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

[Jed_]

When has the GoP ever stood for the "Smart thing to do" party?  They mock intelligence.  Not just goldenpalms, they all do.  If I didn't know any better, I'd suspect that whenever they even get the slightest clue, of what the smart thing to do would be?  They do the opposite just out of spite.  If they ever do the smartest thing, it's completely by accident, and so far even Ivanka's dad isn't so bumblingly incompetent.  

I'm afraid we're just going to have to think before we speak, and act, because we know for damned sure they won't.

Both parties talk about ‘the elite’ as the people they deride and claim as selfishly steering the country in what they say is the wrong direction.  Except Democrats mean rich people when they talk about the elite, and Republicans mean smart people.

[psiberzerker]

Except Democrats mean rich people when they talk about the elite, and Republicans mean smart people.

Yeah!  You know what?  I'll take people who know what the fuck is going on, and what they're doing for $200.00 Alex?

I have to (#WellActually) point out that in this false dichotomy, wealth, AND intelligence are mutually exclusive.

[Athos_131]

There was no reason the FBI could not have done a full investigation.

#Resist

[Lois]

The legal system is built around a central premise that the accused is not guilty in the eyes of the law unless guilt can be proven to the satisfaction of the judge or jury. To discount someone from being a supreme court judge on the grounds of an accusation that can't be substantiated would make a mockery of the legal system as a whole and set a precedent that would obviously be abused in the future.

Except in the case of a Supreme Court Justice the bar has been set higher than this.  Higher than the bar of running for President.  You must be beyond reproach.

I remind you Kavanaugh was not on trial. It was a job interview to see if had the character and background for the job.  Presidents have been impeached by the House for perjury (lying under oath) and one past Supreme Court nominee was disqualified for smoking pot.  While the pot smoking may no longer be disqualifying (assuming it is done legally), perjury should have been an automatic disqualification.

[psiberzerker]

If he was able to commit perjury in your opinion then it obviously was no ordinary job interview

They convened a panel of Senators.  So, obviously it was no ordinary Job Interview.

In any case, I wasn't referring to his legal status but suggesting that if the principle that is a foundation of the legal system is not upheld as part of the appointment process for a supreme court judge, then the entire justice system is undermined.

If he can avoid direct questions, and refuse to answer, the the entire Justice system is Undermined.  You're so obsessed with this "Innocent until proven Guilty" that you're overlooking the FACT that He Got The Job.  And yet you're continuing to argue as if this is a Travesty of Justice, because you still want to convince everyone of what you've already Decided.  "Presumed Innocent."  Not to the point that you avoid all evidence to the contrary, stop investigating, and accept "Have you?" as an answer to Direct Questions.  

Granted, "innocent until proven guilty" sadly often only applies in theory and not in practice, but it is still presented as fundamental.

Not in a Judiciary Hearing.  No, it's not.  It's not presumed, it's not assumed, it's not applied, it's not implied, not in this case.  He still has to answer questions.  

From a practical perspective, discarding an appointee for unsubstantiated allegations would inevitably lead to false allegations of illegal activity of some kind  for each appointee in the future, in the absence of any provable wrongdoing

What about Misrepresenting The Law?  He testified that the legal drinking age was 18.  That at the time, he was 18, and therefore legally drunk.  You remember that?  Okay, now open your book, and look up when the legal drinking age was raised to 21.  Without the allegedly "False" allegations, plural, he MISREPRESENTED THE LAW.  If you go apply for a job, flipping burgers, and someone asks you to drop a basket of fries. Telling your potential employer "Those aren't french fries" and refusing to participate in the cooking process can cost you the job.

In other news, Duh.

Unfortunately, even if someone is "beyond reproach,"

No one is "Beyond reproach."  Least of all Brett "I like Beer" Kavanaugh.  Doctor Ford's life is ruined, by these allegations.  She can't go home.  She's getting death threats, and she can still lose her job.  If you're arguing that "Anyone" can have their life ruined by "False Allegations" find a better example.  Because this one went straight to the Supreme Court for life, a decision which cannot be overturned, even by the Supreme Court.  Now he's "Above Reproach."  Now the precedent has been set that "Anyone" can misrepresent the Law, mouth off to the SJC and still get the appointment.  In spite of everything else, and you're still focused on 1 allegation even after he's won.

[psiberzerker]

Would you mind, quoting where I told you your opinion?  This isn't argumentative, that wasn't my intent.  (I can at least point out that I wasn't Trying to, even if I happened to accidentally.)  It would help me if you can show me where I fucked up, and offended you.  Otherwise, I can't learn, and I can't avoid doing it again in the future.

Psi, please stop trying to tell me what my opinions are.

With all due respect, I can't honor ^that request, unless you can be more specific.

[Jed_]

It would help me if you can show me where I fucked up, and offended you.  Otherwise, I can't learn, and I can't avoid doing it again in the future.

Mmmmmmmm.  I’m reminded yet again of Don Quixote.

[psiberzerker]

This is the most blatant example, but your entire post (in fact most of your posts in reply to me, in fact most of your posts in reply to anyone) is in reply to opinions I've never expressed because they are opinions I don't have.

All right.  Then ignore the word "Obsessed," and we can move onto the Facts of the case I brought up.  Assuming that no Proof is going to meet the standards in a straight up He Said/They Said case, stop focussing exclusively on the Allegations, and address the Legal problem I repeatedly pointed out:

He lied, under oath, about the Law.  The legal drinking age.  His sex life is immaterial to his duties as a Justice.  His interpretation of the law is The Job He Was Interviewing For.  So, whether he was ignorant of the Legal Federal Drinking Age, or he lied under oath (Which is Felony Perjury) this is a Fact of the case, which is not open to Opinion.  

Say something about that.

That is not to say that Kavanaugh is innocent or that Ford was lying, nor does it mean that Kavanaugh should not have been discounted for other reasons.

I have been saying, this entire time, that he should be discounted for another reason.  Not for the mere accusation alone.  Nobody here, in this thread, has said he deserves to be "Found Guilty" for the accusation alone, which Is, in fact, a strawman of our opinions.  

To be clear, in the interest of reasonable, and rational discussion, let me state this plainly:  These are serious accusations.  Serious accusations should be taken seriously, not dismissed because of this misguided Assumption of "Innocence."  In any venue, if the accusation was that he bullied underclassmen, then it needs to be Investigated.  Not charged, not convicted, nor found Guilty without investigation.  Just investigated.  If the charges were Attempted Murder, then he has he right to clear his name, by facing his accuser, and answering the fair questions asked.

He refused that Due Process.  The nature of the charges, being sexual, instead of just simple Assault.  Attempted Murder instead of Attempted Rape.  Should be taken as seriously as charges which are as serious without the Sexual aspects.  Now, I will ask you this question, rather than assume your opinion:  Do you believe that these accusations were treated and investigated as seriously as they would had his accuser been 4 underclassmen he Assaulted, and Bullied in high school and College?  Lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that Doctor Christopher Ford came forward, and accused him of threatening his life at a party, without witnesses.  

That's another legal standard, as sacred as Innocence until Proven Guilty.  Equal respect for, and protected under The Law.  As Supreme Court Justice, he is going to be sworn to judge The Law.  Misdemeaners, and Felonies, based on the Law.  Not the severity of the crime, nor his feelings about it at the time he committed it.  If the Legal Drinking Age is brought before him, he has to rule impartially, without bias from Political Afiliation, nor his resentment that they changed the drinking age before he turned 18, so he had to wait until college to enjoy beer as a responsible adult.  According to his duty, Underage Drinking is as much his responsibility to uphold, truthfully, as the Age of Sexual Consent, or the federal highway speed limit.  Whether it's alcohol, or let's say Pornography.  Just to make it a "Victimless Crime" that involves sexual exposure.  He can not split that hair.  Legally, a sex crime is just as illegal as a drinking crime for consideration by the Supreme Court.

That's the job.  That, not the allegations of assault and bullying, is the reasons why I am saying he should never have been Confirmed.

Are we clear?

[psiberzerker]

I am not obliged to respond to the tangential discussion you apparently want to have and not inclined to respond when what you've written is irrelevant to the aspect of the topic I was discussing. Is that clear?

Perfectly.  You can continue focusing on the 1 allegation you deem important, and I can continue focusing on the Legal aspect that actually has some bearing on his suitability as a supreme court justice.

Now that we're both clear, there's no reason for our points to be in conflict.  You can continue arguing yours, without the assumption that mine has fuckall to do with impeaching one (Alleged) victim, ignoring the other 3, and preventing any FBI investigation that could prove the allegationS true, or false.

Again, the severity of the accusations, plural, are grounds for Investigating them.  To look for the Proof you're totally not demanding here.  I got it, you're not concerned about the Legal issues here, just the 1 allegation that you can rule as "False," without investigation, and without proof.  Before you cry, again, that this is me telling your opinion, again, go back and read in your own words, all the times you called the allegations "False."

If you decide before there investigation is finished that the allegations are "False," then no amount of Evidence will be enough to Prove them, true or not.  Again, your focus is on the Allegations, until which time, you decide that ANYTHING else is worth your time, and consideration, your honor.

[psiberzerker]

Now, back to the point I'm actually arguing here:  Let's yet again look at the Due Process, using a less polarizing crime as an example:

4 convenience stores report boys coming in, on different nights, and stealing beer.  In a Civil Court, where the accusers charge the 1 boy (Allegedly) present at all 4 (Alleged) crimes, and sue for damages.  Only the first store owner is allowed to testify, present evidence and call witnesses who were also in the store at the time.

The Judge rules that the other 4 victims, making the allegations, don't need to be investigated, at all.  Refuses the Police investigating further, and instructs the Jury (That would be US, hearing the case on national television) to disregard anything but the store owner's testimony.  Then, when the plaintiff is asked directly if he ever stole beer, he asks the Prosecuter "Have you?"

I respectfully submit, that if this had been any other venue, than a Political Hearing, and any non-sexual crime, he would have been thrown in Jail for Contempt of Court.  Until such time as he is willing to answer the questions, under oath.   Not ordered to work in the stores, overseeing the beer, to make sure nobody else steals it.

That's not how Due Process works.  If you demand your day in court, to defend yourself, then refuse to defend yourself, you have waived your Right to Due process.  You have to participate, in that process, for it to be Due.  He even refused to answer, 3 times, when offered an Investigation into the accusationS.  (All 4)  He didn't accept, he didn't decline, he refused to answer.  3 times.

That is refusing his Due Process.  just to be clear here, the Beer in this example isn't beer.  It's not 4 women's bodies, nor his whiskey dick.  It's the Law.  He took the law, rewrote it (So that it was legal for him to drink underage, and take whatever else he wants) and in return, he's given control overseeing it.

[psiberzerker]

I just don't care what you have to say, because the disjointed ramblings of a garden variety nutjob aren't of interest to me. Is that clear enough?

Crystal.  If you're not going to read it, then by your own offer, you are not compelled to respond to it.  I suggest you excercise that right, and remain silent.  These repeated protests that you don't care, do not suggest a man who doesn't care, and resents the waste of your valuable time.  Assume for here on out that I'm talking to someone who might give a flying fuck about anything but the accusation.

You done protesting too much?  Then stop wasting my time.  I have 2 stories to write.

[Katiebee]

https://www.facebook.com/NowThisPolitics/videos/1879668325435157/

[psiberzerker]

Oh noes!  Teh wimmins is being racist again, by pointing out men's fears!  Is that a ukelele?  Ethyl, get the hose, the dadblamed femisists is at it agin.  What?  No, I don't just want to see her in that sports bra all whet.  What's got into you Ethyl?

Men aren't scared.  Is that what progress we've made, in all this time?  Men can act scared, so somehow women aren't credible when they're afraid to go out at night?  Oh right, not all men, but where the fuck are these heros we hear about?  The ones that are supposed to protech teh wimmins when we're not talking about trying to stay safe in bars?

"Well, actually."  Not him.  Nice Stranger Dranger cosplay, there.  Dude, if there are exceptions out there, that ain't him.  We sure can't defend ourselves, that would be Feminism.

Also, here's a Woo, KB  That was awesome.  Made my day this morning.    "Mwah!"

[IrishGirl]

Senate panel refers Avenatti, Kavanaugh accuser Swetnick for criminal investigation



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/chuck-grassley-refers-michael-avenatti-and-julie-swetnick-for-investigation.html?fbclid=IwAR1Tco3hbTlWvlpkI22es1FK4y4eZiSdKA0N-JlTu2yPyISkjmrHgtv5eY0

[psiberzerker]

Well, thanks for keeping us posted on the case!  I agree, that it's ironic that now they want to investigate these allegations, when before it was too distracting from confirming a man to SCotUS.  Since potential conflicts of interest would have been prejudicial.  For some reason, now it seems a good time to investigate the (Alleged) victim, instead of the contradictory statements of the accused.

Our Justice, and Investigation systems at work, people.  Whenever it's politically convenient.

[IrishGirl]

Well, thanks for keeping us posted on the case!  I agree, that it's ironic that now they want to investigate these allegations, when before it was too distracting from confirming a man to SCotUS.  Since potential conflicts of interest would have been prejudicial.  For some reason, now it seems a good time to investigate the (Alleged) victim, instead of the contradictory statements of the accused.

Our Justice, and Investigation systems at work, people.  Whenever it's politically convenient.

It's not ironic, it's just a crime to lie under oath.

[psiberzerker]

It's not ironic, it's just a crime to lie under oath.

And yet, you didn't care if he was lying.  (Under oath.)  You want the link to you saying that again?  Because you might have conveniently forgotten saying it, again.  

Allegedly lying under oath.  At this point, she was Accused of lying under oath, and investigation is only just started.  But apparently, the mere allegation is enough to convict her.

Here,

And also here,

Now, why is it only a crime you care about when He's not the one committing it?  Why do you care now, that you got what you wanted?  You're not just a sore loser, you're also a poor winner?  Have you finally won so much that you got sick of winning?

Congratulations.

[IrishGirl]

It's not ironic, it's just a crime to lie under oath.

And yet, you didn't care if he was lying.  (Under oath.)  You want the link to you saying that again?  Because you might have conveniently forgotten saying it, again.  

Allegedly lying under oath.  At this point, she was Accused of lying under oath, and investigation is only just started.  But apparently, the mere allegation is enough to convict her.

Here,

And also here,

Now, why is it only a crime you care about when He's not the one committing it?  Why do you care now, that you got what you wanted?  You're not just a sore loser, you're also a poor winner?  Have you finally won so much that you got sick of winning?

Congratulations.

Actually, I never believed the allegations, primarily because, as I said, none of the witnesses she named would support her accusations and, really, the systemic and super-secrete gang-rape train was extremely hard to believe.

What I did was was that I don't care if he's a good candidate, I'm against how people are using false allegations to attempt to eliminate him.  And I don't think an accusation alone without evidence, investigation, or a trial should be proof of guilt.

And, I believe I said that, had you gone the meta-data route, I would have totally supported the movement to not approve him.

[psiberzerker]

I don't think an accusation alone without evidence, investigation, or a trial should be proof of guilt.

And yet you believed she was guilty of Perjury, on the Accusation alone, without Investigation, evidence, nor a trial.  

So again, why is it different now, After you didn't care, when it was important to the Supreme Court of the United States?  Why is it okay to just accept the accusation of Perjury, when you didn't care whether the accusationS, plural, of underage drinking, conspiracy to attempted rape, sexual assault, and perjury were true?

You only cared that other people believed the allegations.  (When they didn't, you just said they did, rather than answer the question whether or not you believed him.)

You want the links again?

Or better yet, where you lying then, or are you lying now?

[IrishGirl]

I don't think an accusation alone without evidence, investigation, or a trial should be proof of guilt.

And yet you believed she was guilty of Perjury, on the Accusation alone, without Investigation, evidence, nor a trial.  

So again, why is it different now, After you didn't care, when it was important to the Supreme Court of the United States?  Why is it okay to just accept the accusation of Perjury, when you didn't care whether the accusationS, plural, of underage drinking, conspiracy to attempted rape, sexual assault, and perjury were true?

You only cared that other people believed the allegations.  (When they didn't, you just said they did, rather than answer the question whether or not you believed him.)

You want the links again?

She's under investigation for perjury.  She's getting an investigation, which is a LOT more than I believe you were willing to give the accused.  And that was my ENTIRE problem with it.

You guys even cried and whined about how unfair giving an investigation to someone accused of a crime was.

That was my problem, the fact that you lot were arguing against due process.  In this case, she's accused of a crime and getting due process, which, AGAIN, was more than you were willing to give the person she accused.