Jump to content

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Yuk
Yuk

No, you guys went Republican to ethnonationalist.

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

When Georgetown Prep sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're

TexArcher
TexArcher

In 2016 I was a moderate.  Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, but not quite a libertarian.  I would have considered voting for Kasich had he won the nomination. Now?  I will probably never

Planet Houston

Planet Houston 4930

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, landman said:

She had zero people back up her story.  He has multiple people saying it didn't happen, including a close friend of hers.

 And based on this he's guilty?  Hope I never end up on a jury with some of you.

Good lord how hard is it to understand that this isn't a court of law, it's a job interview for the most important job a lawyer can have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32861

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I think forthright testimony should be a requirement for forthright questioning.  If people were to ask me about high school yearbook entries, the meaning of slang, and whether I drank too much at some college parties to imply that it is plausible I'm a rapist, then I would be as evasive as possible.  Now I understand the argument that one should answer honestly no matter what, but I personally wouldn't feel it my duty to give direct answers to such dishonest, slanderous questioning.  Very few people even asked about the alleged incident.  The truth is at the bottom of a bottomless pit in this case and this is merely a politics game for all involved.  

You don't think it's your duty not to lie while under oath?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I think forthright testimony should be a requirement for forthright questioning.  If people were to ask me about high school yearbook entries, the meaning of slang, and whether I drank too much at some college parties to imply that it is plausible I'm a rapist, then I would be as evasive as possible.  Now I understand the argument that one should answer honestly no matter what, but I personally wouldn't feel it my duty to give direct answers to such dishonest, slanderous questioning.  Very few people even asked about the alleged incident.  The truth is at the bottom of a bottomless pit in this case and this is merely a politics game for all involved.  

He wasn't evasive. He lied under oath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13195

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

If people were to ask me about high school yearbook entries, the meaning of slang, and whether I drank too much at some college parties to imply that it is plausible I'm a rapist, then I would be as evasive as possible.

The question isn't what you would do, the question is what you think someone worthy of the SC should do. They are different things.

Feel free to say, "No, I don't think honesty is a requirement to be an SC justice." It's fine. It's 2018. People need to be open about what they believe.

Nothing is forbidden, just answer the question.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16580

Posted
Posted
Just now, landman said:

She had zero people back up her story.  He has multiple people saying it didn't happen, including a close friend of hers.

And based on this he's guilty?  Hope I never end up on a jury with some of you.

This is not a criminal jury trial where the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

As has been pointed out, there is conflicting evidence and there is not a clear understanding on what exactly happened. It is likely that only two people, if that, know the truth, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. That would result in a verdict of "Not Guilty" in a jury trial.

Again, this is not a criminal jury trial where the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. There is a significant possibility he did commit some form of sexual assault. Beyond that, he has conducted himself shamefully and has told multiple, easily verifiable lies.

Once more, this is not a criminal jury trial where the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. The cloud of scandal surrounding his past and his current behavior fall well, well short of that standard. That is not debatable.

Please reply if any of the above needs clarification.

Side note: There are plenty of other conservative justices, ala Gorsuch, that Democrats would make plenty of noise about objecting to, but would ultimately sail through smoothly because they are professionally qualified, level-headed, and are definitively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not rapey frat boys. Only the hackiest of partisan hacks, who care far more for their team than the well being of this country, want this pushed through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Very few people even asked about the alleged incident.  

What can you ask about the alleged incident when questioning a guy about an event that he claims did not even remotely happen?   Hey, who else was at that party you say didn't exist?  Did Mark Judge say anything during the assault you say is a total fabrication at a non-existent party? 

There's nothing to ask him about the alleged incident besides whether there was such a party at all, whether he might have a memory lapse about it from his drinking, and whether he engaged in the kind of conduct that would be consistent with Dr. Ford's description of him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
plimon

plimon 190

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And what do you imagine the chair would have done with Ford's identity? Perhaps tell people outside the process like... uh... Ed Whelan, who would then go digging up dirt around Ford?

That's exactly what would have happened.

Leak it and let others run the smear campaigns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Llano Estacado

Llano Estacado 1257

Posted
Posted

Can we stop this talking point by both sides? It isn’t a court of law. It isn’t a job interview. It’s a duty of the Senate under Article II, Sec 2, Clause 2.

The process is at the discretion of the Senate. Filibuster, Cloture, Up-down, Committee. Rules, precedent, and discretion of the Senate. Good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10235

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

There are situations in which something was not technically a lie, but was misleading.  Kavanaugh's testimony was riddled with both forms of deception. Doesn't matter what you want to call it or how he rationalized it.   He doesn't belong on the Supreme Court. 

I agree with that.  "Smarmy" was all I could think of watching him

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

This is not a criminal jury trial where the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

As has been pointed out, there is conflicting evidence and there is not a clear understanding on what exactly happened. It is likely that only two people, if that, know the truth, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. That would result in a verdict of "Not Guilty" in a jury trial.

Again, this is not a criminal jury trial where the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. There is a significant possibility he did commit some form of sexual assault. Beyond that, he has conducted himself shamefully and has told multiple, easily verifiable lies.

Once more, this is not a criminal jury trial where the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States. The cloud of scandal surrounding his past and his current behavior fall well, well short of that standard. That is not debatable.

Please reply if any of the above needs clarification.

Side note: There are plenty of other conservative justices, ala Gorsuch, that Democrats would make plenty of noise about objecting to, but would ultimately sail through smoothly because they are professionally qualified, level-headed, and are definitively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not rapey frat boys. Only the hackiest of partisan hacks, who care far more for their team than the well being of this country, want this pushed through.

I am back from my bullshit ban. Kim Strassel from the WSJ has been so fucking awesome and on point during this entire farce

“Contrary to Democrats’ claims, due process is not constrained to courts of law; it is central to employee discipline, professional standards of conduct, even evictions of tenants. It is owed to any individual in a civilized body politic. Under due process, the accuser has the burden of proof. Ms. Ford has not met the evidentiary standard even of a civil proceeding, the preponderance of evidence—yet this case is more significant than any that has been dealt with in a court of law for ages. How the Senate votes now will reverberate to all levels of society. A “no” vote on Judge Kavanaugh is an authorization to renew calls for a Justice Clarence Thomas to step down. It is an authorization to derail the life of any white-collar manager or blue-collar crew boss who is ever subject to a single uncorroborated allegation.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kavanaugh-stakes-1538088433?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/Mgs9jCnhN5

 

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
10 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I know it's a clichéd observation by this point, but could that guy's name be any more appropriate?   Geez. 

Doesn’t make a shit of difference to me what Flake does at this point, even if he votes against Kavanaugh.  The fact he has to think so hard about this tells me everything I need to know.  

And Bob Corker...

76407321-9CA1-4AAD-A4BC-11FE099A91D5_zps

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Llano Estacado said:

Can we stop this talking point by both sides? It isn’t a court of law. It isn’t a job interview. It’s a duty of the Senate under Article II, Sec 2, Clause 2.

The process is at the discretion of the Senate. Filibuster, Cloture, Up-down, Committee. Rules, precedent, and discretion of the Senate. Good or bad.

You're pretty much describing a job interview.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, landman said:

She had zero people back up her story.  He has multiple people saying it didn't happen, including a close friend of hers.

And based on this he's guilty?  Hope I never end up on a jury with some of you.

Why are you lying about what her friend said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85337

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

He might be making his vote contingent on further investigation. 

There is no need to rush this.

Honestly - Flake, Donnelly, Collins, Murkowski, Manchin should have all said they weren't going to vote until an FBI investigation was complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29354

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I am back from my bullshit ban. Kim Strassel from the WSJ has been so fucking awesome and on point during this entire farce

“Contrary to Democrats’ claims, due process is not constrained to courts of law; it is central to employee discipline, professional standards of conduct, even evictions of tenants. It is owed to any individual in a civilized body politic. Under due process, the accuser has the burden of proof. Ms. Ford has not met the evidentiary standard even of a civil proceeding, the preponderance of evidence—yet this case is more significant than any that has been dealt with in a court of law for ages. How the Senate votes now will reverberate to all levels of society. A “no” vote on Judge Kavanaugh is an authorization to renew calls for a Justice Clarence Thomas to step down. It is an authorization to derail the life of any white-collar manager or blue-collar crew boss who is ever subject to a single uncorroborated allegation.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kavanaugh-stakes-1538088433?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/Mgs9jCnhN5

 

Lulz, you whiny bitch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EuroHorn

EuroHorn 3265

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

 

Just a couple responses from the tweet you posted. There are links to the case too

 

“They found that he lied, but the jury nonetheless found defendants not liable for assault and battery and excessive force. Hundley’s estate challenged this ruling and Kavanaugh agreed with them. I’m certainly no Kavanaugh fan but I think this tweet is misleading.”

 

“Kavanaugh and two other judges asked for a new trial due to inconsistencies with the jury's findings. This was a civil case.”

Edited by EuroHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...