SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[Synobun]

Except that's not what the witnesses said. The only ones who denied it happened are the ones accused of the crime. The rest say they don't remember the incident which is not the same.

Logic.

At this point, engaging this line of thought is pointless. It is established fact. Let inno pretend it's up for debate, alone, in his corner, while you spend your time on better things.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't understand this reply. Nobody discouraged you from participating or otherwise unfairly targeted you for something you've said.

I probably did. My tolerance for repeatedly posting the same lying crap dragged from the right wing echo chamber, getting it resoundingly disproved, then 'rallying' by posting the same exact crap again has worn pretty thin.

 

[innonimatu]

Except that's not what the witnesses said. The only ones who denied it happened are the ones accused of the crime. The rest say they don't remember the incident which is not the same.

Logic.

Logic, you say?

Accuser: he attacked me and there people were witnesses.

Witnesses: we do not recall that having ever happened.

You: Logic says we must convict.

Logic? Logic?

You people do deserve the worst supreme court in earth.

only denied outright by TWO witnesses (the two being accused of the specific acts)

Strictly speaking a witness saying "I did not witness this" and saying "I did not recall this" regarding an allegation of having witnesses something is one and the same thing. The sole difference is that one admits the fallibility of human memory over 30 years, the other does not. The result is the same: all witnesses deny that they witnessed what was alleged.

As for why the third witness does not give her denial in a categorical fashion but instead as a "I cannot recall", the answer is obvious from the context: she's trying to avoid having to call her best friend a liar.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

At this point, engaging this line of thought is pointless. It is established fact. Let inno pretend it's up for debate, alone, in his corner, while you spend your time on better things.

What you fail to understand

Is that I'm sick as **** right now and have nothing better I could do with my time.

Logic, you say?

Accuser: he attacked me and there people were witnesses.

Witnesses: we do not recall that having ever happened.

You: Logic says we must convict.

Logic? Logic?

You people do deserve the worst supreme court in earth.

Ok, ok I get it now. This one had me actually laughing out loud. You're pretty funny. Nice lark.

 

[Lexicus]

I told you that would happen.

What you said reflected a complete lack of understanding of the state of US politics in general and the Republican Party in particular. It is not the Democrats' fault in any way shape or form that the Republican Party has gone off the ideological deep end because it can't state openly that its political program consists of allowing kleptocrats to pillage the country.

And I'm still telling you that they will win the next elections due to the outright despicable way this was done. Using unsupported allegations to launch a campaign against a nominee to the supreme court is a supreme irony indeed. One of the cornerstones of the justice system is the presumption of innocence. But his enemies are saying that he must be barred because he should be presumed guilty.

Can't any of you stop and try to look at it from a neutral point of view? Can't you consider the logic of it? Can't you see that this is the most supremely unsuitable issue to use the old "sexual harassment allegation" strategy on?

It is absolutely hilarious to me that you have the nerve to lecture me about the presumption of innocence when you are presuming on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that
1) this whole thing is some sort of Democratic "strategy", and therefore
2) Dr. Ford and the other four accusers are lying

This of course unconsciously demonstrates the double standard to which you hold victims of sexual violence, and the fact that you apparently don't even recognize that this is an issue that might motivate women to vote against the fratboi judge's party shows everyone how seriously to take your prediction about the outcome of election.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It is absolutely hilarious to me that you have the nerve to lecture me about the presumption of innocence when you are presuming on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that
1) this whole thing is some sort of Democratic "strategy", and therefore
2) Dr. Ford and the other four accusers are lying

This of course unconsciously demonstrates the double standard to which you hold victims of sexual violence, and the fact that you apparently don't even recognize that this is an issue that might motivate women to vote against the fratboi judge's party shows everyone how seriously to take your prediction about the outcome of election.

I take his prediction seriously, because I recognize that 40% of Americans would call the presumption that you assign to him a "weak RINO position." They aren't presuming that Dr Ford and the others are lying they have seen a veritable mountain of irrefutable evidence that they are lying. They see that not as a piece in "some sort" of Democratic strategy, they recognize that it is just a piece in a criminal, communist inspired, internationally funded attack on America strategy in which the treasonous Democrats are complicit because they can't stand the fact that Trump has been proven right in every way. Women immersed in the Trumpist world aren't going to be motivated to vote against the Fratboy Judge's party because they do not know that there is a Fratboy Judge any more than @innonimatu does, for the same reasons.

 

[bernie14]

I don't understand this reply. Nobody discouraged you from participating or otherwise unfairly targeted you for something you've said.

Honestly? I was listening to the podcast (its 38 minutes) while hobbs, tim, you and bj were making the same tired comments that i have read over and over again....then poor inno doing the same.... i thought the opinion of a false memory expert was of interest... warning, the interviewer is obviously somewhere between hannity and hitler but i thought the expert had some good points regarding false memories... Im not interested in debating talking points

 

[Synobun]

What makes your perspective truth and everything else "talking points" and "same, tired comments"?

 

[innonimatu]

My understanding of politics in the USA may be lacking, granted. But I have the impression, from past arguments here, that it is better that that of many of the other people around here.

It is absolutely hilarious to me that you have the nerve to lecture me about the presumption of innocence when you are presuming on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that
1) this whole thing is some sort of Democratic "strategy", and therefore
2) Dr. Ford and the other four accusers are lying

This of course unconsciously demonstrates the double standard to which you hold victims of sexual violence, and the fact that you apparently don't even recognize that this is an issue that might motivate women to vote against the fratboi judge's party shows everyone how seriously to take your prediction about the outcome of election.

Taking this accusation and using it for political gain, sitting Ford as a witness in this process, is undoubtedly a political strategy. Can anyone deny that?

Ford could have complained to the justice system. For could have made her complaint at any time in the past 30 years, if indeed she remembered the alleged attack. And I do not buy the repressed memory thing. She chose to use it for political purposes now. This is a political thing, from the start.

The claimants of sexual violence are not "worth" any more than the victims of any other crime. Their testimony alone should not be used to convict another person, that wold be throwing away the presumption of innocence. That would enable all kinds of actual attacks (using the repressive apparatus of the state) to be arbitrarily, maliciously, made against innocent people. Proving the negative against a well-crafted attack may be impossible, the attacker only has to pick a time when the target cannot have an ironclad alibi available. Or place it so fat back in the past that no one can vouch with absolute certainty, memory being fallible.

I have already given you one sample of a case, there are may others. Usually the ones that get caught are those where the attacker, the person making the false claim, made it out of embarrassment. They are more easily caught in contradictions, having been made without preparation. And the attackers more often feel remorseful and confess that the allegation was false. I'm seen too much of that here already, and I know it happens everywhere. I've even linked here to one example of gross miscarriage of justice in the US to illustrate the point.

This is not a mere political spat. This is about a fundamental feature of any justice system. You cannot see that because you are willfully blinded by the "my side must win" belief. And I don't expect to persuade anyone here of the enormous monstrosity they are calling for, throwing away the presumption of innocence. Doing that in such a high-profile, publicized case will have consequences if it successes. It will influence people's behavior, it will influence juries and judges and prosecutors. It will multiply those cases where innocent people are falsely accused of violence and imprisoned for it.

I also take issue with one particular manipulative use of language in these cases: it is often said "you must believe in the victims". The reporting is framed as "the victim claimed" or "the victim said". But there is not "victim" until the crime is established to have happened. There is an accuser, a claimant. If the accusation is proven false, how could the accused have been a "victim"? The victim was the accused!
When the media frames these thins as "the victim..." in cases like this, they are taking a position and pushing it. They are making it more difficult for the accused who are actually innocent to defend their innocence.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Taking this accusation and using it for political gain, sitting Ford as a witness in this process, is undoubtedly a political strategy. Can anyone deny that?

Even if it is a political hit job, that doesn't make the allegations untrue.

Ford could have complained to the justice system. For could have made her complaint at any time in the past 30 years, if indeed she remembered the alleged attack. And I do not buy the repressed memory thing. She chose to use it for political purposes now. This is a political thing, from the start.

It's been discussed at length why the majority of sexual assault accusers do not go to the police then and now. She did choose to come forward with her allegations to convince Feinstein (her own Senator on the relevant committee) not to vote for him. This does not mean her accusations are untrue.

The claimants of sexual violence are not "worth" any more than the victims of any other crime. Their testimony alone should not be used to convict another person, that wold be throwing away the presumption of innocence.

He's not on trial.

This is not a mere political spat. This is about a fundamental feature of any justice system.

The justice system is only involved in as much as they have been called to investigate the charges that Kavanaugh has lied repeatedly under oath. He is not on trial or under the purview of the justice system.

I also take issue with one particular manipulative use of language in these cases:

Here's a particularly manipulative use of language:

This is about a fundamental feature of any justice system.

It's not like you haven't been told and explained at length how this is not a criminal proceeding. Yet you continue to misconstrue it as one in order to pretend that we all should adhere to some impossible standard of evidence for what amounts to a job interview. That is manipulative. You are a manipulator.

Logic

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Taking this accusation and using it for political gain, sitting Ford as a witness in this process, is undoubtedly a political strategy. Can anyone deny that?

Ford could have complained to the justice system. For could have made her complaint at any time in the past 30 years, if indeed she remembered the alleged attack. And I do not buy the repressed memory thing. She chose to use it for political purposes now. This is a political thing, from the start.

As has already been discussed at length, the only thing that sets Dr Ford apart from tens of millions of other sexual abuse survivors is that her abuser happens to be a supreme court nominee. No one has suggested, other than your ilk in your 'why not' questioning, that taking her case to the justice system would accomplish anything, ever. Like the rest of those tens of millions she would have been told "nothing we can do for you" and sent on her way. So in that regard, YES, her case is special, and what makes it special is the politics surrounding her abuser.

That fact in no way excuses him. I've been invited to run for office. I've been offered substantial financial support for a campaign. I have every reason to think I would very likely win...except that I know I have things in my past that if they came up, which they likely would, would make me ineligible. My solution is not the Kavanaugh "go for it anyway and hope any accusers are discounted" method or the Trump "pay them hush money" method, I just don't run. Kavanaugh had that choice, and it is his choice that has created this political confrontation.

 

[Lexicus]

Ford could have complained to the justice system. For could have made her complaint at any time in the past 30 years, if indeed she remembered the alleged attack. And I do not buy the repressed memory thing. She chose to use it for political purposes now. This is a political thing, from the start.

First: what "repressed memory" thing are you talking about?
Second: if that's the sense in which you meant "political strategy," then the way I see this is that sexual violence against women is becoming a political issue. I don't see anything wrong with a "political purpose" that amounts to "I don't want the person who attempted to sexually assault me and never demonstrated any remorse to sit on the Supreme Court."

The claimants of sexual violence are not "worth" any more than the victims of any other crime. Their testimony alone should not be used to convict another person, that wold be throwing away the presumption of innocence. That would enable all kinds of actual attacks (using the repressive apparatus of the state) to be arbitrarily, maliciously, made against innocent people. Proving the negative against a well-crafted attack may be impossible, the attacker only has to pick a time when the target cannot have an ironclad alibi available. Or place it so fat back in the past that no one can vouch with absolute certainty, memory being fallible.

I have already given you one sample of a case, there are may others. Usually the ones that get caught are those where the attacker, the person making the false claim, made it out of embarrassment. They are more easily caught in contradictions, having been made without preparation. And the attackers more often feel remorseful and confess that the allegation was false. I'm seen too much of that here already, and I know it happens everywhere. I've even linked here to one example of gross miscarriage of justice in the US to illustrate the point.

This is not a mere political spat. This is about a fundamental feature of any justice system. You cannot see that because you are willfully blinded by the "my side must win" belief. And I don't expect to persuade anyone here of the enormous monstrosity they are calling for, throwing away the presumption of innocence. Doing that in such a high-profile, publicized case will have consequences if it successes. It will influence people's behavior, it will influence juries and judges and prosecutors. It will multiply those cases where innocent people are falsely accused of violence and imprisoned for it.

1) "testimony alone" as you put it is used to convict people all the time already
2) This is about whether Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court, not whether he goes to jail. You are, funnily enough, doing exactly what I mentioned upthread - making a point that might be valid if this were a criminal proceeding (although as I and others have explained there are plenty of reasons beyond the bare accusation to believe that Kavanaugh did all these things) so that you can accuse us of destroying civilization by forgetting about justice.
3) Calling the Democrats "my team" is about as ridiculous as when you called Nathan J Robinson a "partisan hack" in the last Supreme Court thread: you just have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about. "My team" here is the victims of sexual violence who get a crap deal from society, not least because of people like you conjuring up ridiculous conspiracies and a fever-dream dystopia where women have men thrown in jail at the drop of a hat with false rape accusations.

Like the rest of those tens of millions she would have been told "nothing we can do for you" and sent on her way.

It should really be emphasized here that it is a lot worse than that in a large number of cases. The way that rape victims are frequently treated by police officers, DAs and the like is absolutely appalling. Given this, blaming anyone for not reporting their rape is just absolutely despicable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It should really be emphasized here that it is a lot worse than that in a large number of cases. The way that rape victims are frequently treated by police officers, DAs and the like is absolutely appalling. Given this, blaming anyone for not reporting their rape is just absolutely despicable.

FWIW I am probably seen as understating that because I am a dinosaur from an age where it was a whole lot worse than I think it is currently.

 

[Lexicus]

FWIW I am probably seen as understating that because I am a dinosaur from an age where it was a whole lot worse than I think it is currently.

Well, I wasn't trying to "call you out" or anything, just trying to make a point.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It should really be emphasized here that it is a lot worse than that in a large number of cases. The way that rape victims are frequently treated by police officers, DAs and the like is absolutely appalling. Given this, blaming anyone for not reporting their rape is just absolutely despicable.

How many states have years worth of rape kit processing backlogs that they never got around to?

They have the physical evidence that all these concern trolls ask for and they don't even process it to find the perpetrators. That's how it goes for most of victims of sexual assault and we've all just let it happen as a society.

Part of me is happy all this is happening because I do think maybe this can lead to more progressive cultural shifting.

 

[cardgame]

I didn't really like drinking, but I carried a 4.0 GPA while stoned out of my mind pretty consistently, and a friend of mine who was a jock also carried a 4.0 GPA and was higher than I was most of the time, and still was a jock. I was limited in how high a security clearance I could get because I copped to "experimenting" with drugs, but the current blather in the right wing echo chamber that Kavanaugh just must have been a nose to the stone bookworm, why just look at his grades, is nonsense. Unfortunate that you would drag that kind of crap in here and drop it on our rug.

That rug really tied the room together, man.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That fact in no way excuses him. I've been invited to run for office. I've been offered substantial financial support for a campaign. I have every reason to think I would very likely win...except that I know I have things in my past that if they came up, which they likely would, would make me ineligible. My solution is not the Kavanaugh "go for it anyway and hope any accusers are discounted" method or the Trump "pay them hush money" method, I just don't run. Kavanaugh had that choice, and it is his choice that has created this political confrontation.

Or...OR... He you or anyone else could say "Eff it I'm seeking the office/appointment/position anyway" and when confronted with their past bad acts, say "Yep, I did... some of that", or "Yea I did all of that,... I was as bad as you've heard, back then" and then make the case that you've straightened up since then and so you deserve the office/appointment/position anyway.

But Kavanaugh didn't do that... won't do that, which is his choice. He's choosing the "lie my ass off and hope the Republicans ram me through with their 1 vote majority" approach.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, I wasn't trying to "call you out" or anything, just trying to make a point.

I know. I was actually amplifying on what you said. I do understate it and it is because in my day, which is coincidentally Dr Ford's day as well, there was NO ONE she could go to that would have said anything other than "What is wrong with you drinking at a party with boys? WTH is wrong with your parents? We should strip you naked and tie you spread eagle on a squad car." Back then rape victims who reported the crime fairly routinely got raped again for their efforts.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The precedent for the continued support of Kavanaugh is I think Roy Moore who got full support from Trump through the election with only temporary, half-hearted lapses. I believe by election day the entire rest of the Republican leadership were openly backing Roy Moore and backpedalling on their earlier harsh statements.

That they freaking lost in Alabama over these issues should have been instructive but by jove they're going to die on that same hill again.

The common theme here is morally bankrupt Trump being backed by complete cowards who think suckling at his teet will save their asses come hell or high water in the next election. Even when this thinking is proven faulty they stick with it because they truly refuse to believe the emperor has no clothes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Or...OR... He you or anyone else could say "Eff it I'm seeking the office/appointment/position anyway" and when confronted with their past bad acts, say "Yep, I did... some of that", or "Yea I did all of that,... I was as bad as you've heard, back then" and then make the case that you've straightened up since then and so you deserve the office/appointment/position anyway.

But Kavanaugh didn't do that... won't do that, which is his choice. He's choosing the "lie my ass off and hope the Republicans ram me through with their 1 vote majority" approach.

Well, some of the "back then" was actually yesterday...errrr...today...ummm...now.