Kavanaugh Hearing

I am not sure how much you know about Dr. Ford's background, but the "random professor" argument is intellectually dishonest. Notwithstanding her attorney being a former fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Yeah, just some random professor who came forward after 36 years of silence, who happens to be represented by a HRC fundraiser. Totally random.

 

Notice that LouisvilleGator outright ignored my comment, and then responded to it as if I was making an entirely different point. Deny deny, deflect deflect, ignore, red herring, move the goalposts, etc. etc.

Once again, I'm fine with him or anyone having a hypocritical hyper-partisan opinion of how things should operate, just admit it and own it.

 

If your justification for stalling is the Garland nomination... that's fine... and I would have zero issue with that... I wouldn't blame you...

It's using sexual assault as a club to beat Republicans with, while potentially smearing Kavanaugh that bothers me...

The means to an end, matter... It's the tricks, the Machiavellian tactics, the deception that bother me...

 

Do not agree with that statement at all. That is exceptionally demeaning to Ford and to sexual assault victims generally. It's this kind of attitude that keeps rape victims from reporting attacks and generates very high rates of depression and suicide.

This IS about sexual assault. Feinstein's manipulation of the timeline is about politics.

 

You just said the court not being subjected to political whims could be not always a good thing too. I'm struggling to see its relevance given that we've established that legislatures, courts and an executive are all imperfect bodies that produce imperfect results and don't always protect rights effectively. The difference I see is that 2 of those are at least expressions of popular democratic sentiments. The idea that we need a anti-democratic institution appointed by partisan institutions to check those expressions via nullification is baffling to me. The fact that the nature of the power is in part derived by the court in one of the very first court cases is even more baffling to me.

 

You can bet the democrats did everything they could to manipulate the timeline and way this came out. I highly doubt Ford had anything to do with it from a political standpoint.

 

Agreed. I have no issue with the Republicans pushing another nominee through during the lame duck period. Just like I think the Republicans were wrong to not push Garland through during the lame duck period.

Enough, dude. There is no "club." There are at least two women saying that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted them. Gorsuch didn't get "clubbed" by sexual assault allegations because he was clean. There is no trick here. The Republicans nominated a bad candidate who got caught with his pants down (both figuratively and literally lol).

 

It's really quite simple for me. It prevents a movement from corrupting the nation. Let's say that we have a bigger issue with ethnonationalism like we see in Europe. Let's say that it sweeps through the nation and takes control of the Executive and Legislative branches. I am glad that we have a Court that wouldn't be subject to the same political movement.

 

Maybe you misunderstood my statement... I'm not suggesting Ford or Ramirez's allegation with any degree of certainty are about politics as opposed to sexual assault. I don't have the answer to that...

The Democrats' reaction to this is tenfold more about politics than sexual assault.. Maybe I was speaking slightly hyperbolically, but you get the point...

Not sure if you disagree with this statement...

 

Perhaps, although that is purely a matter of perspective. Bork did oppose most of the major civil rights decisions and Roe, so it is likely that Kennedy's speech was on point in terms of his position on issues, even if you want to make the argument that he exaggerated the effects, which is an arguable point.

A big part of it was that there really weren't that many nominees not accepted by the Senate in the modern history of the country. Post World War II, you saw four prior to Bork. The first, Harlan, was considered too extreme (although as a liberal). He was, however, re-nominated by Eisenhower and confirmed. The second was Fortas being elevated to Chief Justice, which failed because of payments that he received. The third and fourth were both denied for being Pro-Segregation. So three of the four were for perceived political extremism, just like Bork. Bork was different largely because the conservative movement of the 1980s made him different.

Well, one of the reasons for that is because the Senate tends to axe the most extreme nominees.

 

Imagine your ex-spouse calling you hours before you leave on your honeymoon with your new spouse, saying that she knows that she’s supposed to take the kids this weekend, but she left town, so you need to pick up the kids from school. That’s pretty damn low. But there’s no way that you just leave the kids at school to call her bluff. She wedged the well being of the kids in that act, so leaving them there would hurt them.

This is basically what Feinstein appears to have done. If Feinstein acted as it seems, it’s definitely a serious low that deserves derision. However, even though she deserves something for this, it isn’t ramming through Kavanaugh, because she wedged the well-being of the accusers in there.

It sucks for her to do that, but her behaviors shouldn’t be able to silence the accusers.

 

Yes, I understand that too. That's why a president who lost the popular vote nominated a judge who will likely be confirmed by Senators representing a minority of the population. Why some people see that as anything other than an indictment of our system is again, baffling.

 

"There is no "club".... There is no trick, here..."

When you say things like that in a case like this... When you obviously know better.... It makes me not want to have a conversation with you... It makes me not care about your opinion because you're being unreasonable... you're being a lawyer, attacking Kavanaugh and Republicans and defending Democrats with every chance you have... not being objective (or even trying to be) by any stretch of the imagination...

 

I very much dislike the idea of the republicans getting any other SCOTUS appointments during the Trump term; however, I recognize that they have the power and authority to do it right now.
I can both dislike and accept something, as adults do.

My absolutely ideal scenario:
Kavanaugh fails. Nomination/vote is put off until after the midterms. Senate/house is taken over by Democrats. Trump is forced to put a moderate through in order to get them confirmed. As our country continues to get caught up in political infighting, tribalism, and pushed toward the political extremes--we are in dire need of people who see both sides of the aisle.

Do I think dems should put off confirmation of ANY SCOTUS nomination until 2020 if they win congress? No, I don't--even if the republicans deserve it for the stuff they pulled with Obama. I also honestly don't think they will, they'll just force Trump to play ball with his nominations.

Or the base will prevail and the dems will go full obstruction, and that's a bad bad path to walk down for our country. At some point someone has to be the bigger person; the GOP certainly hasn't been the party that tends to do that since I've been politically active (i.e. paying attention).

 

You seem to be trying to make this personal and so yeah, I tend to avoid that. I'm good with discussing this logically, but when it gets to the name calling, etc, I typically do ignore.

 

Movement conservativism has done a pretty good job of corrupting the nation. And dude we just elected an ethnonationalist president who is turning that movement into an ethonationalist party, and he's pretty much reshaping the government as he sees fit. Once he got his judges on, boom, that Muslim Ban passed by executive fiat without congressional input was upheld. Nice check that was right? You know what would have stopped all that? Democratic (small d) governance, you know, popular vote. Tell me how our system is so good at stopping 'demagogues' or the suppression of freedoms?

 

I don’t know a ton about her, but she’s a female pysch professor in the Bay Area, so I assume that she’s likely a liberal.

But that doesn’t seem to level the potential benefits and costs here. I’m a huge Gator fan, but I would never think about claiming that Nick Saban tried to rape me. In fact, with all the crazy football fans in the SEC, no one has ever done that to Saban, Meyer, or any of these guys that I can recall. Doesn’t really seem like a normal thing.

 

I was actually very careful not to namecall. I pointed out that your opinions and perspective are in direct contradiction of themselves (hypocritical).

I am not calling you anything, just pointing one--likely small--part of the entire package that makes up your persona. Just because you don't like the word hypocritical, or because it sounds particularly insulting, doesn't mean I am intending to insult you.

I do apologize if I hurt your feelings in any way, or if you felt personally attacked.

Also you did respond, you just responded as if I was making an entirely different argument.

 

Small d governance as in voting for or against the Muslim ban?

 

I have tried to remove politics from this and boil it down for what it is. If you were a woman and you went and told law enforcement this happened to you 36 years ago, you would have a very difficult time getting anyone to listen to you. Let's even say the perpetrator was someone with the reputation of say...Jameis Winston and not Brett Kavanaugh. As callous as it may be if you were telling the truth, you would be immediately doubted due to the the fact you failed to report for 36 years, the fact that your doing so leaves behind no forensic evidence that could be sampled, the fact that the length of time would make anyone's memory pretty foggy, thus witnesses are going to be very questionable even if there are some, the fact the perp was 16 or 17 years old at the time and may very well have been charged as a juvenile anyway (ie his record would be clear of it today), I could go on and on and on. You stand about a .00001% chance of charges even brought to a grand jury. And now you want to drop this at the last minute in a highly contentious political struggle for an appointment to the SCOTUS? Now you're really going to be doubted. I would say the same if this were a Democrat nominee. The accusations are by their very nature very flimsy and would likely never see the light of day in a court room. I mean, it is what it is.