Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 279

Thread: Should Kavanaugh be confirmed for SCOTUS?

  1. #31
    Wouldn't we also look at his history of lying under oath too?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Then perhaps we could look at his history and see if there have been other allegations made against him. As far as I know, there have not been. Certainly - based on the reporting I have seen, he does not appear to be a Roy Moore.
    More than just that is that you have an accuser who is a Democrat and marched against Trump. The incentive to lie here... is massive.

  3. #33
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    More than just that is that you have an accuser who is a Democrat and marched against Trump. The incentive to lie here... is massive.
    You'd have to be a truly monumental pizzagate-level moron to believe a woman would be so eager to subject herself to a massive smear campaign and death threats and be forced to go into hiding just to be able to delay the confirmation of a specific SCOTUS justice by a few days, or have him replaced by another extremely conservative justice by a conservative senate. You would really have to be a massive idiot to believe something like that. Hundreds of thousands of women marched against Trump you eedjit.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  4. #34
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Then perhaps we could look at his history and see if there have been other allegations made against him. As far as I know, there have not been. Certainly - based on the reporting I have seen, he does not appear to be a Roy Moore.
    Right, someone can't be guilty of a sexual assault unless he did so at least twice. Of course if there were two allegations, the same people would demand three.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  5. #35
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    More than just that is that you have an accuser who is a Democrat and marched against Trump. The incentive to lie here... is massive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Wouldn't we also look at his history of lying under oath too?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    He was properly vetted.
    ALL of his writings weren't made available, so he hasn't been thoroughly vetted. The (R) who refused to consider Garland didn't mind waiting a year, so what's the rush now?

  6. #36
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Right, someone can't be guilty of a sexual assault unless he did so at least twice. Of course if there were two allegations, the same people would demand three.
    Someone can't be found guilty of sexual assault without an investigation and prosecution. And if such investigations are impossible, relying on an individual's past patterns of behavior and character seems like a reasonable alternative. Certainly better than a world where any claim, regardless of the evidence is enough to derail a nomination

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    You'd have to be a truly monumental pizzagate-level moron to believe a woman would be so eager to subject herself to a massive smear campaign and death threats and be forced to go into hiding just to be able to delay the confirmation of a specific SCOTUS justice by a few days, or have him replaced by another extremely conservative justice by a conservative senate. You would really have to be a massive idiot to believe something like that. Hundreds of thousands of women marched against Trump you eedjit.
    Seemed to have worked out well for Anita Hill.

  8. #38
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Seemed to have worked out well for Anita Hill.
    You realize there is overwhelming evidence she was telling the truth, right? Not that you'd ever trust someone with a different race, gender, sexual orientation, or political beliefs from yourself.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #39
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    I followed the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill senate hearings in real time. (Yes, I'm that old ) Hill was humiliated and demonized; Thomas was portrayed as the victim of a "high-tech lynching". His own words. I remember thinking he pulled the race card, even though they were both black, as a way to avoid distract from existing gender power inequalities. After all, that happened under his management at EEOC and reflected his moral compass....

    Clips from those days are being re-broadcast, and it not only amazes me that Grassley and Hatch are still on the Senate Judicial Committee, but that they're still saying the same damn things.

  10. #40
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Someone can't be found guilty of sexual assault without an investigation and prosecution. And if such investigations are impossible, relying on an individual's past patterns of behavior and character seems like a reasonable alternative. Certainly better than a world where any claim, regardless of the evidence is enough to derail a nomination
    I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Historically, it's been quite hard to prove sexual assault, because the rules were made by men who (quite frankly) cared more about protecting their own power than finding truth or enacting equal justice. Plenty of victims never came forward, or pressed charges, especially if the offense occurred when they were minors, because the legal system was designed to protect adult male power. That used to mean wives or prostitutes couldn't be raped, by definition, so why would they call the police? And why have a statute of limitations on child abuse, if those kids didn't know they've been abused until they became adults? Almost makes sexual harassment in the workplace look quaint by comparison, right?

    The latest abuse scandals in sports (women's Olympic gymnastics, Penn State football), collegiate fraternity hazing deaths, and even the Catholic Church with its predatory priests prove the fault lines in our culture and legal/judicial system. It's a new and modern climate. Deal with it.

    PS, rape and attempted rape is about power. Kavanaugh believes the presidency has absolute power. Think about that....

  11. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    You realize there is overwhelming evidence she was telling the truth, right? Not that you'd ever trust someone with a different race, gender, sexual orientation, or political beliefs from yourself.
    LOL

  12. #42
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,591
    LOL at Libertarian Lewk

  13. #43
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,326
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    PS, rape and attempted rape is about power. Kavanaugh believes the presidency has absolute power. Think about that....
    So many falsehoods and generalizations in three sentences

    I think she's trying (and being coached) to delay this process. She's doing as good of a job as she can, but she's overplayed by refusing to testify before an FBI investigation. The FBI doesn't conduct criminal investigations on these matters. The guy has had like six FBI background checks. I've been contacted as part of someone's FBI investigation; it's thorough. This guy has had SIX.

    She may genuinely believe this happened. And it genuinely may not have happened. These are the sad realities that make actual sexual assaults hard to prosecute. But there's no pattern of behavior or any other indication to suggest this can or should amount to anything meaningful at all. He's a stellar judge and should move forward. If we allow a single lone person making possibly-libelous accusations to stop the gears of democracy, we're breaking the process.

  14. #44
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,641
    How fast we go from "we can't be sure who's telling the truth" to "she's being coached."
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #45
    That's no moon. EyeKhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    How fast we go from "we can't be sure who's telling the truth" to "she's being coached."
    It's equally true that we can't be sure Kavanaugh is telling the truth, and he's definitely being coached.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    He's a stellar judge and should move forward.
    Shit record concerning women's rights, consumer's rights, net neutrality (that you have a hilarious inability to understand), and environmental rights. He is a strict constitutionalist originalist of cartoonish levels. All of which are expected to have SCOTUS rulings in the coming years.

    Absolutely stellar pick!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    She may genuinely believe this happened.
    And it genuinely may not have happened.
    Your choice of words and framing here show how disgusting of a person you can be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    If we allow a single lone person making possibly-libelous accusations to stop the gears of democracy, we're breaking the process.
    If you ignore the people, you're breaking democracy.


    and still, no one wants to defend, or even address, the whole lying under oath problem. What gives with that?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  17. #47
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Seemed to have worked out well for Anita Hill.
    Regardless of what your racist parents may have told you, Anita Hill was probably telling the truth, and congressmen did everything they could to cover that up. She was subjected to atrocious treatment by both legislators, the media and the public. That she has done well despite that is a testament to her abilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I think she's trying (and being coached) to delay this process. She's doing as good of a job as she can, but she's overplayed by refusing to testify before an FBI investigation.
    Congressmen are neither interested in nor competent to hold a credible investigation into something like this. They weren't a couple of decades ago and they are even less so today. We've already seen ample evidence of the kind of asinine bullshit GOP senators try to pull in hearings. So this should be investigated, by professionals, if not by the FBI then by MD police. If a hearing is held, it should be conducted by professional investigators and attorneys, not by professional snakes.

    The FBI doesn't conduct criminal investigations on these matters. The guy has had like six FBI background checks. I've been contacted as part of someone's FBI investigation; it's thorough. This guy has had SIX.
    What are you trying to say with this? That the assault did not happen? That the allegations were not made? That the FBI knew and didn't say anything? None of the people involved who might be expected to know about it and have an interest in bringing it up exist in Kavanaugh's life at the moment. They are so far removed from him that it is unreasonable to expect it to have popped up on the FBI:s radar. If it nevertheless did pop up, it is concerning if information about the allegations weren't passed on and the incident wasn't investigated. Regardless, you do not have access to any information that lets you personally evaluate any aspect of Kavanaugh's vetting by the FBI.

    She may genuinely believe this happened. And it genuinely may not have happened. These are the sad realities that make actual sexual assaults hard to prosecute.
    Yeah, THAT'S what makes sexual assaults hard to prosecute

    But there's no pattern of behavior or any other indication to suggest this can or should amount to anything meaningful at all. He's a stellar judge and should move forward. If we allow a single lone person making possibly-libelous accusations to stop the gears of democracy, we're breaking the process.
    So many falsehoods and unfounded assumptions in just three sentences.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  18. #48
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    and still, no one wants to defend, or even address, the whole lying under oath problem. What gives with that?
    Lying under oath is a requirement for all prominent conservative figures in 2018.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  19. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Regardless of what your racist parents may have told you,
    Only liberals can somehow accuse someone of racism for defending a black man against slander. Is this you trying to be funny? Is this some sort of parody I'm not getting?

  20. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post

    I think she's trying (and being coached) to delay this process. She's doing as good of a job as she can, but she's overplayed by refusing to testify before an FBI investigation.
    Ding Ding Ding! There isn't anything for the FBI to find. There is no physical evidence just hazy recollections. The only reason she could possibly not want to testify prior to an FBI investigation is due to political calculation. They want the vote on his confirmation to the SCOTUS to occur after the mid-terms.

  21. #51
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...918-story.html

    If she's lying her story would not hold up to scrutiny by investigators.
    If YOU think she's lying you should be demanding an investigation, not making excuses why there shouldn't be one.

    FBI completed investigation of Anita Hill claims in 3 days
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  22. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,918
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...918-story.html

    If she's lying her story would not hold up to scrutiny by investigators.
    If YOU think she's lying you should be demanding an investigation, not making excuses why there shouldn't be one.

    FBI completed investigation of Anita Hill claims in 3 days
    "Respectfully, it shouldn’t make a bit of difference whether Judge wishes to testify — that’s what subpoenas are for — and he has already spoken publicly, defending Kavanaugh and saying he has “no memory of this alleged incident.” But that carries no weight unless it’s under oath. If he’s not willing to say that under oath, you have to question how confident he is that those words are true."

    And yet the author doesn't have the same opinion about Ford's actual accusation. Hilarious. The Democrats couldn't be more obvious in their intentions here. Delay, delay, delay.

  23. #53
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...918-story.html

    If she's lying her story would not hold up to scrutiny by investigators.
    If YOU think she's lying you should be demanding an investigation, not making excuses why there shouldn't be one.

    FBI completed investigation of Anita Hill claims in 3 days
    I'm scratching my head trying to think of what the FBI would be able to find out. She doesn't remember the date of the incident. She doesn't remember who hosted the party, where it was, or how she got there. She said she didn't tell anyone else about the incident. How exactly are they supposed to prove or disprove anything, and what exactly is there to scrutinize?

    They would interview people asking if they remembered a party on a date they don't know, at a location they can't name, over thirty-five years ago? I can't even remember the name of my best friend in kindergarten, and that's someone I spent a good portion of every day with.

    I think what I find most confusing is that many of the same people on this board that would eagerly, and rightly point out the problems with eye witness testimony even hours, days, or weeks after the event seem to have no issues at all with an account of an incident that occurred over thirty years ago.
    Last edited by Enoch the Red; 09-20-2018 at 05:37 PM.

  24. #54
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Only liberals can somehow accuse someone of racism for defending a black man against slander. Is this you trying to be funny? Is this some sort of parody I'm not getting?
    I don't know how to tell you this but Anita Hill is a black woman. There's nothing strange about a racist judging a black woman to be less credible than a white woman, even when she's saying something about a black man. Because racists are frequently also misogynists and sexists, a black woman is regarded as being even lower than a black man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Ding Ding Ding! There isn't anything for the FBI to find. There is no physical evidence just hazy recollections. The only reason she could possibly not want to testify prior to an FBI investigation is due to political calculation. They want the vote on his confirmation to the SCOTUS to occur after the mid-terms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    "Respectfully, it shouldn’t make a bit of difference whether Judge wishes to testify — that’s what subpoenas are for — and he has already spoken publicly, defending Kavanaugh and saying he has “no memory of this alleged incident.” But that carries no weight unless it’s under oath. If he’s not willing to say that under oath, you have to question how confident he is that those words are true."

    And yet the author doesn't have the same opinion about Ford's actual accusation.
    Presumably if there is a serious investigation of her claims she will also be required to give her testimony under circumstances that would make it illegal for her to lie, just like other witnesses. I'm not sure why you think this is some sort of gotcha

    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    I'm scratching my head trying to think of what the FBI would be able to find out. She doesn't remember the date of the incident. She doesn't remember who hosted the party, where it was, or how she got there. She said she didn't tell anyone else about the incident. How exactly are they supposed to prove or disprove anything, and what exactly is there to scrutinize?
    At least one person who went to school with her has publicly stated that the people knew about the assault at her school, even though she hadn't spoken about it in detail. According to Dr. Ford, Mark Judge was present during the assault. Both these people--as well as Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh--could be interviewed by the FBI to see if any more details can be uncovered under circumstances where it would be illegal for them to lie. They could also be required to testify under oath before the senate. Their accounts can be examined systematically for details that can be corroborated or refuted by people experienced with conducting such investigations. She didn't remember the date, but witnesses and other evidence may be able to help with pinpointing the date and location

    I think what I find most confusing is that many of the same people on this board that would eagerly, and rightly point out the problems with eye witness testimony even hours, days, or weeks after the event seem to have no issues at all with an account of an incident that occurred over thirty years ago.
    Just to be clear, being an eye witness to something traumati happening to someone else is different from testifying about something traumatic that happened to you personally.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  25. #55
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    At least one person who went to school with her has publicly stated that the people knew about the assault at her school, even though she hadn't spoken about it in detail. According to Dr. Ford, Mark Judge was present during the assault. Both these people--as well as Dr. Ford and Kavanaugh--could be interviewed by the FBI to see if any more details can be uncovered under circumstances where it would be illegal for them to lie. They could also be required to testify under oath before the senate. Their accounts can be examined systematically for details that can be corroborated or refuted by people experienced with conducting such investigations. She didn't remember the date, but witnesses and other evidence may be able to help with pinpointing the date and location
    My understanding is that part of what made the Anita Hill investigation so fast was that she provided lots of details and information that could easily be checked and verified. What you are talking about, finding old classmates, then scheduling interviews with them, getting enough data to cross check their responses, and then re-interview them if necessary, does not sound fast nor easy to me.

    And that is forgetting that if others were in fact aware of it, that seems to contradict her claim that she told no one.

  26. #56
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    My understanding is that part of what made the Anita Hill investigation so fast was that she provided lots of details and information that could easily be checked and verified. What you are talking about, finding old classmates, then scheduling interviews with them, getting enough data to cross check their responses, and then re-interview them if necessary, does not sound fast nor easy to me.
    I don't think it can be accomplished in three days, no. Nor do I think that should be the standard.

    And that is forgetting that if others were in fact aware of it, that seems to contradict her claim that she told no one.
    No. Afaict her claim was that she never spoke about it in detail (ie. with a detailed account of what happened and who did it) until around 2012.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #57
    Senior Member Enoch the Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I don't think it can be accomplished in three days, no. Nor do I think that should be the standard.
    Which plays into the belief shared by Lewk and Dreadnaught that this has more to do with delaying the confirmation, (hopefully until after the midterm elections) than it does with performing a careful and thorough vetting of Kavanaugh. Contributing to that belief is that Feinstein decided to sit on this as long as she did. Can you not see why this would raise a number of questions in people's minds that don't require them being heartless misogynists who don't care about victims of sexual assault?

  28. #58
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
    Which plays into the belief shared by Lewk and Dreadnaught that this has more to do with delaying the confirmation, (hopefully until after the midterm elections) than it does with performing a careful and thorough vetting of Kavanaugh. Contributing to that belief is that Feinstein decided to sit on this as long as she did. Can you not see why this would raise a number of questions in people's minds that don't require them being heartless misogynists who don't care about victims of sexual assault?
    Lewk is only marginally better than the kind of person who said McCain timed his decision to die for maximum political impact. Lewk wants the Mueller investigation to be wrapped up prematurely, for political reasons. Lewk sees all politics as means to an end, where the end is victory in a culture war, which to him justifies all means. Nothing else is more important to him, which is why he and others like him have decided that the allegations are false--or, worse, that they don't matter even if they're true. I cannot consider his view on this to be particularly interesting.

    The question is whether or not you think these allegations are important enough to warrant investigation before Kavanaugh is confirmed. People who truly care about victims of sexual assault--and about the integrity of SCOTUS justices--will believe the allegations should be investigated before Kavanaugh is confirmed. People who care more about politics will disagree. I believe such allegations should be investigated. The republic will not be destroyed or tainted if Kavanaugh's confirmation--or anyone else's confirmation--is delayed for this reason. Taking allegations about sexual assault seriously is not a harmful departure from the norms of a modern, civilized society.

    As for sitting on the story, afaict Dr. Ford requested that her story be treated as confidential. On top of this, Eshoo and Feinstein may not have regarded the allegations as credible, or believed they would not be able to make a strong case based on the information in the letter without the victim coming forward. I don't know the circumstances of the leak.

    Also on the matter of politics, McConnell himself threatened to delay the vote until just before the midterms, when Democrats requested access to documents they needed to see before the confirmation. This was a spectacular demonstration of hypocrisy and double standards even at the time he made the threat; it is even more so now when he and other GOP shills say, "Oh no there's simply no time!!!!" When a group of people shows themselves willing to sacrifice principles as well as their own presumptive integrity on the altar of politics, and then tries to chastise their opponents for mirroring their actions--esp. when it's clearly a response or attempt at remedy--I can only laugh.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  29. #59
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    5,744
    Plus, as Colbert put it, when exactly would you expect such allegations to come forward?

    Next up, defense attorneys at a court of law: "I find it highly suspicious, your honor, that the accusing party has presented us with the murder weapon only before the trial. Surely there's some ulterior motive behind that for not showing us that weapon before!"
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  30. #60
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,089
    No, they're saying they should've been notified of these allegations as soon as Feinstein learned of them. What Feinstein did was to refer the matter to the FBI once the matter was made public by The Intercept. Frankly, that's more responsible. It's as far as she could stretch given Dr. Ford's request for confidentiality and her stated desire to not come forward.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •