New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ampulla of Vater said:
It's sad to me that most of y'all can't admit this particular allegation stinks to high heaven. I have looked up to (most of) you, as I learned skepticism here, on this very forum. I sure don't see many skeptics here anymore though.
Click to expand...

Wow, you convinced me. That was such a groundbreaking, in-depth explanation as to why this 'stinks' that I've decided to become a Republican and fight the good fight against Democrats for the rest of my--

Oh, no, wait. You made absolutely no explanation as to why this stinks. You just claim that it does, and expect, what? You mention that this sure to be a skeptics forum, but how about you provide some of that skepticism, no?
 
Sherkeu said:
I dont want right wing conservatives on th court. But I also dont see where they are rapists. I certainly have empathy for rape victims having paid for my ownn sisters therapy for it in a music compeny which operaated like a whorehouse.

Please provide your EVIDENCE!! Where are the rapists!!????
Click to expand...

One is in the White House and the other is sitting in the chair of the nominee for the SCOTUS. Granted, the second one is simply an attempted rapist. He failed to rape, not for lack of trying.

And yes, I am treating the allegations as factual, because that's what Kavanaugh's defenders are doing with their "boys will be boys" BS.
 
By appearing with his wife on Fox News on Monday night to defend himself against accusations of sexual misconduct, Kavanaugh threw himself into what Justice Felix Frankfurter called “the political thicket.” He is seeking to rally support for his confirmation in the face of polls showing him to be an increasingly unpopular choice. There was nothing subtle about the choice of venue. Fox News is not only President Donald Trump’s loyal echo chamber during early morning and prime time, but it is also the network whose founder and most popular on-air personality were both fired for repeated acts of sexual misconduct. And it is the network whose former co-president, Bill Shine, now directs communication for the White House.

The striking aspect of this strategy is that is makes no pretense about keeping Kavanaugh outside the boundaries of blatantly partisan political tactics.

Appearing on TV to rebut damaging charges is what candidates for office do. It’s what Richard Nixon did in 1952—with wife, Pat, sitting nearby—to defend himself against charges of financial chicanery and to speak warmly about the family dog, Checkers. It’s what Bill and Hillary Clinton did in 1992 to answer accusations of infidelity. A potential Supreme Court nominee? He or she has another venue, one that Clarence Thomas used to great effect in 1991: the Senate Judiciary Committee, the same forum Judge Kavanaugh will visit on Thursday.

By taking his defense to the news media, Kavanaugh has given an unmistakable acknowledgement that there is no difference between running for office and seeking a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. If there was any doubt about just how far Kavanaugh was prepared to go to achieve his ambition, it was shattered when he shared with Martha MacCallum that “I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter.” (That statement, by the way, does not refute the allegations of Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez.)
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/09/24/kavanaugh-fox-news-interview-220618

Irredeemable. Absolutely irredeemable.
 
Sherkeu said:
I honestly do not understand what you mean to say here. i did contemplate it for about 10min. Guy talk? No comprende senor. Pleaase expand.
Click to expand...

TYPO should have read "locker room talk".

Trump's excuse for his rather disgusting misogynistic comments on tape. That'd be Trump, the President. You were working into a pearl-clutching fit over having your words referred to as "cute" but the President you're running interference for is on record as having told a fellow idiot that because he's Donnie Johnny Famous he can do whatever he wants - grab 'em by the pussy.

One just has to reckon that if the misogynistic disrespect of having your words/ideas referred to as "cute" gets you five posts worth of upset, you must've made sure to get out there and campaign against Donald Trump and convince all your friends to do the same.
 
Darat said:
From an outsiders view (the UK has nothing like your SC nomination process) I disagree. Sometimes life just isn't fair and you have to accept that. Like I said earlier if you believe that a role you are being put forward for is more important than the individual there are times when you have to say something like "I'm innocent of the accused wrong doing but I believe the position is more important than me and these schenigans harms the role so I'm withdrawing".
Click to expand...

That's not an absurd position to take, but I think in a case like this, stepping down would be wrong, assuming the allegations are false.

Giving up in the face of false allegations would, by itself, damage the role and the process.

Of course, each specific situation is different, and only Kavanaugh knows how much truth there is in these allegations, so Kavanaugh has to judge for himself what is the right thing to do.
 
Meadmaker said:
That's not an absurd position to take, but I think in a case like this, stepping down would be wrong, assuming the allegations are false.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but if he's innocent he should be asking for the FBI to investigate in order to exonerate himself. I believe he is, in private, asking Mitch and his goons to squash investigation.
 
The situation is pretty clear: it is the job of the Senators to vet and approve a nominee - if they deem that person to be right for the job, then they should confirm. Simple as that.

But what is going on isn't at all about the nomination, but about Senators creating a narrative that allows them to vote for Kavanaugh and still keep their job come next election: it is all about covering your butt, not about making sure the candidate is sound.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Maybe, but if he's innocent he should be asking for the FBI to investigate in order to exonerate himself. I believe he is, in private, asking Mitch and his goons to squash investigation.
Click to expand...

I mean, they became aware of Ramirez's allegations before they became public, and their response was to call for the vote to happen quickly...
 
There was something that stood out for me in his Fox News interview. It's a small thing. It doesn't prove anything, but it was just a little thing that, to me, was jarring. It's just that little detail that sometimes makes one pause.

He was asked about drinking in high school, and responded that (quoting from memory) "Yes. There was some. The drinking age was 18 so the seniors were legal."

He just couldn't bring himself to admit that, 36 years ago, he engaged in a lot of drinking, and none of it was legal. He had to throw in that weaselly statement that, well, of course, there was some, but, it was legal at that time.....

No, it wasn't. The drinking age in Maryland was raised to 21 before Kavanaugh turned 18. Every bit of his high school drunkenness was illegal, just like mine and all of my friends'. The laws were rarely enforced back then, and lots of high school students drank a great deal, because we could, despite the law.

It's one of those cases where what Kavanaugh said wasn't a blatant lie. When he was a sophomore, there were seniors who could drink legally, and they undoubtedly bought beer for younger students. That's what he meant, I guess?

It just reinforced my opinion of him as someone who sort of tells the truth, but only sort of. He was still covering and rationalizing. He was trying to minimize his drunkenness from ancient days, and trying to divert attention from the reality of how he lived back then. He "was focused on being first in his class, and captain of the varsity basketball team". Ummm….yeah.....but what about on weekends, Brett? Why can't you just say that, yes, at that time in your life you drank to excess, frequently? It's no big deal. It was the early '80s. We all did. Except goodie two shoes like that sophomore kid Gorsuch.
 
Meadmaker said:
There was something that stood out for me in his Fox News interview. It's a small thing. It doesn't prove anything, but it was just a little thing that, to me, was jarring. It's just that little detail that sometimes makes one pause.

He was asked about drinking in high school, and responded that (quoting from memory) "Yes. There was some. The drinking age was 18 so the seniors were legal."

He just couldn't bring himself to admit that, 36 years ago, he engaged in a lot of drinking, and none of it was legal. He had to throw in that weaselly statement that, well, of course, there was some, but, it was legal at that time.....

No, it wasn't. The drinking age in Maryland was raised to 21 before Kavanaugh turned 18. Every bit of his high school drunkenness was illegal, just like mine and all of my friends'. The laws were rarely enforced back then, and lots of high school students drank a great deal, because we could, despite the law.

It's one of those cases where what Kavanaugh said wasn't a blatant lie. When he was a sophomore, there were seniors who could drink legally, and they undoubtedly bought beer for younger students. That's what he meant, I guess?

It just reinforced my opinion of him as someone who sort of tells the truth, but only sort of. He was still covering and rationalizing. He was trying to minimize his drunkenness from ancient days, and trying to divert attention from the reality of how he lived back then. He "was focused on being first in his class, and captain of the varsity basketball team". Ummm….yeah.....but what about on weekends, Brett? Why can't you just say that, yes, at that time in your life you drank to excess, frequently? It's no big deal. It was the early '80s. We all did. Except goodie two shoes like that sophomore kid Gorsuch.
Click to expand...

Which ties in nicely with the quote posted by Arcade22 above:

“I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter.”

That may very well be true, but it is also irrelevant to the allegations he is currently facing.
 
Foolmewunz said:
TYPO should have read "locker room talk".

Trump's excuse for his rather disgusting misogynistic comments on tape. That'd be Trump, the President. You were working into a pearl-clutching fit over having your words referred to as "cute" but the President you're running interference for is on record as having told a fellow idiot that because he's Donnie Johnny Famous he can do whatever he wants - grab 'em by the pussy.
Click to expand...

As much as this tells us much about Trump's character, I have no problem chalking this one up to locker room talk. Trump's done far worse than use his notoriety to get into women's pants.

One just has to reckon that if the misogynistic disrespect of having your words/ideas referred to as "cute" gets you five posts worth of upset, you must've made sure to get out there and campaign against Donald Trump and convince all your friends to do the same.
Click to expand...

...er... what does misogyny have to do with any of this?
 
Stacyhs said:
I'm sure you believe you never assaulted anyone and you most likely didn't. But you admit yourself that there were times you cannot remember.

This is what a classmate at the time of the incident had to say:[/HILITE]
The classmate said that he had been shocked, but not necessarily surprised, because the social group to which Kavanaugh belonged often drank to excess. He recalled Kavanaugh as “relatively shy” until he drank, at which point he said that Kavanaugh could become “aggressive and even belligerent.” (New Yorker)

James Roche, Kavanaugh's Yale roommate at the time of the Ramirez incident said this:



(Newsweek)

Roche also said that Kavanaugh




https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-roommate-sexual-misconduct-1136989

It's very possible that many of these witnesses simply don't want to get involved because Trump and the GOP are behind Kavanaugh. They have their own careers to worry about.
Click to expand...

I suppose my comments previously only applied to high school, not college.

The point about high school allegations is that, in high school, you are under much more scrutiny. You can't take a girl back to your room, or go to hers, because your parents would be in the room next to yours. You can't wander off to a secluded area by yourselves, because you are drunk high schoolers and it's illegal to walk the streets. You might duck into a bedroom in the house where the party is, but you've got a whole bunch of gossipy friends who would know what you just did.

He knows whether or not he assaulted anyone in high school.

In college, things change somewhat. This particular incident happened in view of a lot of people. He would know, at the very least, that he blacked out, and his friends who saw it would have told him what he did.

He knows whether or not this is true. Even if he didn't remember doing it, he would have been told about it. He's not at a bar with anonymous strangers.
 
Lambchops said:
Which ties in nicely with the quote posted by Arcade22 above:

“I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years thereafter.”

That may very well be true, but it is also irrelevant to the allegations he is currently facing.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Caught that as well. To be generous to Kavanaugh, the context of that comment included the rumored allegations of gang rape coming from Avenatti, so his comment wasn't, technically, irrelevant, but at the same time one definitely got the impression that he was trying to cover all the allegations, even though the ones revealed so far didn't have anything to do with sexual intercourse.

One other, related, element that I noticed was the, "this would have been the talk of Yale." Uhhhh…..Brett. It was. In the New Yorker piece, two sources, one of them named and the other anonymous, said they heard about it, at the time, second hand.

Of course, second hand information can be in error, so it isn't dispositive, but if his defense is that people would have been talking about it, he maybe should have tried a different focus group to test that one on.

Oh, but, he was captain of the varsity basketball team, and first in his class and, did I mention, he went to church a lot?
 
I read some more "women will die" stuff if kavanaugh is confirmed. This continues to bother me as it isn't a concern for the supreme court and it isn't an argument in support of roe v wade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom