New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
The debate about whether they were doing their job has played out elsewhere, and I won't bother to re-animate it here.

But I've said it before and I'll say it again:

There's a world of difference between
"Your confirmation is a political non-starter, sorry."​
and
"Your confirmation is a political slam dunk, and we're going to try to change that by smearing your character."​
Garland got a way better deal from Republicans than Kavanaugh is getting from Democrats.
Click to expand...
Yes, but did the process get a better deal?

If Kavanaugh is blameless, then he's suffered mightily. No doubt.

Garland and his supporters suffered to a lesser extent, but without regard to his qualifications.

Just curious. Suppose that Kavanaugh actually did what was alleged and is lying. I'm not saying that's so, but it could be. Is he still being mistreated?
 
The Big Dog said:
He was on Romney's short list of SCOTUS candidates in 2012.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that idiotic claim again.

Yes, he was on Romney's list of candidates. But such a list got nowhere near the profile that an actual real supreme court nomination got.

"Oh, Romney may get elected, and this one person on his list may get nominated for the supreme court. I'd better make up a rape story now just in case".

Yeah right.
 
Segnosaur said:
Ah yes, that idiotic claim again.

Yes, he was on Romney's list of candidates. But such a list got nowhere near the profile that an actual real supreme court nomination got.
Click to expand...

Well, you can't blame the public's lack of interest. Romney's list was nowhere near as interesting as all those binders full of women.
 
Segnosaur said:
Ah yes, that idiotic claim again.

Yes, he was on Romney's list of candidates. But such a list got nowhere near the profile that an actual real supreme court nomination got.

"Oh, Romney may get elected, and this one person on his list may get nominated for the supreme court. I'd better make up a rape story now just in case".

Yeah right.
Click to expand...

HI! Sensational post. There is nothing I enjoy more than deliberate misrepresenting a post. You are an expert!

But to reiterate, he was listed on Romney's short list, it was in the papers, and elsewhere.

And the kicker? She knew him as a person who went to a nearby school. Let me give you an example, the guy who played Dwight in the office went to a school nearby. When the show first came out, i saw that and took special interest, and found out that two people I knew knew him very well. And i mentioned it to my wife!

It is called a personal connection. I hope that my explaining this in simple terms helps?

And the real kicker?
 
Bob001 said:
And yet a woman who was part of that world wasn't surprised at the claim:

https://slate.com/human-interest/20...rep-school-parties.html?via=homepage_taps_top

If Avenatti was punked, it's because the underlying claim was believeable.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We haven't seen the exact claim, but the rumor is that it involves providing drugs to teenaged girls so they can be gang raped while incapacitated by teenage boys.


That's a "Jackie style" fantasy. I'm willing to say it didn't happen, even before getting the exact wording.


When we see the actual claim, maybe it will be something more believable.
 
phiwum said:
Just curious. Suppose that Kavanaugh actually did what was alleged and is lying. I'm not saying that's so, but it could be. Is he still being mistreated?
Click to expand...
Now that is an interesting question. I think it's also a complex question. The way I see it, the answer is probably yes... but also no.

Check this out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProRevenge/

The basic idea of this subreddit is Ruining Lives + Justice Boner. The stories are a guilty pleasure for me. I like seeing jerks get what's coming to them, but I dislike vigilantism.

If Kavanaugh actually did what is alleged, then he deserves justice - through due process and the rule of law. If Kavanaugh actually did what was alleged, then what's happening with the confirmation hearings is vigilantism in lieu of that justice. That's a mistreatment of our process, a mistreatment of our elected representatives, and yes, in a sense, a mistreatment of Kavanaugh.

If Kavanaugh actually did what was alleged and is lying about it, then he's a worthless piece of **** and deserves, in a sense, to have his career burned to the ground. But Ford using the confirmation process for that purpose isn't justice, it's revenge - especially if she can't actually support her accusations. That, I think, is a mistreatment of us all. And that mistreatment stands regardless of whether Kavanaugh actually did what was alleged. Because that's the line of attack that Ford has already chosen and acted on.

I think. Like I said, I think it's a complex question. I'm sure my answer will spark some heated debate. It's possible that the debate will prompt me to refine or rethink my answer. Probably won't make my answer any less complex, though.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
HI! Sensational post. There is nothing I enjoy more than deliberate misrepresenting a post. You are an expert!

But to reiterate, he was listed on Romney's short list, it was in the papers, and elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure it was in the papers. No guarantee that she would have read it though. Seriously, not everyone reads every little bit of news that every candidate makes up.

But hey, lets say she actually saw the list and recognized the name...
And the kicker? She knew him as a person who went to a nearby school.
...
It is called a personal connection.
Click to expand...
Its called you being foolish in not understanding what I wrote.

Even if she read the name, and recognized it as a former classmate, my point was you are assuming she had some sort of master plan to insert some little smear into an unrelated therapy session years before kavanaugh was actually nominated.

That requires some sort of massive pre-planning. Do you think the democrats have some sort of army of women making up rape stories years in advance against every potential republican judge just in case one gets nominated?
 
theprestige said:
Previously? Because I missed it.


Good question.


Honestly? Because the whole "getting people to agree with me" vibe is intensely aggravating to me. So at the moment I'm content to answer the question to my own satisfaction, and leave it at that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, finding common ground is for suckers and Democrats. :confused:
 
Segnosaur said:
Ah yes, that idiotic claim again.

Yes, he was on Romney's list of candidates. But such a list got nowhere near the profile that an actual real supreme court nomination got.

"Oh, Romney may get elected, and this one person on his list may get nominated for the supreme court. I'd better make up a rape story now just in case".

Yeah right.
Click to expand...

Supreme Court picks have been a significant aspect of the presidency for a while now. I don't see anything far-fetched about a liberal professor looking at a conservative candidate's short list - CNN was publishing articles about it at the time, after all - and filling in a gap in her childhood memory with a familiar name.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Now that is an interesting question. I think it's also a complex question. The way I see it, the answer is probably yes... but also no.

Check this out:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProRevenge/

The basic idea of this subreddit is Ruining Lives + Justice Boner. The stories are a guilty pleasure for me. I like seeing jerks get what's coming to them, but I dislike vigilantism.

If Kavanaugh actually did what is alleged, then he deserves justice - through due process and the rule of law. If Kavanaugh actually did what was alleged, then what's happening with the confirmation hearings is vigilantism in lieu of that justice. That's a mistreatment of our process, a mistreatment of our elected representatives, and yes, in a sense, a mistreatment of Kavanaugh.

If Kavanaugh actually did what was alleged and is lying about it, then he's a worthless piece of **** and deserves, in a sense, to have his career burned to the ground. But Ford using the confirmation process for that purpose isn't justice, it's revenge - especially if she can't actually support her accusations. That, I think is a mistreatment of us all. And that mistreatment stands regardless of whether Kavanaugh actually did what was alleged. Because that's the line of attack that Ford has already chosen and acted on.

I think. Like I said, I think it's a complex question. I'm sure my answer will spark some heated debate. It's possible that the debate will prompt me to refine or rethink my answer. Probably won't make my answer any less complex, though.
Click to expand...

That you see it through such a lens helps me to at least understand your position. Thanks.

I don't share it for the very simple fact that there is nothing for her to be seeking revenge on if nothing happened.

Like, when TBD realized Dwight was from his inner circle he thought it was cool, not "how can I set that guy up for pain, pain, and more pain!"

Is that because TBD is awesome? No, that's a side issue. It is because people don't seek revenge on people who they have had nothing to do with. People don't ruin their lives to cause a small bit of pain on someone who they barely remember from high school as a bit of a lush. That just doesn't compute. For me, at least.
 
Here's what I don't like about Avenatti, with the caveat that I paid almost zero attention to anything/anyone having to do with Stormy Daniels:

I don't like a lawyer predicting his client will come out with public allegations in the next 48 hours. It's entirely up to the client. Whether she feels ready to go on record, or whether on balance she decides not to. Predicting a timeframe is too convenient for Avenatti getting the maximum media attention.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes, I'm sure it was in the papers. No guarantee that she would have read it though. Seriously, not everyone reads every little bit of news that every candidate makes up.

But hey, lets say she actually saw the list and recognized the name...

Its called you being foolish in not understanding what I wrote.

Even if she read the name, and recognized it as a former classmate, my point was you are assuming she had some sort of master plan to insert some little smear into an unrelated therapy session years before kavanaugh was actually nominated.

That requires some sort of massive pre-planning. Do you think the democrats have some sort of army of women making up rape stories years in advance against every potential republican judge just in case one gets nominated?
Click to expand...

two things:

1. she didn't mention Kavanaugh to the therapist (in fact she said there were 4 dudes)
2. She mentioned Kavanaugh to her husband, hmmm, a guy in the news....

Conflate the two and viola:

ID the wrong guy as being at the party she never mentioned before.

That is what that is about.
 
sylvan8798 said:
The more Kavanaugh tries to claim that he was a virginal choir boy with a few cringe-worthy moments in his oh-so-stellar youth, the less believable his story becomes. Choir boys don't have yearbook pages with that kind of stuff on them and friends who talk about how much they drank and partied.
Click to expand...
Eh. I was a high school drinker, didn't claim to be a ladies' man since no one would believe it, but also didn't do anything as bad as alleged of Kavanaugh. I wouldn't take his boasts as all that significant.
 
theprestige said:
This seems like a chicken/egg problem. How do you know the merits of the claim, without looking into it? If you don't know the merits, how do you know it's worth looking into?


Then what are the merits of the claim?
Click to expand...
A woman is willing to speak under oath. That's surely worth looking into.

Could be that she's about to commit perjury. We'll never know without some investigation (if even then).
 
theprestige said:
Previously? Because I missed it.


Good question.


Honestly? Because the whole "getting people to agree with me" vibe is intensely aggravating to me. So at the moment I'm content to answer the question to my own satisfaction, and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
Which is to say that you won't actually answer it publicly?

If I'm reading you correctly, I don't see why not.
 
Dr. Keith said:
That you see it through such a lens helps me to at least understand your position. Thanks.
Click to expand...
You're welcome.

I don't share it for the very simple fact that there is nothing for her to be seeking revenge on if nothing happened.
Click to expand...
I was considering the specific scenario proposed by phiwum, in which Kavanaugh actually did what is alleged. Calling Ford's line of attack "revenge" only makes sense in the context of that scenario.

If we're considering scenarios in which Kavanaugh did not do what's alleged., then we can consider Ford's attack in terms other than "revenge", "justice", "vigilantism", etc.
 
phiwum said:
A woman is willing to speak under oath. That's surely worth looking into.
Click to expand...
I'm a little too jaded to believe in the magic of testifying to Congress under oath.

Could be that she's about to commit perjury. We'll never know without some investigation (if even then).
Click to expand...
Exactly.

ETA: And it's not clear to me that she actually is willing to speak under oath at all. She wasn't willing to speak under oath at any time during the last thirty years. She wasn't willing to speak under oath in July.

In July, she was willing to pen a poison letter to Senator Feinstein, apparently in the hopes that Feinstein would use it to go after Kavanaugh without dragging her into it.

Two months later, she says she's willing to testify, but even though she's had plenty of time to think this through, when Congress calls on her to testify, we get foot-dragging and negotiations and I-want-to-testify-but-not-like-you-know-testify-right-now.

This might be the behavior of someone who's willing to testify under oath. Or it may be the behavior of someone who's willing to game the confirmation process as far as they can, up to the very brink of testifying, but hoping to avoid that eventuality for some reason.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom