Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Employees Outraged Over Exec's Appearance at Kavanaugh Hearing (thedailybeast.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Hundreds of Facebook employees have reportedly expressed anger that an executive attended Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh's public hearing last week to support him, The Wall Street Journal reports. Joel Kaplan, Facebook's head of global policy, was at Kavanaugh's hearing because he is reportedly close friends with the Supreme Court Justice nominee. Outraged employees reportedly brought his appearance up during an internal question-and-answer session with CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and have been expressing their concerns in internal discussion threads. On Friday, Zuckerberg said that "he wouldn't have made the same decision but the appearance didn't violate Facebook policies," the Journal reports.
Several hundred out of the 25,000 +/- FB employees is "a few", "a small minority", "a small fraction". These are FB's snowflakes....
What a generation of spoiled rotten brats.
They can be outraged and demand action as soon as employees with other political leanings can complain about any other employee that is shown on television participating in a cause that outrages them (take your pick). Just because you work somewhere does not mean that everything you do represents the official policy of the company. We need to get back to having a separation between our work lives and our private lives.
Either you support people’s right to do what they want in their personal time or you don't.
Does any employer OWN your personal time?
Should an employer be allowed to reprimand you or fire you for going to a rally and wearing an vagina hat while you are off work?
It's really quite amazing to watch. No actual evidence other than testimony and hearsay, and she so far refuses to release the purported evidence she does have. It's astounding.
Peace and tolerance to all.
Even the media is outraged by the medias trial by media.
...that an exec could just say "You don't like it? Fuck off and do your jobs, or quit."
Or, is turnabout ok? Can execs start firing staff that express politics they don't personally agree with? Would everyone be ok with that?
-Styopa
It can't be good with all the drama going on to stir the pot intentionally or not at Facebook. Kavanaugh is a high drama figure and associating yourself with him is going to cause grief one way or another for your business. Especially when Kavanaugh has an air of sexual accusations against him mixed with his behavior during the interview process where he lost his cool pretty dramatically making things look even worse for him then if he would have maintained a cool head.
Play both sides. When the court is facing a vote that can go for or against FB's interests, maybe one particular judge remembering that one of their employees went out of their way to show support swings their vote a particular way...
Still too many. Trying to get someone fired for badwrongthink on their own time is unacceptable.
as we pluck the crispy critters out of our eyelids the MD laments; don't rub it, don't break the skin.. & stop calling it wmd morgellons.. as he scratches his chin...
The children in adult bodies are acting up again.
No unauthorized thoughts allowed. You WILL believe the only authorized thing. NO EXCEPTIONS!
No complaints here. Nuke it all.
Me Me Me Memememememe me!
Me! My Twitter! Tumbler! Me! Me! Pay attention to ME!
ME!
that at this point in time, anything could enrage a bookface employee.
Not the hours spent looking for offensive content, not the rigging of elections, not the abuse of clients preferences/personal information, not the use of their employer to live stream murders, suicides and stupidity.
They don't approve democracy.
As far as I'm aware it's not proven yet.
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
(I'm not saying he's innocent by any means but I'm certainly not writing him off as a rapist because I dislike him)
The OP did not exclude testimony as evidence
Testimony does not count as fact though.
What the hell business is it of their who someone else supports? Hopefully they can be fired without harm to the company.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
Guilty until proven Innocent is not the saying.
I don't care about the guy, personally, but really, Innocent until proven Guilty is the saying. What if I were to say that msmash stalked me on another platform, but I can't remember which one, or the date range it happened, and that Anonymous Coward was the witness. Except that AC can't recall ever knowing me during that time frame? Would I be at all credible? No? K, then.
This isn't a matter of line politics, it's a matter of working outside the justice system to build opinion on a supposed crime that was never reported and that no prosecutor would touch with someone else's reputation. The whole purpose is to set the stage for trying to disassemble his credentials in public opinion so they can say "I tried, vote for me!"
You just slandered a federal judge. And no, you didn't do it anonymously.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused at the 11th hour. Because it will happen, assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Doesn't know what diversity means. Diversity only applies if it fits their viewpoint.
No it's really not.
If we work on that basis anyone who has upset an overly vindictive person could be ruined.
Society should be ruled by morals and law not "just in case".
Wait, what?!?? Who cares what they think? They are employees at a tech company. Not a PAC. Not a party. Not a think tank. Not a regulatory entity by any stretch of imagination.
This is exactly what the core problem is. Companies and individuals are trying to redefine commerce according to their political beliefs and to hell with the common good. But hey, they just want to win the battle and want everyone else to go to hell.
I get a kick out of the irrational, short sighted calls for boycotts against businesses because they are dual in nature. The same boycott lists are used by their political opposition to concentrate supporting those businesses. Silly SJW. So many educated people that possess such little intelligence.
even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
"Better to kill an innocent by mistake than spare an enemy by mistake."
- Pol Pot
Have gnu, will travel.
Sounds like those jobs are going to go unfilled, for ever, because now the bar has been lowered, that any accusation of witch craft... errr sexual assault is enough to deny someone that job. Accusing is cheap and easy, and given #MeToo .. how can you ever be sure that anyone wont one day be accused?
How you feel if you raped in high school ? Disgusting you support this guy, the 99% are outraged over rapists be put in office.
Nobody was raped.
Just lies from a delusional nutbag.
Full-blown Trump Derangement Syndrome in effect.
he wouldn't have made the same decision but the appearance didn't violate Facebook policies
Zuckerberg had to go on record stating that it was not against company policy to be friends with someone, but was careful to first state that he disagreed with taking that stance.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I would. To be a lifetime appointed judge, you should be squeaky clean. Like your grandma would be proud to eat off your floor clean. There are plenty of other judges of the same political persuasion that could be placed instead. We we are doubling down on this one I have no clue. Sorry, would have responded earlier but its making me wait cause I am AC.
I feel the same thing about politicians, and its why I did not vote for Either of the dofuses that the political parties nominated. Both corrupt.
This is a stupid reason to get offended. Would they rather it be closed hearings?
Shouldn't these employees just leave the company in rebellion then?
What a fucking toxic environment. These people seriously need to get over themselves.
Morons.
I tend to rant.
We wouldn't want the apex of our legal system to get infected with any silly ideas about innocent until proven guilty, or needing evidence, or crazy #$%^ like that.
I still can't get over the humor that they called their silly little movement the Pound Me Too movement.. Seems more like a request than a call to arms.
And yet their still exist people who have no idea why the GOP approval rating has been soaring since Kavanaugh hit the news cycle.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
That's how you get a court full of fucking Baptists and Mormons.
The only thing remotely proven about Kavanagh is he went to keggers in HS and college.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just because you work somewhere does not mean that everything you do represents the official policy of the company.
Once you get to a certain level, EVERYTHING you do reflects on a company. Having a senior FB officer support Kavanaugh reflects badly on the company, not because he's a Republican but because of the belligerent temper tantrum he threw in front of Congress. His friend didn't know he was going to do that, but it was a risk, and a risk to the image of the company. Facebook doesn't need a lot of risks to the image of the company right now, so it was irresponsible.
On the Other hand, FB is also trying to counterbalance the narrative of tech giants as filters that prevent voices on the right from getting through, so some public Republican support isn't a bad idea, so it wasn't as irresponsible as normal.
Not the OP, but yes, I think I will feel the same way when it's a D nominee.
If we've reached the point where any random person can say words to the effect of "he/she/it did something really bad 30 or 40 years ago, and so shouldn't get this job!!! Evidence? No, insisting on evidence is just so wrong! Because he/she/it did something really BAD!!!", then we've reached the point where the Republic is doomed anyways....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I would like to see you do the opposite given the circumstances, friend
If it's found out later that he really is a rapist and he's on the court, Congress can impeach him and he can be removed
Innocent until proven guilty is there for a reason. History has shown the folly of that. Salem witch trials anyone? Donâ(TM)t break society, itâ(TM)s a fragile creation built on the shoulders of giants.
How would you feel if a close friend of yours was falsely accused? It's disgusting that you believe he's guilty without any evidence to back up the accusation.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Well at that point I would demand Congress take him down. Else every person who voted to put him in, should be taken out.
Is this really that hard to understand?
And btw, I don't think they should vote him in in the first place.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
And if that does happen, you can blame Dianne Feinstein for sitting on Ford's letter for two fucking months.
That may be the case if he's not confirmed, but this is the second attempt to stop a supreme court nomination with an 11th-hour unsubstantiated claim, and the first attempt failed.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You are a god damn Satanic piece of shit! You should die in a fucking fire! As soon as possible.
The accusation was not rape. It was just assault. Go back and read her interview moron. And it's also down to a story of he-said-she-said. There's no proof neither through her friends or any other individual. Even the FBI can't prove it happened
Yeah, he was a party boy at a school for the elites. You know, the ones that rape children in the basement of pizza parlors? Kavanaugh is the kind of person Trump has been calling to have locked up, and now they're okay with making him a top tier judge?
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'd like to see the #MeToo version of "To Kill a Mockingbird".
In the #MeToo version, Mayella Ewell's allegations of rape against Tom Robinson are taken at face value not because she's white and he's black, but because women never lie about rape.
Atticus Finch still attempts a valiant defense, but the jury believes Mayella Ewell because a woman is always to be believed, and Jim Thompson is convicted and hanged.
Atticus Finch is run out of town not for crossing the race line for justice, but because he attempted to discredit a woman's own sense of trauma.
And the entire story is written as a memoir by Scout, who denounced her father after the trial and went away to Smith College where she became a leading feminist literature professor.
Most people worthy of being judges would be different. Very few are. Open hatred of women and democrats is not acceptable in a judge. Open hatred of anyone is not acceptable in a judge.
But I wouldn't expect those who stand to profit to understand or care.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
He's already been caught lying, which was enough to impeach a president. If he was even remotely qualified, it'd be a different story, but he's an elitist shitbag that's only in power because he comes from the right family.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'm sorry you were such an ass you never got invited to parties. Get over it, how many decades has it been since HS?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
And those several hundred need to grow up and realize that people have different opinions than them, and aren't going to throw friends under the bus because of the groupthink echo chamber.
He wasn't there conveying Facebook's official support for the nominee. He was there showing personal support. There's a distinct difference, and these idiots need to hurry up and realize that diverse opinion and robust debate are what make this country great.
That being said, this entire nominating process has been a partisan hack shit show, with both sides contributing to the turd-slinging. It's disgraceful, and not befitting the United States Senate. Or, at least I'd like to say so, but lately that's what the Senate has become.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
What happened to innocent before proven guilty?
If we are now at the point to where mere accusations of actions over 35+ years ago with no proof are what stands, we are in serious trouble for trying to get anyone on any court of other office that requires senate hearings.
One really scary things is, that #Metoo is now weaponized, and you can now ruin a man's life with the mere accusation, with little to no proof, and little to no penalty for the woman falsely accusing the man.
What's to stop this from getting even worse?
Sure, you need to listen to any story a woman puts forth...but you need to ALSO equally believe a man that proclaims his innocence, and until trial and evidence, etc....you have to assume innocence.
Sadly, that is not the case these days.
And, its not like this hasn't happened in the past, even for major public cases, wasn't it the lacrosse team that was falsely accused? I'm guessing many if not most of those innocent guys' lives are still ruined or at least have great hardship due to that.
What do I believe?
I believe it is possible that main lady could be telling the truth.
I believe the judge could be telling the truth.
I believe there is enough Trump hate and people so fearful of a conservative judge getting on the court and supposedly overturning everything in the last century around to where women lose almost all rights....that people would come up with false stories even under penalty of perjury, to keep him off the bench....thinking they are sacrificing themselves for "the good fight, the resistance".
I believe all of those are equally possible.
However, it is not up to the accused to prove their innocence, it is up to the accuser/state to prove their guilt.
That's the way it is supposed to work....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
We can't let people have personal opinions outside their employment! Everything you say and do must be goodthink or you will be made an UNPERSON!
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
First Off:
There is zero evidence that it happened. There is zero evidence that Kavanaugh and Ford even ever met before. It's completely "he said/she said" but actually worse than that because even the people she named have said that they don't remember any such event. There is no time, no day, no month, no year, no location. There are 300 million people in the USA. It's not inconceivable that at least one of them would be crazy enough to make up a story like this. I'm actually amazed that it doesn't happen more often. It doesn't help her case that Ford is a expert in psychology nor that all the accusers are die-hard democrats.
Secondly:
If evidence does turn up or if he otherwise becomes unfit for the job, you can still impeach him.
Lastly:
Even if it did happen and was a single event at age 17 and he would have been caught and punished, it likely wouldn't even be on his record because he was underage but even if it was, is something that happened between 2 kids at a party 40 years ago really relevant today? Even if he spent a couple years in prison for it 40 years ago, does this disqualify him now? We should be looking at his record for the last 10-15 years max not stuff he did in HS or even college.
Now there are plenty of things that we should be looking at like his sealed records, his temperament on the stands, etc... but these rape allegations should have been quietly investigated and only been made public if they had actually found evidence. By making them public they not only hurt Ford and Kavanaugh's reputations but they intentionally polarized the country even more. So think about that for a little bit, the only thing that was really accomplished was to further polarize the country. The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
Odd that the hearsay predates this by a couple of years and has been backed by witnesses.
Odd that less evidence has been used by Republicans to harass Democrats. You don't get one-sided rules, if harassing Democrats is fine then you lose the right to complain.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
... assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
Bad assumption. The Democrats have a very weak bench.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are led by geezers like Pelosi and Schumer, who would be toxic to the national electorate.
There best hope is to nominate a governor, but they have few outside the deep-blue coasts, and their "superdelegate" system (which the Republicans have abolished for their nomination process) militates against that.
If the Democrats want people to believe they can fix the country, they need to show that they can fix their party.
There's a Constitutional process for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices. See: Samuel Chase.
How about you prove it, or STFU. For the sake of democracy, how about we give equal protection under the law, and due process?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Innocent until proven guilty.
"DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW: The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee âoedue process of lawâ to all persons, including foreign students and other aliens in the US. Due process of law requires that orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt before a person can be put in jail or otherwise punished. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, âoeequal protection under the law.â Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone equally, regardless of age, sex, race or wealth, and that no law may discriminate between persons or classes of persons. There are, however, laws that apply only to certain classes of people, such as aliens. As long as there is a reasonable basis for these laws, they satisfy the requirement of fairness and justice. These laws may limit and modify basic rights. Except for these special alien laws, foreign students are subject to the same laws as are American citizens. They are also guaranteed the same protection under the laws and the same civil rights as are American citizens.."
https://www.wabash.edu/international/uslaws
Or what, only people you agree with have that right as defined by the constitution. Don't like the constitution, or the amendments. change them, there is a process. Otherwise , shut up. Or get out and go to your shangri la nation of choice. Again, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILITY.
Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
The constitution allows for impeachment of justices for lacking good behavior. IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him. All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem. (except that it IS a problem finding evidence if somebody is making stuff up..)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
I thought it was "sexual assault", not rape.
Not trying to split hairs here, but ratcheting up the severity of the charge to make your case, because you feel you need to "dumb it down" for others, or because you want others feel your outrage doesn't help either side.
Similar to when people refer to copyright infringement as theft... different legal concept.
It's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
You can always go to the police, let the process go thru the system. No one ever says supreme court justices are above the law. Just sue him or something, remove the statue of limitation for all I care. Do it the right way. If doing it the right way is not your way, then I am not with you.
You gave Clinton the top job in the US. There were tons of verified rapes he committed. You sure you stand by that?
I would. To be a lifetime appointed judge, you should be squeaky clean. Like your grandma would be proud to eat off your floor clean. There are plenty of other judges of the same political persuasion that could be placed instead. We we are doubling down on this one I have no clue. Sorry, would have responded earlier but its making me wait cause I am AC.
I feel the same thing about politicians, and its why I did not vote for Either of the dofuses that the political parties nominated. Both corrupt.
Great, Lets open up the existing liberal justices to new background invenstigations, and if we find any accusers of bad behavior, lets ask them to resign.
All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem.
What evidence are you talking about that's so easy to find? You're talking nonsense.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Find a person that is squeaky clean, I don't mean only the things with witness, but all the things, and all the time. If a judge needs to be accountable for something might or might not happen 36 yrs ago. Should every single senators, congressmen/women be at the least hold accountable for something might or might no happen in last 20 years? And if you extended your term, you should be accountable for even longer?
We are talking something you are being accuse of, not proving guilty of.
They didn't have a problem when it was revealed that Obama smoked marijuana and hung around bombers?
Openly supporting a candidate opposed to your business is probably bad.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Hey if you want to reduce it down to right vs left it was a left wing person who made the original comment.
Attacking the right for pointing out out the ignorance of the left seems rather ironic in this case.
Silicon valley millennials demand freedom, free speech, due process, and equal opportunity....except for people they don't like.
That's exactly it.
don't worry we eventually balanced it out with Trump so both sides got their creep elected.
To be a lifetime appointed judge, you should be squeaky clean.
If you sat in the defendant's box, would you want to be judged by someone who never made a mistake, never took a risk, and can't even empathize with your life experiences?
My biggest concern with Brett is not the accusations, but his life story. He went to elite prep schools, then to Yale, and then straight into high paying law firm. This is a guy who never had to skip a meal, or put off a kid's doctor appointment because he didn't have the money to pay for it. How many black people does he know (as peers or colleagues, not as housekeepers)? How many Hispanics does he know (besides his gardener)? Well, there was Debbie Ramirez, but they were just acquaintances.
We we are doubling down on this one I have no clue.
Uhh ... because the midterm elections are in four weeks. Duh.
Both corrupt.
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. There is a difference.
Oh yeah, because his execution is on the line here.
wish I had mod points for you.... especially your closing comments about the divide and conquer thing that's working so well; certainly keeps the attention off those really running things
And the third time to 'Bork' overall for SCOTUS.
Hell, Miguel Estrada was opposed in large part because the Democrats were worried he'd one day get a SCOTUS nomination, and they wanted their person to be the first Hispanic.
It'd be nice if the GOP opted to act in kind against DEM nominees.
"But, but, Garland!" some will whine. Article 1, Section 2 makes quite clear that the opposition to him was completely by the rules.
Wrong different opinions are still fucking wrong you pissant little neckbeard
At least her testimony is corroborated by his college roommate and his drinking buddies. They all say:
* he was an obnoxious, belligerent drunk
* they didn't like the way he treated women when he was drunk
* he lied to congress about the amount of alcohol he consumed
* he lied to congress about the definitions of the terms "Boofing" and "Devils's Triangle".
BTDubs - the last two constitute perjury. Say that with me - per-jury [per-juh-ree]
I'd love to know the rules of the game "Devil's Triangle", and some of their experiences while playing it. Perhaps he and his drinking buddies could enlighten the FBI on it.. Let see how different their stories are. Or is Kavanope going to suddenly claim that he was so drunk at the time that he doesn't remember?
I'm looking forward to his prison sentence.
Lol imagine being this delusional, life must be amazing for you
My sister was, and she felt the same way, because she felt not reporting was her choice. And give up the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' is too much price to pay, for anything. She has conversation on this topic with her 7 yr old (not the rape), she taught her the importance of 'innocent until proven guilty'.
I suppose there are peoples who think they are so important, principle is for other peoples only.
Open hatred of women and democrats is not acceptable in a judge.Â
I agree. But is that what he did? Or was he simply lashing out at those who he believes have wrongfully accused him of something he has started as not true? I don't know if he is guilty of what has been claimed or not, but if he's not then he has been a lot more level headed than most people would be. I don't think it would matter if he was being accused by Buddhists, republicans, or anyone else. Being accused of what is has been, he would have acted the same.
Even so, I fail how to see his behavior as a reason to disqualify him to be a judge. He's too emotionaly involved in these accusations. Who in their right mind wouldn't be. How would you feel in the same position if you were being accused of being a pedophile? Would it make any difference which political party was accusing you? He is certainly never going to be appointed as the judge in a case against himself. So I fail to see how his behavior in this matters in any way.
All these types of stories the past couple of years indicate to me it's time for a deep tech recession / crash. Like an occasional forest fire, such an event clears out a lot of the underbrush and waste and rot in companies. Businesses are forced to focus on ....business... again. Non-contributing crap like SJW employees is cut out like the cancer it is.
Considering that SCOTUS justices can be impeached, not too bad as long as the House does their job and votes affirmatively on articles of impeachment once there is solid evidence of his guilt.
Remember, "lifetime appointment" of federal judges simply means they do not run for reelection or reconfirmation. They can still be removed from office by the U.S. Senate, they can resign or retire, and can be convicted of crimes and removed from the bench.
Thing is, he has already shown he is ill-fit for this position in his answers.
She didn't cost him this job, he destroyed it for himself.
This is someone who's supposed to be aiming to be a judge on the Supreme Court and is to remain calm and politically neutral. This entire even has shown he isn't capable of this (more on the politically neutral, remaining calm through this would be hard and he is only human.)
He has public stated: "This whole two-week effort have been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election" "revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside leftwing opposition groups,"
For someone who isn't supposed to lean right or left but be politically between, because they are going to have final say on how the law will work, I feel this is a VERY chilling response to any pressure.
If they become a judge on the Supreme Court, what assurance does the public have he won't force his political views upon the masses when right here they've shown they can't do that now?
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
If he loses the job (which seems unlikely at this point), the reason will be less about the accusation and more about his testimony before the Senate. It was blatantly partisan, often belligerent, regularly evasive and misleading, and a few times outright false (e.g. his repeated claim that others Dr. Ford said were present said that no such event ever happened, when what they actually said was that they didn't recall it. A judge should understand the very important difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence).
I get that if he's innocent he has every right to be angry about his treatment. But his response demonstrated a lack of self-control and ability to objectively and clearly weigh facts that we expect of judges, especially those in the highest court of the land. Well, either that or it demonstrated a sharp political mind who recognized that outrage would play well to the Republican base, and acted on that political insight to rouse the rabble in his support -- something we really don't want in the highest court.
Above all, I think any person who really cares about the integrity of the Supreme Court at this point has to realize that Kavanaugh is a poison pill. Perhaps through no doing of his own; maybe it's totally a Democrat smear campaign. But regardless of the origin, it's been so effective that a thoughtful and careful judge, interested above all in the integrity of the institution, would at this point realize that the best thing he could do for his country is to recuse himself from the entire process.
But after Kavanaugh's display on Friday, we all know very well that he is not such a judge -- which to me is the final proof that he is not a worthy nominee.
Had Kavanaugh said from the first that he was a heavy drinker and hellraiser in his youth, that he often drank to excess and had incomplete memories of some events of that time, that as a young man -- like many young men, especially 40 years ago -- he didn't adequately respect women and that although he had no recollection, he could not completely deny that in his drunken state he might have crossed a line with the young Dr. Ford, and if so he felt very sorry for it, I'd have respected him and felt differently about his nomination. If others felt the same, and I think many would, then the Senate could have gone back to discussing his judicial record and confirmed or denied him on that basis.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
king neckbeard raped me 20 years ago. Please disable his ability to post to Slashdot. Also if you doubt my claim you are pro-rape and have a small penis.
As far as I'm aware it's not proven yet.
Irrelevant. If his response to the situation has shown one thing it's that he's not fit to hold the highest position of the supreme court. Hell his actions in the court: Refusing to answer questions, verbally attacking senators, purposely misconstruing the wording of testimonies generally makes him unfit to be a judge, period.
That he come across as a guilty party madly failing to hide his guilt be it founded or not is merely a bonus.
My point wasn't about the parties, my point was that elites are abusive scumbags. That point was a third of Trump's campaign rhetoric, and it resonated because it was true to a significant extent, but it's being ignored now because of which "team" the person in question is on.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
The FBI investigation didn't turn up anything. If credible evidence surfaces after the appointment, there is a procedure to impeach. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Is this a new weapon both parties will use? I don't like the nominee because they were chosen by a president of the other party - should I send in an anonymous accusation that would take months to disprove?
Open hared of women, now you are just projecting onto him. Open hatred or at least disdain for the Senators trying to nitpick him into some kind of fault. Breaking down the slang of teen age boys and so on?
Anyone defending himself against such a witch hunt over baseless unfounded and refuted accusations would get testy. Stating otherwise is just trying to create cause to reject him.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. There is a difference.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Full stop.
I usually don't spout, but it's this kind of bullshit that sends me over the edge.
How about they are ALL corrupt AND incompetent. Don't try to say that the misguided sense of entitlement and "feels" from the left make them merely incompetent. And that nationalism and pride in their country and trying to protect their constitutional rights makes the right competent, yet corrupt (If they were merely corrupt, as an error of omission they must at least be competent).
Let's all agree that politics as a whole, is a pile of manure. Hyper partisanship has led to everything that you see today. (over generalization, but you know what I mean). There's no communication skills anymore, nobody wants to have a conversation, they just want to ratchet up the rhetoric and violence until things get even worse.
Anyway, long story short, who gives a flying fuck about whether or not some employees at FB got butthurt over the fact that someone high up in FB doesn't share their EXACT SAME BELIEFS and supports their long time friend who happens to be in the middle of a scandal that everyone seems to have polar opposite views on.
Even better, let's tear into Ted Kennedy's past. There are probably memorials and statues we can tear down, and legislation to overturn.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are led by geezers like Pelosi and Schumer, who would be toxic to the national electorate.
I mean, goddamn man, how fucking far up your own ass does your head have to be to believe this shit?? The leaders of the Republican party are people like Cocaine Mitch McConnell and Orin "Golden Plates" Hatch, who have been holding strong for 40 years. There are _no_ young republicans who are up-and-coming in the so-called power infrastructure. And there are not going to be, you know why? Because as long as conservatism continues to fight their bullshit social cultural war, they will *never* attract the young voters who could otherwise be seduced by the lies of "privatization" and untruths about the evils of "regulation"
whether you like it or not, the stats don't lie. Generation X is leaning 50/50, the millenials are leaning 60/40 (75/25 for women), Currently the degeneracy of the party is working REAL hard on ensuring that Generation Z will *never* vote republican.
I'm sorry, but you can have whatever opinion you want, but you're not entitled to your own version of the facts. There is one and _only_ one party that has any interest in good governance and giving a shit about the people of America.
Who know Pyrrhus of Epirus was republican? =D
Watch his testimony and ask yourself if you think this person has the appropriate temperament and character for the job.
It's completely "he said/she said" but actually worse than that because even the people she named have said that they don't remember any such event.
The great thing about he said/she said events is watching out how the result plays out in the actions of the people.
I was on Kavanaugh's side right up until last week. But his actions at the senate inquiry are completely unbecoming of a judge, any judge, not even a supreme court judge, and that's all before you consider that given his responses he looks shady and guilty as heck.
Even if it did happen and was a single event at age 17 and he would have been caught and punished
There are many reasons why that isn't the case and also a whole hearted fuck you for excusing the behaviour.
... are you aware that there are two other women besides Dr. Ford who have accused him of rape at this point? Because he's shaping up to be a real Bill Cosby. The confirmation hearing with Dr. Ford was a circus, they deliberately set it up as a "he said she said" thing because they're avoiding giving any air time to the other two accusers.
Three unrelated women accusing him of three different rapes is not a coincidence. That's a pattern.
If it's found out later that he really is a rapist ...
No one has accused him of "rape". The accusations are serious, but they fall well short of rape.
He clearly understands that "no means no", it is just that it was hard to hear the "no" when he had his hand over her mouth.
in the 80s and 90s only the Republicans had to toe the line or get tossed. Today, only democrats have to toe the line or get tossed. My My how the dynamic has change. These people would be disowned by their lefty friends if they don't tow the line.
Let's assume he's 100% innocent. Why should I have more pity for this person than the millions who lost health insurance under Trump? Or Farmers who are losing their livelihoods because of a misguided trade war? [snip]
You should have great concern over the loss of due process. Let's assume he is innocent, and fails to get his appointment to SCOTUS because of an accusation. This is not a "win" for anyone. We need rule of law or everything you are concerned about goes up in smoke, if not now then later, if not figuratively then literally. Loss of the rule of law means we have no bedrock on which to build a society.
We need a society and a government that makes it's decisions based on facts and not "feels". You "feel" he will continue to live a good life even if he fails to get to SCOTUS? He won't. He will forever be an accused rapist. He will never get a day in court to clear his name because no one has actually filed a criminal report. He will never work again. Every decision he's made as a judge would then up for review, because if he has such poor judgement in private life then his judgement as a judge is suspect.
You "feel" the way the government is operating now is not just? Well, by not appointing him we loosen our grasp on justice. If he's guilty then a criminal accusation needs to be filed in jurisdiction in which the crime occurred, which is not with the FBI. Senators keep demanding an investigation from the FBI as if they have some kind of superpower for finding the truth. What's true is that the Senate itself has greater authority to investigate on its own. What's also true is the local police have greater authority to investigate any criminal behavior than the FBI. If these senators don't already know the investigative authority they have, and that of the FBI, then I want their ability to continue in government up for review as well. I'm guessing that for many this will happen very soon.
Kavanaugh needs to be in SCOTUS or in jail. If he's innocent then the process demands his appointment be approved. If he's guilty then he needs to go to jail. Any kind of halfway resolution is an insult to the right of due process that all accused people are guaranteed under the Constitution.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
And the right is ensuring to the best of their ability that it will not be proven and will not be thoroughly investigated.
Heck, the FBI didn't talk to people who were his classmates at the time...
The accusations were known before Kavanaugh was nominated. They're why McConnell tried to get Trump to nominate someone else without Kavanaugh's spotty history.
Politically and career-wise? It is.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
"Declining to give him a lifetime position on the Supreme Court because we have doubts" is not the same as "throw him in jail because he's guilty of a crime."
Same as all 12 women that accused Bill Clinton?
I bet you'd defend Carville for saying the Rs found Jennifer Flowers by 'dragging a $100 through a trailer park'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
There are some jobs out there, where a believable accusation of impropriety is sufficient to prevent you from getting that job - Jobs in intelligence and national security. Some jobs in law enforcement. And yes, Supreme Court judges. You need to be above reproach.
...and that he went to high school and college. That's 3 for him so far. ;)
Everybody gets smarter as they get older.
The boomers were the god damn hippies once.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
We said they were lying or obfuscating the truth. You said they were whores.
That's how you get a court full of fucking Baptists and Mormons.
The only thing remotely proven about Kavanagh is he went to keggers in HS and college.
Who was the last Mormon to serve on the Supreme Court? As far as I can tell, the closes was George Sutherland. Sutherland's parents left Mormonism when he was young so George was never baptized. Sutherland was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1922 and retired in 1938. Mike Lee (active Mormon) was on Trump's short list, but wasn't actually nominated.
Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
for large companies they are effectively celebrities. Their political stances have an impact on the perception of the company as a whole. This comes with the territory. Don't like it? Don't be a CEO of a major corporation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I was also raped by king neckbeard. He was drunk and high on cocaine at the time. His penis looked like that dinosaur on Mario Cart.
If you doubt my claims then you are pro-rape and also have a penis shaped like a video game character.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
***YES***. I'm not a D, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
12 for Bill Clinton. Are you consistent?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
One really scary things is, that #Metoo is now weaponized, and you can now ruin a man's life with the mere accusation, with little to no proof, and little to no penalty for the woman falsely accusing the man.
Kevin Spacey. As far as I am aware and can find with a quick check on Wikipedia, nothing was ever proven yet he was summarily fired from everything he was participating in.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
where exactly has he been proven to have lied?
He repeatedly claimed in his testimony on Friday that the people Dr. Ford said were present had denied that such a party had ever occurred. This is a lie. What they said, as read into the record, was that they didn't recall such a party. In everyday speech the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence is often not called out, but a judge absolutely and thoroughly understands the difference, and Kavanaugh knew the stakes and that he was under oath... but he chose to mischaracterize their statements to his benefit. That constitutes a plain lie.
There are others, but that one is enough, IMO.
Several other aspects of his testimony disqualify him for SCOTUS as well.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. There is a difference.
How can democrats not be corrupt? Democrates could do ANYTHING and the media wouldn't publish bad things about them. This is INVITING corruption.
I know they don't look like it, but they are. The skill needed to handle that much data is insane. They need to treat those workers with kid gloves because there aren't very many of them and they can leave anytime they want. And they make so much money they won't be hurting if they're out of work for a year waiting for an NDA to expire.
The world is a very, very different place for employees who can't be pushed around by their bosses. What I don't get is why the rest of the employees don't seem to want that benefit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And the questioning by D senators was behavior unbecoming a senator. Where's the calls for them to be removed from the senate?
Al Franken sends his regards from whatever heap he fell on. Don't think we're going to forget the birth certificate bullshit either.
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused
Absolutely. When it comes to the Supreme Court there has to be no question of past misbehavior.
at the 11th hour.
It's hardly the "11th" hour. The Republicans insisted on rushing things through without proper due diligence of their candidate - As a result this came up now, instead of during the vetting process.
Doesn't mean it's some kind of conspiracy.
Ford reached out to the Washington Post and her Congresswoman in July - As soon as Trump nominated Kavanaugh. She also reached out to Senator Dianne Feinstein at that time.
You gave Clinton the top job in the US. There were tons of verified rapes he committed. You sure you stand by that?
First, there were zero "verified rapes" that he committed. He was a serial sexual assaulter, most of which reached wide publicity as part of the Whitewater investigation. I can guarantee that if that was exposed during his first term instead of his second, that he wouldn't have had a second term.
You know, what people do in their private lives is, er, private.
"Our values" are that we agree to disagree, but still show respect towards others.
I don't care what your religion is or if you think religious people have a mental disorder. Don't bring it to work. If someone at work is pushing their religious or political agenda, they need to stop. If they won't, then need to be fired for disrupting work.
I don't care if you like to kiss boys or girls or take a shaft up the ass, assuming you don't do those things at work (unless you work in that field). I don't think FB produces porn.
Intelligent people will always disagree on many things. We are all different from different places, with different experiences. Get over it.
At least one of those accusations is true :-(
Kavanaugh has 3 public accusers and one off the record one who doesn't want to come forward out of fear of reprisals. He's also perjured himself multiple times in his testimony, including on several things unrelated to the assault. His testimony showed a man who cannot keep his temper in check. Finally his voting record is extremely anti-work and pro corporate. He's on record saying the government shouldn't interfere in private contracts between companies and individuals. We did that in the 1900s when a SCOTUS judge ruled that was the case and it resulted in decades and decades of worker abuse.
Kavanaugh is a terrible candidate. He was chosen because he was the only fully credentialed candidate who won't vote against Trump if it comes time for Trump to pardon himself. It's well established law that the president can't do that, so you have to dig deep to find someone who will go that route and has the credentials.
We're about to seat a candidate with a laundry list of bad qualities to protect a frankly corrupt president. I'm sorry this upsets you, but anyone paying attention to facts should be able to see that Kavanaugh should not be confirmed for the specific reasons I listed above.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
^^^^This is the comment that should be modded +5, Insightful... not the OP, that comment is should at best be a 0, Troll.
There is a difference between presiding over a case, and being the subject of a drumhead trial. We at least have past performance in order to gauge the former.
If Kavanaugh didn't react emotionally at some point to this hatchet job at his expense, some twisted argument would be invented to disqualify him anyway. The ends justify the means, after all.
But I wouldn't expect those who lump in the particular individuals involved with 'all women' and 'all democrats' to admit that.
All these companies talk about the value of diversity?
So this is what you get, if you actually want it. People from different political and social ideals as yours and you need to work together with them.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
The constitution allows for impeachment of justices for lacking good behavior. IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him. All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem. (except that it IS a problem finding evidence if somebody is making stuff up..)
Actually, the statute of limitations has long since passed, so even if it is proved Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ford, he could not face criminal charges for it. OTOH, he would definitely face impeachment and felony charges for lying under oath.
to a lifetime appointment in the most powerful seat in the land (SCOTUS has final say on all laws, they're essentially above the law if they choose to be) when the majority of Americans oppose his nomination and can list good reasons why (perjury even before the assault allegations, anti-work/pro-corporation bias, angry & off-kilter testimony, etc, etc)?
From the polls it seem the American people have made their desires known and the aristocracy is determined to ram this guy through. Meanwhile we've got a small minority of voters who have a disproportionate amount of power (a Montana voter has 46 times more power than a California one) that are forcing their will on the rest of us. You can fall back and say "If you don't like it, change it" but that's a strawman to distract from the complete lack of real democracy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Political execution" is a metaphor. Only real execution (or real criminal conviction) requires the "beyond a reasonable doubt" metric. I certainly wouldn't let the guy date my daughter, no matter how many people told me that oh, those allegations of sexual assault were all just he said, she said.
he's accused of sexual assault. There's a difference. We're about to seat a guy with repeated accusations that several people are corroborating with little investigation. If you don't think that's a problem then, well, I don't know what to tell you except "Party before Country".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Tell the guy he's not allowed to do this? Fire him?
Why is it any business of the company, let alone the employees?
That's some nice concern trolling. He wasn't a judge in that situation, he was an accused person. The only people I've seen make those statements about his "temperament" in defending himself have been those who already didn't believe him or didn't want him confirmed period.
Republicans are stupid, Democrats are evil.
One has the choice between going into the military or working st Walmart, the other goes to the best schools in the country and gets the best educations money can buy. Then, they expect the former to 'progress' at the same rate as the latter. Democrats twice voted for a guy who opposed gay marriage, voted for a woman that was anti-gay marriage well into her 60's, then turned around and boycotted the poorest, blackest state in the union for being against gay marriage.
Only the moneyed elites can do it. Pretty fucking evil.
because the Dems would have done a background check and found the accusations, just like the GOP did. The They knew about Kavanaugh history and didn't care. GOP went forward anyway because that's how little they think of the voting public. They're oligarchs. You and I will do as we are told.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He called a spade a spade, good for him.
What's funny is that really nobody is denying the truthfulness of what he said. No, his crime is that he said it and how he said it.
If, after his appointment, real proof comes out of the allegations against him, he can be impeached for perjury during the confirmation hearing. I hope that well meaning idiots do not destroy the concept of presumption of innocence that occasionally keeps someone out of jail in this country.
I know the issues involved are important, but freedom is hanging by a thread already.
What was he caught lying about in his testimony? Please cite these things. I doubt you have much though, the tail end of your comment belies the heavy bias you're holding.
There is zero evidence that it happened.
Just to clarify, what would kind of things would meet the bar for you to count them as evidence today in this case?
That's the standard I've had to live under all my life. Looking at porn? Eternal hell. Winking at a girl? I deserve to get my face shot off by her father. Dungeons and Dragons? Eternal hell again. These are the standards Republicans have been supporting for everyone other than themselves for decades. How dare they shrink back when they might be judged by them?
This is a bullying tactic you're employing and it's not right. You're discrediting the person because they are fighting back against an unfair process or accusation and using their resistance as evidence against them.
corroborating it. Have you not been paying attention? Tons of people who knew him back then have come forward. His buddy wrote a book with a thinly veiled reference to Kavanaugh where they discussed spiking punch. His calendar his references to beer enemas and 3 ways. He has 3 public accusers and 1 that's hanging back out of fear of reprisals.
A SCOTUS nominee has more power than a US President. They decide what laws are constitutional. They make our gov't what it is. They must be completely beyond reproach. This guy wouldn't pass a background check for a 7-11 at this point. And that's before we talk about the numerous instances of perjury. There's no way in hell he should be seated.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Their constituents get to vote them out of office. Not true for Supreme Court Justices
Half true. He can be impeached... however removal from office would require a 2/3rds majority in the Senate to remove.
When was the last time the Democrats had that? Do you really think they'll ever have it again?
IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him.
Who is going to impeach him? The Republican majority has made it quite clear that they don't give a shit about his sexual assault charges; as with mall-stalker Roy Moore, they're on his side until the very end.
So you support removing Ginsberg from her seat for her comments about Trump after his election?
No? Then you are a partisan shill piece of shit then.
No matter how you want to spin it, CONSISTANLTY the DNC people are always worse. You elected a rapist to be president and then said it didn't matter what he did in private, it doesn't affect how he does his job. That will hurt all your arguments for the rest of your life.
I would feel the same way if my party was nominating such an obviously biased shill. The rape allegation is secondary to that in my mind. But we're so far past following our own rules it's hardly worth mentioning.
Let's assume he's 100% innocent. Why should I have more pity for this person than the millions who lost health insurance under Trump? Or Farmers who are losing their livelihoods because of a misguided trade war? [snip]
You should have great concern over the loss of due process....
Rebuttal in one word: Garland
or even a real investigation. That's what happened. Let the FBI work without the president interfering and we'll talk.
What little we do know shows why the GOP is fighting so hard against this. We've got 3-4 accusers (one of them is too afraid to step forward and is anonymous). We've got multiple corroborating reports from people who knew him at the time. He's perjured himself multiple times (including about things unrelated to the assaults).
If I submitted an app to 7-11 with this many holes in my background check I'd be turned down, but somehow we're going to put a guy in one of if not the most powerful positions with this on his record?
Something ain't right. He's being rammed through by the mega corps and mark my words, we're going to regret it. We're gonna miss Roe v Wade guys, because when this guy gets done gutting worker protections we're all gonna wish we were aborted.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why only the liberal justices? There's quite a lot of people who would be delighted to re-open Clarence Thomas up to new background investigations.
I'm sorry Republicans, but I just cannot feel sorry for your boy. Even if he's 100% innocent and this is a "con-job orchestrated by the Clintons". Kavanaugh is the ultimate snow flake.
Independent here. I don't think anyone is asking you to feel sorry for him. Just to let the man do the job he's obviously qualified to do if he's done nothing wrong. Most of our polticians are barely competent as it is. If we're going to start finding public figures guilty in the court of public opinion based on accusations alone, we're going to end up with leaders who spent the first 30 years of their life in a coma. Or have the choice of a blue or red rock on every ballot.
I think squeaky clean is quite a high bar.
I don't think asking that we choose people who didn't commit sexual assault is a particularly high bar. Even if they did it aaaaaaaaages ago.
Bork was Nixon's hatchetman in the Saturday Night Massacre. Crying about him not getting rewarded for participating in obstruction of justice makes the opposite case you think it does.
The fact that you mention Garland yourself means you know what you did.
It's a good thing you aren't nominated for anything within 10 city blocks of a judgeship or the justice system.
Please read about the following:
Due Process
Presumption of innocence
Equal protection under the law
Being prosecuted in the court of public opinion because you can't actually prove the case in a legal court
Thanks for attempting to speak for 326 million citizens of the United States, but you're wrong, and you're kind of an idiot.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Um.
You're commenting on a story about Brett Kavanaugh's past -- you know, when he was at an elite school.
It was blatantly partisan, often belligerent, regularly evasive and misleading, and a few times outright false
Wait, are we talking about the nominee or the Senators (from both parties) here? Cuz if we're keeping score, they did all of those things waaaaay more times than he did.
But his response demonstrated a lack of self-control and ability to objectively and clearly weigh facts that we expect of judges
His response in that moment, or his response in total (including sitting there for 2 weeks listening to sanctimonious drivel from a bunch of hypocrites)? Or his response in total including him coming back after a break and recognizing that he should not have spoken that way? (something the Senators have yet to do)
You may not like the guy, but often he's been the only adult in the room. In total he's shown far better temperament than they people who are evaluating him.
Had Kavanaugh said from the first that [...] in his drunken state he might have crossed a line with the young Dr. Ford
This basically presupposes that he did in fact do it, it's a semi-confession. Requiring it of him would be incredibly unjust. If he simply didn't do it (and there is no evidence to suggest that he did do it), it's requiring him to lie.
As far as I'm aware it's not proven yet.
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
(I'm not saying he's innocent by any means but I'm certainly not writing him off as a rapist because I dislike him)
Very few serious people are doing that. It's not guilt so much as how he's responded to the allegations. He's basically being belligerent, partisan, and lying under oath. That wouldn't be okay in a local municipal judge, much less a Supreme Court judge. There are plenty of well-respected Republican judges who don't behave that way and we should appoint one of those.
And all of what you just said is completely legit criticism about this nomination. Democrats screwed themselves with interrogation about high school yearbooks and other nonsense that has distracted from what should be the central argument here: disposition and conduct during these hearings showing that he is not fit to be named to the highest court of the land.
A supreme court justice should be able to rise above the fray, and Kavanaugh showed he is incapable when he opened his testimony last week with random conspiracy nut garbage about the Clintons, who have absolutely nothing to do with this process.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
....How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
Let's assume he's 100% innocent. Why should I have more pity for this person than the millions who lost health insurance under Trump? Or Farmers who are losing their livelihoods because of a misguided trade war? Or the children put in immigration prison and separated from their families indefinitely? Or small investors who will lose their life savings in the next crash because the Trump administration is eliminating the CFPD and making fraud legal again. Or the thousands of Yemenis and Syrian civilians who were killed by U.S. bombs, dropped by the Trump administration? Or Heather Heyer who was run over by a Trump supporter, who happens to be a "good person". I could go on and on. There are millions of U.S. citizens who have very good reasons to vote against this administration in November.
I'm supposed to feel sorry for a very well-to-do jurist who went to Georgetown prep, was a legacy admission to Yale, and had political opportunities up the wazoo because he was buddies with all the right Republicans at a very early age. This person is a judge on the second-highest court in the country. He has a nice upper-class life. If he gets sick, doctors will take care of him. When he retires, or is disabled and can no longer work, he will receive a golden pension and live in dignity. I'm sorry Republicans, but I just cannot feel sorry for your boy. Even if he's 100% innocent and this is a "con-job orchestrated by the Clintons". Kavanaugh is the ultimate snow flake.
I have no pity for Kavanaugh whatever happens to him. Worst case for him? He loses his federal judgeship and winds up at some law firm making high 6 figures a year, because even if the accusations against him are true any statute of limitations has long since run out. Because he's a good lawyer with political connections.
Now, add that Ford's accusations this long after the event are pretty much can't be proved one way or the other. So Kavanaugh ain't gonna wind up in prison no matter what the truth is.
Hell, maybe Kavanaugh pulls an Alcee Hastings, gets impeached and removed, then runs for Congress and wins.
And if the Democrats are successful in blocking Kavanaugh, they're going to use the same playbook for stopping Trump's next nominee. Or do you really think they wouldn't?
Republicans are going to punish the Democrats now over this. Politically, they pretty much have to. Dianne Feinstein deliberately blindsided them by sitting on Ford's letter for two months. Even a moderate like Lindsey Graham is pissed - I bet he feels that Feinstein backstabbed the entire process. And in power politics - which is where we now are in the Kavanaugh confirmation - you punish backstabbing, not reward it by giving the backstabber what they want. Because then you'll get backstabbed over and over again. And every member of the Senate is a successful player of raw power politics.
So Democrats fucked up badly. Real badly.
First, they torched the filibuster on judicial nominees in order to pack the DC circuit (Why? The DC circuit oversees most of the federal government and hears cases involving things like a President's executive orders - and remember how much of the Democrat agenda was implemented via executive order under Obama, like the Obamacare "risk corridor" that was so important in keeping insurance companies participating in Obamacare afloat...)
Then, Democrats wasted what was left of the judicial filibuster trying to stop the Gorsuch nomination when there was no way that was ever going to work - in fact, it didn't even come close to working, and there was almost no controversy. Especially compared to now.
Now? Senate Republicans can and will try to ram Kavanaugh through with only 50 votes. And it will almost certainly work, and they might get a few red-state Democrat votes along the way. If the judicial filibuster had still been in place, they'd need 60 votes to ge
And lied about it, and participating in Devil's Triangles, but calling it a drinking game only he knows the rules to:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils+Triangle&=true
Little lies lead to big lies:
https://www.businessinsider.com/james-comey-brett-kavanaugh-fbi-probe-2018-9
and lashing out in a very partisan fashion:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kavanaugh-flake/flake-concerned-by-kavanaughs-partisan-interactions-at-senate-hearing-idUSKCN1MC22M
He holds very contra views to what most of society deems as reasonable:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/07/brett-kavanaugh-seaworld
I would think we should have a higher standard for a lifetime nomination.
But is that what he did? Or was he simply lashing out at those who he believes have wrongfully accused him of something he has started as not true?
He started touting evil conspiracy theories that I would expect to read on Brietbart. IE, things too stupid and partisan for me to be comfortable with coming from a Supreme Court judge.
Ginsberg is a real nutcase, easy one to get rid of first off
Rebuttal in one word: Garland
Garland didn't get seated due to legal procedural BS. While I don't agree with that either, it's a hell of a lot different than not seating a judge based off of unsubstantiated accusations. If don't see the difference I'm sorry I've wasted your time.
Her emails were all over the "liberal" media, as were the Franken accusations and resignation, and Weiner's weener, and the Birth Certificate seekers, and the Swiftboat Veterans, and Lewinsky, and Whitewater. The "liberal" media is also happy to run right-wingers like Megyn Kelly on oh-so-liberal CNN. What are you complaining about?
So we become a country where anyone can be destroyed by a mere allegation? We already have an issue getting quality people to run for President. Just look at our last two choices. If the standard becomes guilty and evil until you prove yourself innocent for any elected or nominated position, absolutely no one of any value will put themselves and their families through such.
Be very careful of what you ask for.
Probably the wrong way to think about this.
"Is it facebook company policy to support Kavanaugh?" Is what we are talking about. Execs execute company policy and anything that they do independently is largely plausible deniability. It doesn't sound like a dream job so much any more, does it?
No, this is how you get recess appointments, SCOTUS impeachment hearings, and failed judiciary.
And the Democrats are more than willing to go this way, because they both crave power and believe they are unassailable in their pursuit of that power.
This goes very badly, no mater what. Either Democrats continue down this path, with the destruction of our form of government at the end of it, or the proper and correct pursuit of justice leads to their unrestrained resistance, and outright revolt.
Yes. Revolt. There is no middle ground with the Left, it's their way or death. History demonstrates this, every time.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Because you would have been so much more calm and collective after being pulled into a Democrat search and destroy Job Interview based on completely made up accusations?
As far as I'm aware it's not proven yet.
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
(I'm not saying he's innocent by any means but I'm certainly not writing him off as a rapist because I dislike him)
The correct question is "How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime due to your response to an accusation?"
Regardless of the merit of the accusation, the way in which Kavanaugh lost his shit and was all over the emotional spectrum does not present a picture of an emotionally stable person. This would instantly get you crossed off the list at the vast majority of employers. Also, imagine if a woman had responded to something in this manner. She would likely instantly be cut and be labeled an emotionally unstable wreck that would be unfit for such a position.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
And the prior example wasn't 11th hour - it was a smear campaign form the very beginning. This is technically the third example of blatant, manufactured character assassination intended to deny confirmation.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused at the 11th hour. Because it will happen, assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
I don't know. Will that D nominee be belligerent, evasive, and misleading in their response to inquiry? If so, then to hell with them too.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Isn't it just as likely he's willing to commit perjury to protect this once-in-a-lifetime job opportunity?
There will never be proof as it's something that happened between 2 people decades ago. However there is a pattern of statements coming out claiming he greatly underestimated his drinking and personality while in school.
This isn't a court of law, no one is trying to convict him of a crime. This is a court of opinion and if enough people feel he made morally reprehensible designs during his younger years, that could be enough to keep him from the Supreme Court.
Personally, I think they should wait until after mid-terms to even nominate someone. That's the precedent that has been set.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
I think he actually admitted to it and apologized.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
He lied about his connections to Yale, pretending he wasn't a legacy. He lied about what various terms from his yearbook meant, trying to whitewash his past.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Who is Roy Moore and where did the GOP stand up for him.
However. the DNC stands up for rapist Bill Clinton
The DNC stands up for woman killer Tedd Kennedy
The DNC stands up for KKK leader Robert Byrd
So you bring up one guy that wasn't supported, while ignoring a rogues gallery of evil people that you support. You ever get tired of being on the wrong side of everything?
Senators can be removed every few years via elections. SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment.
The constitution allows for impeachment of justices for lacking good behavior. IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him. All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem. (except that it IS a problem finding evidence if somebody is making stuff up..)
Bullshit. He is undergoing the process of becoming one of the most powerful persons in our political hierarchy. He should be acting with honor and dignity in every step.
What I want to hear from someone in his shoes:
"The American people deserve a Justice without any doubt of his veracity. I refute these claims, and submit my withdrawal of candidacy. May we find the ideal candidate for this most important of positions who will certainly secure the constitution as laid out by our founding fathers. Thank you for your consideration."
Had he said that, I'd be writing in demanding he get the position.
And Feinstein held on to that letter for two months. There was plenty of time to do a thorough, behind the scenes private investigation without dragging either Ford or Kavanaugh through the trash heap. It was purely political that Feinstein kept this to herself until the very last minute. A choice that was very unfair to Ford.
That's something I never understood about the US. How can you have a D or an R judge? The whole point of having a judge is for that person to be unbiased and not use their own own beliefs when making decisions. They are to interpret the law in a completely impartial manner from their point of view and with respect to the defendant.
By saying that a person is a Republican or Democrat judge one is saying that they are going to be applying a set of beliefs towards their judgements. All of the Supreme Court judges are known by how they will likely vote on certain cases based on their political and religious beliefs.
How can anyone get a fair trial when your judge is allowed to judge the case based on their beliefs? Abortion might become illegal again in the US because the majority of Supreme Court judges don't believe in it. How is that impartiality?
Devil's Triangle:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Devils+Triangle&=true
Lied while under oath pure and simple.
This is exactly why millenials have no respect for Republican puritanism-they know you were, and they know what colossal hypocrites you're being when you tell the world that weed should be more illegal than rape, and that women who get pregnant must give birth no matter what.
Some people get smarter. Some get more stingy and paranoid and want to pull the ladder up behind them.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
OK. So where's the actual evidence that he committed sexual assault then?
I mean actual evidence, not hearsay or simple allegations.
I was on Kavanaugh's side right up until last week. But his actions at the senate inquiry...
"We believe you were for him until the hearing." -- No one
I was on Kavanaugh's side right up until last week. But his actions at the senate inquiry are completely unbecoming of a judge, any judge, not even a supreme court judge, and that's all before you consider that given his responses he looks shady and guilty as heck.
Oh God how I wish I could give a captive group of senators a piece of my mind with no interruptions. Kavanaugh got lucky in an unlucky way. And if you watch the video closely, you can see the force field he deployed that blocked the evil-eye death ray from Alyssa Milano. I'm Kavan-awed.
President Bill Clinton technically committed perjury as well when he lied about his sexual liaisons with his intern under oath as well, but never got more than a slap on the wrist for it.
Oh, wait... that's probably OK in your eyes because he played for the Blue team. Damn hypocrites.
"Hurting innocent people is OK if they're not physically dead as a result."
All you have to do is come up with the evidence to convict him, which if the various accusations are true, shouldn't be a problem.
What evidence are you talking about that's so easy to find? You're talking nonsense.
You fail to quote the following:
(except that it IS a problem finding evidence if somebody is making stuff up..)
I'm either missing your sarcasm, or you are missing mine.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
That is some nice cognitive dissonance you have going there. Quite the feat of mental gymnastics. He was a judge, being interviewed for a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the country. If he can't handle some supposedly baseless accusation with some composure, how the hell is he supposed to be impartial on the bench?
The left is nothing but middle ground, that is why they are so weak. The right will not be happy as long as anything other than them exists or is so subjected as to not step out of line.
Double standards are so comfortable are they not?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Another reading : neither is corrupt or incompetent, but instead follow a set of rules, risks, and rewards which if they do not result in being replaced. it is tempting to blame politicians, but they only do what keeps them in office, and we the voters decide that.
Republicans used the correct process to deny Garland. They didn't trash the man for political means. They saved him the dirt digging process and just didn't have hearings. A much cleaner means to the ends. They also followed the sage advice of Joe Biden in waiting for the election.
IF, in the unlikely event Kavanaugh is proven to be a rapist, then arrest him and impeach him.
Who is going to impeach him? The Republican majority has made it quite clear that they don't give a shit about his sexual assault charges; as with mall-stalker Roy Moore, they're on his side until the very end.
I'll tell you what.. IF you find your actual evidence that BK did commit a serious crime I'll be with you calling for impeachment. Until then, your claim that republicans would let him off is as provable as Ford's claims, being nothing more than your opinion without any independent evidence. .
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The FBI request was just to delay the vote to the punt it after the election - as engineered and by design by Democrats. They hope to capture a majority of Congress after the lection and keep Trump from electing any member of SCOTUS for at least 2 years. By then, a Democrat could be elected as next president and fill the seat, very likely two as Ruth Bader Ginsburg would retire.
Smoking marijuana? Are you suggesting that smoking marijuana is a crime on par with sexual assault? Or do you have a record of Obama's parking tickets you'd like to read into the record?
Agreed, thankfully there are zero outstanding _credible_ allegations against the current nominee.
It sounds like you're saying that a "problem finding evidence" indicates that "somebody is making stuff up." It does not indicate that. A "problem finding evidence" neither supports or contradicts the idea that "somebody is making stuff up." A "problem finding evidence" is to be expected in this situation.
It also sounds like you're saying that "if the accusations are true" then finding evidence "shouldn't be a problem." That's stupid. I don't know what kind of evidence you're hoping for that's not going to present a challenge. Footage of the attack recorded on somebody's cell phone?
Contrary to many of my posts, I do not intend sarcasm. I'm not getting yours. If you're trying to do something clever, it's not coming across. It sounds like you're just saying something stupid.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Judges frequently are asked to make decisions in the gray areas. In fact that is a common function of the supreme court. For example, there is no mention of abortion in the constitution. A group of 9 people were asked to interrupt what constitutes the beginning of life and whether or not taking it away constitutes murder, or not. Whether one thinks this type of decision is a moral or not will sway their legal opinions in the absence of solid law and precedents. Pass a constitutional amendment for or against and it's the nearly irrefutable law of the land. However, the issue is too split to get broad support one way or the other.
Scott
So, if you're applying for a job and somebody doesn't like you and/or what you believe in, they can accuse you of something, and then you will no longer be above reproach, right? And that's okay, right? Just checking.
While that's all well and good; it is mostly Republicans and Trump who don't want any investigation. They want to throw out due process & bury this.
Innocent til proven guilty is great, but if the only ones calling for an actual investigation are Ford & mostly those on the left.
Then what does that say about Kavanaugh, and his friends?
Hmm, perhaps the Democrats could review his judicial record and point out overtly partisan rulings. That would be actual diligence on a nominee instead of digging for uncorroborated dirt from high school or trying to dig through every email that crossed his desk when he worked for the Bush White House. The thing is, if his judicial record had a history of partisan rulings, we would have heard about it in week one of the process. The Democrats have not objected on a single point of his most relevant record.
Just to clarify, what would kind of things would meet the bar for you to count them as evidence today in this case?
A location would be a good start. Other people at the party would also help.
If it was a large party then there should be plenty of other people that remember the party.
If it was a small party with only 3-5 people then other people should be able to remember Ford and Kavanaugh actually being friends.
You don't have a small party with 3-5 strangers and you don't have a large party without a lot of witnesses.
Voting Garland down would have been following procedure, but they didn't do that because they were too cowardly to dare face people who would inevitably bring up McConnell and other republicans explicitly naming Garland as an acceptable judge in the past.
I thought it was "sexual assault", not rape.
Not trying to split hairs here, but ratcheting up the severity of the charge to make your case, because you feel you need to "dumb it down" for others, or because you want others feel your outrage doesn't help either side.
If Ford's testimony is to be believed, it was attempted rape. Her assailant failed to rape her because Ford was wearing a one-piece swimming suit under her regular clothes.
Kegger in chambers! A pony should be sufficient, no clerks.
Ginsburg will be doing keg stands.
What's the rush? Scalia's seat was open for over a year.
Jesus saves and takes half damage.
Everybody gets smarter as they get older.
Oh, there's my favorite sanctimonious crock-of-shit chestnut. Huhr duhr people get smarter as they get older.
Except GenX isn't getting "Smarter". This is how they've always leaned, they are in their mid 50s now, and once they retire, they're going to become more liberal in terms of social program they demand from government, just like senior citizens always do.
Anyway, your "Expert" deflection aside, and since you don't seem to be able to hear me, I'll say it loud:
AS LONG AS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY KEEPS FIGHTING CULTURE WARS, THEY WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER, GAIN TRACTION WITH THE MILLENIALS OR GENERATION Z WHO ARE THE FUTURE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT.
Innocent until proven guilty is the standard for criminal trials. That's not what's happening here. This is a job interview. How many times do you think you could say "I like beer" in a job interview before they tell you the interview is over?
Jesus saves and takes half damage.
> The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
I said effectively this same thing this morning to someone who was telling me all about this mess. Couldn't agree more.
so I'm gonna say this:
Kavanaugh is not a nice person. He's a pretty jock who was born on 3rd base and acts like he hit a triple. I'm a nerd. I was bullied. A lot. Kavanaugh is the kind of guy who did the bullying. There's something deeply ironic about a site full of real nerds coming to the defense of a jock.
If this was just about false accusations that'd be one thing. But then there's his voting record, which is entirely pro-corporate and anti-worker. There's the numerous examples of perjury during his confirmation testimony (much of it unrelated to the accusations). There's his quiet frankly belligerent testimony that made him look unhinged.
What we have here is a bunch of folks rushing to his defense not because they think he should be seated, but because their emotions tell them men are getting cheated. Calm down for a moment and ask yourself, how is this man's decisions going to affect my life? If you make under $300k/yr the answers don't bode well for you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What I want to hear from someone in his shoes:
"The American people deserve a Justice without any doubt of his veracity. I refute these claims, and submit my withdrawal of candidacy.
That's exactly what we DO NOT want to happen. We don't want someone withdrawing because of false accusations. What I would have preferred to see is a response of "investigate all you want, sure I'll take a polygraph, etc.." The real issue here (besides the wag the dog pony show) is that the Republicans want to make sure they get a confirmation before the November Election just in case they lose some seats which generally happens in midterm elections.
Similar to when people refer to copyright infringement as theft... different legal concept.
It's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
Point of order. Theft is an umbrella term that includes many different specific crimes. One would often see people equating theft with stolen property. US Code Copyright infringement is defined as stolen property. Copyright infringement is not equivalent to larceny, which most people refer to by stating "you haven't deprived the owner of anything". Larceny is not the end all of theft. It is but one of the myriad of crimes which make up the umbrella term of theft.
Courts have also held that depriving individuals of elements of property is equivalent to theft.
A little reflection, however, will suffice to convince any one that property is not the corporeal thing itself of which it is predicated, but certain rights in or over the thing. . . . These rights are the right of use, the right of exclusion and the right of disposition.
Property is meaningless without the rights that go with it so it would be useful to look at a case where physical objects were copied and returned to the original owner.
Unauthorized copies of a person's keys diminish the value of the original keys -- keeping unwanted persons out of the trailer. In other contexts it has been said that "`[p]roperty in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys one or more of these elements of property to that extent destroys the property itself.'"
The defendant in the above case was being charged with burglary, which requires you to have the intent to break in to commit another crime, otherwise you would be charged with simple trespass. Burglary was charged and convicted because it was shown that the defendant has committed a crime of theft.
You can rail on as much as you like about copyright infringement not being theft but as far as the law is concerned and legal minds seem to believe copyright infringement is a form of theft, just not larceny.
The comparison between that and the attempt to merge rape and sexual assault as the same thing are two highly different scenarios as rape is under the umbrella of sexual assault unlike copyright infringement which is under the umbrella of theft.
Guilty until proven Innocent is not the saying.
Would be a great argument if the rape accusation was the only problem with him.
The fact that he is completely unstable, started ranting about Clinton for nu reason, refuses to answer about his drinking habits and when pressured about it lost his temper are all red flags that each on their own is sufficient to pick someone else for the job.
The rape accusation is another matter, and yes we don't throw people in jail without proper evidence.
Unfortunately FBI was instructed to neither question the accused nor the accuser in that investigation so we'll never find out truth here.
Republicans are corrupt. Democrats are incompetent. There is a difference.
Oh, so you're coming out in support of Republicans?
Corruption is bad - it leads to economic inefficiencies, and slows growth. If, somehow, it turned back the clock completely, it could lead to a return to the era of Teapot Dome and the robber barons.
But incompetence is worse. That's the French Revolution, the Weimar Republic. Incompetent government will be replaced, and the replacement is almost always worse.
You could have said the exact same thing in the 1960s.
Only morons hang onto their childish idiocy. Lots of things change, but everybody does/pays their taxes, every year. Only a few a blind enough to think they are getting value from it.
You assume the SS tit will be there for GenX (and later). I call bullshit. That's going to be all kinds of fun.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just to clarify, what would kind of things would meet the bar for you to count them as evidence today in this case?
A location would be a good start. Other people at the party would also help.
If it was a large party then there should be plenty of other people that remember the party.
If it was a small party with only 3-5 people then other people should be able to remember Ford and Kavanaugh actually being friends.
You don't have a small party with 3-5 strangers and you don't have a large party without a lot of witnesses.
If I understand you right, the things you count as evidence are "more specific details", and also "more corroborating stories from people about the event in question" -- not necessarily witnesses to the event, but people who can corroborate other incidental details of the accusation. In other words you'd want to see more "(s)he-said" to back up the the other details, presumably with the implication that if more people back up other details then you think a judge should believe the central detail.
(and you're specifically not interested in corroborating stories about behaviors/characteristics of the people in general; you're only interested in the particular event).
Is that a fair understanding of your position?
I was raped in high school. By you.
I am now calling for an investigation, you to lose your job, your family to be attacked, and anyone who supports you to be harassed and defamed.
What now? Prove your innocence! Why are you so defensive?!
"Such a party" = "a party where Kavanaugh attempted to rape Ford". Not a party in general.
As for your other claim, try this statement:
"I don't remember swillden eating children and raping sheep last weekend."
Is that a denial? Because to rational people, if someone claims something is true and someone else says "I don't remember that" - it's a denial.
It's a polite one. But it certainly indicates that the speaker does NOT agree with - in fact, actively rejects - the claims presented.
And the questioning by D senators was behavior unbecoming a senator. Where's the calls for them to be removed from the senate?
Not where, but when. Tuesday November 6th.
Let's make this perfectly clear: even under the assumption that every single thing Dr. Ford said happened exactly as she said it: IT WAS NOT RAPE. IF this story is true, and there is not just some but a lot of evidence that says it is not, what happened was never rape. Rape has a specific legal definition, and while the law doesn't seem to matter to snowflakes, it matters everywhere else.
However, being offended on behalf of other people because somebody else did something that doesn't have anything to do with you is just plain stupid, as is the strawman argument that supporting your friend means supporting rape or whatever it is they're accusing him of this afternoon (which will likely change by dinner time anyway).
In simpler language, fuck these Facebook employees and all who think like them.
at this point. It was sold to the public as an actual investigation. Based on what little we know they didn't. They didn't interview the accused or the accuser. What kind of investigation is that? A whitewash, that's what.
Spend some time on WaPo & the NY Times. There are several articles where his former classmates were interviewed. They've discussed how several times he was black out drunk. Go read the book his friend Mark Judge wrote.
And no, this isn't the end of the world, but it is one more nail in a coffin. People really don't get what's going on here. We're slipping back into a gilded age. Why can't folks see how bad things were just 50-100 years ago, how bad they are in large parts of the world, and understand that it _can_ happen here. I just don't get it. We all fought so hard for decent pay, worker safety, healthcare and there are very wealthy people who are not content with being just very wealthy and would like very much to not have to pay for us to have these things. Why can't folks understand that? There's a class war on, and we're losing.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
We need a society and a government that makes it's decisions based on facts and not "feels". You "feel" he will continue to live a good life even if he fails to get to SCOTUS? He won't. He will forever be an accused rapist.
Don't be stupid. 75% of Trump's administration have been overturned, and I'm sure that all those low-lives will still go on to lead prosperous lives.
You assume the SS tit will be there for GenX (and later). I call bullshit. That's going to be all kinds of fun.
SS will continue to provide benefits, just not as much for Gen X, and maybe even less the longer Republicans hold onto office. I don't know about you, but I've been socking away cash since my first day of FT employment. Precisely because I don't want to count on SS for retirement.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
How many Hispanics does he know (besides his gardener)?
Did you just assume his herbarage?
Burden of proof is the standard of ALL debates and rational decision making.
If you start saying that "We're making a decision, but hey, we don't want to have to meet any burden of proof, apart from that which someone proposes as it's something they feel strongly about", then welcome to Creationism and Flat Earth in Science classes, Anti-Vax being instituted as medical policy and so forth.
Stating that "It's just a job interview, who needs legal standards" is disingenuous. What you're advocating seems to be abandonment of rational decisions, which is patently absurd.
Everybody gets smarter as they get older.
Only through their 20s...
The boomers were the god damn hippies once.
mostly in their early 20s, they grew out of it by mid 20s, or they're the ones we're still seeing wandering around.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I get that if he's innocent he has every right to be angry about his treatment. But his response demonstrated a lack of self-control and ability to objectively and clearly weigh facts that we expect of judges, especially those in the highest court of the land.
Bullshit. He wasn't in the role of a judge at the time, he was in the role of a defendant whose life and family was just thrown in the gutter as part of the Democrats agenda. If you cannot see that you should grow up a few years and pay attention to both sides more clearly.
You have left and right confused.
At the national level, the Republicans have eliminated their seniority system, so young(er) people with new ideas are put in positions of responsibility and visibility.
Yep, those young whippersnappers like Grassley, McConnell, Hatch or even Collins or Murkowski just make Booker, Heitkamp, and O'Rourke look ancient. Meanwhile the over hill crowd like Flake are leaving.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Everybody's relationship with their dark lord is a private and personal thing.
The thing is, if his judicial record had a history of partisan rulings, we would have heard about it in week one of the process. The Democrats have not objected on a single point of his most relevant record.
His actual record is awful. You won't hear about it from the MSM, because they want you focused on some he-said she-said bullshit that happened 30 years ago, if it happened at all. They want you focused on something we can never objectively know the truth about 30 years later today, so you just keep your partisan bickering bullshit going about hypotheticals and victimized women and victimized men and blablablablabullshitblabullshit.
It's also likely the Democrats approve of his positions. For example, he supports torture. The Democrats don't have a problem with that when they're in power. He supports police brutality. This is ok with the Democrat leadership. The Democrat leadership don't give a flying fuck about Roe v. Wade. Hell, they probably want it to go away so they can use the restoration of the right to an abortion as a campaign issue in the future.
Both side of the uniparty are playing games with your head. Their only real, tangible disagreement is about whether we should start World War 3 by provoking Russia or whether it would be better to start World War 3 by provoking China.
He has public stated: "This whole two-week effort have been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election" "revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside leftwing opposition groups,"
So your beef is that he told the plain and obvious truth?
Maybe, as long as they can continue to roll bonds into new ones.
Which means the fed has to continue buying the leftovers at every auction, which is a 'circular economic perpetual motion printing press'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You mean in the letters they already sent to the FBI? Including the guy who in the yearbook was credited with inventing it?
So, if you're applying for a job and somebody doesn't like you and/or what you believe in, they can accuse you of something, and then you will no longer be above reproach, right? And that's okay, right? Just checking.
Depends entirely on the job, and the type of accusation.
Sworn testimony in a hearing, where lying is perjury, for a senior lifetime role in government is very different from an anecdote told to someone considering you for a job as a Subway Sandwich Artist.
But I'm sure you knew that, Anonymous Coward, otherwise you'd have to be a moron, which can't possibly be the case.
Should it disqualify him if it happened? Are you fucking kidding? Yes. We aren't talking about whether he should be sent to prison...we're talking about whether he should sit on the highest court in the land, deciding upon constitutional matters. You're damned right it should disqualify him. Again, if we're assuming it actually happened, is it really too much to ask that people *not* sexually assault others and then be able to hold critical positions within our government?
Yeah ... the solution is to shove a broomstick up the azzwhole of Trotsky-slut SJWs in every company and keep-on-shoving. Ohhh that gotta hurt!
#metoo!
I didnâ(TM)t mention it before because I forgot. He raped me with all the vigor of three day old McDonalds fries. If he isnâ(TM)t banned from slashdot you support McDonalds and basically genocide.
The only hearsay on record as predating this by several years is the therapist notes. Which the Senate still hasn't seen.
Here is more of the problem.
Its a guilty until proven innocent from the left. Not debatable on that point, which is fine.
He is accused of attacking her, at some point in time she doesn't remember, at some place she doesn't remember, with people there she doesn't remember.
Now go ahead and prove you are innocent. No time or place, so alibi is not possible (he even has calendars from back then to provide alibi if date/place were told). People she claimed were there say it didn't happen, so we have to assume other people were present, but since we don't know who how can he bring those present to say he didn't do it?
So they come up with a "guilty until proven innocent" and then are so light on details an alibi or witnesses are impossible to provide. He basically cannot prove he is innocent without time/place/people which they are not providing.
Today I also learned Ford likely didn't write the letter. It appears an FBI agent, who worked with a lawyer on the Trump Russia collusion FBI investigation, likely wrote the letter for Ford. So we have proven liars working with her, and she also lied under oath about polygraphs.
Brett is a rich white male, mark my words, nothing will happen.
He's apart of the elite. His beds already made for him.
Even if he *is* innocent, I "feel" he shouldn't be appointed for various other reasons. Am I allowed that opinion, or should I shut-up, color, and give the current sitting President everything he asks for?
In the context of recalling what happened years ago: saying something didn't happen and saying you don't recall something happening are exactly the same.
If you asked me about something in my past and I told you it didn't happen, there is the implicit, "based on the best of my recollections". Human memory is flawed, there is always the contingency that it could be a false recollection. Denial based only on memory is the same as saying you don't remember it happening.
This is playing word games. "My parents never bought me a corvette" and "I don't recall my parents buying me a corvette" are both the same when talking about what someone remembers. They are very different when talking in the context of legal records, paper trails, or something else. But in this context of memory of past events, it is exactly the same.
Your own post shows heavy bias. I also watched the entire thing and I don't takeaway any of the slant that you do.
You're not capable of judging the man based on his facial expressions and you should not.
Unless you want to go back to the times of "she's a WITCH!!!!"
but maybe you do.
LOL. You repubtards threw every accusation that you could at Barry, all without a shred of proof.
Stay classy tho. Cycles come in 2s.
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime because the other candidate is a corrupt asshole and gets the job because he is willing to cover up a couple of crimes and also cooperate with people who will benefit from him doing the job badly?
That is the situation for every other candidate.
There are hundreds of other applicants that are more qualified than Kavanaugh, the reason he is even talked to is because some people doesn't want the SC to function properly.
"Open hatred of anyone is not acceptable in a judge."
Fortunately that's not a feature of Judge Kavanaugh's character. His righteous, justified anger, however is tolerable in a judge, especially when it's in response to accusations he consistently denies.
Innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof was not met in this instance.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
It's because we don't know the truthfullness of his claims. He could be a bold faced liar and we wouldn't know.
The point that we're all missing because we don't look too deeply into history is that the left is exactly about division. They are descendants of revolutionary communists who seek to invoke class war. They might be the LITE version but in the end it will result in the same thing. The left need to step off with their hysterical bullshit.
Sorry buttercup, the only "rape" claim that was made was by the bat-shit crazy lady who claimed she attend 10 gang rape parties but only stopped going after she was the target. No one else, outside of people like, ever made a rape claim against the Judge.
So conspiracy theory is truth now?
In the same thread you went from "wait for the facts"...to believing a random conspiracy theory.
LOL. This is why we don't believe you. You are a two faced repubtard.
Society is not built on "law" ... that's a Semite hoax placing LAW before culture ... unless you are willing to call a prison culture a society. Free society is built on the untrained, but value-producing behavior of its citizens. Parasite, violent and unthinking citizens get a shit-hole country like African Bantu savage-land. Productive , self-disciplined and thoughtful citizens get a rewarding culture country like the Swiss or Norwegians. LAW does not produce value-laden behavior ... classy citizens produce good laws. Don't let Rawlsian Trotsky-sluts tell you otherwise. You need a postcard palsy ?
1. A cursory search on google says the accusation was for 1982, I can't be bothered to look more closely for a specific date. There has been no evidence, however there rarely is in such allegations. And your point about false accusations being made purely for political reasons is definitely something that always bears thought and consideration.
2. While impeachment would be technically possible I think we'd need something significantly more offensive than a 40 year old rape. You don't have to look any further back than Clinton for proof of that.
3. I can agree to some degree that what we did in our youth shouldn't throw an eternal shadow over the rest of our lives. However for positions of such power and authority I don't see why we can't be more picky and require candidates that have always shown good enough judgement so as to not have committed felonies such as rape. Not that I'm convinced the candidate currently in question did commit a rape, but I think that such a crime should definitely be a dis qualifier. My biggest concern so far has been that his actions don't look like an innocent persons actions. For example when he was asked about drinking and being drunk, he failed to actually admit to or deny any drinking but instead immediately went off on a tangent about the lower drinking age, despite his age at the time still being under that lower age, and how much he likes the taste of beer. He's a judge and should be intimately familiar with the habits of evasive testimony. An admission of underage drinking, possibly even excessively, would have come off looking far more professional.
I think there are several obvious reasons the Democrats have played this up every way possible. First there is the slim hope that they could keep the slot open through the mid term elections and possibly win a majority in the senate, and then hold the slot open until a possible presidential race. Polarization plays well for both parties, the hope of course is always that your side will draw more than the other. In this case the Democrats are likely to pick up more female voters than the Republicans, even if it's not converting voters it is likely to encourage more women to participate that are sympathetic to their cause. If nothing else the squabbling was intended to try and delay the appointment until after the next session of court, because there is at least one case regarding abortion that is or could be on the docket.
That is irrelevant to whether he's innocent or not.
Well, if you know you're innocent and you know you're being set up and it's taking a concerted effort by a group of people who are afraid you will, in the course of your duty, dismantle their agenda, then conspiracy is the right word for it. Hillary used that word with much less, if any, justification.
Except GenX isn't getting "Smarter". This is how they've always leaned, they are in their mid 50s now,
What the hell are you talking about? GenX is not in their mid 50s, I'm in my mid 50s (55) and I was born in 1963. I'm the last of the baby boomers, not a GenX'r.
Get your facts straight before you try insulting people.
It's not slander if it's true bunk.
If I understand you right, the things you count as evidence are "more specific details", and also "more corroborating stories from people about the event in question" -- not necessarily witnesses to the event, but people who can corroborate other incidental details of the accusation. In other words you'd want to see more "(s)he-said" to back up the the other details, presumably with the implication that if more people back up other details then you think a judge should believe the central detail.
(and you're specifically not interested in corroborating stories about behaviors/characteristics of the people in general; you're only interested in the particular event).
Is that a fair understanding of your position?
In law it's called "Preponderance of evidence". Even if it's all "he said/she said" if there are enough witnesses then it starts to look likely.
Because this isn't a legal proceeding, it wouldn't have to be even all one event to disqualify him but a large enough trend to make it likely.
For most sexual predators (like Clinton), there are dozens of people who come forward once the first story breaks. You are not seeing that in this case.
You are seeing a few people come forward about his drinking habits but getting wasted in HS or college isn't really something that is prosecuted or even on trial here.
The hypocrisy is also really annoying. This isn't and never was about a juvenile attempted rape. This is completely political (on both sides). Neither side really cares about the truth. Both sides ignore much worse stuff if it's somebody on their team.
We know Brett is a delusional nutbag. Tell us something we don't know LUL.
Yep. This counts as a "BOO-FUCKIN'-HOO" moment.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Stop telling the truth. It doesn't matter to them because you suffer from TDS.
Not just the SCOTUS position.
If this crap had been found credible, it wouldn't have stopped there.
He'd have been open to having his appeals court bench revoked as well.
Once that happened, he probably would never sit on a bench again.
Basically rendering him jobless.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
There used to be free tampoons at ladies bathroom at Facebook offices. That changed a couple of years ago. Now there are tampoons also at mens bathroom. Think about it. Tampoons at mens bathroom.
Really think about it. People at Facebook have abandoned all sense of reason and reasonability. Expect more of these demonstrations of group think and virtue signaling.
Go watch the OJ Simpson trials. OJ didn't once act like this guy. Yet you all said he was guilty from the get go. BecUse he was BLACK!
Still too many. Trying to get someone fired for badwrongthink on their own time is unacceptable.
lets FTFY in Official newspeak:
DOUBLEPLUS UNGOOD THOUGHT CRIME
What happened to innocent before proven guilty? That's applicable to criminal proceedings, not political processes. He is *not* entitled to congressional approval. No one is. Please do not conflate the two.
But if a D does that, they are guilty without a doubt. Fuck you and your twisted logic.
I can't stand repubtards. You guys r the biggest hypocrites of them all. Bigger than the libturds.
Exactly what Brett should do.
Apologize and get it over with.
A-fucking-men
That's not how it works for any potential appointee, the FBI interviews, gathers facts and presents them to the senate committee, this is always how it has been done.
The FBI does not come up with a recommendation of guilt or innocence...that is not their charge on these matters, never has been. The present their findings of fact to the committee and the senate committed are the body that decides the matter.
This is not a criminal investigation....not supposed to be. If they want to charge him with a crime, then that can still be done, that has nothing to do with this senate hearing. This is a fact finding and recommendation of worthiness and that decisions comes only from the senate committee as it has always been done (D or R).
I had naturally thought that they would be interviewed too, however, we do have a LOT of fresh testimony from the lady from the senate hearing day, and the rebuttal from the judge later that day....I guess, what more are they doing to get out of them that hours of testimony to the senate committee didn't get out of them? The FBI looked at testimony from those referenced from the senate hearing on this subsequent finding. I guess it makes sense, but then again, I'm not an FBI agent in charge of this.
I honestly don't see where you are going with this....how is this man going to turn the clock back to 100 years ago?
Hell, 50 years ago was 1968. That actually wasn't a bad time at ALL in the US. Great music, a more unified US, wasn't as fractured and partisan as it is now...hell, you had a Democrat in office as president. Ok, the Vietnam war sucked, but I don't think anyone sitting on the supreme court today is going to throw us into a war, you know?
Life was actually much easier going, and times were not anywhere near as stressful as the are today (even considering the war then and the hippie protests). Sure they had some problems always do, but didn't seem so prevalent and there was much more respect or at least tolerance for those on the other side of the spectrum from yourself.
Frankly, I'd say in many ways, the US is worse off today than it was 50 years ago....we are not nearly the homogenous country we were then, united more than today, people knew their neighbors, etc.
And, what is the SC doing to do to make healthcare any worse than it has been since obamacare got shoved down our throats and made costs skyrocket? Not sure how this judge would legislate healthcare one way or another away from us?
And who cares about other parts of the world, we're just talking the US here.
I don't see where a new judge on the US Supreme Court is going to tip the world on its head like you seem to worry about.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
....How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
Let's assume he's 100% innocent. Why should I have more pity for this person than the millions who lost health insurance under Trump?
You may need to revisit those numbers. the uninsured rate of adults has increased one-tenth of 1 percentage point during Trump's presidency according to NHIS data. Politico Fact translates that to about 100k - far fewer than the *millions* you claimed.
Or Farmers who are losing their livelihoods because of a misguided trade war?
The tariffs have not been in place long enough to see any actual results; Most news outlets say that "farmers are worried that they may lose those commodity markets for good." Don't let facts get in the way of your political bias.
Or the children put in immigration prison and separated from their families indefinitely?
More political spin. Donald Trump merely asked to enforce existing laws and policies. His Zero Tolerance policy applies to all adults who cross the border. The 1997 "Flores" consent decree requires that the federal government release all undocumented immigrant children within 20 days. Since processing adults generally takes more than 20 days, enforcing our immigration laws and following the Flores decree effectively requires separating children from their families. Also note that the government is actively trying to reunite the 2,000 minors who were separated from their families under the zero tolerance period.
Or small investors who will lose their life savings in the next crash because the Trump administration is eliminating the CFPD and making fraud legal again. Or the thousands of Yemenis and Syrian civilians who were killed by U.S. bombs, dropped by the Trump administration?
More spin.
Or Heather Heyer who was run over by a Trump supporter, who happens to be a "good person". I could go on and on.
Talk about Goodwin! You cannot blame Trump for something that one of his supporters did.
There are millions of U.S. citizens who have very good reasons to vote against this administration in November.
I'm supposed to feel sorry for a very well-to-do jurist who went to Georgetown prep, was a legacy admission to Yale, and had political opportunities up the wazoo because he was buddies with all the right Republicans at a very early age. This person is a judge on the second-highest court in the country. He has a nice upper-class life. If he gets sick, doctors will take care of him. When he retires, or is disabled and can no longer work, he will receive a golden pension and live in dignity. I'm sorry Republicans, but I just cannot feel sorry for your boy. Even if he's 100% innocent and this is a "con-job orchestrated by the Clintons". Kavanaugh is the ultimate snow flake.
You're supposed to feel bad about someone who's receiving death threats over an unsubstantiated accusation. You can feel smug in judging him for the circumstances of his birth and privileged upbringing.
Seriously....so, even for political process, you are advocating that anyone be immediately disqualified if someone says they were "naughty"...?
Do you have any idea what that would do to govt? Hell, there would never again be anyone appointed anywhere.
Look elections have consequences....the folks on the right had to live with and put up with all the crap Obama did for 8 years. Even with that, republicans passed and let his 2 SC justices go on board.
Why are the Dems fighting tooth and nail about any justices Trump is appointing? So far, both candidates seem extremely qualified.....the didn't bitch and moan and character assassinate those Obama appointees.....why do they think the end of the world is coming with these two?
But yes, on any charges like this, there must be a presumption of innocence...and proof be the burden of the accusers, or we have complete anarchy in the legal and political system.
I don't think we want to get any closer to the old days of witch hunts than are already creeping now...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You just compared a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults to accusations of sexual assault. Those aren't even a little bit alike. That's not a shoe on the other foot. Kavanaugh is accused of something that virtually everyone agrees is wrong. Outside of evangelicals the exact opposite is true for homosexuality.
You're strawmaning in the worst way.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
but you're willing to subject yourself to a full and thorough investigation, right? Just like Ms Ford is.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and his right wing politics and Wallstreet Deregulation caused the 2008 market crash (he's the one that started letting Mainstreet & Wallstreet banks mix, Bush continued it and that's what got us Credit Default Swaps).
So yeah, as a card carrying Democrat I wouldn't mind in the slightest if Clinton had been taken down. But as a right wing establishment Dem he was propped up by the Mega corps to do their bidding. Just like this Kavanaugh guy.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> If he's innocent then the process demands his appointment be approved.
Nope. The process demands that there is a vote, during which congress decides his fitness to be appointed for life to a very powerful position.
I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to convict him of a historic crime. Regardless of the truth of the matter, such things are almost impossible to prove either way after so long. However, there is far more evidence that he has not been entirely honest whilst under oath. Probably still not to secure a conviction, but enough to make the question of "is this a person I want to appoint to a life-long position of power?" an easy "no".
Funnily enough, not everyone who meets the low bar of "probably not a rapist" is automatically supreme court material. There are plenty of qualified candidates who don't have half a dozen acquaintances claiming that they lied under oath; maybe we should pick on of those?
Just as I was annoyed at Google blathering on about Trump's election to staff, I'm annoyed at a facebook exec supporting being in this hearing supporting anything.
Your jobs isn't politics.
It's crappy online nonsense.
there are grey areas. Let me spell it out
Some Democrats are corrupt (Pelosi, Manchin).
Some are not (Bernie, Warren, Orcasio Cortez).
I can't name a single GOP member who isn't bought and paid for. Seriously, show me one that refuses corporate PAC money. Just one. I'll wait. Meanwhile the Dems have a wing (google "Justice Democrats") for whom that is a requirement of admission.
The Dems are awful. The GOP is awful. But there's something I think we can salvage in the Dems. I base that on evidence and voting records. I have no such evidence for the GOP. They're only goal is to serve their donors and I have no hard evidence to indicate otherwise. This is a science forum. I expect evidence. As the saying goes, picts or it didn't happen.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I never raped in high school. And If I had, nobody should care what I think.
You asked when they'll come for you just for your political leanings. Now. They're formulating plans to literally destroy anyone who thinks unlike them. Line up in the ditches or against the wall, intellectuals, the communists are here.
Are you maybe looking for the word repudiate?
> that several people are corroborating
That word doesn't mean what you think it does.
Ms. Ford named three people whom she said were at the party, and could therefore *corroborate* that she was at a party where Kavanaugh also was. All three said that never happened, as far they know.
"Corroborate" means confirm, validate, support, back up.
All of the witnesses instead did the opposite. They contradicted, discredited, or repudiated her story(ies) when they said they were NOT at any party with Ford and Kavanaugh as she claims.
Nobody knows for sure, but here is what I think happened. (Even Ford has told at least three contradictory stories, so clearly she's unsure).
I think 17 year old Brett Kavanaugh got sloppy drunk.
I think Ford had a couple drinks.
I think Kavanaugh probably made an awkward, drunk, idiotic pass at her.
I think she was a little scared.
I think Kavanaugh doesn't remember what happened.
You could have said the exact same thing in the 1960s. Only morons hang onto their childish idiocy. Lots of things change, but everybody does/pays their taxes, every year. Only a few a blind enough to think they are getting value from it.
Ok grandpa. Oh well, I'll just continue on here through my 40s with my "childish idiocy", likely paying much more than you in taxes due to the business I own, and having to face the coming future with more than tired platitudes about how I want the world to be rather than what it is. Meanwhile, you can sit there sniffing your farts, loving the rich flavor, thinking about baby boomers... aka the Me Generation... and the 1960s as if any of that has any relevance to 2018 50 years later. Everyone is stupid but you, and even though you need only look out the window to see which way the wind blows, I'm sure you're right.
I'm surprised you didn't hear, it was kind of a big deal. They still exist (we couldn't kill them completely) but they only get a vote in round 2, and even then lost some power. And round 2 hasn't happened in 30 years.
The Dems have their problems, but I think they're salvagable. There's some folks who refuse corporate PAC money. Quite a bit actually. Google "Justice Democrats". They also support populist ideas like Universal healthcare, free college, the "New New Deal", etc.
The Republicans talk a good game but when it's time to put up they take away protections for pre-existing conditions, cut infrastructure spending for tax cuts and cut federal funding to colleges. You can argue the Dems will do the same thing, but they've never been given the chance. They had 2 years during which they spent all their political capital on healthcare reform and did that while rebuilding the economy after the biggest crash since the Great Depression. Give them a super majority of Bernie Bros & Gals and a matching president if you want to see what the left can do for America.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
had 4 accusations, a raft of folks saying he was a violent drunk and often got drunk and gave that testimony I would tell my friend to step down.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Bathhouse Barry's sexual assaults in Chicago are quite legendary.
Did not recall such a party and denying that a party had ever occurred are not so far apart that it constitutes a plain lie.
You saying it does is a plain lie.
Oooh wook at that! Wook at those widdle brigaded downvotes for my fwamebait! Wooks wike some bwigading ass pussy cunt cuckservatives weally don't wike being called out!
You people are fucking pathetic LOL.
I just posted my theory that perhaps 17yo Kavanaugh was really drunk and he doesn't remember what happened 30+ years ago while very drunk. When Ford says "I was scared because I thought he might ...", maybe she was scared, maybe she did think. That's all activity in her own head. Here's another plausible theory, though.
Two men have spoken up saying THEY are the ones who put their hands on Ford. One of the two doesn't seem very reliable. The other one may well be telling the truth - he did it, just like he says. Ford testified that she didn't know Kavanaugh well, and after a beer or two she may well have confused him for the other guy.
Will you feel the same way when it's a D nominee being accused at the 11th hour. Because it will happen, assuming they ever nominate a decent presidential candidate.
Those of us greater than 5 years old don't have to wonder how we'd feel. Garland's case is arguable more heinous, because Rs simple refused to discuss his nomination for no reason other than partisan politics.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]
Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[91] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[92]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yeah that happened already you pud.
There is a big difference between killing somebody and denying them one of the most sensitive and delicate positions in the country.
And the probability of Mr. K being innocent is about zero.
Being on the Supreme Court is not a right you piece f shit. Fuck you and gun.
As a Democrat I enjoy a free reign on raping and pillaging. It is exhilarating! I am going on a trip to Portland soon... I invite you to come rape, murder and generally pretend it is west world.
A fair, balanced and factual description of what happened. And apparently 20% flamebait according to the mods. Also 30% overrated.
There are people trying really, really hard to control the narrative and bury anything that contradicts their preferred version of events. For all the whining about SJWs and Leftists, look at who is abusing the moderation system and somewhat successfully making sure that their message is heard to the exclusion of all others.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Abortion might become illegal again in the US because the majority of Supreme Court judges don't believe in it.
How do you think it became legal in the first place. Because a majority of judges voted that way. The right to abortion isn't in our constitution.
If RvW was overturned, it doesn't make abortion illegal. It just means the FEDERAL government decided not to decide, which leaves it up to the states.
A Supreme Court Justice has little room for the discretion and "sympathy" that trial court judges have - esp. in sentencing. Virtually every important case the Supreme Court rules on sets national precedence and rules on the meaning and application of the Constitution, statutory law, case law, and regulations. These decisions affect not just the instant case, but cases where the players and facts are quite different, but the principles are similar. Rulings must not be colored by sympathy or empathy for the plaintiff or defendant in the instant case. Sympathy and empathy are appropriate in determining policy -- and that's what we hire our politicians to do and we give them binding performance reviews every two, four, or six years.
If a Justice (actually, any judge) does not at times make a decision that they wish, personally, they didn't have to make, they almost certainly not doing their job.
If the law is "unfair" (morally or ethically), it is still the job of a Justice to apply that law regardless of the impact on any party (of course, within the limits of the whole body of law).
Good news, BTW, Kavanaugh will soon know one black person pretty well as a colleague - Justice Thomas and him may even play together at recess and drink together before oral arguments.
Boof another cock you women-hating closetfags!
This whole 11th-hour accusation thing is just bullshit. The Dems have been fighting against K from the start. About 90% of his dossier is closed (why, if he has nothing to hide), there is a very dubious loan from a year back, and they had other stuff from the beginning. The Reps (and the press) ignored all this. Why this rape accusation (that itself is many years old) came up when it came up has been more than adequately explained, ignoring that is just playing dumb for propaganda reasons.
And the Democrats are more than willing to go this way, because they both crave power and believe they are unassailable in their pursuit of that power.
Here you go.
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial, with some commentators saying the seat on the Court to which Garland was nominated was "stolen".[85][86][87] Over 170,000 people signed a White House petition asking President Obama to independently appoint Garland to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Senate had waived its advise and consent role.[88] On November 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras threw out a lawsuit against Senator McConnell seeking to compel a vote on the nomination, finding that the plaintiff, who had simply alleged he was a voter, had no standing to sue.[88]
Garland had more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history,[33] and was the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell, Jr. in 1971.[89] The American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated Garland "well-qualified" to sit on the Supreme Court, the committee's highest rating.[90]
Garland's nomination expired on January 3, 2017, with the end of the 114th Congress after a period of 293 days.[91] On January 31, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the Court vacancy.[92]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have people forgotten what was said about Clinton during the presidential campaign already? Supported her husband who cheated on her and sexually assaulted women. The accusers were invited by Trump to the second debate and sat in the audience. Trump used her husband's alleged actions to excuse his own.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
How about get rid of life terms. If it was only 5 years then there would be a lot less controversy over one bad judge.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And doesn't mention the name Kavanaugh.
And mentions the year 1985, not 1982.
Makes sense why these notes haven't been given to the Senate.
You have left and right confused.
Steve Scalise disagrees.
Democrats trying to play baseball haven't been shot at by righties.
What color is the sky on your planet?
They work for the intelligence agencies of the United States.
They only purpose of Facebook is censorship and destruction of the 4th Amendment. Do these idiots think they're doing good? Now, suddenly, they have a moral ground. It is to laugh. Their company was founded by a thief who stole code, and whose initial idea was to exploit misplaced trust in his website. Everybody that works for Facebook is scum and they shouldn't pretend otherwise.
12 for Bill Clinton. Are you consistent?
You know Clinton isn't president, right? Also, he's not up for SCOTUS appointment. Christ, find a new bogeyman. This is just getting sad.
the state of Maryland was trying to make the ford incident a fellony so they could take him to trial as of last Friday. Read the Rachel Mitchel report. She said, after 30 years prosecuting sexual crimes, that NOBODY would ever consider going to trial with this. But apparently the DA of Maryland is extra fucking stupid.
He's past the appointee stage. His background check found some dubious things in his youth and they were ignored. The results are what you see. At this point we're into an actual investigation of rape accusations. Or we would have been if the President himself hadn't limited the scope of the investigation so that nobody concerned could be interviewed.
The Supreme Court very narrowly upheld the law regarding pre-existing conditions (the ACA, aka "Obamacare"). There's another challenge that President Trump and his administration are allowing to go through. It will eventually go to the SCOTUS. When it does we go back to the old system of being denied healthcare. Ever had acne medicine prescribed? Congratulations, you just won a lifetime of no care for skin cancer treatments because of your "cancerous lesions". Kavaughn will vote against it.
People don't realize this but the SCOTUS has effective Veto power over any law in America. All they have to do is declare it unconstitutional. In the past Americans had zero work safety and wage protections because one of the courts ruled that you should be able to enter into any kind of contract you want no matter how broken and one sided it was. The era was named after the judge who rammed it through, and it sucked. Kavaughn is one of those guys. He believes exactly that. Prepare to get screwed.
The media doesn't talk about this stuff because, well, the media is owned by billionaires and they would like very much to not pay taxes or for your healthcare. The media has a slight left wing bias on social issue, but it's hard right on economics.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. A cursory search on google says the accusation was for 1982, I can't be bothered to look more closely for a specific date.
You won't find one. Ford doesn't remember the date (not surprising actually). But she also doesn't remember the location, which is really weird.
How would you feel about losing the job of your lifetime to an accusation?
It's probably helping him more than anything else. People have been so obsessed about the sex accusation (which can't be proven) that they're ignoring his complete track record, which is shady to say the least.
I'm certain he will be confirmed. Conservatives have shown time and time again that they don't care about sex scandals and "locker room talk," so this little distraction is just getting him sympathy points.
Yeah, that's a neat trick. First rush everything so much that there is no time to collect evidence, and then declare that everything is unsubstantiated. Not dishonest at all, certainly not, how dare you be so impolite to say that.
There is plenty of reason to believe that at least some of the accusations can be substantiated: there are sworn statements that could bring the accusers a lot of legal trouble if they would be lying. Due diligence would require that these accusations are at least properly investigated. (Not the sham that the FBI was forced to conduct this week.)
and I voted for Bernie in the primary. Waited in line 2 hours for that. I'm aware our system is corrupt, but it's all we have. We're not Gods. I can't put a fire out with one sweep of my hand. I have to start somewhere.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you mean like this kid? whose accusers finally admitted faking the whole thing, and NO consequences for them?
https://triblive.com/local/reg...
The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
This is very true.
I listened to a podcast about something called ranked choice voting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This jist is that you don't just pick one person, you rank all the candidates. If no one wins by majority (50%, or whatever) you calculate in the second choice votes, and the third until someone has a majority.
This has the most interesting side effect of bringing candidates to the center. It encourages candidates to reach out to the other side in hopes of getting some 2nd choice votes. It discourages polarization because polarizing candidates are apt to have fewer 2nd choice votes (you either love them or hate them).
it's about character. Character matters for a lifetime appointment. We can't get rid of him once he's seated. And he will have mind numbing amounts of power. He's basically got Veto power on any law that comes before him. He doesn't have to justify himself either. Clarence Thomas, for example, has written one opinion in his entire time on the bench.
It's about risk. Everything I know about the man tells me I don't want him in charge of my fate. There's plenty more like him that are much, much less risky. They're not going to side with the mega corps 100% of the time against me. They might even have some basic understanding of what my life is like. And they're not as likely to be actively hostile. Again, I have to go on the evidence I have when making a decision. We all do. The evidence tells me that this guy is no friend of mine, and that he's going to use his power to enrich himself and his friends at my expense. Just like those jocks who bullied me did.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not being appointed to a lifetime seat on the highest court of the land =/= ruined.
It's not really so much the accusation, it's his response to it. Law enforcement has unanimously unendorsed him, as he provided the exact same response that convicted rapists do. Psychologically, Kavanaugh 100% believes he's guilty, as one can tell by his actions.
They've convicted rapists on less evidence, and before the admission comes out. It's not a perfect science, but it should be telling when nearly every law enforcement officer in the country turns on Kavanaugh over one testimony.
1- Urban dictionary definitions are unreliable. Hell, one of them mention Kavanaugh by name. The odds of that not having been written after the current debate are infinitesimal.
2-I'm not reading that seaworld bit, but I'm guessing it's something about hating seaworld. which most "reasonably intelligent people who don't base their opinion on one movie" don't hate. Unless you hate animal rescue. Plus, it's contrarian. Contra views either involve overthrowing Daniel Ortega, or winning at a mid 80s video game.
-kys
Good lord. Just back a 10 or 20 year limit on justices serving and be done with it.
The real tragedy here is that, as far as I know (I don't know much), the things people are pissed off at happened when he was still legally a child. It kind of doesn't matter what he did back then because we, as a society, specifically lock all records once a child turns 18 because childhood is a LEARNING experience and mistakes will be made.
Personally, I don't like the dude as a judge and I would vote against because of my dislike... but it disgusts me to see this behavior by adults trying to hold another adult accountable for something he did as a child.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Perjury? What fear is there of perjury when there is no way to substantiate or un-substantiate the claim? There are so many details she can't remember, there would be no way make perjury stick because the story could be adapted to suit a thousand circumstances. Basically she said "At some point 40 years ago, Brett might have tried to rape me." Does that meet your litmus test?
So back to the parent's point, for anyone you don't like, or didn't like, or don't agree with, all you have to do is accuse them with enough vagueness to not perjure yourself and that's all there is to it huh? Poof! Career over.
Yup, there's some moronic think here.
you're a Bernie Baby
There are many reasons why that isn't the case and also a whole hearted fuck you for excusing the behaviour.
I am not OP.
He did not excuse any behavior.
Here is a whole hearted fuck you for not understanding that society has agreed that crimes committed as children should not be used against that person as an adult because childhood is for learning limits and boundaries... and children WILL exceed those limits and boundaries from time to time.
The judge is a shitty person, but holding what he did as a child against him now that he is an adult is really fucked up. What kind of person are you?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
everyone knows that you have no integrity and your claims can be ignored. If that wasn't the case, they would simply sue you out of existence.
you see son, that is why fake claims don't really happen all that often. It's just something that morally challenged children say to try to avoid accepting responsibility.
Kavanaugh needs to be in SCOTUS or in jail.
False Dichotomy.
He should not be nominated to the Supreme Court is another option. But not because of the accusations.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
He wasn't a judge in that situation, he was an accused person.
This isn't a distinction he gets to make. An accused judge still needs to act like a judge. You can respond to accusations without turning into a bully. He didn't. No judge in the country should be making the highly partisan attacks he made to the committee. A judge's entire job is to be neutral (albeit informed by law as he understands it). He can defend himself without launching attacks on the left, but he didn't. (Obviously the right would still make attacks on the left, but his job is not to be a politician.)
His temper may make for better theater, but it's extremely unprofessional and deeply undermines the legitimacy of the court. Not appointing him has little to do with what did or didn't happen decades ago, or even the corroboration that he was generally kind of a dick once upon a time. It has to do with how he's acting today.
He wasn't a judge in that situation, he was an accused person.
People have a standard response mechanism and demeanor for various situations. He wasn't an accused person as much as he was someone who had to answer a difficult question with real consequences.
You just got a taste for the thought process that goes on in his mind when faced with such a decision. As I said, not supreme court material. There are 24 other judges which could be nominated equally conservative and happy to wear the republican's collar. I don't understand why anyone would defend his appointment.
Out of 350million Americans, surely you can find 9 qualified people without having to elect up questionable douchebag who cracks under a bit of pressure, especially given as many have pointed out there's no shred of evidence against him.
"We believe you were for him until the hearing." -- No one
Why not? I'm not American. I don't live in America. I have zero skin in the game and his actions won't affect me in the slightest. From the outside it looks liked a smear campaign which was continuously ramping up the character attacks starting from the plausible (the incident in question) to the ludicrous (the gang-rape accusation that was never reported).
It had all the marks of a fabricated story, ... right until he gave his piss poor flailing defense.
Actually, according to forensic sciences, Kavanaugh's emotional outbursts during his testimony was more than enough for other folks to get convicted of rape. A guilty person responds that way, an innocent person will respond much more levelly and controllably. Kavanaugh almost lost it, and the entirety of the law enforcement community has now disavowed him. Anyone who knows that aspect of human psychology has; that is the surest sign of guilty behavior.
Regardless of these facts, it's good to know you don't mind someone brutally drugging and raping the females you love, as long as n amount of time has passed. I wonder if the females who know you in real life know that you don't mind if they get brutally drugged and raped?
I had good communists I grew under i.e. they did not force delete on half of population but I understand what you say. It feels the same way today as it did back then. I think this Kova guy does not deserve to get a nomination but not for the reasons that are being discussed now.
of temporarily inconvenienced millionaires.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I just wanted to say king neckbeard is a drug addict and i heard from a reliable source he gangrapes somalian refugee children.
Why would you lean 75 25 for women? Isn't that, by definition, sexist?
indeed the cost of accusation is low and possible benefits even if it is 'fun of looking at their lives being ruined' priceless. What do you expect to happen then?
The problem now is not whether he is innocent or not. The problem is the performance , the lie, and the evasion he has shown during the hearing. That is quite a very poor not to say incredibly bad performance for somebody supposed to be a supreme court justice. Furthermore "supreme court" is like an interview for a job , and it is a job. You want those at that job to be at least "acceptable" PR wise. Gorsuch was protested, but in the end it was not much a PR storm. Now *EVERY* decision of the supreme court where Kavenaugh is involved especially related to women reproduction right, rape, or equality of women right (again decided mostly by men but that's a story for another thread) will be tainted. You may have a partisan chuckle and think you have done it and sticked it to the dems or whatever. But that is not the problem. The problem is that taint, will never go away. That taint will erode the confidence the public has in one of the last institution of the legal US system which was respected. That , my friend, is how you start a country distrust of its institution so hard, a destabilisation so difficult to reverse, that you may actually have wounded the country in a way which will be difficult to correct, maybe never. Time will tell if in a decade or so there is any difference, but I would not be surprised that those last two years started a slope the US politic system will never recover from.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Learn to writr like a human being. Jesus christ. You come off as a fucking retard
1. A cursory search on google says the accusation was for 1982, I can't be bothered to look more closely for a specific date.
You won't find one. Ford doesn't remember the date (not surprising actually). But she also doesn't remember the location, which is really weird.
Especially since she remembered very specifically having exactly one beer to drink that evening.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
its way worse than that. They took an oath to uphold the constitution. SEVERAL went on TV and made these statements like "We already know he is guilty". That is a direct violation of due process. They are directly acting AGAINST the constitution and are guilty of Treason. They should be removed and charged as such.
they can be impeached just like a president, but he would have to be found guilty of a crime. Being believed to be partisan describes every damn justice up there. They already have a tally of who they think will vote each way.. that doesnt come from a crystal ball. Kennedy was just one considered a swing voter. You dont get a nickname like that if this court is as partisan free as you seem to think.
So think about that for a little bit, the only thing that was really accomplished was to further polarize the country. The only reason I can think of for wanting to intentionally polarize the country is to give the commoners something to fight about so the elites in washington on both sides of the aisle can continue to sell off the country to the highest bidder.
I'm not an American and don't live there so I have pretty well no skin in this game. I have no idea whether the accusations are true, although my gut instinct is to say they're certainly not well-corroborated enough that they should ever have seen the light of day in such a public forum. But I don't think it's true that all the Democrats have achieved is greater polarisation - it seems to me it's actually some quite clever (and very cynical) politics on their part. Either he's not confirmed, in which case they get a bit more influence over future "political" decisions the court makes, or he IS confirmed, and they have motivated their base to turn out in the midterms. It's win/win for them. Just a shame about Ford and Kavanaugh, for both of whom it's lose/lose.
Really?? What if your consituents keep voting you back and yet you actually do keep breaking the laws and the constitution you're sworn to uphold? How about the fact that they tracked the posting of the names and addresses of republican senators to Feinsteins office? Or when they leak classified information to the media? Yet voters keep voting them back?? I believe you're looking for a different process than leaving it up to the voters in that case. Leaking classified information is a violation of the espionage act. That should require a senate trial and if proven beyond reasonable doubt with a preponderance of evidence, should result in forced removal. There have been senators removed from office. They threw out Al Franken WITHOUT due process, and it was not his constituents that did that.
Don't forget 99.9% of the entire law enforcement community, who knows scientifically and statistically that an outburst that emotional is indicative of guilt. Had he submitted to a polygraph we would all know for certain he was lying.
Not everyone is stupid but me, but you are.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1. Due process rights apply to court proceedings where liberty and property are at stake, none of these conditions are met here. There was no constitutional violation.
2. Even if what you said about violating the constitution is true, what they did is nothing like treason, which involves aiding an enemy or leading insurrection.
Source: am lawyer.
He wasn't a judge in that situation? I'm sorry, perhaps you're not aware that not only was he a sitting judge on the D.C Circuit Court of Appeals, but he was interviewing to have a job on the highest court in the land for the rest of his natural life.
This wasn't some backyard barbeque where he was having a laugh with friends. This was prepared testimony in front of the United States Senate committee that was determining if he was fit to be a Supreme Court Justice. That is absolutely not the time to perjure yourself and make partisan attacks on Senators.
If he wants to be emotional, he can do it on his own time. If he cannot control his emotions well enough to present himself with decorum in front of the Senate, we can't possibly expect himself to not let his emotions control his decisions on the Supreme Court. In fact, that performance should easily be enough to get him impeached from his current position.
I recommend he get a job as a judge on People's Court, or some similar farce on Fox.
dom
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
If they turn out to be a rapist, then charge them. Once convicted, they will no longer be in office: regardless of which
federal court they served on --- The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office..
Is this to be an empathy test? Capillary dilation of the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil. Involuntary dilation of the iris...
So to sum up your entire post according to the rule of law: Kavanaugh must go to prison. Thanks for your vote of confidence.
He provided direct evidence on camera that he is a criminal guilty of perjury. There is no longer any need to determine if he committed the original crime; he committed multiple crimes trying to weasel out of the accusation (s). That is all anyone should be talking about at this point.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Just for ref Roe V Wade was overturned. By a more permissive ruling.
RvW prohibited abortions of viable children, which is now legal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How about you prove it, or STFU.
No need. His performance in the hearing showed beyond reasonable doubt that he is wildly unsuited to the post.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
we're all saying bad things about him, but sticks and stones. He's already a multi-millionaire. And let's not forget that Kavanaugh is the mega corporation's own pick. He was chosen but a raft of right wing think thanks funded by large donations.
Nobody's going to cancel their Facebook account over this and the behavior of exec in question is likely to go over well at the country club. A few left winger's are upset, but again, not enough to stop doing business with Facebook. Seems like this will blow over.
What will not blow over is the consequences from seating a justice who has repeatedly shown himself to favor corporations over people. Seriously, go google Kavanaugh's record. Assuming you're not yourself in favor of corps over people then you will not like what you see.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Those will be almost the exact words you hear, next time the Ds get to nominate someone to the SC. Enjoy it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Please do. If a nominee can not get support from at least 2/3 of both chambers they should not get a lifetime appointment.
Avoiding "when did you stop beating your wife" types of trap questions is expected. Go back and look at the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.
Congressional Floor, next week:
"Fellow Senators... While we accepted the removal from consideration of a Supreme Court position by Justice Kavanaugh, we recently received a letter from real1|1 demanding that he receive the position. Obviously, we were mistaken in our rush to judgement and should seat him immediately".
( loud shouting and Hurrahs! can be heard)
What I would expect is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of the crime, a call for complete investigation, and a statement that he is innocent of the charges.
Assuming he's innocent, of course.
He *is* squeaky clean.
It's almost impossible to offer sufficient evidence to disprove an allegation, especially one so vague (accuser remembers neither where nor when the alleged event occurred). However, thanks to his diary keeping habit and the statements of the other witnesses we know that he didn't do what he's been accused of.
On the side of innocence we have contemporary evidence and statements from multiple people. On the side of guilt there is *nothing* other than #ibelieveher.
link to what you learned please.
This. No lifetime appointments. No one should be guaranteee a job like that. Nothing democratic about it.
Since when is eyewitness testimony not evidence?
"Feet of iron and clay" -- Daniel 2:41-43
These materials will never mix. Ever. It symbolizes a divided empire. Being on the feet, one that will crumble.
RRK
Who's Barry?
BTW, I love terms like "repubtards" or "democraps",because it tells me I'm dealing with a fair, honest, even minded individual.
It's worth saying here that the bar was never set this high. Confirmations use to be procedural and still are for democratic appointments. Democrats are the ones who have made this so devicive. The fact that Feinstein waited so long to come forward shows political gamesmanship that never existed.
How many death threats did Garland get? How's his reputation these days? Have 50 million people decided to label him a rapist (and gang rapist and pimp)?
No, Garland didn't get the job because the dominant political party chose not to confirm him. Just like Bork, Ginsburg, Meyers, or Estrada. He's still a respected member - the Chief Justice, in fact - of the Federal Court of Appeals in DC, the #2 court most powerful and influential in the nation.
Garland is doing fine.
Kavanaugh has lost his lecturing position, has had false criminal complaints made against him by students, is being sued for his coaching, and the Democrats have threatened to impeach him when they regain Congress.
They are NOT the same, and your whining about losing an election does not make it so.
The only thing remotely proven about Kavanagh is he went to keggers in HS and college.
Yep, and promptly lied about it to Congress. Shouldn't that be enough?
You should at least not lie to Congress about your drinking. Except that I suppose that's just an "accusation" too?
You people are fucking pathetic LOL.
Thanks for leading by example.
Well, you probably pay *less* in taxes due to the business you own, as my significant income comes via higher taxed *wages* with fewer opportunities to hide my life needs as "business expenses." Sounds fair, though, sure, stay on that bullshit high horse of yours
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
I feel worse that we're probably giving a lifetime judicial appointment to someone who went on a party political rant AND committed perjury multiple times during their fucking confirmation hearing.
Trump had a list of 15 names. Surely one of them won't be a petulant asshole in their job interview.
My penis looks like Master Onion. How the hell did you know?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
For comparison, Australian High Court justices have a mandatory retirement age of 75. That's not a bad compromise.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
lolol
It is just a political smear, Kav raped those assorted tarts just as much as he raped you and Draco Malfoy. It is just a bad fanfic.
But it's not like any Senator had anything to do with Kavanaugh lying about his drinking to Congress. But I guess Republicans don't give a shit about lying.
He assassinated himself when he decided to pretend he'd never been drunk and say so to Congress.
The fact that Republicans were too incurious to vet or seriously question Kavanaugh about that issue before the sexual assault allegations were raised does not make it some unfair hack job. That no one gives a shit that he answered like every unrepentant alcoholic ever is what is seriously shocking.
Yeah, that's a neat trick. First rush everything so much that there is no time to collect evidence, and then declare that everything is unsubstantiated. Not dishonest at all, certainly not, how dare you be so impolite to say that.
Yeah, neat trick alrighrt. The man has been investigated multiple times over the years for lower court appointments already. Why did this not come up sooner? The letter that started this shirt storm was also sat on for how many weeks? Perhaps if it had been brough to light when it should have been, instead of when it was politically convenient it would have been investigated more throughly. As it is, there's been no corroboration by any of the alleged witnesses that were mentioned by Dr. Ford. Hell, they don't remember the incident, the party, or anything else that she's stated. It would be nice for someone to come forward to substantiate something, anything about her allegations.
There is plenty of reason to believe that at least some of the accusations can be substantiated: there are sworn statements that could bring the accusers a lot of legal trouble if they would be lying. Due diligence would require that these accusations are at least properly investigated. (Not the sham that the FBI was forced to conduct this week.)
Plenty of reason is not how it works. And even if it was, no there's not. As far as I know, not a single person who has been named as a witness to any of these events has stated any knowledge of anything that even remotely corroborates the events, or even the possibility of them occurring. I truly feel bad for Dr. Ford and wish her all the best. If Kavanaugh did do as she has accused him of, I hope she pursues it and can prove it, as he should be impeached. But as it stands, there's simply not enough evidence to show otherwise.
impeach Clarence Thomas and we'll talk. Good luck finding any skeloton's in the Notorious RBG's closet.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He did state that sometimes he drank 'too much'. No, not an admission of drunkenness. Somehow the previous 5 (or is it 6?) Investigations, one for a top secret clearance, failed to bring these defects to light.
No, I did not find that these unsupported and frankly bizzare accusations were at all credible or convincing. 'Rape train'? Really? Would that have gone unnoticed at your high school? It's shocking that this has happened, and that reasonable people would stand by and watch such fantastical accusations be considered, with not a shred of credible confirmation. It doesn't matter if you think he led a privileged life. We know of other situations where young men's lives were ruined by lies. At the least, could we have some credible corroborating testimony?
If this doesn't bother you, that this so came up at the last minute, despite being known for months, you've not considered this objectively. A pity. Our nation is descending into rage and despair, and run, if this is how it is.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
your whining about losing an election does not make it so
Go ahead and quote me where that happened. T won fair and square. Don't imagine I'm the boogeyman your talk show tells you about it doesn't do either of us any good.
No, Garland didn't get the job because the dominant political party chose not to confirm him.
By all accounts MG was an excellent choice, and it was blocked from even a vote by con partisan politics. It's not that they voted against him, they didn't even allow a vote. Read the wikipedia article. Note the word "unprecedented". By not allowing a vote, it allowed con senators to avoid going on the record as voting against him. It prevented honest senators from voting their conscious.
To suggest that cons haven't engaged in the same type of dirty tricks, and helped build the system that caused this, is dishonest.
Newsflash: The process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices is made partisan by its very purpose. It is absurd to think that politics could ever be removed from the process.
So you suggest the judiciary be made even MORE political.
You impeach him. Certainly possible. Not here, but possible in general.
He perjured himself under oath. He said he never had "too much" beer when his friend confirmed that he was staggering because he was so inebriated. He defined "boofing" as flatulence when it has nothing to do with that. And he also called a "devil's triangle" a drinking game when it's supposed to be a MMF threesome. He also went on a tirade about Democrats and Clinton. A SC judge needs to be above all of this. He's the first candidate to go to this fucking extreme. He shouldn't be confirmed just solely because he's a partisan liar. Forget the rape allegations.
Umm... the GOP simply wouldnâ(TM)t hold a hearing for Garland. So piss off with your âoehow would you feelâ.
Besides, anger-man lied multiple times to Congress. That is a federal crime. Why have Congressman not been pointing that out? ... for someone with a self-described phenomenal memory?
The National Review is pro-legalisation. Hell, William F. Buckley was pretty outspoken about it.
I'd believe you if that same bullshit partisan tripe you just spouted applied to Al Franken. Unfortunately, it didn't, and you're a fraud, explicitly because of that.
Fuck the GOP, and every one of their spineless, misogynistic apologists.
The Republicans are likely to gain seats in the Senate in November. Meanwhile the House is likely to trash out over this, because lower houses are usually more vulnerable to rabble-like movements.
The anger should not be a matter of concern and should be ignored.
If asked what he thinks about the matter, Zuckerberg should say "But I don't think about it."
Seated Judges don't need to withstand sliming operations. They aren't put in that position. The Dems are just totally freaking out, because they're used to dominating at the Supreme Court.
Garland's case is arguable more heinous, because Rs simple refused to discuss his nomination for no reason other than partisan politics.
To be a bit more honest, the Republicans refused to discuss Garland's nomination because of a supposed convention against nominating a new justice during the last year of a president's term.
Whether this is valid, then, depends on whether such a convention exists. There's some evidence that it does. Joe Biden (D) had argued in favour of such a convention previously, when it looked like the Republicans might be in the position of trying to nominate a new justice during the last year of a president's term. If we look at historical instances, we find that there is only one instance in the 20th century of a justice being confirmed during a president's term, in 1932 - versus seven such instances in the 19th century. This weakly suggests that there is such a convention - and if so, that it's a post-1900 thing.
I'm ambivalent on this one. On the one hand, there's evidence that this convention exists, in which case the Democrats were unreasonably trying to push through a nomination against it for partisan reasons. On the other hand, the evidence is weak, and implicit conventions are a poor basis for government (which is why the US has a written constitution). In any case, I think your bare assertion, that the Republican response to Garland's nomination was purely a matter of partisan politics, is insufficiently certain to state so boldly.
Okay let me put it this way. You're about to hire a new guy, but people at the firms he's previously worked at have accused him of stealing. He hasn't been convicted or charged on anything, but they're a lot people who have voiced concern over his sketchy behaviour. Would you still hire this guy? Are you even obligated to hire this guy?
Because the criteria for hiring someone for a job are not the same for sending someone to prison.
FFS it's supreme court position, conservative or progressive, whoever they appoint should be above reproach. And that's a hurdle Kavanaugh is unlikely overcome.
Yes, they are asked to judge in the grey areas but that doesn't mean that they are free to put their own ideas in. That turns them into lawmakers. They are only to apply the letter of the law and, if not preset, the spirit of the law as how the it's applied today. Having a case go before a different judge, or a set of different judges, should not result in a different judgement. Yet this is common in the US Supreme Court and the differences are down to the ideologies of the judges.
People should not be able to guess how a judge is going to vote on a case based on their beliefs before a case has even started in the Supreme Court yet you see this all of the time in newspaper articles concerning controversial subjects such as Obamacare and LGBT rights. Rarely is there ever a surprise. Might as well save all the money and not hold session. Especially if this new clown gets into the Supreme Court.
Kavanaugh is a shitbag, as he demonstrated in the hearings. Senators already known to be shitbags will confirm him. A shitbag is a shitbag and 51shitbags confirming said shitbag makes him nothing more than another confirmed shitbag. The supreme toilet really needs a plunger.
Actually, disregard the accusations. The real issue that actually disqualifies him, is he is a major liar. He knowingly lied about devil's triangle. He lied about a number of items. That, and that alone, disqualifies him from scotus.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
More than a few sexual assault cases recently in the UK collapsed because the criteria for charging someone was essentially âoebelieve the complainant. Evidence isnâ(TM)t necessaryâ
Clinton lies to Congress and was defended by Democrat senators in the face of it. Epic hypocrisy.
Lied to Congress? Then why was Clinton allowed to complete his presidency?
Well, it stopped being a smear campaign right about the time he lied about his drinking and being a Yale legacy. Lied in exactly the way most alcoholics do, by the way, getting mad and saying things like "I like beer."
It's not the Democrat's fault that Republicans had *already decided* to run a rushed, cursory confirmation process.
I'm holding what he did last Thursday against him. Is that too far back?
I don't think you should lie about your drinking. No matter how long ago it was.
he lied under oath. Sometimes laughably (Boofing is _not_ a fart and the "Devil's Triangle" is a 3 way). He was born rich and spent his life as a judge siding with other wealthy people, very often to the determent of those less fortunate than him. And his in his testimony he could barely contain his temper. His rage was that of a man who's used to getting what he wants no matter what.
If you can't see that you've let anger towards the #metoo movement blind everything. You're the one doing something by anything necessary. You want this guy to win. Probably because it's a personal victory to you.
I'm way, way more worried about the ultra wealthy building a totalitarian dictatorship than a few bitchy chicks running women's studies departments at community colleges. Those are the types you're railing against. Meanwhile billionaires keep sending our jobs overseas and bringing in more H1-Bs, sending our kids off to die in their wars and making us pay for their castles. They're laughing at your failed attempts to maintain freedom even as they gourd you into a blind rage. They win, you lose. And I lose too.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yeah, that's a neat trick. First rush everything so much that there is no time to collect evidence, and then declare that everything is unsubstantiated.
The only reason anything was "rushed" was because the Senate Democrats sat on the letter written to them, for weeks, of accusations against Kavanaugh. Had they brought these accusations to light earlier, such as when the first round of questioning happened, then there would have been much more time for the investigation before SCOTUS returned to session. Now there's an empty seat, which is precisely what the Democrats wanted.
Not dishonest at all, certainly not, how dare you be so impolite to say that.
It's not dishonest or impolite to call the claims unsubstantiated when that is precisely the case.
There is plenty of reason to believe that at least some of the accusations can be substantiated: there are sworn statements that could bring the accusers a lot of legal trouble if they would be lying.
To prove the statements were false the statements made against Kavanaugh would have to be verifiable. Ford has been very nonspecific on crucial details. The date is merely some day in the summer of 1981 or 1982. The place is some private residence in a roughly 50 square mile area. There were no real witnesses to the event. The accused gave one account, the accuser another, and the other person that was said to be present (Mark Judge) wrote a letter claiming he has no recollection of the incident. It certainly doesn't help that Mark Judge has a history of alcohol abuse (dating back to when he was 14 years old, before the incident in question), was claimed to be drunk at the time, and would likely be considered an accessory to any crime if one actually occurred, therefore his account is unlikely to be trustworthy.
Ford risks nothing with her accusations because she never gave enough detail to prove she lied about anything. Certain details don't quite add up, like the dates she gave of her wanting a second front door on her house and her supposed fear of flying. While not likely to get her a perjury charge it does show her memory is far from photographic.
Due diligence would require that these accusations are at least properly investigated. (Not the sham that the FBI was forced to conduct this week.)
Investigate what? There's no physical evidence to look at, that's long gone by now. Ford is unable to to give a specific address, date, or list of potential witnesses. Any interviews the FBI might perform were already done in full view of the public by the Senate. Anyone else the FBI asked in their investigations said they have no recollection of anything happening like Ford said, or gave only hearsay accounts of what Ford told them. The FBI did six background checks on Kavanaugh over his lengthy career in government, and nothing like this ever came up before. To do anything more would require greater specificity from Ford and any other accusers, and/or a formal filing of a crime taking place.
Also, this suspected incident happened in a time and place where the FBI has only limited jurisdiction. If the Senate Democrats were serious about this then they'd ask the local police and sheriff to investigate and/or use the subpoena power of Congress to bring witnesses to report to the committee directly. The FBI did their investigation under orders of POTUS, essentially as a courtesy since Congress cannot simply make demands of the FBI. Senate Republicans brought in a subject matter expert to perform questioning on their behalf and her report to them said that there was not enough evidence to meet even the lowest standards of any kind of criminal or civil case against Kavanaugh.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You're missing the point. Even if he was innocent of the rape charges, he lied in his response, and lying to Congress was enough to impeach a president. If he was innocent, he should have been honest, but he's blown it already, regardless of his guilt on rape.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
How do you feel about Garland? Why the rush to beat the midterms now but a year-long delay to wait for the elections last time? Double-standard much?
It's a job interview, not a trial. He's not being "found guilty" here. He's being found unworthy to be a judge.
Then again, lying to congress is a crime and he's been proven to have lied. So maybe you're right. Having been proven guilty, perhaps he should face some consequences.
So you want the President to be able to order the FBI to investigate any crime with an accusation. Yeah, that still goes in the category of stupid fucking ideas.
To be honest I think he should lose his job because he's a fuzzy thinker, has poor logic skills, and doesn't write well. And I don't give a shit about his feelings because an appointment to the supreme court matters a lot more (of course if he doesn't get appointed I'll happily throw a bone to his feelings. Poor guy, etc)
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, they aren't. Dude was ready with time lines. Woman has backed down from most of her story. Please stop being a douche sandwich.
It's a rather basic concept that having integrity means, among other things, not calling somebody a "fucking gang rapist" with absolutely NO evidence that the person has EVER raped ANYBODY.
It's SO basic to western civilization that it goes back to the days of a stone tablet that said [King's English translation] "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
Your glaring lack of integrity is compounded by the FACT that, unlike 99.99% of Americans, Kavanaugh has passed SEVEN background checks by the FBI, and that NOT A SINGLE WITNESS named by Kavanaugh's accuser agreed that any such event ever happened.
Heads will explode all over progressive land when Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg's replacement is nominated - it'll be like a scene from the first Kingsmen film.
It you think the baseless slander and sliming, over-the-top protests and stunts and screaming and whining and crying was bad this time, you aint seen NOTHIN' yet.
Interesting fact: When Obama was elected and promised to "fundamentally transform America", when he nationalized student loans, took over the car companies, kicked over ten million people off of their healthcare with his Obamacare, and then put Kagan and Sotomayor onto the Supreme Court (ALL actions that were totally repugnant to conservatives) there were NO riots by the right. There were no smashed windows, no beaten-up people, no bonfires, nobody pooped on a cop car, nodoby occupied any Senator's offices or harrassed Democrats in their homes or while they ate meals in restraunts, etc. A bunch of pasty white middle class people wearing tri-corn hats had a few big rallys (where they cleaned up after themselves when they were done) and their "TEA Party" was then persecuted by Obama's IRS.
Which side is decent, civilized, safe for anybody to be around, and respects the rights of others?
A bunch of young women accused people of being in league with the devil.... and because they were women, they were believed with NO evidence and the accused were put to death.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
[snark]Perhaps the lesson we should be drawing is that it wasd a big mistake to allow women to participate in the legal and/or political systems. [/snark]
Hopefully, there are sane women in our society who truly believe in equality and therefor believe that women lie just as much as men and that therefore NOBODY is to be believed just because they accuse - that EVERYBODY is presumed innocent until proven guilty no matter the genetics and genitalia of either the accuser or the accused. These women must surely see the enourmous damage being done to the cause of true equality by this most-recent attempt by the progressive Democrats to weaponize feminism.
When did he "lie under oath"????
Were YOU in his small circle of friends in the early 1980s and therefore KNOW the meaning of a made-up term back then? ("boofing").
Were YOU in his small circle of friends in the early 1980s and therefore KNOW the meaning of the term "Devil's Triangle" to them back then? Hint: the term has MANY meanings, including as a very famous reference to a region of the Atlantic Ocean.
If you think that Kavanaugh's firm verbal defense was an exaple of a man who could "barely contain his rage", you should be introduce to the ANTIFA jackasses who smash windows, light bonfires, and beat people up.
You probably googled and found out what some progressives are now pretending it meant. Back in the 1980s, Rick Santorum's last name was a perfectly respectable word, but then a bunch of hate-fuelled progressives started an effort to use it all over the internet as a reference to something foul and now when googled you get the bad "meaning".
If you had a SHRED of honesty, instead of an addiction to left wing propaganda, you'd notice that a friend of Kavanaugh's told investigators UNDER OATH that "Devil's Triangle" back then in that circle of friends was a name they had for a drinking game and that friend told the investigators the rules to the game.
The FBI has investigated Kavanaugh SEVEN times and found NOTHING but YOU seem to think you have some magic decoder ring and investigative powers to rival the mythical Sherlock Holmes. You seem to not even know some of the basic facts, so I presume you get your "news" from late night comics, Facebook, and NBC. Amazing.
Bet you don't say that while you're milking the cow.
This closely resembles the death penalty question, and the answer is...
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.gq.com/story/all-o...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=kavanaugh...
-SaNo
What if he didn't do it though? Your statement has two variants based on the facts:
1) He did the things he is accused of.
In this case, it's a fine and rational statement.
2) He did not do the things he is accused of.
In this case, your statement makes no sense at all. Should he confess to something that didn't happen in order to appease weak-minded people? This would make him unfit for any leadership position.
What you really mean is you believe he is guilty of what he is accused of without evidence.
That's a fine stance to take. It's not rational and has all manner of horrendous outcomes if it becomes widespread, but at least it's not disingenuous.
-knewter
Hyperbole is always fun. If I find a single law enforcement officer that supports him, you're proven to be "just saying shit" rather than having constructive dialog. I assert at least one law enforcement officer supports him.
This guy's a phony!
-knewter
A lot of people in the yearbook reference devil's triangle. They reference "losing" at devil's triangle. You think this evidence plus Occam's Razor supports it being a multi-party sex act? Which high school kid ever says he lost at a threesome?
Oh yeah and other kids from the school have come out saying it's a freaking quarters game. So there's that.
You people are loony.
-knewter
Read closer, she doesn't even make that claim! She said she was the target in 1982 but attended ten parties from 1981 - 1983. She went back for more by her own account!
-knewter
No, it's not. If a judge is obligated to apply unfair or evil laws, then there's no point whatsoever in having an independent judiciary.
The real issue that actually disqualifies him, is he is a major liar.
Remember remember the 6th of November
This is more than a CEO position. This is a lifetime appointment that nobody can remove him from. The people being appointed to these seats must be above reproach. They truly have to be better people than ever other citizen.
If there is any question as to your judgment, character, ethics, morals or anything else you should not be able to get appointed to these seats. There is obviously a question about this guy. He should be disqualified and return to being a judge at a lower level. You know a seat he can be removed from by the voters or someone if needed.
How would you feel if you gave a lifetime appointment to someone that later turns out to be a rapist.
Sorry for the sake of democracy its better to put someone else in that position, even if it costs one person a "job of a lifetime."
FUCK YOU. It is not better for democracy. The bullshit you are promoting is what is bad for democracy, you asshole.
Democracy involves innocence until proven guilty. Democracy involves DUE PROCESS, you leftist cunt.
Goddamn.. This is exactly why I hate liberals. You jerkoffs will say / do anything in furtherance of your bullshit goals, even if it means doing the exact opposite of what you claim to promote.
Your side will engage in racism to fight racism (all white men are bad).
Your side will engage in sexism to fight sexism (women must be believed at all costs) and "you must put a woman on your corporate board.. qualifications be damned, as long as she has a pussy!"
Your side will will shit all over due process to "save democracy". If anyone resembles Nazis (like your side loves to accuse the right of) it'd be you assholes. Fuck the rule of law! We need to save the rule of law!
Democracy has safeguards built in.. If he somehow turned out to actually be a rapist, we IMPEACH him.. Do you have any idea, whatsoever, how our system works?
I would. To be a lifetime appointed judge, you should be squeaky clean.
That's not what you want, you liar. He is squeaky clean. Someone accusing you of something, with ZERO proof, is not a blemish. Want proof?
I formally hereby accuse YOU of animal cruelty. I have witnessed, with my own eyes, you kicking a dog..... 30 years ago..
That's the level of "proof" that has been leveled against him. One PERSON saying some shit.
I hope to hell you aren't involved in any type of scientific research. You haven't got a clue what facts are.
Yeah, he was a party boy at a school for the elites. You know, the ones that rape children in the basement of pizza parlors? Kavanaugh is the kind of person Trump has been calling to have locked up, and now they're okay with making him a top tier judge?
Now it's guilt by association? You have a screw loose.. Seriously...
You just can't stop from engaging in generalizations can you?
All elites are scumbags... and?
C'mon.. You know you want to accuse some ethnic group of something.. Want me to help? How about "all whites are racist?"
You are such a cunt, it boggles the mind....
No, it's the uber-rich neo-nobility that are the problem. I'm talking about "old money." And yeah, the Dems are often complicit, and make things worse when they try to pint racism as a direct problem, when it's generally a symptom of the manipulation of elites. The plot is for them to get some poor white guy mad at the Mexicans that are "stealing your job" instead of the business owner that's paying him a fraction of what you'd need to be paid.
I'm actually pointing to the legitimate part of Trump's populist anger campaigning. A small minority of people in elite circles, you know like the Skull and Crossbones that Bush and Kerry belong to, have a disgusting amount of power and influence, and they use that influence for their own gain, at the expense of the masses. We don't live in a democracy, we live in an oligarchy, and Kavanaugh, like Bush, Kerry, and to some extent Trump (he's permanently butthurt because he wasn't a top-rank elite), are part of the class of oligarchs.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'm saying he's guilty of being the kind of person Trump ran on stopping, regardless of whether or not he raped Ford. Trump supporters were going on and on and on about the elites and their sexual perversion in addition to vanilla corruption, and then Trump nominates an elite accused of sexual perversion.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Pedophilia was never at issue here. Why are you deliberately exaggerating the accusation?
Regardless of these facts, it's good to know you don't mind someone brutally drugging and raping the females you love, as long as n amount of time has passed. I wonder if the females who know you in real life know that you don't mind if they get brutally drugged and raped?
There was no drugging or raping. Ford doesn't even claim that. There might have been an attempted rape by an underage person and I think if an attempted rape happened and there was proof then there should be a punishment. But, no, I don't think that something that happened 40 years ago by an underage person is relevant today. The reason we have different laws for people under 18 is because society agrees. The reason we lock people up is to keep them from doing it again and to deter other people from doing it. I don't see how society benefits from locking up someone for a crime they committed when they were a child when they obviously aren't a threat to society anymore.
No. He was accused after the fact. He wasn't accused before he was nominated. Your statement is FALSE.
Nice try, hippie.
I'll give credit where credit is due.. Well said..
How would you fix it? I can't think of any system where power won't concentrate... I suspect Jefferson knew too, which is why he predicted a 20 year interval between minor revolutions, in this country, to maintain true freedom.
Term limits? You end up with puppets who are controlled by the rich. You also tend to lose out on experience when you won't let anyone stay long enough to get the experience.
The saying "It's not what you know, it's who you know" has been true for millennia. I'm not suggesting we give up, but every system we've ever tried ends up with concentration of power. From the days of tribal chieftains to monarchies to our own republics.
It's not just us either.. Lots of animals engage in this behavior.. Case in point; Lions... When a new male lion takes over a pride, there's a fairly decent chance he'll kill all the cubs.. This will guarantee that HIS cubs will one day run the pride. I guess we'd call this "genetic concentration of power".
I'll say this, what we are doing isn't working.. And these methods, that are more favored by the liberals, are making it worse in my opinion. They are attacking the core of our republic.. Free speech zones, disregard for the presumption of innocence, reverse sexism, reverse racism. I don't know what's left to attack... Will they suddenly be in favor of quartering soldiers in our homes without consent ;)
We both know the constitution is ignored, and has been since day one. It's only upheld when it's high profile... Hell, my favorite, Jefferson, totally ignored it when he did the Louisiana Purchase.. (Congress allocates money and approves territory adjustments, not the President).
But this.. this isn't how it's fixed... This just makes it worse.
Go look again at the post I replied to. That post did not make an argument that nothing happened. It argued that if something happened a sufficiently long time ago, it wasn't relevant any more.
And obviously -- *obviously* -- not everyone agrees with you that the allegations against the current nominee are not credible.
Go look again at the post I replied to. That post did not make an argument that nothing happened. It argued that if something happened a sufficiently long time ago, it wasn't relevant any more.
You're incoherent.
First, Kavanaugh said he never blacked out or got aggressive when drunk. But heâ(TM)s sent emails apologizing for being aggressive and not recalling it after drinking. He said he knew nothing of the Ramirez accusations or incident before the New Yorker story hit the press, but yet he was involved in conversations about how to respond to the accusation well before that story was printed. He made obviously false claims about what âoedevilâ(TM)s triangleâ and âoeboofingâ mean. He, over and over, stated Fordâ(TM)s accusations had been refuted by her witnesses, when heâ(TM)s far to well educated not to know the difference between âoeit didnâ(TM)t happenâ (refutation) and âoeI donâ(TM)t recallâ (basically nothing considering that all the witnesses but one were supposed to remember what would have been to them a completely unremarkable party 30 odd years ago, and the last âoewitnessâ is actually an accomplice if Fordâ(TM)s allegations are true).
Anyway, those are just the clear lies I can remember off the top of my head. Iâ(TM)m sure I could find a lot more if I put some effort into it.
How would you feel about losing the job of a lifetime just because the senate majority leader shat on the constitution and didnâ(TM)t even hold any hearings on your confirmation?
The idea that Republicans think anyone is going to take arguments about Kavanaughâ(TM)s feelings or career being hurt seriously, after what happened to Garland, is ridiculous. The GOP made it quite clear that things like that donâ(TM)t matter to them.
Yup, the GOP should make their motto âoeFour legs good, two legs betterâ at this point.
Then it would have been no big deal.
Why attack Clinton but not Trump? Trump had more accusers than Clinton. And ling afterward admitted to paying a settlement before the election to keep it quiet before it came out.
I don't know her.
I know her but not well.
Ok I knew her, but I never did that.
Ok, i gave her drugs but didn't have sex with her.
Ok, ok we had sex, but it was consensual.
What? Oh um, she was a dirty whore and said she was into rough sex. Or i just have a big tool.
But but but there is no proof it was rape.
Youthful indiscretions...
This is an old story, old news.
She is confused, it wasn't me, look a squirrel!
Anyone who ever needs to subpoena for libel or get a warrant regarding his posts and history can use the above as a basis.
Ditto for any employer or customer who wants to void his contract.
I don't have evidence, so I would not formally accuse him of being a pedobear, even if there is tons of child porn being produced from his IP. There is not 100% proof the person in the mask is him and I wouldn't want to make a knowingly false allegation of pedobear against even a detestable liar who makes up false charges against others.
No he didn't. He said he didn't have connections to Yale LAW School. https://www.c-span.org/video/?... see about 2h 24m in.
That's some mighty fine gaslighting. What's happening here is, Democrats (self-proclaimed defenders of women), sat on a supposedly credible allegation for over a month, and then when their histrionics failed to stop the nomination, they dropped the allegation and someone leaked the information about Ford to press (supposedly against her wishes).
An objective observer might notice from the testimony that Ford claims to have wanted to inform the senators during the choosing of the nomination stage. Which would've avoided this whole fiasco. But that wouldn't have served well for Democrats who have kept trying to push the nomination into Nov. and past the midterm in the hopes they could stop any Trump nominations the Supreme Court.
That's a good one! You should do parties, you'd be great entertainment.
Are telepathic? Do you have some powers beyond that of a normal person? You can't believe the hooey you just wrote do you?
"He wasn't an accused person as much as he was someone who had to answer a difficult question with real consequences."
Is that a serious statement? Wow.
I can't stand idiots that assume the politic persuasion of people based purely on the stance they take on a non-philosophical position that is irrespective of any political belief. but here we are.
He said he never "blacked out." Numerous fellow classmates have confirmed devil's triangle was a drinking game. As for boofing, are you arguing they meant ingesting alcohol via their asshole? I find it suspect you don't give a definition to the slang term when you do for the other.
"He also went on a tirade about Democrats and Clinton"
We've been over this. BTW, you may want to look into Kavanaugh's relation to the Clintons.
The rest of you comment is just literally Democrat talking points.
None of Trump's accusers claimed actual rape. Also no witnesses supported their claims, but several disputed them.
Clinton, on the other hand, was credibly accused of actual forceful rape by three women, with 9 supporting witnesses total.
Trump is no choir boy. He's crass and offensive, and probably handsy with women... Who loved the attention from a billionaire, until it became politically convenient for it to become unwanted.
No, he did it to prove a point.
That you and your disgusting ilk are rank hypocrites.
You forgot a third case, which I believe is the truth: He does not know if he did the thing he is accused of.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Being any kind of legacy at any part of Yale is undeniably a connection., and he's trying to argue that he got there entirely on his own merits, which is a blatant lie.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
A *refuted* allegation is legally considered false. It's not something that is controversial or unknown. It's known to be false. The allegations against Kavanaugh were refuted. Repeating them as if they were true after they were refuted is slander.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yes, he probably did. So go back in time and do something about it. Until then, get the fuck over it. Water under the bridge and times have changed.
Glad to see you think two wrongs make a right. Damn apologist ignoramus.
That's about as believable as a Wikipedia page updated by someone in congress. Let's get them to say it under oath.
Regardless, I would like to know more about the rules. Apparently way you play it has something to do with trying to rape an innocent young girl whilst in a drunken stupor.
Oh, I completely agree. However, words and accusations matter. Argue that point. Argue the point of hiding behind classification of massive mountains of documents. Argue that he doesn't have temperament requisite for the bench. Argue that his wildly flailing conspiracy accusations of the Clintons and all that horseshit in his opening statement shows that he's unable to rise above political debate, as is expected of a Supreme Court Justice.
All of these are valid criticisms. But calling someone a rapist without being able to prove it is called slander; and levying those accusations as a reason to disqualify someone from the bench is called trying them in the court of public opinion, because you know you couldn't make any of it wash in a real courtroom.
This is not how our Republic should work, and it's a disgrace.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Please explain what "wrong" opinions are, you precious snowflake.
Being presented with something you don't agree with is just so hard to deal with when you are used to surrounding yourself with total agreement. Better hurl insults at someone you know absolutely nothing about!
You are the problem in civic discourse today. You are causing the division. Go enlighten yourself and come back once you can behave yourself. The adults are talking.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
To be a bit more honest, the Republicans refused to discuss Garland's nomination because of a supposed convention against nominating a new justice during the last year of a president's term.
Let me quote from the Wikipedia article again:
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial
That would seem to disagree with your assertion that this was just normal operating procedure, right?
Newsflash: The process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices is made partisan by its very purpose. It is absurd to think that politics could ever be removed from the process.
You have to read the whole thread friend. I was responding to someone else claiming how awful it was that Ds tried to muck up the process. I gave one (of many) examples showing both sides playing the game. Draw your own conclusions.
Oh bullshit. That capital R in their name would preclude you ever deciding they were appropriate for the position, and you know it.
This is high level power politics. His response did not matter. If he's emotional, he's out of control. If he's calm and reserved, he's an ice cold judge with no feeling for the common man.
All these things are just tools in the political toolbox.
How many times do you think you could say "I like beer" in a job interview before they tell you the interview is over?
Depends on the job. Brewmaster, for example, would view it as a necessary qualification
Yeah, those terms in the yearbook. I would guess at some point in the future "have an awesome summer" will be determined to actually refer to high school meth use.
I feel your use of the pejorative "faggot" is unacceptable, and as such you should lose your current employment at Burger King
Think of this: Two Democratic Congresswomen including a Democratic Senator from California had this letter for 6 weeks, and didn't turn it over to the Senate until after the 3 days of hearings were over and the committee was within a day of voting to send it to Senate floor for the final vote. If she, a member of the committee, would have turned it in, it could have been investigated for a month before the hearings. The only reason to not turn it in was because they knew it was weak, or to hold it in reserve, then insist on a investigation that would take through the election in hopes that the Democrats would gain a majority in the Senate.
Consider, if there was a police report, or some other paperwork police had on file somewhere, then this would have been turned up before September, but this was an allegation that only existed in the mind of the accuser, who had never told anybody about this until 2012, 30 years after the fact. There is no amount of FBI effort that would ever have ever have turned this up until the letter was brought forward. Even if they tried investigating him by interviewing every person from his school wouldn't have turned this up. So no, this was absolutely an 11th hour revelation only brought out because the Democrats knew that they had no way of stopping his nomination except through libel and slander.
The woman who questioned Ford for the Republicans said this accusation is weaker than any 'she said, he said' allegation that would ever be tried in court.
The Democrats may be investigated for multiple ethics violations with regard to this matter, specifically withholding the letter, releasing it to the media when the letter asks for privacy, referring the accuser to lawyers who work for Soros (the Democrats version of the Kochs). The lawyers themselves are going to be investigated by the Bar for not protecting their clients privacy by failing to inform her that the committee was willing to interview her in private concerning the allegations because they (her lawyers and the Democrats) wanted her to testify in public, not to get to the truth but to make a media firestorm, when the accuser claims she wanted it handled privately. Ford herself has represented herself as a psychiatrist, but doesn't actually have a license to practice, making this the equivalent of a doctor or lawyer practicing without passing the necessary tests. She also may be investigated for denying any conversations during her testimony concerning passing lie detector tests when her boyfriend from the 90s claims she coached her best friend to pass a lie detector test (and also that she stole money from him by using his credit card after their breakup).
The fact is, there was never anything to discover, Ford is lying, and the whole reason it played out the way it did was to delay the confirmation hoping they could win a Senate majority, or sway some Republicans with false accusations.
You realize that nobody out of a room full of people has confirmed that he flashed the one at the party (not a rape) when there are probably plenty of Democrat leaning people that would have been in the room.
Nobody believes the gang rape story.
Personally, I don't like the dude as a judge and I would vote against because of my dislike... but it disgusts me to see this behavior by adults trying to hold another adult accountable for something he did as a child.
If we assume that he did in fact have this type of bad behaviour as a child, at least acknowledging it as an adult doesn't seem to be too much to ask. ("Yes, I occasionally drank heavily as a youth, which was a mistake and something I should not have done. I have grown since then and would never condone such behavior.")
I agree that "punishing" poor choices of a child/youth as an adult is not the direction we should go as a society, but surely there are qualified candidates who made better choices? Maybe we should be raising some of them to such high offices? I would estimate that more than 50% of the people I observed in high school and college did not exhibit any of these sorts of behaviors - surely there are some out these?