New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Ziggurat]

I think this is great news. These new allegations will make Judge Rapist's life in the DC area (a very blue region) even more difficult. His school age daughters will have to hear about how they can't have sleepovers because parents rightly don't want their children to be raped. The can probably count on someone asking to be reseated if they are too close to the judge with wife and family when they eat out. In short, there is nowhere for judge rapist to go from here and he has the rest of his lifetime to be the guy who gets drunk and assaults women and wears a robe at work.

There's a good possibility that he will face the choice of leave the bench or get divorced. These new allegations may prove to be a true gift to the nation and those still loyal to it.

These new allegations exploded on launch. You’ve got to be deep, deep in denial to think that something this pathetic is going to move the needle against Kavanaugh.

 

[Minoosh]

I don't think this is true. The House impeached Clinton without the Senate approving it, unless I'm severely mistaken. Which I obviously have been before.

You're not mistaken. Clinton was impeached. Obviously not removed from office. I tend to agree that a House vote to impeach would be futile but I think the more important issue is that it might also be counterproductive.

The House could impeach Kavanaugh but it would be pointless at best without a big ol' smoking gun and even with that the Senate might not vote to remove him from office.

A lot of people share your frustration with the Trump situation but I understand why Pelosi doesn't want to go forward.

 

[a_unique_person]

Small problem with that story. Mollie Hemingway is reporting that the book this story is based on claims that the alleged victim has no memory of the event.

https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1173203831397801984

No doubt those who wish to condemn Kavanaugh will just conclude she forgot it, but it's undeniably journalistic malpractice to not report that rather important fact.

She was drunk and may not remember it. That doesn't mean the witness is lying either.

 

[theprestige]

She was drunk and Matt not remember it. That doesn't mean the witness is lying either.

People were drunk.

Tell us more about how you believe drunken recollections.

 

[Brainster]

House Judiciary chair Jerrold Nadler throws cold water on the impeachment talk. They can't impeach Kavanaugh, because they're too busy


wait for it!

They're too busy impeaching Trump.

 

[a_unique_person]

People were drunk.

Tell us more about how you believe drunken recollections.

I have plenty. I didn't ever seen anyone do that though. What we have is a witness to a sexual assault. Preying on drunk women who can't remember what happened the day after is more common than you would like to think. If it would stand up in court is another matter. It does fit a pattern of behaviour that the Republican controlled Senate would not allow a full investigation to take place.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It does fit a pattern of behaviour that the Republican controlled Senate would not allow a full investigation to take place.

Correct, and this behavior continues today, with all sorts of investigations. The Republican party is not a political party at all, it is a criminal organization.

 

[Lurch]

Whether or not the book by the authors of the NYT piece indicated that the alleged victim didn't remember the alleged incident isn't "spin", or "her take", or "her interpretation". That's a very factual claim. And it's a true claim. And it undermines the entire accusation against Kavanaugh. But the authors didn't feel like including that information in their NYT piece. That's a rather remarkable omission. And yet that's the one thing you don't want to talk about. You want to talk about how Mollie Hemingway is supposedly someone we should ignore. Except when you forget that's what you said.

I haven't jumped ahead to see if anyone else has addressed this...

The authors were on O'Donnel's show this evening and stated their draft included this matter of not remembering, but it seems that the paper's Editors, in redacting the woman's name, also trimmed off this fact.

The paper's alacrity in rectifying that error speaks to *some* integrity, wouldn't you grudgingly agree? Unlike the President of the United States, who will never issue a correction, retraction or apology.

 

[Aridas]

All which is why nobody talks about the potential perjury by an executive branch official, which is the only charge of any bearing on his fitness for the Supreme Court.

To sum up my position on this... Him being chosen by the Federalist Society specifically to do things like kill Roe v. Wade and further unfetter big business had me unhappy with him from the start. The pattern of perjury part simply disqualified him for me. Him acting like a partisan hack confirmed my position. Him fairly certainly having done bad things as a young man was never of significant concern to me, but his whiny, partisan, privileged guy reaction to being asked to take any responsibility at all for his past actions was obnoxious and further confirmed that he should definitely be disqualified. That it was backed up with all those GOP shenanigans just continues to demonstrate how utterly unfit for office the current batch of GOP Senators are.

 

[uke2se]

I have never heard or read of any credible rape accusation against Kavanaugh. I would appreciate a link to some such news story.

The only rape accusation I've heard was Avenatti's gang rape ring, which was and remains quite incredible.

Christine Ford said she believed he was going to rape her while he was sexually assaulting her. Not that hard to believe.

 

[Craig4]

These new allegations exploded on launch. You’ve got to be deep, deep in denial to think that something this pathetic is going to move the needle against Kavanaugh.

The center of gravity here is his family they have to live with him here and they have to endure what he will mostly be shielded from.

 

[applecorped]

oy vey

 

[uke2se]

The center of gravity here is his family they have to live with him here and they have to endure what he will mostly be shielded from.

Yep. He needs to be ostracized in his own social circles - or at least those of his family.

 

[Minoosh]

To sum up my position on this... Him being chosen by the Federalist Society specifically to do things like kill Roe v. Wade and further unfetter big business had me unhappy with him from the start. The pattern of perjury part simply disqualified him for me. Him acting like a partisan hack confirmed my position. Him fairly certainly having done bad things as a young man was never of significant concern to me, but his whiny, partisan, privileged guy reaction to being asked to take any responsibility at all for his past actions was obnoxious and further confirmed that he should definitely be disqualified. That it was backed up with all those GOP shenanigans just continues to demonstrate how utterly unfit for office the current batch of GOP Senators are.

I know what you mean. It irked me to see him taking his case to Fox News ... IMO Supreme Court justices should be at least somewhat above the fray, not going public on a highly partisan cable news channel. He did not seem to have the temperament I expect to see on the bench. All in all I'd rather be wrong about him. Some justices do grow into their roles, turning out to be more independent than they were initially given credit for.

On the sexual allegations ... the one thing that made me question the "rapist" narrative is that despite a cluster of incidents in his teens, there was nothing to indicate that his pattern of drunken harassment had persisted through his adulthood. There were a few other things - the fluctuation in his net worth, suggesting that he had been bailed out of debt by an unidentified third party. He also IIRC tried to distance himself from the Federalist Society in a very unconvincing way, perhaps crossing the line into actually lying about his involvement. Plus, the White House redacted something like 1 million pages from documents related to Kavanaugh's work in the GWB administration. Bush himself said he would have withheld 100,000 pages and would have erred on the side of transparency. The secrecy, the determination to restrict the FBI's follow-up investigation and his own initially cautious responses to sexual misconduct queries were other red flags. At times he struck me as someone trying very hard not to perjure himself. My working theory is that he knew he might have crossed certain lines while drinking - that he knew he had blacked out in the past and for a while avoided categorical denials.

That's a lot of dots to connect, but it's enough for me to believe he shouldn't have been confirmed. But IMO at present there is not a credible case for removal. It's astonishing how difficult it is to make anything stick against Trump and his protégés. I hope their luck runs out soon because I don't think Trump is a suitable president and I have grave doubts about Kavanaugh's qualifications for the Supreme Court. I know I am primed to believe the worst about both of them, but there are just too many issues piling up to give either the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yep. He needs to be ostracized in his own social circles - or at least those of his family.

Of course. Because Republicans never deserve the benefit of the doubt. That whole principle of innocent until proven guilty? Relic of the past, get rid of it. Believe all women, even you have to believe a man and NOT the woman, or something.

But the real game here has nothing to do with guilt, or justice. The real game is to intimidate anyone from considering working for Trump. And for that, the more baseless the accusation, the better. They will go after you regardless of the truth.

 

[Belz...]

I'm running out of ideas on what the Dems can do because it constantly seems like a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" scenario. A large portion of the Dem base want them to take action, to hold the president accountable because he repeatedly seems to get away with breaking the law. We also have a portion of the base saying not to impeach, and not to investigate because it's childish.

So what the **** can they actually do? Up to this point all I hear is, "wait to vote him out". Well, what the hell? So we just allow someone to do whatever the hell they want because in today's random ass atmosphere punishing a president for blatant law violations is not the best image? However, being a massive bitch that just lets this **** happen in plain sight is somehow encouraging for voters?

I'm so ******* lost in today's political atmosphere it's just mind boggling.

Yeah, I hear you.

 

[Belz...]

I did google her. She did not appear to be anyone whose opinion was worth taking at face value.

Sorry to butt in, but isn't that true of everyone? The question is whether the facts are correct, not who utters the words.

 

[Cabbage]

Of course. Because Republicans never deserve the benefit of the doubt. That whole principle of innocent until proven guilty? Relic of the past, get rid of it. Believe all women, even you have to believe a man and NOT the woman, or something.

But the real game here has nothing to do with guilt, or justice. The real game is to intimidate anyone from considering working for Trump. And for that, the more baseless the accusation, the better. They will go after you regardless of the truth.

LOL! And yet you continue to be an apologist for a party that simply makes **** up, such as, for examples, the Benghazi "scandal", as well as the collective shenanigans of James O'Keefe and Jacob Wahl (however inept the latter may be).

Indeed, one might even conclude that you oppose the Democrats simply because they aren't dishonest enough.

 

[ahhell]

Christine Ford said she believed he was going to rape her while he was sexually assaulting her. Not that hard to believe.

So you agree there is now credible accusation of rape then? And those continuing to call him a rapist are liars.

 

[Ziggurat]

I assumed I wasn't the only one. Feel free to assume differently.

It ruins a joke to explain it (and I only intentionally do that with dad jokes), but the joke is already ruined, so here goes:

I know that, as Americans, I've never heard of circumstances like this before in politics. I could be wrong.

You identify as plural?

The point is not about whether other people feel the same way. The point is that, grammatically, you've identified "I" (singular) as being "Americans" (plural). It would be like saying "I am Americans". It's this awkward mix of singular and plural that I was making fun of, not the issue of whether your position is shared.