Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[acbytesla]

Do you really feel that Kavanaugh's confirmation is such a threat that you have to straw man any arguments in his favor?

You're pushing a standard where accusations without any evidence to support them are enough to derail a nomination. You might think that you can apply this standard to only conservative nominees, but 1) I won't have a part in that, and 2) if it works this time, it will be tried against every single nominee from now on, including liberal ones.

This is nonsense. I have no delusions that Trump would nominate a moderate. I know that he would pick another dinosaur to take liar boy's place.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is nonsense. I have no delusions that Trump would nominate a moderate. I know that he would pick another dinosaur to take liar boy's place.

That's got absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You think Trump will be president forever? You think tactics which have been demonstrated to work will be abandoned?

 

[TragicMonkey]

That's got absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You think Trump will be president forever? You think tactics which have been demonstrated to work will be abandoned?

Refusing to confirm anybody of the opposite party on that grounds alone has already worked. You think that's not going to happen every time the president's party isn't the majority?

And whether K gets confirmed or not, do you imagine Republicans won't at least attempt the same thing with a Democrat prospect? Assuming there ever is a hearing for one.

 

[johnny karate]

That's got absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You think Trump will be president forever? You think tactics which have been demonstrated to work will be abandoned?

One quick and easy remedy is to investigate and prosecute all these alleged cases of perjury.

Strange that the Republicans aren’t expressing much of a desire for that course of action…

 

[Ziggurat]

Refusing to confirm anybody of the opposite party on that grounds alone has already worked. You think that's not going to happen every time the president's party isn't the majority?

No, I don't think that. Sotomayor got 9 Republican votes, Kagan got 5 Republican votes. Garland sets a pretty limited precedent.

But if accusations without evidence suffice, then the process isn't controlled by the majority anymore. It will be hijacked by radicals.

 

[Belz...]

No, I don't think that. Sotomayor got 9 Republican votes, Kagan got 5 Republican votes. Garland sets a pretty limited precedent.

But if accusations with evidence suffice, then the process isn't controlled by the majority anymore. It will be hijacked by radicals.

I assume you meant 'without'.

 

[acbytesla]

That's got absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You think Trump will be president forever? You think tactics which have been demonstrated to work will be abandoned?

Of course it does. You're questioning our motives for opposing whiney liar boy. As if we don't know that Trump has 2 more years left in his term and there is a full 3 months with the present Senate to push through the nomination through if they are concerned about the mid terms.

 

[Delvo]

Yes, The PDJT was very clear on that point in his sickening rally speech tonight.

The one where he set a new record for number of lies per minute?

* * *

Skimming over much of the last couple of pages that have gone by since my last look here, I see that the desperation of the deplorables has propelled them way past "reasonable doubt" and into "preposterously contrived pseudo-doubt". Just the amount of mental work & contortion this is requiring should have been a red flag by now even to themselves.

 

[Segnosaur]

You're pushing a standard where accusations without any evidence to support them are enough to derail a nomination.

Except of course there is evidence to support the allegations. You may not think its enough to (for example) convict in a court of law. But that doesn't mean that evidence does not exist.

You might think that you can apply this standard to only conservative nominees, but 1) I won't have a part in that, and 2) if it works this time, it will be tried against every single nominee from now on, including liberal ones.

And you forgot to mention 3) rapists deserve to be on the supreme court. (You didn't say so explicitly but I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh supporters believe that.)

Strangely enough, even though the nomination of Gorsuch was extremely unpopular among Democrats and others on the political left (and I think Gorsuch even went to the same prep school, so they had similar upbringings), no such accusations of sexual improprieties occurred with him. Why do you think that is?

Do you think it just didn't occur to anyone on the left to make such an unfounded accusation against Gorsuch? Or do you accept the more likely explanation that Kavanaugh probably did do the things he was accused of.

 

[Stacyhs]

The one where he set a new record for number of lies per minute?

* * *

Skimming over much of the last couple of pages that have gone by since my last look here, I see that the desperation of the deplorables has propelled them way past "reasonable doubt" and into "preposterously contrived pseudo-doubt". Just the amount of mental work & contortion this is requiring should have been a red flag by now even to themselves.

I had the same reaction after not reading the thread for about 24 hrs. The desperation to find an excuse, any excuse, for Kav's lying about those terms struck me as being embarrassingly ridiculous.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you forgot to mention 3) rapists deserve to be on the supreme court. (You didn't say so explicitly but I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh supporters believe that.)

Kavanaugh wasn't accused of rape by Ford. And most of his supporters think he didn't rape or sexually assault anyone. You can think they are wrong, and you can even think they are wrong because of partisan bias, but it's simply not a serious accusation to say they want a rapist on the Supreme Court, anymore than you can say Democrats want rapists in the White House.

Strangely enough, even though the nomination of Gorsuch was extremely unpopular among Democrats and others on the political left (and I think Gorsuch even went to the same prep school, so they had similar upbringings), no such accusations of sexual improprieties occurred with him. Why do you think that is?

Because he was still a Democratic nominee, not a Republican one, and because that sort of personal attack has so far been a tool of the left, not the right. You can expect that to change if this attack on Kavanaugh succeeds.

Do you think it just didn't occur to anyone on the left to make such an unfounded accusation against Gorsuch?

Obviously. Because he's a liberal.

Or do you accept the more likely explanation that Kavanaugh probably did do the things he was accused of.

That's not more likely.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's a complex question that I don't have a simple answer to.

To which I don't have a simple answer.

The best way I can think to put it right now is, nobody sounds like Martin Sheen written by Aaron Sorkin, when they're answering questions from hostile senators farming partisan gotchas. It's not a spectacle I enjoy watching, and it's not a criteria I generally apply.

The bar isn't that high. It is disingenuous to pretend that we are asking too much of a seasoned lawyer and judge to be able to testify honestly without losing his cool.

 

[Lurch]

A side note: It's not "FFFF", but "FFFFF". The middle "F" is "Finger" (aptly positioned, one might say. )

Seeing the devout defenders of BK flail and flap in the wind evokes from me a bit of concern for them. Like all defenders of the indefensible, they wallow in minutiae, striving to rationalize in isolation every tidbit they feel buttresses their belief. Like arguing incessantly about the meaning of a word. While the rest of us have long since broadened our view to take in the full picture and synthesize a holistic assessment. You know, considering together those seemingly minor elements and arriving at a larger truth.

Any sentient being that has the capacity to figuratively step back and survey the wider scene cannot but find that Kav is *demonstrably* (as in, he has himself demonstrated himself to be) unfit for the SC, and arguably for his current position.

The lesson reinforced for me in this whole business is the potency for partisanship to blind us. I know that to some degree I am partisan, like all people for it is in our very nature. But I hope never to be so blinded that it should lead me to froth for a win whose net result is a loss for society.

 

[Belz...]

Obviously. Because he's a liberal.

Who's a liberal? Gorsuch?

 

[wareyin]

Strangely enough, even though the nomination of Gorsuch was extremely unpopular among Democrats and others on the political left (and I think Gorsuch even went to the same prep school, so they had similar upbringings), no such accusations of sexual improprieties occurred with him. Why do you think that is?

Because he was still a Democratic nominee, not a Republican one, and because that sort of personal attack has so far been a tool of the left, not the right. You can expect that to change if this attack on Kavanaugh succeeds.

Hold up. Neil Gorsuch was a Democratic nominee and not a Republican one? You did know Trump nominated him, right?

 

[acbytesla]

Obviously. Because he's a liberal.

Who's a liberal? Gorsuch?

For some reason I think he's thinking Garland not Gorsuch.

 

[Belz...]

That crossed my mind as well but I want to make sure.



Garland, of course, never made it to hearings.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

n

One quick and easy remedy is to investigate and prosecute all these alleged cases of perjury.

Trial lawyers have an old saying, you never ask a question on cross examination to which you don't already know the answer.

Rachel Mitchell: "Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?"

Dr. Ford: "Never."​

In other news: Ex-boyfriend says Dr. Ford coached friend for polygraph, had no fear of flying.

 

[Belz...]

Breitbart, really?

 

[Elagabalus]

n


Trial lawyers have an old saying, you never ask a question on cross examination to which you don't already know the answer.

Rachel Mitchell: "Have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?"

Dr. Ford: "Never."​

In other news: Ex-boyfriend says Dr. Ford coached friend for polygraph, had no fear of flying.

Breitbart? Sounds legit.


Dah! Ninja'd by Belz! Again!