Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2018, 03:28 PM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,435
The Supreme Court Nominee: Brett Kavanaugh shares certain tastes with Trump.

The current nominee for Supreme Court office, Brett Kavanaugh, has been accused of sexual assault. No surprise- he has been so clear in his belief that he is allowed to control women and their bodies - see his desire to revoke Roe vs. Wade.

He's more a Trump Boy than ever.

Just so we're all clear, Donald Trump said
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Trump
I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it.

I did try and fuck her. She was married.

And I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, "I'll show you where they have some nice furniture." I took her out furniture—I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn't get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look.
Later, referring to Arianne Zucker, Trump says:

Quote:
I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Now that the first of what will undoubtedly be more than one woman has come forth detailing Good 'Ole BadBoy Brett's taste for rape and gagging a victim ( she states he covered her mouth while attempting rape ), I've been wondering how the White House will respond.

But we already know, don't we? That amoral hump picked a boy JUST like him. Trump will shove this nomination through at all costs.

Because, you know, grabbing 'em by the pussy is what America now stands for. The Executive Branch, and soon the Judicial Branch.

Those of you who voted for Trump, ya'll must be so proud. Just so very proud.
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
  #2  
Old 09-16-2018, 03:45 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartooniverse View Post
Because, you know, grabbing 'em by the pussy is what America now stands for. The Executive Branch, and soon the Judicial Branch.

Those of you who voted for Trump, ya'll must be so proud. Just so very proud.
The problem is, is that they are. They are very proud that they finally have a person as hateful as they are in the white house. They have had to suffer under decades of politicians making it difficult or even criminal in order for them to express their hatred. Now that they have finally elected one of their own, why wouldn't they be proud?
  #3  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:11 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,209
I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that the candidate who à propos of nothing produced letters from 65 random women vouchsafing he hadn't raped them has, in fact, raped a woman.
__________________
--- ---
I'm not sure how to respond to this, but that's never stopped me before.
  #4  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:17 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,894
Surprised this thread isn't taking off more. I came here to post about it, and then I saw it already here.

I mean, how fucking hard is it to find someone who hasn't raped someone? And will it finally matter this time? Apparently a previous Justice had the same problem and the woman was ridiculed and attacked. (I wasn't following politics at the time.) And this is the guy that the Republicans thought had the best chance of passing through? Or was it just Donald picking the person on the list who was most deferential to the executive?

It would be very ironic if this is what prevents criminalizing abortion.

Edit: Maybe the title is too subtle?

Last edited by BigT; 09-18-2018 at 09:19 AM.
  #5  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:21 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 13,022
This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight in the long run.
  #6  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:31 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that the candidate who à propos of nothing produced letters from 65 random women vouchsafing he hadn't raped them has, in fact, raped a woman.
Not the case. It was not that they went out to collect, it was more general references from lots of people, of which 65 were women.
  #7  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:59 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight in the long run.
The problem now is that Kavanaugh is most likely lying now when he told senators that he was not even at the party where the assault took place.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/susa...firmation.html

That denial is happening right now. And, it is then likely that he will have to lie under oath, for something that does "not carry much weight".
  #8  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:18 AM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
The problem now is that Kavanaugh is most likely lying now when he told senators that he was not even at the party where the assault took place.
This is like a line from a 70's detective show.

Suspect "I was never at the party where she was assaulted"

Detective "How did you know which party it was, when I never told you that detail? Take him away, boys!"
  #9  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:48 AM
Anny Middon Anny Middon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight in the long run.
I agree it's not going to carry much weight with Senators, but I think it should carry some weight. Yes, high school children do some incredibly stupid things. And yes, the fact it occurred in high school should be a consideration. But can he show that he had remorse for his actions, not only now, but back then after he attempted rape?

I know the Pit is probably the wrong forum for this question, but what the hell: What high school wrongdoings should be forgiven without any repercussions, ands which should at least cause you to question the morality of the person who committed them?

Suppose that instead of being 15 or 16, the victim of his attempted rape was 8 or 9 years old. Does the fact that the person attempting rape was only 17 at the time mean that the incident shouldn't affect his eligibility now to hold high office?

Suppose that the victim wad 15 or 16, but is male. Does that change your opinion?

Let's take it out of the arena of sexual assault. What if a 17-year-old had trapped a puppy in a bear trap, and while it was howling in pain doused it with gasoline and set it on fire. Should that incident be written off as unimportant to who he is now as an adult?

Where do you (and by "you" I mean fellow Dopers) draw the line?
  #10  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:48 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 13,022
Ultimately, the Senate will decide where the line is drawn, and it's most likely going to be along party lines. Morality will have little to do with it. See Clarence Thomas.

Each Republican voter is going to consider if they'll lose re-election if they vote for Kav, and no doubt McConnell is going to tell them party unity above all. Even if two Repubs vote against him, it will be a 50-50 tie that Pence will break with a vote for Kav.
  #11  
Old 09-18-2018, 12:58 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
I for one am shocked, SHOCKED, that the candidate who à propos of nothing produced letters from 65 random women vouchsafing he hadn't raped them has, in fact, raped a woman.
It was not "a propos of nothing", it was not "65 random women" and it was not to "vouchsafe that he hadn't raped him". I think you got "I" right in that post, but that's about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
The problem now is that Kavanaugh is most likely lying now when he told senators that he was not even at the party where the assault took place.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/17/susa...firmation.html

That denial is happening right now. And, it is then likely that he will have to lie under oath, for something that does "not carry much weight".
Can you quote the part you are talking about?

Last edited by John Mace; 09-18-2018 at 12:58 PM.
  #12  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:07 PM
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Can you quote the part you are talking about?
I suspect it's this part:
Quote:
Kavanaugh has vigorously denied that the alleged incident ever took place, and a White House official told NBC News Monday that Kavanaugh has said that he was not at the party. Kavanaugh gave the same account to Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a Hatch aide told NBC News.
To close it in a little tighter:

"the party"

The party that the accuser has been unable to pin down to a location or a date. Kavanaugh seems to believe he knows what party she was assaulted at, despite the fact he wasn't there.
  #13  
Old 09-18-2018, 01:08 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 20,397
The fact that this happened in high school is irrelevant to the discussion whether we should allow a man who sexually assaulted a girl onto the Supreme Court, especially when it should be easy to find a qualified candidate who did not attempt rape while in high school.

There are "shenanigans" and there are crimes. Pantsing somebody is a shenanigan. Dining and dashing is on the border (I lean towards 'crime'). Attempted rape is a crime. We don't need criminals sitting on the highest court in the land or, to be honest, on lower courts as well.

The "it was in high school" defense is such a moral fail on the part of the speaker that every single person who uses it should hang their heads in shame, go to confession, and beg public forgiveness for losing their goddamned minds. No wonder women abandon this board because of the outright sexism.

Last edited by JohnT; 09-18-2018 at 01:08 PM.
  #14  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:08 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
I mean, how fucking hard is it to find someone who hasn't raped someone? And will it finally matter this time? Apparently a previous Justice had the same problem and the woman was ridiculed and attacked. ...
If you're referring to Clarence Thomas, he was never accused of rape, just of telling lewd jokes and repeatedly asking someone he was supervising for a date. (That the charges were so mild is one reason that it was clear Anita Hill was telling the truth.) Inappropriate enough to disqualify? Maybe. But he wasn't accused of rape nor, for that matter, anything worse than many of the Senators questioning him had done.

I watched much of those hearings. The Senators pretended to be outraged at the charges, but in the absence of corroboration had to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt. Especially after Thomas delivered a long diatribe about how he didn't even want to be Justice anymore but wanted to defend himself from scurrilous lies. All for one lewd joke and asking to date a subordinate.

Contrast this with Kavanaugh. He's accused of rape and is, IIUC, almost surely guilty of felony perjury, but the attitude is "Ho-hum. Boys will be boys. And if we excluded felons, wouldn't it be overly difficult to fill the Scotus vacancy?"

Wake me up from this long nightmare; this can't possibly be the America I used to love.

Last edited by septimus; 09-18-2018 at 02:09 PM.
  #15  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:20 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thomas delivered a long diatribe about how he didn't even want to be Justice anymore but wanted to defend himself from scurrilous lies. All for one lewd joke and asking to date a subordinate.
It was something more than that - asking Hill to watch a porno with him, putting a pubic hair on her Coke can, some more stuff that nobody could make up - but no, still not physical force. So it's all good, right?

Remember too that Thomas played the race card, largely neutralizing further questioning and adeptly putting the focus on the questioners instead, by calling the inquiry a "high-tech lynching".

Quote:
Wake me up from this long nightmare; this can't possibly be the America I used to love.
It was always there. But now the cover has been ripped off.
  #16  
Old 09-18-2018, 02:45 PM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight in the long run.
Yeah, we sure do see where you're coming from here. Let me just see if I follow the logic of your argument here.

It was high school. It doesn't carry much weight in the long run.

Copy that... Now we know what kind of person you are.
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
  #17  
Old 09-18-2018, 03:09 PM
jasg jasg is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Upper left hand corner
Posts: 5,387
In today's Tom the Dancing Bug, Ruben Bolling weighs in on the long history between Trump and Kavanaugh...
  #18  
Old 09-18-2018, 04:16 PM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartooniverse View Post
Yeah, we sure do see where you're coming from here. Let me just see if I follow the logic of your argument here.

It was high school. It doesn't carry much weight in the long run.

Copy that... Now we know what kind of person you are.
And what would that be? One with realistic expectations of how this whole sordid process is going to conclude?

Can you show me where I said I fully support Kavanaugh and think rape isn't a crime?
  #19  
Old 09-18-2018, 04:47 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 84,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I suspect it's this part:To close it in a little tighter:

"the party"

The party that the accuser has been unable to pin down to a location or a date. Kavanaugh seems to believe he knows what party she was assaulted at, despite the fact he wasn't there.
The guys is a lawyer. Don't give me a paraphrase of something he said and then tell me he lied. He might very well have said "I was not at any such party during the summer of 1982".
  #20  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:04 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
Where do you (and by "you" I mean fellow Dopers) draw the line?
If somebody killed another when he was 17, I'd consider him for the Supreme Court 30 years later if he had turned his life around and showed remorse for the act.

If somebody committed rape when they were 17 (NOT what is alleged here), kept quiet about it, and kept a cool silence while the victim's name was dragged through the mud 30 years later, I would not seat him to an appeals court.

Jeet Heer:
I'm fascinated by the "teenage rapists deserve a pass" strand of conservatism that is emerging.

Old line: No collusion, and anyways collusion isn't a crime.
New line: no attempted rape, and anyways if there was attempted rape in high school he should still be confirmed.

I want a venn diagram of people willing to argue "Give Kavanaugh a break, he was only 17" and "Trayvon Martin got what he deserved."

It's true, as @ebruenig & others have said, that we don't really have a culture of forgiveness. But maybe that's because we also don't have a culture of contrition and repentance.

I'm all for forgiveness & restorations but there has to be contrition and repentance first. If the accusation against Kavanaugh is accurate (on which it's proper to remain agnostic until further investigation), then there has been no contrition and repentance.

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1041724812312358912
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1041799313775648768
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1041528843293605888
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1041550573202489356

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1041371365432025089
  #21  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:21 PM
DWMarch DWMarch is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Nanaimo, BC
Posts: 2,038
I do find it absurd how many people are willing to casually enable rapists. Do these men not have wives or daughters or sisters or female friends? Imagine this happening to one of those women. Now imagine telling that woman that her accusation is going to be dismissed because of the political expedience of the timing.

Conservatives want to dismiss the allegation because the Democrats sat on it until it would do the most damage. I wonder where the Democrats picked that trick up from?

There is no exception to a rape investigation simply because the accused is being considered for a new job. If he is a rapist he has been playing Russian Roulette for his entire career. Of course the allegation is going to come up at the worst possible time. Of course his political enemies are going to use it against him. And yet there are conservatives suggesting that there should be a period during which the accused should be shielded from an investigation of his conduct DURING an investigation of his conduct!

When your wife/girlfrend/sister/niece/female friend gets raped are you going to tell her that she shouldn't bring an accusation forward because her rapist is an important man who can't be distracted at this crucial time? Are you going to dismiss the incident as "rough horseplay" and tell her to get over it? Are you going to tell her that if she doesn't speak up about it before a certain time then it never happened, especially if her rapist is up for a promotion?
  #22  
Old 09-18-2018, 05:53 PM
Typo Negative's Avatar
Typo Negative Typo Negative is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 7th Level of Hell, Ca
Posts: 16,994
Mark Judge tells Senate he 'has no memory of alleged' incident with Kavanaugh

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ugh/ar-BBNwEGW

Quote:
"I have no memory of this alleged incident," Judge states in the letter sent by his lawyer, Barbara Van Gelder.

"Brett Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described in Dr. Ford's letter. More to the point, I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes."

Judge goes on to say that he has no additional information to provide the committee and therefore, does "not want to speak publicly regarding the incidents described in Dr. Ford's letter."
The first 'trending now' link (now gone) said 'Judge will not testify'. I may be mistaken, but I think the intended implication is 'doesn't want to testify'.

This got me thinking. And I hate that. But what do you mean 'will not testify'? You testify if you are called. It aint a choice unless you are a defendant. (unless I am wrong about that too) Also, wouldn't you wanna testify?? You just called a witness and participant to a sexual assault. You say you have no memory of that party and you weren't EVER in a room where someone was raped, then say that under oath. I mean, at the very least, you gotta say 'she is either lying or has me mixed up with someone else'.

Or....maybe he want's to be able to say he wasn't there but not if the possibility of a'lying to congress' charge is on the table. Which, of course makes me think he WAS there and DID see. But if you witnessed a rape and kept silent all this time, why would the oath to tell the truth bother you?
__________________
"God hates Facts"

- seen on a bumper sticker in Sacramento Ca
  #23  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:05 PM
1step4word 1step4word is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 38
For all of you willing to convict this man on just the word of one women that does not even remember time or place this supposedly happened. Were you so willing to believe Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, aand Paula Jones?
  #24  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:09 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,105
I fear he will be confirmed after all this kerfuffle, and then have a chip on his shoulder thereafter.

"I'll show those uppity metoo women who's boss. Roe v Wade, eh? I got your Roe v Wade right here!!"
  #25  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:10 PM
DragonAsh DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,413
Judge was (is?) friends with Kavanaugh. I don't think he was (is) 'friends' with Ford.

So who is he going to support? His friend and fellow Trump supporter who also is going to be a Supreme Court justice, or some woman he was at school with 30 years ago?

Judge publicly saying he doesn't recall the incident seals the deal. If Ford is smart she'll back out now. She's going to be skinned alive by the Senate committee hearings, claiming she is lying, or mistaken.
The committee members may even show fake sympathy for her 'plight', shaking their head in sorrow, 'we're so sorry that you feel something horrible happened to you, but you clearly are mistaken to think this fine upstanding citizen was your attacker'.
And Kavanaugh will be seated on the SCOTUS.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...

Last edited by DragonAsh; 09-18-2018 at 06:14 PM.
  #26  
Old 09-18-2018, 06:51 PM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1step4word View Post
For all of you willing to convict this man on just the word of one women that does not even remember time or place this supposedly happened.
But it's not just her word, is it?

She kept her concerns private and wrote letters to Congress members. Her name was leaked and it was only then that these allegations went public. She tried to keep her name out of the public. It was only after somebody else outed her that she ultimately decided she may as well testify.

That's not remotely the action of a person making things up or trying to get her 15 minutes.

Does that mean her version of events is accurate? Not necessarily, but it's highly suggestive. And it merits the delays and questions that are coming out now. Actually, it probably merits more than that, but we're apparently in bare-minimum-just-passes-the-low-moral-bar mode.

Combined with the financial irregularities surrounding his gambling, I would love to see a more thorough vetting and not the token hearings and party line votes we're actually going to get.
  #27  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:23 PM
Ukulele Ike Ukulele Ike is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 16,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
The fact that this happened in high school is irrelevant to the discussion whether we should allow a man who sexually assaulted a girl onto the Supreme Court, especially when it should be easy to find a qualified candidate who did not attempt rape while in high school.
Clearly, not from within the Republican Party.
__________________
Uke
  #28  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:24 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 20,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
I fear he will be confirmed after all this kerfuffle, and then have a chip on his shoulder thereafter.

"I'll show those uppity metoo women who's boss. Roe v Wade, eh? I got your Roe v Wade right here!!"
Well, he was willing to take away a woman's right to choose when he was 17, why would he change now?
  #29  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:26 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
I do find it absurd how many people are willing to casually enable rapists. Do these men not have wives or daughters or sisters or female friends? Imagine this happening to one of those women. Now imagine telling that woman that her accusation is going to be dismissed because of the political expedience of the timing.
Their wives, daughters, or sisters will often keep this a secret from those unlikely to be sympathetic to crime victims.
Quote:

Conservatives want to dismiss the allegation because the Democrats sat on it until it would do the most damage. I wonder where the Democrats picked that trick up from?

There is no exception to a rape investigation simply because the accused is being considered for a new job. If he is a rapist he has been playing Russian Roulette for his entire career. Of course the allegation is going to come up at the worst possible time.
It's not the worst possible time. James Fallows points out that in crass political terms, the Republicans could vote for Kavanaugh after the election, even if the Senate switches hands. There's plenty of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1step4word View Post
For all of you willing to convict this man on just the word of one women that does not even remember time or place this supposedly happened. Were you so willing to believe Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, aand Paula Jones?
Broaddrick was cagey about the incident until 1999. I find her 1999 report to be credible. In 1997 she had denied the incident in an affidavit though.

I'm not saying I believe Dr. Ford, though her claims are backed by evidence. I'm saying there should be a full and fair investigation, something that conservatives are fighting tooth and nail. We have time for that. There's no rush.
  #30  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:38 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
<snip>

I'm not saying I believe Dr. Ford, though her claims are backed by evidence. I'm saying there should be a full and fair investigation, something that conservatives are fighting tooth and nail. We have time for that. There's no rush.
I agree with this, but it isn't going to happen. Unless Republicans can weight the "investigation" in their favor, they'll ignore it and move ahead with a confirmation vote.

Let Republicans confirm him. It will energize even more women for the mid-term elections. If Democrats take the House, they can investigate Justice Kavanaugh at their leisure. If they find -- as I suspect they will -- that he perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee and/or that he lied about the attempted rape incident, he can be impeached after 2020, when Dems will likely also control the Senate and the office of President.

If Republicans allow Kavanaugh to withdraw, McConnell won't make this mistake again. The next one will be much harder to remove, if he/she can be removed at all.
  #31  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:38 PM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWMarch View Post
I do find it absurd how many people are willing to casually enable rapists. Do these men not have wives or daughters or sisters or female friends? Imagine this happening to one of those women. Now imagine telling that woman that her accusation is going to be dismissed because of the political expedience of the timing.
Why are you speaking as if the enablers were exclusively men? If you truly believe that to be the case, I've got bad news.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.

Last edited by Nava; 09-18-2018 at 07:38 PM.
  #32  
Old 09-18-2018, 07:52 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,953
He can say he didn't do it all he wants but I for one will not be taking his word on anything when he is either a pathological liar or the world's second biggest idiot. His first words at his nomination announcement were

Quote:
Throughout this process, I have 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. Mr. President, I am grateful to you, and I’m humbled by your confidence in me.
I had almost as much to do with his selection as Trump did.
  #33  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:02 PM
enipla enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 12,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair Rarity View Post
He can say he didn't do it all he wants but I for one will not be taking his word on anything when he is either a pathological liar or the world's second biggest idiot. His first words at his nomination announcement were

Quote:
Throughout this process, I have 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. Mr. President, I am grateful to you, and I’m humbled by your confidence in me.
I had almost as much to do with his selection as Trump did.
Jesus Christ. What a lying ass kisser. He's sure to do anything Trump or republicans want.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #34  
Old 09-18-2018, 08:39 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowthx View Post
I fear he will be confirmed after all this kerfuffle, and then have a chip on his shoulder thereafter.

"I'll show those uppity metoo women who's boss. Roe v Wade, eh? I got your Roe v Wade right here!!"
The Republicans are destroying not just the presidency but the courts. Somewhere down the line, after the next great depression, when Democrats control the other two branches of the government, they'll either ignore the courts, pack the courts, or impeach certain judges -- as they should. The Supreme Court is rigged. If it needs to be "unrigged," then so be it.

Last edited by asahi; 09-18-2018 at 08:39 PM.
  #35  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:23 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The Supreme Court is rigged. If it needs to be "unrigged," then so be it.
Changing the life-time appointments nonsense to, say, six year terms, would be a start.

Last edited by Guest-starring: Id!; 09-18-2018 at 09:26 PM.
  #36  
Old 09-18-2018, 09:35 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest-starring: Id! View Post
Changing the life-time appointments nonsense to, say, six year terms, would be a start.
I'd prefer 20-30 year terms with a new appointment every 2 years minimum, until the number of sitting justices hits, say, 20. At that point the justice with the longest tenure would be bumped off.

SCOTUS appointments should be routine.

Last edited by Measure for Measure; 09-18-2018 at 09:36 PM.
  #37  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:10 PM
Guest-starring: Id!'s Avatar
Guest-starring: Id! Guest-starring: Id! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
I'd prefer 20-30 year terms...
Why that long?
Having a reasonable, fair-minded judge for that length of time would be great, but someone like a Scalia for the same length of time would not, for most voters, be preferable.
I could deal with that same, fair-minded judge doing only five years as long as the Scalia one did the same.
Do you feel there'd be too much volatility (the court changing hands much more often) with the shorter terms?
  #38  
Old 09-18-2018, 10:20 PM
Measure for Measure's Avatar
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 13,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest-starring: Id! View Post
Why that long?
Having a reasonable, fair-minded judge for that length of time would be great, but someone like a Scalia for the same length of time would not, for most voters, be preferable.
I could deal with that same, fair-minded judge doing only five years as long as the Scalia one did the same.
Do you feel there'd be too much volatility (the court changing hands much more often) with the shorter terms?
There's a value to having old hands on hand. I'd be interested in a more learned take on this issue though. IANAL.
  #39  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:07 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It was not "a propos of nothing", it was not "65 random women" and it was not to "vouchsafe that he hadn't raped him". I think you got "I" right in that post, but that's about it.
Fine. It was 65 women who claimed to have went to school in the surrounding area and to have known the man, but without any proof or checking. And the reason was not that they felt the need to come forth and defend the guy, but because they were asked to sign a petition in the wake of the accusation. And they very much did attest that he had not raped them, saying he'd always treated them well.

It was still snowjob bullshit, and the petition is not worth the paper it is printed on. It's entirely irrelevant how he treated them--it tells us nothing about how he treated the victim. There's a reason most of them would not reaffirm their support after the actual victim came out.

It is, as some people fairly characterized, like a bunch of people a murderer didn't kill came out and said "he was nice to and never killed me!"
  #40  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:13 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
Judge was (is?) friends with Kavanaugh. I don't think he was (is) 'friends' with Ford.

So who is he going to support? His friend and fellow Trump supporter who also is going to be a Supreme Court justice, or some woman he was at school with 30 years ago?

Judge publicly saying he doesn't recall the incident seals the deal. If Ford is smart she'll back out now. She's going to be skinned alive by the Senate committee hearings, claiming she is lying, or mistaken.
The committee members may even show fake sympathy for her 'plight', shaking their head in sorrow, 'we're so sorry that you feel something horrible happened to you, but you clearly are mistaken to think this fine upstanding citizen was your attacker'.
And Kavanaugh will be seated on the SCOTUS.
Fuck that bullshit. A victim should not be pushed into lying and giving up because the system will attack her for daring to speak out.

Keep the pressure on them. Keep an investigation going. Keep on fighting. There is the possibility of a real time limit here, so winning isn't even the goal at this point.

She's her own woman, and she chose to come out and face this. Fuck telling her that she should stop for her own wellbeing. That's what rape victims are always told.
  #41  
Old 09-19-2018, 09:22 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
Jesus Christ. What a lying ass kisser. He's sure to do anything Trump or republicans want.
Does anyone else remember the ass-kissing letter Gorsuch had to write to Trump in order to keep his nomination from being pulled on the grounds of “insufficient loyalty”?

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...er-scotus-nom/
  #42  
Old 09-19-2018, 09:33 AM
Cartooniverse Cartooniverse is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Betwixt My Ears
Posts: 12,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
And what would that be? One with realistic expectations of how this whole sordid process is going to conclude?

Can you show me where I said I fully support Kavanaugh and think rape isn't a crime?
Methinks thou doth protest too much.

You're the kind of person who gets to decide when enough time has passed that a sexual assault victim needs to just get on with life and forget the whole event.

Read your own post. It's right there.
__________________
If you want to kiss the sky you'd better learn how to kneel.
  #43  
Old 09-19-2018, 10:46 AM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartooniverse View Post
Read your own post. It's right there.
It's really not.

While I agree with your OP, you don't have the greatest track record when it comes to over the top over-reactions to even the slightest critiques of minor (or major) elements of your posts or trains of thought.

TL;DR - Even when you have a decent point, you're an idiot. Or better stated here.
  #44  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:26 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Antibob View Post
It's really not.

While I agree with your OP, you don't have the greatest track record when it comes to over the top over-reactions to even the slightest critiques of minor (or major) elements of your posts or trains of thought.

TL;DR - Even when you have a decent point, you're an idiot. Or better stated here.
The poster he's responding to did not offer any sort of critique. He just minimized the issue of rape, by saying it didn't matter since he didn't believe it would affect the outcome of the judicial nomination.

He brought up the same argument that is used by Kavinaugh's supporters to undermine the idea that the rape is at all important, so it's perfectly reasonable for Cartooniverse to assume he is on the same side as those who make that same "but he was in high school" argument.

And, in his reply, he got snarky instead of refuting Cartooniverse's interpretation Notice how he avoids saying that he doesn't support him, and instead tries to redirect it to forcing Cartooniverse to prove that he said it. That's even more reason to think he is right.

It's not his fault that posters love to not be direct and not just say what they mean. It's not his fault that we often have to try and figure out what people actually mean because of this.

Just be fucking clear, people. If you support something, say that. If you don't support it, say you don't. If someone misunderstands that you support something, then don't say "how do you know I feel that way?" Say "No, you're wrong. That's not what I meant."


As for that thread, Cartooniverse was understandably angry due to being triggered by the subject matter of child rape--something he himself experienced--and became irrational. Miller's understandable overreaction was triggered for the same reasons. They actually both agreed on the actual topic, but kept escalating. It was hardly an example of a good response.

Last edited by BigT; 09-20-2018 at 07:27 AM.
  #45  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:58 AM
Great Antibob Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,948
Bullshit. Cartooniverse has a long history of hyperbolic outrage on a number of topics with an equally long record of distorting the words or intent of other posters (to the extent of getting mod notes over it). I get it. He's got some personal issues that make him less than rational on some things, but that's often expressed by over the top reactions not warranted by the actual posts.
  #46  
Old 09-20-2018, 05:50 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
I'd prefer 20-30 year terms with a new appointment every 2 years minimum, until the number of sitting justices hits, say, 20. At that point the justice with the longest tenure would be bumped off.

SCOTUS appointments should be routine.
Bumping the guy off seems a little extreme, unless by that time it's Thomas.
  #47  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:27 AM
AlphaDolt AlphaDolt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 2
The state of Maryland gives Ford's claim weight in the long run

There's no statute of limitations in the state of Maryland where the sexual assault occurred, so that carries SOME weight in that Ford can still pursue a criminal case. It also speaks to the idea that some states have deemed sexual assault criminal enough to allow a lifetime of culpability.
I don't think it's Ford's mission, though, to criminally prosecute Kavanaugh. I just think she wants the truth out to prevent him from getting the lifetime appointment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
This happened when Kavanaugh was in high school. If that's the most recent report of his sexual assault history, I don't see how it's going to carry much weight in the long run.
  #48  
Old 09-21-2018, 01:52 AM
AlphaDolt AlphaDolt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
She's going to be skinned alive by the Senate committee hearings, claiming she is lying, or mistaken.
Maybe, but there's enough concern over her believability that the Republicans are shopping for a female outside counsel to ask Ford the questions at the Senate Hearing in place of the senators. Repubs fearing the optics of old men grilling the victim. Also keep in mind that she is a teaching professor accustomed to speaking publicly, thinking on her feet, and obviously confident enough to have revealed her identity in spite of the heavy cost.

Re. the senators claiming she is mistaken, have you seen the unfolding story about that? Kavanaugh and his allies (Grassley/Hatch/Whelan) have been privately discussing a defense that would not question whether an incident happened to Ford, but instead would raise doubts that the attacker was Kavanaugh. Now they're putting the blame on some guy named Chris Garrett who lived in the area. Hilariously, Garrett was friends w/ Kavanaugh in prep school and is one of the signatories on the list of those who attest to Kavanaugh's character.
  #49  
Old 09-21-2018, 02:14 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaDolt View Post
Re. the senators claiming she is mistaken, have you seen the unfolding story about that? Kavanaugh and his allies (Grassley/Hatch/Whelan) have been privately discussing a defense that would not question whether an incident happened to Ford, but instead would raise doubts that the attacker was Kavanaugh. Now they're putting the blame on some guy named Chris Garrett who lived in the area. Hilariously, Garrett was friends w/ Kavanaugh in prep school and is one of the signatories on the list of those who attest to Kavanaugh's character.
I'm not sure that it's much of a story. The guy trying to drag Garrett into this is one Ed Whelan, a right-wing lawyer who used to clerk for Scalia. He shows old high school pics claiming Kavanaugh and Garrett look alike. He also says, anticipating the possibility of having his ass sued by Garrett, that of course he isn't really trying to imply anything! Ford states she knew them both and no way in hell would she mistake one for the other. The article also uses Whelan's logic, complete with pictures, to prove that Charles Manson was actually Kenny Loggins.
  #50  
Old 09-23-2018, 06:13 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 20,397
Drudge report claiming Ronan Farrow is going to drop a 2nd-woman bomb on Kavanaugh...

https://www.drudgereport.com

https://twitter.com/MollyJongFast/st...697880064?s=19
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017