Supreme Court of the United States

[metalhead]

But oh wait, planning about that makes you unconscionably old-fashioned and bigoted, or some other brick-to-forehead-level logic.

I have no idea why you keep harping on this. Is this something a lot of people on this forum keep bringing up?

 

[Berzerker]

Juanita Broadderick originally offered a sworn affidavit that said this:

"During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies," she said. "Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family."​

You might want to back that train of thought up here, because you are WAY out of your element. Your thoughts on evidence are about as coherent as your thoughts on consent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

In a 1999 episode of Dateline NBC, former Bill Clinton volunteer Juanita Broaddrick alleged that, in the late 1970s, Clinton raped her in her hotel room.<----> In 1999, Clinton denied Broaddrick's allegations through his lawyer.

Supporters of Clinton have questioned her account by noting that, when Broaddrick testified about her alleged encounter with Clinton under oath, she denied having been raped by him. In her NBC interview alleging rape, Broaddrick stated that she had only denied being raped under oath to protect her privacy. Supporters of Clinton have also noted that she continued to support him, and appear at public events on his behalf, weeks after the alleged rape, and that Broaddrick stated that she couldn't remember the day or month the alleged incident occurred.[12] Broaddrick has stated that in 1978 she revealed the alleged assault to five intimates, and that they advised her not to cause trouble for herself by going public.

Sounds a bit like accounts from both Ford and Hill, one couldn't remember exactly when it happened and the other followed Thomas to another job. Course there is no comparison between the experiences of Hill and Broaddrick, but both reacted with their futures in mind.

Anyone who voted for Hillary must answer for Bill Clinton. She was participative in covering up his serial predations. Part of that was verbally abusing Juanita Broderick.

Report him as off topic with trolling intent and hope that this time something finally gets done.

Wouldn't it be hypocritical to report him and not everyone else who goes OT? And I thought accusing people of trolling is considered trolling here. We could talk about busing again , but I sure hope the mods are slow to respond to your complaints. Whether you like it or not, it isn't OT trolling to point out how the Dems have spent decades ignoring the Clintons while rightfully skewering Trump and Kavanaugh. The problem is their double standard.

Thats why it was so important for the female senator from NY to go after Franken. If Dems refuse to clean their own house they cant complain about others sweeping their dirt under the rug.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

...

As previously mentioned, only those who are just as committed to derailing threads with whataboutisms have not pretty much immediately arrived at despising him and acknowledging him for what he is.

 

[Synobun]

I can't think of many people here who particularly like the Clintons, nor can I think of many reasons why the Clintons are relevant to Kavanaugh beyond his gay frogs conspiracy theorizing in front of a committee.

More specifically, J mentioning the Clintons isn't the issue, it's that he makes spurious claims, gets immediately discredited, and then has a spiffy one-liner retort that functions more as a grenade than anything else. His sole function in these discussions seems to be merely to sow discord instead of anything that could be considered more productive.

 

[Farm Boy]

Is this something a lot of people on this forum keep bringing up?

Naw, that's why it came up in reference to conversations with my non-internet people. They're still in that space. "Durr, not having alone time with coworkers makes u sexist!" seems to still be a prevalent opinion in the floorfeather-er spheres.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Your point. The greater point, as you put it. You're right about college. It's adulthood with training wheels more than it's anything else. Stuff that ruins your life in the town is a do-over in the gown. It's part of the reason you get to laugh at the smellies down the hill. But your point, as I understand it, is that lying and not owning up to it is a problem. Now, you've got me on board with the straight shooter aspect of it, but I don't think being a straight shooter matters at all.

But again. Kavanaugh isn't conceding any of this. He's lying his ass off and pretending it didn't happen. He's not straight shooting, as you put it. He's intentionally spraying shot all over the place at everything but the target. A shooter who does that gets DQ'd... they don't get to demand that they be given a fair score "for the honest effort".

If Kavanaugh comes clean, admits his lying and says he was scared, cornered, whatever and apologizes for whatever he honestly did... and either drops out or at least says he's guilty and he is throwing himself on the mercy of Congress... then you can call all the bullfeathers you want at the partisans who won't give him a break. But you can't demand pre-emptive forgiveness for a guy blatantly lying and denying.

... well duh. It never was.

C'mon man... first of all Kavanaugh never said sorry so... I'm not gonna say it... cause its you... but you know what the problem is with what you're saying. Plus you know that in this context sincerely "saying sorry" on national TV with the SCOTUS seat on the line, is different from saying "whoops, my bad" as you pass in the cafeteria the next day.

Finally, maybe you missed it... but my "It's not about saying sorry" was really directed at @hobbsyoyo , as a pushback against the notion of "unforgivable" actions. So in a way I was taking your side on that point, right? I mean I can't say there are absolutes, but I try to be thoughtful and at times, resistant to the notion of too many absolute unforgivables... life is a long, messy process, and some of the greatest we've ever known have done some effed up squeeze... only some of which we ever find out about.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Thats why it was so important for the female senator from NY to go after Franken. If Dems refuse to clean their own house they cant complain about others sweeping their dirt under the rug.

Meh... Franken got ridden out of town on a rail. There was little (or no) wagon circling. So it seems like the whataboutism... such as it is... fails.

 

[Farm Boy]

then you can call all the bullfeathers you want at the partisans who won't give him a break. But you can't demand pre-emptive forgiveness for a guy blatantly lying and denying.

I'm not! I don't think he gets a break. I perhaps didn't state my case strongly enough for exactly how much he's worth, baseline, given what I know about his upbringing and career. I mean, I pre-emptively used the word "bigot" on myself. It's the only rational explanation for why I hate him as much as I do, as soon as I did. Not inclined to have ever taken his word(I believe I did say it was worth zero). It's also, given that, what makes me as mad as I am about the timing being exactly as transparent as it is. And, oh yes, that he was nominated in the first place. I was expecting Barrett, but Assclown never lets me down in the lets me down department.

But I can still call bs on the partisans. Their actions will have consequences. Their actions fit a mood, and men less powerful than this arsewad will fare worse than he, not better. That's a pretty damn serious cost to trade.

Finally, maybe you missed it... but my "It's not about saying sorry" was really directed at @hobbsyoyo , as a pushback against the notion of "unforgivable" actions. So in a way I was taking your side on that point, right?

Yeah, I would have missed that. I amend to accept your context adaptation.

 

[rah]

Yeah, it seems kind of silly to use that example. Franken paid for his actions.

If the Kav had spent half the time crying about what he did instead of how unjust this is, he'd already have been confirmed.

 

[Lexicus]

I have no idea why you keep harping on this. Is this something a lot of people on this forum keep bringing up?

Still smarting about us making fun of it maybe? My take on that is that it's more than a little disturbing that he doesn't seem to understand there's a big difference between ill-considered drunken behavior (say, cheating on one's spouse) and sexual assault....

They're still in that space. "Durr, not having alone time with coworkers makes u sexist!" seems to still be a prevalent opinion in the floorfeather-er spheres.

At least represent the argument correctly. If you're in a position exercising power over other people's careers etc then of course having different standards of behavior for men and women (e.g. you will have lunch alone with a male subordinate, but not a female subordinate) can lead to discriminatory, and yes, sexist outcomes in the workplace.

But I can still call bs on the partisans. Their actions will have consequences. Their actions fit a mood, and men less powerful than this arsewad will fare worse than he, not better. That's a pretty damn serious cost to trade.

The consequences: men will be held accountable for their bad behavior. You can tell the "not all men" from the unredeemed pieces of garbage by seeing who is frightened by this prospect.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I wasn't saying these are unforgivable actions* - merely pointing out that saying sorry doesn't automatically warrant forgiveness. That's what I meant by say sorry and forget about it - that there are some crimes which absolutely require proper punishment on top of asking forgiveness. For what it's worth I whole-heartedly agree with you here below, I just did not know this is what we were discussing when we talk about 'post forgiveness society' .

It's not about "saying sorry", its about be willing to face consequences, make amends and in-fact facing consequences and making amends. Admitting wrongs and facing the consequences while asking for forgiveness/leniency/opportunity for redemption does not mean "forgetting about it".

*Actually, yeah I do believe there are actions which are unforgivable in my book.

 

[Lexicus]

I saw two different articles making the same point about Kavanaugh. Both authors had been raped, and both forgave their rapists but only after the rapists came clean, apologized and demonstrated regret and willingness to make amends. Both pointed out that Kavanaugh...uh...didn't take that approach.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I saw two different articles making the same point about Kavanaugh. Both authors had been raped, and both forgave their rapists but only after the rapists came clean, apologized and demonstrated regret and willingness to make amends. Both pointed out that Kavanaugh...uh...didn't take that approach.

And in the end it is the victims who get to make that personal choice. On the other hand, I don't have to always forgive someone for something horrible they did, even if they confessed, expressed remorse and were punished on it. That is true for me even when I'm simply a bystander in the whole ordeal. I don't think Kavanaugh's attempted rape and penis-wagging are unforgivable. Attending a party where an inebriated woman was gang raped and not doing anything about it is unforgivable.

This is why we need an FBI investigation that is not so strictly limited to clear the air.

But in any case his behavior last week completely precludes his assumption of office by and of itself.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, there is forgiveness in the personal, "only the victim can make that choice" sense, and there is forgiveness in the society-level sense of "do we entrust this person with a position of authority after s/he did [bad thing]?"

At any rate, a high-minded philosophical discussion about forgiveness is beside the point here, because as best I can tell what Farm Boy means by "forgiveness" in this context is using our own better instincts against us to bamboozle us into acquiescing in rape culture.

My one consolation here is that even if the Republicans succeed in ramrodding this man onto the Court, they won't have the last laugh. We'll pack it so that Bert spends the rest of his days writing petulant dissenting opinions, or maybe we'll just impeach and remove him. Personally the former appeals to me more as a punishment.

 

[onejayhawk]

Whether or not we live in a post-forgiveness society is irrelevant because he hasn't asked for forgiveness because he claims he never did anything wrong, ever.

There are also some crimes that you just don't get to say sorry and forget about. You know, crimes like sexual assault.

Overstate much?

Dr. Ford claims he held her down, covered her mouth and groped her. Judge Kavanaugh claims he never did those things to any woman, ever.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, there is forgiveness in the personal, "only the victim can make that choice" sense, and there is forgiveness in the society-level sense of "do we entrust this person with a position of authority after s/he did [bad thing]?"

At any rate, a high-minded philosophical discussion about forgiveness is beside the point here, because as best I can tell what Farm Boy means by "forgiveness" in this context is using our own better instincts against us to bamboozle us into acquiescing in rape culture.

My one consolation here is that even if the Republicans succeed in ramrodding this man onto the Court, they won't have the last laugh. We'll pack it so that Bert spends the rest of his days writing petulant dissenting opinions, or maybe we'll just impeach and remove him. Personally the former appeals to me more as a punishment.

I'd still argue that some crimes mean you can never have a position of authority even if the victims have forgiven you for it.

I don't think they'll be able to pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh given their years-long trend of being reasonable adults. They'll know going down the court-packing route could be seen as constituting a constitutional crisis and won't do it. And they'll never have the votes to remove him from office in my opinion. And I do mean never, not just a few election cycles.

Overstate much?

Dr. Ford claims he held her down, covered her mouth and groped her. Judge Kavanaugh claims he never did those things to any woman, ever.

J

Stop being childish. You know what rhetorical flourish is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Overstate much?

Dr. Ford claims he held her down, covered her mouth and groped her. Judge Kavanaugh claims he never did those things to any woman, ever.

J

And predicates his claim on the supporting structure of "no, I have never been so drunk as to have possibly done that and not remembered it." That supporting structure has taken a whole lot of hits in the very short time since it was brought to widespread attention.

 

[onejayhawk]

I'd still argue that some crimes mean you can never have a position of authority even if the victims have forgiven you for it.

I don't think they'll be able to pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh given their years-long trend of being reasonable adults. They'll know going down the court-packing route could be seen as constituting a constitutional crisis and won't do it. And they'll never have the votes to remove him from office in my opinion. And I do mean never, not just a few election cycles.

Which is the relevance of Juanita Broderick. Bill Clinton was given a position of authority on much better evidence of both the single case and a pattern of behavior.

Stop being childish. You know what rhetorical flourish is.

Rhetorical flourish is being childish because you can get away with it. He called you on a (failed?) attempt.

J

 

[Lexicus]

I'd still argue that some crimes mean you can never have a position of authority even if the victims have forgiven you for it.

Well sure, I agree with you on that. For example, I think that the Republicans who have enabled Trump's rule should never be allowed to hold public office in the United States again.

I don't think they'll be able to pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh given their years-long trend of being reasonable adults.

I am skeptical that they will be able to keep doing that much longer. The base is thirsty for blood now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think they'll be able to pack the court or impeach Kavanaugh given their years-long trend of being reasonable adults. They'll know going down the court-packing route could be seen as constituting a constitutional crisis and won't do it. And they'll never have the votes to remove him from office in my opinion. And I do mean never, not just a few election cycles.

Never is a long time. Most people, even a lot of Republicans, recognize that tailoring the party's appeal to nothing but angry old white men and scared old white women is a policy that cannot sustain for the long haul.