Kavanaugh Hearing

I would agree with that. I just disagree with the notion that Bork was an obstruction. He was voted down because of his extreme views. That is a reasonable reason for the Senate to not approve somebody, especially on somebody like Bork (who was legit pretty extreme in a lot of his views).

 

And quite odd that someone can come forward and remember such a benign detail about Kavanaugh from his college days, his claiming of not being a virgin at the time, yet no one can seem to corroborate a sexual assault or exposing himself to a female acquaintance.

 

Does it strike you as odd that a guy who knew Kavanaugh in college doesn't think he's fit for the Supreme Court? There's only one friend of mine for college whom I would publicly say is unfit for the Supreme Court. It's awfully weird how every person who has something to say that undermines Kavanaugh's credibility can't be trusted. So . . . what disqualifies his freshman roommate for being trusted? I'm sure if people look hard enough, they can find something. Maybe he said "Trump is a doofus" once on Facebook.

 

And who cares about his virginity or lack thereof? It should have nothing to do with this.

 

The numbers might have been escalated under Obama, but the precedent was set under Reid. He also removed the filibuster ("nuclear option") when the GOP was playing politics with Obama's nominees in the first two years. McConnell went down the same road with the SCOTUS filibuster when Gorsuch was up. It's been tit for tat and escalation for years now.

 

It doesn't strike me as odd at all. The guy is a far left Liberal. My old roommate in College and I didn't get along at all and I wouldn't trust a word he said about me and my college days. But keep on putting up the good fight. Will be over soon enough for you.

 

Bork wasn't the first to be opposed and the nomination retracted though. The issue with him was the circus surrounding his confirmation and perceived character assassination. There is a reason why it was notable and "being Borked" became a term.

 

Yup, sober. I actually totaled two of my father's cars within a year and a half of getting my license; the above was the first accident. The other, eight months later, I was also sober, but fell asleep at the wheel about 400 yards from my parents development. Woke up as the car was on an embankment and rolled it.

As for memory, I had mentioned earlier we should all recognize that most humans--aside from those with supposed photographic memories--have pretty bad memories other than some key details, and even then can be wrong, even for more recent events. I like to joke that I can forget by noon what I had for breakfast in the morning. My college friends and I also still joke about how often we "blacked out" in college back in the early mid 1990s, and the antics, some of which I had to be told what I did. But I remember many things, often "buzzed" on something.

Yet we should consider traumatic incident in a different way. They very often lead people to remember many specific details (or sometimes totally suppress the incident as a coping mechanism). Ford may have been drinking but who's to know if she was drunk? Even if, she could still have vivid memories of such an incident, know who the offender is and what was done to her. She might not remember the exact clothing he was wearing or the street address of the house or even whose house it was, but there is no reason to (automatically) assume that because a person might forget those details, she or he will forget someone who assaulted them and the nature of that assault and what she/he did in response. Of course it's possible to forget things, get confused, even have the wrong person, but that isn't necessarily likely if someone carried the trauma of that event over the years.

 

He went on TV and claimed he was a virgin through college. If he lied about that, it's hugely significant.

Poor Brett Kavanaugh. All of these people just keep lying about him, unless they're saying nice things. Then, it's the truth.

 

The nomination wasn't "retracted." He was voted down. By the committee and the whole Senate. And I have trouble with the idea of "character assassination" being that somebody called Bork "extreme." He was pretty far away from any political center.

 

I missed that. Not sure why he felt the need to bring that up, but he brought it on himself to the extent he gets retorts on that point.

 

It is quite common for victims of traumatic violent events to remember who violated them but maybe not remember a lot of other details.

I explain this in my response above.

 

Yeah, I mean, we should just assume the GOP majority would have rubber stamped Garland in a presidential election year with a lame duck POTUS, as he was replacing a conservative icon Antonin Scalia and nobody in conservative circles would have thrown a fit over that or anything. That confirmation would have just sailed right on through.

 

Was he any more extreme than Ginsburg? Or since he was extreme right instead of extreme left, he was just the wrong type of extreme to be acceptable to the Democratic Senate.

 

If they wanted to vote Garland down, they should have. However, they knew they had no grounds to justify that. There were Republican Senators on record supporting Garland in the past. He was extremely qualified and considered a moderate. They refused to give him a hearing to avoid the risk of a vote.

 

I do not need to side with the GOP to be right this one. Senator Feinstein already impugned the accuser by sitting on her allegations for two months and even stating she wasn't sure if they could be true. Now, all the sudden, we are supposed to take the allegations seriously and derail a man's career. Sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. It didn't even pass Feinstein's smell test and you can't argue otherwise. Her actions speak for themselves.

 

In terms of how they were viewed at the time, yes, he was viewed as considerably more extreme than RBG. She was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 and was recommended to Clinton by Orrin Hatch for a reason.

 

My issue with this is the Democrats seem obsessed with preserving the “balance” of the Supreme Court, but didn’t hesitate to point to the scoreboard when they ran through “Obamacare” and other laws while they were in the majority. If the scoreboard (i.e. voting results) are all that matters, why shouldn’t the Republicans be able to pack the Supreme Court with judges ideologically aligned with their views if they have the opportunity?

After all, elections have consequences, right?

 

So the same party who refused to give him a hearing and hold a vote was going to confirm him? That is some profound logic there.

 

I agree that you don't have a right to not be investigated... I never suggested he did.

But you also don't have an obligation to call for an investigation, innocent or not...

You also don't have a right to an investigation regardless of the credibility, detail-orientation, and timeliness of your accusations...

So Kamala Harris hasn't been investigated for my satirical comments of eating babies, therefore we should not presume she's innocent... Brilliant... I guess everyone should just expect that she eats babies, now... and if you don't agree, "you don't believe survivors, you hate babies, and you're putting politics over decency."