Kavanaugh
-
@DoubleDD Ok. Which piece of information am I failing to account for? Not which opinion or rhetoric I’m disagreeing with, which information am I ignoring? For instance,the fact that you repeatedly have referred to the one person accusing Kavanaugh, ignoring that there are other accusers. Am I omitting something like that? The fact that he lied about being of age to drink and downplayed the extent of his drinking saying he never didn’t know what was going on when many of his drinking friends have said they saw him drunk to the point of not knowing what was going on. Do you dispute that he mischaracterized his drinking? Do you dispute that he lied about drinking legally?
Here’s what he said:
My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends. Almost everyone did. Sometimes I had too many beers. Sometimes others did. I liked beer. I still like beer. But I did not drink beer to the point of blacking out, and I never sexually assaulted anyone.
-
It’s been more than three weeks since rumblings of the allegations became public, and two and a half weeks since Dr. Ford came forward. Had the GOP pulled the nomination then, they could have still put forward someone to confirm before the midterms.
Allegations surfaced on Sept 12. Blasey Ford came forward Sept 16.
If the GOP does an investigation to see if this allegation has legs, they can still decide by the 20th that they want to pull the nomination. Trump nominates someone new on the 24th, and the GOP provides documentation that same day (or soon after).
Remember, many Republican senators didn’t want to proceed with Kavanaugh anyway because of his huge paper trail from his time working in Ken Starr’s office and in the W. Bush White House.
If they pull him and nominate someone with a less voluminous paper trail, he or she could have been nominated, vetted and a vote scheduled for three weeks from today.
Would the Democrats have liked this new pick? Probably not, because it still would have been a conservative. But it would not have been as politically troublesome as this has become. There was an easier path than this.
-
The Democrats would have thrown a fit over anyone that Trump nominated. That seems to be the new thing for them. The damn NY Times ran a article about Kavanaugh throwing ice at someone! Seriously step back and think about that for a minute. It is laughable that people think if Trump and the Republicans nominated someone else that the Democrats wouldn’t have found something else to bitch about.
-
Ricky Rubio, today, speaking about Ford’s allegations…
“it was also wrong to dismiss these allegations without looking into them as some did, almost like a reflex.”
Ricky Rubio on Friday, Sept 28th, when he was in favor of voting on Kavanaugh and not having an FBI investigation:
“This entire ordeal is indicative of something that goes beyond the nomination before us. It has revealed how our culture has become increasingly sick and demented, unmoored from the values upon which this great nation was founded and which have allowed our society to flourish.I will not vote against the nomination of someone who I am otherwise inclined to support and in the process add credence to charges which have already done permanent damage to his reputation, on the basis of allegations for which there is no independent corroboration and which are at odds with everything else we have heard about his character". He also said Senators against had “disgraced themselves” and that this was a “dark moment in the Senate’s history.”
Such BS. Just own it dude.
-
justanotherfan said:
Why Kavanaugh? That’s the real question for Republicans here. It’s not like Kavanaugh is the only conservative judge that could be nominated to the Supreme Court. There are at least two dozen justices out there with the type of background, as well as being very conservative in their rulings, that they could easily take Brett Kavanaugh’s place.
The GOP could have asked the President to pull the Kavanaugh nomination the instant the allegations surfaced and confirmed another conservative judge, even without any Democratic votes because the GOP has the majority. Instead, they insist that it has to be Kavanaugh despite the issues that have arisen, and despite the backlash it is causing, and despite his own handling of this.
When Clarence Thomas faced harassment allegations, you did not see him fly off the handle and go on an explosive, angry rant during his confirmation hearings.
Again, I ask simply - Why Kavanaugh? The GOP wants a conservative court. There are other judges that would be just as conservative, and some that would likely be even more conservative than Kavanaugh. If the goal is simply a conservative majority on the court, there are probably 20 other judges out there that could accomplish that goal.
So why Brett Kavanaugh?
Trump believes Kavanaugh would provide cover since Kavanaugh has indicated he doesn’t believe a sitting president can be held accountable should he be charged with certain acts that may be criminal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/07/11/does-brett-kavanaugh-think-the-president-is-immune-from-criminal-charges/?utm_term=.9d7a5b052919 Apparently other potential SCOTUS judicial candidates do not agree with Kavanaugh’s position, making Kavanaugh Trump’s “golden boy.”
-
Roy Blunt, on Merrick Garland treatment being compared to Kavanaugh’s treatment: "theres no comparison. Before Merrick Garland, the last time a Supreme Court nominee was confirmed when nominated in a president’s last year was 1985.
Guess why? Because Supreme Court justices don’t decide to die.
Potter Stewart (1915–1985)
Antonin Scalia (1936–2016)
The transparent BS parade continues.
… and “we talked to all the witnesses I know of, regarding credible charges”.
-
Writing appears to be on the wall and he’ll be confirmed regardless how any of us feel. I don’t know which base will be most fired up come November. But the timing of this will certainly make sure people get out and vote.
-
James Inhofe “innocent until proven guilty, thats what is on trial here”. No, it’s not a criminal trial, but good job toeing the party talking points.
-
Susan Collins decrying dark money while confirming Kavanaugh. Ohhhhhh the irony.
-
@BShark You referring to this? https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/oct/05/jon-tester/how-much-dark-money-fueling-kavanaugh-confirmation/
-
Shame on you, Senator Collins. Game over.
-
approxinfinity said:
Shame on you, Senator Collins. Game over.
-
@BShark Hey man I feel really blessed lol - the President gonna be in town tomorrow ought to be fun lol
-
@jayballer73 blessed are the meek for they shall be the subject of our president’s rally ridicule.
-
approxinfinity said:
@jayballer73 blessed are the meek for they shall be the subject of our president’s rally ridicule.
lol, hell I’m just mad cause they are going to have my boulevard blocked - - -can’t get to Walmart- - -or Sonic lmao
-
Two things only:
-
Polygraph - why won’t they share the notes and video of the polygraph? Indications are that there were only 2 questions, something along the lines of “Do you believe your statement is true”. But let’s see the facts about it.
-
As to witnesses asking for an investigation and your extensive background with that.
How many of those cases took place in a highly charged political climate with balance of Supreme Court in the balance and a midterm election pending that had implications on said SCOTUS “advise and consent” power of the Senate?
I’m gonna to presume to take a wild guess at this having no knowledge beyond what you provided here on KU Buckets about your background and experience, and answer ZERO.
Therefore, your circumstantial evidence kinda falls into all the other supporting arguments like “most women who…”
Zero relevance to the facts at hand which all add up, when including circumstantial and “hard” ( since there weren’t any) facts to also ZERO.
The glove does not fit, you must acquit!
-
-
@approxinfinity I might, but I find it inconsequential to even consider it. As will all fair-minded Americans.
-
@approxinfinity hey, bring a blue dress with a stain on it and we’ll listen to you on this.
-
@DoubleDD yeah, I didn’t see many complain about Obama’s smoking pot. That at least was an illegal substance - despite recent trends in lawmaking to the contrary.
-
@approxinfinity well you are partly right, last second unsubstantiated character assassination and smearing is below standard Senatorial behavior.
-
@approxinfinity so Keith Ellison, vice-Chair of the DNC and Minnesota AG candidate should quit that race?
-
@approxinfinity the issue isn’t ignoring the meat of the issue. It’s having seen the accusations, we’re left asking, “Where’s the beef?” - Wendy
-
@DoubleDD it’s not even “He said, she said”. It’s “She said” and he wasn’t even there.
-
@Woodrow I heard a neighbor from his childhood would testify that he pulled a girls hair when he was 6. But only would come forward if there was an FBI investigation.
-
@approxinfinity barely watch it since I don’t have cable or satellite.
-
@BShark yawn
-
@justanotherfan Kavanaugh is probably more a centrist or barely center-right. You’ll gonna love it when Amy Barrett is nominated to take Notorious RBG’s spot when she finally slips off into that final sleep. What’s the over-under on days until that, and will it occur while sitting in session?
-
@approxinfinity she’s not credible. None of her details add up or have remained consistent.
-
@BShark don’t you have to believe the woman?
-
@approxinfinity if all of this crap is a lie (as I do, and many others) and you look at all the real evidence about his life and character,M then yes, he’s a good man.
Maybe not as good a man as Sen Booker’s friend T-Bone, but he’s right there!
-
That was a lengthy victory lap hoss.
-
@Bwag No, mine only included several murder cases, a death penalty case, and about 10 people in prison under life sentences. Not anything as momentous as a Senate committee taking testimony.
-
Half my family is outrageously happy- the other half is certain life as we know it will cease to exist. As for me, it’s all Kabuki Theatre. The Bible doesn’t say America saves the world. If they can’t get Trump out, then they’ll crash the stock market, and get him out that way. I’ll say it again: it’s much bigger than Repubs vs. Dems. Both sides have been compromised. We’re the frog sitting in the cooking pan not noticing the heat is being turned up. The entire South American continent is on the verge of complete economic collapse. Country after country across the world are experiencing terrible financial woes. The bond market bubble is about to pop, and all that fake money, hot off the printing presses, is about to become worthless. Once a week, we see a story where someone is warning us that it’s going to explode. In fact, the chairman of the FED said our great economic news isn’t real. Now, Trump supporters probably shook that off as another sleight from the Trump derangers, but I think he was simply trying to cover his backside when it all goes to hell in a hand basket.
-
@DoubleDD no, the problem with the entire thing is that they delved into whether he drank beer while in high school - come on, get real…! Glad that I haven’t been nominated to the Supreme Court (the witness list would be extremely long, and America would grow bored and tired, having learned too much about themselves).
-
lol
-
And so there is finally this…only time will tell, but might be interesting to see if he aligns with Thomas after this ordeal and create an even more solid originalist foundation for Constitutional jurisprudence.
Some interesting analysis is out there that shows that Thomas has been moving the court to a more literalist interpretation than even Scalia had over the last decade or so.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 are we prosecuting for HS now…and some of us on this board are willing to forgive our basketball players the benefit of the doubt for their college behavior. Just saying.
-
Did I say hs?
-
Bwag said:
@justanotherfan Kavanaugh is probably more a centrist or barely center-right. You’ll gonna love it when Amy Barrett is nominated to take Notorious RBG’s spot when she finally slips off into that final sleep. What’s the over-under on days until that, and will it occur while sitting in session?
Unfortunately, that’s just not true. Kavanaugh is fairly conservative.
Fivethirtyeight has a judicial score that determines how liberal or conservative a judge is, based on their past rulings.
To no surprise, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Ginsburg are the most liberal on the current court. However, Kavanaugh is only slightly to the left of Clarence Thomas, who is easily the most conservative judge on the SCOTUS, and well to the right of Gorsuch and Alito, both clearly conservative justices.
Perhaps Kavanaugh will be more moderate on the court. There is a history of justices moving more to the middle once they get to the SCOTUS, but even then, he probably is to the right of Gorsuch and Alito, and still well right of Roberts (who himself is barely within the moderate quadrant).
-
-
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/3/another-kavanaugh-accuser-admits-fabricating-rape-/
Yikes
-
Here is the entire FBI report. Looks like none of the accusations could be even remotely corroborated. Read it (if you have the time) and form your own opinion,
-
Yep as I figured it was mostly made up BS. Anyone with any amount of common sense could thousands, literally thousands of holes in most the stories. Not to mention most people don’t take criminal accusations to politicians, they take them to the police.
-
@justanotherfan I know your post is kinda old but which do you prefer as a judge? Liberal or conservative? I don’t consider my self either but being a foster parent for 7 years I pray to god I never have to sit in another court room with a liberal judge. I have literally seen it cost children their lives because the judge gives abusers and addicts 10 or 15 chances before they try to take parental rights. A conservative gives them about 3 before they allow the kid to be adopted.
-
@BShark Washington times is a spin rag. This accuser wasnt on the table in the first place with the investigation. Who cares? This is feel good mop up duty for people who supported Kavanaugh. Nothing has changed as far as the picture of his character. Justice Stevens, the ABA, and his other detractors have moved on.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I cannot find any FBI report in those 414 pages. This is Grassley’s Committee Report. I like the fact that, rather than including an FBI report, the document footnotes a CNN story saying that Ramirez was interviewed by the FBI with no further information. Good to have such a thorough investigation.
I still want someone to explain how Ford went about making up this story by telling people about it in 2012, 2013, 2016, and 2017.
-
The Ramirez case is presented in great detail in pages 14-17. A number of sources are cited and a number of individuals were interviewed and none would corroborate her story, in fact quite the contrary…of course all these pesky details will never be enough for some people. SMH.
If you do not want to read the entire report, perhaps you could read this summary about one item that had gone unreported until now.
Interesting that the only person that Ford “told” the name before Kavanaugh was mentioned as potential supreme was conveniently her husband, all others you mentioned happened after he went into the short list of potential nominees.
Just about every single assertion Ford made was uncorroborated by her own witness or rebutted by a number of other witnesses and some were even pressured to change testimony and now they are rightfully being investigated for tampering with evidence.
Again, you can believe whatever you want to believe even when the overwhelming evidence points the other way.
By the way, in 2012, 2013 I mentioned to friends that a college basketball coach at a well known program was going to be nominated to the Hall of Fame and in 2017 I did tell someone it was Coach Self.
-
@JayHawkFanToo My reference to the Ramirez case was about the alleged FBI interview, about which the report is silent except relying on a CNN report that they conducted one. Highly professional job, that. I looked at all 414 pages trying to find the FBI report because I couldn’t imagine you getting something so blatantly wrong. I guess we are alike in thinking that.
So Ford lay in wait for several years, laying the groundwork with several references to friends about a federal judge, so she could conveniently ambush Kavanaugh whom she knew way back when? The mind boggles at the intricacies of the scheme.
-
kjayhawks said:
@justanotherfan I know your post is kinda old but which do you prefer as a judge? Liberal or conservative? I don’t consider my self either but being a foster parent for 7 years I pray to god I never have to sit in another court room with a liberal judge. I have literally seen it cost children their lives because the judge gives abusers and addicts 10 or 15 chances before they try to take parental rights. A conservative gives them about 3 before they allow the kid to be adopted.
Both have their flaws.
Conservatives tend to side with the state quite a bit more, while liberals tend to try to avoid taking kids away, although that is by no means a hard and fast rule.
I have noticed that lots of people (not just directing at you) tend to say a judge is liberal or conservative based on a ruling they don’t like. Judges make lots of rulings.
I would prefer judges that are more centrist, but probably slightly left, but that is mostly because that also aligns with my personal politics. The best judges aren’t either liberal or conservative, but rule based on the facts before them. The reason we often end up with judges leaning one way or another is because the majority (whatever it may be at the time) attempts to bend the law in a certain direction to fit their own politics.
Conservatives have been wanting a “conservative court” for some time because they were frustrated that a lot of things got overturned by judges that they branded “liberal”. The truth is, many of those judges were “conservative” politically, but ruled against the conservative position because it was not legally defensible.
As I have said before, when you are looking for specific outcomes rather than looking for the law to be applied, you will get judges that make rulings that are not consistent, like what happened earlier this year on the Supreme Court.
-
OK, I should have written the Senate Judiciary report based on the FBI report and now you are going on and on on semantics rather than on the content of the report (based on the FBI report) that overwhelmingly contradicts the testimony of Ford and others about alleged wrong doings by Kavanaugh.
Did you read the part where someone else came forward and confessed to a consensual situation very similar to that cited by Ford but did not involve Kavanaugh? Of course not, it does not fit your narrative and you will continue to defend the indefensible despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You are asking me to suspend reality, take two alleged statements and disregard the mountain of evidence to the contrary including allegations she made that proved to be false? You remind me of this NBC announcer…
