Sitka Mountain Gear
My Sisters Take on Kavanaugh
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Grey Ghost 30-Sep-18
BC 30-Sep-18
NvaGvUp 30-Sep-18
elkmtngear 30-Sep-18
HA/KS 30-Sep-18
Bowfreak 30-Sep-18
Glunt@work 30-Sep-18
WV Mountaineer 30-Sep-18
Dale06 30-Sep-18
K Cummings 30-Sep-18
Owl 30-Sep-18
kentuckbowhnter 30-Sep-18
Hawkarcher 30-Sep-18
freeglee 30-Sep-18
Trax 30-Sep-18
itshot 30-Sep-18
JTV 30-Sep-18
Jackaroo 30-Sep-18
TT-Pi 30-Sep-18
Annony Mouse 30-Sep-18
HDE 30-Sep-18
Hackbow 30-Sep-18
NvaGvUp 30-Sep-18
Rocky 30-Sep-18
Will 30-Sep-18
KSflatlander 30-Sep-18
Pi 30-Sep-18
WV Mountaineer 30-Sep-18
JTV 30-Sep-18
bad karma 30-Sep-18
slade 30-Sep-18
Rupe 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
mn_archer 01-Oct-18
K Cummings 01-Oct-18
Mike in CT 01-Oct-18
mn_archer 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 01-Oct-18
mn_archer 01-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 01-Oct-18
South Farm 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
elkmtngear 01-Oct-18
mn_archer 01-Oct-18
HDE 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
mn_archer 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
Tiger-Eye 01-Oct-18
K Cummings 01-Oct-18
mn_archer 01-Oct-18
K Cummings 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
K Cummings 01-Oct-18
JTV 01-Oct-18
Will 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
Glunt@work 01-Oct-18
Bowbender 01-Oct-18
KSflatlander 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 01-Oct-18
TT-Pi 01-Oct-18
orionsbrother 01-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 01-Oct-18
Bowbender 01-Oct-18
TT-Pi 01-Oct-18
K Cummings 01-Oct-18
NvaGvUp 01-Oct-18
TT-Pi 01-Oct-18
Trax 01-Oct-18
TT-Pi 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
Thumper 01-Oct-18
Spike Bull 01-Oct-18
scentman 01-Oct-18
Bake 01-Oct-18
slade 01-Oct-18
TD 01-Oct-18
HDE 01-Oct-18
bad karma 01-Oct-18
Pig Doc 01-Oct-18
freeglee 01-Oct-18
Rupe 01-Oct-18
Your fav poster 01-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 01-Oct-18
JTV 01-Oct-18
Glunt@work 01-Oct-18
Tiger eye 01-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 01-Oct-18
JTV 01-Oct-18
petedrummond 01-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 01-Oct-18
bigeasygator 01-Oct-18
Glunt@work 01-Oct-18
JTV 01-Oct-18
RK 01-Oct-18
JTV 01-Oct-18
Your fav poster 01-Oct-18
Pig Doc 01-Oct-18
KSflatlander 01-Oct-18
NvaGvUp 01-Oct-18
petedrummond 01-Oct-18
mn_archer 01-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 01-Oct-18
Mint 02-Oct-18
K Cummings 02-Oct-18
bigeasygator 02-Oct-18
Pig Doc 02-Oct-18
HA/KS 02-Oct-18
bigeasygator 02-Oct-18
Will 02-Oct-18
ben h 02-Oct-18
DConcrete 02-Oct-18
JTV 02-Oct-18
trublucolo 02-Oct-18
ben h 02-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 02-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
Mint 03-Oct-18
HDE 03-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
Solo 03-Oct-18
Will 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
Bowfreak 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
trublucolo 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
Bowbender 03-Oct-18
sleepyhunter 03-Oct-18
mn_archer 03-Oct-18
trublucolo 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
trublucolo 03-Oct-18
bad karma 03-Oct-18
Ace 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
sleepyhunter 03-Oct-18
bad karma 03-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
elkmtngear 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
gflight 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
bad karma 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
Glunt@work 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
NvaGvUp 03-Oct-18
bad karma 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
HDE 03-Oct-18
HDE 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
KSflatlander 03-Oct-18
KSflatlander 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
IdyllwildArcher 03-Oct-18
KSflatlander 03-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 03-Oct-18
Mike in CT 03-Oct-18
bigeasygator 03-Oct-18
KSflatlander 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
TT-Pi 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
JTV 03-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 03-Oct-18
KSflatlander 03-Oct-18
K Cummings 03-Oct-18
TD 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 04-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
bad karma 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
TT-Pi 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 04-Oct-18
Will 04-Oct-18
Spike Bull 04-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
JTV 04-Oct-18
Trax 04-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 04-Oct-18
Will 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
JTV 04-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 04-Oct-18
TD 04-Oct-18
bigeasygator 04-Oct-18
Spike Bull 04-Oct-18
WV Mountaineer 04-Oct-18
HDE 04-Oct-18
Dale Cover 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
bad karma 04-Oct-18
K Cummings 04-Oct-18
Dale Cover 04-Oct-18
KSflatlander 04-Oct-18
Annony Mouse 04-Oct-18
Grey Ghost 04-Oct-18
Solo 04-Oct-18
HA/KS 04-Oct-18
JTV 04-Oct-18
Wicked 06-Oct-18
JTV 06-Oct-18
trublucolo 06-Oct-18
From: Grey Ghost
30-Sep-18
Some of you may recall me mentioning my oldest sister. She has a doctorate in law, graduated at the very top of her class at CU, also taught courses there, and is now retired from a long career with the EPA spanning over 3 administrations. She sits left of me on politics, but she is still the smartest most logical and level-headed person I know, without a doubt.

We hadn't communicated for a few weeks, so I shot my sister an email to say "hey" and to get her thoughts on Kavanaugh. Here's what she wrote:

I think it's hard to think of anyone less suited to the high court then Kavanaugh has shown himself to be. Judges, especially appellate judges, should have a "judicial temperament:" rational, focused on logic and facts, not pre-disposed to a particular outcome. The federal courts - and the Supremes in particular - are supposed to be above partisan politics. That's why they are appointed for life, to keep them free from the ongoing partisan political nonsense. The Supremes should have a broad mix of views, as well, to be reflective of the broad range of views and values that are present in the country. These were the principles underlying judicial appointments for decades, and they served us well: the courts were pretty much above politics, and able to provide a check on the excesses that electeds might be prone to in any political cycle.

Newt Gingrich and company started to move away from these norms when they began a campaign to add more federal judges, then pack the seats with conservatives. That trend has been accelerating ever since. McConnell's blatantly political move to block Merrick Garland (a moderate, with "judicial temperament") from even being considered by the Senate when Obama nominated him is one of the acts that accelerated the hyper-partisanship we see today IMO - but that's water under the bridge. I didn't like Neal Gorsuch's politics, but he has a rep as a good jurist, so I thought Senator Bennett did the right thing in not trying to block his appointment (even though Bennett took a lot of heat from progressives for doing so). However, It's one thing to have a conservative who is still a good judge, and quite another thing to nominate someone who is blatantly a political operative and behaves like a toddler having tantrums when under fire. The ABA raising concerns to Kavanaugh is important, because they are looking at him from the standpoint of judicial temperament and fairness on the bench, based on the experiences of lawyers and judges who've worked with him. The ABA raised similar concerns when he was nominated for the appellate court, but the GOP ignored them.

I am saddened to see the Supreme Court dragged down into the partisan gutter along with all the rest of the clowns...

That's my sis....flame away.

Matt

From: BC
30-Sep-18
She left out Thomas and Bork. Forget Gingrich, does she think the left is playing fair?

From: NvaGvUp
30-Sep-18
She's just not to the left of you, Matt.

She's on another planet!

But I'll give her this: She certainly knows her talking points.

From: elkmtngear
30-Sep-18
"Apple doesn't fall far from the tree".

"Judicial Temperament" is one thing, but when a man is dragged through the kind of Circus we witnessed last week, for nothing other than obstructionist Political motives, he has every right to step out of his "Judicial Robes", put on a pair of boxing gloves, and call it what it is!

From: HA/KS
30-Sep-18
We only get to choose one relative - and many don't do such a great job of that. We can't be blamed for what the rest of them do.

Added: Smart (or intelligent) and wise are not the same, though we often mistakenly thing they are or at least should be.

From: Bowfreak
30-Sep-18
As far as Merrick Garland, Obama himself was known to tell Republicans that he won. The Republicans won, they set agenda in Congress.

"However, It's one thing to have a conservative who is still a good judge, and quite another thing to nominate someone who is blatantly a political operative "

There are 4 liberals on the court who are all political operatives.

I think it says a lot about what the left thinks of judges when one who believes in the constiitution as it was written is considered conservative or right wing.

30-Sep-18
It is my understanding that the ABA did not write a letter, their leader did. And the ABA has distanced themselves from that letter.

Very selective in her examples. Worked for the EPA. My guess, very liberal but does not recognize her own political leanings are causing her to be less than objective.

From: Glunt@work
30-Sep-18
I'm less interested in having a court comprised of a broad range of views. I want a court comprised of judges with the right set of views. A court with judges who mirror the views from all segments of America isn't good. A whole bunch of my fellow citizens have the wrong view of how America should work.

There is right and wrong. People are free to be wrong but I don't want them steering the ship.

30-Sep-18
Did you expect a left leaning lawyer to say any different? I'm some how convinced that had this been going the other way, with a more outspoken, left leaning liberal nominee, your sister and 100% of those that oppose Kavanaugh would find a way to be ok with what this nomination process has been.

I do agree with her talking points. I also see why more justices were needed. We have exploded in population. Case load alone demanded it. However, it just so happened to be in her interest to say this was started by a conservative. So, blame it on what you can to justify the process it has turned into. Nothing more or nothing less. Its what most people. Your Sis being no different.

From: Dale06
30-Sep-18
In interested in judges that understand the constitution and make decisions in that light. Broad and diverse views are irrelevant.

From: K Cummings
30-Sep-18
However, It's one thing to have a conservative who is still a good judge, and quite another thing to nominate someone who is blatantly a political operative and behaves like a toddler having tantrums when under fire."

Easy to say when you, your reputation, and your family aren't the ones under assault.

I think your sister is blinded by her own partisan political leanings.

I wonder what she'd think about a nominee who said:

""I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Or a SC Justice that when asked about a certain person becoming President, suggested:

"Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand."

Or a nominee that had previously stated:

"Judges will often try to mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends. “Such activity is not necessarily wrong or invalid."

KPC

From: Owl
30-Sep-18
I'm amazed at the criticism of his temperament. To me, such evaluations betray a significant deficiency of both commonsense and sympathy. For us, this is a rather 2 dimensional public spectacle. For Kavanaugh, he is fighting for his family name, honor and legacy.

It's clear the Dems. did not want to seriously investigate Kavanaugh. They wanted a create a grotesque spectacle of process obfuscation and are willing to grind Ford in the gristmill to do it.

30-Sep-18
hard to have judicial temperament when someone is accusing you of sex crimes no matter who you are. i am surprised Kavanaugh was as composed as he was.

From: Hawkarcher
30-Sep-18
That’s a misleading thread title. I thought we had two more accusers.

From: freeglee
30-Sep-18
Grey Ghost when did your a Sister get her 1st abortion??????!!!!

When did she give up her other kids do too drug abuses????!!!!

Did you 2 ever get counseling because of the horrible things that went o in your House Growing Up????!!!????

From: Trax
30-Sep-18
KC used the right word. She is blind, and likely devoid of common sense. One can be brilliant in the world of academia and both blind and anorexic in terms of common sense. She is also obviously partisan to a severe flaw. Her politics are out there like Pluto, I mean she is gone. The exact kind of people that this counrty needs less of. Radically leftist to the point of undermining all that is important for the survival of our great representative Republic. Exactly the kind of people who unfortunately indoctrinate our young and at accelerating rates.

Judge Kavanaugh has an EXTENSIVE judicial record that is at the very top of his profession in terms of accomplishment and peer respect. The woman in this thread is a booger on a turd in comparison.

How’s that?

From: itshot
30-Sep-18
i see freeshizz's point and would like honest answers, now

From: JTV
30-Sep-18
very well put Trax ^^ .... ;0)

From: Jackaroo
30-Sep-18
What exactly is the right reaction to the folks who ruined your life, and your family’s life, for political gain? High fives?

From: TT-Pi
30-Sep-18
It's possible that she raped me.

Not really, just making a point.

From: Annony Mouse
30-Sep-18

Annony Mouse's Link
Marc Randazza: If the #MeToo pendulum swings too far, it may hit someone innocent

Every woman who is assaulted is not a “statistic,” she’s a person — and every man who has had to face a false accusation is a real person as well.

I know women who have been sexually assaulted and who have not gotten justice. All I have is their side of the story, and that has been enough for me to believe them — because I know them, and I know their character, and thus I believe them — without any reservation at all.

Professionally, I am representing multiple women in this situation – at a deep discount – because I believe in their right to tell their story without being sued for it. But for my pro bono representation, the Steubenville rapists would likely never have faced justice. I earned my battle scars in the fight for “me too” before “me too” was even a thing. And, every woman that I’ve represented in this capacity has gotten my services for free or super cheap.

But, I *also* know men who have been falsely accused — by vindictive lying women. I have seen at least two men’s careers destroyed by false accusations made for personal gain and vindictiveness.

I know men who have faced the real prospect of prison for a completely made up story by a woman scorned.

So, when you ask me to “believe women,” I can tell you “I do, very much so.”

But, I am not prepared to believe anyone uncritically. And, if you ask me to, I’d ask you to imagine your son, brother, or dad *falsely accused* and staring at a plea bargain statement … with dread and tears in his eyes, and being told “look man, it is her word against yours, and you could be facing 20 years in prison if this goes the wrong way, so maybe you should sign it, take the lower charge, and try and move on with your life. At least you know you won’t get 20 years.”

Imagine that. Imagine pleading to a crime you never went anywhere near committing – but you’re faced with that conviction or the chance of your entire youth behind bars. Not being able to fathom that risk, you lie … and you say you did something bad. Just not as bad as you’re accused of.

And now you wear that letter forever — because of a vindictive lying woman. I’ve seen it.

Or picture another guy with a successful career. And then someone decides to target him with a false accusation because it benefits her. The accusation is enough for the purge. The accusation is enough to say “well, dude, I believe you, but in this day and age, someone with this accusation is just not someone we can have around.”

It is easy to imagine the woman who has not gotten justice — because she is much more common. We probably all know a lot of women in that situation. I refuse to discount their experiences. I’ve stood by their sides, professionally and personally, and I will continue to do so.

But, don’t ask me to discount these guys’ experiences either, and don’t ask me to uncritically believe anyone – because I don’t uncritically believe anyone about anything.

Don’t try and tell me that false accusations don’t happen. And, don’t try and tell me that they are statistically insignificant. Because every woman who is assaulted is not a “statistic,” she’s a person — and every man who has had to face a false accusation is a real person as well.

It was not ok when women were blamed for being attacked. It was not ok when women were afraid to come forward. And it was not ok when they were told “get over it,” or whatever. It still happens — but it wasn’t ok when that was the norm.

But be careful how far you want to push that pendulum — even if you’re a survivor. Because you may have a son one day, who has that pen shoved in his hand, and who looks at you and says “mom, I really didn’t do this, but I’ll see you in two years, instead of 20, if I sign. And everyone here believes her, uncritically.”

—————-

Marc Randazza is a First Amendment lawyer and the managing partner of the Randazza legal group.

From: HDE
30-Sep-18
First if all, FDR began packing the SCOTUS with progressive justices, so it starts there, not with Newt.

Second; traditionally, presidents at the twilight of their last term normally don't nominate SCOTUS candidates, especially lame duck presidents, which obama was lame the entire 8 years - but that's a different discussion.

Talking points? If you've been watching anything on the news or listening to talk radio, liberal or conservative, they're all the same and easy to be regurgitated.

From: Hackbow
30-Sep-18
1. Professor at CU

2. Attorney for the EPA

3. Left of left of center politically.

4. Claims that a person protesting their rape during the act of being raped shows a lack of temperament.

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I think freeglee actually got one correct. And there is no need to "flame away" when your sister's own words sum it all up.

From: NvaGvUp
30-Sep-18
Great post, Jack!

From: Rocky
30-Sep-18
Matt,

Why am I sensing that you are being disingenuous about this conversation you had with your sister and would place her under political scrutiny, of all places like the CF, akin to throwing meat to the lions simply for reaction? I always believed that you should protect your brothers and sister at all costs.

If I am wrong I apologize to your sister for your decision to do so.

The Rock

From: Will
30-Sep-18
Matt - The more I've read on this subject, the more I'm feeling in line with what your sister sent you above. Full agreement with her.

In the end, the Senator's commentary, attacks, approach, etc matter little. The goal is interpretation of law. It's not "What does the president believe the law is" or "what did Hannity say we should think about this" or "I need to follow what the DNC says" etc.

A SCOTUS member should be above that. No matter what they encounter, they should be able to apply the least partisan bias possible to their decisions and should be extremely logical, controlled, thoughtful regardless of the situation.

Their decisions affect millions of people, potentially in profound ways. No matter the stress, they should be able to rise above it.

30-Sep-18
So, all judges should be Spock-like? I thought that his extreme logic was a weakness at times, and simply not human.

From: KSflatlander
30-Sep-18
For bunch of guys pissed about unwarranted character assassination some of you are doing a good job of it.

From: Pi
30-Sep-18
Dead wrong Will. He was real and that is the best way to be. He wasn't out of line. They are.

Do you really think being cold and cool would help his case? The turds would be casting him as non human.

They will keep moving the goal post and twisting everything around. It is what evil people do. Sorry friend your way off.

30-Sep-18
^^^^^^^^^^I agree^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

From: JTV
30-Sep-18
I guess when Clarence Thomas spoke out after his "lynching" during his confirmation, it was OK as he was just an "uppity " black guy .... but it wasnt OK for Kavanaugh to get emotional about himself and his family ??

From: bad karma
30-Sep-18
Merrick Garland is as much a moderate as Bowsite regulars are vegans.

From: slade
30-Sep-18
Is she an actual trial lawyer?

From: Rupe
01-Oct-18
Of for the love of God. And what pray tell was her opinion of that partisan hack Keegan, or Sotomayor, or Ginsburg? Her comment is a joke!

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
Your sister sums up well what my concerns with Kavanaugh are. I get being impassioned about defending your integrity if you were wrongfully accused - but at this stage it's still a matter of he said, she said and I thought Kavanaugh actually came out looking less credible than Ford (I believe he downplayed his partying and exploits big time and a number of people who knew him during this time have come forward saying he did as well).

To that end, the obvious dodges and deflections when he was being pressed on these issues are disconcerting, but layer in the attitude and the temperament he showed when addressing these questions and I have concerns. IMO, Trump and the Repubs should move onto a candidate without the cloud hanging over him. There are plenty of other qualified judges who hold similar perspectives as Kavanaugh without the same question marks.

From: mn_archer
01-Oct-18
2 weeks ago the thought was he was too laid back, now after defending his honor he is a loose cannon.

Some people are going to find something to complain about no matter what.

I'm guessing that your sister is fine with Kagan and Sotomayor and doesnt consider them to be political operatives.

Michael

From: K Cummings
01-Oct-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
" IMO, Trump and the Repubs should move onto a candidate without the cloud hanging over him. There are plenty of other qualified judges who hold similar perspectives as Kavanaugh without the same question marks. "

Good Lord BEG, that's beyond laughable.

Whatever candidate Trump or the Republicans "move onto" will get the same treatment as this one has.

All the Democrats have to do is fill in the blank with the new candidate.

KPC

From: Mike in CT
01-Oct-18
With all due respect there's a serious disconnect here in my opinion. The expectation of judicial temperament is unquestionably applicable in any and all discussions, scenarios, hypotheticals, where it's being misapplied is in the arena of personal scope on matters that have nothing to do with any of those situations.

If I ask a man why he love his wife I damn sure don't expect a cold and clinical dissertation I expect to hear about how his heart skips a beat when she enters the room, how time seems to stand still when they're together, even if it's in a crowded room.

In short, I expect passion when called for as I do restraint when the same applies. With all due respect if this distinction escapes some I would humbly request you ask of yourselves one question-why?

From: mn_archer
01-Oct-18
BEG,

there is no "cloud hanging over him."

Libs are trying to stir up muck hoping to divide the nation even further. Rather than abandon him i think the best message that can be sent is for the entire nation to rally behind him.

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
”Whatever candidate Trump or the Republicans "move onto" will get the same treatment as this one has.”

That’s pure supposition. Gorsuch didn’t get this “treatment.” Neither did Alito. Neither did Roberts.

So, the claim that this is just standard Democratic MO based on the recent track record of Republican appointments is, to use your word KPC, “laughable.”

01-Oct-18
As usual, you didn’t disappoint either BEG. Not one bit.

From: mn_archer
01-Oct-18
beg,

guaranteed if Kavanaugh wouldve been trumps pick for the Scalia seat and Gorsuch for the Kennedy seat Kavanaugh would have been advanced and we would be arguing over something in Gorsuchs tween years.

GUARANTEED

Michael

From: Grey Ghost
01-Oct-18
"For bunch of guys pissed about unwarranted character assassination some of you are doing a good job of it."

Thanks for recognizing and pointing that out, KS.

Rocco, my sister's comments were posted with her permission. She's strong-willed enough to take anything this crowd can dish out. Trust me.

Matt

From: South Farm
01-Oct-18
"Trump and the Repubs should move onto a candidate without the cloud hanging over him. "

And just who in the hell would that be??? WHO that Trump nominates would EVER get a fair shot? These people will dig up and fabricate stories to hamstring any potential nominee...I don't think Jesus Christ is good enough for these liberal douche's, so does it really matter? The Dems are scared as hell because they know that ANY conservative judge removes their plan to "fundamentally" change America in the way that they want...or as soon as they're hoping!

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
I don’t buy that line of logic, mn_archer. Democrats would care less about a nominee if the empty seat was held by a conservative? Secondly, I don’t believe they think they’re going to be able to throw barriers to potential nominees until the 2020 Presidential election. The Senate is going to stay in Republican hands and they’re not going to keep a Trump appointee out until 2020.

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
”WHO that Trump nominates would EVER get a fair shot.”

It literally just happened. Google “Neil Gorsuch.”

From: elkmtngear
01-Oct-18
Uh, only 3 Democratic Senators voted for Gorsuch. Is that a fair shot???

Obstruct, no matter what the credentials or qualifications, it's the Dems sole objective! And, I believe they will pay dearly for it in November.

From: mn_archer
01-Oct-18
again, Justice Gorsuch didnt change the SCOTUS one bit, however Kavanaugh will change it quite a bit.

To say this is about anything other than that is foolish

From: HDE
01-Oct-18
BEG, once again you've outsmarted yourself.

The reason Gorsuch didn't receive the backlash is because "the others" thought a tit-for-tat scenario was in play: we give you one of yours so long as we get one of ours. That didn't happen and now they are ravenous dogs at best over it.

ANY OTHER NOMINEES with a track record of being a Constitutionalist will get the same treatment.

The only reason why Kavanaugh is now questionable in the minds of some is because of the idiocracy of the political left. Up until then, he was only thought of as a man who would dismantle a bastard decision and for once cause women to be responsible for their own promiscuity...

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
”Uh, only 3 Democratic Senators voted for Gorsuch. Is that a fair shot???”

Recent Supreme Court confirmation votes are almost always entirely on party lines. Go look at Obama’s appointees.

From: mn_archer
01-Oct-18
Beg,

Kagan and the wise Latina had decent Republican support while The dems filibustered Gorsuch and the Republican majority was forced to pull out Dirty Harry's nuclear option card and push him through via simple majority

how soon we forget...

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
Kagan got five Republican votes and Sotomayor got nine...I put that in the same ballpark as the three Dem votes Gorsuch got. The Republicans refused to even consider Garland.

I’m not saying politics aren’t played and I’m not saying that they aren’t being played right now. They are always played...by both parties, in the same ways.

From: Tiger-Eye
01-Oct-18
"Obstruct, no matter what the credentials or qualifications, it's the Dems sole objective! And, I believe they will pay dearly for it in November"

...and hopefully pay the price when POTUS's next pick is up when RBG decides its time to hang up the robe. Imagine a slam dunk for a 6-3 SCOTUS!!!!! That may well be the start of a civil war.

From: K Cummings
01-Oct-18
"It literally just happened. Google “Neil Gorsuch.”

Of course it did.

Now Google "Supreme Court swing vote," and you'll find out why.

Good grief.

KPC

From: mn_archer
01-Oct-18
politics are not played the same by both parties. Show me one Republican that has called for the harrassment of anyone associated with Obama

From: K Cummings
01-Oct-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
Here BEG, I’ll make it easy for you

KPC

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18

bigeasygator's Link
Thanks KPC, but I understand why people think he’s a swing vote. I understand why Kennedy hates that term and thinks it’s ridiculous.

The reality is his voting record suggests he’s much less of a coin flip than folks like to suggest with the swing vote moniker. In the last session he voted with the conservative majority 75% of the time. There were also 19 cases decided by a 5-4 vote. He sided with the liberals all of zero times in these votes.

From: K Cummings
01-Oct-18
As you know, one's perception is their reality, hence the pushback on BK and not so much on Gorsuch.

Now, if you think this is bad, wait until Trump tries to replace Ginsberg.

That nominee will be accused of being a Nazi serial killer who runs a child prostitution ring in order to make extra cash to buy heroin.

KPC

From: JTV
01-Oct-18

JTV's Link
no cloud over Kavanaugh at all ....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/breaking-sex-crimes-prosecutor-rachel-mitchell-completely-exonerates-judge-kavanaugh-in-new-report/

From: Will
01-Oct-18
Should that happen KPC, then you are right. That said, the "Nazi serial killer who runs a child prostitution ring in order to make extra cash to buy heroin" will likely at least have a hearing, so that's a positive :)

I just do not believe he who resists loudest is more truthful than he who is not. If your decision making process will be, at times, life and death or other extremely challenging areas, you need to be extremely rational about it.

BK is a smart, experienced judge. He knew going in that no matter what happened, a bunch of the country had made it's mind up. He could have been emotional, controlled, and strong in his language. (didnt have to be cold and calculated - that indeed would have looked bad) To me he didnt look that way. He just looked pissed. Which I get (if he didnt do it), but which I expect MORE of my leaders on (in terms of emotional control).

That said, the reality is that if he doesnt go on, I'd bet a more conservative woman is the next option - which would be the opposite of what the "left" is supposedly after. Hard to but the brake on that if you are supposedly for women's rights :)

This whole dog and pony show is ridiculous.

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
Time will tell. I don’t recall the past SCOTUS make-up having much of a bearing on the conversation around appointees in the past. At the end of the day, the past SCOTUS makeup is a sunk cost. My take is politicians treat it as such and do take a forward looking approach to the SCOTUS appointees (as they should). Whichever party is in power is going to try and move the makeup in their direction, and whoever isn’t is going to do what it can to reasonably oppose it.

From: Glunt@work
01-Oct-18
Disappoints me when being a "Constitutionalist" judge is thrown around as a negative by pundits.

It should be the highest compliment aside from being a requirement.

From: Bowbender
01-Oct-18
"...and whoever isn’t is going to do what it can to reasonably oppose it."

And "reasonably" being defined as accusing someone of rape or running a "train" on them. *rolls eyes*

From: KSflatlander
01-Oct-18
KPC- you mean like when right-wing folks accused Clinton of having a child prostitution ring out of a pizza shop? Not the same situation but similar in regards how both sides play dirty politics. I’m pretty tired of seeing it on both sides for SCOTUS and POTUS.

BK deserves a vote and I think he will get it.

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
"And "reasonably" being defined as accusing someone of rape or running a "train" on them"

If someone legitimately believed that happened, then yes. Someone is lying -- either Kavanaugh or Ford. The reality is we'll never know who;s lying and there's not enough to "convict" Kavanaugh. Doesn't mean it didn't happen and doesn't mean that calling out the accusations are unreasonable.

01-Oct-18
It’s amazing to me that some people feel like the man has acted inappropriately under this barrage to smear his character. The attempt to ruin his family. The results of which could have a very lasting affect on the lives of his children. With all this a given fact, how could anyone suggest he needs to be better? I’m lost for words. These nominees aren’t Gods. They are people. People handle things differently.

I for one admire and respect a man who defends all these things. This isn’t a game. This is real life. I don’t expect more noble responses from people then to be expected. Period. And question anyone who would suggest differently.

From: TT-Pi
01-Oct-18
Will , How does one thread that needle?

" BK is a smart, experienced judge. He knew going in that no matter what happened, a bunch of the country had made it's mind up. He could have been emotional, controlled, and strong in his language. (didnt have to be cold and calculated - that indeed would have looked bad) To me he didnt look that way. He just looked pissed. Which I get (if he didnt do it), but which I expect MORE of my leaders on (in terms of emotional control). "

You accept that "if he is innocent" then being pissed is something "you get" (and he was clearly bothered in a few diverse emotions by this and for good reason) But you expect MORE. Explain how he or anyone could offer more and still defend his innocence as you approve of. That is just too conflicting of an order. Like saying be absolutely quiet and scream your head off. Be emotional if your innocent but do it in a very controlled way that satisfies my personal assessment and those of 150 million others.

Impossible standard friend.

01-Oct-18
Becoming visibly angry when repeatedly accused (with no evidence) of heinous behavior is unacceptable if a constitutionalist.

If you're a pro-slavery, Democrat, ex-chief justice of the Supreme Court looking to get re-nominated and things don't go your way... you just shoot an old friend.

How's that for temperament?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderick%E2%80%93Terry_duel

From: Annony Mouse
01-Oct-18
Kevin...probably likely that Ford was molested in some form but has set in her own mind (with encouragement of her fellow proREgressive moonbats and the political anti-everything-Trump political atmosphere) that it was Kavenaugh. Her memory recall was probably abetted and aided by the people who surround her. In reality, she was probably well under the influence of adult beverages (remember...another accusation was that BK was always drunk, therefore much alcohol was present and consumed by all present!) and really has no clue who it actually was (or when or where).

The proREgressive left has already purchased URLs for other potential Trump nominees to the SCOTUS...just ahead of the game to be able to smear the likes of Amy Coney Barrett. She's probably a wiccan and has participated in child sacrifices, pushed heroin and ran a whore house.

The rotten seed in the entire Kavenaugh sideshow is the poison in the hearts of the left who cannot accept the simple fact that Hillary lost and therefore reject reality.

From: Bowbender
01-Oct-18
"If someone legitimately believed that happened, then yes."

People legitimately believe the earth is flat, the moon landings never happened, and 911 was inside job. Just because they "believe" doesn't mean they ain't ****ed in the head ten ways from Sunday. So many gaps in her story you could drive an M1 Abrams thru it. Can't remember when, where, or any other significant details other than it was BK. Absolutely positively it was BK. Her friends don't recall the event. Her beach friends (which she won't name) convince her to come forward. Attorney recommended by Di-Fi. She's a victim alright. Of being screwed by the democrat party.

From: TT-Pi
01-Oct-18
One must shoot the other impassionately. The new standard of liberal behavior, then it's all good.

These modern fixes to our humanity are tough to follow ...

From: K Cummings
01-Oct-18
"KPC- you mean like when right-wing folks accused Clinton of having a child prostitution ring out of a pizza shop?"

Yes. Both sides of the political spectrum have their nutcase conspiratorial zealots, and they are equally despicable. I've spoken out against them here...almost on a daily basis.

The difference, in my humble opinion, is that the nutcase conspiratorial zealots on the right don't sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

:)

KPC

From: NvaGvUp
01-Oct-18
Tiger-Eye,

Ruth Buzzy will never retire. She'll only leave the court when the coroner sends the wagon to pick her up.

From: TT-Pi
01-Oct-18
One problem with trying to understand that other way of processing the world ( compartmentalized ) is that the other half are not wired our way. ( integrated ) They are able to break apart pieces of an event and lock on without applying that piece to a greater picture, as a whole. Such as , holding onto possibilities and simultaneously weeding out the contradictions by logic.

They lack the ability to entertain an idea without having to accept it as relevant or irrelevant. Basically, it is best for the attack mode and pick things apart approach but is poorly constructed as a thinking process. We can't really understand them and they can't understand themselves either.

This nonsense of both sides being "just as dirty" is only a projection and not real. That way the fight is in their preferred arena ... no rules and anything goes.

They could put Miss Piggy on the stand and Kermit the frog would go to jail.

From: Trax
01-Oct-18
"They could put Miss Piggy on the stand and Kermit the frog would go to jail."

Yep, and the lying pig and Animal would both go free with new job offers aplenty.

Meanwhile the stinking liberals continue to tell their blind dumb sheep that the moon is just the sun at night. The sheep can't get enough of it.

From: TT-Pi
01-Oct-18
Go Fung me. Baahhhhh. No kidding Trax.

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
" Just because they "believe" doesn't mean they ain't ****ed in the head ten ways from Sunday"

I didn't say they weren't - but history's also full of people denying allegations against them only to find out they were the one's that were lying. In this case, IMO we're never going to know the truth.

You're right, we have a victim who can't recall details and friends who can't or won't as well. While it doesn't help her case, it doesn't mean what she described as happening didn't happen.

On the flip side, we also have a handful of BK acquaintances who have spoken up for the first time after the Senate testimony saying he was lying about his partying and drinking. That doesn't mean he raped anyone or that he was in the room with Ford, but it raises questions about his credibility IMO - at best, he's mischaracterizing who he was...at worst, he's lying.

01-Oct-18
That's interesting GG. My daughter also happens to be an attorney but totally on the other side of the spectrum. She was president of college republicans in school, has attended CPAC, and worked for and on the campaigns of some of the most conservative politicians in my very conservative totally red state. She also agrees with your sister about the judge. Personally I think it's simply a matter of about a week before he is appointed.

From: Thumper
01-Oct-18
Long career with the EPA and sits left on politics.

Typical govt employee. I think she's running scared on BK because she doesn't want the swamp drained that she helped to build.

01-Oct-18
LOTS of new info coming out about Ford now.

It won't be aired on CNN or the like but it will come out. For instance, Ford wont release her shrinks records because they show that she claimed that the incident in question happened when she was 18-19 years old and Kavenaugh was away at college. Much more coming.

From: scentman
01-Oct-18
My brother who is to the right of me said... "sounds typical left"... wow, news flash!

From: Bake
01-Oct-18
Funny stuff. I'm a lawyer. My brother is a lawyer. Two cousin lawyers. Father in law is a lawyer. Uncle by marriage is a lawyer. And last but not least. . . my Dad is a lawyer.

I haven't talked to most of them about it. I have talked to one cousin lawyer who is big in tort-law, very accomplished, been practicing for about 30 years. . . he's disgusted by this deal. Believes Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

My father in law, a brilliant man, and VERY well informed, working as a tax and business attorney for the last 43 years, is disgusted by this deal and believes Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

My brother and I. I can't claim we were at the tops of any classes, but we do have that doctorate :), we've both been practicing for about 10 years. We're disgusted by this deal and believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

That brings us to my dad. He's been practicing 43 years. I don't know where he ranked in his law school class. I bet he did well. He was on law review. He's never had an interest in teaching but would be a great professor of Probate, Estate and Trust law--he's sometimes appointed as a special master in tricky probate and trust matters. He's practiced in Federal courts, State Appeals and State Supreme Court, and other state court levels. He's a trial attorney with a LOT of experience in torts, banking, probate, trust, criminal and family law. He keeps VERY well informed. He is a thinker. He's the smartest man I've ever met.

He's so disgusted by this Kavanaugh deal that he can barely talk about it. He believes Kavanaugh should be confirmed. He can shred any liberal argument to the contrary. I've heard him do it.

From: slade
01-Oct-18
Good to hear Bake, my sister-n-law is a practicing attorney in 5 states and she agrees.

From: TD
01-Oct-18

TD's Link
The claim of Judicial Temperament is a joke. BK has been a Judge for some time, he didn't just become one last week. He has been vetted on cases likely more than any nomination for the court in history.

If these people claiming "temperament" can point to ONE case where he had shown to not have the proper temperament to be a Judge then they should step up and show it. Should be easy to do...... again, it's not like he just became a Judge last week.

But they cannot. Because it doesn't exist. All accounts have shown him to be exactly what a SCOTUS should be, his opinions have been very well written and logically, legally based.

Basically those who spout such nonsense about "temperament" and the like...... ALL they are showing is their OWN prejudice on the selection with zero evidence of what they claim. How much school they had or their grades or whatever means nothing...... because they are doing what they claim everyone else is doing, they are only using emotions and feelings in their own judgements and can't see past the end of their own nose. They can't PROVE what they are accusing people of, not even remotely close to it (you'd think a lawyer would actually know better).... they should just sit down and shut up, all they are doing is digging their own partizan hack hole ever deeper...... better to be silent than to open your mouth and confirm, as they say.....

WRT his views on women, assault victims, etc...... "Meanwhile, Kavanaugh sometimes rules for defendants, occasionally in surprising ways. Indeed, the opinion of Kavanaugh’s that might be most surprising to his critics was filed in 2016’s United States v. Nwoye. Kavanaugh’s opinion, joined by Judge Harry Edwards and over the dissent of conservative Judge David Sentelle, strongly endorsed the admission of expert opinion on “battered women syndrome” and reversed a woman’s conviction for extortion."

In fact anyone who does ANY investigation of his real work rather than parrot some leftist SJW dogma will find he is very much more a "“Kennedy-esque” moderate" than anything. Someone stating he is some right wing conservative puppet could come to those conclusion only from being so far left they need optics to see the center. And have done zero honest and unprejudiced study on the man.

From: HDE
01-Oct-18
I think Bake has the best post yet!!

From: bad karma
01-Oct-18
Temperament for an appellate judge or Supreme Court justice is different than that of a trial judge. The appellate level judges are dealing with lawyers making arguments, not the general populace. Dealing with pro se parties and other trial related events is where judicial temperament is a necessary attribute. But, it makes a leftist talking point they can all repeat, which appears to be what is happening here.

From: Pig Doc
01-Oct-18
Like you, your sis thinks she's really smart but is mostly clueless. Must run in the family.

From: freeglee
01-Oct-18
The Title can also be read in a Much fhnnier way!!!!!!!!!

How many sister's do you have??????!!!!!

From: Rupe
01-Oct-18
"Kagan got five Republican votes and Sotomayor got nine...I put that in the same ballpark as the three Dem votes Gorsuch got..."

I guess math isn't your strong suit. Such a clown response! 9 vs 3 you "same" 5 vs 3 you "same". Ridiculous

01-Oct-18
It’s clear a conservative judge will occupy that seat. For certain. Are you telling us that a good and decent conservative without a shade of improper behavior can’t be found? If you were hiring a babysitter and allegations surfaced that the babysitter beat children., would you hire them? What if there were multiple allegations? And what if you caught them lying about those allegations? Of course not. No one would

From: Annony Mouse
01-Oct-18
Wow...I had the same thought as freeglee earlier today WRT the title of this thread. Unconsciously, have to had it to Matt for what could have been the funniest thread on a serious matter.

Kudos (for once) to freeglee for his reading comprehension.

My Sisters Take on Kavanaugh LOL

From: JTV
01-Oct-18
what the hell does this have to do with Kavanaugh ?? ^^ ... what a dunce, more tripe from the PutZeidian playpen .. PutZ out of his league once again ..

From: Glunt@work
01-Oct-18
If the unsupported allegations against the babysitter came from her unstable freinemy from high school and were nudged along by some agenda driven lawyers, I may very well still hire her

From: Tiger eye
01-Oct-18
What was Putzy doing in the Locker Room with 4 little boys?

From: Annony Mouse
01-Oct-18
Tiger eye...actually, there are allegations WRT Putzy and female students at BHCS.

Remember: if it alleged, it must be true. ;o

From: JTV
01-Oct-18
.... maybe it was just the lies he's spread on here ... THAT he knows something about .. how to lie and post fictitious stories and asinine comments..

From: petedrummond
01-Oct-18
When you are losing a debate just throw insults it makes people think you are really smart. Even better if you curse a bit. Why do so many stop so low so fast?

From: Grey Ghost
01-Oct-18
"Wow...I had the same thought as freeglee earlier today WRT the title of this thread."

LOL. Yeah, I've always thought apostrophes were over-rated. My English teaching mother is cringing in heaven right now. Sorry.

Thanks for contributing to this thread without a lengthy copy and paste.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
01-Oct-18
Lol you’re funny, Rupe.

Curious, hypothetically speaking, if it comes back that Kavanaugh clearly misrepresented his behavior as a high school and college student or that he lied about any other details under oath, will it change any of your opinions about him?

From: Glunt@work
01-Oct-18
Apostrophes matter :^)

From: JTV
01-Oct-18

JTV's Link
BEG, why not live in realities here, and not what if's ...

https://saraacarter.com/the-nine-major-flaws-in-kavanaugh-accusers-testimony/

The prosecutor who questioned Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, at last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing released a five-page memo on Sunday in which she concluded that no “reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against the Supreme Court nominee.

Arizona sex crimes prosecutor, Rachel Mitchell, wrote in her memo that the case is “even weaker” than a ‘he said, she said’ case. “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” she wrote. “But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

Mitchell then outlined nine major flaws in Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony during last week’s hearing:

1. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened:

In a July 6 text to the Washington Post, she said it happened in the “mid-1980s.” In her July 30 letter to Senator Feinstein, she said it happened in the “early 80s.” Her August 7 statement to the polygrapher said that it happened one “high school summer in early 80’s,” but she crossed out the word “early” for reasons she did not explain. A September 16 Washington Post article reported that Dr. Ford said it happened in the “summer of 1982.” Similarly, the September 16 article reported that notes from an individual therapy session in 2013 show her describing the assault as occurring in her “late teens.” But she told the Post and the Committee that she was 15 when the assault allegedly occurred. She has not turned over her therapy records for the Committee to review. While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the timeframe to a particular season and particular year 2. Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name:

No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes. No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes. Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election. In any event, it took Dr. Ford over thirty years to name her assailant. Delayed disclosure of abuse is common so this is not dispositive. 3. When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific:

Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married. But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage. She testified that both times, she was referring to the same incident 4. Dr. Ford has no memory of key details of the night in question—details that could help corroborate her account:

She does not remember who invited her to the party or how she heard about it. She does not remember how she got to the party. She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity. Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house. Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions. She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home. She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both. Dr. Ford was able to describe hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house. She also described wanting to make sure that she did not look like she had been attacked. But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver. Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter. She does, however, remember small, distinct details from the party unrelated to the assault. For example, she testified that she had exactly one beer at the party and was taking no medication at the time of the alleged assault. 5. Dr. Ford’s account of the alleged assault has not been corroborated by anyone she identified as having attended—including her lifelong friend:

Dr. Ford has named three people other than Judge Kavanaugh who attended the party— Mark Judge, Patrick “PJ” Smyth, and her lifelong friend Leland Keyser (née Ingham). Dr. Ford testified to the Committee that another boy attended the party, but that she could not remember his name. No others have come forward. All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever. Most relevantly, in her first statement to the Committee, Ms. Keyser stated through counsel that, “[s]imply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” In a subsequent statement to the Committee through counsel, Ms. Keyser said that “the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford’s allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.” Moreover, Dr. Ford testified that her friend Leland, apparently the only other girl at the party, did not follow up with Dr. Ford after the party to ask why she had suddenly disappeared. 6. Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault:

According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone. In her letter, she stated, “I locked the door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stairwell, at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.” Kavanaugh or Mark Judge turned up the music in the bedroom so that the people downstairs could not hear her scream. She testified that, after the incident, she ran into the bathroom, locked the door, and heard them going downstairs. But she maintained that she could not hear their conversation with others when they got downstairs. Instead, she testified that she “assum[ed]” a conversation took place. Her account of who was at the party has been inconsistent. According to The Washington Post’s account of her therapy notes, there were four boys in the bedroom in which she was assaulted. She told the Washington Post that the notes were erroneous because there were four boys at the party, but only two in the bedroom. In her letter to Senator Feinstein, she said “me and 4 others” were present at the party. In her testimony, she said there were four boys in addition to Leland Keyser and herself. She could not remember the name of the fourth boy, and no one has come forward. Dr. Ford listed Patrick “PJ” Smyth as a “bystander” in her statement to the polygrapher and in her July 6 text to the Washington Post, although she testified that it was inaccurate to call him a bystander. She did not list Leland Keyser even though they are good friends. Leland Keyser’s presence should have been more memorable than PJ Smyth’s. 7. Dr. Ford has struggled to recall important recent events relating to her allegations, and her testimony regarding recent events raises further questions about her memory:

Dr. Ford struggled to remember her interactions with the Washington Post. Dr. Ford could not remember if she showed a full or partial set of therapy notes to the Washington Post reporter. She does not remember whether she showed the Post reporter the therapist’s notes or her own summary of those notes. The Washington Post article said that “portions” of her “therapist’s notes” were “provided by Ford and reviewed by” the Post. But in her testimony, Dr. Ford could not recall whether she summarized the notes for the reporter or showed her the actual records. She does not remember if she actually had a copy of the notes when she texted the Washington Post WhatsApp account on July 6. Dr. Ford said in her first WhatsApp message to the Post that she “ha[d] therapy notes talking about” the incident when she contacted the Post’s tipline. She testified that she had reviewed her therapy notes before contacting the Post to determine whether the mentioned anything about the alleged incident, but could not remember if she had a copy of those notes, as she said in her WhatsApp message, or merely reviewed them in her therapist’s office. Dr. Ford refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee. Dr. Ford’s explanation of why she disclosed her allegations the way she did raises questions. She claimed originally that she wished for her story to remain confidential, but the person operating the tipline at the Washington Post was the first person other than her therapist or husband to whom she disclosed the identity of her alleged attacker. She testified that she had a “sense of urgency to relay the information to the Senate and the president.” She did not contact the Senate, however, because she claims she “did not know how to do that.” She does not explain why she knew how to contact her Congresswoman but not her Senator. Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral. It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving. 8. Dr. Ford’s description of the psychological impact of the event raises questions:

She maintains that she suffers from anxiety, claustrophobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was informed that her symptoms prevent her from flying. But she agreed during her testimony that she flies “fairly frequently for [her] hobbies and … work.” She flies to the mid-Atlantic at least once a year to visit her family. She has flown to Hawaii, French Polynesia, and Costa Rica. She also flew to Washington, D.C. for the hearing. Note too that her attorneys refused a private hearing or interview. Dr. Ford testified that she was not “clear” on whether investigators were willing to travel to California to interview her. It therefore is not clear that her attorneys ever communicated Chairman Grassley’s offer to send investigators to meet her in California or wherever she wanted to meet to conduct the interview. She alleges that she struggled academically in college, but she has never made any similar claim about her last two years of high school. It is significant that she used the word “contributed” when she described the psychological impact of the incident to the Washington Post. Use of the word “contributed” rather than “caused” suggests that other life events may have contributed to her symptoms. And when questioned on that point, she said that she could think of “nothing as striking as” the alleged assault. 9. The activities of congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford’s attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford’s account:

See time line ..........

From: RK
01-Oct-18
"Thank you for contributing without a lengthy copy and paste"

LOL. MISSED IT BY THIS MUCH

From: JTV
01-Oct-18
:0) .......... anytime

01-Oct-18
Here’s the difference. I welcome an fbi investigation. A CIA investigation. He’ll call every law enforcement agency to investigate those allegations. Why? Because there’s nothing to it.

Just like the remaining brain cells in some of you.

From: Pig Doc
01-Oct-18
Just imagine what kind of gun hating, baby killing, welfare loving, environmental whack job would be up for SCOTUS right now if GG's sister had her way in the last election and the criminal Hillary had won. As her hero BHO said, "elections have consequences". Thanks for sharing GG. I love watching liberal snowflakes piss and moan and pretend that any candidate their party put forward would not be politically motivated.

From: KSflatlander
01-Oct-18
Who the hell hasn’t partied in high school? It makes no difference to me. Makes me think BK is “normal.” I really don’t think he lied about it. Who cares if someone who may have been at the party says he drank too much. Relative to who...themselves. Maybe that’s true if they were a goody 2 shoes. He deserves a vote. This high school/college behavior stuff is BS. I put down more than my fair share in my youth. I’m a much different than I was back then. I’m sure BK is too.

From: NvaGvUp
01-Oct-18
I object, your honor!

I believe it is not possible for a person to fail to remember the day, time, place and more when something really traumatic happened to them.

For example:

Is there anyone here who is it their late sixties or more who does not remember EXACTLY where they were, the date, and who it was who told them when they were told JFK had been assassinated?

For those much younger, is there anyone here who does not remember EXACTLY where they were and when they first heard of the attacks on our country on Sept. 11, 2001?

I certainly do!

I was 15 at the time when JFK was shot and was walking up the stairs between classes at Washington High School in Sioux Falls, SD when a friend told me.

When I walked into the room of my next class for an English class, the teacher, Tamara Baker, who was fresh out of college, was staring out the window in shock.

I saw her at our 50th HS Class reunion two years ago and mentioned that to her. She also remembered every tiny piece of it.

So that Ford doesn't remember where she was when Kavanaugh supposedly tried to molest her, nor when it happened, nor how she got to and from the party is simply not credible.

From: petedrummond
01-Oct-18
Jtv ....... ... ..new word for the day..................concise.

From: mn_archer
01-Oct-18
I just asked my sister about her thoughts. She is my only sister and is 5 years my senior.

She is not an attorney however she has been an accountant for the same company since 1991. She was in an abusive relationship with her husband of 8 years, and raised 2 wonderful kids all on her own.

She is one of the strongest- most levelheaded, straight shooting women I've ever had the pleasure if knowing and regardless of the shitty cards she has been dealt she has always picked herself up and plugged along with basically zero outside help. I've never heard her utter anything even resembling an excuse for anything. On top of this she is EASILY the least political person I know and she doesnt have a partisan cell in her body.

As far as Judge Kavanaugh is concerned she is pissed and thinks the entire thing is a sham. She feels the vote shouldve already taken place.

michael

01-Oct-18
"Curious, hypothetically speaking, if it comes back that Kavanaugh clearly misrepresented his behavior as a high school and college student or that he lied about any other details under oath, will it change any of your opinions about him?"

Seems like those allegations have already come out. It just has zero support from those that went to high school and, college with him. I wander who else can come out with charges that can't be proved one way or the other. Yet do so just to try and shed a negative light on the man for political reasons. I bet it isn't over. About the time he is deemed to move along past these charges, they'll find another political hack to say something that can't be out right proven as false.

In reality, it seems like the character of Kavanaugh is already known by everyone. Including you. But, that doesn't seem good enough for anyone who allows politics to blind their own convictions.

From: Mint
02-Oct-18
Lacks judicial temperament because he got pissed off at people insisting he is a rapist with no proof at all. If that was me I would have jumped up on that dias and started beating the sh!t out of Blumenthal and the rest of those scum.

Look at his history of decisions to see his judicial temperament.

No wonder the EPA is a joke.

From: K Cummings
02-Oct-18
At the end of the day, Kavanaugh knows that not one Democrat in the senate is going to vote for him (unless it is for political cover after, and only after it is obvious he will be confirmed by Republicans) so he is going to expose them for what they are and defend his good name.

I'd be way more suspicious if he was willing to sit there and let himself and his family be punching bags for a panel of partisan hypocrites. Ultimately a man (or woman, lest I be labeled a sexist) has to be willing to stand for something, and as Nike would say, even if it costs him everything. What better to stand for than his reputation and that of his family.

That is something that some people, both in politics and even here on the CF don't seem to understand. To some people, literally anything can and will be compromised as a means to an end.

KPC

From: bigeasygator
02-Oct-18
”Who the hell hasn’t partied in high school? It makes no difference to me.”

Agree KS. I don’t care about high school partying. If (IF) he lied about the extent to which he partied, however, to counter the allegations against him, then I do have a problem with that.

“I believe it is not possible for a person to fail to remember the day, time, place and more when something really traumatic happened to them.”

Remembering where you were when Kennedy was shot, or the date that 9/11 took place is one thing. Remembering what you had for lunch that day and all the people you talked to is another. About a month ago I had someone break into my hotel room while I was sleeping. I remember most of the details of the incident itself, though some I’m unsure of (like whether I was actually awake when the intruder broke in or whether the sound of him breaking in woke me up). I cannot recall the specific date of the event and I couldn’t tell you how I got to the airport that day following the incident (whether I had rented a car, called an Uber, or took a taxi - all means of travel I use when I’m out of town on business).

“It just has zero support from those that went to high school and, college with him”

Google Chad Ludington, Kerry Berchem, Liz Swisher, Kit Winter, Lynne Brookes, James Roche to start.

From: Pig Doc
02-Oct-18
mn archer, your sister has a lot more credibility in my eyes than someone with a liberal law school brain washing.

And BEG, if you think gossip from liberal ex-college party mates with axes to grind, should play into whether or not Kavanaugh is appointed you are dumber than I thought you were. But if you can't remember how you got to the airport a month ago you have some serious mental issues. BTW, how does someone break into your hotel room?

From: HA/KS
02-Oct-18
"BTW, how does someone break into your hotel room?"

And why are they still alive?

From: bigeasygator
02-Oct-18
I travel frequently to Houston for work, and would normally stay at the same hotel (an Embassy Suites). I noticed the door on my room would not completely close and needed to be forced shut every time I entered and exited the room. On my last night there, I obviously didn’t ensure it was shut all the way.

At about 5AM I heard what sounded like my door closing. Like I said, don’t know if it woke me up or if I was already awake. But I sat there in bed for a few minutes to see if someone was actually in the room. (The Suites are actually two rooms so you can’t see the front door from the bedroom). After a few minutes of not hearing anything else and not seeing any shadows or movement, I started to relax again. It was at that instance that I saw a shadowy figure starting to enter the bedroom. I verbally contributed whoever it was and they turn and ran. I got up to get visual ID on the person but they exited the room and entered an adjoining stairwell and I never saw them. HA/KS, I fly back and forth with only a carry on so I never take a firearm with me.

For anyone that hasn’t had something like this happen, it’s pretty unnerving. I spent the remainder of the day in a daze walking through the events and questioning what the individual’s motivations were and playing worst case scenarios in my head. Like I said, the remainder of the details of that day outside of the incident are a blur. I called my wife, I called my boss, I called our company’s security, I called the hotel, but I couldn’t tell you in what order. I don’t remember details of those conversations. And like I said, if you asked me to provide supplemental details like how I got to the airport from the hotel, the reality is I don’t remember. I usually take a rental car, so my guess is I did in fancy drive myself but I do take taxis and Uber’s on shorter trips. I’m over in Houston for work on similar trips usually twice a month so between the trips running together in my mind and the fact that my mind was totally elsewhere that day, it is hard to recall certain details.

02-Oct-18
Regarding whether he liked about the partying...

Relative to those questioning him, I bet he was a real light weight with the booze.

What "is" the meaning of drinking too much any way?

Was good enough one time, should be good enough now.

BEG, I always read your posts, you usually bring solid points from a different perspective. This time, not so much. Found it a little difficult to believe.

Edit: I posted before I read your last post. OK, makes better sense.

From: Will
02-Oct-18

Will's Link
Interesting article I just bumbled into. The author knows BK, and has believed him to be good at what he does. They lay out some interesting points. Long though...

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/why-i-wouldnt-confirm-brett-kavanaugh/571936/?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic-fb-test-433-1-&utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social

From: ben h
02-Oct-18
I have no idea if this is relevant to Ford's claims, but in college I went to watch a "big Head Todd and the Monsters" at a club in Park City. I think i was the unintended recipient of a spiked drink meant for someone else and I can tell you I have very little recollection of anything that happened after that (or the next several days), but I know I didn't get home under my own power because my friends carried me out of the bar because I couldn't walk, or stand up for that matter and I didn't have more than enough cash at the time to buy a couple drinks. Not a fun experience and that would be terrible if the people around you weren't your friends.

I'd call more BS on her if she could remember a lot of those details if something like that happened to her; no idea if it did, but it was pretty common back in the 80's for that to happen.....ask Bill Cosby.

From: DConcrete
02-Oct-18
Can’t remember anything. But can specifically name Brett Kavanaugh?

All these stories, Ben h included. Can’t remember anything but she remembered Brett Kavanaugh. Come on guys.

From: JTV
02-Oct-18

JTV's Link
One of Ford's ex boyfriends has something to say about her.. it aint good ..

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2018/10/02/report-christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend-says-she-coached-a-friend-on-taking-a-polygraph-more/

From: trublucolo
02-Oct-18
Some of you squirrels need to quit pretending you're "being objective" and just admit you're full blown progressives. You're not fooling anybody.

From: ben h
02-Oct-18
In my case I know who I went there with, where I went, because all that happened while not incapacitated and I went to see a show, but honestly not a lot after that. I know I puked in my friend Chris' Yukon and I only know that because I woke up with the same puke on me that was in his car and I have a vague recollection of him and my friend Troy carrying me out of the bar and not being able to walk and we got pulled over on the drive back to Salt Lake. There are different dosages too, not everyone may have had my experience and that sucked, I still won't order a drink at a public place that I don't see them pour, or it's in a sealed container and that happened about 20 years ago. I'm only speaking to the concept that depending on circumstances, you can not remember a lot of things. I'm not commenting on her credibility or his involvement if any in of her story or even if it's true.

An acquaintance of mine at the time ran another club/bar and when I told him this story, he said it happens all the time and they had a room dedicated to people like me who "had too much to drink".......my ass, I was drugged, and I don't think it's all that uncommon. I do think I was an unintended recipient though.

02-Oct-18
BEG, you are a partisan liberal hack, a no good bum, a child molester, and a potential rapist that can't remember the details of your intruder because you were drunk or high. I know that because I say so.

If I could find a picture of you holding a child, talk to a disgruntled female in your past, ask you if you have ever been drunk, and assume since you supported Gary Johnson you enjoy the altering effect of Marijuana, I could shed a different light on your true character regardless of what you claim. And, I bet if I look hard enough, had enough benjamin's, and was willing to doctor their responses to support all or any of the above things I said about you, I could find a few people in your past that would suggest the same about some of those charges.

Disclaimer: I don't really believe most of what I said about you. But, I think it is a fair comparison due to your reasoning. I also think it is real important for you to see and acknowledge how easy it is to say what I want, regardless of implications, with no thought of your past history, and your current denial of such charges, in order to be fair.

Opinions mean squat without evidence. And, there isn't any of that floating around any of those people's questionable insinuations about the character of Kavanaugh. However, on the other side there is literally tons to support his own claims. So, leave that weak, biased, partisan, Trump hating bull crap in the trash can until there is.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
Matt:

After re-reading your sister's thoughts, I was struck by her last sentence:

"I am saddened to see the Supreme Court dragged down into the partisan gutter along with all the rest of the clowns..."

I happen to agree with her.

Having said that, I'm left wondering if your sister spends much time, if any at all, contemplating who it is/was that dragged the SC down into that "gutter?"

In my adult lifetime (which I'm guessing is about equal to your sister's), it seems that every time the process has been taken into the "gutter," it has been one side that has taken it there.

I would think that any attorney worth their salt (who's not a partisan themselves) would recognize which side that is.

KPC

03-Oct-18
Me too. But, as Matt stated in the OP, she is far left. Which means she is likely not real keen on facts. Which means she believes her opinion out weighs reality, the constitution, and anything else that it might conflict with. It’s the flagship presented by all lefty’s.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
“But, I think it is a fair comparison due to your reasoning”

What, pray tell, is my reasoning? Cause based on your example, you seem to not get it one iota.

In the scenario you’ve raised, you made up a bunch of blatant lies and paid off people to back up those lies.

I don’t see how that in anyway meshes with the points on this thread that (1) just because people can’t recall details surrounding an event it doesn’t make it untrue and (2) BK seems to have downplayed his actions during his partying days and very well could have perjured himself in doing so. Seems he might have also perjured himself regarding the Ramirez allegations.

I don’t think he committed sexual assault, but that is more to do with a lack of evidence than “tons [of evidence] to support his claims” like you state, WVM. While I don’t think he’s a sexual predator, I very well think he could be a liar and if he ends up not getting confirmed it’ll be because of that.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
“In my adult lifetime (which I'm guessing is about equal to your sister's), it seems that every time the process has been taken into the "gutter," it has been one side that has taken it there.

I think this is an interesting take. The other side would say it’s the Republicans that have brought it down into the gutter by nominating Kavanaugh. They’d point to the roughly dozen other Republican candidates going back to Reagan where the confirmation process didn’t focus on issues of personal character.

I don’t remember all the confirmations, as I was born in 1979 so chime in if I’m missing any that were dragged “into the gutter” besides Thomas and Kavanaugh.

From: Mint
03-Oct-18
I pray I'm never facing a jury with partisan Democrats.

From: HDE
03-Oct-18
BEG, I used to travel alot as well. I would've got another room that locked everytime all the time...

03-Oct-18
That’s my point BEG. How can anyone with a shred of sense, with any desire to be realistic, feel like the people accusing this man is doing so with genuine intentions.

I’ve got a real dose of reality for you. People remember things that shape their lives. You remember details about your wedding day, the details of the day of your children’s birth, etc..... just as well as you do or will remember the bad days. Like when your parents die, your child dies, or anytime something affects you the way Ford claims it affected her.

You might not remember the exact day in all situations. But, what you won’t forget is the details. The location, the people there witnessing it, etc..... you won’t get that wrong. We aren’t talking about years of abuse that run together and get buried in the subconscious. We are talking about a supposed one time event with Ford.

There is nothing lost in the example I gave to you. Pay attention and be objective when reading this. You remembered the hotel, you were away on business, etc.... I’m betting you could tell us where the hotel was, why you were there, how you got there, when you left, and who you told about it could verify that you did so. I’m betting 35 years from now you could do the same if it bothered you that it happened.

The other accounts are nothing more then mud slinging politics as well. So how in pray tell could anyone say differently when we’ve had members of the Democratic Party claim at all cost, this nomination must be stopped. Magically a list of a few people appear with claims that can’t be verified. You can’t gang yourself if you never fully commit to walking out on the galley. And the left had a long time planning this. As prof shows. Her accounts, are doctored not just for effect. They are doctored to not be refuted in defense. Same with the others.

Pay attention. Get your head out of the gutter. Don’t claim you are being truthful. Because you aren’t. You are being a partisan hack when you recite these things. The man has been through 6 fbi investigations in the past. Going through his 7th now. This would have come up previous if there was substance to the allegations.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"I think this is an interesting take. The other side would say it’s the Republicans that have brought it down into the gutter by nominating Kavanaugh. They’d point to the roughly dozen other Republican candidates going back to Reagan where the confirmation process didn’t focus on issues of personal character."

I think you're attempting to re-write history (or at least overlook some) BEG.

I guess it depends on how you would define the "gutter". For me, it is personal attacks based on things other than their legal qualifications. Surely not all nominees have been taken into the "gutter," but the ones who have, all seem to be conservatives and their reputations were dragged through the mud. The playbook all seems to be the same, and along the same lines.

Bork - racist/misogynist Thomas - misogynist/pervert/sexual harassment

Alito - Racist/misogynist

Roberts - Religious fanatic/accused of actually supporting violence against abortion clinics

Kavanaugh - sexual assault/rapist/violent drunk/??

Coincidence?

I think not. What are the chances that virtually ALL conservative SC nominees in my lifetime have been racists, misogynists, sexual abusers, drunks, perverts, religious fanatics, etc.

KPC

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18

Grey Ghost's Link
"Having said that, I'm left wondering if your sister spends much time, if any at all, contemplating who it is/was that dragged the SC down into that "gutter?"

I think she eluded to that in her comment, Kevin.

I did a little research on this exact topic, attempting to figure out when it started, and by who. My linked article was the most objective that I found.

Matt

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
The fact that between 1894 and 1968 only ONE presidential nominee was rejected to the high court by the Senate jumped out at me. After that the shit-show began, and both sides have participated.

Matt

From: Solo
03-Oct-18
"My Sisters Take on Kavanaugh"

Wow, GG, so now your sisters are jumping on the bandwagon, claiming they took on the virgin Kavanaugh too, huh. Wow!

Okay, what year are your sisters claiming this occurred? Need a time & date... And not knowing how many sisters you have, how many took him on, and did they gang rape the poor virgin Kavanaugh all at once?

Sorry if this offends you GG, but these are questions that must be answered. And they only get worse from here.....

From: Will
03-Oct-18
They had an interesting discussion, essentially of that chart, on NPR a few days ago KPC. It was really an interesting debate. If I get a chance Ill see if I can find it in a recorded link or something...

Overall, the chart is true and shows that as hyper partisan politics have become more sharply in place, contentiousness, if defined solely on votes, has become a sharper issue.. The Garland thing though is, I'd argue, was ridiculous. (does not excuse current tactics, but still a ridiculously political move) BK has said Garland is excellent and would have been excellent on the court. Had he had a hearing, at least conservatives could have grilled him on issues to see. Instead, they played a strong political position, and did something ridiculous and unprecedented relative to SCOTUS elevation processes for judges.

I'm still firmly in my "maybe" camp RE BK being confirmed.

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
Solo,

I addressed my apostrophe omission already, and apologized.

But thanks for bringing such salient questions up, again. (sarcasm)

Matt

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"I think she eluded to that in her comment, Kevin."

I actually don't think she did, but if you can point it out, I'll surely consider it.

"I did a little research on this exact topic, attempting to figure out when it started, and by who. My linked article was the most objective that I found."

Interesting article but didn't need an article Matt, I watched it happen.

Having said that, this is not about ideological or political differences. In my opinion, those are fair game and should be considered.

What we are talking about here (as your sister called it, the "gutter") is about personal attacks and character assassination, not ideological or even political differences.

In my adult lifetime, I can only think of one party that has gone there.

Lastly, this is another one of your sister's statements that I found particularly interesting:

"I think it's hard to think of anyone less suited to the high court then Kavanaugh has shown himself to be. Judges, especially appellate judges, should have a "judicial temperament:" rational, focused on logic and facts, not pre-disposed to a particular outcome."

I couldn't disagree more. Every decision should be based on the same "outcome. The outcome should be wherever US Constitution leads it. Not personal feelings, not ideological or political feelings. Nothing but the US Constitution.

To suggest that there should be any other criteria or outcome suggests to me that your sister has a particular ideological or political bent.

Now, if you (or she) can show us where any of Kavanaugh's actual decisions (not his personal beliefs), or his temperament as it relates to those actual decisions, have deviated from that outcome, we can discuss them.

KPC

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
“This would have come up previous if there was substance to the allegations.”

That’s cool, WVM! Didn’t realize you were part of or have access to the previous investigations into Kavanaugh.

For someone that seems to keep harping on facts, you’d think you’d recognize that 95% of the points you are making are supposition. I particularly find it funny being called out as a “partisan hack” and then being told why in a litany of partisan talking points. Keep doing you, WVM!

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
Sorry Kevin, I don't have the time or inclination to debate minutia with you today.

To be clear, I'm not defending my Sister's comments. In fact, I don't necessarily agree with all of them. I found her take interesting and knew it would spur dozens of responses here (which it has), so I posted it. I'm sure she'd do a fine job of defending herself here, if she was inclined, which I doubt she is. She'd recognize the futility of it.

Matt

From: Bowfreak
03-Oct-18
" The Garland thing though is, I'd argue, was ridiculous"

It would be ridiculous for the party in power of the senate to confirm a partisan judge from the other side IF, you thought you had a shot at confirming your own judge after the election.

Please don't try to tell me for a second that the Democrats would not do this. They have done and would do far worse. Nothing is off the table for them.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"Sorry Kevin, I don't have the time or inclination to debate minutia with you today."

Of course you don't Matt, because the "minutia" that you refer to is the very crux of your sister's argument. Ironically, "minutia" is very thing attorneys trade in, yet when the tables are turned, they don't have time for it.

Neither you, nor she, can support the "gutter" or "temperament" argument with facts.

KPC

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
I will give this to my Sister, she sure knows how to get under the skin of staunch conservatives. Always has. God bless her.

I've always maintained it takes opposing opinions to reach a reasonable balance. This forum is no different, except that opposing opinions aren't welcomed here. Most here are content regurgitating the same ideologies, ad nauseam, while shouting down those who disagree, even slightly.

You want to talk about personal attacks, and the degree to which both sides use them? Look no further than what happens here every single day.

Matt

From: trublucolo
03-Oct-18
Nobody saw that coming.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"Nobody saw that coming."

You mean the part where Matt is going to bail out of a discussion in which he can't support his assertions? One where no personal attacks are made, at least not by me, no one is being shouted down, at least not by me, or nobody is regurgitating anything, at least not me.

Or the part where he attempted to shift this from a discussion about his sisters assertions about the SC nomination process being taken into the "gutter" to a discussion about CF posters making personal attacks?

Or is it something else that I'm missing all together.

:)

KPC

From: Bowbender
03-Oct-18
Matt,

"I'm not defending my Sister's comments. In fact, I don't necessarily agree with all of them."

Trying to reconcile that, with this.

"I'm sure she'd do a fine job of defending herself here, if she was inclined, which I doubt she is. She'd recognize the futility of it."

Almost sounds like you DO agree with her.

I could be wrong however. My wife says that happens a lot.

From: sleepyhunter
03-Oct-18
GG, why did you take your sister's opinion from an email she believed was between you and her, and post it here? She has no way of defending her opinion, also she may not want her words viewed here (only meant for you to read) by strangers. Very unfair.

From: mn_archer
03-Oct-18
he said straight out that she was ok with him posting it here....

From: trublucolo
03-Oct-18
KPC, yes, amazing how inline his "sisters email" is in bolstering hers, I mean his opinion, almost like she's throwing him a lifeline. And yes, his derailing of the thread so he could take an opportunity to whine some more from his perch on the turtles post. He's reminding me an awful lot of GJ.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
“What we are talking about here (as your sister called it, the "gutter") is about personal attacks and character assassination, not ideological or even political differences.”

That’s not how I took GG’s sister’s comments. I took the gutter to mean the political circus that has become a part of the SCOTUS confirmation process. This includes the questioning of one’s character outside of their record as a jurist, but also other blatantly politics actions that have little to do with the qualifications or capabilities of the appointee. Again, both sides are guilty of this.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
“I couldn't disagree more. Every decision should be based on the same "outcome. The outcome should be wherever US Constitution leads it. Not personal feelings, not ideological or political feelings. Nothing but the US Constitution.”

That sounds like exactly the point GG’s sister was trying to make. Justices clearly come to different conclusions, but they all would argue they’re opinions are founded in their interpretation of where the Constitution guides them.

From: trublucolo
03-Oct-18
And there's the obligatory stroke from the other word smith.

From: bad karma
03-Oct-18
"That sounds like exactly the point GG’s sister was trying to make. Justices clearly come to different conclusions, but they all would argue they’re opinions are founded in their interpretation of where the Constitution guides them."

Horsepucky. Google The "living Constitution" rather than just make stuff up.

From: Ace
03-Oct-18
Remember when a Liberal said: "better 1000 guilty men should go free than 1 innocent man is convicted"? It would appear that this needs an edit in the case of Brett Kavanaugh.

So the Attempted Rape, and the Gang Rape and the Exposing Himself didn't really fly, now it's Throwing Ice and Drinking too much in HS and College. That and he didn't act in a properly judgey way when being accused of the above. Inappropriate behavior would have included jumping up and beating the hell out of some of those Senators. They would have deserved it for sure, but that might be crossing the line a bit.

Why can't the Libs just say: "I disagree with his stance on Abortion so he shouldn't be confirmed"? The truth is so much simpler.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
Living Constitution: In United States constitutional interpretation, the living Constitution (or loose constructionism) is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes.

Please tel me bk how that doesn’t align with my comment that justices would argue “they’re(sic) opinions are founded in their interpretation of where the Constitution guides them.”

From: sleepyhunter
03-Oct-18
""he said straight out that she was ok with him posting it here....""

Not until The Rock pointed the same feeling as I have with this thread. Unfortunate, she is not here to contribute to this thread in all fairness.

From: bad karma
03-Oct-18
It's rather simple. They are not even pretending that it is in the Constitution. They are simply saying "that's how we choose to interpret it now because we can make it mean whatever we want it to as an accommodation to the times."

Quit arguing after you've outkicked your coverage.

03-Oct-18
BEG, if you had one linked article to state otherwise about the previous backbgroind examinations, we all know you’d linked it the second they were available. Had Kavanaugh been charged with any of these actions in those previous back ground searches, he wouldn’t be where he is. I’ve been the subject of similar scrutiny, on a much smaller government level, and understand when you are applying for a job with government concerning its statue, they interview EVERYONE and investigate EVERYTHING about your past. I can only imagine that the intensity increases as you climb the ladder into a federal judge position.

Unlike you BEG, I’m using deductive reasoning to come to my conclusions. The facts as we ALL know them. No one but these people and the DNC is denying that. I’m not being blinded by politics or, my personal feelings about the president. It simply is what it is concerning these peoples stories. Not because I say so. Simply because of reality. They cannot provide proof of their claims. No more then I could of what I charged you with being in my analogies above.

What makes you so predictable is your willingness to dismiss anything but, the agenda you can find that supports your bias. There is no objective in you. At least there isn’t in the person you present yourself as on Bowsite.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"That’s not how I took GG’s sister’s comments. I took the gutter to mean the political circus that has become a part of the SCOTUS confirmation process. This includes the questioning of one’s character outside of their record as a jurist, but also other blatantly politics actions that have little to do with the qualifications or capabilities of the appointee. Again, both sides are guilty of this.

Ok, lets assume that truly is how you took it.

Can you give us an example of an actual ruling that BK has made that would make you believe he rules based on partisanship and not the law?

"That sounds like exactly the point GG’s sister was trying to make. Justices clearly come to different conclusions, but they all would argue they’re opinions are founded in their interpretation of where the Constitution guides them."

Again, assuming that's the way you took it, I guess we agree then that the US constitution, as written, should be the basis for all SC rulings? And that we also agree that every conclusion should indeed be, by definition, "pre-disposed to a particular outcome." That outcome being that which the Constitution dictates?

KPC

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
You can choose to disagree with their interpretation of the Constitution, bk. Every justices opinion is based on what they believe the Constitution directs on the matter - while I haven’t read every opinion written by the Court, I’ve read enough to know that this is the case. What does the Constitution say about how strictly it should be interpreted?

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
Here's another gem:

"The Supremes should have a broad mix of views, as well, to be reflective of the broad range of views and values that are present in the country."

Really? What kind of "views and values" might she be speaking of? Political? Religious?

It would almost seem that the Matt's family is "pre-disposed" to contradicting themselves the more they talk.

If you read between the lines, Matt's sister seems to be saying that SC Justices should have a "broad mix of views and values"...as long as they aren't conservative ones.

KPC

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
"You mean the part where Matt is going to bail out of a discussion in which he can't support his assertions?"

You know well, or should, that it's not in my nature to "bail out of a discussion", Kevin. Since you spoke of my assertions, I'll spell them out for you.

1. I assert the SCOTUS nomination/confirmation process should not be a political circus, and mostly wasn't for decades.

2. I assert the process has become a increasingly political circus since the late 60s.

3. I assert that both political sides have contributed to that escalation, sadly. And I assert it's only going to get worse, since both sides seem to always one-up the other each political cycle.

4. I assert that a person's temperament under fire reflects a lot about their character. To my sister's point, I thought Kavanaugh exhibited petulant behavior that was unbecoming of a nominee to the highest court, and I said as much during the hearing. I also stated it didn't concern me enough to change my overall favorable opinion of him, and still hasn't.

5. I assert that many of the same people showing faux outrage over perceived character assassinations by the Dems, are guilty of doing the same thing here, consistently. If you want to claim moral high ground on your side, earn it by example.

6. I assert that I will always respect my sister's views and values, although I don't always share them. And I assert she has always shown me the same respect.

If you want to disagree with any of those assertions have at it. But please don't expect me to respond to every comment. I simply don't care that much. The CF is a occasional unhealthy indulgence for me, like a good cigar, or fine bottle of bourbon. It's not a 24/7 habit for me.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
That outcome being that which the Constitution dictates?

Yup. And people believe the Constitution dictates different things. Like I brought up in the last post, the Constitution makes no mention of how strictly or liberally it should be interpreted. People have different opinions on this. We all have our preferences and beliefs, but to argue that they are “fact” is simply not the case. 300+ years of SCOTUS judgements highlight precisely how much uncertainty there is around Constitutional interpretation.

From: elkmtngear
03-Oct-18
"300+ years of SCOTUS judgements"

Wow, my math must be way off. I really didn't think the SCOTUS had been around that long...

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
"Ok, lets assume that truly is how you took it.

Can you give us an example of an actual ruling that BK has made that would make you believe he rules based on partisanship and not the law?"

I'll come back to your specific question below. I do find it disconcerting seeing him go on an all out attack on Democrats during the Senate hearing and hoped that he would rise above the partisanship and politics surrounding the allegations, but understand why he didn't. I do find it funny everytime I see a post or meme that says something to the effect of "Everytime Kavanaugh makes a ruling, he'll be thinking about what the Demoncrats have done to him" as that is basically the definition of partisanship and exactly what you don't want to see in a judge. I don't necessarily think he'll approach cases with that in the back of his mind, though.

As it pertains to your specific question, no, I cannot point to a specific case. GG's sister has her reasons for what makes him a "political operative" and "pre-disposed to a particular outcome." That wasn't my point. My point was referencing what GG's sister defined as "the gutter." Your comments suggest that to be in "the gutter" there needs to be some kind of attack on character. GG's sister's take seems to be much different and lumps all of the partisan politics and tactics as the gutter. What happened to Merrick Garland is reflective of thing being drug into "the gutter," for example. That's the point I was making. And again, I agree with Matt. Both parties are guilty of partisan tactics related to SCOTUS nominees, certainly more so now than at any time I remember in recent history.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
"Wow, my math must be way off. I really didn't think the SCOTUS had been around that long..."

It's not. That's what happens when you have fat fingers and don't proofread what you type. Thanks for the "oooh gotcha" moment, though elkmnt.

From: gflight
03-Oct-18
"political circus" = With Trump as President it can't be avoided + History may surprise you....

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"Yup. And people believe the Constitution dictates different things. Like I brought up in the last post, the Constitution makes no mention of how strictly or liberally it should be interpreted. People have different opinions on this. We all have our preferences and beliefs, but to argue that they are “fact” is simply not the case. 300+ years of SCOTUS judgements highlight precisely how much uncertainty there is around Constitutional interpretation."

Wonderful! So then you agree that elections do indeed have consequences and that when BO was in the WH, his SC appointments will be liberal like Kegan and Sotomayor. When Trump is in the WH, his SC appointments will be conservative like Gorsuch and Kavanagh. And as long as they are qualified, they should be approved. All the rest of this "temperament" crap when a man is defending himself against multiple heinous accusations is just political BS.

Let me ask you this about "temperament."

Do you believe a SC Justice as the right to protect himself, with a gun, if he or his family is being viciously attacked?

If he were to shoot and kill his attacker, would you say he doesn't have the "temperament" to be a SC Justice because he resorted to physical violence when personally attacked? Of course not. You'd say his actions were justified and separate from his duties as a judge.. Or at least I think you would. I know I would.

How is that any different than someone like BK defending themselves against this type of vicious attack on his reputation, career and family?

Should his vigorous defense of these personal attacks not be held separate from his ability to be a fair and impartial judge?

KPC

From: bad karma
03-Oct-18
The very first thing we learned in law school was about the schools of thought for constitutional interpretation. the left today starts from a preferred outcome and works backward to a rationale to justify it, hence the "living constitution." You can try to ignore it all you want but that's what happens.

As to interpreting a document as written, if you don't, there are no rules.

I understand you are biologically incapable of admitting you are wrong, but that does not mean you are right.

03-Oct-18
Matt,

Still disagree with you on several points; however, I commend the civility you have displayed here.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"GG's sister has her reasons for what makes him a "political operative" and "pre-disposed to a particular outcome."

I have no doubt she does, and I'm quite certain it is because she is viewing him through her own political bias.

Matt has stated openly that she is left of him politically, and that says something in my mind because Matt is not someone I would consider all that conservative...especially socially.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, good or bad, it just is.

However, to imply that someone isn't qualified because of their particular politics, and then base that on one's own particular politics, is rather hypocritical don't you think?

KPC

From: Glunt@work
03-Oct-18
The Constitution is a fairly simple document. There is a wealth of information on the debate, ideals and positions that explain what the simple document was intended to mean.

It clarifies limits on the Federal government. We have already strayed far away from what it they intended

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
I'm curious what being "conservative socially" means and involves?

Matt

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
“The very first thing we learned in law school was about the schools of thought for constitutional interpretation. the left today starts from a preferred outcome and works backward to a rationale to justify it, hence the "living constitution." You can try to ignore it all you want but that's what happens.

I still don’t know what you’re claiming I’m “wrong” about. You seem to be backing up the exact point I’m making - that there are many different schools of thought regarding Constitutional interpretation. And of course that’s exactly what liberals and liberal judges do (as they believe the Constitution allows them) - where did I say they didn’t do those things?

We all have our preferred perspectives on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Constitution says nothing about which school of thought is the “right” one.

To that end, I guarantee that no SC Justice thinks they are violating the Constitution when they are taking a view that is from a different school of Constitutional interpretation other than originalism or constructionism.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
“Wonderful! So then you agree that elections do indeed have consequences and that when BO was in the WH, his SC appointments will be liberal like Kegan and Sotomayor. When Trump is in the WH, his SC appointments will be conservative like Gorsuch and Kavanagh. And as long as they are qualified, they should be approved. All the rest of this "temperament" crap when a man is defending himself against multiple heinous accusations is just political BS.

Of course elections have consequences and the appointment of SCOTUS justices is one of them. Never said they didn’t.

I do believe there are aspects outside of how qualified one is that should be considered when assessing a lifetime appointment to the SCOTUS. I’ve said all along I don’t feel his impassioned response to the allegations against him should in anyway be disqualifying. I understand why the counterattack on the Dems should raise flags, but I don’t view it as disqualifying.

If, however, it comes back that he likely perjured himself under oath then that is much more important to me. As essentially the highest judge in the land, the ability to tell the truth under oath is basic and necessary.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"I understand why the counterattack on the Dems should raise flags..."

Here is where you and I likely differ.

You apparently assume his counterattack is against the Dems, because they are Dems and that it is a political thing. I don't see I that way. I see it as a counterattack against the people who he feels are attacking him falsely, and they ALL happen to be the Democrats.

If a Republican leveled the same accusations against him, he would push back against them also.

If Corey Booker attempted to rob me or my family and I shot him, it would not because he was a Democrat that I shot him. It would be because he attacked me or my family.

KPC

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
I hear ya, but he made some statements that were pretty specific in who he was angry with and also broad in who he implied. IMO, they go a step beyond addressing the accusations that he was there to address. Now I know most here loved them and I get why, but they don’t really smell of rising above the political fray, they reek of jumping right into it. Personally, given the circumstances, I understand it and forgive it though I’d prefer a different look. It certainly gives the folks who are going to argue against his nomination on the grounds of BK being a biased and partisan ammunition.

“This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process, but you have replaced advice and consent with search and destroy.”

“Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation.”

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.”

03-Oct-18
Great points Kevin! It's the behavior, not the political affiliation, though they do seem to somehow be related.

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
"You apparently assume his counterattack is against the Dems, because they are Dems and that it is a political thing. I don't see I that way."

Please balance that comment with what Kavanaugh actually said:

"“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus.”

Matt

From: NvaGvUp
03-Oct-18
A living Constitution is no Constitution at all.

It's nothing more than, "Whatever is the cool thing du jour."

From: bad karma
03-Oct-18
Simple enough to understand if one wants to. Just imagine a "living Ten Commandments."

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" evolves to "Get some if you can" in modern America.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
I don’t disagree, Kyle. That’s certainly an argument against taking something other than an originalist view of the Constitution.

On the flip-side a non-originalist would argue the framers indicated that they did not want their specific intentions to control interpretation; that no written Constitution can anticipate all the means that government might use to oppress people; that the intentions of framers are various, sometimes transient, and often impossible to determine; that the text in the Constitution is often ambiguous and judicial precedents can be found to support either side; that crises could result from the inflexible interpretation of a provision in the Constitution that no longer serves its initial purpose and the amendment process is too difficult and cumbersome to avert disaster.

I don’t necessarily agree with all of those points, but I don’t necessarily think they are “wrong.”

From a personal perspective, I’ll tell you how I feel. Politically, my views are varied. I’d call them 70% Libertarian, 20% Republican, 10% Democratic. As such, my preference is for a SCOTUS that is varied as well in the way they interpret the Constitution.

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
I don't think our constitution was written to cover every eventuality, Rather, it was wisely written to allow future interpretation WITHOUT political bias. In fact, I think our highest court was structured intentionally to avoid interference from the executive and legislative branches, which are inherently political.

Matt

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"Please balance that comment with what Kavanaugh actually said:

“Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation.”

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus.”

Matt & BEG:

It is quite easily balanced in that both of those statements are demonstrably true. The Democrats on the committee have openly said as much. I can go through each one and show you examples but why bother? I might just as well be talking to your sister. Your mind is made up.

Suffice it to say, numerous Democrats have stated from the day Kavanaugh was nominated, that they will do whatever is necessary in order to block his confirmation. Do date, they are trying their best to deliver on that promise.

Calling a partisan hit a partisan hit doesn't necessarily make you a partisan...if it's true.

KPC

From: HDE
03-Oct-18
But now the highest court has become political.

From: HDE
03-Oct-18
"Just imagine a "living Ten Commandments." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" evolves to "Get some if you can" in modern America.

I can't make it any clearer than that."

There is a distinct difference in the two. Misinterpretation of the Constitution can have very real repercussions whereas misinterpreting the Ten Commandments only has a repercussion if you are Christian and believe in the here-after.

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
”Simple enough to understand if one wants to. Just imagine a "living Ten Commandments." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" evolves to "Get some if you can" in modern America.”

Sure. But to me that’s as absurd as a strict textualiast interpretation which would make killing anything for any reason wrong and which makes rape and torture ok since the Commandments say nothing explicitly about either.

03-Oct-18
"Matt & BEG:

It is quite easily balanced in that both of those statements are demonstrably true. The Democrats on the committee have openly said as much. I can go through each one and show you examples but why bother? I might just as well be talking to your sister. Your mind is made up.

Suffice it to say, numerous Democrats have stated from the day Kavanaugh was nominated, that they will do whatever is necessary in order to block his confirmation. Do date, they are trying their best to deliver on that promise.

Calling a partisan hit a partisan hit doesn't necessarily make you a partisan...if it's true.

KPC"

Gheez Kevin, there you go again. Making too much sense. What is wrong with you? :^)

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
”Simple enough to understand if one wants to. Just imagine a "living Ten Commandments." "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" evolves to "Get some if you can" in modern America.”

Sure. But to me that’s as absurd as a strict textualiast interpretation which would make killing anything for any reason wrong and which makes rape and torture ok since the Commandments say nothing explicitly about either.

From: KSflatlander
03-Oct-18
What about your neighbors neighbors wife? Or the wife of some guy who live on the other side of the U.S.. Does that mean only the wife of a Christian only? What about someone’s common law wife? What about just long-time girlfriend of a neighbor? Does the 10 commandments think that is permissible?

From: KSflatlander
03-Oct-18
Oh yeah, what do you think covet means?

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
”It is quite easily balanced in that both of those statements are demonstrably true.”

Political hit job? Sure.

“Calculated and orchestrated” effort “fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election” aimed at ”revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups?” Ummm, ok.

BKs sounds like JTV or Spike Bull. No wonder so many of you love him around here! He’d fit right in on the CF!!

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
”Calculated and orchestrated” effort “fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election” aimed at ”revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups?”

A you saying there is no pent up anger as a result of Trump beating Clinton?

Are you suggesting that this opposition isn’t planned and coordinated?

Are you suggesting that no left wing money is funding the likes of the woman that accosted Flake in the elevator?

Again, all demonstrably true.

KPC

03-Oct-18
"...misinterpreting the Ten Commandments only has a repercussion if you are Christian and believe in the here-after."

The Ten Commandments is not a Christian document. It was written by Moses, who was a Jew, not a Christian. One of the Ten Commandments is the law about observing the Sabbath, which only a small fraction of Christians today believe they are obligated to observe. The death penalty for mixing barley and wheat is an example of another Jewish law that Christians are exempt from, including the prohibition of mixing linen and wool and plouging a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together, etc etc.

From: KSflatlander
03-Oct-18
If they are “demonstrably true” where is your demonstrable evidence? I mean your irrefutable hard proof.

From: Annony Mouse
03-Oct-18
The end result of this proREgressive Democrat attack on decency and the American tradition of "Innocent until Proven Guilty" should put fear into every mother and father of male children. We have come to a place where all it takes is a simple accusation where not only the career of a distinguished judge can be tainted, but even a young man in school will have his life and psyche damaged far more than the unproven allegations of a woman who has been shown not only to lie, but is a known political activist for the far far radical left.

Sorry for a long copy/paste, but the entire article needs to be read:

Lawsuit accuses Seneca Valley 'mean girls' of targeting boy with false allegations

While “Mean Girls Day” is being marked Wednesday in reference to a mention of Oct. 3 in the popular 2004 cult movie, the parents of a former Seneca Valley High School student claim in a federal lawsuit filed this week that their teenage son was terrorized by false accusations made by five “Mean Girls” at the school.

Michael J. and Alecia Flood of Zelienople, Butler County, the parents of a teenage boy identified in the lawsuit as T.F., seek unspecified civil damages against the girls’ parents, the school district and Butler County District Attorney Richard Goldinger’s office. The lawsuit alleges that the girls “conspired in person and via electronic communication devices to falsely accuse T.F. of sexual assault on two occasions.”

Neither Goldinger nor Seneca Valley school officials returned calls seeking comment.

The 26-page lawsuit — filed in Pittsburgh on the eve of Mean Girls Day — alleges that T.F. “was forced to endure multiple court appearances, detention in a juvenile facility, detention at home, the loss of his liberty and other damages until several of the girls reluctantly admitted that their accusations were false” this summer.

The lawsuit contends that T.F. was bullied on multiple occasions by classmates. In one example, the lawsuit said students last year placed masking tape with the word “PREDATOR” written on it on his back without his knowledge during choir practice.

The lawsuit alleges that the boy was further damaged by “gender bias” by school officials and Goldinger’s office, which even after learning the girls’ accusations were false “did not take any action against the females involved,” said attorney Craig Fishman of Pittsburgh, who represents the Floods.

“(T.F.) was basically being tortured in school by the other students and investigators, but the administration was only focused on protecting the girls who were lying,” Fishman said. “Once the allegations were proven false, they really didn’t care one bit about T.F. and there has been absolutely no repercussions against the girls.”

The teen boy is being home-schooled, Fishman said.

According to the lawsuit, the first allegation occurred in July 2017 at an area swimming pool where T.F. worked as a lifeguard with then Seneca Valley High School graduate Megan Villegas, who is the only teenage defendant named in the lawsuit. The others are minor and are referred to only by initials, Fishman said.

Villegas could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit contends that T.F. was charged with sexually assaulting a girl identified in the lawsuit at K.S. on the pool premises, and Villegas corroborated K.S. claim by saying she was present during the alleged assault.

“T.F. was fired at the pool,” Fishman said.

In tape-recorded interview with school officials in 2017, the lawsuit alleges that K.S. said she made the sexual assault claim against T.F. because “I just don’t like him.”

“I just don’t like to hear him talk … I don’t like to look at him,” K.S. reportedly disclosed in the recorded interview obtained by Fishman.

On Oct. 2, 2017, K.S. told fellow students “that she would do anything to get T.F. expelled … and accused T.F. of sexual assault” with school officials, the lawsuit states. T.F. was subsequently charged in juvenile court with indecent assault and two counts of harassment.

The Floods eventually agreed in late 2017 to a consent decree where he would not admit guilt, but was required to stay out of trouble for six months and report to the county probation department.

In March, another girl — identified as C.S. and a friend of K.S. — reported to a school counselor that the boy had walked into her home uninvited and sexually assaulted her. The allegations were supported by information from two other girls, identified as E.S. and H.R., according to the lawsuit.

On April 9, Zelienople police charged T.F. with indecent assault, criminal trespass and simple assault.

“On April 10, T.F. was removed from class at Seneca Valley High School and placed in leg and wrist shackles by the Jackson Township Police with the assistance of Juvenile Probation Officer Michael Trego,” the lawsuit said.

Trego testified at a hearing that T.F. was a threat to the community and the teenager had to spend nine days in a juvenile detention center before being released on home-electronic monitoring.

“After 28 days, T.F. was only allowed out of his home to mow his lawn,” the lawsuit contends.

During the case, T.F. was told by school officials he could not play baseball “because every time he was wearing a Seneca Valley jersey, he was representing a school.”

According to the lawsuit, the criminal complaints against the boy began unravelling in May when three of the witnesses admitted they lied.

On Aug. 30, Goldinger’s office sought an order dismissing all charges against T.F. filed for the March allegation due to the false reports, according to court documents. On Sept. 10, the charges in connection with swimming pool incident in 2017 also were ordered closed, according to the lawsuit.

“The Butler County District Attorney’s office promised to file a petition to expunge the record of T.F. in September, but has not yet done so, providing further evidence of gender-based discrimination. The (district attorney) has refused to file criminal charges against K.S., Villegas, C.S., E.S. and H.R. due to gender-based discrimination,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also claims school officials have repeatedly refused to mark the academic records of the girls who lied about the assaults.

“T.F. has had psychological trauma because of all this. He’s had to see a psychologist to deal with the physical symptoms which are the direct result of being accused of something when when he did not do anything wrong,” Fishman said.

Matt...does your sister (or you) have any sons?

From: Mike in CT
03-Oct-18

Mike in CT's Link
"If they are “demonstrably true” where is your demonstrable evidence? I mean your irrefutable hard proof."

Statements like the above bring to mind the expression "have you been living in a cave?"

How many cabinet members have been harassed in public restaraunts?

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was harassed at a restaraunt.

Republican legislators have been harassed (most recently Ted Cruz and his wife)

Perhaps you missed where Maxine Waters (D) publicly called for these types of actions?

Link below for a bit more and this is just stuff off the top of my head.

Your inquiry brings another quip to mind; "you've got to be kidding me"......

From: bigeasygator
03-Oct-18
”A you saying there is no pent up anger as a result of Trump beating Clinton?”

Nope, but I sure haven’t seen anything linking the allegations against Kavanaugh to Trump’s win.

”Are you suggesting that no left wing money is funding the likes of the woman that accosted Flake in the elevator?”

You have proof that the woman who accosted Flake was paid off by the likes of Soros? I know LOTS of women who are outraged by the accusations against Kavanaugh that I know for a FACT aren’t being paid off by leftwing organizations to fee that way.

”Are you suggesting that this opposition isn’t planned and coordinated?”

On a certain level, just about every action is planned and coordinated. So, sure. Do I think the allegations against Kavanaugh are the result of some coordinated effort that involves the entire Democratic Party? No.

“Statements like the above bring to mind the expression "have you been living in a cave?"”

None of those examples have anything to do with Kavanaugh, Mike. So other than proving that people do partisan things, it certainly doesn’t provide irrefutable proof of anything about Kavanaugh or the motivations behind the allegations against him. A restaurant failed to serve Sarah Sanders, therefore the allegations against BK are obviously a part of a broad left-wing effort, fueled by anger over Trump, to railroad his nomination?

From: KSflatlander
03-Oct-18
Maybe it’s not for pent up anger over Clinton. Maybe they just don’t like Trump and what he stands for. So everyone one who has harassed Cruz or a cabinet member knew each other, hatched a harassment plan, divided resources, and then harassed? And the liberal lady that confronted flake did it only because she was paid? I guess you don’t know what demonstrably means. Got to run... got some spelunking to do.

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
I expect a nominee for our highest court to not refute unfounded accusations in kind.

Matt

03-Oct-18
Matt, you are the minority in that regard.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
BEG:

I suspect you are being intentionally daft.

Yes, Ana Maria Archila, the woman who accosted Flake in the elevator, is the co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy. Look up where their funding comes from. I'm not going to do all your work for you.

Did Kavanaugh say it was the entire Democrat party? No. He was referring to the Democrat members of the Judiciary committee. And he was right.

Wasn't it Schumer who said publicly "I'm going to fight the Kavanaugh nomination with everything I've got"?

The notion that this isn't a coordinated, partisan hit job is just not reality.

KPC

KPC

From: TT-Pi
03-Oct-18
Ephesians 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV)

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

*Faith, not works have a consequence for the Christian. * Not having Faith has the same consequence for all.

It is clear that Jesus magnified the meaning of the Law to the fullest and deepest understanding. The Mosaic Law was demanded by the people who no longer followed the direct relationship with God as it was intended from the Begining. See Genisis. It is only for the deviant and does little good for those that insist on a formula or rules instead of a Holy life. The Spirit of the Law is far greater than a simple reading of the Ten Statements (commandments). Jesus explained that to the abusers of the Religion who were not in a proper relationship to God.

The first of the commandments does cover all things that are offensive to the Holy One which certainly covers all evil acts. To Love God with all you have to work with. It's not ambiguous.

Death of the spirit brought the Law. But the Law saved no one. It is a covenant of death. A condemnation of our sinfulness. It shows us how weak and dirty we are... There are only consequences for a Christian if he is without a repentant heart... If he is without trust in his creator and Savior. One who doesn't accept the sacrifice that Jesus made and the reason it is needed has no chance for salvation for we are all with sin and therefore not acceptable to God by our own merit.

I know it's tough to understand from the outside but some statements made about Christianity are missing what it is all about.

Thank you for reading, Pi

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
"I expect a nominee for our highest court to not refute unfounded accusations in kind."

I agree.

However, BK's accusations are demonstrably true, therefore they are not "in kind" with unfounded ones.

KPC

From: JTV
03-Oct-18
I posted articles/links yesterday about who those were that accosted Flake in the elevator (they were not who/what they said they were) ... I also did the same showing WHO is behind them and paying for all this ... BTW, He isnt an American either (think European( (not Russia either)... this whole hit job on Kavanaugh was a plan from the start..... every bit that the attacks and soft coup on Trump was/Is... some of the same people maybe involved, some maybe aware, some were pawns ..... but this was a concerted effort by Democrats to stop both Kavanaugh and Trump, one way or another, hook or crook......

From: Grey Ghost
03-Oct-18
So now we’re down to the definition of “demonstrably true”. I’m out.

Matt

From: KSflatlander
03-Oct-18
So BK knows the intent of Dems on the judiciary committee? BK would have to be able to read minds to make his accusations demonstrably true or easily proven.

From: K Cummings
03-Oct-18
Of course you are Matt.

Maybe you should bring your sister to the party. She might be able to defend her positions better than you can.

I do find it rather ironic when someone starts a thread, and encourages everyone to "flame away," and then gets perturbed when people disagree with it's contents.

KPC

From: TD
04-Oct-18
If anybody who has followed this at all can't see the "intent" of the dems on the committee...... maybe they should go join the Spartacus Presidential Campaign...... reality is but one thing that has slipped from their grasp....

good grief.... "have you ever told fart jokes in high school???"

Intent is clear. Use any means necessary, even if it means lies, character assassination, distortion, the destruction of an honorable man's reputation and family, the grinding up of a fruit loop's life that they pretend to care sooooo much about. Makes the doctoring of videos and the claim of "thousands of women will die if this man is seated on the court..." look like patty cake..... "I am Spartacus!"

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
“However, BK's accusations are demonstrably true, therefore they are not "in kind" with unfounded ones.”

I’ve made it clear that the actions against Kavanaugh are politically motivated. Just about everything that happens in Washington is. But I’ve yet to see anything that links these actions to anger over Trump or revenge for the Clintons, and not, you know, concern that we’d be putting a repeat sex offender on the bench. The people I’ve talked to who are upset about this haven’t once mentioned Trump’s election or the Clintons once in defending their positions and they certainly aren’t being paid by anyone to feel the way they do. The accusations that started this circus came because Ford was compelled on her own volition to come forward, not as the result of some nation wide search for accusers or at the direction of the Democratic Party.

If the shoe was on the other foot, I would expect the Republicans would respond to this information similarly - as they should.

I agree, Matt. I guess I have a different bar when I say something is “demonstrably true.”

04-Oct-18
BEG, don’t get confused and steer this away from the issue. You’ve admitted it was political. Just understand that for a good part of the citizens that oppose this nomination, it has everything to do with hating Trump. You included.

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
"I agree, Matt. I guess I have a different bar when I say something is “demonstrably true.”

I don't know what bar either of you are using, but the one I use is the actual definition of the word.

Based on the things I've already posted on this thread, if you can't logically conclude that this circus (and yes, I use that term intentionally) has been coordinated by the Democrats, funded and facilitated by left wing organizations, and apparently due, at least in part, to pent up anger about the fact that the deplorable Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton, when she was supposed to be a shoe-in, your or both being intentionally disingenuous, or just plain naïve.

This has been a coordinated circus starting from the time one of those left wing groups released a statement saying that they opposed Trumps SC nomination...before they even knew who it was, to Schumer's stating that he was going to fight the Kavanaugh nomination "with everything I've got" , to coordinated demonstrations and interruptions at BK's first hearing, to the executive director of yet another one of those left wing groups accosting Flake in an elevator (with cameras and microphones at the ready), to Feinstein's office recommending to the accuser a left wing attorney(s) who are apparently working for free, to.... to...too...

Now, compare all that with what BK said:

"Calculated and orchestrated” effort “fueled with [apparent] pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election” aimed at ”revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups?”

What part of what he said is NOT "demonstrably" true?

KPC

From: Grey Ghost
04-Oct-18
"Demonstrably true", eh?

Exactly who are this "orchestrated" group of political hitmen/women? Names please. Exactly how does Mr. Kavanaugh know their motivations? Please name the opposition groups that spent "millions" orchestrating this "circus". Where did the money come from, and how was it spent to fund this? Who got paid, and how much? Where were these covert meetings held and when?

Mr. Kavanaugh's accusations are no more "demonstrably true" than Ford's. Therefore they are in kind, in my book. I'll give this to him, at least he had the sense to include the "apparent" caveat, which basically implies it's all conjecture and not fact.

Matt

04-Oct-18
I can’t wait to hear their responses. If they’ll reply.

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
"Exactly who are this "orchestrated" group of political hitmen/women? Names please. Exactly how does Mr. Kavanaugh know their motivations? Please name the opposition groups that spent "millions" orchestrating this "circus". Where did the money come from, and how was it spent to fund this? Who got paid, and how much? Where were these covert meetings held and when?

Mr. Kavanaugh's accusations are no more "demonstrably true" than Ford's. Therefore they are in kind, in my book. I'll give this to him, at least he had the sense to include the "apparent" caveat, which basically implies it's all conjecture and not fact."

x2

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18
Good grief Matt, now you're being intentionally obtuse.

"Demonstrably true, eh?"

I choose my words carefully Matt, as I know you do.

Inherent in "demonstrably" is logic.

What do you want, check numbers, deposit slips, addresses and social security numbers? If I gave you all that, you'd respond by wanting DNA proof.

Who do you think is running the opposition ads against BK? If you're not willing to concede that left wing opposition groups are funding this stuff, you would also have to say that it's not right wing groups that are funding the pro BK ads.

We are both know better...at least I do.

Logic Matt, logic.

KPC

From: bad karma
04-Oct-18

bad karma's Link
A minute on google could valuable to those a closed mind.

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18
"Mr. Kavanaugh's accusations are no more "demonstrably true" than Ford's.

Dare I say it, that is "demonstrably" false.

As has been demonstrated, Kavanaugh has corroborating evidence to support every claim in his statement, Ford does not.

KPC

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
Got it. The evidence that the surfacing of accusations against Kavanaugh and the push to have them discussed and investigated is "an orchestrated hit job fueled by pent-up anger over Trump's election and motivated by revenge for the Clintons" is, well, there is no direct evidence but we know people on the left hate Trump, and we know people on the left spend money to support their causes, and people on the left still dream about Hillary being President -- so therefore Kavanaugh's statements are "demonstrably true."

If the only requirement that something was demonstrably true was that you could provide a logical explanation for something no matter how tenuous that logic is or how circumstantial the evidence to support that logic is, you could argue that Ford's accusations are demonstrably true, that the Kavanaugh acquaintances that have come out and said he lied under oath about his drinking and partying and yearbook are demonstrably telling the truth, and that the opinions of the 650+ law professors who have come out and said Kavanaugh does not have the temperament for the SCOTUS are also demonstrably true.

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
"Kavanaugh has corroborating circumstantial evidence to support every claim in his statement."

Fixed it for you, KPC.

From: TT-Pi
04-Oct-18
And Ford does not.

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18
"Kavanaugh has corroborating circumstantial, as well as direct evidence to support every claim in his statement."

Fixed your fix for you, BEG.

How long would you like to go back and forth like this?

I suspect that come Saturday, none of this will make any difference, and those on the left can move on to their next coordinated effort to undermine virtually anything that Trump does or proposes, often in a circus like atmosphere, and left wing groups will help finance that effort.

In light of that, I will give you the last word. (unless of course I determine that you've posted something that is "demonstrably" false.

:)

KPC

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
"And Ford does not."

Sure she does. That's all it is is circumstantial (at best), but there's plenty of it out there.

From: Grey Ghost
04-Oct-18
Jason,

Kavanaugh hasn't even provided circumstantial evidence. He threw out accusations covering a broad range of nameless people and organizations, all with the same "apparent" motivations, funded by "millions" of dollars from unknown sources and recipients.

Basically it's a plausible tale with no specific details or proof, just like Ford's.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
"as well as direct evidence to support every claim"

Sorry, what was that "direct evidence" that Democrats were sitting around together saying "man, I'm still pissed off about that Trump election. We need to get revenge for Hillary. How can we undermine and undercut this SCOTUS nominee?" and that is what led to the allegations by Ford? I mean, sure, it could happen so I guess this is what makes it "demonstrably true" according to some on here, but I'm still waiting for the direct evidence.

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
"Basically it's a plausible tale with no specific details or proof, just like Ford's."

Yup, that's exactly how I feel. Apparently some just see it a different way though and nobody is going to change their mind on the similarities (or dissimilarities) in each person's statements.

04-Oct-18
The people "investigating" the accuracy of Ford's claims, are they demonstrably a right wing coordinated effort? FOX, Breibart, etc.

Common sense seems to lead us to a conclusion that the efforts to attack Kavanaugh are either;

A) a coordinated effort.

B) if not coordinated, there are a whole bunch of folks that either have group think, or even more scary, think victory by any means is OK.

I am going with C, all of the above. When like minded people see the opportunity to work together they do. The infrastructure for this type of collaboration already exists, and works effortlessly together due to working together frequently in the past.

This is my opinion, I cannot demonstrate it is true, but my interpretation of the preponderance of evidence IMO supports this as a reasonable and logical conclusion.

If anyone can demonstrate I am misguided, I will reconsider my position.

From: Grey Ghost
04-Oct-18
"This is my opinion, I cannot demonstrate it is true, but my interpretation of the preponderance of evidence IMO supports this as a reasonable and logical conclusion."

Thank you. So you admit you can't demonstrate Kavanaugh's accusation are true. You can't name the specific people or organizations he accused. You can't prove "millions" were spent "orchestrating" this "circus", nor who got paid to do what, when, and how much.

Exactly where is your "preponderance of evidence" to support these accusations?

Matt

From: Will
04-Oct-18
H4W, write the exact same thing but insert BK for Ford and MSM for Fox, Et Al.

The same points hold.

04-Oct-18
Matt and Will, you both got my point.

Matt, it is mostly circumstantial, but I do believe for example Soros money can be easily traced to some of these efforts, based on reporting. Can I prove it? No!

BTW, I don't think I ever said I could prove anything, my position has always been it would take a Herculean effort on MY part to believe this was all coincidence.

You and Kevin are obviously interpreting 'demonstrably' differently. I hope he can let it go because he made his point already.

JMHO!

04-Oct-18
"The accusations that started this circus came because Ford was compelled on her own volition to come forward, not as the result of some nation wide search for accusers or at the direction of the Democratic Party."

BEG, this is true, but tells only a small tip of the iceberg. It has surfaced that Ford came forward intending to remain completely anonymous and it is likely that the needs of the Demons and their TDS, as usual, outweighed everything else so she was outed against her will, according to her own sister.

So this truth implies so much more that is just fabricated.

It is akin to the lie detector scam. Yes, Ford took a lie detector test which most people would assume means she was telling the truth about Kavenaugh, but, come to find out she was only asked two questions and none about Kaqvenaugh!!

That was all staged, like the rest of her story, by the Demons, and it is flat out willingly ignorant to deny that so many of the NGO pushing the left's agenda are at least partly if not fully funded by Soros!!!!

I also dont know anyone who says that they supported this debacle because of the Clintons but to deny that TDS is a major factor is just as willingly ignorant.

From: Grey Ghost
04-Oct-18
"Can I prove it? No!"

Nor can any of us, including Kavanaugh. At least he hasn't so far. That's the whole point. Uncorroborated accusations are still "in kind" regardless of how plausible they may seem.

Matt

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
"It has surfaced that Ford came forward intending to remain completely anonymous and it is likely that the needs of the Demons and their TDS, as usual, outweighed everything else so she was outed against her will, according to her own sister."

Well, I agree with some of this. I believe that if another President were in power and Kavanaugh were nominated we'd still have the same circus. So, yes, of course it suits the agenda of the Democrats but I don't believe it's driven by "TDS." She may have been outed against her will but I haven't seen anything that suggested it was the "needs of the Demons" that ultimately convinced her to speak publicly - in fact, she has quite clearly said the opposite. Ford, in her sworn testimony, said she was there out of what she believed was her "civic duty."

"That was all staged, like the rest of her story, by the Demons, and it is flat out willingly ignorant to deny that so many of the NGO pushing the left's agenda are at least partly if not fully funded by Soros!!!!

Again, I fail to see what was staged about "the rest of her story." You can say the handling of the letter and outing of Ford was a result of political maneuvering, but I've seen nothing to suggest the allegations against Kavanaugh and the original letter accusing him was in anyway "staged." And sure, Soros gives money to leftist causes. Still not seeing how that proves the discovery, outing, and resulting circus around these allegations was a "planned and orchestrated" effort by the entire "left" funded with "millions of dollars" directly by Soros.

"I also dont know anyone who says that they supported this debacle because of the Clintons"

I don't either, which is why it was shocking to me that Kavanaugh suggested this. Again, that's the kind of unfounded, unprovable statement I would expect to find here on the CF...not from a SCOTUS nominee.

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18
"Nor can any of us, including Kavanaugh

Well, that didn't take long. That is a demonstrably false statement. Not only is it demonstrably false, it is an obvious diversionary tactic.

First of all, BK doesn't have to prove that Soros was the donor. (more later)

Let's break down what BK said:

""Calculated and orchestrated” effort “fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election” aimed at ”revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups?”

1. "Calculated and coordinated effort -" Her letter was held onto and released, against her wishes, at the precise moment that his nomination was going to come up for a vote. It was released after she was counseled by the ranking members office on choice of legal representation, polygraph testing, etc. Heck, she didn't even know who paid for the polygraph. Someone had to "coordinate" that.

To even insinuate that any this was neither calculated or coordinated, you are either intentionally trying to deceive, or you are just plain ignorant.

That's just one example of the coordination and calculation. But that is all that is needed to make it "demonstrably true."

2. "fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election aimed at revenge...” - virtually everything the democrats have done since Trump was elected has been as a result of that pent up anger. From the top down, they have called him and his presidency illegitimate, illegal, immoral and worthy of impeachment. They have tried everything possible to delegitimize his presidency. Anyone that would deny that, including the democrats, would be deliberately trying to deceive, or they are just plain ignorant.

Furthermore, this part doesn't even have to be proven because BK didn't offer it as fact, it was his opinion. Words mean things, and the word apparently indicates that it is the way it appears to him.

3. millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups - Duh? Is this even debatable. I provided two examples of left wing groups that have orchestrated opposition to this nominee. One was The Womens March and the other was the Center for Popular Democracy. Their funding is public. Go look at them...I did. Even if you don't have the inclination to go look, does it take a rocket scientist to figure out that left wing groups (not necessarily Soros) support left wing causes and right wing groups support right wing causes? The fact that the latter is accurate does not take away from the accuracy of the former.

Yes. Everything BK said in that statement is "demonstrably true," therefore your statement is "demonstrably false."

Nice try though.

KPC

From: JTV
04-Oct-18

JTV's embedded Photo
JTV's embedded Photo
BEG and GG are once again on their favorite ride ....

From: Trax
04-Oct-18
Two liberal school girls stroking each other while they continue to make no sense in pursuit of their own tail. So desperately trying to sell their own idea of self love and self superiority.

From: Grey Ghost
04-Oct-18
1. Who was that "someone" who coordinated all of those efforts?

2. Who leaked information of and about Ford's letter to the media prior to Feinstein releasing it to the committee? Ford herself admits to talking about the letter to her friends. Could one have them leaked it? Once leaked to the media, did Feinstein really have any other choice but to release the letter to the committee?

3. Even if Feinstein's office provided Ford counseling on legal representation, so what? Was that not a prudent thing to do? If I were in Feinstein's shoes and someone presented me with allegations of this nature, asking for confidentiality, yet still seeking to have her story told, my first advice to that person would be "get a lawyer". I may even provide her with a name or two of competent attorneys to seek.

4. So she took a polygraph and doesn't know who paid for it. OK. Was that not a prudent thing to do, if she was truly trying to establish her credibility? And wouldn't the results of that polygraph at least be somewhat helpful to Feinstein's staff in determining her credibility? Again, I don't see the talking point here. Nothing in that seems abnormal to me. Who paid for it doesn't really matter to me. Maybe the polygraph administer did it pro bono, or Ford's attorney paid for it. Who knows, and why should I care?

5. As I said earlier, at least Kavanaugh had the sense to use the "apparent" caveat when outlining the motives of the nameless people and organizations he accused. Thanks for admitting that makes them opinions not facts.

6. Political activist groups certainly have funding, unfortunately. But that doesn't prove they funded a "orchestrated" attempt to find Ford, script her story for her, advise her legally, leak it to the media, and force the committee to conduct a hearing on it.

Equally nice try though.

Matt

From: Will
04-Oct-18
KPC - say those things are not just demonstrably true, but 100% true. It still doesn't say BK did not commit an assault. Note, I'm not saying he did. But there are about 30 posts above this one debating whether there was some sort of political rail road job... And the assumption appears to be that Dr Ford's points are essentially useless, and that any behavior in a SCOTUS appointee should be viewed as ok, if they feel someone is out to get them.

This could be the biggest political hatchet job since, well, whatever one would argue the last one was (the come fast today)... But that does not mean Dr Ford's experience was created by the hatchet, nor that BK is 100% ideal for the job.

I'd be pissed if I was him, and believed I didnt do this, or knew I didnt. But as someone about to operate on the supreme court, I would like to believe, the capacity to perform at a significantly higher level than the rest of us, would be at play. Especially during extreme pressure.

All the political crap around this is what makes it all so dang messy. Ugh.

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18
Wow, talk about changing the goal posts.

Will:

If you would take the time to go back and read my posts, you would notice that for the most part my participation in this thread has nothing to do with believing or not believing Ford.

While I have my own opinions on that, it is completely irrelevant to me in terms of my assertion that the following statement is "demonstrably true."

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus.”

This is the statement that was trotted out by some as evidence of someone (BK) is too political to serve on the SC, and someone who's temperament is not in keeping with that of a SC justice.

You can argue about degree and specifics but you simply cannot argue that the three allegations contained in that statement aren't demonstrably true. At least not with any amount of credibility.

1. Calculated and coordinated effort on the part of the opposition.

2. Fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election aimed at revenge...

3. Funded by millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

In his own words, Matt wants to argue the "minutia" and for obvious reasons. Because the above cannot by refuted.

KPC

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
We're going round and round and nobody is going to change any minds. I've said all along politics are at play, and of course there is some level of coordination, and I'm sure something was calculated. You offer up the timing of the release of the allegations as proof - as far as we know (which is to say, we have no idea what went into the decision to release the letter when and what was, or wasn't discussed), it could all be coincidence. Not saying it is, just that I have seen no evidence that suggests it isn't coincidence. Have you?

Additionally, if you want to parse words, he said "this whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit." We don't know what the "whole effort" even is (I'm pretty sure that BK didn't either when he made that statement) - highlighting one element that is not calculated, or orchestrated, or politically motivated would, technically, render his entire statement false.

But like Matt pointed out, thanks for conceding the rest of his statement, which supposes the release of the allegations and requested follow-up on them were motivated by the "apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups" is just that. Supposition.

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
"Because the above cannot by refuted"

Sure they can. You just see things differently.

1. Calculated and coordinated effort on the part of the opposition.

Again, you don't know what was coordinated, what was calculated, and, more importantly, what wasn't. When you say the "whole thing" is one way, you're painting every action with a pretty specific brush. Was there calculation and coordination? Sure, I'm sure someone talked to someone else at some point and someone weighed the options on how to handle this. That IMO doesn't reach the bar of the "whole thing" being calculated and coordinated.

2. Fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election aimed at revenge.

We've already established that this is supposition and there's no way to prove the degree to which this motivated any of the actions of the Democrats. Again, thanks for admitting that.

3. Funded by millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

We agree that left-wing opposition groups get funding, and that funding is spent on advancing the left's agenda. But again, I haven't seen the receipts that showed how much was spent against defeating Kavanaugh specifically, have you?

So I'd put all of those statements somewhere on the spectrum of "highly likely," "partly true," and "reasonable to believe." But "demonstrably true"...sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
"So I'd put all of those statements somewhere on the spectrum of "highly likely," "partly true," and "reasonable to believe." But "demonstrably true"...sorry, we'll just have to agree to disagree."

You're right, we will have to agree to disagree.

As for me, I will stick to the accepted definition of "demonstrably" true.

"Highly likely," "partly true" and "reasonable to believe" all sound logical to me.

KPC

From: JTV
04-Oct-18
get 'em KPC, get 'em !! .... ;0)

From: Grey Ghost
04-Oct-18
I'd call Kavanaugh's accusations and suppositions "demonstrably plausible". But they are still uncorroborated, and therefore in kind with Ford's.

I agree, Jason, we're beyond the point of changing any minds here. People believe what they want to believe in the absence of proof.

Kevin, at the risk of being accused of "bailing from a discussion", I'm going to agree to disagree with you, too, and leave it there. Feel free to have the last word, and claim victory in this debate, if you need to.

Can I get a GO ROCKIES from anyone?

Matt

From: TD
04-Oct-18
What I see is people tying themselves into pretzels trying to excuse the inexcusable. Ignoring the most logical into "it could have happened like this". All the while "of course Kavanaugh is guilty" with zero evidence. Just the word of a flaky lady who's story is falling apart at the seams as we speak....

They had this info for many weeks, pretty much all through the confirmation hearings. They had every opportunity during that time to submit it to the committee and go through proper channels, investigate it. They did not. But of course..... obviously none of this was planned or timed or exposed in the worst possible, most damaging way.....

good grief.....

FWIW...... most of the left is not upset about BK's "temperament" during his testimony, they are upset because it was so effective. Until his testimony the mood was all is lost. After it..... the Trump haters were beaten once again...... he threw 3 touchdowns in the forth quarter, and they were reduced to asking about high school fart jokes and beer. After Graham they had to ooze their way out of the chamber..... exposed for all to see.... that is if you were willing to see and could acknowledge what you saw....

From: bigeasygator
04-Oct-18
How soon before we start arguing over the definition of the word "is"? :) I'd point out that by that definition ("capable of being logically proved") the counter to all the points you've raised are demonstrably true in that they are capable of being proved true. To that end, all of the statements you've made are demonstrably false - capable of being logically proved false.

04-Oct-18

Spike Bull 's Link
Her own friends refute her innocent cutsie girl persona!

04-Oct-18
TD x 2. What cracks me up is they simply haven't learned how this works with Kevin. He doesn't say anything he doesn't mean clearly. And, never states anything that could be contradicting to the point he makes. He does indeed choose his words wisely.

From: HDE
04-Oct-18
"The Ten Commandments is not a Christian document. It was written by Moses, who was a Jew, not a Christian. One of the Ten Commandments is the law..."

Complete flyover. Sigh...

From: Dale Cover
04-Oct-18
I'd be willing to bet that not a single person on here over the age of 45 could "Prove beyond a doubt" that they did not sexually assault someone on a given day in 1982 (or was it 1983?). I know I couldn't, because while it never happened, and there's not a shred of evidence it happened, it's essentially impossible to go back that far and determine where you were on a given day, especially if you were in high school at the time.

That's why this whole, "He has to PROVE he didn't do it!" is such BS. When none of the things she has said can be corroborated by anyone else, then that should be the end of it. At least if you look at it from a logical standpoint. But that's not what all this was about. It was all intended as a last minute smear campaign to try and push off the nomination until after the election... and that's ALL that this was from the very beginning. ANYONE who cannot see that is quite literally blinded by their hatred of our President and his attempts to Make America Great Again. (Which, BTW, he's doing a damn good job of).

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18
"I'd be willing to bet that not a single person on here over the age of 45 could "Prove beyond a doubt" that they did not sexually assault someone on a given day in 1982 (or was it 1983?)."

I'll do you one better Dale.

If laying on a bed/couch/floor/picnic table/back seat of car/ferris wheel/ground with a girl that I met at a party after having been drinking (hs or college 1975-1983), and having had an attempt to remove an article of her clothing denied is considered a sexual assault, put me in the "guilty as charged" column.

If this costs me my chance at being a SC Justice, so be it.

:)

KPC

From: bad karma
04-Oct-18
The contemporaneous notes on the calendar are corroborating evidence....

On judicial temperament, he's been an appellate judge for 12 years. That issue is ridiculous.

From: K Cummings
04-Oct-18

K Cummings's embedded Photo
K Cummings's embedded Photo
This came across my FB feed.

Thought it was funny, as well as accurate.

:)

KPC

From: Dale Cover
04-Oct-18
Re: His Calendars.

I actually heard a nutcase on the radio today state that the Calendars PROVED he was there! Because it included the date of the attack. I wanted to call in and ask her if she actually knew what the date of the attack was, because if she did, she might want to tell the "Victim".

TDS in full swing.

From: KSflatlander
04-Oct-18
That one made me laugh KPC.

From: Annony Mouse
04-Oct-18
I would like an explanation of how one would be able to prove a negative...seems hard to find evidence of a no occurrence.

And...submitted as evidence of organized action:

Via Moonbattery

For-Credit College Course Consisting of Harassing Susan Collins

Let’s hope Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is not easily intimidated. As the potential swing vote for the Brett Kavanaugh nomination that in sane times would be a cakewalk, she is a target for the same sort of physical confrontation Rep Andy Harris recently experienced.

It isn’t only Democrat officeholders who encourage mob intimidation. Our taxpayer-subsidized universities do so too:

The University of Maine is offering free course credit to students who travel to DC to harass @SenatorCollins. (Bonus points if you're willing to get arrested, conservatives need not apply.) #Kavanaugh pic.twitter.com/0jdVNk7zFZ

— Howie Carr (@HowieCarrShow) October 3, 2018

Students wanting to support Senator Collins were explicitly not welcome. The objective was to scare her with a show of ferocious hostility. A checklist asked students if they were willing to get arrested for the cause.

A light having been shined on them, the cockroaches scuttled. The university killed the popup course.

This wouldn’t be the first time liberals tried to intimidate Collins into voting against Kavanaugh. As noted earlier, a crowdfunding website was set up to raise $1 million to use for extortion, the idea being that her 2020 opponent gets the money, but only if she votes responsibly in favor of confirmation.

From: Grey Ghost
04-Oct-18
Missed twice, RK.

;-)

Matt

From: Solo
04-Oct-18
GG, your sisters are guilty because you said they are guilty. We have it in writing.

But the good news is that, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

From: HA/KS
04-Oct-18
KPC, your cartoon above reminded me that I had thought that the whole attacks on Kavanaugh have reminded me of a scene from the movie Airplane. I don't remember any other details except that a long line of people were abusing one of the passengers.

From: JTV
04-Oct-18

JTV's Link
story and vid.. if you can stomach their stupidity ...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/10/shrieking-fake-blood-faced-activists-protest-kavanaugh-block-streets-with-die-in-at-federal-courthouse-video/

From: Wicked
06-Oct-18
I am with your sister Matt. She was right on the money! !!

From: JTV
06-Oct-18
You a liberal lefty also ... if you support what she said, must be then .. or just a drive by crap dumper ..

From: trublucolo
06-Oct-18
"Name: Miriam Pena from New York Bowsite Handle: "Wicked""

yeah right.......

  • Sitka Gear