Should Kavanaugh be confirmed for SCOTUS?

[Lewkowski]

So one person admits to not knowing some details. The other lies about everything. Not surprising that you prefer the latter.

Not knowing? You mean changing her story multiple times. You mean outright lying multiple times. You mean being utterly unable to identify a single soul who drove her to the party, drove her back from the party or even one who will admit that this party (oh wait 'gathering') occurred. For fucks sake she can't even give a specific time because if she did Brett could have an alibi and it would shoot her already shitty story to pieces.

No time.
No location.
No one backing her story.
History of lies.
History of political activism.
Lies about her fear of flying who's only purpose was to create a delay.

Oh and her 'two doors' story look like a pile of bunk too.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...y__138225.html

Good grief this could be in fact be the worst accusation in terms of credibility I have ever seen. But you don't fucking give a shit. In fact given two possible outcomes:

1. Brett never assaulted Ford and Ford never speaks up and Brett is confirmed.

OR

2. Brett never assaulted Ford and Ford lies and Brett isn't confirmed.

You would 100% be in favor of the 2nd option.

[GGT]

Gee, I wonder how this vast left wing conspiracy let Gorsuch get on the supreme court.

[LittleFuzzy]

Cap's off ugly in US politics. I don't know why. Ask Fuzzy. He probably knows. Or he'll just say this is nothing new, there's never been a cap or some such.

I haven't really been following these discussions (this is about Kavanaugh's confirmation, right? Or is this one something else?) and scanning back through the quotes the subject seems somewhat amorphous. Just what behavior of not caring about truth and truthfulness and by whom is supposed to be kept in check and by what?

[Lewkowski]

Gee, I wonder how this vast left wing conspiracy let Gorsuch get on the supreme court.

It was a replacement of a conservative seat. This is a replacement of the swing vote on the court. The left is legitimately worried about Roe v Wade being over turned so they are pulling out all the stops.

[Lewkowski]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ade-under-oath

"A man who dated Christine Blasey Ford for six years countered a number of statements she made in sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a letter sent to Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, which was obtained by Fox News, Ford’s longtime boyfriend said she never spoke of sexual assault experiences, coached a friend on taking a polygraph, and often flew without expressing any fear. "

More evidence that Ford is a lying political operative.

[GGT]

It was a replacement of a conservative seat. This is a replacement of the swing vote on the court. The left is legitimately worried about Roe v Wade being over turned so they are pulling out all the stops.

If it's to replace a "swing vote" then why nominate Kavanaugh, and stick to him even when he proves tainted?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ade-under-oath

"A man who dated Christine Blasey Ford for six years countered a number of statements she made in sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a letter sent to Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, which was obtained by Fox News, Ford’s longtime boyfriend said she never spoke of sexual assault experiences, coached a friend on taking a polygraph, and often flew without expressing any fear. "

More evidence that Ford is a lying political operative.

I never told a soul about my own experience; not my best friend, my sisters, or even my husband! If I came forward decades later, because he was on the short list for SCOTUS, that wouldn't make me a liar, let alone a political operative. You not only have a twisted idea about what 'evidence' means, but judges giving sworn testimony that's easily proven false. You're a political suck-up and a hypocrite.


Also, I've asked the moderators to close this thread, because it's too rich with topics that can't be discussed/debated or followed very well.

[Lewkowski]

I never told a soul about my own experience; not my best friend, my sisters, or even my husband! If I came forward decades later, because he was on the short list for SCOTUS, that wouldn't make me a liar, let alone a political operative. You not only have a twisted idea about what 'evidence' means, but judges giving sworn testimony that's easily proven false. You're a political suck-up and a hypocrite.

If you do tell your story I'd recommend you avoid lying about fear of flying, lying about the reason you did home renovations and not change your story multiple times. All things Ford has done.

[Flixy]

If you do tell your story I'd recommend you avoid lying about fear of flying, lying about the reason you did home renovations and not change your story multiple times. All things Ford has done.

And if you are nominated for supreme court you also probably shouldn't lie. But hey, what's the harm of a supreme court judge lying?

[Aimless]

You cannot corroborate things if you deliberately avoid corroborating info. Republicans don't want anyone to learn the truth, pt. 135256: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...er-classmates/

What are they trying to hide?

[Lewkowski]

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/3/179342...anaugh-cloture

The "pre-vote" on Friday will tell us if Flake is gonna Flake or not.

[RandBlade]

Let's hope Flake does the right thing especially if this investigation has been a farce.

[Aimless]

As indeed it has: https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...309_story.html

I don't think senate Republicans or Trump's other enablers will be able to rest easy after this if they do confirm Kavanaugh despite major issues with the investigation. If the House flips, I expect there will be subpoenas aplenty.

[Loki]

"Investigation"

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...mer-classmates

[Aimless]

Y'all are gonna to love this WSJ op-ed that is totally normal and not at all weird as fuck:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-am-an...dge-1538695822

[GGT]

Blocked archival info and false deadlines from GOP, sham FBI background investigation from WH, weird tirade testimony and op-ed from Kavanaugh....looks like he'll be confirmed anyway.

I wonder what this will do to the (R) narrative now? Other than men should be afraid of false accusations, guilty until proven innocent, it's a very dangerous time for young men as Trump likes to say, and we all know he means white men.

[Lewkowski]

Blocked archival info and false deadlines from GOP, sham FBI background investigation from WH, weird tirade testimony and op-ed from Kavanaugh....looks like he'll be confirmed anyway.

I wonder what this will do to the (R) narrative now? Other than men should be afraid of false accusations, guilty until proven innocent, it's a very dangerous time for young men as Trump likes to say, and we all know he means white men.

Seriously? It isn't just white people who are victims of false allegations.

https://www.innocenceproject.org/wit...pe-conviction/

[GGT]

Seriously? It isn't just white people who are victims of false allegations.

https://www.innocenceproject.org/wit...pe-conviction/

Here we go again?

Lewk, you have distorted views about false allegations, 'hoaxes', victims....race and gender...and power structures. Including the criminal justice system.

You claim to care about law & order, and our innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) principle, yet you make excuses for cops who *routinely* racially profile and shoot unarmed black boys/men dead. You use the 2nd Amendment to justify vigilantism and lethal force (for stealing toothpaste for example). You assume immigrants seeking asylum at the border are criminals or deadbeats, even when they follow proper procedure, and think it's okay to confiscate their kids and put them in cages (or lose track and put them in foster care/adoptive services). And you have weird way of protecting property rights if it means land or some valuable asset, but that doesn't include a woman's body as her own property, with rights of self-control and consent.

Oh, you've tried hard to push *troll* your ideas, and pose them as libertarian, but they're based on a racist, sexist, patriarchal ideology that isn't about liberty or freedom at all. Please, invite your like-minded friends to join this forum, encourage them to post. I'd like to see how those debates go. Might give us some insight into the future of our politics and the next open SCOTUS position....

[GGT]

If you do tell your story I'd recommend you avoid lying about fear of flying, lying about the reason you did home renovations and not change your story multiple times. All things Ford has done.

<This is one of those 'sub-threads'.>

I developed a fear of flying in my late 40's. I did home renovations and changed the story many times depending on who I told (it was for cosmetic updates, to increase re-sale value, there were plumbing failures.) All true.

The human brain, memory, and human behavior doesn't fit into that neat little black & white box of yours. There is a grey area that you refuse to acknowledge, but it exists in all spheres of life.

<The rest of my comments would fit better in another thread.>

[Lewkowski]

Here we go again?

Lewk, you have distorted views about false allegations, 'hoaxes', victims....race and gender...and power structures. Including the criminal justice system.

You claim to care about law & order, and our innocent until proven guilty (in a court of law) principle, yet you make excuses for cops who *routinely* racially profile and shoot unarmed black boys/men dead. You use the 2nd Amendment to justify vigilantism and lethal force (for stealing toothpaste for example). You assume immigrants seeking asylum at the border are criminals or deadbeats, even when they follow proper procedure, and think it's okay to confiscate their kids and put them in cages (or lose track and put them in foster care/adoptive services). And you have weird way of protecting property rights if it means land or some valuable asset, but that doesn't include a woman's body as her own property, with rights of self-control and consent.

Oh, you've tried hard to push *troll* your ideas, and pose them as libertarian, but they're based on a racist, sexist, patriarchal ideology that isn't about liberty or freedom at all. Please, invite your like-minded friends to join this forum, encourage them to post. I'd like to see how those debates go. Might give us some insight into the future of our politics and the next open SCOTUS position....

I've come out against cops who have done bad shoots. However if you aren't complying with police orders and you are a threat... well you know what they say about stupid games and stupid prizes.

Defense of property is probably one of the most fundamental rights we have. Without property we have nothing. So yeah I'm gleeful when a business operator/homeowner/innocent person stops a criminal dead. Not only does it mean one less criminal, the person who would have been a victim is safe and it creates a deterrent effect for other would be criminals. AND no cost to society to house the bastard in prison.

I actually said the exact opposite. People who cross the border *and immediately turn themselves in* are people who should be considered for asylum. It doesn't mean they are automatically granted it. However those who *SNEAK* in and HIDE should be automatically denied asylum.

You'll also find that I'm probably the most bloodthirsty person here when it comes to dealing with people who *have actually violated consent* of someone. I'm all for lengthy prison sentences for rapists and child molesters. Good lord how long have I been bitching about that child rapist Roman Polanski... who by the way is still at large and several people on this very board defended him.

[GGT]

I've come out against cops who have done bad shoots. However if you aren't complying with police orders and you are a threat... well you know what they say about stupid games and stupid prizes.

You're the guy who thinks a homeless man stealing toothpaste poses a threat. "Complying with police orders" is code for a Police State with no-knock warrants, and a "show your papers" mentality. Talk about stupid.

Defense of property is probably one of the most fundamental rights we have. Without property we have nothing. So yeah I'm gleeful when a business operator/homeowner/innocent person stops a criminal dead. Not only does it mean one less criminal, the person who would have been a victim is safe and it creates a deterrent effect for other would be criminals. AND no cost to society to house the bastard in prison.

As I said, you have distorted views. "Without property we have nothing" translates to people who don't have property mean nothing. Historically that meant non-white men and women couldn't own property, but were considered property, and we fought a civil war over that. Talk about dog whistles....

I actually said the exact opposite. People who cross the border *and immediately turn themselves in* are people who should be considered for asylum. It doesn't mean they are automatically granted it. However those who *SNEAK* in and HIDE should be automatically denied asylum.

Bullshit. You've supported cutting funds for courts/judges that adjudicate asylum cases, and reveled in denying asylum to anyone who's forced to take alternative routes because the lines are too long, and their kids are parched and hungry. You *LOVE* creating obstacles for immigrants because you *HATE* them.

You'll also find that I'm probably the most bloodthirsty person here when it comes to dealing with people who *have actually violated consent* of someone. I'm all for lengthy prison sentences for rapists and child molesters. Good lord how long have I been bitching about that child rapist Roman Polanski... who by the way is still at large and several people on this very board defended him.

Yes, you're bloodthirsty. But also ignorant, bigoted, and cruel. The worst part is that you abuse our constitutional protections to hide your ugly, hateful beliefs by calling it religion. Jesus weeps.

And the other even worse part is that by confirming Kavanaugh, and tilting SCOTUS to the far right, you think that's being true to our founders' ideal of creating a more perfect union, with liberty and justice for all.

[Aimless]

Seriously? It isn't just white people who are victims of false allegations.

https://www.innocenceproject.org/wit...pe-conviction/

Given that your preferred solution to this is to kill them before the police arrive or shortly after a quick trial I'm not sure the evidence from the innocence project works in your favor. The cases also do not tend to be relevant to this situation.

[RandBlade]

Twitter Link
Very serious allegation if true.

[Aimless]

Twitter Link
Very serious allegation if true.

Others have already stated that Republican senators' claims about his previous background checks--that they turned up nothing even remotely suspicious or remotely similar to the present matters--are false or at least misleading. We have known for weeks that Kavanaugh has made false or otherwise very misleading statements before the senate. Makes no difference. Dread's naïve take on Kavanaugh passing six background checks before these latest allegations came to light is not unique, and makes it difficult to have a good discussion about this topic even without partisanship and outright deception.

[Aimless]

I must say, of all the stupid things we've heard from Republican legislators these past couple of years, the view that Dr. Ford's testimony was credible but that she is mistaken about the identity of both of the young men that participated in the assault... is perhaps the dumbest. Repeating it over and over again borders on the obscene.

[Hazir]

TBH I don’t think that particular incident is enough reason to deem Kavanaugh unfit for the bench.

[Hazir]

I must say, of all the stupid things we've heard from Republican legislators these past couple of years, the view that Dr. Ford's testimony was credible but that she is mistaken about the identity of both of the young men that participated in the assault... is perhaps the dumbest. Repeating it over and over again borders on the obscene.

Are you suggesting that never happens? I have heard account of events in my life that positively could not have happened unless we could know for certain that people come back from death in the flesh. I myself barely remember I was alive when i was 17, let alone that I could reproduce any event at that age with any semblance of accuracy.

[Aimless]

Are you suggesting that never happens?

I'm saying that it's ridiculous for a senator to say that she believes Dr. Ford--who knew both of the people in question and says she is 100% certain they were the two who participated in the assault--is credible, while simultaneously saying that she doesn't believe her testimony. I'm saying this mistaken identity nonsense is not plausible, and that we have no justification for believing such an implausible explanation. It's not beyond the realm of possibility, but believing this explanation requires an even greater leap of faith than simply believing that she made it up.

I have heard account of events in my life that positively could not have happened unless we could know for certain that people come back from death in the flesh. I myself barely remember I was alive when i was 17, let alone that I could reproduce any event at that age with any semblance of accuracy.

I can't really say anything about whatever specific examples you may have in mind. However, your phrasing implies a situation where you're suddenly asked to recall something random that happened decades ago, while Dr. Ford's testimony deals with a specific traumatic event that she has been recalling regularly for over three decades. Certainly memories can get clouded over time even with very meaningful events, but we have no reason to believe the memory of this specific event was so totally corrupted shortly after the event itself that she misidentified the two young men as two other young men that she has credibly stated that she knew well enough to be able to identify.

TBH I don’t think that particular incident is enough reason to deem Kavanaugh unfit for the bench.

Viewed in the context of Ramirez's allegations, it may suggest a pattern of extremely questionable behavior. More to the point, if the allegations are true, even if you believe they were of no relevance to his suitability for this new position, it suggests that he lied to or misled senators about these events (just as he appears to have lied or misled congressmen about other events). And that IS disqualifying.

[Hazir]

I'm saying that it's ridiculous for a senator to say that she believes Dr. Ford--who knew both of the people in question and says she is 100% certain they were the two who participated in the assault--is credible, while simultaneously saying that she doesn't believe her testimony. I'm saying this mistaken identity nonsense is not plausible, and that we have no justification for believing such an implausible explanation. It's not beyond the realm of possibility, but believing this explanation requires an even greater leap of faith than simply believing that she made it up.



I can't really say anything about whatever specific examples you may have in mind. However, your phrasing implies a situation where you're suddenly asked to recall something random that happened decades ago, while Dr. Ford's testimony deals with a specific traumatic event that she has been recalling regularly for over three decades. Certainly memories can get clouded over time even with very meaningful events, but we have no reason to believe the memory of this specific event was so totally corrupted shortly after the event itself that she misidentified the two young men as two other young men that she has credibly stated that she knew well enough to be able to identify.



Viewed in the context of Ramirez's allegations, it may suggest a pattern of extremely questionable behavior. More to the point, if the allegations are true, even if you believe they were of no relevance to his suitability for this new position, it suggests that he lied to or misled senators about these events (just as he appears to have lied or misled congressmen about other events). And that IS disqualifying.

Unlike you I did not actually follow the hearings, so I no idea even whether or not he should be on the Supreme Court.

[Lewkowski]

I must say, of all the stupid things we've heard from Republican legislators these past couple of years, the view that Dr. Ford's testimony was credible but that she is mistaken about the identity of both of the young men that participated in the assault... is perhaps the dumbest. Repeating it over and over again borders on the obscene.

I actually agree. Anyone who has the full information can only conclude she's lying. Having to sit there and pander to people and go on about how you believe her but thinks she's mistaken... bleh disgusting. Call a liar a liar.

[Lewkowski]

https://i.redd.it/7wyrkp9memq11.gif