New SCOTUS Judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tsukasa Buddha said:
The 4chan claim would be interesting if it was posted before Avenatti made his claims.

There was a false claim made about Moore, so its not outside of the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...


"This account's Tweets are protected.

Only confirmed followers have access to @MichaelAvenatti's Tweets and complete profile. Click the "Follow" button to send a follow request.'

the mutt locked his account.

BASTA!
 
Segnosaur said:
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.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring a lot.

I am not aware of there being evidence she named Kavanaugh prior to his nominations.

She may be wrong about who attacked her, she may be wrong about how aggressive and violent the attack was. Both those things are consistent with the way memory is known to change, along with her remembering naming him when if she hadn't.

Against him.
He was as drunk and a mysogynist as a 17-22 year old.

Lie detector is meaningless. She could know she can fake it(she is a psychologist at the least she should know they are useless.) She could truly believe it but be wrong and thus would pass.

The time lime is totally consistent with unreliability. No record of it for 30 years. We know it was mentioned in 2012 in therapy and again in 2018.

To we know that Kavanaugh doesn't want it investigated?

All we have is one unverified and so far unverifiable accusation of sexual assault that wasn't heard of for 30 years. Multiple alleged witnesses that deny it. Granted, they'd have been complicit, so they would.

One unverified but verifiable accusation that he showed a drunk women his penis while he was drunk. The only corroboration I'm aware of is his college roommate who says, "I didn't hear about it but its exactly the kind of thing he would do" Oh, and the accuser admits she really can't be sure if it was Kavanaugh and describes a situation where she can't even be sure it happened.

A possible future accusation from a dubious lawyer who might be running for president.

Taking all that and saying, its enough to deny his nomination, meh. It seems pretty partisan. If you really believe that, then anyone nomination could easily be block but just accusing the nominee of just about anything.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
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)_/¯
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this, but I do respect it. I think a lot of Senators would find it awkward to explain voting against Kavanaugh on this basis, though.
 
theprestige said:
And that's a partisan complaint that gets leveled at pretty much every federal judge that issues a judgement. So what?
Click to expand...

So what if, based on the merits of the claim in the specific case, it's worth looking into?

That the claim is made a lot by someone tells you nothing about if it's true in this case.

theprestige said:
I'm pleasantly surprised at the moderate positions being staked out by so many of our regulars here. Very nice work, everyone.
Click to expand...

Is there a specific reason you haven't answered my question on perjury? Would you still support Kavanaugh if it could be proven he committed perjury on a relevant judicial related issue?

This honestly puzzles me. The question has several outs, yet I've only gotten one Kavanaugh supporter to agree that they should not support him if that becomes the case. Why?
 
ahhell said:
Taking all that and saying, its enough to deny his nomination, meh. It seems pretty partisan. If you really believe that, then anyone nomination could easily be block but just accusing the nominee of just about anything.
Click to expand...
It certainly seems like enough to not jump to any snap decisions for a lifetime appointment.

For that matter, there probably shouldn't be any snap decisions for any lifetime appointment.
 
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.
 
tyr_13 said:
So what if, based on the merits of the claim in the specific case, it's worth looking into?
Click to expand...
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?

That the claim is made a lot by someone tells you nothing about if it's true in this case.
Click to expand...
Then what are the merits of the claim?
 
Bob001 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Now you are just being ridiculous.

What you are asserting is essentially that you don't need to knock someone down on the ground for it to be violent, but that stealthily pilfering stuff from someones backpack or handbag without them noticing would qualify as an act of violence.

Seriously.
 
Last edited:
tyr_13 said:
Is there a specific reason you haven't answered my question on perjury?
Click to expand...
Previously? Because I missed it.

Would you still support Kavanaugh if it could be proven he committed perjury on a relevant judicial related issue?
Click to expand...
Good question.

This honestly puzzles me. The question has several outs, yet I've only gotten one Kavanaugh supporter to agree that they should not support him if that becomes the case. Why?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Oh. and let's not forget this gem to come:

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a23455699/michael-avenatti-brett-kavanaugh-accuser/
Speaking with kindly Doc Maddow, Avenatti claimed to represent someone he described as both a "witness and a victim," and who "will be coming forward in the next 48 hours" to lob some new charges at the embattled nominee—who, judging by his performance with Martha McCallum on Fox Monday night, is currently operating on fewer circuits than he once was. Judging from letters that Avenatti has sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is likely that this "witness and victim" will accuse Kavanaugh of being part of a high-school clique that would try to incapacitate women with drink and then rape them en masse. Avenatti is continuing to demand that Mark Judge be made to testify under oath despite the fact that, as we said, Avenatti has no standing to demand anything.

...And they know, in case we forgot to mention it, that Michael Avenatti has yet to be wrong.
 
ahhell said:
I am not aware of there being evidence she named Kavanaugh prior to his nominations.
Click to expand...
From: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh/index.html
Her husband, Russell Ford, recalled to the Post that she talked during their 2012 sessions about the incident and said she had mentioned Kavanaugh's last name...

Again, not iron-clad evidence, but lends some credibility if she's naming people who aren't exactly household names at the time.

She may be wrong about who attacked her
Click to expand...
Again... preponderance of the evidence. What makes more sense, that she was wrong about the person that attacked her (despite knowing him well enough at the time to identify him by name) or that she's somehow wrong.

...she may be wrong about how aggressive and violent the attack was.
Click to expand...
Which would be irrelevant. An attack (regardless of how violent) is still an attack.

Against him.
He was as drunk and a mysogynist as a 17-22 year old.
Click to expand...
And probably as an older adult too. He just hides it better.

Lie detector is meaningless. She could know she can fake it(she is a psychologist at the least she should know they are useless.)
Click to expand...
Once again... I recognize that lie detectors are not accurate. But the fact that she would actually risk her reputation over the idea that "Hey I can fake it believably" would seem like a rather strong gamble. Again, not iron clad, but points in the direction of her being truthful.

The time lime is totally consistent with unreliability. No record of it for 30 years. We know it was mentioned in 2012 in therapy and again in 2018.
Click to expand...
She is not giving addresses. She is not giving time of day. She is not giving any sort of details that could be miss-remembered. But I think something as major as "I was assaulted" would remain clear in a person's mind for a long time, even if she couldn't remember all the details.

To we know that Kavanaugh doesn't want it investigated?
Click to expand...
At no point have I ever seen any statement of him suggesting he does want the FBI to investigate.

If he did, I'm sure it would be newsworthy, and I'm sure that at least one of the Kavanaugh sympathizers on here would have posted it.

So, if you see a statement from him saying "please investigate" by all means post it and I'll retract my statement.

[quote[One unverified but verifiable accusation that he showed a drunk women his penis while he was drunk.[/quote]
I have not addressed any of the other allegations against Kavenaugh in my post. I do recognize that the accuracy of the other claims will take time to sort out. If they are found to be credible, then it lends some credibility to Ford's account. If not, then Ford's claim can still stand on its own.
Taking all that and saying, its enough to deny his nomination, meh. It seems pretty partisan. If you really believe that, then anyone nomination could easily be block but just accusing the nominee of just about anything.
Click to expand...
Strange... while Gorsuch's confirmation was very partisan, there didn't seem to be the same sort of allegations against him. You might ask yourself why, if a baseless allegation is enough to sink a nomination, why wasn't Gorsuch attacked in the same way.
 
ahhell said:
Lie detector is meaningless. She could know she can fake it(she is a psychologist at the least she should know they are useless.) She could truly believe it but be wrong and thus would pass.
Click to expand...

Then here is another non-partisan strike against him i saw on reddit - he supports polys:

AlertVast7
Why is nobody suggesting that Kavanaugh take a polygraph? He has supported the validity of polygraphs (despite law to the contrary) in his recent opinions.

In Sacks v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir., 2016), Kavanaugh called the polygraph “an important law enforcement tool”. Id at 694. He noted that “The Government has satisfactorily explained how polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” Id. In Jackson v. Mabus, 808 F.3d 933 (D.C. Cir., 2015) Kavanaugh put to bed the notion that judges don’t discuss polygraphs as evidence, or at least, not as far as Brett Kavanaugh is concerned. In States v. Malenya, 736 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir., 2013) Kavanaugh’s upheld a lower court's requirement that a sex offender be required to take repeated polygraphs.

Given that he is such a firm believer in polygraphs, one wonders why Kavanaugh hasn't offered to take one himself. Or has he, and failed?
 
theprestige said:
Seems like the GOP was able to block Garland's confirmation without smearing him. Go figure.
Click to expand...

That’s a lot of hand-wringing over an alleged smear from someone who voted for Trump.

You know, the guy who does little else but disparage, insult, and smear people he doesn’t like.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
From: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/16/politics/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh/index.html
Her husband, Russell Ford, recalled to the Post that she talked during their 2012 sessions about the incident and said she had mentioned Kavanaugh's last name...

Again, not iron-clad evidence, but lends some credibility if she's naming people who aren't exactly household names at the time.
Click to expand...

Unless her husband gave that interview to the Post in 2012, his recollection has the same problem as hers.

In fact, he remembers "Kavanaugh" in 2018, after it becomes a household name. It's not even tissue-clad evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom