The Supreme Court Fight is On. The Divide Worsens

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1886

One other personal note…

Any wavering that I had in the past of changing my Voter Registration from “Independent” to one of the two major parities is now Dead and Buried.

After eight years of the way the GOP and the right treated President Obama then elected Trump…and after this Circus put on by the Dems (Was it Lindsey Graham who said to call it a Circus was an insult to Circuses…because at least you can have fun and take your kids to a Circus?)…after this Circus and 8 years of hypocrisy by the GOP and the Right…I’m done with them both.

Maybe a small thing…but that’s okay.

1887

I watched a good chunk of this on youtube yesterday.

Can someone, anyone, tell me why this woman is being taken seriously at this point? Her performance was, at times, emotionally compelling, but none of it adds up at all.

The people she named as being present at the “party” have no recollection of it ever taking place. She can’t name a place. She can’t name a time or date. This is the very definition of a murky accusation, coming from a person who can’t seem to remember details from the last few weeks.

Kavanaugh, on the other hand, has managed to live a highly public life with an enormous part of his body of work out in the open as part of the public record. No pattern of misbehavior emerged at all during that time. Until this lady came along, he looked like a pretty clear case of our best and brightest coming forward for a big job that our best and brightest belongs in.

Yet my sister-in-law is busy posting on social media that she #believesallwomen and she even had my lovely neices make up hand-drawn support cards to send to Dr. Ford. That’s some Grade-A virtue signalling right there. I’m pretty sure it was a hit with the right people.

I don’t understand this. We should believe this woman, and not this man, because #believeallwomen and #whiteprivilege? Is there more to this thought process that I’m missing? Can someone please explain how they arrived at the total opposite conclusion I have?

If this can be done to Kavanaugh, it can be done to anyone. Sure, he won’t go to jail, he’ll merely have his life torn apart and his career destroyed. This is straight out of Stalin’s playbook and it is a national disgrace.

Even if her story is true, think about what’s happening right now. Facts are no longer necessary. Uncorroborated accusations will do just fine, thank you.

3 Likes
1888

So, you think Kavanaugh committed a serious sexual assault…and he lied about doing so, repeatedly and vociferously, while testifying under oath to the Senate …and he cynically inflamed partisan tensions for self-serving reasons (‘cynically’ because he knows the underlying allegations are true)…but despite all this, he’s qualified to be a SCOTUS justice?

:thinking:

1 Like
1889

Yep, @EyeDentist…I’m going with “The Devil I Know” and 300-plus decisions.

When you have some time…take a look at some of those people on Trump’s list (like Barrett).

If Kavanaugh goes down…we will certainly deserve who Trump picks next.

1890

Because it calls into question her disinterested-ness. And this is a popular lawyer trick - when the case gets put on poorly and witnesses didn’t quite seal the deal, the lawyer asks the jury “hey, don’t hold her responsible for my bad lawyering, give her the benefit of the doubt despite what I did” - but it doesn’t work. Context matters. And combine that with the fact that she had really bad memory problems (she can’t remember who paid for the polygraph a few weeks ago?) and issues with telling the truth (the “I’m afraid to fly” ruse, which again, goes to disinterested-news - with that fib, you look like you are coordinating your testimony with a political agenda rather than showing up to tell your story), a reasonable person could think she’s mistaken as to Kavanaugh being the assailant.

Sure, you can - but you can also believe they can’t be separated so neatly, because the way it was staged by the Dems. One thing that can always be a problem for a witness is bias - and it’s hard for a lot of people to think she isn’t biased here by virtue of how it played out.

FWIW, I think Kavanaugh’s aggressive response actually made me think he isn’t the right man for the job (independent of the allegations). What we saw was not a judicial temperament on display, and certainly not for the level of SCOTUS. I suspect much of it was theatre for his main audience - Trump, who Kavanaugh worried would yank his nomination because he didn’t look tough and defiant enough on TV against the “libs”. If so, that’s even worse in a SCOTUS nominee.

2 Likes
1891

@EyeDentist and @thunderbolt23:

I guess I’m probably exhibiting a lot of raw emotion about this (like a lot of people).

Maybe I need to settle down and give it all some deeper thought.

1892

Welcome, I think you’ll find it liberating. :grinning:

I once said the GOP is a national embarrassment, but now it’s a historical one, too. And despite the slap on the face of 2016, the Democrats can’t get out of their own way and just show up and be normal.

And this Senate hearing only reaffirms the shit show that have become our two national parties.

1 Like
1893

How does it call into question her disinterested-ness? I truly don’t understand.

Unless you have reason to believe she was told specifically who was paying for the polygraph (‘Dr Ford, look at Exhibit 13, an invoice for the polygraph initialed and dated by you on Sept 13th…’), not knowing the answer to this question is not evidence of “really bad memory problems.”

I too am afraid to fly, and am very reluctant to do so. Despite this, I manage to do it when required by circumstances. Trust me, the fact that I can fly does not give the lie to the claim that I am afraid to do so.

Further, given the volume of prevarications on the part of Judge Kavanaugh, for you to decide she is the one with ‘truth telling issues’ is stunning to me.

You are impugning her credibility on the basis of what the Dems did. That makes no sense to me. She sent her letter prior to his being nominated. How can you accuse her of political subterfuge? Again, I don’t understand.

I had the same reaction.

Agree, again.

1 Like
1894

Sure, she had to grip her armrests on her way to vacation. But now she CAN’T do it and MUST drive? To give her testimony to the US Senate? Hawaii and business, yes. Senate, no? Of course, she ended up having to blink on that one. But before blinking, due to her inability to fly, the committee made repeated offers to come to her for her testimony. She claimed she never received the offers. They’ve been made not only through saved email, but also publicly.

She can’t remember if she shared her therapist’s notes with the Washington Post, who say they were allowed to view them. My understanding is she never gave consent for them to be viewed by the committee. The WP said they got to see them, breaking this story wide open. But, she doesn’t remember that. /Shrug. A bit odd.

1 Like
1895

I thought the committee offered to have staffers come question her. Did Grassley actually offer to have the committee itself go to her to hear her testimony?

Given the way Congress leaks, I wouldn’t give consent for them to have my therapy notes either.

1896

Literally walking out the door. I think she was offered both. But don’t have me make a statement under the penalty of perjury over that. Likely see you all on Monday. Have a good weekend!

Edit: Happy Thoughts before I go… Tom Hanks as Mister Rogers.
image

1 Like
1897

I agree with this. Here’s what I bet happened:

  1. An incidence occurred where she, either at the time or in retrospect, believes Kavanaugh and Judge were attempting to sexually assault her. She remembers this specific event, and perhaps has added importance and details that weren’t real. She is not lying; she believes 100% what she is saying.

  2. Kavanaugh and Judge were partying, drunken teens at the time, and were fooling around at a party. They had no malicious attempt to rape or assault her, in their minds, and probably don’t even remember that specific incident because it just wasn’t a big deal to them. They drank, partied, and were rambunctious quite often, so why remember this incident from that long ago? Hence, the laughter she vividly remembers; it was two drunk teens who were fooling around for their own amusement. Neither Judge nor Kavanaugh even remember this specific event.

But… we know for sure Kavanaugh is lying about the person he was. If he had said “Yes, I often drank to excess as a teen and college student. Yes, I behaved in immature ways, and, as most people do, I transitioned into a mature adult who would never act like that. However, I NEVER assaulted anyone or intentionally caused harm.”

Instead, he’s claiming he was never a hard partier who drank to excess, engaged in immature and embarrassing behavior. He paints himself as a choir boy who dedicated his youth to church and sports, and enjoyed a cold beer as an occasional way to unwind. His roommates and those who know him said this is a lie. He was a heavy drinker who became aggressive and belligerent when partying. His yearbook paints the picture of a hard partying, horny teen. None of this would not be disqualifying, not would this mean he is not a highly qualified SCOTUS at the age of 53. But lying to congress and the American people means you are not fit to be a SCOTUS.

4 Likes
1898

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

1899

He didn’t use those exact words, but I watched the full 45 min opening testimony. He seemed to own up to this sort of behavior. “Yeah we drank beer. Sometimes too many”. Not an exact quote but he said something close to that effect.

In no way was I left with the impression that he was portraying himself as some kind of choir boy.

1900
1 Like
1901

And this didn’t help any:

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election; fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record; revenge on behalf of the Clintons; and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,”…

I don’t get the “Clinton’s were after me” thing…but I think he would have been better served leaving it all out…

WAY too “Trumpian” in nature…

1 Like
1902

That article is someone else saying Kavanaugh’s portraying himself as a choir boy. I was talking about how he came across in his 45 min opening statement.

He clearly owned up to drinking in high school. I’m not sure what else you could expect from the man. I once puked while riding home on the back of a Razz scooter with my buddy House driving it. I think I was 15 and had four beers in my buddy Dave’s parent’s basement. And I still had fun. It’s a fun memory to look back on and I don’t regret it at all. This is a normal childhood experience in America, even if we grow up and tell our own kids that they aren’t supposed to do that stuff.

Are these the sort of childhood details you would expect him to point out in a Senate Judiciary Confirmation hearing to (presumably) determine his fitness to serve on the Supreme Court? This is the important stuff why, again? Is it more important than any of his body of work from the past three decades or so?

1903

Yes it does. My point was to demonstrate that @antiquity was far from alone in his impression that Kavanaugh was representing himself–misrepresenting himself, it seems–in this regard.

I will agree that, as the week progressed, he walked back the choir-boy affectation.

No, I would say he has yet to own up to the magnitude/extent of his high-school drinking. It is clear that he drank very heavily in high school and college. (100 Kegs or Bust!) It is equally clear he prevaricated on this point.

Forthrightness from the get-go? Not lying while under oath?

I drank in HS too. I don’t think anyone is on Kavanaugh’s case for the drinking per se.

When asked directly, under oath? Yes.

If, in a drunken haze, he sexually assaulted a woman as she has credibly claimed–and he has taken no action since the assault to make it right in some form or fashion–then IMO it is disqualifying. (As an aside, I also find his revealed boorish, entitled, intemperate nature, as well as his hyperpartisan orientation, disqualifying as well.)

1 Like
1904

What, in your opinion, makes her claim credible?

1905

Because her participation in it suggests a bias. The Democrats obviously want to block Kavanaugh in a way they didn’t with Gorsuch (Kavanaugh locks up the right-wing majority). Ford shows up, remembers virtually no other fact about the alleged assault except that she’s 100% crystal clear that it was the current nominee for SCOTUS.

On that set of facts and the way this was staged, it’s hard to buy the idea that she is a disinterested party with no agenda other than to tell her story.

C’mon. Someone puts you up in a hotel room and pays for you to take a polygraph a few weeks ago, and you can’t recall who did either? Either she has considerable memory problems, which casts doubts on her certainty that Kavanaugh was the assailant, or she isn’t telling the truth and knows who paid for it in an attempt but wants to not disclose their identity. Neither helps her.

C’mon. You and I both know this was a stall tactic. She can be a nervous flier, that’s fine - but it obviously was not such a crippling condition that she needed to insist that she drive cross country for probably the most important task she has had to do as an adult. That was a falsehood.

I didn’t decide she was the one - that’s a false choice. I think they both failed to be completely honest.