Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Who do you believe?


  • Total voters
    453
It’s a strange judgment call to say she “appears credible”. Why is she any more credible than Kavanaugh, who denies it?
She is not more credible than Kavanaugh and thus why there should be no assumption and instead an investigation.


And I’m not sure exactly what the timetable for investigation should be to be honest, but gumming up the works of our government over an accusation like this seems like a bad precedent to set going forward.
I don't understand the precedent you would have otherwise.

Sorry regardless of your evidence we are not going to even investigate it. We have decided because we have set an arbitrary time frame???

What if it came out last minute via the Police that they discovered something unrelated but potentially criminal. Would you have a law passed that within X days 'sorry you cannot investigate it'?

Again I do not understand this arbitrary time frame. It makes no sense. it does not impede him being confirmed before the midterms. Surely if he was cleared that would help him and them. It is simply that the Repubs are afraid that something damaging that might actually stick will come out. And that is no reason to avoid an investigation.
 
The level of "screwing over" in this case is pretty tiny, though. Again, I look at it as a job interview, and you have identical candidates who don't have this kind of baggage (note that it's pretty much unthinkable that any Trump nominee won't be terrible on substance, but you could have another Gorsuch, who at least seems to have decent character).
If I was denied a spot of the SCOTUS because of a false accusation I'd feel pretty screwed over personally. But I do see your point about just defaulting to the candidate that doesn't have this kind of baggage, true or not. Doesn't sit well with me but I can't say I don't get it.
 
And your evidence of that is what?

yearbook bragging about his drinking in his yearbook (keg city club treasurer, 100 kegs or bust), his best friend writing a memoir detailing Kavanaugh penchant for drinking, blacking out often and/or puking, his college freshman roommate who has stated that Kavanaugh return to the dorm room drunk often and was generally a belligerent drunk.

And yet he claimed to have never drank to the point of losing control or blacking out... sounds like a liar to me...
 






The Politics of Destruction

A second Kavanaugh accuser betrays the Democratic strategy of character assassination.
By The WSJ Editorial Board | Sept. 24, 2018​

brett-kavanaugh-senate-judiciary-committee-sept-18-ap-photo.jpg

Say this for Deborah Ramirez. The second woman to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of committing sexual assault more than 30 years ago may not clearly recall what happened, but her story does clarify the ugly politics at play. Democrats are using the #MeToo movement as a weapon of political destruction to defeat a Supreme Court nominee and retake Congress.

Ms. Ramirez’s story, as recounted by Jane Mayer and Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker on Sunday, has more holes than even initial accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s. Unlike Ms. Ford, she does recall the place and year—a hall at Yale in their freshman year. Ms. Ramirez says that at a party Mr. Kavanaugh exposed himself and pushed his privates into her face, amid laughter from other men in the room, until she pushed him away.

Mr. Kavanaugh says the event “did not happen” and is “a smear, plain and simple.”

But two of the men Ms. Ramirez says were directly involved in the incident say they know nothing about it. Others who were close friends of Ms. Ramirez and Mr. Kavanaugh at Yale also say they never heard of it. This includes Ms. Ramirez’s closest friend at the time who told the magazine that “this is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.”

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported Monday that it “had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate” Ms. Ramirez’s story, “and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

All of which adds up to another dimly recalled incident from 35 years ago, when Mr. Kavanaugh may or may not have been present, which alleged eyewitnesses deny attending, and about which the corroboration is second hand and unspecific. Mr. Farrow had sturdier journalistic standards before he teamed up with Ms. Mayer, who has devoted much of her professional life to tormenting Justice Clarence Thomas.

Oh, and by the way, Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, claims he has another “credible” accuser that he will unveil to the public. That cable TV appearance should certainly rate.

There is a phrase for what is happening here: character assassination. Judge Kavanaugh’s good name is being smeared with sexual allegations on the eve of a Supreme Court confirmation vote in a campaign abetted if not orchestrated by Democrats.

Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, withheld Ms. Ford’s letter from her colleagues for six weeks until she sprung it at the last minute. She has since been demanding a fair and public hearing for Ms. Ford. But on Sunday she leapt on Ms. Ramirez’s claim to demand an “immediate postponement” in the hearing now scheduled for Thursday.

Fair? What about fairness for Mr. Kavanaugh, who since Ms. Ford’s accusation has offered to testify under oath that none of this happened? Instead he has had to hear himself denounced day after day as a sexual predator as Democrats and Ms. Ford’s lawyers try to dictate how a Senate committee should conduct its fact-finding.

The obvious strategy is to delay the hearing, and Mr. Kavanaugh’s chance to be heard and get a vote, for as long as possible. Who knows which other long-ago classmates might next rummage through their memories to recall what Mr. Kavanaugh might have done that no one else can remember?

The latest Democratic demand is that Chairman Chuck Grassley call as a witness Mark Judge, who Ms. Ford claims was present when Mr. Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. Mr. Judge has already told congressional staff—lying to staff is a crime—that he knows nothing about the episode. But Democrats want Mr. Judge on the public stage so they can use his admitted history of drinking to smear Mr. Kavanaugh by association.

Judge Kavanaugh said firmly on Monday in a letter to Senators Grassley and Feinstein that “I will not be intimidated into withdrawing from this process. The coordinated effort to destroy my good name will not drive me out.” Good for him, and credit as well to President Trump for standing by him and (mostly) restraining his rhetoric.

We warned Republicans not to fall for this politics of uncorroborated accusation, and perhaps now they understand that they are being played. Women who are abused deserve to be heard, but turning #MeToo into a political weapon undermines that cause.

Once Ms. Ford and Mr. Kavanaugh are heard on Thursday, there should be no more delay. Call the roll and vote.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-politics-of-destruction-1537831889?mod=e2fb
 
Last edited:
She is not more credible than Kavanaugh and thus why there should be no assumption and instead an investigation.



I don't understand the precedent you would have otherwise.

Sorry regardless of your evidence we are not going to even investigate it. We have decided because we have set an arbitrary time frame???

What if it came out last minute via the Police that they discovered something unrelated but potentially criminal. Would you have a law passed that within X days 'sorry you cannot investigate it'?

Again I do not understand this arbitrary time frame. It makes no sense. it does not impede him being confirmed before the midterms. Surely if he was cleared that would help him and them. It is simply that the Repubs are afraid that something damaging that might actually stick will come out. And that is no reason to avoid an investigation.

Do you find it incredibly fishy that these allegations come out right as he’s about to be voted on?
 
If I was denied a spot of the SCOTUS because of a false accusation I'd feel pretty screwed over personally. But I do see your point about just defaulting to the candidate that doesn't have this kind of baggage, true or not. Doesn't sit well with me but I can't say I don't get it.

Frankly, he's clearly not qualified on character even aside from the allegation. But that's my view. It seems that today's GOP is perfectly fine with liars (see Trump) *and* creeps (Trump again, and Moore being good examples).
 
Frankly, he's clearly not qualified on character even aside from the allegation. But that's my view. It seems that today's GOP is perfectly fine with liars (see Trump) *and* creeps (Trump again, and Moore being good examples).
Based on what? Only really jumped into this thread late so not up to date on all the details.
 
Do you find it incredibly fishy that these allegations come out right as he’s about to be voted on?

No, they were clearly sat on to be strategically timed.

That doesn't affect their veracity or the importance of vetting Kavanaugh, who up to the point of the accusation was easily the least vetted and most opaque nomination in modern history.

EDIT: Also, @Jack V Savage what do you think of the rapid decline in the Wall Street Journal's politics coverage? Some of the opinion pieces put out by their editorial board have been shamelessly daft - to an extent much more egregious than any of the supposed liberal-side shilling by outlets like NYT and Wash Po.
 
Based on what? Only really jumped into this thread late so not up to date on all the details.

Just the lying and history of dirty politics. I posted this earlier, which sums up a lot of the problems. Wai didn't like it, but I thought this quote from Kavanaugh was really disturbing:

"Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."

As I pointed out, there's no way he could know it to be true and no way that it's believable to anyone who knows anything about Trump. But he's sleazily saying it to flatter the president, which is pretty much the last thing you want to see from a SCOTUS nominee. The piece gets into more serious stuff.
 
Just the lying and history of dirty politics. I posted this earlier, which sums up a lot of the problems. Wai didn't like it, but I thought this quote from Kavanaugh was really disturbing:

"Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."

As I pointed out, there's no way he could know it to be true and no way that it's believable to anyone who knows anything about Trump. But he's sleazily saying it to flatter the president, which is pretty much the last thing you want to see from a SCOTUS nominee. The piece gets into more serious stuff.
Hmm, fair enough.
 
Just the lying and history of dirty politics. I posted this earlier, which sums up a lot of the problems. Wai didn't like it, but I thought this quote from Kavanaugh was really disturbing:

"Mr. President, thank you. Throughout this process, I’ve witnessed firsthand your appreciation for the vital role of the American judiciary. No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination."

As I pointed out, there's no way he could know it to be true and no way that it's believable to anyone who knows anything about Trump. But he's sleazily saying it to flatter the president, which is pretty much the last thing you want to see from a SCOTUS nominee. The piece gets into more serious stuff.
How is his apparent sucking up to Trump really any different than RBG apparent relishing in and embracing her deification by Democrats and Liberals? She certainly hasn't distanced herself from the whole "Notorious RBG" shit.
 
Yeah, I don’t really care that much about the make up of the committee. The GOP gets some flack over having all male committes presided over subjects involving women, but that’s been their approach for awhile so if that’s how they want to do things that’s fine.

You were the one spazzing out over an opinion article on the committee and making up shit about it being evidence of “marching orders” for the entire left wing. It made no sense and you haven’t really responded in anyway to support it.

Bro
you are hung up on this all-male GOP committee to investigate women's issues....
Your so far off, it's hard to know where to start.
And when you reply to somebody then they reply back to you then you tell that person
Here are some of the aspects that the judiciary committee handle


This group wasn't brought together to investigate Kavanagh's sexual assault claim.
Do you understand that?

Here are recent bills created by the same committee


S.3132 A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use of unauthorized unmanned aircrafts over wildfires.
06/25/18 S.3123 A bill to create a more representative and accountable Congress by prohibiting partisan gerrymandering and ensuring that any redistricting of congressional district boundaries results in fair, effective, and accountable representation for all people.
06/25/18 S.3125 A bill to modify the H-2B nonimmigrant returning worker exemption.
06/21/18 S.974 CREATES Act of 2017
06/21/18 S.3118 A bill to specify and clarify mens rea requirements for certain Federal crimes and to establish the National Criminal Justice Commission.
06/21/18 H.R.5925 CRISIS Act
06/21/18 S.3112 A bill to provide standards for facilities at which aliens in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security are detained, and for other purposes.
06/19/18 S.207 SALTS Act
06/19/18 S.2535 Opioid Quota Reform Act
06/19/18 S.3091 A bill to limit the separation of families seeking asylum in the United States and expedite the asylum process for individuals arriving in the United States with children.
06/19/18 S.2837 Preventing Drug Diversion Act of 2018
06/19/18 S.2789 Substance Abuse Prevention Act of 2018
06/19/18 S.2645 Access to Increased Drug Disposal Act of 2018
06/19/18 S.2838 Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act of 2018
06/18/18 H.R.2851 SITSA Act
06/18/18 S.3082 A bill to promote registered apprenticeships and other work-based learning opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses within in-demand industry sectors, through the establishment and support of eligible partnerships.
06/18/18 S.3084 A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow Members of Congress to tour detention facilities that house unaccompanied alien children.
 
Last edited:
yearbook bragging about his drinking in his yearbook (keg city club treasurer, 100 kegs or bust), his best friend writing a memoir detailing Kavanaugh penchant for drinking, blacking out often and/or puking, his college freshman roommate who has stated that Kavanaugh return to the dorm room drunk often and was generally a belligerent drunk.

And yet he claimed to have never drank to the point of losing control or blacking out... sounds like a liar to me...

By any chance can you link to the passage of text which states that Kav "drank to the point of losing control or blacking out"?
Also, note that "losing control" and "blacking out" are not well-defined terms. What you or Mike Judge call "losing control" I might see as "having fun." And what you might call "blacking out" I might call "going to bed." I think there are plenty of reasons for you to dislike him other than a cross-examination of his high school drinking habits.
 
How is his apparent sucking up to Trump really any different than RBG apparent relishing in and embracing her deification by Democrats and Liberals? She certainly hasn't distanced herself from the whole "Notorious RBG" shit.

I don't think RBG is "deified." Most liberals I know dislike her for not stepping down earlier because--again--any SCOTUS justice is replaceable. Presidents appoint people who will rule the way they like, be able to explain the reasoning for that intelligently, and have high moral character. I'm optimistic enough to think that there's no real shortage of people who fit that bill for any president (might be a little harder with Trump, but we're still only two deep on the list). And I wasn't around to see if Ginsburg was casually dishonest in praise of Carter when she was nominated. It would be very bad if she were, though.
 
Hmm, fair enough.

Yeah, my angle on this discussion has little to do with nomination. I've had problems with two types of posts: 1. Those that defend Kavanaugh's alleged actions on the grounds that it was a long time ago or that all 17-year-olds try to rape girls.
2. Those that insist that they know for sure what happened.

Oh, and I guess since @Greoric poked his ugly head in and the idiot TS decided to make a rare non-copy-and-paste job post:

3. Those that dishonorably attack the character of participants in the discussion as a way to distract from their lack of ideas or confidence in their own reflexively held positions.
 
so, if he gets seated I wonder if this will make him more reactionary toward Leftist issues...
 
I don't think RBG is "deified." Most liberals I know dislike her for not stepping down earlier because--again--any SCOTUS justice is replaceable. Presidents appoint people who will rule the way they like, be able to explain the reasoning for that intelligently, and have high moral character. I'm optimistic enough to think that there's no real shortage of people who fit that bill for any president (might be a little harder with Trump, but we're still only two deep on the list). And I wasn't around to see if Ginsburg was casually dishonest in praise of Carter when she was nominated. It would be very bad if she were, though.
Oh I agree they're replaceable. Its why I believe there should be term limits on SCOTUS. As far are embracing celebrity, I believe she has enjoyed it from the Left as much as Scalia did from the Right.
 
Oh I agree they're replaceable. Its why I believe there should be term limits on SCOTUS. As far are embracing celebrity, I believe she has enjoyed it from the Left as much as Scalia did from the Right.

Could be, but that has nothing to do with the discussion.
 
Interesting anecdote,


I teach piano to an older female , she is a lifelong democrat, voted Hillary etc.

Today she brought up how disgusted she was by the left’s behavior during this whole debacle. She actually hoped he would be confirmed, despite being a democrat.

I doubt this will change the way she votes or have a lasting impact on her, however it was interesting to observe a normal person reacting to the obvious charade being put on by the left.
 
Bro
you are hung up on this all-male GOP committee to investigate women's issues....
Your so far off, it's hard to know where to start.
And when you reply to somebody then they reply back to you then you tell that person
Here are some of the aspects that the judiciary committee handle


This group wasn't brought together to investigate Kavanagh's sexual assault claim.
Do you understand that?

Here are recent bills created by the same committee


S.3132 A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the use of unauthorized unmanned aircrafts over wildfires.
06/25/18 S.3123 A bill to create a more representative and accountable Congress by prohibiting partisan gerrymandering and ensuring that any redistricting of congressional district boundaries results in fair, effective, and accountable representation for all people.
06/25/18 S.3125 A bill to modify the H-2B nonimmigrant returning worker exemption.
06/21/18 S.974 CREATES Act of 2017
06/21/18 S.3118 A bill to specify and clarify mens rea requirements for certain Federal crimes and to establish the National Criminal Justice Commission.
06/21/18 H.R.5925 CRISIS Act
06/21/18 S.3112 A bill to provide standards for facilities at which aliens in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security are detained, and for other purposes.
06/19/18 S.207 SALTS Act
06/19/18 S.2535 Opioid Quota Reform Act
06/19/18 S.3091 A bill to limit the separation of families seeking asylum in the United States and expedite the asylum process for individuals arriving in the United States with children.
06/19/18 S.2837 Preventing Drug Diversion Act of 2018
06/19/18 S.2789 Substance Abuse Prevention Act of 2018
06/19/18 S.2645 Access to Increased Drug Disposal Act of 2018
06/19/18 S.2838 Using Data to Prevent Opioid Diversion Act of 2018
06/18/18 H.R.2851 SITSA Act
06/18/18 S.3082 A bill to promote registered apprenticeships and other work-based learning opportunities for small and medium-sized businesses within in-demand industry sectors, through the establishment and support of eligible partnerships.
06/18/18 S.3084 A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow Members of Congress to tour detention facilities that house unaccompanied alien children.


I’m not hung up on it. Obviously people have been giving the GOP a hard time for decades for their all male committees, and will here. I wasn’t addressing that.

I was making fun of you for spazzing out over one opinion article somehow being evidence of marching orders for the entire left wing. Which you still haven’t defended, probably because it was a dumb stance. Do you know the difference between news and opinion? It’s not that hard to grasp. It’s literally labeled “opinion” on the article.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top