Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

I think Republican are just miffed because they knew that Dr. Fords allegations were basically unprovable and that they would just need to calmly sit out the storm and in the end it would be alright. But then Der Groppenfuhrer saw the calm Kavanaugh and didn't like it and demanded more tantrum. Sadly for Republicans, BK cranked the uppity on his lie machine to 11 and now they know his nomination is in jeopardy and it's no longer just about unproven allegations.
 
Last edited:
I've learned that, as I had suspected since the 1991 Clarence Thomas fiasco, our last vestige of sanity in terms of a check on the other branches of government is well and truly screwed. The SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process is politically compromised. The American Experiment was fun while it lasted, I suppose.
 
Ziggurat said:
Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.
Click to expand...

That's three different and conflicting things you have said there

1. She is likely to be lying.

2. She believes what she is saying (so she's not lying, just mistaken)

3. He clams are untrue (so she IS lying, or mistaken, or.....what?)

You haven't really thought about this much have you?

Have you been taking equivocation lessons from Brett Kavanaugh?
 
Ziggurat said:
You have that exactly backwards. It is exclusively the Democrats, not Republicans, who launch these vicious personal attacks against judicial nominees. The Democrats whined endlessly (and to this day) about Republicans blocking Garland, but the Republicans never said one bad thing about Garland himself. The toxicity comes from an abandonment of constitutional principles, not from adherence to them.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
Yeah, Republicans just refuse to consider those nominees, instead. And I'll remind you that Gorsusch, or whatever his name is, didn't have to go through all this.

Can we stop with the partisan rhetoric and whataboutism now?
Click to expand...

Zig's post is pure nonsense. Vetting and asking questions of a candidate is not 'attacking'. Its called vetting. Gorsuch was never accused of lying. Also, he never was accused of sexual misconduct and the Democrats in the Senate are not accusing Kavanaugh of that either. They are simply doing their jobs in attempting to investigate a candidate for the highest court in the land. This as opposed to the Republicans hiding documents and not investigating Kavanaugh properly.

Also Zig, the Constitutional process makes it a duty for the Senate to fully investigate a Supreme Court nominee.
 
Things I learned:

There was someone else to add to my ignore list

Urban Dictionary is now a legal reference guide

Bret Kavanaugh likes beer

Stuff I already knew but was re-affirmed

Way too many of our government procedures rely on "gentlemen's agreements" and good faith. I realize politics is the art of compromise, but there is no way a small bunch of radical lunatics should be able to crash the whole system into a free for all of power grabs and feudal kingdoms

Middle and upper class whites would sooner bury their own children than take a hard look at the system so many of us have benefited from and ask the hard questions about it
 
Belz... said:
Oh? Why not?
Click to expand...

You can read a pretty good dissection from Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel for the judiciary committee, here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/389...-Nominations-Investigative-Counsel#from_embed

There's a number of serious issues with her testimony. Ford's account has been inconsistent, she has no memory of key details, nobody can corroborate even part of her account, she's been evasive, forgetful and uncooperative about recent events surrounding these allegations, and it appears that she's basically been coached by Democratic operatives.
 
Kavanaugh gets to fight for the seat.
Garland never got the chance.

How do you know how much that seat meant for Garland?
 
Last edited:
dmaker said:
I think Republican are just miffed because they knew that Dr. Fords allegations were basically unprovable and that they would just need to calmly sit out the storm and in the end it would be alright. But then Der Groppenfuhrer saw the calm Kavanaugh and didn't like it and demanded more tantrum. Sadly for Republicans, BK cranked the uppity on his lie machine to 11 and now they know his nomination is in jeopardy and it's no longer just about unproven allegations.
Click to expand...

I said this earlier and it bears repeating. It wasn't Ford's testimony that made me believe Kavanaugh was unfit. It was Kavanaugh's testimony. It was that pathetic, wimpy frat boy entitlement. The absurd indignance, his lack of forthrightness and temperament. Nothing about him says to me that he can be counted on to be trustworthy and impartial.
 
Ziggurat said:
You can read a pretty good dissection from Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel for the judiciary committee, here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/389...-Nominations-Investigative-Counsel#from_embed

There's a number of serious issues with her testimony. Ford's account has been inconsistent, she has no memory of key details, nobody can corroborate even part of her account, she's been evasive, forgetful and uncooperative about recent events surrounding these allegations, and it appears that she's basically been coached by Democratic operatives.
Click to expand...

Sound like an investigation is required to address these alleged inconsistencies.
 
smartcooky said:
That's three different and conflicting things you have said there

1. She is likely to be lying.

2. She believes what she is saying (so she's not lying, just mistaken)

3. He clams are untrue (so she IS lying, or mistaken, or.....what?)

You haven't really thought about this much have you?

Have you been taking equivocation lessons from Brett Kavanaugh?
Click to expand...

You haven't really thought much about what I said, have you?

Let's suppose her claims are not true. I believe that to be the case, you may not, but let's take that as a given for the sake of argument. *IF* her claims are not true, what then?

Well, then we have several different possibilities. And unsurprisingly, there is a degree of mutual exclusivity among them. She could be lying. She could believe what she said. These are mutually exclusive. If she believes it but it's not true, that too could have multiple possible causes (complete delusion, the memory of a real event that got changed over time, etc).

So, did I say conflicting things? Sure, because there are conflicting possibilities. Unless you know everything, that will always be the case. Is it wrong to describe conflicting possibilities? No, that would be absurd.

You really don't have any coherent objection at all.
 
Ziggurat said:
Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.
Click to expand...

I dont think so. I see at as a classic 'he said' she said' scenario. Almost impossible to know with any confidence who is telling the truth.

Isn't it interesting that the one person who objects to an investigation is Kavanaugh. Ford took a polygraph, Kavanaugh has not. The only person who might be able to shed light on this is hiding.
 
acbytesla said:
I said this earlier and it bears repeating. It wasn't Ford's testimony that made me believe Kavanaugh was unfit. It was Kavanaugh's testimony. It was that pathetic, wimpy frat boy entitlement. The absurd indignance, his lack of forthrightness and temperament. Nothing about him says to me that he can be counted on to be trustworthy and impartial.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like trustworhty and impartial were actually related to his choice. Torture loving is a much more important requirement, but of course they lost those documents. Willing to lie to congress is of course a pluss too.

There are so many reasons he is a really poor choice for a judge to people who care about things like law and order. That is why republicans like him he really hits the fascism kick they are on well.
 
acbytesla said:
I dont think so. I see at as a classic 'he said' she said' scenario. Almost impossible to know with any confidence who is telling the truth.
Click to expand...


But it's not a classic 'he said, she said' scenario. Actually, Dr. Ford would have a better case if it were.

As Rachel Mitchell's analysis points out, Dr. Ford named 4 other people who were present at the time of the alleged attack -- 2 of them were eye witnesses.

However, all 4 people have either denied the allegations, or claimed they don't remember the incident ever happening.

Worst still, Dr. Ford's high-school friend, Leland Keyser, claims she has never even met Brett Kavanaugh, and never been to a party where he was present.
 
Ziggurat said:
You have that exactly backwards. It is exclusively the Democrats, not Republicans, who launch these vicious personal attacks against judicial nominees. The Democrats whined endlessly (and to this day) about Republicans blocking Garland, but the Republicans never said one bad thing about Garland himself. The toxicity comes from an abandonment of constitutional principles, not from adherence to them.
Click to expand...

Republicans didn't have to smear Garland because they already invested their time smearing Obama.

Nice spin attempt, however. LOL
 
Ziggurat said:
Kavanaugh is getting his name dragged through the mud by Democrats. They are absolutely making the accusations. And those accusations are intended to personally destroy Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...



Oh, I see now. When anyone accuses a Republican, it's a dirty Democrat attempting to smear a virtuous Republican.

However, when anyone accuses a Democrat, whether the accused is Bill Clinton or Al Franken or whoever, it's a principled search for Truth and Honesty.

Have I got that right?
Edited by zooterkin: 
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ziggurat said:
You have that exactly backwards. It is exclusively the Democrats, not Republicans, who launch these vicious personal attacks against judicial nominees. The Democrats whined endlessly (and to this day) about Republicans blocking Garland, but the Republicans never said one bad thing about Garland himself. The toxicity comes from an abandonment of constitutional principles, not from adherence to them.
Click to expand...

WTF, is this a Poe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom