Good to see conservatives fight back (Ford v Kavanaugh)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Can I ask a very strange, controversial and non-partisan question?

Removing all political ties, is this an automatic disqualifier?

If this were a Democratic appointee, would it be disqualifying?

On the surface, I know the easy answer is yes.
But a drunk guy fooling around in High school...I’m just not so sure.
I KNOW it would have been traumatizing for her. And it is sexual assault.
But if he did this drunkenly 36 years ago...and has done nothing since...is it disqualifying (forgetting the political implications of the confirmation)?

---

I was wondering if this would come up.

It is controversial, but it's the right question to ask.

In the end, even if we accept her story completely, it is still saying that she only believed she was in danger, but there is no other proof she was in danger, and in terms of actual events this was a drunken groping at a high school party nearly 40 years ago.

let's say he did get drunk and grope a girl at such a party. Leave out the rape part, b/c what we can establish without bringing perception into it if we accept her at her word is that she was groped. Does that disqualify him from SCOTUS?

Does it disqualify someone from another job? What's the threshold for bad high school behavior that disqualifies someone from a high ranking job somewhere?


it's an interesting question no doubt.

What if she had gone to authorities and this was investigated and never prosecuted? Does that change things? What if he was prosecuted and was found guilty and served his time and showed contrition and has had no other issues in the remaining years?

I agree, it's a fascinating area of thought on this question.

There's a push now, largely on the left, to expunge the felony convictions of many people so they regain the right to vote, etc. Rights which heretofore were permanently removed. The argument is they have served their time, the crimes are in many cases decades old and they have had no other issues. Is this the same kind of concept?


I imagine Darrell could get some really interesting discussion in his class on this topic by taking on these aspects of it and stepping away from the political maneuvering.

I genuinely believe that none of us can with any accuracy know whether it’s true. There are points to be made on both sides of that.
We also can all probably agree that no matter what happens the decision to push him through or not will be a political one.

Do I think the accusation should disqualify him (taking away all politics and no matter what I would do in their position)? No.

There is virtually no way to prove or disprove it. I would probably not vote him in for political reasons. But I do believe he SHOULD go through.

Last time I though I qas going tk be raped, I remember wher it was, when it was, how many beers I had......

I understand not being 100% clear on minute details....what folks were wearing, what time it was, the date, etc...but to recall you had exactly ONE beer but not where you were isnt something Im buying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I genuinely believe that none of us can with any accuracy know whether it’s true. There are points to be made on both sides of that.
We also can all probably agree that no matter what happens the decision to push him through or not will be a political one.

Do I think the accusation should disqualify him (taking away all politics and no matter what I would do in their position)? No.

There is virtually no way to prove or disprove it. I would probably not vote him in for political reasons. But I do believe he SHOULD go through.

---

I would agree, as I stated above. Disqualifying him on his rulings if poor one (not just because you disagree, but are incorr ed xt based on the law as written), or on provable actions. That Im fine with but not on innuendo and unsupported accusations. The right didnt like Kagen or Sotomayor but many on the GOP voted for them because from a legal interpretation of the law, they were qualified. Too bad the left does not hold the same standard. They will "Bork" any conservative simply because the ends justify the means

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KeithKSR

She recalls exactly the number of beers she drank, but not where she was? The house almost had to be the home of one of those at the party. Every person she placed being at the party claimed it didn’t happen.

---

Exactly. This is where her whole story falls apart. Her memory is very inconsistent in what she would and wouldn't remember, esp. in light of this being a trauma she claims is severe.

So let's say she did have deeply traumatic experience at a party. She remembers who was in the room, including the standing by friend, and exactly what she had to drink, but has no recollection of exactly when it was, or where it was, or any other circumstances AROUND when and where it was that would help us to narrow it down to a day or date or location.

Totally sure it's him, and sure she wasn't impaired, but cannot narrow down anything that might allow anyone to disprove her claim by showing he wasn't present or couldn't have been him, etc., and nothing that would let even the FBI go and track down additional witnesses to get their statements.

Now, isn't that convenient? She remembers very precisely exactly the facts she needs to keep him off the bench, but very few facts that could be use to substantiate or disprove her story.

And the few she does remember all point to disproving it btw. All of the people she has remembered deny any knowledge of it, including her described friend.

If this were in a real court and not the court of public opinion this would be shredded by a good lawyer. Absolutely shredded, and no prosecutor would even try to bring this case b/c it's clear it would happen.

BTW, as someone who has had a couple of good scares in his life, non sexual but physical scares, I'm very disbelieving that you are SOBER, go home, wake up the next day traumatized and yet none of the specifics of where you were, or when you were there, are seared into your memory.

No. You wake up the next day, probably in a panic and with sweat soaked sheets, and you remember exactly the events that led to that event. You wonder why you ever went to Suzie's house, you remember when you decided to go into the room, you remember how you wish you'd gone home with Jane, etc. and if it's so traumatic you literally can't sleep in a room without an exit, you for sure remember where you were and how you got there.

You just do. You are in a panic about going back to school on Monday, seeing this person, seeing your friends. Maybe you confide in someone, maybe not, but you will either have these details burned in there or you will repress it in whole or in large part, and she has never claimed any memory repression that I have heard.

that's why I think she's not intentionally lying, but her mind has filled in gaps over the years in ways that makes it unreliable to trust her perceptions of threat in that event.

One of Ford’s witnesses, Leland Keyser, said she didn’t even know Kavanaugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

One or the other is lying. The one with the most to lose probably.

---

I just thought about this, but are you saying maybe she is lying?

She has a lot to lose. She's a confirmed pretty far left member of the "resistance". Before this started it's been reported her social media was scrubbed of her political comments so as to not look like an Anti-trumper.

If she believes in her soul, as many do, that raising Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS bench means the end of abortions in this country, doesn't she maybe think she (and the nation) have a lot to lose?

Wouldn't that make her highly motivated and willing to lie to the American people and Congress?

This whole "lot to lose" thing is a two way street. If Kavanaugh withdraws he's still on the DC bench, drawing a good salary with almost no chance of being removed from a lifetime appointment. His reputation will be tarnished forever, but at this point that's the case regardless of what he does.

If he did it why wouldn't he be afraid more would come out? He could claim this is damaging his family and withdraw in a tear filled statement of denial, and go back to his very good career and avoid that risk of losing it all.

We can play these motives games all day both ways. In the end both sides are DEEPLY motivated to do whatever it takes to either get or stop having another conservative on the bench. Both sides an both individuals potentially have a LOT to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

BTW, as someone who has had a couple of good scares in his life, non sexual but physical scares, I'm very disbelieving that you are SOBER, go home, wake up the next day traumatized and yet none of the specifics of where you were, or when you were there, are seared into your memory.

No. You wake up the next day, probably in a panic and with sweat soaked sheets, and you remember exactly the events that led to that event. You wonder why you ever went to Suzie's house, you remember when you decided to go into the room, you remember how you wish you'd gone home with Jane, etc. and if it's so traumatic you literally can't sleep in a room without an exit, you for sure remember where you were and how you got there.

You just do. You are in a panic about going back to school on Monday, seeing this person, seeing your friends. Maybe you confide in someone, maybe not, but you will either have these details burned in there or you will repress it in whole or in large part, and she has never claimed any memory repression that I have heard.

that's why I think she's not intentionally lying, but her mind has filled in gaps over the years in ways that makes it unreliable to trust her perceptions of threat in that event.

---

Details you “will never forget” generally include where and when something happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

For me, NO regardless of party. Im sure I did far worse when I was in HS. People grow, mature and learn from their mistakes. Im sure I felt a girl up as a HS SR. I know I did as a college freshman. I look at SCOTUS appointees as mature adults who rule on the letter of the law. Events from 3 decades ago don't disqualify to me, be it Kagen or Kavanaugh

---

Doc,

You are a thoughtful poster. I appreciate your words and positions. I also agree people grow up. But I sure hope you never did to a woman what Dr. Ford says kavanaugh did. So your far worse comment I will take as an exaggeration. Want to think you wouldn’t force yourself on a woman like some dog in heat.

Judges ain’t saints but males drunk or sober who force themselves on women aren’t fit to preside over the lives of others. Listening to ford got me pretty angry. I don’t like the idea of a person bullying others. Forcing themselves on women.

I lean towards ford in this. Regardless kavanaugh showed a lack of composure that is far from a tempered person capable of serving on the bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Doc,

You are a thoughtful poster. I appreciate your words and positions. I also agree people grow up. But I sure hope you never did to a woman what Dr. Ford says kavanaugh did. So your far worse comment I will take as an exaggeration. Want to think you wouldn’t force yourself on a woman like some dog in heat.

Judges ain’t saints but males drunk or sober who force themselves on women aren’t fit to preside over the lives of others. Listening to ford got me pretty angry. I don’t like the idea of a person bullying others. Forcing themselves on women.

I lean towards ford in this. Regardless kavanaugh showed a lack of composure that is far from a tempered person capable of serving on the bench.

---

Oh, I probably grabbed a tit or two. I never raped anybody but then neither did Kavanaugh. While I do believe her story, one that she did have some type of traumatic episode, I do not believe she was ever in danger of rape or death, as she feared. High school boys and girls do inappropriate things, things I know as a 55 year old are wrong. Its part of growing up.

PS: I appreciate the compliment. I try to be reasonable although don't always succeed. I try tonsee the bad sides of bothnsides and admit when the right side is wrong

I'll be honest. I expect BK to screw the pooch. I expected his "calendars" to be bogus, and him coming away looking like a guilty person trying to feign innocence. I really did. But he wasn't by a long shot. His calendars sealed it for me. I mean what HSer keeps those type of extemporaneous records? None that I know of but apparently he did. And I mean he actually did, which is shocking to me. He laid out exactly when he was where and by the time line she provided, he refutiated the accusation. I could not have done that.

If it could be proven he did attend the party and the situation went down like she said, would that disqualify him at this point in everyone's mind?

That's important to clarify in this discussion I think

By the way, I did read everyone's response to my opinion, but there are too many for me to respond in kind.
I stand by my thoughts on it all yet appreciate the differing views

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

The right didnt like Kagen or Sotomayor but many on the GOP voted for them because from a legal interpretation of the law, they were qualified. Too bad the left does not hold the same standard. They will "Bork" any conservative simply because the ends justify the means

---

There is no doubt this is uglier...but they pulled the political card with Garland. They would point at Gorusch and say they didn’t do this then either.
But get close to an election, and this is what we will start seeing on both sides.
If you are a conservative, you justify Garland. Almost everyone I’ve met does.
But it was just as political. And I believe a bad move. Just like this (except this is uglier). Same end, different means. And both justify the means for the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

There is no doubt this is uglier...but they pulled the political card with Garland. They would point at Gorusch and say they didn’t do this then either.
But get close to an election, and this is what we will start seeing on both sides.
If you are a conservative, you justify Garland. Almost everyone I’ve met does.
But it was just as political. And I believe a bad move. Just like this (except this is uglier). Same end, different means. And both justify the means for the end.

---

I don't justify Garland. I stated many times I didn't like the tactics used by the GOP. However it was the left who originally floated the idea that a lame duck President should not make a SCOTUS appointment. Of course this isn't a lame duck president. It was also the left that pushed thru the nuclear option, something many openly predicted would come back to haunt them exactly as it has. Dems either thought they would never lose control or that the right was too big of a wimp to do it too.

My daughter and I are in Toronto this weekend and this is largely the morning topic at breakfast in the hotel we are staying.
Most here see this as a ruse and would be not taken seriously if this was done through their political machine here.
They have no dog in this fight and the majority of folks I’ve met here have the same opinion.

Looks like they are going to confirm him.
This will majorly help Dems in the mid-terms.
That’s a sacrifice I think the Republicans are willing to make because the Supreme Court holds more power now.
But I expect it nonetheless.
Dems will certainly gain the House. I think this gives them an outside shot at the Senate. The map is very tough but it will be close.
If that happens, we will have a stalemate for two years until 2020.

2020 will be a war. The Dem primary will be fascinating just of itself.

One thing about it. There will be more voting in future elections than ever. Each party is ruthless and puts party first in every instance
And with the full support of their base.

I hate that the nation is so divided because it will not stand long being so. Our enemies lie in wait like vultures
History taught us nothing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

One thing about it. There will be more voting in future elections than ever. Each party is ruthless and puts party first in every instance
And with the full support of their base.

I hate that the nation is so divided because it will not stand long being so. Our enemies lie in wait like vultures
History taught us nothing

---

And moderates are getting squeezed out during nomination processes making it almost impossible for their to be bipartisan anything.

Flake is retiring on his own and he is one of the most reasonable Senators out there on either side. This is going to get worse, not better. Because both parties are nominating people that are further and further left and right. A moderate has virtually no chance of winning anymore. So expect this to get worse...not better.
Heck, our news programs are now 100% divided on party lines. Further and further into our corners we go.

Is Flake changing his mind? Some think he might be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

One thing about it. There will be more voting in future elections than ever. Each party is ruthless and puts party first in every instance
And with the full support of their base.

I hate that the nation is so divided because it will not stand long being so. Our enemies lie in wait like vultures
History taught us nothing

---

King, did you just watch what happened? That has to give us all some hope for the future. Even Graham's comments after.

I think Jeff Flake just saved the Senate for the Republicans in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh is likely to get confirmed next week. Flake is likely to vote for him (as well as Collins, etc). And now the Republicans can spin this as they did ANOTHER FBI investigation. This is good for America Imo, and it will be better for Republicans.

Unless the FBI finds something of course...haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

I think Jeff Flake just saved the Senate for the Republicans in the mid-terms.

Kavanaugh is likely to get confirmed next week. Flake is likely to vote for him (as well as Collins, etc). And now the Republicans can spin this as they did ANOTHER FBI investigation. This is good for America Imo, and it will be better for Republicans.

Unless the FBI finds something of course...haha

---

Unless the democrats manufacture something of course.....haha

Let’s see what the fbi does. Mark Judge who I have come to believe saved Dr. ford from being raped by Bret kavanBRO.

Pure speculation but I think judge jumped on top of his buddy to help Ford Escape but not betraying his friend.

Good for flake. But let’s leave Clarence as the worst harasser on the high court.

Toast. What's with the crying? There's no crying in baseball! Er, on the Supreme Court!

There won’t be any investigation

So can a president be subpoenaed? And is this what Kavanaugh's nomination is actually all about, as Dan Rather and others have said?

KavanBRO will protect if he can

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

There is no doubt this is uglier...but they pulled the political card with Garland. They would point at Gorusch and say they didn’t do this then either.
But get close to an election, and this is what we will start seeing on both sides.
If you are a conservative, you justify Garland. Almost everyone I’ve met does.
But it was just as political. And I believe a bad move. Just like this (except this is uglier). Same end, different means. And both justify the means for the end.

---

There's a big difference between a party with the power to time votes using that power to time votes and the politics of destroying someone and his family. Garland wasn't attacked in any way, he just wasn't given a hearing at all.

Honestly had the situation been reversed it wouldn't have bothered me a bit for Democrats to do the same thing re votes. I wouldn't have liked that they COULD do it, but it's absolutely not an undermining of the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders for the Senate to decide those kinds of things. Going back to the beginning it was an accepted practice, and is part of the checks and balances of the system.


That's WAY WAY different from a senior Senator sitting on information for months (she really cared about an FBI investigation since she could have started one in July and didn't, huh?), withholding it from the Judiciary Committee And the FBI conducting his background check, funding the person with attorneys and other things, then springing it in an all out media assault at the last minute without in fact letting the FBI conduct a proper non-public investigation first.

One is a procedural use of the rules of the Senate, which are used politically by both parties every day they are in session. The other is a base attack on a human being and his family designed to do as much damage as possible in direct avoidance of the prescribe process for review and investigation and appointments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by UKHistory

Let’s see what the fbi does. Mark Judge who I have come to believe saved Dr. ford from being raped by Bret kavanBRO.

Pure speculation but I think judge jumped on top of his buddy to help Ford Escape but not betraying his friend.

Good for flake. But let’s leave Clarence as the worst harasser on the high court.

---

Gee History, could you share those lottery numbers with me? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

There's a big difference between a party with the power to time votes using that power to time votes and the politics of destroying someone and his family. Garland wasn't attacked in any way, he just wasn't given a hearing at all.

Honestly had the situation been reversed it wouldn't have bothered me a bit for Democrats to do the same thing re votes. I wouldn't have liked that they COULD do it, but it's absolutely not an undermining of the Constitution nor the intent of the Founders for the Senate to decide those kinds of things. Going back to the beginning it was an accepted practice, and is part of the checks and balances of the system.


That's WAY WAY different from a senior Senator sitting on information for months (she really cared about an FBI investigation since she could have started one in July and didn't, huh?), withholding it from the Judiciary Committee And the FBI conducting his background check, funding the person with attorneys and other things, then springing it in an all out media assault at the last minute without in fact letting the FBI conduct a proper non-public investigation first.

One is a procedural use of the rules of the Senate, which are used politically by both parties every day they are in session. The other is a base attack on a human being and his family designed to do as much damage as possible in direct avoidance of the prescribe process for review and investigation and appointments.

---

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

---

At what cost though? After this debacle they’re not only going to lose the house but now probably the senate too. To what end? It can’t just be to protect Trump can it? Why would the Senators care that much about that? It can’t be to overturn Roe v Wade; that’ll never happen after Planned Parenthood v Casey. I just don’t get it. Do they not understand that 51% of the U.S. population is female?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catfan73

Do they not understand that 51% of the U.S. population is female?

---

The plurality of women I know are upset over the use of Ford as a pawn by the Dems.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/26/65164...ndecided-on-tr

How stupid do the Dems think people are? Claiming the word "ralph" had something do with sex is absurd.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ralph

And how stupid does the judge believe people are? I couldn't care less if he drank a lot, but dont lie about it.

"In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, it lists him as “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor.”
Beach Week was a week of partying attended by Kavanaugh and his classmates the summer of the alleged result. Kavanaugh said that “ralphing” was a euphemism for throwing up, but that it didn’t imply heavy drinking on his part, but a weak stomach and an intolerance for spicy food".

No...It implies exactly that Judge.

https://fthmb.tqn.com/SBKlr0Dk8z0T4V...92e894a106.jpg

Unless I missed something, no one she said was there at that party has verified anything thing she has said. I believe she believes it but so far there's no shred of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badrose

Unless I missed something, no one she said was there at that party has verified anything thing she has said. I believe she believes it but so far there's no shred of evidence.

---

Sure there is evidence. She is a women and he is a man who drank. what else do you need?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ukpumacat

Again, the means were different (and in no way justified Imo for neither party). The END goal was the same: block the nomination and get the majority on the court.

---

So it's the same if I convince you to spot me $20 and if I pull out a gun and and get it from you?

the means matter, a lot, and there is no equivalency between not calling a vote when a duly elected majority chooses to not call one, and political character assassination and withholding vital information in a confirmation process. None. There just isn't.

When Obamacare was rammed through, that wasn't "pulling a political card". The Democrats had the majorities and the votes. I didn't like that they had them, but they did, and that's how the system correctly works.

Likewise, the GOP had the votes and the majority to not call a vote on Garland, so they didn't call a vote. That was nothing at all out of the ordinary for the historical way the Senate operates, going back to Washington.

This handling of the information re Kavanaugh is a wholly different animal. Even if we believe every word this woman has said, all that means is that Feinstein intentionally impeded an investigation and confirmation process, and if it's as much a political scam as it is a real possible wrong or criminal act then it's even worse.

But there is no equivalency to one political party using their votes to stop something they don't want and using the tools of character assassination to stop something. None. The means matter, and as we continue to accept "any means necessary" to get what one side wants, we drift further away from our calling as a nation and more into that of a Third World cabal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

And how stupid does the judge believe people are? I couldn't care less if he drank a lot, but dont lie about it.

"In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, it lists him as “Beach Week Ralph Club — Biggest Contributor.”
Beach Week was a week of partying attended by Kavanaugh and his classmates the summer of the alleged result. Kavanaugh said that “ralphing” was a euphemism for throwing up, but that it didn’t imply heavy drinking on his part, but a weak stomach and an intolerance for spicy food".

No...It implies exactly that Judge.

---

Maybe he didn't inhale.