• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Ziggurat said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...

You're just being a singleist. If he wants to self identify as plural, they have every right to.
 
Mike! said:
You're just being a singleist. If he wants to self identify as plural, they have every right to.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise! Hell, he can identify as infinite, if he wants. But only aleph-zero. Claiming to be aleph-one is a bridge too far, I draw the line there.
 
Ziggurat said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...


Hey, I'm good people!
 
Ziggurat said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...

I've come to the realization that explaining jokes is what makes them funny. The resulting forced chuckle after my obscure reference and long explanation makes it all worthwhile!
 
In this whole kakapoo show, it hardly matters anymore about K himself. The entire confirmation process has a gigantic question -- nay, exclamation -- mark hanging over it.

In the supplementary FBI investigation, the WH imposed a time limit (!). And that only 4 people be interviewed. More than a score of witnesses were ready to talk, some actually contacting the FBI to do so. But they were ignored. In every way was this 'investigation' a travesty of the process of getting to the facts, as otherwise practiced by the FBI, and any other halfway competent investigative body.

What vast quantity of documents concerning K were not provided the nomination committee? How quick and rushed the pace of this ramming through of a Justice? How slim the margin in the vote?

All matters that cry out for a full re-examination of the entire thing. A lifetime appointment to such a staggeringly momentous position *must* be conducted with every care that the nation can have confidence in both the process and the Court. No one can now say that there is no cloud of contention hanging over the SC.

To let this stand can only further erode the confidence of the populace, which already is frightfully low, and further widen the divide between an already too-wide polity. The GOP appears to care not for the morrow, in the sense that the victory of today is to be won at all cost. Their piercing focus on their narrow goals blinds them to the eventual rack and ruin to come because of their tyranny by the minority. One day they will wake up to a fascist state, and *then* they'll see just how far below the Statist elite will the freedoms extend. The 2A? Ha!
 
Lurch said:
What vast quantity of documents concerning K were not provided the nomination committee? How quick and rushed the pace of this ramming through of a Justice? How slim the margin in the vote?

All matters that cry out for a full re-examination of the entire thing. A lifetime appointment to such a staggeringly momentous position *must* be conducted with every care that the nation can have confidence in both the process and the Court. No one can now say that there is no cloud of contention hanging over the SC.
Click to expand...

There's always contention about the SC.

What you're proposing is a system where any candidate can be preemptively disqualified by any manufactured controversy. That seems like a bad way to do things.
 
CBS News notes something that the Times missed out on highlighting in its article: that people were pressuring a woman to change her story:

We report tonight the real bombshell: Christine Ford’s close HS friend (who Ford says was at the party when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her) said Ford’s story is not believable and told the FBI Ford’s allies pressured her, threatened her with a smear campaign to say otherwise.
Click to expand...

Isn't there a term for that? Witness tampering? But it doesn't matter because it was in service to a higher truth.
 
Brainster said:
CBS News notes something that the Times missed out on highlighting in its article: that people were pressuring a woman to change her story:



Isn't there a term for that? Witness tampering? But it doesn't matter because it was in service to a higher truth.
Click to expand...

So it's a he said\she said and it appears only one f these people, the one mentioned in that article, have changed their story. Ford has been consistent from the get-go.
 
theprestige said:
There's always contention about the SC.

What you're proposing is a system where any candidate can be preemptively disqualified by any manufactured controversy. That seems like a bad way to do things.
Click to expand...

Cannot a *manufactured* controversy be so unveiled? Are you suggesting that lies are undiscoverable? Where controversy exists, should not due diligence to uncovering truth be permitted?

Or are you comfortable with a rushed process that explicitly restricts against the discovery of facts?

From among the hundreds of potential judicial candidates, *must* the first nominated be the one rammed through, come hell or high water? Is there never even a single judge who is deemed suitable enough to both parties, who can inspire a majority of the Senate to vote him or her onto the bench?

What has become painfully obvious is that the judicial nomination process has become horribly tainted by politics. Judges and the judiciary are now become an extension of the political Parties. No longer is an eschewing of political bias a desirable characteristic of one who would make legal judgements and interpretations. Indeed, the pols want to choose from among their own avowed adherents. To what a low and sorry state the US has fallen. Really, these are the antics of banana republics and proto-fascist states.

Be careful of what you wish for. Getting partisan hacks that are compliant Party operatives into the judiciary might provide momentary schadenfreude today. But as history has shown time and again, where such skullduggery ends is typically in a vale of tears. As Kavanaugh himself almost prophetically said, but for a different, personal reason; you will reap the whirlwind.
 
Brainster said:
CBS News notes something that the Times missed out on highlighting in its article: that people were pressuring a woman to change her story:



Isn't there a term for that? Witness tampering? But it doesn't matter because it was in service to a higher truth.
Click to expand...

If indeed such pressure were brought to bear on someone to falsely bear witness, then I say throw the book at such a scoundrel. I like to think at least most folk of a similarly liberal temperament would desire likewise. You see, unlike the trend exhibited by too many Rightists, whereby dirty tricks in the service of their cause is fair game, progressives are more likely to apply equality of principle to their team as well as to the opposition. See All Franken for one example.
 
plague311 said:
So it's a he said\she said and it appears only one f these people, the one mentioned in that article, have changed their story. Ford has been consistent from the get-go.
Click to expand...

How did Leland Keyser's story change? The only thing I see that changed is that it's now publicly reported that she was pressured by Ford's supporters to change her story. But she told that to the FBI at the time, and I see no indication that she did change her story.

There is a classmate of Ford's who has changed her story, though, but it was Cristina King Miranda, who initially claimed she heard about the alleged attack at the time, but has since backed off that claim.

And no, actually, Ford hasn't been consistent from the get-go. She told her therapist the attack happened in the mid-80's when she was in her late teens, but changed that to the summer of 1982 when she was 15 for her Senate testimony. She has also been inconsistent about the number of people at the party, its location, and the layout of the house. And her account of why she went to a therapist to begin with conflict with records of her house improvements.
 
Lurch said:
Cannot a *manufactured* controversy be so unveiled?
Click to expand...

When the accusations are sufficiently vague, no, they cannot.

Are you suggesting that lies are undiscoverable?
Click to expand...

Often times, yes.

Is there never even a single judge who is deemed suitable enough to both parties, who can inspire a majority of the Senate to vote him or her onto the bench?
Click to expand...

Not anymore.

Be careful of what you wish for. Getting partisan hacks that are compliant Party operatives into the judiciary might provide momentary schadenfreude today. But as history has shown time and again, where such skullduggery ends is typically in a vale of tears. As Kavanaugh himself almost prophetically said, but for a different, personal reason; you will reap the whirlwind.
Click to expand...

Guess which party nominates judges who vote most in lockstep with each other on issues? Go on, I'll give you two tries.
 
Ziggurat said:
How did Leland Keyser's story change? The only thing I see that changed is that it's now publicly reported that she was pressured by Ford's supporters to change her story. But she told that to the FBI at the time, and I see no indication that she did change her story.

There is a classmate of Ford's who has changed her story, though, but it was Cristina King Miranda, who initially claimed she heard about the alleged attack at the time, but has since backed off that claim.

And no, actually, Ford hasn't been consistent from the get-go. She told her therapist the attack happened in the mid-80's when she was in her late teens, but changed that to the summer of 1982 when she was 15 for her Senate testimony. She has also been inconsistent about the number of people at the party, its location, and the layout of the house. And her account of why she went to a therapist to begin with conflict with records of her house improvements.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say Zigg. I'll just let what's posted speak for itself.
 
Ziggurat said:
And no, actually, Ford hasn't been consistent from the get-go. She told her therapist the attack happened in the mid-80's when she was in her late teens, but changed that to the summer of 1982 when she was 15 for her Senate testimony. She has also been inconsistent about the number of people at the party, its location, and the layout of the house. And her account of why she went to a therapist to begin with conflict with records of her house improvements.
Click to expand...

Still more believable than Drunky McRapeface's evasive DARVO-rama...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom