New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
TragicMonkey said:
That's not a point in their favor, as they refused to consider anybody. You can't get credit for not doing your duty badly if you refused to do your duty at all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bob001 said:
Okay:

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/violence
Click to expand...

I notice that didn't cite the definition found in the actual dictionary part of that site and instead quoted... a legal judgement from scotland? Seriously?

True enough. But overpowering someone who is too drunk or drugged to resist is violence.
Click to expand...

No. I don't understand why you continue to insist that physically overpowering someone necessarily constitutes violence.

Rape by itself results in physical and psychological injuries.
Click to expand...

Not nesecerily physical injuries. Bullying and harassment doesn't require any violence at all yet it can cause serious psychological harm.

I mean there's a reason why people distinguish between physical and psychological torture: the lack of violence and physical injuries doesn't mean that it's any less serious.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
BREAKING: Ok, this is just breaking on right wing sources, and Twitter, but oh man, this would be beautiful...

4chan Prankster Claims Punked Michael Avenatti With Hoax Kavanaugh ‘Train’ Gang Rape Accusation
Click to expand...


And yet a woman who was part of that world wasn't surprised at the claim:
I wish I were surprised. A week ago Sunday when Ford first shed her anonymity, detailing her sexual assault allegation against Kavanaugh to the Washington Post, I wrote a note in the Facebook alumni group of my high school, National Cathedral School. I told my 1988 classmates that Ford’s story was bringing back disturbing high school memories. Apparently, I was not alone. A lot of women now in their 40s and 50s, who went to these single-sex D.C. prep schools in the 1980s, have been reaching out to each other in fraught emails and chats over the past week.
Click to expand...
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.
 
theprestige said:
Seems like the GOP was able to block Garland's confirmation without smearing him. Go figure.
Click to expand...
Which is way I don't mind so much that the Dems are using unsubstantiated accusations to derail Kavanaugh. I'm more than a little surprised at a bunch of skeptics taking it so seriously though. Its a solid if somewhat underhanded political maneuver, not significantly more underhanded than the GOP blocking Garland though. The accusations on the other hand, aren't really that compelling yet.
 
Garland and Kavanaugh are not comparable. If you want to see how Democrats would treat Kavanaugh, give them a Senate majority first.
 
Arcade22 said:
.....
No. I don't understand why you continue to insist that physically overpowering someone necessarily constitutes violence.
....
Click to expand...

And I don't understand why you don't. If somebody knocks you down and steals your laptop out of your hands, is that violence? Or just stealing lost property?
 
theprestige said:
Seems like the GOP was able to block Garland's confirmation without smearing him. Go figure.
Click to expand...
And Gorsuch was able to get confirmed without any such allegations about sexual improprieties and/or issues related to drinking or gambling.

If it were so easy to derail a nomination with supposed fake allegations, then why wasn't Gorsuch attacked in the same way, with old allegations about "he molestered me when I was younger"?

Option 1: It didn't occur to the masterminds who are trying to block conservative nominations

Option 2: Kavenaugh actually has such skeletons in his closet.
 
ahhell said:
Which is way I don't mind so much that the Dems are using unsubstantiated accusations to derail Kavanaugh. I'm more than a little surprised at a bunch of skeptics taking it so seriously though.
Click to expand...
And why wouldn't skeptics take it seriously?

Skeptics follow where the majority or preponderance of the evidence goes, or what probability suggests is likely correct (even if we don't have such iron-clad proof.)

So what is more likely: That the woman is lying (and that Kavanaugh is innocent) or that the woman is telling the truth and Kavanaugh is guilty.

In the woman's favor, we have:

- Her mentioning the assault years ago to a therapist, before Kavanaugh was nominated. Would seem a rather big coincidence if a woman just made something up years ago that just happened to match the current accusations.

- The victim took a lie detector test. Now, lie detectors are inaccurate, and they should not be used in a court of law. But the fact that she was willing to have herself tested using one suggests that she knew her story was accurate.

- Suggestions (claim from a former roomate+a book with a thinly-disguised description) that Kavenaugh drank heavily

- Requests from the victim that the case be investigated, while Kavenaugh and the GOP are blocking further FBI investigations. (If Kavenaugh is innocent, what would be the harm in getting the FBI involved, considering they could actually help clear his name)

- Possible Perjury during various hearings, suggesting that perhaps he is not very credible

Now, does any of that rise to the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Nope... but it does certainly lend credibility to her case.

As for Kavanaugh, what does he have supporting his claim?

- Lots of character witnesses. "I can't imagine him doing such a thing". I put that in the same category as the neighbors of Jeffry Dhalmer who said "he was always such a quiet guy".

- Suggestions that the girl should have reported it earlier (which of course ignores the fact that the majority of assaults are not reported)

- Suggestions that "it was in his past he's a different guy" or "the hearings should not be delayed". Which says nothing about his guilt or innocence

So, I'd say the evidence suggesting Kavenaugh acted improperly is stronger than the evidence that he did nothing.
 
The Big Dog said:
well the "decent ordinary human beings" who subscribe to guilty before proven innocent.... hmmm, so not "decent ordinary human beings" at all but partisans who are suffering from a touch of TDS
Click to expand...

I have no idea what TDS means, but the rest of this smacks of "if you're not with us you're against us": if you don't agree with me you're partisan, and you aren't a decent ordinary human being.
 
The hearing, if it happens, sounds like it is going to be really weird:

The all-male contingent of Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans have hired an outside attorney, a woman, to ask questions at Thursday’s hearing with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, Politico first reported Tuesday.

Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has not revealed the lawyer’s name. “I guess we’re just being cautious,” he told Politico.

Grassley told TPM: “The attorney is a staff counsel, hired just like all the other lawyers we hired for the Supreme Court, and we have done it because we want to depoliticize the whole process, like the Democrats politicized the Anita Hill thing.”

“The whole purpose is to create an environment, where it’s what Dr. Ford has asked for, [that] it be professional and not be a circus,” he added.

An unnamed Democratic staffer told HuffPost: “Democratic senators feel capable of asking their own questions.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the committee, confirmed Tuesday that rather than ask questions himself on Thursday, “I’m going to let the professional person do it.”

Graham justified the unusual choice by saying there were too many senators on the panel to allow any one the time necessary to perform sufficient questioning, and said he viewed the hearing as a legal proceeding.

“I’m very comfortable [with] the idea of calling an outside counsel and giving them the time they need to ask questions,” he told reporters, adding: “If you’re going to nominate to the Supreme Court, right, why don’t you use some of the concepts they’ll be talking about?”
Click to expand...

Linky.

Collins said she wanted each person's attorney to question the other, but I haven't seen that brought up.
 
ahhell said:
Which is way I don't mind so much that the Dems are using unsubstantiated accusations to derail Kavanaugh. I'm more than a little surprised at a bunch of skeptics taking it so seriously though. Its a solid if somewhat underhanded political maneuver, not significantly more underhanded than the GOP blocking Garland though. The accusations on the other hand, aren't really that compelling yet.
Click to expand...

Segnosaur said:
In the woman's favor, we have:

- Her mentioning the assault years ago to a therapist, before Kavanaugh was nominated. Would seem a rather big coincidence if a woman just made something up years ago that just happened to match the current accusations.

- The victim took a lie detector test. Now, lie detectors are inaccurate, and they should not be used in a court of law. But the fact that she was willing to have herself tested using one suggests that she knew her story was accurate.

- Suggestions (claim from a former roomate+a book with a thinly-disguised description) that Kavenaugh drank heavily

- Requests from the victim that the case be investigated, while Kavenaugh and the GOP are blocking further FBI investigations. (If Kavenaugh is innocent, what would be the harm in getting the FBI involved, considering they could actually help clear his name)

- Possible Perjury during various hearings, suggesting that perhaps he is not very credible
Click to expand...

We could also add all the yearbook references ...Kegs, boof, fffff, ralph, renate almnius...etc.

I don't need beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't need a preponderance of the evidence.

As listed above, the accusations, weak collaborations and likewise weak denials are enough to raise a question regarding a lifetime appointment. Pick someone who wasn't an entitled ******* with a questionable past.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Garland and Kavanaugh are not comparable..........
Click to expand...

No, they're not. But the behaviour of the Senate is contrastable, if not comparable. In the first instance, the behaviour of the GOP in not even considering Garland was reprehensible and inexcusable. The sickest of sicko apologists can't support that scurrilous behaviour. The Democrats and Kavanaugh.........well, all they're doing is seeking evidence. That's them doing their jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom