Well, this politcal cartoon sure is spot on.

[Ziggurat]

I think we can agree that impugning people motivations and implying that they have a hidden agenda is untoward...

Given your regular habit of doing so yourself, no, obviously you're not actually going to take that position.

There's a reason why it's against the membership agreement to insult other members but not to insult third parties. Do you understand why that reasoning might apply here?

 

[Belz...]

Given your regular habit of doing so yourself, no, obviously you're not actually going to take that position.

That's part of the point: know you wouldn't take that position either.

So that is both a "touché" and a "Whoosh". Did you not get the reference?

 

[phiwum]

"Sarcasm is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” - Samuel Johnson, probably

More seriously, if Ellison's accuser fails for lack of evidence, why not Kavanaugh's accuser?

Removal from office requires more evidence than granting an office?

Not sure I'm committed to that view, to be fair, but it is a difference to be considered.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's part of the point: know you wouldn't take that position either.

Well, duh. I never claimed I would. Your previous post doesn't actually summarize what I was saying. Once again, do you not understand the difference between other members and third parties? Because it matters here. And your post suggests wrongly that it doesn't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Removal from office requires more evidence than granting an office?

Not sure I'm committed to that view, to be fair, but it is a difference to be considered.

Ellison is currently running for office, so no, it's not a difference.

 

[phiwum]

A logical person might be thinking should unverifiable claims of sexual assault 30+ years ago be enough to stop the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.

There are, of course, other issues that have arisen due to these claims. Did Kavanaugh lie in his response to these claims? Did he behave as an unbiased (politically speaking) jurist in responding to these claims?

Even if he's totally innocent of the original allegations, these two questions must be answered prior to the conclusion that he's well-suited for the highest court in the land.

Hey, how's that for the thinking of a logical person?

 

[phiwum]

Does your article contain the opinions of legal scholars? This one does and spoiler alert; no perjury.

If anybody with authority truthfully believed that Kavanaugh perjured himself they would file charges. Otherwise, I'll take such allegations for what they are, insincere theatrics.

Nonsense.

You know and I know that his explanation of Renate Alumnius was ********. This wasn't an affectionate mention, but rather a declaration that someone had conquered that hill at some time, whether true or false. You know this, and I know this.

And, were I in a position of power, I would not want to go after perjury. After all, what you and I damned well know is not quite the same as we can prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Damned shame that, in some respects, but not so bad in other respects.

 

[Belz...]

Well, duh. I never claimed I would.

Oh please, that characterisation is not against the rules, which makes your objection to it only when you are the target hypocritical.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh please, that characterisation is not against the rules, which makes your objection to it only when you are the target hypocritical.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. I didn't say it was against the rules. But the rules aren't simply arbitrary boundaries. There is a reason behind them. That same reasoning can apply even to cases that aren't directly covered by the rules. In particular, other forum members are not the same as third parties.

And I know you're now invested in calling me a rape apologist, and you want to defend others who make the same baseless accusation, but it's quite pathetic. Do better. Be better.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't say it was against the rules. But the rules aren't simply arbitrary boundaries. There is a reason behind them. That same reasoning can apply even to cases that aren't directly covered by the rules. In particular, other forum members are not the same as third parties.

All of this is completely irrelevant, then, and my point stands. You engaged in exactly the same sort of tactics you decry, now that you're the target.

Serves you right.

And I know you're now invested in calling me a rape apologist

Again, spare me the fake outrage. I said you'd find excuses. You can spin that any way you want, but so far, finding excuses is exactly what you've been doing.

 

[Lurch]

Ford has been clamoring to be interviewed by the FBI, in order to have her claims scrutinized and tested. I understand she has not (and Kav as well, I think.) Depending on what other witnesses have revealed, then, we could still be left with having to balance the believability of the two principals.

In Ford's favor, there is her avowed desire and willingness from the start to be fully investigated, and her positive polygraph test.

I sincerely can see nothing that stands out in Kav's favor. On the contrary, he squirmed like a guilty party. Except when lashing out and whining in a most unbecoming manner--even if he were innocent of attempted rape--for a high court Justice and job applicant.

If we are forced to weigh the testimony and demeanor of Ford and Kav in isolation, there is a telling discrepancy which tilts the balance well enough from equilibrium to cast a taint of doubt on Kav. Not enough to render him guilty, of course. But more than enough to reject him as an aspirant to the SC.

This is *before* we survey his outlandish, injudicial performance, which in itself normally would result in his impeachment from his current position. If he gets away with holding onto his job, he should count himself bloody lucky.

 

[acbytesla]

Nonsense.

You know and I know that his explanation of Renate Alumnius was ********. This wasn't an affectionate mention, but rather a declaration that someone had conquered that hill at some time, whether true or false. You know this, and I know this.

And, were I in a position of power, I would not want to go after perjury. After all, what you and I damned well know is not quite the same as we can prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Damned shame that, in some respects, but not so bad in other respects.

I don't think you could or should be able to convict Kavanaugh of perjury. That requires the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. However I'd rule he lied in the lower standard of preponderance of evidence. It seems obvious that he lied and was deceptive. It's even more obvious listening to not just his words but how he said them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Do better. Be better.

Be best ?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Even if he didn't lie - he violated a core Ethics Rule for Judges to stay impartial: his Clinton conspiracy rant proved that he cannot be objective in matters of political impact (like all Supreme Court decisions).
This, in and of itself, is sufficiently disqualifying.

 

[Delvo]

Now why do you think your guy deserves the seat?

Because no other potential candidate would be as protective of Trump regarding Trump's own crimes.

 

[HarryHenderson]

Be best ?

Be BESTEST! For example, this thread (so obviously full of idled hand shut-ins) could never win a Bestest™ Award because of its disturbing history of being pure blather.

 

[Dr. Keith]

As an observer of these debates, I can assure you that you haven't made
progress. Expect some hypothetical sinister motivations behind her being
anonymous. Use your imagination and come up with a few on your own.
It's easy.

Yes, I know.

 

[Elagabalus]

Be BESTEST! For example, this thread (so obviously full of idled hand shut-ins) could never win a Bestest™ Award because of its disturbing history of being pure blather.

Fortunately, here on the ISF you can go to the Bigfoot™ threads and get a Deep Cleanse.

 

[phiwum]

I don't think you could or should be able to convict Kavanaugh of perjury. That requires the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. However I'd rule he lied in the lower standard of preponderance of evidence. It seems obvious that he lied and was deceptive. It's even more obvious listening to not just his words but how he said them.

Quite right. I doubt anyone here really thinks that "Renate Alumnius" was a sign that she was included in the group. Really, makes no sense (especially with such classicist nerds that they use "alumnius" rather than "alumnus", which I totally expect is absolutely correct for grammatical reasons that I will never grok).

There's no sense in which being an "alumnius" of a person means that the person is a full-fledged member of your group.

But he couldn't be convicted of perjury on that obvious lie, for reasons you state. There could always be ever so slightly reasonable doubt about the meaning of the term.

 

[Belz...]

Quite right. I doubt anyone here really thinks that "Renate Alumnius" was a sign that she was included in the group. Really, makes no sense (especially with such classicist nerds that they use "alumnius" rather than "alumnus", which I totally expect is absolutely correct for grammatical reasons that I will never grok).

Isn't it "Alumnus" singular and "Alumni" plural, like all such Latin words?