Whatever keeps this man off the Supreme Court is fine by me. Kavanaugh’s 30+ year career is nothing but ruling after ruling against the common man and in favor of our corporate overlords.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, you always seem to ignore.
.
Democrats have been completely awful and untrustworthy. They wail and gnash their teeth about a further FBI background check but they fail to make any efforts, even behind closed doors, to investigate. They should have referred the matter to the FBI and the Chairman of the Committee right away. There is no excuse for that failure.
Should they make efforts behind doors to investigate? Yes.
Should they have referred the matter to the FBI and Chairman of the Committee right away? Yes.
Should the FBI be allowed to investigate now? Yes, I don’t see a good reason not to. Seems like the only excuse they can find for not allowing the FBI to investigate now is the fact that the Dems should have given to the FBI sooner. Well the question isn’t really what should have happened earlier, it’s what should happen now. I see no reason to not let the FBI investigate. If there is (other than that should have been done earlier), pleaese tell me.
The FBI would do what the Committee is responsible and able to do: follow leads and interview witnesses. The essential role of the FBI in a nomination process is to identify potential issues for Congress. I don’t know whether the FBI could subpoena witnesses who do not want to testify in this kind of situation, but the Committee can. The Democrats aim is to (at least) delay and that is what Republicans are fighting against. That is why Grassley isn’t subpoenaing witnesses. It’s why the White House isn’t asking for a halt in the process to allow the FBI to take over. There is the idea that even if Kavanaugh is innocent (as Republicans are apt to believe) then allowing a drawn-out investigation about an alleged event 36 years ago is unlikely to clear Kavanaugh. So for them it’s just a big waste of time. The idea today was allowing the only potentially credible witness against him to say everything she wanted and to hear Kavanaugh’s denial to provide a opportunity to evaluate credibility. If there were any other solid evidence or witness to back up the claims, that would have been presented too. The FBI investigation idea does look tempting, with the hope that there is some evidence somewhere that would definitely resolve the issue one way or another. Right now that looks unlikely.
Questions lurking in the background include: why would someone with as an otherwise impeccable background have been a violent sexual maniac that one time? If the allegation is true, how does that relate to who he has been in the 35 years since and his qualifications for the job on the Court?
Impossible to know if Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh is true. Partisans are going to believe what they want.
Without calling witnesses, that’s certainly the likely outcome. That’s why I bemoaned how little time was spent on the details that could steer things away from he-said/she-said.
Indeed.
All other named witnesses have no recollection of any such behavior or events.
What people say to the press and what they say under penalty of perjury are sometimes two very different things. If he wants to say that under oath, that’s fine. Give him that opportunity.
Sure. Kavanaugh’s friend apparently did swear under penalty of perjury. Ford’s friend recalls no such party, not sure why that would change.
one uncorroborated claim of assault
Corroboration has degrees–parts can be corroborated if not the whole. You can corroborate that the claim predates the nomination, for example, so while the public revelation may be political, the underlying claim certainly isn’t. There’s also a witness that I believe should be called to testify who may or may not provide more corroborating detail. I’d describe it as one partly-corroborated claim with a yet-to-be-questioned witness, and other uncorroborated claims. YMMV.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve read that Ford never named Kavanaugh until his nomination. By degrees, that’s very late in the game. I think her husband says she used his name with him, but apparently not in front of the therapist. She only claimed an assault previously. It doesn’t corroborate her specific claims terribly well. Certainly, we’d want something more than that.
It’s not a good look for anyone, but this is apparently how our government operates.
Weird how under such a dysfunctional, dramatic environment, Gorsuch sailed through the same Senate recently without even a mention of him assaulting anyone. It may just be equally possible that government always works like it did for Gorsuch, but only when you studiously avoid assaulting people.
Opportunity doesn’t always knock. I have no idea if Gorsuch did something inappropriate in high school. Apparently nobody came forward. Or maybe Feinstein has a secret letter. It does appear that Gorsuch was a more buttoned-up young man. I don’t really know. What I do know is that Democratic handling of the present allegation has been disgraceful and bent entirely toward their political purposes and nothing else.
EDIT: And don’t forget the Democrats filibustered Gorsuch, which is less than “sailing.” I guess he was so bad that it’s good they didn’t hold off on filibustering, eh?
It’s possible that one or two GOP Senators defect and Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed but I also think that’s unlikely.
Right there with you.
Mhm. Now stop inspiring me to break my relative vow of silence!
If you write a letter to a Senator for a purpose you kind of expect that the Senator would pursue that in some way. Otherwise it’s just venting to a US Senator. Whatever wishes Ford had, Feinstein had her own responsibility as Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee. IF she had brought it to the attention of the FBI or Chairman Grassley, there was a conceivable means of handling the matter behind closed doors, including possible withdrawal of the nomination. But instead Feinstein sat on her hands. Doesn’t make sense. The excuse DOES NOT make sense.
Fuck my apartment complex’s management.
So I was significantly late on rent this month thanks to other issues that came up that required stuff like…well…bail money and an attorney. Because of this, I had to pay my rent through means other than the usual online portal.
I’m surprised I read that suggestively and DE didnt’t…
I think you should be able to refund the MO.
Impossible to know if Ford’s allegation against Kavanaugh is true. Partisans are going to believe what they want. Other allegations against him have been less credible, though some will vaguely refer to them. All other named witnesses have no recollection of any such behavior or events. Numerous character witnesses from his early 80s school days and on have said such behavior was never seen and would have been out of character. So we’re left with a well-qualified judge with a long track record and numerous people supporting his personal and professional character, stacked against one uncorroborated claim of assault.
On that background, Republicans only have a political calculation. Either they vote against Kavanaugh in case the allegation is true, less because it bears upon his ability to serve on the Court or because it has been proven true, but to send a message (to society and males in particular) and most importantly to try to not alienate women voters. Or they see the danger of validating this manner of undermining nominees with something that might have happened in high school, especially when it is uncorroborated and out-of-character with all other evidence and testimony. To be sure, Kavanaugh’s Fox News interview was ill-advised and the performance today was ugly, if understandable if he is telling the truth.
Democrats have been completely awful and untrustworthy. They wail and gnash their teeth about a further FBI background check but they fail to make any efforts, even behind closed doors, to investigate. They should have referred the matter to the FBI and the Chairman of the Committee right away. There is no excuse for that failure. Most incredible is that Feinstein was apparently going to remain silent about the allegation and let the vote go forward on the nomination. Only because it leaked to the press are we hearing about it. Democrats continue to be apoplectic about Garland and Trump and that explains quite a bit about their theatrics.
Republicans have little choice but to forge ahead. It’s not a good look for anyone, but this is apparently how our government operates. It’s possible that one or two GOP Senators defect and Kavanaugh doesn’t get confirmed but I also think that’s unlikely.
One of the main reasons that MLK seemed so moderate to white America was the militancy of people like Malcolm X. How could you possibly disagree that there is a widespread problem of police brutality? I’m on the fence about self-defense when unjustly assaulted by police. I do believe that it’s morally acceptable to defend yourself but I think it would mostly just make things worse for the victim.
Also, are you opposed to the American Revolution? How is the flag not just a symbol of violence to you? Washington should’ve just gone on hunger strike according to your logic.
If we want to talk about war or self defense (from actual or imminent violence) we can do that. Even then there will be disagreement (as there is about use of nuclear weapons in WWII). Punching supposed Nazis (a term used in a rather loosely goosey fashion nowadays) is another matter. That being punched (though I never thought that was meant to be the outer limit or allowable violence against supposed Nazis) is a small kind of violence doesn’t make it okay, even if one were to have the privilege to punch Dom as he suggests.
Warb, I only have a half-eaten bag of marshmallows with which I defend my stamp collection. Actually I don’t have a stamp collection. Nor a gun. And the marshmallow bag is now empty.
Collipso: supporting violence against people who hold controversial/offensive/wrong views is wrong.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples now and throughout history of violence being necessary to defeat dangerous people. I’m generally opposed to violence, but it’s not bad 100% of the time.
Jeebus had a good response.
There are “plenty of examples” of bad acts arguably being justified by the result. Whether they were “necessary” is generally only arguable. And I wager engaging in violence to defeat “dangerous people” more likely made things worse most of the time. There are the times when not engaging in violence was tremendously effective, most notably as led by Gandhi and by MLK Jr, which weighs heavily against the idea that violence is “necessary.”
I disagree that there is a “widespread problem” of police brutality but the logic above could be deployed in defense of police brutality. Sometimes the police make mistakes, the argument would go, but a violent approach is necessary to stop dangerous people. I don’t find a list of examples terribly convincing - for either of your arguments - and they only feed confirmation bias.
In midst of typing this, I see Wook has posted. Glad to see they are taking it seriously, as what you say about it does make sense Warb. I think it’s good that people can discuss controversial/offensive/wrong views. Yet sometimes people express themselves so ridiculously I don’t take it seriously and wouldn’t post there even if I were more active nowadays.
Collipso: supporting violence against people who hold controversial/offensive/wrong views is wrong.
I call my inferiors by their first name.
I’m glad you didn’t give up on him, DE. But hope future such accidents are avoidable!
That’s great, oojason. But of course you’re just a humble tailor now 😉
I still don’t care about the NFL or Nike.
I like Warb’s patriotism.
Calling atheism a religion is stupid. Theism is not a religion either. Most religions are obviously theistic, and few are atheistic, but lacking a belief in a god or gods is in no way a religious stance.
You’re at least somewhat wrong. Atheism has been been treated as religion by the courts. The courts don’t really want to decide what exactly what constitutes a religion but they have said that beliefs concerning a deity (pro or con) are protected as free exercise of religion. You’re right in the sense that even the courts have not declared atheism itself to be a religion.
In a case where prisoners claimed a religious right to have an atheist study group, the court wrote:
The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns.
A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), nor must it be a mainstream faith.
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.
We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).
I’m not sure if I agree with all that or not. A whole lot of things can be asserted as religion under that analysis that may not belong. And yet, it provides protections for people to pursue beliefs concerning matters that are in the religious realm.
[Promise I’ll be more “out of pocket” soon.]
Shhh, I’m not really here. Like I said, probably mostly lurking. Will be more absent soon.
This is all very silly. Presidents should be free to express whatever religious view that they want. If you don’t like that don’t vote for those presidents.
I think some of them give a shit, they just don’t think more gun control is the solution(I disagree with them). There are of course some that only care about the campaign contributions from the NRA.
Quite right.
Have had less time/attention lately for posting, and other things. There’s a political post I meant to get back to…suffice to say you’re all wrong! 😉 I may take a hiatus or probably just reduced/lurker mode. All for good reasons. See ya around, kids.
As there is a socially (and legally!) defined concept of marriage, judging is inherent in that. Whether one advocates a looser or stricter definition is based on many subjective factors. How or whether we judge others for not abiding social norms or our own personal values is a separate and related matter with no obvious resolution.
People judge everything. I judge everything. The key is to not value other people’s opinions.
Stalemate!
Handman is right that most people, including those taking a very pro- view of marriage as an institution, are understanding when marriages don’t work out.
Obviously not in this thread.
There is a difference between judging in a general way based on principles and judging individual cases.
As there is a socially (and legally!) defined concept of marriage, judging is inherent in that. Whether one advocates a looser or stricter definition is based on many subjective factors. How or whether we judge others for not abiding social norms or our own personal values is a separate and related matter with no obvious resolution.
Handman is right that most people, including those taking a very pro- view of marriage as an institution, are understanding when marriages don’t work out.
chyron’s got it right.
dahmage, I get the thinking behind the meme, which flame already well expressed. I don’t think it’s “trying to prevent real dialogue” but that is what it is doing. As I said some major misconceptions underlie it.
I think the anti- “thoughts and prayers” meme is more tired than the condolences people offer. Complaining about expressions of sympathy gets zero traction in trying to convince people of policy views.
Here’s the thing: People (aside from mfm) are generally fine with prayer and condolences. What people are complaining about is that the people who have the power to do something about it (politicians) refuse to do something about it. “Thoughts and Prayers,” is a non-answer designed to pacify the masses, rather than anything sincere.
Politicians express condolences when tragedies are in the news. There are sincere differences of opinion on whether a shooting indicates a policy change is needed. The idea that politicians don’t feel sorrow for the victims and/or secretly agree with the call for more gun control is not true.
The anti-thoughts/prayers meme was effective in binding gun control to a narrative that prevents real dialogue. Some don’t care about persuading others or are convinced it’s futile. That’s where our society has headed on most issues. Something happens and we recite the usual mantras and impugn the other side.