Out of curiosity, since you and I probably know nothing of this frat other than what we’ve heard in the last 24 hours, would it be your suspicion that:
Just my seat of the pants, complete gut instinct would say 2, though 3 wouldn’t be crazy either. I think 1 is not realistic whatsoever.
51 GOP senators , many of them are lawyers and not one is competent to ask questions of a psych professor?
The left is already salivating and wringing their hands at the prospect of old white men questioning Ford. I mean, they’ve telegraphed it a mile away. Why give that to them?
The entry the day after the party said “Damn, still a virgin, and I can remember every minute of it!”
You didn’t give me a “probably more sexist and less vulgar 30 years ago” option. I suspect lots of organizations / aspects of society were both more sexist and less vulgar 30 years ago, including, if I had to guess, this frat. But I don’t know. So far we have the great panty flag of the 1980’s vs “no means yes, yes means anal” in the 2010’s to base our guesses on, and in my view the 2010’s offense seems a good bit more severe than the 1980’s one (not that either are in any way, shape, or form good, wholesome, gentlemanly, or respectful of women).
Well, I’m glad its come down to what some nondescript group people may have said or didn’t say something more or less sexist or vulgar within a 30 year timespan.
I wonder if they’ll ask Kavanaugh if he ever said “That’s gay”, or “that’s retarded” while they’re at it?
We used to respect a thing called the appearance of impropriety. And what you are admitting here is that under that standard kavanaugh should withdraw, by your estimation.
IMO, it would depend on how they respond to criticism and challenging questions about it.
In his FOX Interview, he said this:
Setting aside, for a moment, the accusations of sexual assault, is that enough contrition for the other things in his high school and college years for you?
Exactly, it’s not solely about what he did or didn’t do in the 80’s. It’s about his lying his ass off about it right now.
Quite my point, actually. So, we may reasonably assume that this is what he was. So, he saw the light, changed his ways? When?
AFAICT, he didn’t do either of those things (the chanting or the panty flag). Agreed?
He was in the frat when the panty flag happened. He didn’t quit after. This is a group he voluntarily associated with. He paid money to be part of this group.
I would think the party of small government would not want to spend tax money on an outside lawyer. But as we all know now , that small government stuff has been a joke for a long time now. They spend all they want when it’s something they like.
Like I said, character assassination by proxy is lame. I could paint an example using liberal Dopers and their voluntary association with and financial contributions to the Democratic Party, if it would help.
If you want to dig into his past, at least try to dig into HIS past, not his associates’ or colleagues’. Tell us about the times he didn’t eat all his veggies, or spit on the sidewalk, or whatever, but I’m not terribly interested in what other DKE members non named Brett Kavanaugh did, at least for purposes of this nomination.
Well, I doubt he’s going to do anything other than condemn it if asked about it on Thursday, but we might see.
It’s interesting, in a way, that folks are shocked, SHOCKED here that frats do stuff like that. Frats aren’t the Boy Scouts. And I was a Boy Scout, so let me tell you right now that the Boy Scouts aren’t Boy Scouts.
This is the best laugh I’ve had all day, and I say that as an Eagle Scout. You’re absolutely correct.
We know frats aren’t the Boy Scouts. That’s one of the reasons why Kavanaugh’s Boy Scout routine is such an obvious lie. It’s the non-stop lying that is the problem.
Kavanaugh sets his sights on a result that he wants and says things consistent with that outcome without regard for the truth. He’s done it all his life, he’s done it in past and present confirmation hearings, and it’s part of his judicial philosophy.
Give what to them? They are old white men. Is the GOP saying that this demographic group is intrinsically ill-equipped to ask a woman questions about sexually assault for the purpose of ensuring a nominee is suitable for the SC? Sounds like they are making a case against electing white men into office.
A female or racial minority Senator wouldn’t be given a pass to outsource their responsibilities if the shoe was the other foot. Their constituents would rightfully see them as being weak and cowardly.
Did you believe Gorsuch’s Boy Scout routine? or was it an obvious lie?