Brett Kavanaugh - Appoint to Supreme Court, yes or no?

[Lois]

If this is true, I must say he should not be appointed.  Lying to congress shows contempt for our Constitutional checks and balances.

Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh caught lying under oath during Senate testimony
Bill Palmer

Donald Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh is falling apart by the hour – partly because Trump and his people rather obviously didn’t bother to do any real vetting of Kavanaugh while they were racing to try to hurry up and get him confirmed. The latest stunning revelation about Brett Kavanaugh is that he lied to the Senate in 2006. You don’t have to take our word for it, because a prominent Senator is the one making the accusation.

Kavanaugh went through Senate confirmation hearings to become a federal judge in 2006. Then in 2007, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin learned that Kavanaugh had lied during those hearings. He sought to get answers, but Kavanaugh stonewalled him. Now that Trump has put Kavanaugh under the microscope by nominating him for the Supreme Court, Durbin is going for the jugular.

Here’s what Senator Durbin tweeted today: “In 2007 I sent Brett Kavanaugh this letter asking to explain his inaccurate and misleading testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I’m still waiting for an answer.” Of course, “inaccurate and misleading” is a fancy way of saying that Kavanaugh lied under oath – which is also known as perjury. Durbin included a copy of his detailed original 2007 letter to Durbin, which spells out the precise moment at which Kavanaugh lied about his knowledge of the Bush White House’s detention and torture of enemy combatants. So where does this get us?

Senate Democrats don’t have the votes to stop the Brett Kavanaugh nomination on their own. So they’re taking a number of different approaches for trying to convince the American public to push back against the nomination so ferociously, it collapses to the point that the GOP Senate majority can’t carry it all the way to confirmation. But the fact that Kavanaugh lied under oath the last time he was nominated for a judge position? That’s an incredibly powerful argument for turning the tide against any judicial nominee – particularly a Supreme Court nominee.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/lying-oath-brett-kavanaugh-supreme/11320/

[psiberzerker]

Well, yeah.  Since attempted rape isn't, even a thing people care about any more.  Perjury to get appointed as a judge once before is more than enough to deny confirmation.  Also, why the Fuck don't the Supreme Court of the United States have any say in who they're going to be working with, in a lifelong position?  Are they deemed to not being impartial, for some reason?  Is there some conflict of interest that would preclude their fair judgement?

Because if you haven't noticed, they are the highest, and most trusted judges in the land.  Checks, and balances were never supposed to mean giving the other 2 branches leverage to sway the Judicial one.  This system is fucking retarded.

[MissBarbara]

If this is true, I must say he should not be appointed.  Lying to congress shows contempt for our Constitutional checks and balances.

Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh caught lying under oath during Senate testimony

Bill Palmer

On the one hand, U.S. Supreme Court Justices are not appointed. Justices are nominated by the President, and that nominee is then considered first by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then by the full Senate, which determines whether the nominee is approved or not. And this is true of Supreme Court nominees and all other Federal judges.

On the other hand, this article is extremely frustrating since it fails to mention what Kavanuagh lied about, or how he lied. A serious accusation like this demands justification, and the article provides absolutely none. And no, "Dick Durbin says he lied!" is not evidence. And no person in his or her right mind would answer a letter like the one Durbin sent Kavanaugh over a decade ago.

To answer your question, I've read very widely about Kavanaugh, and I've followed the hearings rather closely, and based on that -- and striving to view things free from the prism of personal political bias and preconceived notions -- I don't have the slightest problem with Kavanuagh joining the Court.

I will make one prediction: If Kavaniagh is approved, the Left will find themselves very relieved that Kavanuagh isn't the raging conservative them have deemed him to be; and the Right will be very disappointed that Kavanuagh isn't the raging conservative them have deemed him to be. And Roe v. Wade will not be overturned'; it won't be even threatened. 

Consider this: On October 12, 1864, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney died. On December 6, 1864, President Lincoln nominated his former Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase to replace him. The Senate confirmed Chase’s nomination that same day. Chase, though highly qualified, was a controversial figure. Yet the Senate, recognizing the proper role of their confirmation duties, set aside their partisanship and focused instead on Chase’s qualifications. He was confirmed within a few hours, based on his qualifications.

Fast forward 150 years, and the Supreme Court confirmation process has become mired in partisanship and political one-upmanship. Qualifications are almost beside the point, and political grandstanding rules the day. Viewed objectively — and I am aggressively not a fan of the president who nominated him — Brett Kavanaugh is perfectly qualified to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee is perfectly correct in carrying out their vetting process, and this process must be undertaken for every nominee. But it has devolved into pure polemics, with Kavanaugh’s qualifications almost beside the point.

The Senate confirmation process has devolved into a partisan circus — and a national embarrassment — and both parties are to blame.

[Lois]

A better source:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-pickering-nomination.html

I am also concerned about the alledged attempte rape of Ms. Ford by Kavenaugh.

Mark Judge, the boy with Kavenagh uring the alleged incident, wrote a book about his school years with Kavanaugh and how teens partied when parents were away, had teenage sex and trashed houses.  He claims he frequently got black-out drunk at these parties. He also talked about his friend "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who fequently got drunk with him.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school/index.html and other sources.

I would like more details concerning JBK's partying in high school.

And just on general principles I'd like to see all nominations placed on hold until Judge Merrick B. Garland  is appointed to the court.

[_priapism]

He is intellectually qualified.  He is not morally fit.

The GOP is led by a psychopathic pussy grabber, so even if Kavanaugh’s nomination goes down in flames, they’ll pick someone equally bad, or worse.  Count on it.

The GOP is the party of rapists, child molesters, religious fanatics, tax evaders, flat earthers, liars, and thieves.  They’ve spent 30 years destroying America for its plunder.  It’s just a few more swirls around the bowl at this point.

[MissBarbara]

I am also concerned about the alledged attempte rape of Ms. Ford by Kavenaugh.

Mark Judge, the boy with Kavenagh uring the alleged incident, wrote a book about his school years with Kavanaugh and how teens partied when parents were away, had teenage sex and trashed houses.  He claims he frequently got black-out drunk at these parties. He also talked about his friend "Bart O'Kavanaugh" who fequently got drunk with him.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/mark-judge-brett-kavanaugh-high-school/index.html and other sources.

I would like more details concerning JBK's partying in high school.

I agree with you here.

And I'll admit to a bias that leads me to side with the woman in instances like this -- irrespective of the political affiliation of the accused.

The problem what little real news there is about this incidence is completely obscured by mountains of opinion and speculation, most of which is fueled by political biases. There should be an investigation; but it should be an investigation carried out by trained investigators, and not by grandstanding politicians (I'm looking at you, Cory Booker!) or political opinion-makers.

To my mind, the fact that a bunch of high school teenagers partied, got drunk, and had a lot of sex isn't news at all. It's not even noteworthy. But if a teenager committed sexual assault, that's news, and that's noteworthy. And that's why there needs to be an investigation. Delaying the hearings for a week or two causes absolutely no harm.

[psiberzerker]

And I'll admit to a bias that leads me to side with the woman in instances like this -- irrespective of the political affiliation of the accused.

I tend to side with the (Alleged) victims, irrespective of their gender, nor that of the accused.  Age is a factor too, but let's just assume a He Said/He Said allegation of attempted rape.  Just to remove any bias, both are male, the same age, both drunk at a party, and one says "He tried to rape me, but if it wasn't for whiskey dick, I was too drunk to stop him."

Let's look at this hypothetical:  What does anyone ever gain from making a false accusation?  Sure, there may be peripheral gains, but just narrowing the focus to the accusation itself.  Let's say the (Alleged) predatory homosexual grows up to be rich, famous, and powerful.

The noteriety, even getting to go on talk shows, book deals, and a Lifetime movie based on your account of the ordeals is not reason enough to risk the destruction of your life, and your reputation from admitting you're a victim.  I've worked with these victims, guys who were sexually assaulted, at parties, by other drunk guys.  They can't face their fathers after that, knowing that they were taken advantage of, their abuser is possibly gay (Though Narcissism is another possible motive that can outweigh even being heterosexual.) and still out there amongst unsuspecting guys, just like him.

No threat of violence if they tell.  Even blacked out drunk so he doesn't remember doing it, they can't tell their own Fathers, much less an authority figure like a policeman, police woman, professor, lawyer, judge, bartender, nor therapist, much less any of their drinking buddies.  Your best bet if you want to hear these kinds of stories is either to work a helpline (Suicide Prevention works) or prostitution.  

Now, in cases of He Said/She Said, what does she expect to gain from a false allegation?  They won't think she's a slut if she consented, then claimed it was rape after the fact to preserve her reputation?

Too late.  That's already destroyed.

Now, what possible motives does he have to deny the alleged assault?

Process of Elimination.

[Lois]

I too tend to belive the victim, unless I know one of them really well.

I have a friend that tends to get wonky on occasion.  On one of these occassions she told me a guy got her phone number from a confidential list at the club - but membership information does not include phone numbers - so I knew it could not be true.  Later she denied ever claiming this.

[psiberzerker]

I too tend to belive the victim, unless I know one of them really well.

I have a friend that tends to get wonky on occasion.  On one of these occassions she told me a guy got her phone number from a confidential list at the club - but membership information does not include phone numbers - so I knew it could not be true.  Later she denied ever claiming this.

Okay, however the fact that she lied in the past has no bearing on her being able to tell the truth in the future.  Flip a coin, 5 times.  Regardless of how many times it comes up heads or tails, the probability doesn't change for the sixth.  (And that's for a simplified True/False dichotomy.)

Now, think about the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  If she says "I wasn't That drunk."  Then does that make anything else a lie?  No.  Past falsehoods have no bearing on the truth of what happened.

I don't believe anyone, automatically.  I don't ASSUME anything.  I tend to err on the side of caution, and in a sexual assault case, that means giving the one that's fucking Traumatized the benefit of the doubt.  

It's quite possible that they Both sexually abused each other.

[Lois]

Well, there was actually more incidents than just this one, an it does not mean I would not beleive any rape claim she made, just that I would look at it a little more critically.

I belive she is bipolar/bpd.  She told me the meds she was taking.  She said she got a lot better when she first started taking them, but they don't work nearly as well as they used to. She knows she needs to go see the doctor for a medication adjustment, but she's been putting it off.

(My "d" key has stopped working, so I have to go back an make sure it's there - LOL)

[Athos_131]

I was sexually assaulted. Here’s why I don’t remember many of the details.

Roughly 40 years ago, I showed up at a prominent music executive’s office for an appointment that had been scheduled suspiciously late in the workday. But I wasn’t suspicious. I was instead eager to try to place some of my original songs with artists he represented. One of my songs had appeared on the Eagles album “One of These Nights,” and I was hoping to turn songwriting into a career.

I brought along a cassette tape of my material, but I don’t remember what the executive said about the songs. Nor do I recall what we talked about. I remember the sky turning dark outside the window behind his desk. I remember sensing that people had left the building and we were there alone. I remember his face, his hair and what he was wearing. When he pulled a vial of cocaine out of his desk drawer and started chopping up lines on a small mirror, I’m 90 percent sure I declined his offer to do some with him, not because I didn’t do drugs — I definitely did in those years — but because I was starting to feel uncomfortable. My memory of the discomfort is sharp and clear, but my memory of declining the coke is, as I said, about 90 percent.

What happened next, though, is indelible. He crossed the room. There was a dark-green carpet, but his footsteps seemed loud, hard. He was against me, on top of me — so quickly — with his hands under my skirt and his mouth on mine, that I froze. I lay there as he pushed himself inside me. The leather couch stuck to my skin, made noises beneath me. His breath smelled like coffee and stale bread. He didn’t use a condom. I remember leaving afterward, driving home, the night around me glittered with streetlights and alive with people out at dinner or bars. I felt alone, ashamed and disgusted with myself. Why didn’t I get out of there? Why didn’t I push him off? Why did I freeze?

I don’t remember what month it was. I don’t remember whether his assistant was still there when I arrived. I don’t remember whether we said anything to each other when I left his office.

I never told anyone for decades — not a friend, not a boyfriend, not a therapist, not my husband when I got married years later.

It doesn’t surprise me one bit that for more than 30 years, Christine Blasey Ford didn’t talk about the assault she remembers, the one she accuses Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh of committing.

It’s important to understand how memory works in a traumatic event. Ford has been criticized for the things she doesn’t remember, like the address where she says the assault happened, or the time of year, or whose house it was. But her memory of the attack itself is vivid and detailed. His hand over her mouth, another young man piling on, her fear that maybe she’d die there, unable to breathe. That’s what happens: Your memory snaps photos of the details that will haunt you forever, that will change your life and live under your skin. It blacks out other parts of the story that really don’t matter much.

Ford wants the FBI to investigate so that some of the details she doesn’t remember can be established. It’s a brave request. Perhaps the aging men who are poised to interrogate her, unless they hide behind surrogates, should pause for a moment and think about the courage it takes for a woman to say: Here is my memory. It has haunted me for decades. It changed my life. You need to know about it now because of what is at stake for this country.

Requesting an investigation into the incident isn’t a big ask. Unless they just want her to go away. Which is, by the way, one reason that women are scared to speak up.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump HUD Secretary Ben Carson claims Kavanaugh allegations are part of a centuries old socialist plot

#Resist

[_priapism]

Trump HUD Secretary Ben Carson claims Kavanaugh allegations are part of a centuries old socialist plot

#Resist

This is the same Ben Carson who famously said that the pyramids were grain silos built by Joseph of the Old Testament, that slaves were just immigrants “pursuing their dreams,” who also said dead bodies were preferable to gun control, and that poverty doesn’t exist per se, rather it is merely a state of mind.

[Athos_131]

When I saw that come across my timeline I had to click the link just to make sure it was real.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

#Resist

[_priapism]

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

#Resist

Just remember Clarence “pubic hair on my Coke” Thomas got pushed through, then voted to stop the 2000 recount in Florida.  The fix is already in.  Kavanaugh is Trump’s get of jail free card.  This is only political theater.

[Athos_131]

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

#Resist

Just remember Clarence “pubic hair on my Coke” Thomas got pushed through, then voted to stop the 2000 recount in Florida.  The fix is already in.  Kavanaugh is Trump’s get of jail free card.  This is only political theater.

Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

This story was updated with comments from two former classmates of Kavanaugh, Louisa Garry and Dino Ewing, who initially signed a statement of support for Kavanaugh provided by his attorneys. They approached The New Yorker after this story was published and asked that their names be removed from the statement, saying that they did not wish to dispute Ramirez’s claims.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

Fortunately, we can skip this whole He said/they said mishmash of men going "Nu uh!  She's lying, they're all lying whores!" because men rule, since we still have that handy dandy Perjury, under oath, in a Confirmation hearing, for the Appellate Court of the District of Columbia.

Honestly, his alleged sexual history just shows that he might be callous-to-cruel, and a serial sex offendor toward female authority figures, so we can just give Ginsberg a cattle prod.  BZT!  "Back off."

He lied, under oath, in a Confirmation hearing, in Washington, to get a job as a judge.  (Allegely.)  That has direct bearing on his resume for this particular job.  To borrow a catch phrase from the creepy daddy in chief, "You're fired."  Then, we can go ahead, and take him before a judge, to lie under oath, in front of the female authority figures who alledge he humilated, sexually.  In pubic.  

If I were running the justice department, I'd send him to women's prison, in a dog kennel, and pass out cattle prods.  Probably why I'm not apply for the job of Supreme Court Justice.  I'm not fit.

Next?

[frenchfry54]

Seems interesting that he has passed so many FBI efforts to find dirt... but Dickey D brings up something and the FBI is ignored... Kinda like Harry Reid... "someone told me Romney never paid his taxes"... and.. after Romney lost... Reid said... "it worked"!