SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[Sommerswerd]

Anyone care to take bets on wether the 'moderate' Republicans will vote on this? I still say it'll go down like the tax cuts where the moderates' held off on voting for it on supposed moral grounds but caved once appropriate earmarks were inserted that benefited themselves personally.

I'm with you... they're ramming this through, ... its Rammer time.

YOU.CANNOT.STOP.IT.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It turns out it was none other than the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who released lewd details about the alleged sexual preferences of Julie Swetnick. They call the allegations against Kavanaugh a farce but this is how they choose to counter them.

These details came by way of a guy that claims to have dated her for 2 weeks 15 years ago.

https://forward.com/fast-forward/411395/julie-swetnicks-sex-life-revealed-by-senate-panel/

And what if she does like group sex? Is that a crime now? And what does that preference have anything to do with his behavior?

 

[Sommerswerd]

And what if she does like group sex? Is that a crime now? And what does that preference have anything to do with his behavior?

Kavanaugh is a liar who is unfit to be on the Supreme Court, independent of Swetnicks sexual proclivities. Period. Nothing else matters.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The desperation reeks. It's stinking up the whole country.

 

[metalhead]

That letter doesn't counter Swetnick's claims, either. In fact it lends her story a lot of credibility. It establishes a witness that Swetnick told about having sex with multiple men at once. She says she did so in high school. She also said she enjoyed it, but it's quite possible having undergone such an ordeal would lead one to try to recreate it on their own terms, to take control of it. Isn't that what often leads abusers to become abusers themselves?

I mean really, like, this is actually pretty damning corroboration of Swetnick's claim.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That story doesn't counter Swetnick's claims, either. In fact they lend them a lot of credibility. It establishes a witness that Swetnick told about having sex with multiple men at once. She says she did so in high school. She also said she enjoyed it, but it's quite possible having undergone such an ordeal would lead one to try to recreate it on their own terms, to take control of it. Isn't that what often leads abusers to become abusers themselves?

I mean really, like, this is actually pretty damning corroboration of Swetnick's claim.

This, completely.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That story doesn't counter Swetnick's claims, either. In fact they lend them a lot of credibility. It establishes a witness that Swetnick told about having sex with multiple men at once. She says she did so in high school. She also said she enjoyed it, but it's quite possible having undergone such an ordeal would lead one to try to recreate it on their own terms, to take control of it. Isn't that what often leads abusers to become abusers themselves?

I mean really, like, this is actually pretty damning corroboration of Swetnick's claim.

That's not how the true believers and the geriatrics in the Senate will see this. They will claim (and probably believe) this completely exhonorates Kavanaugh. I agree with your assessment, I just don't think it matters to the people in power.

 

[metalhead]

There is also Tom Hardiman but I'm pretty sure they only bring him up every time to troll the libs. And to be fair, it's a troll I respect.

 

[metalhead]

That's not how the true believers and the geriatrics in the Senate will see this. They will claim (and probably believe) this completely exhonorates Kavanaugh. I agree with your assessment, I just don't think it matters to the people in power.

Just as a basic legal matter, corroborating evidence that she told someone else, years ago, about a sexual encounter with multiple men in high school is a huge deal.

I think you're right, but it's just about the dumbest thing that they looked at this and thought, "oh well she says she likes it so obviously this totally refutes her claim" even though it proves up most key elements of it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't discount at all what you are saying. Unfortunately, as we've had to point out to inno for 50 pages, this isn't a legal matter. It's an exercise in power.

 

[Angst]

To me the case isn't really that complicated.

Kavanaugh is outright lying under oath, this has been demonstrated in plenty of outlets. And all sources I've seen so far note he's resisting an investigation. Both to me are huge no-nos when it comes to a supreme court judge.

The question about Ford's (et al's) legitimacy is mostly a mess, and most of the time rhethorical misdirection, used to distract from the core issue: Kavanaugh is an extremely poor choice for a judge seeing he doesn't comply with basic legal practices.

Republicans are only pushing this through because they've been warned by their Christian base that they want a nominee appointed immediately, and if their wish isn't met, they threaten they stay home during midterms. Personally I wouldn't feel threatened.

Additionally, there's a swathe of judges with the same political position as Kavanaugh without the dirt. Anti-abortion and so on. This whole ordeal is ludicrous. Just elect another butthead.

 

[Berzerker]

Her "best friend" (that was the description in all the press) most certainly is a relevant witness. Kavanaugh denies the party with those people ever happened. Ford claims it happened and she was there. If the other people allegedly at the party deny that, there could not have been any attack, the whole story falls apart.

The only reason this has not yet been universally acknowledged as obvious is that people are emotionally invested, they dislike the guy in the story and liked the woman.

Let us be clear: Ford is too afraid to fly in order to testify about a serious allegation she chose to make, one that managed to further split people across your whole country. But she is not too afraid to fly for pleasure, for vacations, for family issues, or for dating. The other hypothesis is that she made up the fear of flight in order to delay.

You choose to believe her because you wish to believe her.

The best friend didn't witness the alleged crime, only 3 people know if it happened, Ford, Kavanaugh and Judge. And 'judging' by Judge's disappearing act I'd say his lack of enthusiasm in support of his good buddy Bart speaks volumes. As for my personal biases, I could care less if not for the fact I saw both of them under oath and only one of them appeared honest and it wasn't Bart. She doesn't like to fly, so what? I dont either, but I will if I cant drive. She would have preferred investigators come to her but thought they weren't coming so she flew east instead. I'm not getting why her fear of flying is relevant, any delay wont matter - the GOP controls the Senate until late January and will likely control it afterward.

 

[bernie14]

That letter doesn't counter Swetnick's claims, either. In fact it lends her story a lot of credibility. It establishes a witness that Swetnick told about having sex with multiple men at once. She says she did so in high school. She also said she enjoyed it, but it's quite possible having undergone such an ordeal would lead one to try to recreate it on their own terms, to take control of it. Isn't that what often leads abusers to become abusers themselves?

I mean really, like, this is actually pretty damning corroboration of Swetnick's claim.

...but swetnick claims she was in college, attending a hs party when she got gb, or didnt you see her interview?

 

[innonimatu]

That letter doesn't counter Swetnick's claims, either. In fact it lends her story a lot of credibility. It establishes a witness that Swetnick told about having sex with multiple men at once. She says she did so in high school. She also said she enjoyed it, but it's quite possible having undergone such an ordeal would lead one to try to recreate it on their own terms, to take control of it. Isn't that what often leads abusers to become abusers themselves?

Quite possible that it was an "ordeal" you say? So you hold that any woman can "withdraw consent" from sex years after the fact just by claiming "it was an ordeal, I now believe"? Or "hey I had therapy and now I remember differently"?

Do you understand the sheer insanity of what you write? The kind of arbitrary power it would place in people's hands for blackmail or petty revenges or simply paid persecution? Can you understand that not only will most men get out of their way to vote against any insane person who actually defends this doctrine, women will also do that as soon as their realize that one day it may be their innocent sons, brothers or other loved ones accused? It won't even win your party the "women demographic" they're desperately chasing!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Angst

I feel that calling Ford's legitimacy a mess is caving to the false premise that both sides of a story are and should be treated as equal.

I want to be critical of the Democrats on the way they've handled her allegations but for the most part they've acted with dignity and respect. That the biggest rallying cry from the right is that the Democrats didn't leak her story for 3 weeks speaks volumes.

They (and really, probably just Feinstein) did not come forth with these allegations because Ford asked her not to. The rhetoric is hot and in a few instances the Democrats may have been unfair. But nothing that has come out so far has caused any doubt on Ford or her testimony.

Even Trump called her exremely credible until he decided to fight dirty and begin mocking her.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That the biggest rallying cry from the right is that the Democrats didn't leak her story for 3 weeks speaks volumes.

You need to get out more. The big rallying cry on the right is that she is a lying scumbag Democrat operative, and they have a new "101 top inconsistencies in lying scumbags testimony" story every day. They never heard this "Trump called her credible" nonsense of which you speak.

 

[innonimatu]

There are more than 30 days to go until the election. The democrats whipped up public emotions against one guy and made that the big issue for the election. But in all political passions after the couple of weeks of novelty and emotion comes reflection and reassessment. They have turned a guy who could easily be opposed based on his professional history, and on his political alignment, into a martyr victim of political persecution without evidence. And the process chosen was one that can obviously be used against, endanger, anyone across society. If the focus continues to be in the "victims must be believed" story, this will backfire enormously.

 

[Lexicus]

And what if she does like group sex? Is that a crime now? And what does that preference have anything to do with his behavior?

They're playing to the evangelicals. LOOSE WOMAN!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-evangelical-women_us_5bb3a28de4b0ba8bb211985b

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They're playing to the evangelicals. LOOSE WOMAN!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-evangelical-women_us_5bb3a28de4b0ba8bb211985b

I remember all that. At my high school the purity freaks wrote big X's with a sharpie on the back of their hand, wore some bracelets and called themselves ''straight edge'. Did teens do that where you grew up?

Oddly enough, I knew a bunch of the straight edge guys and they actually hoped that their overt displays of purity would get them laid and/or other sexual favors from their female straight edge friends. The whole thing was just sad.

Its weird how the generation us before spent so much time and energy manipulating their kids that the kids ended up sleep walking through the motions and trappings of piety in total cognitive dissonance with their private behavior.

I will give them some credit though - none of the straight edge kids I knew had drinking or drug issues. In fairness I parted ways with everyone before high school ended and didn't go to college for another 5 years. They may have hit the bottle hard in college but I honestly don't see it in them.

 

[cardgame]

There are more than 30 days to go until the election. The democrats whipped up public emotions against one guy and made that the big issue for the election. But in all political passions after the couple of weeks of novelty and emotion comes reflection and reassessment. They have turned a guy who could easily be opposed based on his professional history, and on his political alignment, into a martyr victim of political persecution without evidence. And the process chosen was one that can obviously be used against, endanger, anyone across society. If the focus continues to be in the "victims must be believed" story, this will backfire enormously.

hmmm

I think you are focusing so tightly on the sexual allegations because you want/hope for it to backfire. But the thing is, you are losing sight of the topic.

Kavanaugh is a liar who is unfit to be on the Supreme Court, independent of whether we believe Ford or not. Period. Nothing else matters.