Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dmaker

Lying under oath is now objecting to mistreatment?

That isn't what Belz was talking about.

[dmaker]

I think Republican are just miffed because they knew that Dr. Fords allegations were basically unprovable and that they would just need to calmly sit out the storm and in the end it would be alright. But then Der Groppenfuhrer saw the calm Kavanaugh and didn't like it and demanded more tantrum. Sadly for Republicans, BK cranked the uppity on his lie machine to 11 and now they know his nomination is in jeopardy and it's no longer just about unproven allegations.

[The Shrike]

I've learned that, as I had suspected since the 1991 Clarence Thomas fiasco, our last vestige of sanity in terms of a check on the other branches of government is well and truly screwed. The SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process is politically compromised. The American Experiment was fun while it lasted, I suppose.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.

That's three different and conflicting things you have said there

1. She is likely to be lying.

2. She believes what she is saying (so she's not lying, just mistaken)

3. He clams are untrue (so she IS lying, or mistaken, or.....what?)

You haven't really thought about this much have you?

Have you been taking equivocation lessons from Brett Kavanaugh?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have that exactly backwards. It is exclusively the Democrats, not Republicans, who launch these vicious personal attacks against judicial nominees. The Democrats whined endlessly (and to this day) about Republicans blocking Garland, but the Republicans never said one bad thing about Garland himself. The toxicity comes from an abandonment of constitutional principles, not from adherence to them.

Originally Posted by Belz...

Yeah, Republicans just refuse to consider those nominees, instead. And I'll remind you that Gorsusch, or whatever his name is, didn't have to go through all this.

Can we stop with the partisan rhetoric and whataboutism now?

Zig's post is pure nonsense. Vetting and asking questions of a candidate is not 'attacking'. Its called vetting. Gorsuch was never accused of lying. Also, he never was accused of sexual misconduct and the Democrats in the Senate are not accusing Kavanaugh of that either. They are simply doing their jobs in attempting to investigate a candidate for the highest court in the land. This as opposed to the Republicans hiding documents and not investigating Kavanaugh properly.

Also Zig, the Constitutional process makes it a duty for the Senate to fully investigate a Supreme Court nominee.

[Donal]

Things I learned:

There was someone else to add to my ignore list

Urban Dictionary is now a legal reference guide

Bret Kavanaugh likes beer

Stuff I already knew but was re-affirmed

Way too many of our government procedures rely on "gentlemen's agreements" and good faith. I realize politics is the art of compromise, but there is no way a small bunch of radical lunatics should be able to crash the whole system into a free for all of power grabs and feudal kingdoms

Middle and upper class whites would sooner bury their own children than take a hard look at the system so many of us have benefited from and ask the hard questions about it

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Oh? Why not?

You can read a pretty good dissection from Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel for the judiciary committee, here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3898...sel#from_embed

There's a number of serious issues with her testimony. Ford's account has been inconsistent, she has no memory of key details, nobody can corroborate even part of her account, she's been evasive, forgetful and uncooperative about recent events surrounding these allegations, and it appears that she's basically been coached by Democratic operatives.

[The Great Zaganza]

Kavanaugh gets to fight for the seat.
Garland never got the chance.

How do you know how much that seat meant for Garland?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dmaker

I think Republican are just miffed because they knew that Dr. Fords allegations were basically unprovable and that they would just need to calmly sit out the storm and in the end it would be alright. But then Der Groppenfuhrer saw the calm Kavanaugh and didn't like it and demanded more tantrum. Sadly for Republicans, BK cranked the uppity on his lie machine to 11 and now they know his nomination is in jeopardy and it's no longer just about unproven allegations.

I said this earlier and it bears repeating. It wasn't Ford's testimony that made me believe Kavanaugh was unfit. It was Kavanaugh's testimony. It was that pathetic, wimpy frat boy entitlement. The absurd indignance, his lack of forthrightness and temperament. Nothing about him says to me that he can be counted on to be trustworthy and impartial.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You can read a pretty good dissection from Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel for the judiciary committee, here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3898...sel#from_embed

There's a number of serious issues with her testimony. Ford's account has been inconsistent, she has no memory of key details, nobody can corroborate even part of her account, she's been evasive, forgetful and uncooperative about recent events surrounding these allegations, and it appears that she's basically been coached by Democratic operatives.

Sound like an investigation is required to address these alleged inconsistencies.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

That's three different and conflicting things you have said there

1. She is likely to be lying.

2. She believes what she is saying (so she's not lying, just mistaken)

3. He clams are untrue (so she IS lying, or mistaken, or.....what?)

You haven't really thought about this much have you?

Have you been taking equivocation lessons from Brett Kavanaugh?

You haven't really thought much about what I said, have you?

Let's suppose her claims are not true. I believe that to be the case, you may not, but let's take that as a given for the sake of argument. *IF* her claims are not true, what then?

Well, then we have several different possibilities. And unsurprisingly, there is a degree of mutual exclusivity among them. She could be lying. She could believe what she said. These are mutually exclusive. If she believes it but it's not true, that too could have multiple possible causes (complete delusion, the memory of a real event that got changed over time, etc).

So, did I say conflicting things? Sure, because there are conflicting possibilities. Unless you know everything, that will always be the case. Is it wrong to describe conflicting possibilities? No, that would be absurd.

You really don't have any coherent objection at all.

[Hlafordlaes]

I done seen Kavanaugh's towering innalect. Dood's smart.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.

I dont think so. I see at as a classic 'he said' she said' scenario. Almost impossible to know with any confidence who is telling the truth.

Isn't it interesting that the one person who objects to an investigation is Kavanaugh. Ford took a polygraph, Kavanaugh has not. The only person who might be able to shed light on this is hiding.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Kavanaugh gets to fight for the seat.
Garland never got the chance.

How do you know how much that seat meant for Garland?

It is good when republicans destroy someone's life out of pure spite of course. Have to keep the double standards going.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I said this earlier and it bears repeating. It wasn't Ford's testimony that made me believe Kavanaugh was unfit. It was Kavanaugh's testimony. It was that pathetic, wimpy frat boy entitlement. The absurd indignance, his lack of forthrightness and temperament. Nothing about him says to me that he can be counted on to be trustworthy and impartial.

You make it sound like trustworhty and impartial were actually related to his choice. Torture loving is a much more important requirement, but of course they lost those documents. Willing to lie to congress is of course a pluss too.

There are so many reasons he is a really poor choice for a judge to people who care about things like law and order. That is why republicans like him he really hits the fascism kick they are on well.

[Trebuchet]

My opinion that anyone who ever went to a prep school or Ivy League college should be forbidden from holding public office has been reinforced.

[Slings and Arrows]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I dont think so. I see at as a classic 'he said' she said' scenario. Almost impossible to know with any confidence who is telling the truth.

But it's not a classic 'he said, she said' scenario. Actually, Dr. Ford would have a better case if it were.

As Rachel Mitchell's analysis points out, Dr. Ford named 4 other people who were present at the time of the alleged attack -- 2 of them were eye witnesses.

However, all 4 people have either denied the allegations, or claimed they don't remember the incident ever happening.

Worst still, Dr. Ford's high-school friend, Leland Keyser, claims she has never even met Brett Kavanaugh, and never been to a party where he was present.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have that exactly backwards. It is exclusively the Democrats, not Republicans, who launch these vicious personal attacks against judicial nominees. The Democrats whined endlessly (and to this day) about Republicans blocking Garland, but the Republicans never said one bad thing about Garland himself. The toxicity comes from an abandonment of constitutional principles, not from adherence to them.

Republicans didn't have to smear Garland because they already invested their time smearing Obama.

Nice spin attempt, however. LOL

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Kavanaugh is getting his name dragged through the mud by Democrats. They are absolutely making the accusations. And those accusations are intended to personally destroy Kavanaugh.

Oh, I see now. When anyone accuses a Republican, it's a dirty Democrat attempting to smear a virtuous Republican.

However, when anyone accuses a Democrat, whether the accused is Bill Clinton or Al Franken or whoever, it's a principled search for Truth and Honesty.

Have I got that right?

Edited by zooterkin:

Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have that exactly backwards. It is exclusively the Democrats, not Republicans, who launch these vicious personal attacks against judicial nominees. The Democrats whined endlessly (and to this day) about Republicans blocking Garland, but the Republicans never said one bad thing about Garland himself. The toxicity comes from an abandonment of constitutional principles, not from adherence to them.

WTF, is this a Poe?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Lesson for the Democrats, stop worrying about overturning Roe, they are never going to admit it and you know anyone nominated off a Federalist Society list is going to be anti-abortion. Do look more closely at partisan history in a nominee's background. When there is evidence of perjury in past confirmation hearings.

And look more closely at the pro-1%, anti-99% rulings the candidate has made.

He worked for Ken Starr, that history must have been full of red flags.

Find better ways to counter the attack on the messenger one can expect from the GOP.

Don't attack the ideology, bring up very specific rulings.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Have I got that right?

Edited by zooterkin:

Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

Let's all put the Phasers back on Stun, okay?

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Let's all put the Phasers back on Stun, okay?

Point taken, but it is objectively true based on his posts.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Point taken, but it is objectively true based on his posts.

And, to be as fair to you as you were to me, I think this obsession with ideological purity is not helping.

Being inconsistent is not a greater sin than being wrong.

All ideologies are hypocrites because an ideology cannot account for the full scale of the human condition.

If our entire discourse is based on nothing but finding inconsistencies in ideologies (i.e. hypocrisy) that's all we're ever gonna do and as good as it often feels, it doesn't accomplish much on any practical level.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows

But it's not a classic 'he said, she said' scenario. Actually, Dr. Ford would have a better case if it were.

As Rachel Mitchell's analysis points out, Dr. Ford named 4 other people who were present at the time of the alleged attack -- 2 of them were eye witnesses.

However, all 4 people have either denied the allegations, or claimed they don't remember the incident ever happening.

Worst still, Dr. Ford's high-school friend, Leland Keyser, claims she has never even met Brett Kavanaugh, and never been to a party where he was present.

1. You are using Rachel Mitchell, who was appointed by the Republicans to say what they wanted her to say.
2. Anyone who knows anything about memory would be able to tell you that while a victim may be able to remember certain things vividly, from a traumatic experience they are just as likely to misremember others.
3. They did not really deny anything, just because they didn't have a memory of it. 2 of them? You mean Judge and Kavanaugh?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Oh, I see now. When anyone accuses a Republican, it's a dirty Democrat attempting to smear a virtuous Republican.

However, when anyone accuses a Democrat, whether the accused is Bill Clinton or Al Franken or whoever, it's a principled search for Truth and Honesty.
[edit=Agatha]Edited to comply with previously moderated post

You should have seen how Zig lost his mind over a lie Obama told that was only untrue for less than 4% of the country. Funny how his dedication to truth has faltered in the Age of Trump.

[Elagabalus]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...But it could be because the Dems have just become that much more toxic...

I believe you're confusing toxicity with "The Mojo".

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And, to be as fair to you as you were to me, I think this obsession with ideological purity is not helping.

Being inconsistent is not a greater sin than being wrong.

All ideologies are hypocrites because an ideology cannot account for the full scale of the human condition.

If our entire discourse is based on nothing but finding inconsistencies in ideologies (i.e. hypocrisy) that's all we're ever gonna do and as good as it often feels, it doesn't accomplish much on any practical level.

But Lying and/or Willful Ignorance...that's something else entirely.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by River

Lessons to be learned. Never talk **** in your year book. All politicians are ****. The process has been marred, and I hope some bipartisan regulations are made so that another fiasco like this never happens.

There has never been anything like this administration and president.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

But Lying and/or Willful Ignorance...that's something else entirely.

Yeah but... cards all on the table here... for all practical purposes all of our political discourse being nothing but a long game of "You said that then, now you say this now" kind of got stale for me a long time ago.

People are gonna protect their tribes. This should not be shocking to anyone at this point.

And 99 times out of a 100 "OMG this side protected Bill but attacked Ted and the other side attacked Ted but protected Bill when they both did the same thing!" just means both Bill and Ted... are just awful.

We need to get out of this loop, bad. We are stuck in. Meaningful, influential people both in the leadership and in the trenches of both "sides" are going to have to sucking it up and doing what's best for the country even if it means not returning a childish jab the other side landed.

[Slings and Arrows]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

1. You are using Rachel Mitchell, who was appointed by the Republicans to say what they wanted her to say.

"This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person."

-- Rachel Mitchell (Sept 30, 2018)

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows

"This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person."

-- Rachel Mitchell (Sept 30, 2018)

Yeah, right, and we can take her word on that

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Likely but not for certain. It's quite possible she believes what she's saying. But it is very, very unlikely that her claims are actually true.

Based on what? What do you know that the rest of us don't?

Quote:

That isn't what Belz was talking about.

No, but I wasn't talking about anything relating to what you responded, either. Responding to accusations is fine. Defending yourself is fine. Frothing at the mouth while spouting partisan conspiracy theories is not. It's the mark of a person unfit to sit on the Supreme Court.

You'd agree, if only the judge had been nominated by a Democrat; that's the sad state of affairs, here.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You can read a pretty good dissection from Rachel Mitchell, the investigative counsel for the judiciary committee, here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/3898...sel#from_embed

There's a number of serious issues with her testimony. Ford's account has been inconsistent, she has no memory of key details, nobody can corroborate even part of her account, she's been evasive, forgetful and uncooperative about recent events surrounding these allegations, and it appears that she's basically been coached by Democratic operatives.

Ok but loss of details is something common in such recollections. We know this. It does put a question mark on the testimony, and we may never know the truth, but you seem far more convinced that she's wrong or lying than the evidence suggests. I'm asking you why, and this link does not satisfy that burden.

[River]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

There has never been anything like this administration and president.

Fixed below.

Quote:

There has never been anything trolled like this administration and president.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows

But it's not a classic 'he said, she said' scenario. Actually, Dr. Ford would have a better case if it were.

As Rachel Mitchell's analysis points out, Dr. Ford named 4 other people who were present at the time of the alleged attack -- 2 of them were eye witnesses.

However, all 4 people have either denied the allegations, or claimed they don't remember the incident ever happening.

Worst still, Dr. Ford's high-school friend, Leland Keyser, claims she has never even met Brett Kavanaugh, and never been to a party where he was present.

Wow, a full post with arguments and all.

You should do that more often.

[Planigale]

As an outsider my understanding is that in the US there is supposed to be a separation of powers between the executive the legislature and the judiciary. By politicising judicial appointments that separation of powers is being reduced. Other countries manage to have a non-political judiciary; there could be a non-political commission that could recommend potential candidates from whom the president could appoint (and the senate approve). Rather than having a list of candidates from a frankly political body which is what has happened in this case.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows

"This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person."

-- Rachel Mitchell (Sept 30, 2018)

Sure.

Never mind that she knows who butters her bread. That Kavanaugh would not be prosecuted is not the same as saying that Ford is lying or beyond reproach. No one should be reviewing this coming to the conclusion that there is enough here to seek charges. No, the question is, is there enough to question whether this candidate is suitable for a very important job.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah but... cards all on the table here... for all practical purposes all of our political discourse being nothing but a long game of "You said that then, now you say this now" kind of got stale for me a long time ago.

People are gonna protect their tribes. This should not be shocking to anyone at this point.

And 99 times out of a 100 "OMG this side protected Bill but attacked Ted and the other side attacked Ted but protected Bill when they both did the same thing!" just means both Bill and Ted... are just awful.

We need to get out of this loop, bad. We are stuck in. Meaningful, influential people both in the leadership and in the trenches of both "sides" are going to have to sucking it up and doing what's best for the country even if it means not returning a childish jab the other side landed.

That's all true but, sue me, I'd like people, myself included, to be more consistent in their ideologies so that, when someone on our "sides" does something wrong, we call it out. That way when we complain about those on the other "sides", we have the high ground...

...

...

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Slings and Arrows

"This memorandum contains my own independent assessment of Dr. Ford’s allegations, based upon my independent review of the evidence and my nearly 25 years of experience as a career prosecutor of sex-related and other crimes in Arizona. No senator reviewed or approved this memorandum before its release, and I was not pressured in any way to write this memorandum or to write any words in this memorandum with which I do not fully agree. The words written in this memorandum are mine, and I fully stand by all of them. While I am a registered Republican, I am not a political or partisan person."

-- Rachel Mitchell (Sept 30, 2018)

"Well,[s]he would say that, wouldn't [s]he?"

-- Mandy Rice-Davies

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Yeah but... cards all on the table here... for all practical purposes all of our political discourse being nothing but a long game of "You said that then, now you say this now" kind of got stale for me a long time ago.

People are gonna protect their tribes. This should not be shocking to anyone at this point.

And 99 times out of a 100 "OMG this side protected Bill but attacked Ted and the other side attacked Ted but protected Bill when they both did the same thing!" just means both Bill and Ted... are just awful.

We need to get out of this loop, bad. We are stuck in. Meaningful, influential people both in the leadership and in the trenches of both "sides" are going to have to sucking it up and doing what's best for the country even if it means not returning a childish jab the other side landed.

In that case, I suggest you address those same comments to the partisan hypocrite, not me.

I'll continue to call BS when I see quite obvious BS.