SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[Timsup2nothin]

I dont think so, Ford said she made eye contact with Judge and that he was ambivalent about Kavanaugh's behavior, egging him on and then telling him to stop and when she saw him later at the store she detected shame. She said Judge jumped onto them causing Kavanaugh to roll or tumble off her, he might have disguised his intervention as horseplay or 'me first' so Kavanaugh didn't think he was defending her. I'm trying to put myself in Judge's shoes and thats what I might have done if I wanted to stop my buddy from raping her.

Yeah, if. But that's you in Judge's shoes, not Judge in Judge's shoes. The thing that made Ford's experience unique among what was most likely a string of "find one drunk enough to pull the train" parties was that Judge and Kavanaugh made their move before she was drunk enough. Whatever reluctance Judge may have been experiencing was probably based on him recognizing that error, not any conscience about what they were doing.

 

[Hehehe]

The more I've looked into this, the more this seems like a case of he said she said. And it's a shame, I wish we had a time machine so that we could know for sure. Rape cases, even if they really happened, are difficult to prosecute. Now given the politically sensitive nature of this case, it seems to me that the most fair course of action would be to nominate Kavanaugh, and then launch a full FBI investigation, and impeach him later if he's found guilty of perjury (supreme court justices can be impeached, right?). That seems like the most neutral course of action to me. I know that a lot of people here will disagree with me, but whatever.

What I think will really happen though is that both sides will continue to be couped up in their own little echo chambers. Both sides will continue to believe their own side of the story, and both sides will lose some of their faith in democracy if this doesn't go their way. Given the level of political polarization, I'm not sure that's a place I'd want to be in. Then again, I'm not an American, so I guess this is really none of my business. I just hope you guys enjoy your Kavanaugh fights

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The more I've looked into this, the more this seems like a case of he said she said. And it's a shame, I wish we had a time machine so that we could know for sure. Rape cases, even if they really happened, are difficult to prosecute. Now given the politically sensitive nature of this case, it seems to me that the most fair course of action would be to nominate Kavanaugh, and then launch a full FBI investigation, and impeach him later if he's found guilty of perjury (supreme court justices can be impeached, right?). That seems like the most neutral course of action to me. I know that a lot of people here will disagree with me, but whatever.

What I think will really happen though is that both sides will continue to be couped up in their own little echo chambers. Both sides will continue to believe their own side of the story, and both sides will lose some of their faith in democracy if this doesn't go their way. Given the level of political polarization, I'm not sure that's a place I'd want to be in. Then again, I'm not an American, so I guess this is really none of my business. I just hope you guys enjoy your Kavanaugh fights

Disagree? Maybe. Tell you that when you say "impeach him later" it is really obvious that you don't know what you are talking about? Absolutely. Might as well say "go ahead and put him in office and the magic robe of a supreme court justice will transform him into a totally different and better human being." That is just as likely to happen as a successful impeachment and removal. Actually, probably more likely, as it is at least possible, no matter how improbable.

 

[Synobun]

This is pointless, but: "it seems to me that the most fair course of action would be to nominate Kavanaugh, and then launch a full FBI investigation, and impeach him later if he's found guilty of perjury"

What? How is that the most fair course of action? Why is this such a pressing need that he has to be rammed through NOW, NOW, NOW?

 

[Hehehe]

Disagree? Maybe. Tell you that when you say "impeach him later" it is really obvious that you don't know what you are talking about? Absolutely. Might as well say "go ahead and put him in office and the magic robe of a supreme court justice will transform him into a totally different and better human being." That is just as likely to happen as a successful impeachment and removal. Actually, probably more likely, as it is at least possible, no matter how improbable.

If Kavanaugh really lied, then he perjured himself? If that's the case, why wouldn't a court of law see it that way?

This is pointless, but: "it seems to me that the most fair course of action would be to nominate Kavanaugh, and then launch a full FBI investigation, and impeach him later if he's found guilty of perjury"

What? How is that the most fair course of action? Why is this such a pressing need that he has to be rammed through NOW, NOW, NOW?

The republican echo chamber believes that this is nothing more than a delay tactic by democrats. Throw unprovable shade on Kavanaugh, delay his nomination, and hopefully block it after the elections. If that were true, then drudging up baseless allegations would be an incredibly dirty tactic.

 

[Synobun]

The Republicans are the ones delaying it, though. If they'd just gone along with the Democrats he'd already be investigated and we'd know where all the chips fell.

 

[Hehehe]

The Republicans are the ones delaying it, though. If they'd just gone along with the Democrats he'd already be investigated and we'd know where all the chips fell.

I think republicans might disagree, but I guess that's something you should take up with them

 

[Zelig]

The more I've looked into this, the more this seems like a case of he said she said. And it's a shame, I wish we had a time machine so that we could know for sure. Rape cases, even if they really happened, are difficult to prosecute. Now given the politically sensitive nature of this case, it seems to me that the most fair course of action would be to nominate Kavanaugh, and then launch a full FBI investigation, and impeach him later if he's found guilty of perjury (supreme court justices can be impeached, right?). That seems like the most neutral course of action to me. I know that a lot of people here will disagree with me, but whatever.

That's madness. At my job, to hire anyone, the hiring team has to unanimously agree. Hiring a bad employee is so, so much worse than passing on a great one.

 

[Hehehe]

That's madness. At my job, to hire anyone, the hiring team has to unanimously agree. Hiring a bad employee is so, so much worse than passing on a great one.

Uh-huh. And you think that it's possible to find a judge or a politician who all Americans would unanimously agree on?

 

[Lexicus]

What I think will really happen though is that both sides will continue to be couped up in their own little echo chambers. Both sides will continue to believe their own side of the story, and both sides will lose some of their faith in democracy if this doesn't go their way. Given the level of political polarization, I'm not sure that's a place I'd want to be in. Then again, I'm not an American, so I guess this is really none of my business. I just hope you guys enjoy your Kavanaugh fights

Kavanaugh is being installed on the court for the express purpose of destroying democracy. That is the goal of the whole "conservative legal movement": majorities vote for things conservatives hate, and conservatives know this, so conservatives want to get rid of majority rule.

Also: no surprises here
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/03/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-report/

 

[Synobun]

Uh-huh. And you think that it's possible to find a judge or a politician who all Americans would unanimously agree on?

All Americans don't need to unanimously agree. Just go to the second name on the list.

 

[metalhead]

Uh-huh. And you think that it's possible to find a judge or a politician who all Americans would unanimously agree on?

I think you can find ones who are ethically above reproach, and who don't lie and mislead under oath.

I'd love to hear why it's a bad thing to set very high standards for what we expect from a Supreme Court justice, when there are plenty of candidates out there who can meet the standards.

 

[Hehehe]

Kavanaugh is being installed on the court for the express purpose of destroying democracy. That is the goal of the whole "conservative legal movement": majorities vote for things conservatives hate, and conservatives know this, so conservatives want to get rid of majority rule.

Also: no surprises here
https://theintercept.com/2018/10/03/brett-kavanaugh-rachel-mitchell-report/

You want to change US into a majority-vote system? Good luck with that

All Americans don't need to unanimously agree. Just go to the second name on the list.

If it were the case that Kavanaugh hadn't done anything, then it would be kinda unfair to throw him under the bus, no?

I think you can find ones who are ethically above reproach, and who don't lie and mislead under oath.

I'd love to hear why it's a bad thing to set very high standards for what we expect from a Supreme Court justice, when there are plenty of candidates out there who can meet the standards.

All I'm saying is, this seems like the kind of thing that would benefit from a little bit of independent investigation

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think there's such a thing as a conservative ethically beyond reproach.

 

[metalhead]

If it were the case that Kavanaugh hadn't done anything, then it would be kinda unfair to throw him under the bus, no?

If he hadn't done anything, he would have been candid at his Senate hearing. That's what innocent people do. They tell the truth.

 

[Synobun]

If it were the case that Kavanaugh hadn't done anything, then it would be kinda unfair to throw him under the bus, no?

Before the hearings and revelations about the targeted defense preempting one of the allegations, I would agree.

But... you have seen the hearings, right? Or at least read transcripts? Is that someone who you would want on a lifelong post making deliberations that quite genuinely steer the course of society for decades afterwards? If he is innocent, his behaviour during this situation has been extremely unbecoming today and not thirty-five years ago. The deflections, non-answers, angry rants, and conspiracy theorizing are all sad indications of what to expect for the next forty years from someone who is meant to guide a nation from a place of moral and legal aptitude.

From my perspective, he threw himself under the bus by behaving the way he has. Being defensive is fine. Being angry is fine. But everything surrounding this has been handled poorly on his part. I wouldn't trust him to fairly deliberate on the sort of cases that cross the Supreme Court, political opinions aside. I would feel the same of a judge that leaned Democrat.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If he hadn't done anything, he would have been candid at his Senate hearing. That's what innocent honest people do. They tell the truth.

FTFY. Again, the issue to not lose sight of isn't his guilt or innocence. It's his dishonesty. He's blatantly lying for personal gain, power, prestige and reward and a person doing that shouldn't be rewarded by elevation to the SCOTUS.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Hehehe has conveniently once again framed this about whether or not Kavanaugh can be proven to have attempted rape to his subjective, shifting standard.

Hehehe's not debating in good faith. Anyone that suggests you should confirm a known perjuror that implicitly threatened the opposition with reprisals is not arguing from a position of rationality. He's trying to shift the goal posts just enough to get his guy through at which he likely can't be removed from his life appointment.

And that's not even touching on whether or not he committed sexual assaults.

 

[metalhead]

FTFY. Again, the issue to not lose sight of isn't his guilt or innocence. It's his dishonesty. He's blatantly lying for personal gain, power, prestige and reward and a person doing that shouldn't be rewarded by elevation to the SCOTUS.

Even an honest person will possibly lie to protect themselves. Maybe they weren't really an honest person to begin with then, but if one was confident one didn't behave in a way 35 years ago that was disqualifying for the Supreme Court, one has no impetus to lie. Which means if one is lying anyways, either that person believes they did or at least might have behaved in a disqualifying way, or is simply a liar.

Fortunately, either conclusion clearly disqualifies one to sit on the Supreme Court, so this isn't a difficult choice.

 

[bernie14]

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

My thanks for crediting me true perspective

Trump is now openly mocking Ford...

Perhaps he is leaking classifed fbi information?

If Ford's memory was false, why did she name the same boys on Kavanaugh's calendar in the same time frame?...

I dont think there has been any question to whether she was aware of a "popular" group of boys that attended some of the same parties that she did.