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.
...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.
Still too many. Trying to get someone fired for badwrongthink on their own time is unacceptable.
No unauthorized thoughts allowed. You WILL believe the only authorized thing. NO EXCEPTIONS!
That's not the way Judging is supposed to work. But it still happens.
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.
Wrong. Sad.
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)
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.
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".
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.
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'
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
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.
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."
That's not the way Judging works.
You're right, In the Supreme Court, judging works by listening to all the arguments presented and then ruling for whatever side fits with your preconceived ideological convictions. That's why both parties fight so hard to control who they put on the Supreme Court. With lifetime appointments, if the scale tilts in your ideological favor it can stay that way for a very long time.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Having a senior FB officer support Kavanaugh reflects badly on the company,
Bullshit. It shows that he has the integrity to support his friend despite the hazard of being splattered in the smear campaign. If anything, this raises my opinion of FB.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
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.........
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
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.
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)
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.
We will assume for the sake of argument he wasn't there "as a facebook exec", or even mentioning it.
So that leaves policy, and many states include political beliefs in their anti-discrimination laws, hence facebook's policy (which is reasonable even lacking such a law as it would bring bad press by itself.)
So which would hurt facebook more? This guy appearing but not representing facebook, or facebook participating in social ostracism in favor of a particular viewpoint, when a big chunk of their current problems revolve around censorship accusations?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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
Lol imagine being this delusional, life must be amazing for you
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.
I have a new PC image and forgot to log in. Oh well.
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?
I agree, if the parties were reversed, everybody's opinion would also be reversed.
Nobody has accused the Ds of finding Ford by dragging a 100 dollar bill through a trailer park, like Carville did the Rs about one of Clinton's rape victims.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Politically and career-wise? It is.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Full democracy is essentially a system where the dumbest 51% call the shots. Solution? Only people with a degree from a college of business or a college of science or engineering should vote.
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.
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'
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=-
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?
Integrity IS supporting a friend on trial for rape at LEAST until it is PROVEN he did the crime, you vindictive keyboard warrior.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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.
At least one of those accusations is true :-(
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are confusing Joel Kaplan and Kavanaugh. They are trying to get Joel Kaplan fired for supporting Kavanaugh.
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.
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.
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
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.
Senators can be removed every few years via elections. SCOTUS is a lifetime appointment.
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?
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.
"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
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.
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
It appears to me, that the FBI did exactly the level of background investigation that they do for any candidate for the SC, and other such positions.
The judge has been investigated like what, 6 times before....if something was bad as claimed, I think it would have shown up before.
This, compounded with the fact that Feinstein held this back to last minute....pegs this as a last ditch effort to hold off on appointment till after Nov elections, nothing more. If they had brought this up weeks ago, I would feel differently.
So far, I've not seen any corroborating reports come in against him, much less have seen them verified. Where and what are the lies? Again, if this were provable, it would have been all over the news and we'd likely not see him go any further.
From what I"ve seen, this guy gives proper deference to precedent, and has stated that Roe is pretty much settled law. I believe him on that. And ONE person isn't going to change something major like that. And too, they don't legislate from the bench at the SC, they only take cases that are presented to them through the states. They can't just arbitrarily jump up on their own and change or strike down laws.
I hope, and think he will be....more of a constitutionalist....I wish we had a whole court of Scalia's.....folks that try to interpret what the constitution says, what it meant when it was written, and not try to twist it to today's sentiments and try to make 'new laws' by new interpretations. I think the Constitution is as written, and if we don't like something, we don't re-interpret it, we amend it as it was meant to be done.
So far, I've not seen anything solid being thrown at the guy stick. I think he is most qualified for the seat.
I"m kind of ashamed at the Dems blocking due to nothing more than partisan politics....you look at Republicans, they voted for Sotomayor and Kagan.....but this time around the Dems are just blocking because this guy isn't a liberal make up new interpretations guy, IMHO.
This isn't going to be the end of the world if he gets in....relax.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
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?
I imagine that Eric Clanton, a paragon for leftism, used similar reasoning just before he smashed someone's head with a bike lock. His victim expected reciprocity for civil discourse, and that was a weakness to be exploited.
When any action is justifiable, because reasons of your own imagining, that makes your faith-based religion even more contemptible than the others.
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.
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.
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.
Different AC, but I'd say one can have integrity even if they continue to support their friend after that. Depending on circumstances of course. Like if they continue to insist they did not do something, even though a court of law found them guilty of that thing, does supporting them show a lack of integrity? I think not. It would certainly make appeals a lot harder (emotionally speaking) if suddenly your best and closest friends all left you after the initial court decision.
Or lets say they admit they did it, and admit it was wrong to do. Does supporting your friend during their restitution efforts show a lack of integrity? Again, I think not.
The only hearsay on record as predating this by several years is the therapist notes. Which the Senate still hasn't seen.
I agree. We should put this crappy guy on the Supreme Court for life to even the score against Bill Clinton. Having a sane rule of law means nothing if you can't settle old grudges against another tribe.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"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.
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.
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.
Yep. This counts as a "BOO-FUCKIN'-HOO" moment.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
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.........
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/
Surely if he had any integrity he would have ditched his friend as soon as it became clear what sort of person he really was. He could have walked out of that hearing once he saw the performance Kavanaugh was putting on.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
What would the media do to someone who accused the Ds of finding Ford by dragging a $100 through a trailer park?
That video really should be on heavy repeat.
You say 'crappy' without a hint of self awareness.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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/
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.
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.
It's not a small minority: residents of 29 states (+ DC) have more voting power than the other states.
And the 46x power is theoretical; based on actual ballots cast, it's much less
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.
Being on the Supreme Court is not a right you piece f shit. Fuck you and gun.
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.
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
Whenever you generalize an entire group of people with terms like "left" and "right" and then seek to enact justice upon the entire group in a tit for tat game you only hurt yourself and others around you. Your view point is toxic for your country, political party, others around you, family, and finally yourself. You have completely missed the point of the golden rule you quoted. Its supposed to be proactive as in YOU treat others they way you'd have them treat you, not you treat others how they have treated you. When you resolve yourself to political retribution as you have indicated then all it takes to throw your entire world into a fighting toxic mess is the tiniest infraction.
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/
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.
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/
belligerent tantrum? you be accused of deliberately putting qualudes in drinks and gang raping people based on a statement of an accuser that even MSNBC has had to say is full of shit. Lets compare you to Bill Cosby (someone who actually HAD a trial) so that your life is permantly ruined. Lets have your family receive death threats because someone intentionally leaked information to commit character assassination against you. Now see how belligerant you get? Your very life is being threatened because someone was afraid you'd overturn Roe v Wade, and that was enough to incite such a riot your life and your families life is now destroyed. You cant keep your temper on Slashdot which is why you post AC 90% of the time.
you fucking retard, the accuser that accused him of GANG RAPE has been proven to be full of shit even by MSNBC.
her sworn statement taken by the stormy daniels attorney DOES NOT MATCH
her written statement to MSNBC which also DOES NOT MATCH
her on camera interview
she gave a SWORN testimony he put Qualudes in her drink and GANG RAPED her.....
this eventually turned into :
I saw him by the punchbowl standing there
He was at the party and laughing with some other guys
And lets not forget that the Ex Boyfriend had filed a RESTRAINING Order against her for threatening him, his soon to be wife, and future kids, saying she will accuse him of rape.
Lets not also forget that her former employer FIRED her for sexually harassing clients, and then tried to claim it was the clients that harassed her.
But you want to pretend Kavenaugh is a gang rapist without one shred of evidence nor trial. This is what we call PROJECTION in psychology terms you gang raping AC fuck.
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.
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
Because you seem confused on the matter, he is not "on trial" he is in a very involved job interview. The rules of evidence do not apply in the same ways at all and he was never at any risk of going to jail. The worst thing that could happen to him in these proceedings is that he doesn't get a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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
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.
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.
Hence why I said at least until then.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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/
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
That video really should be on heavy repeat.
Christ alive, you're simple. Whatever the Dem's did has no bearing on whether the Republicans have put forward a suitable candidate. Pull your head out of your arse and stop being blindly partisan.
If you can't hear criticism about a republican without ranting about the Dems then you are part of the problem.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
Face facts: If political parties were reversed, everybody's opinion would also be reversed.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Lindsey Graham is not Trump and he didn't do 'exactly that'.
Carville worked for the DNC, he was Clinton's personal hatchet man at the time.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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'
Different situation.
The policy to not consider a SC justice during that close to a president election actually came much earlier, from our old friend Joe Biden.
Washington Post
YouTube of his speech
So, this was actually a Democratic policy that was put forth a long time ago ('92?)....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Face facts: here's something I made up because I like it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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..
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
the performance Kavanaugh was putting on.
How calm would you be if you woke up one day in a Kafka novel, asshole?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
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.
link to what you learned please.
Since when is eyewitness testimony not evidence?
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.
You people are fucking pathetic LOL.
Thanks for leading by example.
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});
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.
So, you think slander and libel doesn't have cause injury?
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.
So you suggest the judiciary be made even MORE political.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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....
The FBI, itself, says upwards of 20% of rape accusations are false and made for revenge or regret. I've heard claims the true number might be north of 30%.
The more famous you are the less your ability to sue for libel, you ass clown. Right now Kavenaugh might be the most famous person in the United States..
It's possible he's passed the threshhold where he wouldn't be permitted to sue for libel. In this areana it has nothing to do with the merits of the accusation.
Once again, do you have any fucking clue as to how our system works? Of course you don't.. You're a cunty liberal..
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.
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.
Sounds like you're a terrible friend.
If one of my friends was charged with sexual assault, I would publicly support him up until it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court. In fact, I would still support him even after that, perhaps by helping his family deal with the situation or help give him a new start after he is discharged.
If you stop being friends with them the moment they've done something wrong, then they're just people you have fun with, which could be acquaintances or even complete strangers. To call them friends means there's something more. To me that means acceptance, not only of their best parts, but also their worst parts.
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.
Then it would have been no big deal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?