Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

[David Dennison 18561]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Eh, probably not if he sits on the court.  It's a little early for Scotch but I'm feeling a little thirsty.

How's that working out for Clarence Thomas? What's THE thing he's known for. Hint: it's not his jurisprudence.

[UTDD 362]

19 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I don't see Roberts overturning precedent on Roe either.  He is 100% going to focus on the legacy of his court now, which may force him to side with the liberals.

I think Roberts in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the ACA case) is a big indicator of how Roberts might balance specific issues in a very delicate but reasoned way.  

[MixtyMotions 102]

39 minutes ago, UTDD said:

If Kavanaugh's previous classmate at Yale is credible and can account for drinking issues, I would find that highly relevant because of prior testimony from Kavanaugh.  We will have to see how it goes.

If the Yale classmate saw Kavanaugh expose himself to Debbie Ramirez, or has the name of somebody who did, then the FBI will be interested in talking to him.  If he wants to talk about drinking habits then they won't.

[David Dennison 18561]

1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

If the Yale classmate saw Kavanaugh expose himself to Debbie Ramirez, or has the name of somebody who did, then the FBI will be interested in talking to him.  If he wants to talk about drinking habits then they won't.

Says who?

[UTDD 362]

1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

If the Yale classmate saw Kavanaugh expose himself to Debbie Ramirez, or has the name of somebody who did, then the FBI will be interested in talking to him.  If he wants to talk about drinking habits then they won't.

I think you are right about this, but I personally find this relevant as it goes to Kavanaugh's own credibility based on his own sworn testimony.  I don't need to know that Kavanaugh actually committed sexual assault to not want him on the Court.  He needs to be squeaky clean with his own honesty and integrity -- especially if testifying under oath in a very recent setting.  

[MixtyMotions 102]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Says who?

MixtyMotions.  That's what we do here.  Give opinions on the issue.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

Fox News looks to be jumping onto the message that prosecutor/senate assistant from last week, has written a report that she would pursue charges against Kavanaugh.   I believe that very few ant-Kavanaugh people are saying he should be convicted as it's so far in the past and there isn't much evidence.

However I would be curious if that prosecutor believed Dr. Ford with the 100% statement.  And would see vote to put Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS.

[horncyclist 1384]

Fox News looks to be jumping onto the message that prosecutor/senate assistant from last week, has written a report that she would pursue charges against Kavanaugh.   I believe that very few ant-Kavanaugh people are saying he should be convicted as it's so far in the past and there isn't much evidence.
However I would be curious if that prosecutor believed Dr. Ford with the 100% statement.  And would see vote to put Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS.

She did not consider Kavanaugh's testimony at all. The memo is a joke and she should be embarrassed.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

26 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

She has been treated with kid gloves by everyone. If it was up to me, I would have gone after her because she is not credible in my eyes and her motivations are suspect. She is trying to ruin this man’s reputation. I don’t believe her.

One could only imagine how much of a shitshow your nomination would be.

[Hank Kingsley 20631]

The GOP is actively conspiring against the United States. Yet Republican voters continue to pretend that these traitors are actually on their side. 

They have normalized a pathological liar that is a sitting POTUS. Now trying to normalize a fucking SCOTUS judge that lied constantly under oath. Truth doesn't matter. Dignity doesn't matter. Sincerity doesn't matter. 

Also regarding the discourse on Surly, the only rah-rah Democrat I've noticed on here is David Dennison. So when you GOP dumbasses are trying to both sides an argument, or project the Republican dirty tactics onto us, you're arguing with the wrong people. 

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45494]

19 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Fox News looks to be jumping onto the message that prosecutor/senate assistant from last week, has written a report that she would pursue charges against Kavanaugh.   I believe that very few ant-Kavanaugh people are saying he should be convicted as it's so far in the past and there isn't much evidence.

However I would be curious if that prosecutor believed Dr. Ford with the 100% statement.  And would see vote to put Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS.

You need to add the "n't" to "would", because your post is totally confusing.

Regarding the memo -- is it strictly related to the standards of evidence most prosecutors would require to bring charges of sexual assault?  Because if that's the case, extrapolating from that is a flawed premise.  For one, as has been said ad nauseum, this is not a criminal case.  Furthermore, Kavanaugh clearly perjured himself many times the other day, as he has done before the Senate going back more than a decade to his last confirmation. 

 He.  Should.  Not.  Be. A.  Federal.  Jurist.

[David Dennison 18561]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

The GOP is actively conspiring against the United States. Yet Republican voters continue to pretend that these traitors are actually on their side. 

They have normalized a pathological liar that is a sitting POTUS. Now trying to normalize a fucking SCOTUS judge that lied constantly under oath. Truth doesn't matter. Dignity doesn't matter. Sincerity doesn't matter. 

Also regarding the discourse on Surly, the only rah-rah Democrat I've noticed on here is David Dennison. So when you GOP dumbasses are trying to both sides an argument, or project the Republican dirty tactics onto us, you're arguing with the wrong people. 

 

 

I'm not a rah rah Democrat. I'm a liberal. If you want to point me to a viable alternative to the Democratic Party that promotes liberal and progressive policies, I'm all ears.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You need to add the "n't" to "would", because your post is totally confusing.

Regarding the memo -- is it strictly related to the standards of evidence most prosecutors would require to bring charges of sexual assault?  Because if that's the case, extrapolating from that is a flawed premise.  For one, as has been said ad nauseum, this is not a criminal case.  Furthermore, Kavanaugh clearly perjured himself many times the other day, as he has done before the Senate going back more than a decade to his last confirmation. 

 He.  Should.  Not.  Be. A.  Federal.  Jurist.

I basically know what a witness could get away with and what a witness could not get away with in any case.  You have to fight against that impulse as a lawyer to influence your witnesses accordingly out of respect for the institution you are participating in.  

 

I think what we watched with Kavanaugh was someone where lawyer and witness are the same person, and he let his lawyer knowledge of "I'm not going to get in trouble for saying this" guide his testimony.  

 

Too much shading.  Too bold where he knows the contrary answer is unprovable.  Too much knowing that he can come back later and say he was mistaken if things go wrong.  Too much deciding in real time that something is a white lie so it doesn't matter.  Too much sidestepping because he knows no one can really force him to be direct.

[Hank Kingsley 20631]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not a rah rah Democrat. I'm a liberal. If you want to point me to a viable alternative to the Democratic Party that promotes liberal and progressive policies, I'm all ears.

Okay. Maybe tone down the  "this is good for the Democrats" or "this is bad news for the Republicans" commentary.  Everything you say reads like you have a million dollar bet on Democrats winning upcoming elections.

 

[David Dennison 18561]

Just now, Hank Kingsley said:

Okay. Maybe tone down the  "this is good for the Democrats" or "this is bad news for the Republicans" commentary.  Everything you say reads like you have a million dollar bet on Democrats winning upcoming elections.

 

Of course I want Republicans to lose and Democrats to win. Why wouldn't I?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

14 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

One could only imagine how much of a shitshow your nomination would be.

I would never put myself for nomination because of my past issues. That’s not the case with Kavanaugh who has led an exemplary life. Y’all are blind if you can’t see how many people he won over by his performance on Thursday. Both he and Sen Graham will be remembered as heroes of the GOP. 

[Hank Kingsley 20631]

Your Baghdad Bob impression is spot on. 

 

[Dahobbs 17417]

1 minute ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I would never put myself for nomination because of my past issues. That’s not the case with Kavanaugh who has led an exemplary life. Y’all are blind if you can’t see how many people he won over by his performance on Thursday. Both he and Sen Graham will be remembered as heroes of the GOP. 

Some people just have poor judgment. You are one of those people. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Of course I want Republicans to lose and Democrats to win. Why wouldn't I?

I think the criticism is you come off as a "team" player in relation to democrats. 

While they are currently the only team remotely interested in serving the public good, that can change too. 

The tribal nature of our political discourse is a huge part of the problem. 

[jimmyjazz 45494]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I would never put myself for nomination because of my past issues. That’s not the case with Kavanaugh who has led an exemplary life. Y’all are blind if you can’t see how many people he won over by his performance on Thursday. Both he and Sen Graham will be remembered as heroes of the GOP. 

Well, except for the fact that there appears to be a boatload of indications that maybe he hasn't led an exemplary life, but you keep fuckin' that "football".

[Chuckie Finster 22582]

Not that anyone cares, but I'm about 95% sure that Dennison is basically just a lefty Dolemite... a troll purely created to push the other sides' buttons.

[Planet Houston 4921]

1 hour ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

She has been treated with kid gloves by everyone. If it was up to me, I would have gone after her because she is not credible in my eyes and her motivations are suspect. She is trying to ruin this man’s reputation. I don’t believe her.

What are her motivations?  Even if you believe some crazy conspiracy theory that she is doing this to get back at the government for Hillary losing the election (wacko theory, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would buy into this shit), please explain why she reported this to her therapist well before Trump was elected.  Or was it someone else entirely, and now she's maliciously targeted Kavanaugh by substituting him for the previously unnamed attacker?  

Republicans / Icono:

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, Iconoclast Texan said:

I would never put myself for nomination because of my past issues. That’s not the case with Kavanaugh who has led an exemplary life. Y’all are blind if you can’t see how many people he won over by his performance on Thursday. Both he and Sen Graham will be remembered as heroes of the GOP. 

He used to get fucked up and do ill advised things just like you.  That's hardly abnormal, but it certainly isn't exemplary.  His real issue is that he doesn't own up to it which makes him a liar.

And to be clear, nobody was "won over."  All the same people who like him now liked him before, and would like him even if he was on video shotgunning brews and groping women.

For me, I don't expect anyone to be perfectly "exemplary."  I expect SCOTUS justices to be honest, however.

[David Dennison 18561]

3 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I would never put myself for nomination because of my past issues. That’s not the case with Kavanaugh who has led an exemplary life. Y’all are blind if you can’t see how many people he won over by his performance on Thursday. Both he and Sen Graham will be remembered as heroes of the GOP. 

He didn't win anyone over. The people you are talking about supported him anyway. It helped with the base. Among the public at large, however, opposition to his confirmation went up after Thursday.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/poll-opposition-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-grows-after-christine-blasey-ford-hearing.html

[BurntOrange&White 39477]

Not that anyone cares, but I'm about 95% sure that Dennison is basically just a lefty Dolemite... a troll purely created to push the other sides' buttons.

He’s Kevin from the shat site.

[David Dennison 18561]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think the criticism is you come off as a "team" player in relation to democrats. 

While they are currently the only team remotely interested in serving the public good, that can change too. 

The tribal nature of our political discourse is a huge part of the problem. 

It's the reality of the two party system. I have no qualms being on Team Democrat as long as that is the only viable option for a liberal. What am I gonna go, vote Republican? Been there done that. That party is a moral cesspool.

['stache 21740]

Can someone explain to me how he's not disqualified by his political rant to start his testimony against "the democrats," "the Clintons," and "the media"?  We all know these guys have political leanings but the good ones hide it in their confirmation hearings.  This fucking guy goes full party line attack to start his testimony.  How on earth can he be expected to be fair and unbiased?  I mean, we all know he was hand selected to be biased as fuck, but he's not supposed to admit it in his fucking confirmation hearings.

[retread 2951]

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by retread

[Gil Bang 25857]

Not that anyone cares, but I'm about 95% sure that Dennison is basically just a lefty Dolemite... a troll purely created to push the other sides' buttons.

You are mistaken. Dolemite is sincere. He’s a believer 100%

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Can someone explain to me how he's not disqualified by his political rant to start his testimony against "the democrats," "the Clintons," and "the media"?  We all know these guys have political leanings but the good ones hide it in their confirmation hearings.  This fucking guy goes full party line attack to start his testimony.  How on earth can he be expected to be fair and unbiased?  I mean, we all know he was hand selected to be biased as fuck, but he's not supposed to admit it in his fucking confirmation hearings.

It should be disqualifying but it was a calculated political tactic to appeal to base and reinforce their pressure put on GOP Senators to confirm him. 

[Enchubben 5509]

Stupid question, and probably an elementary political science answer - but can we not confirm the guy and run a wide open federal investigation simultaneously or immediately after?  Can't it be that he gets the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty, but also give her allegations a full deserved investigation?

In my mind - if there is any credible evidence that is uncovered, then he shouldn't have the job and the republicans supporting him will have earned their black eye. If there isn't any credible evidence, then he shouldn't be denied the confirmation if that is who the R's want.

[David Dennison 18561]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It should be disqualifying but it was a calculated political tactic to appeal to base and reinforce their pressure put on GOP Senators to confirm him. 

Which is weird politically because it ensures Democratic blowback and further erosion of norms. Take court packing, for instance.

[Nivek 16796]

On 9/29/2018 at 6:23 PM, Incredulity said:

I guess your too stupid to see its a disingenuous question.

Would, “blue ribbon bi-partisan fact finding panel” be the answer you want?

So you prove the point once again.  Deflect, insult, deflect.   You are a shit poster with zero integrity.  You are the Ted Cruz of Surly.  

[DDD Dad 14146]

5 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Can someone explain to me how he's not disqualified by his political rant to start his testimony against "the democrats," "the Clintons," and "the media"?  We all know these guys have political leanings but the good ones hide it in their confirmation hearings.  This fucking guy goes full party line attack to start his testimony.  How on earth can he be expected to be fair and unbiased?  I mean, we all know he was hand selected to be biased as fuck, but he's not supposed to admit it in his fucking confirmation hearings.

Don't forget the "millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

[Captainant 27274]

4 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Stupid question, and probably an elementary political science answer - but can we not confirm the guy and run a wide open federal investigation simultaneously or immediately after?  Can't it be that he gets the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty, but also give her allegations a full deserved investigation?

In my mind - if there is any credible evidence that is uncovered, then he shouldn't have the job and the republicans supporting him will have earned their black eye. If there isn't any credible evidence, then he shouldn't be denied the confirmation if that is who the R's want.

I don't think you should be sitting on the bench and making rulings if your credibility and honesty are in question. Credible allegations and corroborations HAVE been brought to light, and the FBI has been specifically instructed to ignore anything outside of their extremely limited scope. The GOP knows they stepped in shit and they're trying to tell us that smell is really roses.

[DDD Dad 14146]

8 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Stupid question, and probably an elementary political science answer - but can we not confirm the guy and run a wide open federal investigation simultaneously or immediately after?  Can't it be that he gets the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty, but also give her allegations a full deserved investigation?

In my mind - if there is any credible evidence that is uncovered, then he shouldn't have the job and the republicans supporting him will have earned their black eye. If there isn't any credible evidence, then he shouldn't be denied the confirmation if that is who the R's want.

Yes you can, but if you do what would be the end result?  He'll be on the court, and barring something considered as conclusive as DNA evidence sufficient to support a criminal conviction the only remedy would be impeachment.  No way 2/3 of Senate would convict.

FWIW I hate the timing behind this, because it supports the Republicans' claims of gamesmanship and delay by the Democrats.  That said, the allegations appear credible, and Kavanaugh's response to me appeared facially incredible.  Based on that alone he should be disqualified.

Edited October 1, 2018 by DDD Dad

['stache 21740]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Which is weird politically because it ensures Democratic blowback and further erosion of norms. Take court packing, for instance.

The republicans blocked a nominee from ever getting a hearing and now are strongly supporting a political hack and likely molester to support their agenda, but as soon as the democrats bite back (if it's ever possible) they'll accuse the left of "politicizing" the process.  Fucking lying dishonorable bunch of assholes unlike anything we've seen.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

56 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Fox News looks to be jumping onto the message that prosecutor/senate assistant from last week, has written a report that she would pursue charges against Kavanaugh.   I believe that very few ant-Kavanaugh people are saying he should be convicted as it's so far in the past and there isn't much evidence.

However I would be curious if that prosecutor believed Dr. Ford with the 100% statement.  And would see vote to put Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS.

Apologies.  I can't edit now but the prosecutor/senate asst said that she WOULDN'T pursue charges against Kavanaugh.     My typo definitely changes the meaning of my post.  My bad.

[hayden_horn 11359]

25 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I basically know what a witness could get away with and what a witness could not get away with in any case.  You have to fight against that impulse as a lawyer to influence your witnesses accordingly out of respect for the institution you are participating in.  

 

I think what we watched with Kavanaugh was someone where lawyer and witness are the same person, and he let his lawyer knowledge of "I'm not going to get in trouble for saying this" guide his testimony.  

 

Too much shading.  Too bold where he knows the contrary answer is unprovable.  Too much knowing that he can come back later and say he was mistaken if things go wrong.  Too much deciding in real time that something is a white lie so it doesn't matter.  Too much sidestepping because he knows no one can really force him to be direct.

and here's the real rub: he got away with it, barring the fbi finding a real burning brand.

we joked plenty about the ancient congresspeople, but let's be honest: any capable attorney would have fucking hammered him multiple times on his dissembling and/or lying. 

durbin did a good job, klobuchar did a good job, but the rest were a big waste of space. how do you not come prepared to lower the boom on things like devil's triangle and boof? you know the meanings, or you should have your staffers prepare you to know the real meanings of those terms. you call him a fucking liar. you call him out. none of that happened. the democrats just moved on to their next question. i understand some of that was due to time limits, but did they not have a meeting beforehand and say "i'll cover x, you cover y, this guy is a fucking liar, and let's nail him."? there was no killer instinct in congress, except for the hail mary by the lindsey grahams who pulled the cloak of righteous indignation over the proceedings. the whole thing was fucking shameful.

give me five minutes with this guy, and i'd have him shouting at me in anger. and i'm no lawyer, just a corporate stooge. there are harder questions on a quarterly call than congress asked of this guy. 

[pepper brooks 579]

this whole thing is frankly embarrassing on so many levels.  I really don't give a damn about Kavanaugh one way or another.  I do care about principles here, and while I understand this is NOT a trial, everyone seems to be using that as an excuse to set aside logic so they can cheer their "party", and "prove" their side is right.  It may not be a criminal trial, which if an actual sexual assault took place as claimed, why is a criminal trial not in the making?  Go ahead and answer that.  Moving on from there, in almost any situation where there is a "he said, she said" scenario it is impossible to not analyze the evidence and determine "innocence" or "guilt" based on the evidence.  I learned many years ago as I was the foreman on a jury trial where I saw a prosecutor try and railroad a young woman into 2-25 years in the pen for an alleged armed robbery, that the only thing you should ever assume in any situation is the accused is 100% innocent until proven otherwise.  I try and carry that as a guide always.  Given that, and given the "evidence", such that it is, there is simply zero evidence here that this event took place other than she says it happened.  One huge issue I see here is she cannot even given enough details in order for Kavanaugh to mount any sort of defense.  She cannot give even a reasonable range of dates in order for him to provide an alibi.  She cannot find one person who can speak to her account of what happened, but there are numerous people who can say they have no recollection that it did happen.  Whether Kavanaugh is a sexual predator or not cannot be proven in any way whatsoever in this situation.  There certainly is no further history of him acting inappropriately towards woman throughout his career that we know of at this point, no pattern of behavior that might bolster her claim.  Simply put, what we know about her allegations is there is no clear story that would meet even a minimal hurdle for anyone except die hard partisans as far as believability.  If you have watched this testimony, read the details, and come away from this thinking Kavanaugh is some sort of sexual predator, deviant, and therefore unfit for an SC seat, you're simply a partisan hack who isn't thinking clearly.  If some other details emerge I am all for investigating this further, and would support criminal proceedings if evidence can be provided this event happened as she seems to believe it did.  

Now, if you want to look at his judicial record and professional career and say you do not agree with his rulings that clearly side on the conservative side, and you hope he isn't confirmed based on your ideology, fine.  There still seems to be little question the man is qualified professionally whether you like him or not.  Dr. Ford's testimony simply doesn't add up to the man being unqualified, but I understand ideologues not wanting him on the bench.  I don't understand their willingness to die on the cross for Dr. Ford based on her story.  At least Anita Hill made up some intricate details about pubic hair on her soda lid.  

 

 

[pepper brooks 579]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, except for the fact that there appears to be a boatload of indications that maybe he hasn't led an exemplary life, but you keep fuckin' that "football".

find someone who has "led an exemplary" life by an opposing party's political standards.  Your search will be a long and tedious one.  No one is perfect.  By most counts Kavanaugh has led a pretty decent life, and has been a success in his profession where you agree with his ideology or not.  

[DixonHur 11056]

30 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I would never put myself for nomination because of my past issues. That’s not the case with Kavanaugh who has led an exemplary life. Y’all are blind if you can’t see how many people he won over by his performance on Thursday. Both he and Sen Graham will be remembered as heroes of the GOP. 

I don't think anyone in here is surprised that the dregs of society who still cling to the GOP would be "won over" by a lying, egotistical, angry, privileged  white male playing the world is out to get me card...I mean y'all still support Trump God's sake..

['stache 21740]

4 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

there is simply zero evidence here that this event took place other than she says it happened.   

 

 

I really wish people would stop saying this.  Her testimony, especially under oath, is evidence.  How many people have been put away solely on the word of the victim?  Plenty.  The question is if you believe she is credible.  You apparently think not.  Which means you think she's lying.  That's your right to believe, but don't say there is "zero" evidence.  Her testimony is evidence.  His testimony is evidence.  She seems more credible to me than him.  It may not be strong enough for a criminal conviction, but it's damn sure enough to keep him away from a lifetime appointment to one of the most important institutions in the world.  And as many have said, his temperament alone and political rant should be enough to not confirm, even if you think he isn't a drunk molester.

Edited October 1, 2018 by 'stache

[retread 2951]

There are three accusers and several corroborating witnesses, if the FBI is allow to interview them.

 

Edited October 1, 2018 by retread

[jimmyjazz 45494]

9 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

find someone who has "led an exemplary" life by an opposing party's political standards.  Your search will be a long and tedious one.  No one is perfect.  By most counts Kavanaugh has led a pretty decent life, and has been a success in his profession where you agree with his ideology or not.  

Neil Gorsuch.  Next question?

[GHOSTUSER 361]

11 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

this whole thing is frankly embarrassing on so many levels.  I really don't give a damn about Kavanaugh one way or another.  I do care about principles here, and while I understand this is NOT a trial, everyone seems to be using that as an excuse to set aside logic so they can cheer their "party", and "prove" their side is right.  It may not be a criminal trial, which if an actual sexual assault took place as claimed, why is a criminal trial not in the making?  Go ahead and answer that.  Moving on from there, in almost any situation where there is a "he said, she said" scenario it is impossible to not analyze the evidence and determine "innocence" or "guilt" based on the evidence.  I learned many years ago as I was the foreman on a jury trial where I saw a prosecutor try and railroad a young woman into 2-25 years in the pen for an alleged armed robbery, that the only thing you should ever assume in any situation is the accused is 100% innocent until proven otherwise.  I try and carry that as a guide always.  Given that, and given the "evidence", such that it is, there is simply zero evidence here that this event took place other than she says it happened.  One huge issue I see here is she cannot even given enough details in order for Kavanaugh to mount any sort of defense.  She cannot give even a reasonable range of dates in order for him to provide an alibi.  She cannot find one person who can speak to her account of what happened, but there are numerous people who can say they have no recollection that it did happen.  Whether Kavanaugh is a sexual predator or not cannot be proven in any way whatsoever in this situation.  There certainly is no further history of him acting inappropriately towards woman throughout his career that we know of at this point, no pattern of behavior that might bolster her claim.  Simply put, what we know about her allegations is there is no clear story that would meet even a minimal hurdle for anyone except die hard partisans as far as believability.  If you have watched this testimony, read the details, and come away from this thinking Kavanaugh is some sort of sexual predator, deviant, and therefore unfit for an SC seat, you're simply a partisan hack who isn't thinking clearly.  If some other details emerge I am all for investigating this further, and would support criminal proceedings if evidence can be provided this event happened as she seems to believe it did.  

Now, if you want to look at his judicial record and professional career and say you do not agree with his rulings that clearly side on the conservative side, and you hope he isn't confirmed based on your ideology, fine.  There still seems to be little question the man is qualified professionally whether you like him or not.  Dr. Ford's testimony simply doesn't add up to the man being unqualified, but I understand ideologues not wanting him on the bench.  I don't understand their willingness to die on the cross for Dr. Ford based on her story.  At least Anita Hill made up some intricate details about pubic hair on her soda lid.  

 

 

Good to see you post pepper. Be ready for negs because they like the echo chamber not being disturbed. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I really wish people would stop saying this.  Her testimony, especially under oath, is evidence.  How many people have been put away solely on the word of the victim?  Plenty.  The question is if you believe she is credible.  You apparently think not.  Which means you think she's lying.  That's your right to believe, but don't say there is "zero" evidence.  Her testimony is evidence.  His testimony is evidence.  She seems more credible to me than him.  It may not be strong enough for a criminal conviction, but it's damn sure enough to keep him away from a lifetime appointment to one of the most important institutions in the world.  And as many have said, his temperament alone and political rant should be enough to not confirm, even if you think he isn't a drunk molester.

This.   Some also seem to imply that Ford only recently remembered that Kavanaugh was her attacker and that it's a false memory.  While it's possible that is true, she seems to be clear that she has thought her attacker was Kavanaugh for the past 35 years.    It didn't come to her in a therapy session or when she saw his face on TV this year. 

People are walking a line that says they believe her but then they create a reason why Kavanaugh was innocent of this accusation.  Those two don't reconcile.   For Kavanaugh to be innocent, Ford is lying or her memory of her attacker is wrong.   They both cannot be telling the truth and/or correct.  

And the process of how the Dems brought this to the attention of the Judiciary committee has nothing to do with this alleged incident.    

Full disclosure - based on what we know about the alleged incident, I don't think you can keep Kavanaugh out of the scotus based on that.  His casual relationship with the truth is my concern about him.

 

[Dahobbs 17417]

8 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

find someone who has "led an exemplary" life by an opposing party's political standards.  Your search will be a long and tedious one.  No one is perfect.  By most counts Kavanaugh has led a pretty decent life, and has been a success in his profession where you agree with his ideology or not.  

Do you not find it disturbing that he 100% lied under oath, multiple times? Do you not find it disturbing that he spent 45 minutes angry ranting about Democrats and saying "what goes around comes around"? That shit is unacceptable for a Supreme Court Justice.  I personally think bringing up stuff from high school is pretty weak sauce. But, the allegations are fairly serious, so I think they deserve some consideration. I don't have any problem with him drinking and having a good time. Being a normal person doesn't disqualify you from being on the Supreme Court. But lying under oath does and always should. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Neil Gorsuch.  Next question?

Has anyone published gorsuch's yearbook info?  Or does he not like beer like Kavanaugh and it's a boring entry about the physics club.  

[sachick 1189]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I really wish people would stop saying this.  Her testimony, especially under oath, is evidence.  How many people have been put away solely on the word of the victim?  Plenty.  The question is if you believe she is credible.  You apparently think not.  Which means you think she's lying.  That's your right to believe, but don't say there is "zero" evidence.  Her testimony is evidence.  His testimony is evidence.  She seems more credible to me than him.  It may not be strong enough for a criminal conviction, but it's damn sure enough to keep him away from a lifetime appointment to one of the most important institutions in the world.  And as many have said, his temperament alone and political rant should be enough to not confirm, even if you think he isn't a drunk molester.

Ugh, me too. Don't forget the disclosures she made over the years. In this case there was a 3rd person in the room who was also in the room. I'm sure he won't remember the incident. But typically in these cases, it's a he said, she said and that's it. There isn't video evidence, there isn't DNA evidence so WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?