New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Lurch]

Name someone in this thread who thought Moore sexually assaulted a teen girl and still supported him.

I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.

 

[luchog]

I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.

Seriously, do we really need to dig those "Better a paedophile than a Democrat/Liberal" tweets for those who insist on crawling under rocks everything something that challenges their worldview comes into view? Some people apparently have the memory the length of a gnat's fart.

 

[Aridas]

If anyone prevented a full investigation it was Diane Fienstein, who appears to have sat on the accusation for weeks until days before the confirmation, someone in her staff decided to reveal the accusation publicly. I'm curious as to why she didn't want a full investigation.

IIRC, Feinstein was given the information in confidence and did what she could to uphold that confidence. Also, there's a good chance that it was not someone on her staff who leaked such to the press. It wouldn't have been about not wanting a full investigation so much as... Meh. I'm just going to invoke a link.

Feinstein hits back at GOP: I didn’t leak Ford letter

Feinstein has repeatedly denied that she or her staff leaked the letter from Christine Blasey Ford. Republicans have also knocked Feinstein for not immediately sharing the letter with other senators once she got it, something Feinstein says she did to protect Ford’s privacy.

“I honored Dr. Blasey Ford’s request for confidentiality. It was only when reporters were knocking on her door that I referred the letter to the FBI. At no point did I or anyone on my staff divulge Dr. Blasey Ford’s name to press. She knows that and believes it, for which I’m grateful,” Feinstein added.

The Intercept first reported on the existence of the letter on Sept. 12 and has denied that Feinstein provided it.

The next day, Sept. 13, Democrats announced they had referred the letter to the FBI.

Feinstein added on Monday that the timeline around the letter is “clear.”

“The New Yorker published details on September 14, and Dr. Blasey Ford went public in The Washington Post on September 16. It wasn’t until September 17 that someone with access to the redacted version of the letter read it to CNN, where it was published online,” Feinstein added.

So, in short, by the look of it, Ford told her senator her story in confidence to give firm reason for her senator to vote against Kavanaugh, and because of the actions of others, it became public and her life and the lives of her family were thrown into turmoil. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Feinstein did nothing wrong in attempting to respect Ford's request.

Further, I think that Kavanaugh's perjury and demonstrated partisanship with regards to stolen Democratic Party documents was already plenty disqualifying before then.

In other Kavanaugh news...

New York Times reporters reveal Brett Kavanaugh asked them to lie in upcoming book.

A "small" lie, but still a lie.

 

[Ziggurat]

I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.

Then the accusation is not relevant here, since his post was about engaging in debate in this thread, not with the “larger constituency”. Furthermore, such generic broad accusations are pointless in general except as a way to signal tribal loyalty.

 

[Cabbage]

Then the accusation is not relevant here, since his post was about engaging in debate in this thread, not with the “larger constituency”. Furthermore, such generic broad accusations are pointless in general except as a way to signal tribal loyalty.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Belz...]

Let's take the one you scoff at: Boof. You say people won't care about that. Sorry, but that is not for you to judge (yet another past example of your disingenuity).

To the contrary, I claim he had a clear motive for lying: Under the accusation of perpetrating a sexual assault in high school, he was attempting to paint a picture of himself as being an innocent virgin child who liked to have a few beers now and then. In order to do so he had to pretend ignorance or even lie about references to promiscuous behavior (such as "boof" and "devil's triangle" to protect his image against the accusation.

Indeed, his own friends from high school have told us precisely what those words meant to their circle of friends back then.

And yet you scoff and dismiss. Why? What justification do you have? Don't give me this nonsense that there's evidence of "boof" being used to mean fart. His own friends have told us their meaning. You, Zig, are the one "bending over backwards" to make excuses for Kavanaugh.

I want you to address this.

Zig?

 

[xjx388]

Ya know, I do have a life outside this forum. But maybe you should change your approach if you don't want to feel ghosted.

Do you think the Franken and Kavanaugh events are analogous? Because I don't think they are particularly analogous: The alleged Kavanaugh offenses were much, much worse than Franken's.

They are somewhat analogous: Uncorroborated allegations of sexual misconduct from years ago with no supporting evidence which are then used to attack a politician.

Does it matter? I mean, we're just talking about my opinion here; I have no power to effect the world with my opinion. I'll answer your question, though: The accusations against Kavanaugh are far more severe and the main witness against him seemed to me to be significantly more credible than Franken's accusers.

Why are they more credible? The lady whose butt he allegedly grabbed seems pretty credible. The other accounts are too even if you dismiss Tweeden. But I do agree the accusations were more severe. Where I differ is that mere allegations, regardless of severity, shouldn't warrant much when there is no possibility of getting corroborating evidence. Franken would still be a Senator but for the pressure from his colleagues. Kavanaugh's colleagues supported him. That's the big difference here.

I don't think those accusations were of such a significant nature to warrant removing a man from his job, but I do think it's quite different in what amounts to an application for a job. A person does not have a right to a job he is applying for. It seems the wiser course would have been to choose someone without so much baggage for such an important (and intended to be non-partisan) position.

I can agree with that but I also don't have a problem with fighting the charges. As you yourself pointed out: Such accusations can be fueled by political motives.

And this is without even addressing his demeanor in the investigation, along with the perjury: Even if I was agnostic about Kavanaugh (and I am not) that was enough to disqualify him from the Supreme Court in my opinon.

In my opinion, he's human. I would probably react the same way in an extreme situation like that but it shouldn't reflect on who I am as a person.

At this link you will find an enumeration of a few instances that certainly have the potential for perjury:

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17927606/brett-kavanaugh-perjury-lied-congress

I'll include a couple here:



which is followed by this Tweet:



I find it rather difficult to believe that sexual references of that nature from a man's adolescence could be so easily forgotten in healthy middle age.

Can I prove he committed perjury? No. As I've been arguing in the Elizabeth Warren thread, that's a rather high bar to cross: It requires knowledge of a man's state of mind at the time for definitive "proof". That's rather nearly impossible. So let me be absolutely clear:

1. I am not proposing a criminal indictment of Kavanaugh for perjury. Insufficient proof.

2. I am in fact proposing the evidence is sufficient to keep him from getting the job.

I don't see it that way. What kind of world would we live in if mere accusations were enough to keep public servants out of office? I think we need to tighten up what we get all up in arms about.

Let me give you an example. Suppose you or I are seeking a baby sitter for a 4 year old child. You (or I) hear rumors that a certain job applicant is rumored to be a child molester. Indeed, that is the whole purpose of his baby sitting side hustle. Now, if it's merely rumor, I would certainly think twice about going to the police with such hearsay. But I know damn well I would never hire him as my baby sitter. I feel rather confident that you would not, either.

The point is you're confusing two different standards of evidence. The standard of evidence required to indict and convict and strip away the Constitutional rights of a man is necessarily a much higher standard than the evidence required to disqualify a man from a job.

I don't think your analogy works. If I had a babysitter already working for me and then I heard the rumors, I would fire him just to be sure. That's a very different scenario than what we are working with here.

No. Serious allegations only require a credible witness. You make the mistake that many Trump apologists make (I'm not saying you are one; I'm not sure and from seeing you around I tend to think you are not): That the evidence is required to justify the investigation. No No No No, complete BS, you have it backwards:

The investigation is to see if there is corroborating evidence.

But that's not what happens. Accusations are made public before there is an investigation and evidence. The accusations become a political tool. That's how Franken got railroaded and it almost worked with Kavanaugh.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay which is?

Are the accusations against Kavanaugh "not credible" or are they credible but "hey lookit over there at what that Demmie-crat did."

It would be nice if you could at least keep your apologetics consistent.

 

[tyr_13]

I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.

Correct, but don't fall into the trap of thinking Zig didn't know that or even cares. He's trying his thing of picking one element out of a post, arguing every angel of that to death while leveraging that focus to misrepresent the rest of the post. It is the same mistake as thinking they (this time Trump allies posting in this thread) care if Kavanaugh really is a sexual predator or unsuited for the court for his lack of composure and judicial temperament. Trying to prove those things would not change their support for him because their priorities are hurting libs, and having power (or having power and hurting libs depending on the individual).

You have to first convince them (general Trump allies them now) to care. But they won't till they suffer for their bad behavior. They won't come around until they are defeated, and then not all of them for a long time.

EDIT: Fun fact, theprestige and someone else who I can't remember right now actually argued that the continued support of Moore was actually the fault of the Dems, while not denying the sexual assault accusations but just objecting to them being called 'pedophilia' and chastising the 'overreaction'. So even on Zig's terms, well, there it is...

 

[applecorped]

Correct, but don't fall into the trap of thinking Zig didn't know that or even cares. He's trying his thing of picking one element out of a post, arguing every angel of that to death while leveraging that focus to misrepresent the rest of the post. It is the same mistake as thinking they (this time Trump allies posting in this thread) care if Kavanaugh really is a sexual predator or unsuited for the court for his lack of composure and judicial temperament. Trying to prove those things would not change their support for him because their priorities are hurting libs, and having power (or having power and hurting libs depending on the individual).

You have to first convince them (general Trump allies them now) to care. But they won't till they suffer for their bad behavior. They won't come around until they are defeated, and then not all of them for a long time.

EDIT: Fun fact, theprestige and someone else who I can't remember right now actually argued that the continued support of Moore was actually the fault of the Dems, while not denying the sexual assault accusations but just objecting to them being called 'pedophilia' and chastising the 'overreaction'. So even on Zig's terms, well, there it is...

Are Zig and the prestige the topic of this thread?

 

[Ziggurat]

Correct, but don't fall into the trap of thinking Zig didn't know that or even cares. He's trying his thing of picking one element out of a post, arguing every angel of that to death while leveraging that focus to misrepresent the rest of the post. It is the same mistake as thinking they (this time Trump allies posting in this thread) care if Kavanaugh really is a sexual predator or unsuited for the court for his lack of composure and judicial temperament. Trying to prove those things would not change their support for him because their priorities are hurting libs, and having power (or having power and hurting libs depending on the individual).

You have to first convince them (general Trump allies them now) to care. But they won't till they suffer for their bad behavior. They won't come around until they are defeated, and then not all of them for a long time.

EDIT: Fun fact, theprestige and someone else who I can't remember right now actually argued that the continued support of Moore was actually the fault of the Dems, while not denying the sexual assault accusations but just objecting to them being called 'pedophilia' and chastising the 'overreaction'. So even on Zig's terms, well, there it is...

First off, considering that people are calling for impeachment over the definition of “boof”, you really aren’t in a position to lecture me about nitpicking. Second, you’re repeating the same smear you tried before, imputing vague sins of a larger community to individual posters. I note that you don’t actually claim theprestige supported Moore. And you won’t be able to point to actual bad behavior on my part for which I need to be punished. There is one poster here in this thread who actually admitted that they don’t care about the truth, only partisan advantage. And they mostly got a pass, because they were on the right side. So spare me your sanctimony, it rings hollow.

 

[Cabbage]

First off, considering that people are calling for impeachment over the definition of “boof”, you really aren’t in a position to lecture me about nitpicking.

What an absolutely absurd strawman. You should be embarrassed for such an egregious transgression against logic.

As usual.

And I continue to notice you haven't got the cojones to actually respond to my comment on this exact same strawman in post 3523. You are not a honest man. You are not an honest debater.

 

[Ziggurat]

What an absolutely absurd strawman. You should be embarrassed for such an egregious transgression against logic.

As usual.

And I continue to notice you haven't got the cojones to actually respond to my comment on this exact same strawman in post 3523. You are not a honest man. You are not an honest debater.

Nobody's making that argument, but I'm dishonest for not addressing that argument that nobody is making.

Sure, Cabbage, sure.

 

[Cabbage]

Nobody's making that argument, but I'm dishonest for not addressing that argument that nobody is making.

Sure, Cabbage, sure.

No one is making the argument that Kavanaugh should be impeached for the definition of "boof", and you are dishonest for saying that they are.

I am making the argument I presented in post 3523.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12/0

 

[ponderingturtle]

I took "they" to be the larger constituency. Like the actual people who *voted* for the creep in spite of the multiple, credible accusations that would have sunk a Dem in the eyes of his constituents.

Please adult men going after high school girls is a normal southern tradition. See Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson

"In a newly surfaced 2009 video posted on YouTube, Robertson shares some of his dating advice, which includes that men should marry girls as young as 15.

“Make sure that she can cook a meal,” Robertson is heard telling a group in Georgia in the 2009 video. “You need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out.”"

https://wtvr.com/2014/01/01/phil-robertson-men-marry-15-year-old-girls-make-sure-she-can-cook-a-meal/

So in this case it is just a conservative christian southern thing.

 

[Belz...]

In my opinion, he's human. I would probably react the same way in an extreme situation like that but it shouldn't reflect on who I am as a person.

You'd make up a crazy conspiracy theory about the Clintons?

 

[Belz...]

First off, considering that people are calling for impeachment over the definition of “boof”

No one's doing that.

 

[Ziggurat]

No one's doing that.

Yes, actually, they are. People are calling for his impeachment for perjury, and "boof" is one of the things they point to to try to prove the charge of perjury.

 

[xjx388]

Please adult men going after high school girls is a normal southern tradition. See Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson

"In a newly surfaced 2009 video posted on YouTube, Robertson shares some of his dating advice, which includes that men should marry girls as young as 15.

“Make sure that she can cook a meal,” Robertson is heard telling a group in Georgia in the 2009 video. “You need to eat some meals that she cooks, check that out.”"

https://wtvr.com/2014/01/01/phil-robertson-men-marry-15-year-old-girls-make-sure-she-can-cook-a-meal/

So in this case it is just a conservative christian southern thing.

This is the kind of argument I'm talking about. Broad-brush arguments where you pick a few (or even just one) egregious cases and use them to damn a whole group of people. It's wrong and you are really making two arguments 1)This behavior is bad and 2)Because this person is X, all people who are X are the same. So if I present cases of people from all parties doing the same thing, it's not a response to the first argument at all; it's a response to the second argument. If you just want to argue that the behavior itself is wrong, I would have no argument with that and it would be wrong to bring up other cases just to say, "this is wrong too."

 

[Belz...]

Yes, actually, they are. People are calling for his impeachment for perjury, and "boof" is one of the things they point to to try to prove the charge of perjury.

Which is not what you claimed.

You said they called for impeachment based on a definition of that word. Now you say they are calling for impeachment based on a lie over what the word means among other lies told to Congress, a crime. I get that you were saying that for effect, but when you then try to make it sound like it was literally what happened, it sounds silly.