New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Cavemonster said:
I have noticed an interesting tactic.

Certain folks, particularly on the right wing, when confronted with testimony or facts that are actually quite damaging to a position they hold will respond with "Nobody cares about that".

For one thing, it's quite clearly a false statement. Without devolving to the deepest chambers of equivocation you can't torture the words to resemble truth. It is especially absurd because it is almost always said in the context of people who DO care about that fact discussing it. So "No one" must be some very bizarre hyperbolic construction to even approach having any meaning whatsoever.

Although when confronted, they tend to pretend that they meant some more particular group doesn't care and that the designation is somehow obvious. But even then either the group in question is not particularly relevant or their not caring is not particularly evidenced or a reasonable thing to infer.

But of course, all this sidesteps the issue that whether any particular group cares about a fact is not a measure in any way of whether that fact is true and what that truth tells us about the larger issue it relates to.

"Nobody cares about X" is just this massive ball of combined fallacies that people (At this moment in history supporters of the current GOP in the executive and legislative branches) throw at things in lieu of any meaningful response or argument. An attempt at dismissal with nothing resembling any reasonable grounds.

It is like a bright red flag proclaiming "I don't give a flying **** about what's true".
Click to expand...

Stormy Daniels was a nothing burger that was never going to see the light of day after the arbitration clause was enforced. Nobody cares about that.
 
The Big Dog said:
Go ahead and believe Chad, he sounds like a fun drinking buddy.
Click to expand...

And yet Brett really doesn't.

Why isn't there anyone saying they went out with Brett and got sloshed and it was all pretty fun, they really liked hanging out with the guy?
 
Mitch McConnell says Senate will vote on Kavanaugh this week

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the time for “delay and obstruction” durning the Brett Kavanaugh conformation process has come to a close.

On the Senate floor, he said, “we will be voting this week."
Click to expand...

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...ion-oct-18/h_e882161d1734bec58b7e04a996ce5dd5

Sad part is we could have voted last week, vote now, vote next week, next month, or next year and within a metaphysical certainty it will still be along party lines.

As angry as this whole thing as made me, I'm angrier about how little it matters.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Did anyone witness my client committing a crime?"
"I did!"
"Well we can't believe you, you associate with known criminals!"
Click to expand...

Did anyone witness my client committing a crime?"
Chad; "I did!"
"Well what did he do?"
Chad; "he refused to defuse a situation and my friend ended up getting arrested!"
"brett got arrested?"
Chad: "No, someone else!"
"thanks "Chad""
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...
True.

And not necessarily ideal, but not necessarily inconsistent with the founding principles. Maybe not was intended, but not inconsistent. And maybe it was intended, I suppose, that the president and Senate majority could select partisan folk. Not sure about that.
 
Dr. Keith said:
And yet Brett really doesn't.

Why isn't there anyone saying they went out with Brett and got sloshed and it was all pretty fun, they really liked hanging out with the guy?
Click to expand...
Um, not quite the point, surely.
 
In the days leading up to a public allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to a college classmate, the judge and his team were communicating behind the scenes with friends to refute the claim, according to text messages obtained by NBC News.

Kerry Berchem, who was at Yale with both Kavanaugh and his accuser, Deborah Ramirez, has attempted to get those messages to the FBI for its newly reopened investigation into the matter but says she has yet to be contacted by the bureau.

The texts between Berchem and Karen Yarasavage, both friends of Kavanaugh, suggest that the nominee was personally talking with former classmates about Ramirez’s story in advance of the New Yorker article that made her allegation public. In one message, Yarasavage said Kavanaugh asked her to go on the record in his defense. Two other messages show communication between Kavanaugh's team and former classmates in advance of the story.

...

In a series of texts prior to the publication of the New Yorker story, Yarasavage wrote that she had been in contact with “Brett's guy,” and also with “Brett,” who wanted her to go on the record to refute Ramirez. According to Berchem, Yarasavage also told her friend that she turned over a copy of the wedding party photo to Kavanaugh, writing in a text message: “I had to send it to Brett’s team too.”

Bob Bauer, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, said "It would be surprising, and it would certainly be highly imprudent, if at any point Judge Kavanaugh directly contacted an individual believed to have information about allegations like this. A nominee would normally have been counseled to leave to his legal and nominations team the job of following up on any questions arising from press reports or otherwise, and doing so appropriately."

Further, the texts show Kavanaugh may need to be questioned about how far back he anticipated Ramirez would air allegations against him. Berchem says, in her memo, that Kavanaugh “and/or” his friends “may have initiated an anticipatory narrative” as early as July to “conceal or discredit” Ramirez.

Kavanaugh told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that the first time he heard of his former Yale classmate Deborah Ramirez’s allegation that he exposed himself to her in college was in a Sept. 23 article in The New Yorker.

Kavanaugh was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, when he first heard of Ramirez’s allegations. Kavanaugh answered: “In the New Yorker story.”
Click to expand...

Linky.

So he knew about the story in advance and lied about under oath. And the Republicans saw this evidence and tried to cover it up.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Linky.

So he knew about the story in advance and lied about under oath. And the Republicans saw this evidence and tried to cover it up.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep focusing on the past?

And wouldn't this just be a process crime?

Where is the collusion . . . wait, wrong thread. Sorry.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Linky.

So he knew about the story in advance and lied about under oath. And the Republicans saw this evidence and tried to cover it up.
Click to expand...

As far as the claim that he heard about it on the 23rd, he is actually quoted in the article denying the claim. In light of that, it appears that his testimony should be interpreted to mean that he learned about it since the New Yorker began asking him about it.

the testimony:

HATCH: Did the ranking member raise them at the closed session that followed the public hearing?

KAVANAUGH: She was not there.

HATCH: Did the ranking member or any of her colleagues raise them in the 1,300 written questions that were submitted to you following the hearing?

KAVANAUGH: No.

HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or her staff asked you about these allegations?

KAVANAUGH: Today.

HATCH: When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.
Click to expand...

Did he say that he learned them on the 23rd? Of course not. He learned them since answering the written questions and in connection with the New Yorker story that he was asked to and did provide a comment for.

As far as a cover up, getting witnesses to come forward with contrary evidence is not a cover up.
 
Last edited:
I'm really not concerned with the accusation. I'm interested in whether Kavanaugh perjured himself. And it's obvious that he did. That alone is enough to merit moving on to the next candidate.

Boofing is not farting.
Devil's Triangle is not a drinking game.

Out of curiosity, who's next on the GOP list?
 
acbytesla said:
I'm really not concerned with the accusation. I'm interested in whether Kavanaugh perjured himself. And it's obvious that he did. That alone is enough to merit moving on to the next candidate.

Boofing is not farting.
Click to expand...


Forget about the baseless accusation -- no one believes that far-fetched story anyway. Instead, let's concentrate on the meaning of "boofing."

Yep, keep moving those goal-posts -- if you don't, it's game over.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
This is the most baffling aspect to this. Who was he playing to? His wife was clearly not on board. Any of his colleagues would have told them to follow the outline you and others have posted. Why would he stray from that? Who did he need to impress? Was it Trump?
Click to expand...
Or was it just what he actually believes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom