 2018)


The "Boofing Truthers."
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
While those are all possibilities, nobody has any real evidence to say those things reasonably.

There are two fundamental possibilities here: She is lying or she is telling the truth. The problem is that we have nothing to go on either way so, for me at least, that is an open question. At least until other evidence appears if it ever does.

If she's lying, well, that opens up (and forgive my possibly improper notation here . . .) {a,b,c....} explanations. If she's telling the truth, that opens up {x,y,z . . .} explanations. Since we cannot reasonably answer the fundamental question, given current evidence, there's no sense on speculating on those sets of explanations.
Click to expand...

You're omitting what Kav himself claimed in the hearing: Dems and the Clintons are getting revenge for his working for Ken Starr. Who, by the way, was fired* from Baylor for covering up sexual abuse by football players.

*Ok, I'm sure he officially "resigned". He didn't have a choice.
 
acbytesla said:
I had been using that expression for decades never knowing what it actually was. I guess, I could/should have looked it up. But I found it amusing to point this out. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Fun Fact: Petard derives from a middle French word meaning "to fart" or "to boof".
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't think I'm the one who's having trouble understanding what the issue is.

The Senate Democrats sank just as low on Thursday as the House Republicans and their lap dog Ken Starr sank in 1998. In 1998, when the Republicans tried to dig dirt, they found it. Bill Clinton lied under oath. There was no doubt about it. That was a crime. Perjury! They had him, right? The evidence was crystal clear. And they lost. And they were punished at the polls for trying. And I was very happy about that because the effort to expose details of his personal life as a means to a political end was disgusting.

It still is.

Should Kavanaugh be confirmed? Whatever. I was so appalled at the tactics of the Democrats that I now see that as a secondary issue.
Click to expand...
Yes yes, those evil Democrats. :rolleyes:

And because Bill was a bad guy. :rolleyes:
 
The Big Dog said:
That is the truth, given that I have 12 years of experience with Judge Kavanaugh as a Judge.

protip: it aint 2006
Click to expand...

Indeed. And the American Bar Association hasn't got any experience with that at all.

I wonder why they even bother getting out of bed in the morning, knowing that you're posting on an internet forum and so are making them redundant with your expert opinions and greater knowledge of the law.
 
Darat said:
But being disgusted at someone else's behaviour strikes me as a rather silly reason to say you are not longer bothered if someone else is the right person for a role or not.
Click to expand...

Especially considering the position Kav is being considered for. A lot of people who didn't like Clinton for whatever reason voted for Trump and look where that got them.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If you agree that, under stress, he behaved inappropriately under oath, so much so that he shouldn't get to sit on the Bench -
then the rest is irrelevant.

Are we supposed to have some kind of Affirmative Action for White Men Falsely Accused? Do we have to overlook an obvious perjury to make up for the fact that he had to defend himself against an allegation of sexual assault?
Click to expand...

I don't know . . . it's not so cut and dried. Did the Senate err in not removing Bill Clinton for his obvious perjury? I don't want to rehash the Clinton thing but I think there is an obvious parallel here.

See, in Clinton's case, I don't think the Senate erred. The thing he lied about was inconsequential -just because he had sex with Lewinsky does not mean that the Jones allegations were more likely to be true. But if he came clean about that inconsequential thing, the public perception would be that the Paula Jones allegations were more likely to be true -that's certainly the case that was being made. I can understand why he would lie about something minor in that case and I can't really hold it against him. Because I'm human, I guess, I can empathize with his no-win situation. But if I were Clinton, I probably would have stepped down voluntarily rather than have all that hashed out in public.

In Kavanaugh's case, he's in a similar no-win situation. If he comes clean about his drinking and what those yearbook things meant, it's going to create a perception that it's more likely he he committed sexual assault -which, IMHO, is as unfair as connecting the Lewinsky affair to a likelihood that Clinton assaulted Jones. So, I can similarly empathize with K's situation.

Still, because of the current political situation, I know what I would do were I in a position to make that decision; I would pull K's name from consideration. He did not acquit himself well in his testimony and that reflects badly on me for nominating him in the first place.
 
Meadmaker said:
Dang. I hate it when that happens. Either I'm an idiot, or a politically motivated operative. I've never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, and I've only once voted for a Republican senate candidate, and once for a Republican representative. Things aren't looking good on the "politically motivated front".
....
Click to expand...

I guess we have our answer, then.
 
Meadmaker said:
Whatever voters think the issue is.
Click to expand...

Bob001 said:
Actually, that is precisely not the issue, since voters don't have anything to say about federal judicial appointments. We can only hope that the Senate will not allow a brutal ideologue to sit on the Supreme Court. And it looks like we will be wrong.
Click to expand...

There's a point so many people are missing. Whatever it is that you think is incredibly important might not be the thing that others think is incredibly important.

The Senate will almost certainly allow an ideologue onto the court. The only question is whether the name of that ideologue will be Brett, Amy, or something else.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Indeed. And the American Bar Association hasn't got any experience with that at all.

I wonder why they even bother getting out of bed in the morning, knowing that you're posting on an internet forum and so are making them redundant with your expert opinions and greater knowledge of the law.
Click to expand...

Squeegee Beckenheim said:
But what do they know, eh?
Click to expand...

that is amazing! The quote you were relying on was from the year 2006.

It is not 2006 it is 2018. The problem aint the ABA it is the people who don't know what year it is.

Just shock and awe type stuff right there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom