Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nomination, and Kavanaugh & Ford's testimonies

[Blythe]

Trigger warning: The Kavanaugh issue deals with sexual assault.



Chrstine Blasey Ford, hearing, quite a bit of information on events, etc.

Update about the Senate Panel

Seemed like this needed its own thread at this juncture. Tried to pull a couple of useful articles--admittedly am avoiding CNN because I find them less than reputable--instead found a particularly in-depth article on WaPo and another recent-ish one about the senate judiciary from the NY times.

[Lyron]

Characterizing the accusations as a “calculated and orchestrated political hit,” Kavanaugh claimed that they were fueled by anger at President Trump’s election in 2016 and people seeking revenge on behalf of the Clinton family.

President Trump was “riveted” as he watched Kavanaugh’s defiant opening statement and told people in his inner circle, “this is why I nominated him,” according to a person close to the president who was not authorized to speak publicly.

A person close to Kavanaugh said the remarks were not “pre-cleared with the White House.” “This is 100 percent Brett Kavanaugh,” the person said.

Kind of unsettling that a Supreme Court judge nominee would entertain a conspiracy as a valid argument.

[HairyHeretic]

Kind of unsettling that a Supreme Court judge nominee would entertain a conspiracy as a valid argument.

If its the sort of remark that would play well to republican voters, why wouldn't he say it?

[Blythe]

Kind of unsettling that a Supreme Court judge nominee would entertain a conspiracy as a valid argument.

I agree.

On top of that, Kavanaugh's behavior is...strange. He seems determined to avoid answering actual questions, instead trying to question the personal lives of those questioning him instead. Instead of engaging directly, he seems more interested in smearing the integrity of people who query him.

Kavanaugh also interrupted Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) during his questioning about the judge’s drinking as a younger man, asking Whitehouse what he liked to drink.

“Drinking is one thing, but the concern is about truthfulness,” she said. “Was there ever a time when you couldn’t remember what happened or part of what happened?”

Kavanaugh tried to turn the tables, and asked Klobuchar whether she had ever blacked out. “I’m curious,” he said.

“I have no drinking problem, judge,” the senator responded.

“Neither do I,” Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh later apologized for his question.

[blue bunny sparkle]

There is this too.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/calls-to-the-national-sexual-assault-hotline-spiked-during-kavanaugh-ford-hearing/507-599077623

An article describing how calls to the National Sexual Assault Hotline are up 200% since the hearing on Thursday.

[Lyron]

If its the sort of remark that would play well to republican voters, why wouldn't he say it?

Oh yeah, there's no doubt that he was playing a political game, but on that note, it looks a bit hypocritical to stoop to that rhetoric when he previously stressed the importance of a Supreme Court judge being apolitical, doesn't it? Perhaps these are slightly different circumstances compared to his desired role, but it doesn't exactly set a good precedent.

On top of that, Kavanaugh's behavior is...strange. He seems determined to avoid answering actual questions, instead trying to question the personal lives of those questioning him instead. Instead of engaging directly, he seems more interested in smearing the integrity of people who query him.

It does seem quite defensive.

His behavior was also odd when Kennedy questioned him. I was hoping to find a video, but could only come up with a transcript from the Washington Post. He seemed confident when denying Ford's allegations, but he broke eye contact and stammered when asked about Ramirez's:

KENNEDY: Are Ms. Ramirez’s allegations about you true?

KAVANAUGH: Those are not. She — no — no — none of the witnesses in the room support that. The — if that — that had happened, that would have been the talk of campus in our freshman dorm.

The New York Times reported that as recently as last week, she was calling other classmates seeking to — well, I’m not going to characterize it — but calling classmates last week and just seemed very — I’ll just stop there. But that’s not true. That’s not true.

There is this too.

https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/nation-world/calls-to-the-national-sexual-assault-hotline-spiked-during-kavanaugh-ford-hearing/507-599077623

An article describing how calls to the National Sexual Assault Hotline are up 200% since the hearing on Thursday.

If there is one good thing to come out of this hearing, it's that!

[Vekseid]

There's his breakdown with Feinstein a bit over 5 minutes in here:

https://youtu.be/l5BvL5uLrXU?t=348

I know people are comparing this to how Hillary handled her hearings, but compare this to Clarence Thomas on the Anita Hill accusations.

July 1st calendar entry, reports of drinking, etc. aside, I think if the Republicans vote for this man it is going to go down like the Dred Scott. Hell the very nomination might.

[TheGlyphstone]

At a glance, that could mean anything between the two extremes from 'confirming Kavanaugh will cause a financial panic' to 'confirming Kavanaugh will lead to the Second American Civil War'. What did you mean by that otherwise, because I dont quite follow.

[Oniya]

The Dred Scott decision is widely remembered as one of the biggest fuck-ups in the history of the Supreme Court.  That's pretty much the first thing that comes to my mind.

[elone]

The Republicans are so worried that the nomination will go past the midterms, that they would approve Donald Duck as a justice. Thank you Senator Flake for having a heart and enough courage to get some new investigations. Not sure they will be effective, but it is better than nothing, and keeps the
Republicans from cramming this through. Unfortunately it is a "limited" investigation, whatever that means. I hope they look into all allegations, interview all his former classmates, drive Dr. Ford through the neighborhood to find the house, and find when Mr Judge worked at the grocery to fill in gaps in the timeline.  I am familiar with this area, having grown up there, not too far from Georgetown Prep. The investigation needs to be done thoroughly.

I was an investigator in the military, and I can say that the background stuff the FBI did was inadequate. In their defense, I doubt they had reasons to look deeply, but that is no excuse. I have been interviewed by the FBI doing a background check on one of my neighbors, and I can say it was cursory at best.

For me, his demeanor, belligerence, evasiveness, and obvious political bias would disqualify him as a Justice whether or not he assaulted Dr. Ford. How this man ever got to be a judge is beyond me.

[blue bunny sparkle]

How this man ever got to be a judge is beyond me.

Connections.

[Callie Del Noire]

The American Bar Association has in the past noted his actions as a problem. During his prior judge nomination they rescinded their glowing recommendation and left his with a qualified for judgeship instead. Technically skilled but there have been repeated concerns about his ability to be neutral and nonpartisan on the bench.

That was my issue with him intially as well as this rediculous assertion of the presidents immunity to the legal consequences of his actions

While I’m of the innocent till proven quilty.  I find his behavior in front of the committee very disturbing

[HairyHeretic]

Realistically, how much investigation can be done in a week though?

[Oniya]

Realistically, how much investigation can be done in a week though?

Things I'd like to see looked into:  How his extensive debt got paid off.  Why the American Bar Association rescinded their 'glowing review' (and is now urging this very investigation!).  What do the several thousand pages that weren't provided in his initial nomination have to do with?

These are things that have paper trails.  They are things that speak to his fitness as a judge.

His behavior in college was appalling, don't get me wrong.  But from an investigative standpoint, given the limited time provided, these things should require less time (allowing for more individual points to be brought up) and provide evidence that is harder to twist.

[CrownedSun]

Unfortunately it is a "limited" investigation, whatever that means. I hope they look into all allegations, interview all his former classmates, drive Dr. Ford through the neighborhood to find the house, and find when Mr Judge worked at the grocery to fill in gaps in the timeline.  I am familiar with this area, having grown up there, not too far from Georgetown Prep. The investigation needs to be done thoroughly.

Looks like it's going to be a show "we did an investigation and didn't find anything" utter disgrace of an investigation.

Witness lists provided by the White House, no look at Julie Swetnick's allegations at all, no look at his drinking problems, and so on.

<.<

I'm not surprised but I can't help but feel this.

Just... what a disgrace..

[TheGlyphstone]

Looks like it's going to be a show "we did an investigation and didn't find anything" utter disgrace of an investigation.

Witness lists provided by the White House, no look at Julie Swetnick's allegations at all, no look at his drinking problems, and so on.

<.<

I'm not surprised but I can't help but feel this.

Just... what a disgrace..

I don't think it was ever going to be anything else. Control of the Supreme Court for the next few decades is at stake, which is far too important for questions like someone's personal integrity or fitness for the office they're being nominated for to get in the way.

[lustfulintentions]

I don't think it was ever going to be anything else. Control of the Supreme Court for the next few decades is at stake, which is far too important for questions like someone's personal integrity or fitness for the office they're being nominated for to get in the way.

I mean, what does integrity matter when you've got women's rights to take away, and corporate control of every element of our lives to enshrine in the law of the land?

[TheGlyphstone]

I mean, what does integrity matter when you've got women's rights to take away, and corporate control of every element of our lives to enshrine in the law of the land?

Though to be brutally honest, the man could be a saint pure as the driven snow who donates his time to orphanages and animal shelters, and the Democrats would still bitterly oppose him for those same ideological reasons. The fact that he (probably) isn't gives justification for that opposition, but they don't have a choice about fighting him any more than the GOP has for supporting him.

[lustfulintentions]

Though to be brutally honest, the man could be a saint pure as the driven snow who donates his time to orphanages and animal shelters, and the Democrats would still bitterly oppose him for those same ideological reasons. The fact that he (probably) isn't gives justification for that opposition, but they don't have a choice about fighting him any more than the GOP has for supporting him.

I'd argue that a man with those qualities would have a hard time finding a home in today's Republican party. You look at Kavanaugh's history, and it's not an accident that he was at the top of the list.

[TheGlyphstone]

I'd argue that a man with those qualities would have a hard time finding a home in today's Republican party. You look at Kavanaugh's history, and it's not an accident that he was at the top of the list.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing there. But looking at it through as impartial a lens as I can, the stakes are too high for the Democrats to allow anyone Trump nominates to go through if they can possibly stop it. Anyone they could accept on the bench, by definition, would not be someone Trump would nominate in the first place. Either way, the applicant's character becomes an irrelevant sideshow - the sole factor that matters is their political slant.

[lustfulintentions]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing there. But looking at it through as impartial a lens as I can, the stakes are too high for the Democrats to allow anyone Trump nominates to go through if they can possibly stop it. Anyone they could accept on the bench, by definition, would not be someone Trump would nominate in the first place. Either way, the applicant's character becomes an irrelevant sideshow - the sole factor that matters is their political slant.

I hear you. If anything, what this has laid bare, and I appreciate it, is that the Supreme Court is no less a partisan institution than any of the other branches of government.

Also, to be fair, Gorsuch pulled through, and pulled a few red state Dem votes. Merrick Garland couldn't even get a fucking meeting.

[TheGlyphstone]

Well yeah. Chuck Schumer has integrity. Mitch McConnell doesn't even know the meaning of the word.

[lustfulintentions]

Well yeah. Chuck Schumer has integrity. Mitch McConnell doesn't even know the meaning of the word.

He wouldn't know it if the word walked up and kicked him in the dick.

(It should definitely walk up and kick him in the dick)

[elone]

Back to the investigation.  I have seen that it is "limited" in scope, whatever that means. Also they cannot question certain individuals, and they are not allowed to talk to the store where Judge worked to ascertain a time that Dr. Ford said could nail down when the assault occurred.  I can hear it now, the Republicans saying "You got the investigations" and the Democrats claiming it was not thorough.  I think it would be a no brainer to check the yearbook people against a census of 1980 and find where they all lived. Then take Dr. Ford around and find the house. Question all his classmates in school, both Yale and high school. I think it would in the very least show he perjured himself in the hearing. The FBI could call up all the resources it needs, it just depends on what they are allowed to do. I have little faith that they will be given a free hand. Someone out there has the answers.

On top of that, this is a background investigation, not a criminal probe, so individuals can simply say they don't want to talk. No consequences to them for doing that.

We will see. I just hope the truth comes out, one way or another, with no uncertainty so it can be finished.

[Deamonbane]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna915061

White House limits scope of the FBI's investigation into the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh

[TheGlyphstone]

Does Trump even realize he lies at this point? Or has he become so detached from reality that he can say one thing while literally doing the exact opposite of what he is saying?

[CrownedSun]

I hear you. If anything, what this has laid bare, and I appreciate it, is that the Supreme Court is no less a partisan institution than any of the other branches of government.

Also, to be fair, Gorsuch pulled through, and pulled a few red state Dem votes. Merrick Garland couldn't even get a fucking meeting.

It's weird in a lot of ways.

Our government was designed to operate at odds with each other, to hold each branch in check, to prevent... well, exactly this kind of stuff from happening..

The party system, however, has completely co-opted that.

Our Representatives are not loyal to the country, or even the people they're supposed to represent.
They're loyal to their party, and to their backers, instead.

Such that you end up in situations where separate branches of government cooperate with each other to push party goals. Where you end up with congressional leaders saying that they don't see the point in investigating 'other republicans'. Where matters of suitability to serve in a government position are secondary compared to the fulfillment of the parties design. All of this is even more scary when you consider that "the Republicans" and "the Democrats" are-- despite generally portraying themselves as part of government-- entirely separate from such.

If the Republicans are willing to push their own party ahead of the government as a whole THIS FAR, what's to stop them from taking this even further?

Something I've been thinking about lately, especially since they will very soon have control over the entirety of government, all three branches...

...I mean, I don't think this would happen, but what would actually PREVENT them from suspending elections in November if they decided they would lose Congress? The only checks on them are self-imposed.

[gaggedLouise]

Police arrested young Kavanaugh in 1985 for starting a drunken fight in a bar ;) 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/nyt-police-kavanaugh-bar-fight/index.html

The troubling aspect about this is that at the hearings last week, Kavanaugh had worked hard to present an image of himself in his teens and at college as a well-shaved, clean-living, sober young man, and now this comes flying in. :) And being truthful in such a hearing is obviously part of the deal.

[blue bunny sparkle]

Kavanaugh's college roommate at Yale says Kavanaugh lied under oath, but that the FBI has not questioned him.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/yale-roommate-says-kavanaugh-lied-under-oath-about-drinking-and-yearbook/ar-BBNTFTg

[Deamonbane]

Isn't that grounds for dismissal on its own?

[TheGlyphstone]

Isn't that grounds for dismissal on its own?

Only if it's proven, but the FBI isn't going to be given permission to interview/question that roommate, so proving it won't be possible. The whole thing is a circus.

[Oniya]

If someone has evidence, they aren't obligated to wait for the FBI to come knocking. 

[TheGlyphstone]

Either wat, It's too late. The investigation is over and the report is in.

[Mithlomwen]

The FBI didn't even interview Christine Blasey Ford....who is one of the main people involved in all of this. Then there's apparently this other thing going on.  Christine is refusing to turn over her therapy notes until FBI interviews her.

[CrownedSun]

There was never going to be an investigation.

That's why Trump agreed to it so quickly.

I do find it "interesting" just how little anyone cares about the multiple people who can come forward and credibly claim that Kavanaugh committed perjury, under oath, about matters directly related to sex. Including, in this case, a reference in his yearbook to the very sex act that he was accused of attempting to force Dr. Ford to perform with him and Mark Judge. Just... that seems very very ontopic. Even more so than all of the other lies that he very very demonstratably gave before congress.

It just shows how very very little anyone cared about the actual allegations.

Democrats included.

[Callie Del Noire]

As disturbed as I am by the charges from Dr. Ford, I am way more concerned by his actions on the bench and his belief in what is basically Executive immunity to the rule of law. A neutral judge should be more about the balance of the three branches

[QuackKing]

The allegations themselves don't seem to command much gravity when it took Ford more than three decades to reveal them. I'm not necessarily saying that Ford is lying, but I'm more than skeptical about her testimony.

This entire fiasco seems too caught up with hearsay from varying sources, and that's besides the fact that this is not a criminal trial against Kavanaugh but a hearing for his nomination. I think that alone makes it evident that there is a limit to how much these allegations are to be followed.

[TheGlyphstone]

The allegations themselves don't seem to command much gravity when it took Ford more than three decades to reveal them. I'm not necessarily saying that Ford is lying, but I'm more than skeptical about her testimony.

This entire fiasco seems too caught up with hearsay from varying sources, and that's besides the fact that this is not a criminal trial against Kavanaugh but a hearing for his nomination. I think that alone makes it evident that there is a limit to how much these allegations are to be followed.

70 percent of sex assaults go unreported. That doesnt mean they didnt happen, only that the victim wasnt comfortable or didnt feel safe telling anyone. Ford didnt wait 30 years to tell people out of some sort of malice, she likely would never have told anyone if Kavanaugh hadnt been nominated. Letting her alleged attempted rapist go unpunished was one thing, letting that same person sit on the Supreme Court is another.

[Avis habilis]

Funny how nobody has a problem with waiting 30 years to disclose having been molested by a priest. It's almost as if the punishment meted out to victims of sexual assault for reporting is more than enough to keep them silent for decades, or until extreme circumstances arise. Like, say, a guy who doesn't believe women should have a choice in who gets to do what to their genitals wants a lifetime appointment to the body that'll be regulating their reproductive rights.

[QuackKing]

I mean it's quite the coincidence that she would bring something up that happened in high school just as her accuser was about to be nominated for the Supreme Court. Regardless of her intent, it still bears the stench of partisan politics due to its timing, and without concrete evidence about the matter there is no way to presume whether or not Kavanaugh actually committed a sexual assault. Her testimony serves primarily as a tool to disrupt the Kavanaugh nomination.

[Avis habilis]

I mean it's quite the coincidence that she would bring something up that happened in high school just as her accuser was about to be nominated for the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I can't imagine why you would want to bring up the fact that a guy about to be appointed for life to the Supreme Court was a would-be rapist. Guess it'll have to remain a mystery to all of us.

[QuackKing]

Well I mean if you wanted to stop someone being appointed to the Supreme Court I'm sure accusing them of sexual assault might work, or at least turn some heads.

[CrownedSun]

There's one person who told her story, out and out, even admitted to the places where she doesn't remember things or where the circumstances aren't perfect.

On the other hand, we have the guy who lied over and over again, under oath. Who couldn't maintain anything close to his composure. Who blamed the entire thing on a left-wing conspiracy theory, while out and out lying about directly relevant details. I mean, I'm sorry, you can't say that a Devil's Triangle is a drinking game,-- especially when your roommate comes forward and says that no, that is not what that mean, and he knows full well that you didn't think it meant that either--

Especially when you're being accused of trying to coerce a woman into a devil's triangle.

If it's she said, he said, and one of the parties is a habitual liar...

[QuackKing]

Please don't act as if Ford is automatically a more reliable source. Note that she also could not maintain her composure during her testimony, refused to turn over her therapy notes, vacillated in how much of her story she remembered, and says she has a fear of flying when she frequently flies for vacations. She also said under oath that she had not talked to anyone regarding how to take a polygraph but was contradicted by an ex-boyfriend who said she coached her friend on how to take polygraphs.

If it's he-said, she-said, don't be duplicitous in your scrutiny of their credibility.

[Deamonbane]

And yet the fact that the president ordered the FBI investigation into rape allegations against a nominee for a lifetime position in the Supreme Court being limited by the president and by the senate is completely apolitical, I'm sure.

Nobody is assuming anybody is right. We do want to make sure that we're not putting a rapist into the Supreme Court, though.

[Blythe]

Whether or not someone believes Ford (though personally, I do believe Ford), it is incredibly pertinent and important that Kavanaugh lied under oath.

Is that someone we want on the Supreme Court? A liar?

I, personally, would say no.

[TheGlyphstone]

Quack, your first post says you arent saying Ford is lying, but every single one of your followups calls her truthfulness, honesty, motives, or character into question. You accuse us of automatically believing Ford, but you dont appear to be even entertaining the possibility she is telling the truth, or even that she is telling the truth as she knows it but is simply mistaken. It seems disengenous.

[Kristen]

Love this guy. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCi7hlXOM10

:D

- Kristen -

[QuackKing]

Understand that I can't make any solid judgements on the truth behind Ford's statements without any real evidence of the situation. Also keep in mind that the burden of proof typically rests on the accuser and, if this were a criminal case, Kavanaugh would be considered innocent until proven guilty. Ford's allegations are very serious and it does not do us any good to believe them without scrutiny.

Regardless, the Supreme Court is a deeply flawed part of the U.S. government that needs heavy reform.

[TheGlyphstone]

That last I will agree with completely. Its embarrassing how the Court has become another political football to be traded.

[Blythe]

Regardless, the Supreme Court is a deeply flawed part of the U.S. government that needs heavy reform.

This is certainly a statement that I can agree with, too.

[Iniquitous]

I am trying really hard not to lash out at you QuackKing.   Let me just say this... I reported my rapists and I suffered further insults, indignities, and pain from the police, lawyers, and the court system.  I was blamed for being gang raped.  My integrity was called in to question despite the physical wounds I had from the rape.  I was treated as the culprit, not the victim.

To this day I have times where I wish I hadn't said anything because then I would have only had the trauma from the rape to cope with.  I do not blame anyone who chooses not to report their sexual assault.  I wouldn't wish what I went through on anyone.

[Iniquitous]

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

[Sara Nilsson]

There are tons of studies made why those of us that are victims wait to disclose it or in fact never do if you really are curious.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-compassion-chronicles/201711/why-dont-victims-sexual-harassment-come-forward-sooner

https://www.livescience.com/56482-victims-sexual-assault-speak-out.html

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/15/564443807/why-some-survivors-of-sexual-harassment-and-assault-wait-to-tell-their-stories

If you don't want something too technical. Those three are a good..ish starting point. Due to me being a survivor myself it is very difficult for me to really delve into it to find good sources without triggering myself.

But hearing people basically say.. I find it suspicious due to the timing hurts. 15 years on the wound is just as fresh as it was that evening for me. It takes time to be strong and brave enough to say something, and seeing your perpetrator up for election can be the catalyst you need to speak up. To prevent that *bleep* from being elected to.. whatever.

[QuackKing]

I can't criticize you for your experiences.

From my perspective a sexual assault accusation is something that can hold a large amount of sway regardless of whether or not it is true or can be corroborated. I view it as natural to be skeptical, but I can see how that skepticism can be seen as a pressure, especially within an adversarial court system like in the United States (I mean I could also go on and talk about gender dynamics and how that influences reactions to sexual assault allegations and stuff like that but I'd rather not).

I just see it as way too easy for a person to ruin another's life/career/relationships/etc. without having to provide much in the way of evidence, but that's just something based on my experiences and worldview.

[Callie Del Noire]

Try being a guy..I’ve told two folks in real life about the attempted assault that I under went as a kid. Two.. in 45 years. It eats at in many ways, and they vary. I lucked out at the actual event didn’t happened and the guy who tried stayed away from me afterwards..

I’ve had friends in service who were by fellow service members, who made me and others promise not to say or do anything. Others who did lost careers and advancement afterwards. I got Fiends I’ve known for close to ten years who still flinch when I touch them without warning..the apologize to me.

The sheer indifference in my own party about this pisses me off.

[HairyHeretic]

In this case I think it's less about indifference as the pursuit of power. They have a chance to put someone in place who will serve there goals for decades. Do you think they're going to let anything get in the way of that? Particularly with the example from the top?

[Regina Minx]

From my perspective a sexual assault accusation is something that can hold a large amount of sway regardless of whether or not it is true or can be corroborated. I view it as natural to be skeptical...

With all due respect, it is only appropriate to be skeptical if you have good frequency data showing that reports of sexual assault are frequently false or fabricated. The exact opposite is true:

• A multi-site study of eight U.S. communities by Lonsway including 2,059 cases of sexual assault found a 7.1 percent rate of false reports.
• A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston from 1998-2007 found a 5.9 percent rate of false reports.
• Heenan studied 812 reports of sexual assault from 2000-2003 and found a 2.1 percent rate of false reports.

The prior probability that a particular report of sexual assault is false, at best, is just over 7% based on this frequency data. I believe it's more appropriate to be skeptical against anyone making an allegation that a particular claim is false than it is appropriate to be skeptical of the claim of sexual assault in the first place.

[CrownedSun]

In this case I think it's less about indifference as the pursuit of power. They have a chance to put someone in place who will serve there goals for decades. Do you think they're going to let anything get in the way of that? Particularly with the example from the top?

If that was ALL this was about, they'd just replace him with another of the nigh-identical people that are waiting in the wings.

This is about pride, to some extent, and Trump wanting specifically Kavanaugh for whatever reason.

[TheGlyphstone]

The 'whatever' is I suspect also pride. I read an article from last week, cited to a white house staffer, that said Trump's defense of Kavanaugh was so vociferous because the sexual misconduct charges against him resonated with the accusations made against Trump in the past. Trump's ego cannot let him take this lying down because his sense of projection makes it himself that is under attack, not Kavanaugh.

[Oniya]

Trump wanting specifically Kavanaugh for whatever reason.

Kavanaugh has some rather interesting ideas about 'whether a President can be investigated', and has refused to answer whether or not a President can pardon himself (which should be a simple answer for a judge.)

[Flower]

I thought people might find this interest.

[CrownedSun]

Kavanaugh has some rather interesting ideas about 'whether a President can be investigated', and has refused to answer whether or not a President can pardon himself (which should be a simple answer for a judge.)

Yeah, I read about that and was thinking that when I wrote what I wrote.

...that said, I gave up trying to understand Trump a while ago, that man is pretty much insane.

<.<

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the sheer fact that the nomination process has been so contentious hasn't played a factor as well, given the fact that Kavanaugh has to know that he wouldn't have ever gotten this seat without Trump in the first place. At least in Trump's mind, I can see him thinking that would inspire loyalty, which is a big thing for him.

[Flower]

I thought people might find this interest.

Oh it's a youtube analysis of the hearing. :)

[QuackKing]

With all due respect, it is only appropriate to be skeptical if you have good frequency data showing that reports of sexual assault are frequently false or fabricated. The exact opposite is true.

The prior probability that a particular report of sexual assault is false, at best, is just over 7% based on this frequency data. I believe it's more appropriate to be skeptical against anyone making an allegation that a particular claim is false than it is appropriate to be skeptical of the claim of sexual assault in the first place.

Statistics themselves aren't enough to guarantee anything. Besides that, skepticism should be the default response to any sort of allegation that doesn't have much definitive evidence.

[TheGlyphstone]

Statistics themselves aren't enough to guarantee anything. Besides that, skepticism should be the default response to any sort of allegation that doesn't have much definitive evidence.

The issue is that we can't say there isn't definitive evidence, because the authorities weren't given the time or permission to look for it. There might be, though after 30 years memories and evidence and proof will have definitely faded to make it extremely hard.

And that, ultimately, is why no one wins here. Dr. Ford exposed herself to massive amounts of public scrutiny, ridicule, and trauma by doing what she believes is right. There is zero reason and zero logic to assume she has anything to gain or benefit from outright lying, unless we slip sideways into the Alex Jones-verse where the malevolent lizardperson Illuminati New World Order Deep State secretly runs everything and she's a paid actress involved in a smear campaign. If there is any doubt, it would be that her attacker was someone else at the party but some neurological glitch leaves her remembering Kavanaugh. I find it a very slim chance, but without that definitive proof I won't rule out that it is impossible. She's getting anonymous death threats mailed to her and her family, and considering the absolute scum of the universe we are dealing with at that point, likely rape threats as well. In the end, all she gets is maybe a sort of dubious 'fame' that any sane person would run screaming to avoid.

Even for the Democrats, I can't see any benefit for them floating knowingly false accusations. Even if they 'win' this round, the Federalist Society list is quite long, and (in that hypothetical Alex Jones-verse) they've already used up their best strategy; even their own people would get suspicious if the next candidate also had a sudden flurry of sexual assault allegations appear.

Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is essentially ruined either way. If he did it, he's been exposed as the scum he is even if he'll never face actual judicial consequences for his actions due to lack of evidence. If he didn't do it, he's still left as the first Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed with an asterisk next to his name, and this cloud of unresolved accusations will hang over him for the rest of his life. Based on what I've seen and read, I'm inclined to believe Ford over him, though I can imagine a scenario extrapolated from his reported drinking habits that he could have attacked her while so drunk he simply didn't ever remember doing it, and thus is telling the truth as he believes it to be with complete honesty.

Ultimately I blame Mitch McConnell for the entire thing. If he hadn't thrown two centuries of precedent and tradition in the garbage, then salted the earth for the sake of a short-term hail mary plan, none of this would be happening. Garland would be sitting in Scalia's seat, and when Kennedy retired, Gorsuch would have been nominated and almost certainly confirmed without incident; the Democrats objected to him largely out of principle of having their seat 'stolen'. Kavanaugh would never have risen to national prominence, and finished out his career uneventfully. Dr. Ford would have never needed to dredge up old traumatic memories.

[lustfulintentions]

[quote author=TheGlyphstone link=topic=293983.msg14434970#msg14434970 date=1538757395

Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is essentially ruined either way. If he did it, he's been exposed as the scum he is even if he'll never face actual judicial consequences for his actions due to lack of evidence. If he didn't do it, he's still left as the first Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed with an asterisk next to his name, and this cloud of unresolved accusations will hang over him for the rest of his life.
[/quote]

I don't know- Clarence Thomas should have a big fat asterisk next to his name for a not dissimilar reason, and yet he gets treated as quite legitimate today.

[TheGlyphstone]

[quote author=TheGlyphstone link=topic=293983.msg14434970#msg14434970 date=1538757395

Brett Kavanaugh's reputation is essentially ruined either way. If he did it, he's been exposed as the scum he is even if he'll never face actual judicial consequences for his actions due to lack of evidence. If he didn't do it, he's still left as the first Supreme Court Justice to be confirmed with an asterisk next to his name, and this cloud of unresolved accusations will hang over him for the rest of his life.


I don't know- Clarence Thomas should have a big fat asterisk next to his name for a not dissimilar reason, and yet he gets treated as quite legitimate today.

Thomas had Anita Hill, yeah, but AFAIK (I was a toddler when he was nominated), it didn't turn into the gigantic media circus that Kavanaugh's confirmation has become. He might deserve that asterisk, but he didn't get it from the relative lack of scrutiny and vitriol.

[TheGlyphstone]

Plus, for what little it's worth (not much), the allegations were of different scope. Hill accused Thomas of harassing her, sometimes graphically, but he never outright - even by her accounts - attempted to rape her. That'll be what gets Kavanaugh his asterisk, allegedly attempting to force the issue instead of just pressuring her.

[Oniya]

Thomas had Anita Hill, yeah, but AFAIK (I was a toddler when he was nominated), it didn't turn into the gigantic media circus that Kavanaugh's confirmation has become. He might deserve that asterisk, but he didn't get it from the relative lack of scrutiny and vitriol.

It was quite a substantial news story at the time.

[lustfulintentions]

It was quite a substantial news story at the time.

Exactly this. Thomas also made a rather impassioned plea that this he was being attacked for being a black man rather than a power-hungry creep. By the standards of the time, it was a big deal. We just didn't have the Internet and 24 hour news cycles back in 1991. Nothing like today's environment, at least.

[lustfulintentions]

Tell me this isn't the playbook Kavanaugh followed to a T.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZURHD5BU1o8

[TheGlyphstone]

Perhaps it's just the relative temperament then. Thomas is apparently very quiet, media-averse, and rarely speaks during arguments; over twenty+ years I can see the focus on his actions becoming muted. Kavanaugh is like his patron - loud and aggressively confrontational, so he'll have more 'shelf life' in the public eye.

Or not. Maybe he will just become another Justice. Not that the title of Supreme Court Justice will have any meaning anymore, at least in the context of demonstrating one's judicial experience/knowledge. It'll just be a prestige post for politically loyal judges, awarded when available by the current party in power.

[blue bunny sparkle]

Understand that I can't make any solid judgements on the truth behind Ford's statements without any real evidence of the situation.

Real evidence... like what the FBI might have found if they had been allowed to speak to the dozens of people that tried to come forward?

Ford's allegations are very serious and it does not do us any good to believe them without scrutiny.

Exactly. So what does it say that serious scrutiny was curtailed in this case? That there were things that needed hiding perhaps?

Also keep in mind that the burden of proof typically rests on the accuser and, if this were a criminal case, Kavanaugh would be considered innocent until proven guilty...

If this were the case, and this was a criminal court of law, given the statistics about how many convictions are handed down in rape cases, I'd say Kavanaugh would be a free fucking man, no matter how many woman he raped.

[Blythe]

I don't think a person has to believe Ford. Though as I've said, personally? I do. Dr. Ford strikes me as a particularly stable person with nothing to gain from coming forward and literally everything to lose.

I do think that anyone of a reasonable frame of mind would come to the conclusion that this type of allegation deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness. Treating it seriously means fairly and fully investigating it. What is sitting very badly with a lot of people, regardless of whether they believe Ford or not, is that the FBI investigation got effectively hindered and crippled. That's not an investigation. That's a joke. A farce. Frankly, it's shameful and showcases why women like Ford don't like to come forward. Why should they when investigations get crippled and curtailed? It just puts them in the firing zone of public opinion with nothing to gain and not even the remote possibility of justice.

It paints the impression of those in power not giving a damn, with them being willing to hand-waive away anything they view as problematic to their political agenda.

[Regina Minx]

Statistics themselves aren't enough to guarantee anything. Besides that, skepticism should be the default response to any sort of allegation that doesn't have much definitive evidence.

If your epistemic belief doesn't conform to the laws of probability, then no a Dutch book can be made against you and your epistemology is flawed. In a nutshell, conformity to probability calculus is necessary and sufficient for coherent beliefs.

In Bayesian terms, if we don't have definitive evidence (and this is your claim; I don't agree with it, but just granting it for the sake of argument), we cannot say with any form of logical validity that we are any more or less justified in believing h than prior probabilities allow. Because if P(e|h) = P(e|~h), then

Odds of h = Prior Odds x 1.

[Sara Nilsson]

I think one of the reasons they have decided this is the hill to die on is because they are scared. Scared that the things they did, and took for granted they could get away with might be what brings down one of their own. They are so used to being able to dismiss women and treat them like sex objects that exist only for the male pleasure that seeing a woman stand up makes them scared. Scared that their own pasts will come back to haunt them. Abusers circling the wagons so to speak.

[CrownedSun]

I don't think a person has to believe Ford. Though as I've said, personally? I do. Dr. Ford strikes me as a particularly stable person with nothing to gain from coming forward and literally everything to lose.

I do think that anyone of a reasonable frame of mind would come to the conclusion that this type of allegation deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness. Treating it seriously means fairly and fully investigating it. What is sitting very badly with a lot of people, regardless of whether they believe Ford or not, is that the FBI investigation got effectively hindered and crippled. That's not an investigation. That's a joke. A farce. Frankly, it's shameful and showcases why women like Ford don't like to come forward. Why should they when investigations get crippled and curtailed? It just puts them in the firing zone of public opinion with nothing to gain and not even the remote possibility of justice.

It paints the impression of those in power not giving a damn, with them being willing to hand-waive away anything they view as problematic to their political agenda.

This covers a lot of my feelings on the matter as well.

Add this to, "Kavanaugh came across to me, in my admittedly very narrow view of him, as a man who has deep problems with being challenged. He didn't come across as someone who was innocent of all charges and genuinely upset at what was happening to him, he came across someone who isn't used to being stood up to and who was furious that anyone was daring to keep him from something that he wanted. Even his more recent behavior, assuring the public that his rants weren't typical and were really our fault in the first place, did nothing to break that perception that I have of him. In fact, they reinforced it. Also, while most of his lies before congress can be minimized, the one about the definition of a Devil's Triangle is particularly damning especially in line of collaborating evidence that the 'drinking game' definition that he gave was definitely not the actual definition used by him and his friends back then."

And, that's JUST as to the rape allegations.

It doesn't even cover all the way that he, in my eyes, disqualified himself for the position that he was nominated for.

There's also, personally, a side order of feeling basically betrayed by the Republican Party. I've been an Independent most of my adult life, admittedly, but until very recently I was willing to step forward and defend the Republicans to my friends. I thought that the best possible government was Democrats in the Presidency and the Judiciary (though balanced representation was fine there), and a Republican controlled Legislature, and I pretty much held onto that belief a bit longer than I can perhaps now justify.

Now that I've abandoned that belief, I will freely admit to being very angry at the party, who I can't help the fact that I feel betrayed by.

That's neither here nor there, but it DOES play into my feelings on this matter, which are inescapably tinted with what I can only describe as rage.

<.<

So...

...yeah..

[QuackKing]

If this were the case, and this was a criminal court of law, given the statistics about how many convictions are handed down in rape cases, I'd say Kavanaugh would be a free fucking man, no matter how many woman he raped.

I mean, I don't know if I would be that assured of his innocence.

If your epistemic belief doesn't conform to the laws of probability, then no a Dutch book can be made against you and your epistemology is flawed. In a nutshell, conformity to probability calculus is necessary and sufficient for coherent beliefs.

In Bayesian terms, if we don't have definitive evidence (and this is your claim; I don't agree with it, but just granting it for the sake of argument), we cannot say with any form of logical validity that we are any more or less justified in believing h than prior probabilities allow. Because if P(e|h) = P(e|~h), then

Odds of h = Prior Odds x 1.

I think it is erroneous to disregard virtues of law and justice in exchange for probability.

Think of it another way. If I met someone of a certain ethnic group and social class who I know to often be loud, boisterous, rude, and generally obnoxious, should I begin by treating them any differently because of statistical probability or known propensity of certain behavior? No, of course not, because I subscribe to an ideology which says I shouldn't be prejudiced against others.

One's conduct should not be solely determined on only one facet of knowledge, but should take into consideration factors beyond that.

[Regina Minx]

I think it is erroneous to disregard virtues of law and justice in exchange for probability.

I think the mistake you're making is to assume that these two things are mutually exclusive. Beliefs are probabilistic by nature; I believe that the earth will almost certainly continue spinning this autumn, which I believe to be more probable than a cop will catch a murderer this autumn, which I believe is more probable than it will snow in Boston this winter, which in turn I believe is more probable than that I'll suffer an injury requiring a trip to the hospital this winter. Those are all statements of probability, or warranted degrees of certainty, if you like, but that's not really a distinction that implies much of a difference. And since beliefs themselves are probabilistic, they must, therefore I must adjust them and update them in a way that conforms to probability theory. If I don't, a Dutch book could be made against me, and by definition I am holding at least some irrational beliefs.

In this specific case, what we're talking about here is statistical jurisprudence; the application of probability theory to legal matters. And I think that it's even more critical in a legal field that beliefs are generated soundly. An unsound epistemology in the mind of a jury or judge will result in false convictions and the release of guilty people, ultimately endangering the welfare of the society at large.

I would like to give you some resources to read through that can elaborate the point. Check out Lad's Operational Statistical Methods, DeFinetti's The Theory of Probability, and Urbach's Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. For specifics about the validity of probibilistic reasoning in legal matters, I have an online resource for you: Visualizing Probabilistic Proof.

Circling back to your particular use of skepticism in this case, you had said earlier that you are skeptical of accusations of sexual assault because of the potential for ruining lives? So even if you agreed with me in principle that the 93% prior probability and inconclusive consequent evidence returns a result of 93%, you are making the argument that the 7% possibility of a false accusation is enough for you to be skeptical? If that's the logic (and I'm fully prepared to admit it's not if you clarify the point for me), you may want to check your thinking for a particular kind of modal fallacy I call 'possibly, therefore probably.' Just because on analysis we could conclude that there's a possibility that Kavanaugh did not assault Christine Ford, that does not entail that Kavanaugh most likely did not assault Christine Ford.

An important clarification to this matter is that the legal standard required to reach a criminal conviction is 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt.' Although the court is generally loathe to actually define 'reasonable doubt' and put any sort of numeric value on it, I'm also comfortable with a 7% doubt being 'reasonable' for purposes of voting 'Not Guilty' if I was on a jury. Whatever beyond a reasonable doubt actually means for you or for me, I think we can both agree that 7% isn't beyond it.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

This is why, I never report my assaults, when I live in US. Unless there is 100% evidence, no one believes victims, everyone believes attacker innocent. It’s disgusting, and sad.

[Deamonbane]

Looks like he was confirmed. Too depressed to put up a link.

[Sara Nilsson]

50 to 48. Yeah. fucker squeaked through.

[Blythe]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html

Almost completely along party lines, 50-48.  -_-

[Emjay]

Here's my issue with Kavanaugh. The accusations from Dr. Ford aside (who I personally believe), he clearly is unable to be bi-partisan and his behaviour during the hearing was deplorable! He couldn't keep himself together, on several occasions he turned questions around on his interrogators or refused to answer them at all. His behaviour alone should have disqualified him. Don't even get me started on the FBI. One week to investigate multiple claims??? One week???

This is Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas all over again and it is deeply disappointing considering the 20+ year time frame between the two hearings.

[lustfulintentions]

This is why, I never report my assaults, when I live in US. Unless there is 100% evidence, no one believes victims, everyone believes attacker innocent. It’s disgusting, and sad.

As someone who thinks of you as so sweet, and knows other women here in the states with the same circumstances, I feel incredibly sad seeing it in writing.

[lustfulintentions]

Here's my issue with Kavanaugh. The accusations from Dr. Ford aside (who I personally believe), he clearly is unable to be bi-partisan and his behaviour during the hearing was deplorable! He couldn't keep himself together, on several occasions he turned questions around on his interrogators or refused to answer them at all. His behaviour alone should have disqualified him. Don't even get me started on the FBI. One week to investigate multiple claims??? One week???

This is Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas all over again and it is deeply disappointing considering the 20+ year time frame between the two hearings.

All of this. It’s incredible that the GOP found someone capable of being both a wholly open partisan hack and an obvious abuser of women. He’s the perfect avatar for the modern Republican Party.

[TheGlyphstone]

538's analysis of the potential aftermath is also chilling. The GOP has a potent rallying cry to get their previously apathetic base stirred up for the midterms, greatly reducing the odds Dems have of gaining legislative control.

[HannibalBarca]

But riled up for what reason?  They got their man on the Court.  What is there for them to be riled up for now?  Clear majority on the Supreme Court, their dolt in the White House, and control of both chambers of Congress.  If anything, this will work against them...for two reasons.  One, the aforementioned apathy at getting everything they want soon enough with another conservative on the Court...Roe v Wade overturned, gay marriage, etc.  Two...liberals have EVERY reason to be fired up and eager to vote, and not only fired up now--but for years into the future with Kavanaugh on the Court.  He will be a constant reminder to them of just how bad he is, how bad Republicans were in nominating and confirming him, and how they need to be fought.

[TheGlyphstone]

Exactly - now they have something to defend, Kavanaugh, because if the Democrats get control of the House they could impeach him or something. It's not like they run on logic to begin with.

[NicciKotor]

Democrats in the house are already making noises about doing an actual investigation since the Senate failed to do their job. Which is an excellent message that they need to run on to get democrats energized and out to vote. The slogans write themselves.

"Vote for Democrats. We'll do actual real investigations into perjury and sexual assault!"

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, but Democrats already had plenty of reasons to get energized - namely everything Trump has done since taking office. But the non-Trumpian Republicans might not have been motivated to get out when it didn't look like he was accomplishing much; now they have a rallying cry - keep Kavanaugh safe from the obviously spurious and revenge-driven 'investigations' that will happen so he can implement the conservative agenda they really wanted all along.

I'm hoping that it's only a surge, and that the GOP mainline will get distracted before November. But the post-Kavanaugh poll numbers are decidedly worse for us than the pre-Kavanaugh polls.

[Emjay]

All of this. It’s incredible that the GOP found someone capable of being both a wholly open partisan hack and an obvious abuser of women. He’s the perfect avatar for the modern Republican Party.

Right! And then the Federalist Society had the gall to say that all the nominees they picked were perfect. Side note, why is Trump outsourcing the selection of Supreme Court nominees to a non-profit organization who's sole purpose is to further conservative reform? Trump gets away with everything meanwhile they were jumping down Obama's throat for shit like his real, American birth certificate.

(I'm well aware Obama wasn't perfect, just highlighting the hypocrisy of the Republican party)

538's analysis of the potential aftermath is also chilling. The GOP has a potent rallying cry to get their previously apathetic base stirred up for the midterms, greatly reducing the odds Dems have of gaining legislative control.

Honestly I don't have faith in the government anymore and I won't till it's 2020!

But riled up for what reason?  They got their man on the Court.  What is there for them to be riled up for now?  Clear majority on the Supreme Court, their dolt in the White House, and control of both chambers of Congress.  If anything, this will work against them...for two reasons.  One, the aforementioned apathy at getting everything they want soon enough with another conservative on the Court...Roe v Wade overturned, gay marriage, etc.  Two...liberals have EVERY reason to be fired up and eager to vote, and not only fired up now--but for years into the future with Kavanaugh on the Court.  He will be a constant reminder to them of just how bad he is, how bad Republicans were in nominating and confirming him, and how they need to be fought.

I think 2016 to 2020 will be a huge wake up call for everyone. You reap what you sow. Not enough people bothered to vote so this is what we get.

This is why, I never report my assaults, when I live in US. Unless there is 100% evidence, no one believes victims, everyone believes attacker innocent. It’s disgusting, and sad.

Exactly! I've never been assaulted but I have dealt with terrible sexual harrasment, one of the situations lasting more than a year to the point where I no longer felt safe. I never said anything in any situation because I figured that it would cause me too much grief and that I should just deal with it which is really sad. The crazy thing is, even though all women haven't experienced sexual assault I'm willing to bet all women have experienced sexual harassment and sexual assault is far more common than it should be. This is something that needs to be worked on and something like the Kavanaugh hearing has a big impact on whole generations of Americans. I mean you said it yourself, Tsarina , this is why you never report your assaults. I'm sure a lot of other women are feeling that way right now in America. This also sends a message to young men. As one Trump supporter mother put it, "Groping a woman? That's no big deal. At 18 how many guys do you know that think that's no big deal."

[blue bunny sparkle]

And then there's this:

Kavanaugh liked his female clerks from Yale to have a 'certain' look.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/yale-law-dean-reports-professor-groomed-female-clerks-kavanaugh-enormous-n911571

and this:

http://fortune.com/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaugh-law-clerks-yale-amy-chua-husband/

Too bad the FBI couldn't access that information.

[blue bunny sparkle]

Add on:

Oh wait. It wouldn't have mattered if they did... people don't care about that.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

Mr Kavanaugh reminds me, of prep school students I often served, at New Jersey diner when I was waitress. Always late in evening, always they’re drunk. And, always they make rude comments, they pinch my bottom, they laugh at me, and they call me favourite Russian whore. And, they never tip. Mr Kavanaugh would fit well with them I think. Disgusting.   >:(

[lustfulintentions]

Right! And then the Federalist Society had the gall to say that all the nominees they picked were perfect. Side note, why is Trump outsourcing the selection of Supreme Court nominees to a non-profit organization who's sole purpose is to further conservative reform? Trump gets away with everything meanwhile they were jumping down Obama's throat for shit like his real, American birth certificate.

I think the answer to your question is that all of Republican ideas of governance have been outsourced to wing-nut 'societies'. Without looking, I'd bet good money that Alito and Roberts were on that list as well during the W. admin.

[RedPhoenix]

I see a lot of people talking about burdens of proof and such.

The standard to convict someone of a crime isn't the same as the standard to disqualify someone from serving on the supreme court. Or at least it shouldn't be.

How many people lose jobs all over the country just because they were arrested - even for something they were completely innocent of, never convicted, never even taken to trial, case dismissed, etc. - but an arrest shows up on your background check so you don't get the job? Or how many people lose a job because they have a prior criminal conviction for something that's completely legal in increasing parts of our country now? Or for a crime from decades ago that they actually fessed up to decades ago and did their time or paid their fees and it hasn't been a problem since then? Similar things can deny you student financial aid, or get you denied for permits and such you need to get certain jobs.

But when a prep school guy gets accusations of sexual assault levied against him suddenly standards and rights matter and the highest burdens of proof are part of a job application now? I'm not saying Kavanaugh shouldn't have rights. In fact I'm leery of all the people who want to use this fiasco as an excuse to let the government lock up more people on less evidence. I just wish those some rights and privileges extended to the rest of us sometime.

I wouldn't have convicted him at a trial on the evidence I heard. I believed Dr. Ford but I wouldn't call her statement alone proof beyond reasonable doubt. But then again if it were a trial we'd actually get to hear the rest of it too - the other witnesses and such that the FBI didn't talk to and nobody seems to care about.

But I certainly believed her enough to say I don't want this guy anywhere near the Supreme Court. None of the senators who talked about why they voted for him seemed to recognize that distinction at all.

It's really frustrating to me that standards that should matter when people are accused of crimes don't actually seem to ever show up for the people who actually get locked up, but do show up for people born on the money path and kept there firmly by every force of society when they might not get the cushiest job in the world that lets them decide who gets rights and who doesn't for the next forty years. The double standards are just sickening to me.

But riled up for what reason?

This whole process has reaffirmed Trump supporter's belief that straight white cismen are victims of modern society. It's a large part of why many of them voted for him in the first place, and now they get their wake up call to go vote for who he tells them to in November. The Republicans were able to spin the whole thing into Kavanaugh being the victim and I bet the same half of America that voted for Trump agrees with that.

[Regina Minx]

The standard to convict someone of a crime isn't the same as the standard to disqualify someone from serving on the supreme court. Or at least it shouldn't be.

I agree with you 100%. And so does no less of a figure than Mitt Romney regarding Roy Moore during the Alabama Senate election:

[TheGlyphstone]

As far as the investigation, Mitch McConnell openly came out and said that it was the Senate Republicans who defined the limits on the 'investigation', but let the White House take the heat:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mitch-mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-195002645.html

If some historian a hundred years from now ends up writing a paper on the fall of the American democratic state, McConnell is going to feature front and center as the man who pushed over the first domino.

And on the flip side....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/kavanaugh-house-investigation.html

This makes me more conflicted, because Ford has openly said she doesn't want impeachment efforts against Kavanaugh if he was confirmed. She didn't want to be anyone's pawn, but if Democrats get control she's going to have her ordeal dragged out even further than it already has against her wishes.

[Vergil1989]

I'm gonna probably regret saying this, but I've been occasionally reading through these political talks in this and the Lord Dampnuts threads, (Trump), and after this latest farce of our so called government, I have to wonder in what world you're living in that you thought for a moment this would go any other way but the way it did, with Kavanaugh getting exactly what he wanted?  Voting doesn't matter with our system being hacked as it was during the election that allowed Dampnuts into the White House in the first place, and with every day that passes, what sanity there was in this country becomes noticeably smaller as Trump and the rest of his so called administration tears everything apart, and for what exactly?  So no, Im not at all surprised this has happened, that the FBI were unable to do a proper investigation, or that Kavanaugh was given a seat on the Supreme Court, or that this is just the latest crime against what used to be a country I wasn't afraid to live in, and I'm a disabled white man, if anything I'm surprised you all think anything we try would actually matter at this point.  Short of just firing and impeaching everyone in nearly every Republican controlled seat, what good is anything we do anymore exactly?

[Regina Minx]

And on the flip side....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/kavanaugh-house-investigation.html

This makes me more conflicted, because Ford has openly said she doesn't want impeachment efforts against Kavanaugh if he was confirmed. She didn't want to be anyone's pawn, but if Democrats get control she's going to have her ordeal dragged out even further than it already has against her wishes.

There's a third avenue to consider. The state of Maryland has no statute of limitations for the crime of rape or attempted rape in the first or second degrees. That means that even no impeachment attempt is ever made, there is a non-zero probability at this stage that a sitting Supreme Court Justice could be brought up on sex crime charges.

[TheGlyphstone]

There's a third avenue to consider. The state of Maryland has no statute of limitations for the crime of rape or attempted rape in the first or second degrees. That means that even no impeachment attempt is ever made, there is a non-zero probability at this stage that a sitting Supreme Court Justice could be brought up on sex crime charges.

Cue a pardon from Trump the moment the idea is floated, though. Because you know he'd do it.

[Regina Minx]

Cue a pardon from Trump the moment the idea is floated, though. Because you know he'd do it.

The President cannot pardon for state crimes. Only the Governor of the state of Maryland could theoretically pardon someone convicted for a crime committed in the state of Maryland.

[Vergil1989]

The President cannot pardon for state crimes. Only the Governor of the state of Maryland could theoretically pardon someone convicted for a crime committed in the state of Maryland.

Until someone bribes the right judge to get it overturned you mean.

[QuackKing]

If some historian a hundred years from now ends up writing a paper on the fall of the American democratic state, McConnell is going to feature front and center as the man who pushed over the first domino.

Literal "lmao" here if you don't honestly recognize that the system has been in decline since at least the latter half of the 20th century. Corporatism, plutocracy, and nepotism have been wearing away at the foundations of U.S. government since before many of us here were even born, exacerbated by the consumerism and pack-mentality of the Boomer generation. Most of the issues within the current partisan governmental system are symptoms of larger problems.

[TheGlyphstone]

Literal "lmao" here if you don't honestly recognize that the system has been in decline since at least the latter half of the 20th century. Corporatism, plutocracy, and nepotism have been wearing away at the foundations of U.S. government since before many of us here were even born, exacerbated by the consumerism and pack-mentality of the Boomer generation. Most of the issues within the current partisan governmental system are symptoms of larger problems.

I don't disagree entirely, but those are all the dominoes being set up, the dominos that McConnell's 5th column obstructionism during Obama's term, culminating with his blockade of Garland and the abolishment of the filibuster, started to topple.

[Oniya]

Literal "lmao" here if you don't honestly recognize that the system has been in decline since at least the latter half of the 20th century. Corporatism, plutocracy, and nepotism have been wearing away at the foundations of U.S. government since before many of us here were even born, exacerbated by the consumerism and pack-mentality of the Boomer generation. Most of the issues within the current partisan governmental system are symptoms of larger problems.

One could also point out that Europe was heading for disaster well back into the 18th century, but it was still the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that was the 'domino' that people point to for the start of WWI.

[Callie Del Noire]

I would say the non partisan feud in both halls of Congress come from the ‘us vs them’ outlook started by Newt Gingrich, carried over by Nancy Pelosi and amplified by outside groups of all colors. Right now I think it’s safe to say there is little to no reason for anyone in congress, as a whole, to not stick to the party line.

If there were term limits, restrictions on campaign donations, and such, the various locations each rep or senator is from would put it in perspective but with the way the system currently is set up..they have no skin in the game to actually do more than point at the opposition and say ‘they keep me from..(insert issue)”

[TheGlyphstone]

For a long time, I've though the Japanese are absolutely brilliant people for putting a 12-day limit on their parliamentary campaign season. If we had a similar law, it would do so much here - only needing to run 2 weeks of ads and broadcasting instead of 3-4 months would massively cut down on the amount of money you need to launch a potential candidacy - open it up to more regular people, reduce the power of the big donors and corporations to handpick their stooges, and maybe (this is a slim hope) get people to pay more attention. I've often felt fatigue myself at the end of 3 months of watching the same repetitive TV spots with the same trite phrasing and pithy slogans.

[Emjay]

For a long time, I've though the Japanese are absolutely brilliant people for putting a 12-day limit on their parliamentary campaign season. If we had a similar law, it would do so much here - only needing to run 2 weeks of ads and broadcasting instead of 3-4 months would massively cut down on the amount of money you need to launch a potential candidacy - open it up to more regular people, reduce the power of the big donors and corporations to handpick their stooges, and maybe (this is a slim hope) get people to pay more attention. I've often felt fatigue myself at the end of 3 months of watching the same repetitive TV spots with the same trite phrasing and pithy slogans.

I think this is a great idea. It would cut down on the amount of corruption in the US government. Corporations have way too much leverage over the government and campaign funding is one of the reasons why. Do I think this will happen any time soon? Unfortunately no.

I'm gonna probably regret saying this, but I've been occasionally reading through these political talks in this and the Lord Dampnuts threads, (Trump), and after this latest farce of our so called government, I have to wonder in what world you're living in that you thought for a moment this would go any other way but the way it did, with Kavanaugh getting exactly what he wanted?  Voting doesn't matter with our system being hacked as it was during the election that allowed Dampnuts into the White House in the first place, and with every day that passes, what sanity there was in this country becomes noticeably smaller as Trump and the rest of his so called administration tears everything apart, and for what exactly?  So no, Im not at all surprised this has happened, that the FBI were unable to do a proper investigation, or that Kavanaugh was given a seat on the Supreme Court, or that this is just the latest crime against what used to be a country I wasn't afraid to live in, and I'm a disabled white man, if anything I'm surprised you all think anything we try would actually matter at this point.  Short of just firing and impeaching everyone in nearly every Republican controlled seat, what good is anything we do anymore exactly?

I disagree entirely. Voting is of the utmost importance. It is literally the only way we can make ourselves heard that will actually influence change in our current political climate. Everyone please vote come November. We really need it.

I think the answer to your question is that all of Republican ideas of governance have been outsourced to wing-nut 'societies'. Without looking, I'd bet good money that Alito and Roberts were on that list as well during the W. admin.

The Republican party has reached a level of almost comical shamelessness lately but I honestly don't like either party that much. Democrats are the lesser of two evils but that's really all I can say about them. The two party system is the reason why we have such an issue. Where is the tie breaker? No wonder the political system in the US is in shambles. For a democracy to truly work you need a minimum of three parties.

[RedPhoenix]

Yeah, where we're at right now is where the two party system will always end up.

[QuackKing]

Democrats are the lesser of two evils but that's really all I can say about them.

I mean, I don't think that's the case but it's true that both parties are slaves to whatever lobbyist gives them their payday.

[Twisted Crow]

^ This.

[Sara Nilsson]

I mean, I don't think that's the case but it's true that both parties are slaves to whatever lobbyist gives them their payday.

You think the republicans and democrats are just as bad?

Lets see, do both parties activly try and remove the rights of LGBT people? By wanting to make discrimination legal? bathroom bills? removing funds from aids awareness, gay conversion? etc?

Do both parties want to restrict a womans right to her own body?

Do both parties want tax cuts for the ultra rich at the expense of the poor?

Do both parties want to remove healthcare for all?

Are both parties pushing for unscientific teachings to be equivalent to what science tells us (creationism anyone), does both parties have members almost fanatically pushing for religious based laws (as in all the ones that want marriage to be between a man and a woman.. because bible.. or want a statue of the ten commandments and want to block other religions from putting up their statues.. etc etc)

Yeah they are not the same. They are both bad but they are no where near the same.

[Callie Del Noire]

You think the republicans and democrats are just as bad?

Lets see, do both parties activly try and remove the rights of LGBT people? By wanting to make discrimination legal? bathroom bills? removing funds from aids awareness, gay conversion? etc?

Do both parties want to restrict a womans right to her own body?

Do both parties want tax cuts for the ultra rich at the expense of the poor?

Do both parties want to remove healthcare for all?

Are both parties pushing for unscientific teachings to be equivalent to what science tells us (creationism anyone), does both parties have members almost fanatically pushing for religious based laws (as in all the ones that want marriage to be between a man and a woman.. because bible.. or want a statue of the ten commandments and want to block other religions from putting up their statues.. etc etc)

Yeah they are not the same. They are both bad but they are no where near the same.

I largely agree with you Sara but let’s be honest, he’s right about how lobbyists money makes for ‘flexible outlooks’ on both sides of the party divides.

Special interest money for candidates needs to go. Period. Only individual contribution will reign in special interests out of proportion control of the elected official.

Honestly I don’t see any way to begin fixing either house of Congress without term limits and/or finance reforms killing PAC and special interests money

[TheGlyphstone]

And the politicians will never vote to cut off their own pork trough, which is why most finance reform bills end up dead in the water. Nor will they ever agree to voluntarily impose their own term limits.

That's one reason why I'd like to see a campaign-season limit made into law, because it'd be a sneaky way of getting past the entrenched old guard. If they're fixated on having as much money as possible to compete effectively, you institute a policy where money above a certain amount simply doesn't help you. Though this would have to include some sort of clause limiting the cost of advertisements or the proportion of available airtime purchased per candidate, otherwise admittedly nothing changes if you can just outbid your opponents for the now-limited airtime.

[Callie Del Noire]

Any reform dealing with finance, term limits and/or neutral districts would have to be constitutional admendments. Otherwise like you say, it will never happen

[gaggedLouise]

And the politicians will never vote to cut off their own pork trough, which is why most finance reform bills end up dead in the water. Nor will they ever agree to voluntarily impose their own term limits.

That's one reason why I'd like to see a campaign-season limit made into law, because it'd be a sneaky way of getting past the entrenched old guard. If they're fixated on having as much money as possible to compete effectively, you institute a policy where money above a certain amount simply doesn't help you. Though this would have to include some sort of clause limiting the cost of advertisements or the proportion of available airtime purchased per candidate, otherwise admittedly nothing changes if you can just outbid your opponents for the now-limited airtime.

In many European countries, political campaign ads on the tv are an almost unknown thing, or have begun to crawl in only during the last ten years. :)

[lustfulintentions]

In many European countries, political campaign ads on the tv are an almost unknown thing, or have begun to crawl in only during the last ten years. :)

Then how in the hell do you gin up your rubes with racial resentment to vote for proto-fascist manchildren?

[QuackKing]

You think the republicans and democrats are just as bad?

Lets see, do both parties activly try and remove the rights of LGBT people? By wanting to make discrimination legal? bathroom bills? removing funds from aids awareness, gay conversion? etc?

Do both parties want to restrict a womans right to her own body?

Do both parties want tax cuts for the ultra rich at the expense of the poor?

Do both parties want to remove healthcare for all?

Are both parties pushing for unscientific teachings to be equivalent to what science tells us (creationism anyone), does both parties have members almost fanatically pushing for religious based laws (as in all the ones that want marriage to be between a man and a woman.. because bible.. or want a statue of the ten commandments and want to block other religions from putting up their statues.. etc etc)

Yeah they are not the same. They are both bad but they are no where near the same.

Do both parties push for completely alien belief systems to co-opt American culture?

Do both parties want limitation of constitutional rights?

Do both parties want to perpetuate a state of welfare and constant siphoning of wealth to societal dregs?

Do both parties want increased federal control and oversight at the detriment of local freedoms?

Are both parties pushing for the demonization of a specific race and gender and actively asking for prejudice against these people within politics/business/education?

And how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop???

??? ??? ???

[Oniya]

Well, let's see here - we've heard about 'Mexican rapists', 'shithole countries', travel bans...

Was that what you were getting at?

[Deamonbane]

Do both parties push for completely alien belief systems to co-opt American culture?

Do both parties want limitation of constitutional rights?

Do both parties want to perpetuate a state of welfare and constant siphoning of wealth to societal dregs?

Do both parties want increased federal control and oversight at the detriment of local freedoms?

Are both parties pushing for the demonization of a specific race and gender and actively asking for prejudice against these people within politics/business/education?

And how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop???

??? ??? ???

1. Political pushing has made the US almost completely dependent on imports from foreign countries, from production in China to dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia.

2. Ever heard of the Patriot act?

3. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 bailed white-collar criminals out to the tune of $700 billion.

4. I refer you back to the Patriot Act.

5. You mean a president that calls Mexicans rapists, enforces travel bans on countries that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on US soil, and calls black athletes sons of bitches?

6. 678 on average.

[TheGlyphstone]

No one has pushed for alien belief systems to destroy American culture. The closest thing I can guess you mean is the absolutely stupid 'War on Christmas', because the evangelical fringe has so little brain capacity they cant distinguish between admitting that other religions exist and the suppression of their own.

[RedPhoenix]

Do both parties push for completely alien belief systems to co-opt American culture?

Xenophobia and a government run by religion are the most un-American belief system possible. I only see Republicans pushing for this.

Do both parties want limitation of constitutional rights?

Yes.

Do both parties want to perpetuate a state of welfare and constant siphoning of wealth to societal dregs?

Corporate welfare is a consistent vote of both parties, so again, yes.

Do both parties want increased federal control and oversight at the detriment of local freedoms?

Yes.

Are both parties pushing for the demonization of a specific race and gender and actively asking for prejudice against these people within politics/business/education?

No, just republicans.

[Skynet]

No one has pushed for alien belief systems to destroy American culture. The closest thing I can guess you mean is the absolutely stupid 'War on Christmas', because the evangelical fringe has so little brain capacity they cant distinguish between admitting that other religions exist and the suppression of their own.

One could probably also argue that evangelical and dominionist desire for a Christian theocracy are an alien belief system to American culture, even though my country's history is no stranger to religious zealotry.

A broad amount of Republican evangelicals don't much care for the 1st Amendment.

[TheGlyphstone]

No, just republicans.

Arguably not true, Republicans are pushing for the demonization of multiple races, not just one. ;D

[RedPhoenix]

Arguably not true, Republicans are pushing for the demonization of multiple races, not just one. ;D

Yes many times over is just very yes. :P

[QuackKing]

Xenophobia and a government run by religion are the most un-American belief system possible. I only see Republicans pushing for this.

[Vekseid]

And the politicians will never vote to cut off their own pork trough, which is why most finance reform bills end up dead in the water. Nor will they ever agree to voluntarily impose their own term limits.

What are the yes votes for then?.

Not the only vote like this either, and often pretty close to party lines. Not only that, but lawmakers pretty openly despise how much of their job has been taken over by fundraising. There is reason to have some faith that Democrats would make attempts to address it.

*one-word picture snipped*

If you have an argument, present it. Otherwise this is just spam.