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

[Katiebee]

Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. As much as I find the sensual assault allegations disturbing, I do not base my opinion upon that as the sole reason. There are others, including the apparent body of lies he has used to combat the allegation and other untruths he as made in this process.

The main reason I oppose his confirmation is that he demonstrated quite foorcefully and deliberately that should he be granted a seat on the SCOTUS khe would be highly politicized in favor of one side and not try to be balanced and fair, and follow the rule of law.

He stated in this first hearing statements that the SCOTU should NOT be politicized. Yet in his second hearing statement he intentionally and stridently brough his argument out that he was being attacked for political reasons, bringing in the Clintons (? What the hell do they have to do with it?) and supposed liberal donors (?what does that have to do with it?)

His outbursts in a prepared statement that makes his claim to be deliberative, even and calm a lie. I do not see him as a stable personality to place in SCOTUS.

You are still saying that he shouldn't be appointed based on allegations alone that have yet to be confirmed.  That is still bull shit.

I can't get behind that.

Now, if you want to argue that he shouldn't be confirmed because his stance on metadata was unconstitutional, then I could be with you on it.  You would be right, I could support that.

But I really can't stand that the arguments here are allegations=guilt, and because someone was accused of something, they should be held accountable for it Just based on the allegations.  

If he had not prevaricated about drinking, I might have been more forgiving. If he had been more tempered in his response, same thing. If he had welcomed an FBI investigation that could have cleared him, I would not have such a negative view of him. If he hadn’t acted like an entitled and guilty jerk, I might have been more neutral.
But none of that’s come to pass.

[psiberzerker]

You are still saying that he shouldn't be appointed based on allegations alone that have yet to be confirmed. 

He was given every opportunity to answer the allegations.  He refused.  A man who refuses to defend himself, against any attack, be it allegations, or physical, loses by default. He answered questions with questions, and lies.  He said that he didn't understand what a mean drunk is, and he tried the "Have you?" defense, 3 times in a row.

I asked you if you belived him, and you said that you didn't Care if he was telling the truth.

If he lied, under oath, and refused to defend himself, it doesn't matter if the Allegations are true.  He was offered due process, and he refused it.  He was directly question, and he broke the Rule of Law, as a Judge.  Whether he Ignores the rule of Law, or is Ignorant of it, he disqualified himself to preside over the highest court in the land.

And there's 3 more allegations, so far.  He can refuse to answer for those too, but this is his Conformation Hearing.  If he doesn't cooperate with the process, if he continues to interfere with it, he can not be confirmed, and he knows it.  At this point, he has to decide whether he can salvage his reputation, but I kind-of doubt it.

[IrishGirl]

Interesting how an investigation into the allegations were demanded.  Then an investigation into the allegations was assigned...

...and now the same people that wanted the investigation are crying that an investigation isn't good enough...

...as the goal post is moved and moved again assuring that nothing will be good enough...

...nothing until accusation alone=guilt.

[Athos_131]

Kavanaugh college roommate ‘corroborates’ Debbie Ramirez’s sexual assault accusation after FBI refuses to interview him

#Resist

[Athos_131]

The F.B.I. Probe Ignored Testimonies from Former Classmates of Kavanaugh

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Why the ACLU Opposes Brett Kavanaugh's Nomination to the Supreme Court

In our 98-year history, we have only opposed four Supreme Court nominees.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

So, yeah.  They're going to go ahead and rush to a vote, after he refused to answer just one of his accusers, since the FBI is effectively blocked from DOING THEIR FUCKING JOB!  Along with the rest of the government.  Every agency that isn't busy trying to put out the Dumpster Fire, or too short-handed from all the "Job Creater" in chief's slash and burn layoffs of cabinet level secretaries, are actively banned from doing their duty, by Executive order, and direct interference from the very Committee they're supposed to be working for, in these investigation.

I told you he was an Anarchist.  RiP America.  I hope you're packed for the inevitable collapse.

[IrishGirl]

So, yeah.  They're going to go ahead and rush to a vote, after he refused to answer just one of his accusers, since the FBI is effectively blocked from DOING THEIR FUCKING JOB!  Along with the rest of the government.  Every agency that isn't busy trying to put out the Dumpster Fire, or too short-handed from all the "Job Creater" in chief's slash and burn layoffs of cabinet level secretaries, are actively banned from doing their duty, by Executive order, and direct interference from the very Committee they're supposed to be working for, in these investigation.

I told you he was an Anarchist.  RiP America.  I hope you're packed for the inevitable collapse.

And would their fucking job be finding him guilty despite any evidence?

[psiberzerker]

And would their fucking job be finding him guilty despite any evidence?

No, it would be Investigating appointees to the SCotUS.  They can't find anyone Guilty.  That would be the Justice department.

[IrishGirl]

And would their fucking job be finding him guilty despite any evidence?

No, it would be Investigating appointees to the SCotUS.  They can't find anyone Guilty.  That would be the Justice department.

It was in the greater Garrison Keillor since of the "guilt."  But literally, you are correct.

[IrishGirl]

Not to mention he is combative and bordered on sarcastic, neither of which shows the temperament and demeanor of a Supreme Court candidate. I wonder what a poll from the 8 active judges would indicate.?

With responses to questions about his drinking such as if he had any blackouts with a sneered, “Have you?” he was looking at the border of sarcastic in the rear view mirror staci.  He crossed that border so far it wouldn’t have surprised me if his answer had been ¿Tiene?

He is reportedly beligerent when he drinks.  Maybe he should have been asked how many beers he had before the hearing.

This is another interesting thing about the whole hearing.  Someone drank in college.  Well, holy fucking shit, who would have thought that wasn't a common thing to do in college?

[psiberzerker]

This is another interesting thing about the whole hearing.  Someone drank in college.  Well, holy fucking shit, who would have thought that wasn't a common thing to do in college?

Neither is attempted rape, nor lying for that matter.  The argument that it happens all the time in college doesn't apply to protests?  Intolerance?  Safe Spaces?  Just underage drinking.  What about sexual assaults? 

Also, Georgetown Prep is a high school.  

[IrishGirl]

This is another interesting thing about the whole hearing.  Someone drank in college.  Well, holy fucking shit, who would have thought that wasn't a common thing to do in college?

Neither is attempted rape, nor lying for that matter.  The argument that it happens all the time in college doesn't apply to protests?  Intolerance?  Safe Spaces?  Just underage drinking.  What about sexual assaults? 

Also, Georgetown Prep is a high school.  

So, are you trying to argue that drinking in college makes someone a rapist?

I'm not sure what your point is here

[psiberzerker]

So, are you trying to argue that drinking in college makes someone a rapist?

I'm not sure what your point is here

Just because it is a common criminal act, perpetrated in college doesn't change the fact that it was a criminal act.  And he did it in High School.  And he lied about it, under oath.  So, it wasn't "Just" someone being drunk in college, it's also someone lying under oath, in a Judiciary hearing.  That alone is enough to deny confirmation, regardless of what he lied about.

Those were my points, plural.

[IrishGirl]

So, are you trying to argue that drinking in college makes someone a rapist?

I'm not sure what your point is here

Just because it is a common criminal act, perpetrated in college doesn't change the fact that it was a criminal act.  And he did it in High School.  And he lied about it, under oath.  So, it wasn't "Just" someone being drunk in college, it's also someone lying under oath, in a Judiciary hearing.  That alone is enough to deny confirmation, regardless of what he lied about.

Those were my points, plural.

I don't recall him lieing about it...but even if he did, I am curious as to why doing drinking in college makes someone guilty of rape.

[Athos_131]

Guilty

Guilt, in a courtroom, has a specific and quantifiable threshold. In the context of a criminal trial, guilt must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Notably, the standard does not require guilt to be proven beyond any doubt—merely all reasonable alternatives. Legal scholars tend to equate this burden to approximately 95 percent certainty that the accused did it. But this criminal standard also represents the highest such threshold under the law. In a civil matter—that is, effectively any matter where jail is not a possibility—the standard is much lower: a preponderance of the evidence, a fancy way of saying anything above 50 percent certainty. That’s right: you can lose virtually anything you own—your home, your money, your ability to perform certain jobs—if someone can show that you are more likely than not responsible for their harm. And the government can effectively deprive you of your property at an even a lower standard. They can seize it simply by making a showing to a magistrate (without your presence or participation) that they have a reasonable suspicion that the property is derived from illegal activity.

Finally, we reach the lowest standard of proof—the standard of proof for a Senate confirmation hearing, which is no standard at all. For all the shouting you heard in the past week about “presumptions of innocence” and “due process,” none of that exists in a confirmation hearing for a job Kavanaugh does not yet have. Senators can reject him if they don’t like the tie he wore or the smug look on his face.

In Kavanaugh’s case, though, it really does not matter which of these standards we judge him against: there is enough evidence to support a finding of guilt under all of them.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

I don't recall him lieing about it.

No, but I do recall you saying you didn't care if he lied.  If you did, you might have payed more attention to his testimony.

why doing drinking in college makes someone guilty of rape.

It doesn't.  Now, take out all the words you added like "Guilty," and "Rape" and read it again.  When I say Guilty, and Rape, then I mean Guilty of Rape.  When I don't, those aren't my talking points, they are yours.  So, stop confusing yourself, and just stick to the words I wrote.  'kay?

[Athos_131]

F.B.I. Review of Kavanaugh Was Limited From the Start

But the F.B.I. did not interview the two people at the center — Judge Kavanaugh and his main accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

#Resist

[Lois]

So, are you trying to argue that drinking in college makes someone a rapist?

I'm not sure what your point is here

Just because it is a common criminal act, perpetrated in college doesn't change the fact that it was a criminal act.  And he did it in High School.  And he lied about it, under oath.  So, it wasn't "Just" someone being drunk in college, it's also someone lying under oath, in a Judiciary hearing.  That alone is enough to deny confirmation, regardless of what he lied about.

Those were my points, plural.

I don't recall him lieing about it...but even if he did, I am curious as to why doing drinking in college makes someone guilty of rape.

Where do you get this stuff?  No one said drinking in college makes him guilty of rape.  We said lying about being of legal age to drink while in high school makes him a liar, and he lied under oath, which makes him guilty of perjury.  It makes us all wonder what else he lied about.

Whenever you start loosing an argument you start making shit like this up.  If you have to lie (make shit up) to make a point, you don't have much of a point do you?

[IrishGirl]

I don't recall him lieing about it.

No, but I do recall you saying you didn't care if he lied.  If you did, you might have payed more attention to his testimony.

why doing drinking in college makes someone guilty of rape.

It doesn't.  Now, take out all the words you added like "Guilty," and "Rape" and read it again.  When I say Guilty, and Rape, then I mean Guilty of Rape.  When I don't, those aren't my talking points, they are yours.  So, stop confusing yourself, and just stick to the words I wrote.  'kay?

Actually I said:

 "I don't care if he'd make a good nomination or not, it's not my decision to make, but I DO care that all of you are willing to take away his due process, even if it is only for a job interview, based on accusations alone.

And then, later, I pointed out how stupid it is to call for an investigation...then complain that it actually IS being investigated.

And now I am saying that it is stupid to try to use drinking in college as some proof of guilt or bad character when it's something that MOST college students do.