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
She's on another planet!
But I'll give her this: She certainly knows her talking points.
"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!
Added: Smart (or intelligent) and wise are not the same, though we often mistakenly thing they are or at least should be.
"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.
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.
There is right and wrong. People are free to be wrong but I don't want them steering the ship.
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.
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.
Not really, just making a point.
Annony Mouse's Link
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.”
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
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
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!
It literally just happened. Google “Neil Gorsuch.”
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.
To say this is about anything other than that is foolish
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...
Recent Supreme Court confirmation votes are almost always entirely on party lines. Go look at Obama’s appointees.
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...
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.
...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.
bigeasygator's Link
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.
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.
It should be the highest compliment aside from being a requirement.
And "reasonably" being defined as accusing someone of rape or running a "train" on them. *rolls eyes*
BK deserves a vote and I think he will get it.
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.
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.
" 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.
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
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.
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.
These modern fixes to our humanity are tough to follow ...
Ruth Buzzy will never retire. She'll only leave the court when the coroner sends the wagon to pick her up.
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.
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.
Typical govt employee. I think she's running scared on BK because she doesn't want the swamp drained that she helped to build.
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.
TD's Link
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.
I guess math isn't your strong suit. Such a clown response! 9 vs 3 you "same" 5 vs 3 you "same". Ridiculous
Kudos (for once) to freeglee for his reading comprehension.
My Sisters Take on Kavanaugh LOL
Remember: if it alleged, it must be true. ;o
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
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?
LOL. MISSED IT BY THIS MUCH
Just like the remaining brain cells in some of you.
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.
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
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.
Look at his history of decisions to see his judicial temperament.
No wonder the EPA is a joke.
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.
And why are they still alive?
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.
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.
Will's Link
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
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.
All these stories, Ben h included. Can’t remember anything but she remembered Brett Kavanaugh. Come on guys.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Grey Ghost's Link
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
Matt
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.....
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.
I addressed my apostrophe omission already, and apologized.
But thanks for bringing such salient questions up, again. (sarcasm)
Matt
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!
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
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Quit arguing after you've outkicked your coverage.
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.
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
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.
Wow, my math must be way off. I really didn't think the SCOTUS had been around that long...
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.
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.
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.
Still disagree with you on several points; however, I commend the civility you have displayed here.
It clarifies limits on the Federal government. We have already strayed far away from what it they intended
Matt
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.
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.
“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.”
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
It's nothing more than, "Whatever is the cool thing du jour."
"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.
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.
Matt
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.
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.
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? :^)
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.
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!!
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.
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?
Mike in CT's Link
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"......
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?
Matt
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
Matt
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!"
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.”
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
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
bad karma's Link
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.
Fixed it for you, KPC.
Sure she does. That's all it is is circumstantial (at best), but there's plenty of it out there.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
The same points hold.
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!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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....
Complete flyover. Sigh...
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).
On judicial temperament, he's been an appellate judge for 12 years. That issue is ridiculous.
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.
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.
;-)
Matt
