New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

River said:
Remember that when you get a taste of it in return.

View attachment 39020
Click to expand...

How could it be worse than the crap that the Republicans do to us anyway? You keep pretending that they didn't pursue Bill Clinton and Whitewater for 3 years and settled on a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky. Or the 2 years of investigations into Ben Ghazzi and a year of investigations into Hillary's use of an email server and lets not forget the entire year where the Republicans wouldn't hold a single hearing for Merrick Garland.

Yeah, right. You keep pretending that they don't Gerrymander elections and purge voter rolls etc.

I figure, any time the Republicans feel they can **** us and get away with it, we should prepare to get ******.
 
acbytesla said:
How could it be worse than the crap that the Republicans do to us anyway?
Click to expand...

Exactly. They keep insisting on Democrats to play fair, be civilized, be nice...etc. They are outright cheating, breaking laws, insulting everyone, and loving it when Democrats keep playing fair.
 
River said:
The Senators can't make up their mind about the testimony? Isn't that why it was given? I thought we were supposed to investigate something, not have them review terms used during the testimony.

Be more specific on "All the stuff about drinking activity"

What questions would you like answered about drinking activity.
Click to expand...

I won't be more specific because it is clear from your post that you understood my post. The opinions of senators simply don't matter to me. Yes, I do desire they review terms used during the testimony.
 
We know we can't hold the Senate to our standards.

But I expect the Senate to uphold its own standards - something Republicans consistently fail to do.
 
Meadmaker said:
On to that, "It tells us that he could have forgotten sexual assault" thing.

No. Just no. Let me illustrate. I was a binge drinker who had some blackouts. Here's the thing. I didn't actually have "a history of blackouts" as such. I had a few isolated incidents. During that time when I had the blackouts, some girls in our town were raped. Could I have possibly been the rapist? Maybe I raped those girls when I was blacked out?

Uhhh…..no. I knew where I was on the night of those blackouts. One of them occurred on November 9, 1979. I was in a trailer celebrating the "unofficial" cast party after the school play. By the time I reached blackout stage, there were three girls present. None of them were the girls that were raped, and the rapes did not occur in that part of town.

But wait. Maybe they just didn't report it. Maybe I assaulted one of them that night. Hmmm......there's absolutely no way that I could be sure, is there? Of course, I know the names of everyone who was in that trailer at the time. Maybe that could help? Surely one of them would have seen me and the victim go off together? If I gave the names of the others at the party, and none of them said there was anything suspicious? They all said they poured me into the spare bedroom, alone, and let me sleep it off for at least a couple of hours before attempting to sneak me back into my house? (Unsuccessfully) Well....what if they all said that whoever was accusing me wasn't even present? No, huh?

Just because I, or Kavanaugh, had a few blackouts doesn't mean that anything and everything that happened during those years might have happened during a time that I was blacked out. That's absurd.

If you could put Christine Blasey and Brett Kavanaugh at the same party, you'd have someplace to start, but "He blacked out at least once in his life, so he might not remember sexually assaulting someone during the summer of 1982." That's not really convincing.


ETA: And I realize I've fallen for a trap myself here. There's very close to zero evidence that Brett Kavanaugh ever experienced a blackout. There's just, "That guy drank a whole bunch. Surely there must have been at least one blackout." And there's one statement that could have possibly referred to a blackout on a bus trip that occurred at least four years after the most recent alleged assault.
Click to expand...

Bro, no one to my knowledge is accusing you of rape or attempted rape, and while I congratulate you on being able to provide alibis, your alibis don't mean squat with respect to any accusations placed against Kavanaugh.

The fact that you got so defensive, however, implies to me that you at least are beginning to understand the relevance of questioning Kavanaugh about black outs.

I never implied, "Just because I, or Kavanaugh, had a few blackouts doesn't mean that anything and everything that happened during those years might have happened during a time that I was blacked out. That's absurd."

...or even anything approaching that, but I congratulate you on your strawman argument attempt.

I simply maintain that it leaves doubt on how accurate the memory of the accused really is.

As well, the fact that, to me and many others, Kavanaugh came off as being evasive on this point is telling.

An honest person that truly believed his own innocence would openly admit blackout episodes, if they existed, in an open, honest effort to get to the bottom of the matter.

And I truly believe he's had many.
 
River said:
Because Ford said in her testimony she was not informed the committee offered to travel to her and take a statement from her privately in order to keep her confidentiality.
Click to expand...

That would have suited the Republicans nicely, wouldn't it. No cameras pointed at her when she gave her testimony, no public record of what she said. Just a postscript somewhere on page 193 of the committee report "no evidence was presented .....blah blah........"
 
sylvan8798 said:
The Religious Right has high hopes for what a conservative majority court might do. They have been working for decades to make this happen. In an ideal world, Kavanaugh and the rest of the conservative judges would disappoint them mightily. I'm not optimistic on that count. I guess we will find out soon enough.
Click to expand...
It's a bait-and-switch. There already has been a conservative majority that is far more interested in protecting corporations than fetuses.
 
I know the bar is very low for Trump, and this is what we expect, but I'm going to post this again because it is so awful:

President Donald Trump for the first time directly mocked Christine Blasey Ford's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by casting doubt on her testimony during a campaign rally.

Before the crowd Tuesday night in Southaven, Mississippi, Trump imitated Ford during her testimony, mocking her for not knowing the answers to questions such as how she had gotten to the high school party where she says Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.

"I had one beer. Well, do you think it was -- nope, it was one beer," Trump said, mimicking Ford's testimony last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"How did you get home? I don't remember. How'd you get there? I don't remember. Where is the place? I don't remember. How many years ago was it? I don't know."

Trump's comments were met with laughter and applause from the crowd. "I don't know. I don't know," the President continued. "What neighborhood was it in? I don't know. Where's the house? I don't know. Upstairs, downstairs -- where was it? I don't know -- but I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember."

...

He called Democrats who are against Kavanaugh "evil people" who want to "destroy people."

He reiterated his earlier claims Tuesday that nowadays you are "guilty until proven innocent," and stepped up his line of argument that men are under attack in America, without mentioning survivors of sexual assault.

"Think of your son. Think of your husband," Trump told the rally, noting he has had "many false allegations" against him.

He launched into a hypothetical riff about a young man who got a job at IBM or General Motors but is falsely accused of sexual assault. "What do I do, Mom? What do I do, Mom?" Trump said, role-playing a conversation between a son and mother.

"It's a damn sad situation, OK? And we better start as a country getting smart and getting tough."
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Probably more than half of those Senators have their own drinking problems.
Click to expand...
I partied with some federal judges at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Conference ... they were a fun bunch. (But the 9th Circuit may be an outlier.)

In my 20s, Mom & Dad invited me to go along, once in the Grand Tetons, once on Coronado Island. Maybe they thought I could meet a nice judge. A Supreme Court justice told me an ethnic joke, but Dad promised to kill me if I said that on the record. Afterwards I kept an eye on his civil-rights record, but he did OK.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
I know the bar is very low for Trump, and this is what we expect, but I'm going to post this again because it is so awful:
Click to expand...
What a ******* *******.

That's 7 asterisks in each word. Want to buy a vowel?

ETA: I think that will lose him some women. Even in the deep South.
 
Last edited:
Elagabalus said:
No, No, No! Don't ever get drunk enough to blackout. There's a subtle difference there.
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're serious, but there is a definite difference and it's not at all subtle. The pass-out drunk is out of circulation; the blackout sort may be driving drunk, getting into fights or doing things out of character.

Of course it doesn't mean that every time you black out, you do horrible things. But it does mean you don't remember what you did, even if you were seemingly awake and functioning somewhat normally. I'm fairly certain it's a genetic tendency. Today I heard from a man who blacked out the very first time he drank, at age 13. He didn't remember how he got home, etc. I think the tendency to black out may be genetic, an early sign that you process alcohol differently than what your friends typically experience.
 
The Big Dog said:
why don't y'all research it? The dems were so confident that Hilldawg was going to get the Presidency they let themselves get played.
Click to expand...

And?
How the hell is that relevant to the fact that apparently it was OK to delay back in 2016 because "reasons", and yet now everything is such a hurry?

The Republicans happily delayed on Garland...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom