Legal/scotus thread

Here is my two cents:

Nobody knows ****. Nothing. Nobody knows what is happening or what happened back in 1982. People are believing the evidence that they want to believe and dismissing the evidence that they don't want to believe based off what they want to happen. People have gotten insanely accusatory over people's opinions on this matter, when there have been basically zero facts presented about anything. Its just all been a bunch of bull****.

Aside from the partisanship, this whole thing practically comes down to one question and its a question nobody really likes. However its a necessary question given the fact that this debacle has moved so far away from anything resembling "truth" that it makes me want to puke. That question is: Is stopping a SCOTUS nomination the right thing to do when someone levees an accusation at the nominee and what is the burden of proof for that accusation?

I think the burden of proof should certainly be lower than that of a criminal trial, but probably higher than what we are currently seeing with the accusation. If that burden of proof remains so low, then basically any minority party can stall any nomination by creating a false allegation. I don't know if that is happening here or not, but my gut is telling me that it is not happening. If it is and this is just a delay tactic until Nov. 6th, then the Democrats responsible would be the scummiest human beings alive. My gut also tells me that something happened with CBF, but I'm not sure exactly what. I don't believe she has a completely coherent memory of that night.

Should we approve Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS? I really don't know. If he did what he is accused of then he should be castrated and locked up in one of those GoT style prison cells 1000 feet above ground. If he didn't do what he is accused of, then I don't think I've ever felt more sorry for anyone in my life. Because whispers of this thing are never ever going away.

But basically this is all a question of how high the burden of proof should be. The right has basically a courtroom level burden of proof while the left basically has a "believe ALL women" level burden of proof. I think both sides are incredibly wrong and both sides are heavily informed by partisanship.

I honestly don't know what the right answer is to this situation because I don't know anything at all. But I'm not going to pretend to know anything either.
 
Why does Kavanaugh continue to lie?
About everything

That to my mind is disqualifying.
If because he was/is a blackout drunk, that too to my mind is disqualifying.

We do know that
 
BeanieAntics said:
Here is my two cents:

Nobody knows ****. Nothing. Nobody knows what is happening or what happened back in 1982. People are believing the evidence that they want to believe and dismissing the evidence that they don't want to believe based off what they want to happen. People have gotten insanely accusatory over people's opinions on this matter, when there have been basically zero facts presented about anything. Its just all been a bunch of bull****.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. We know quite a lot about Kavanaugh and he and his credibility are the issue.

We know that he painted an incorrect picture of his youthful behavior, that he was quite an aggressive partier, which we can assume means there are a lot of little incidents he would not like to reveal about his history.

We know he has lied about things big and small under oath.

We know he's a whiny little bitch when confronted with his past.

We know he has a temper and that he's an angry partisan who would love to stick it to the Dems, including the Clintons.

We know that politics aside, his temperament and character fall shockingly short of what we should hope for the Supreme Court.

We know that multiple women have come forward claiming first hand knowledge of his inappropriate behavior when he was a young buck.

We know that the Dems don't want to affirm him or likely any other of Trump's nominees.

We know that McConnell felt Kavanaugh would be a hard sell from the get go.

We know that Kavanaugh's current views on Presidential accountability make him especially important to Trump, who will likely face an avalanche of impeachable charges after November.

We know that Kavanaugh does not walk or talk like the calm, thoughtful person that would normally be nominated for this position.

We also know that he makes a lot of ugly and mean faces, which usually reveal one's inner emotions.
 
Last edited:
50PoundHead said:
What I saw was an extremely aggressive guy with a pretty hefty intellect that could possibly attempt to bully other justices on big cases. One doesn't get to this level of jurisprudence without having a healthy reservoir of confidence--which is usually good thing--but Kavanaugh doesn't strike me as someone who plays well with others. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

He has an incredibly lengthy judicial record. Has this been an issue at all while he's been on the court? Or was it just this one time when he's been publicly accused of attempted rape and gang rape? This line of argument just seems like a democrat talking point. I don't really buy that people think he's going to be an angry aggressive judge and that it wasn't just this one instance where he's fighting for his life. That line of attack comes across as pretty fake to me.
 
weso1 said:
He has an incredibly lengthy judicial record. Has this been an issue at all while he's been on the court? Or was it just this one time when he's been publicly accused of attempted rape and gang rape? This line of argument just seems like a democrat talking point. I don't really buy that people think he's going to be an angry aggressive judge and that it wasn't just this one instance where he's fighting for his life. That line of attack comes across as pretty fake to me.
Click to expand...

Hence, my last sentence.
 
Tapate50 said:
Great story, really.

But, it never got as personal as I saw earlier. Who likes being called a racist? Like getting called a white supremacist ? Who likes getting told they need to die for needing more info on a topic? Getting told they probably assaulted a ton of women with that attitude? No one really. It was a low point for this forum. In a place where you decide where\how you spend your time I can totally get not wanting to go somewhere and spend your time where that is being done. Other interests and hobbies and so on...
Click to expand...

I must have missed all that while I was out of town. What pages are we talking about?
 
weso1 said:
He has an incredibly lengthy judicial record. Has this been an issue at all while he's been on the court? Or was it just this one time when he's been publicly accused of attempted rape and gang rape? This line of argument just seems like a democrat talking point. I don't really buy that people think he's going to be an angry aggressive judge and that it wasn't just this one instance where he's fighting for his life. That line of attack comes across as pretty fake to me.
Click to expand...

While I do think Kav’s pissiness was a bad look for a judge (and his partisanship even more so) I really think the more salient issue is his apparent willingness to, well, just lie. Just straight-up lie. So far, the only defense we’ve heard for that is, well, it’s probably not perjury. That doesn’t strike me as the standard we should be using when considering an appointment to the Supreme Court.
 
Julio3000 said:
While I do think Kav’s pissiness was a bad look for a judge (and his partisanship even more so) I really think the more salient issue is his apparent willingness to, well, just lie. Just straight-up lie. So far, the only defense we’ve heard for that is, well, it’s probably not perjury. That doesn’t strike me as the standard we should be using when considering an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

That's a much more fair line of attack, imo. But I think the it's not perjury defense is a worthwhile defense. I think he's clearly been intentionally vague. I think he probably has passed out from booze when he was young. But he was intentionally vague on this one. He said he drank to excess, vomited while drinking beer and fell asleep after drinking to excess, while saying that he never got black out drunk. He knows that folks would use the blackout thing as a way to say that he must have been passed out drunk when he attempted to rape Ford, so he intentionally avoided saying the word "blackout" while not perjuring himself. I think material perjury is disqualifying, but I don't think him playing the game to get the votes is disqualifying. But I do think if you can irrefutably show evidence of material perjury then he should not be on the Supreme Court. And of course if he did assault Ford then that should be disqualifying.
 
College Roommate: Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath About Drinking
James Roche is one of the latest college classmates of the Supreme Court nominee to come forward to dispute the judge’s Senate testimony.

Brett Kavanaugh’s freshman year college roommate is the latest Yale alumnus to come forward and accuse the Supreme Court nominee of lying under oath.

James Roche told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Wednesday night that Kavanaugh was “notably heavier in his drinking than other people,” recalling that he was “drunk frequently.”

“Not only did I know he wasn’t telling the truth, I knew that he knew he wasn’t telling the truth,” Roche said. “I can tell you that he would come home and he was incoherent, stumbling, he would sometimes be singing … he would throw up and then in the morning have a lot of trouble getting out of bed.”

**********

James, you aren't on the list to be questioned by the FBI, so Mitch McConnell wishes you would please shut up.

 
Last edited:
Kavanaugh can sexually assault multiple women while drunk and his confirmation is iffy, if he admitted he liked marijuana and had no sexual assault accusations he would have no chance of confirmation. Sad that being an alcoholic rapist is still seen in better light than smoking a joint.
 
weso1 said:
That's a much more fair line of attack, imo. But I think the it's not perjury defense is a worthwhile defense. I think he's clearly been intentionally vague. I think he probably has passed out from booze when he was young. But he was intentionally vague on this one. He said he drank to excess, vomited while drinking beer and fell asleep after drinking to excess, while saying that he never got black out drunk. He knows that folks would use the blackout thing as a way to say that he must have been passed out drunk when he attempted to rape Ford, so he intentionally avoided saying the word "blackout" while not perjuring himself. I think material perjury is disqualifying, but I don't think him playing the game to get the votes is disqualifying. But I do think if you can irrefutably show evidence of material perjury then he should not be on the Supreme Court. And of course if he did assault Ford then that should be disqualifying.
Click to expand...
he's outright lied about Devils Triangle, Ralph's Club and FFFFF
 
The Hill
‏Verified account @thehill

Mitch McConnell: "I don't want to meet the man or woman who wouldn't

be frustrated and angered by a coordinated strategy to destroy their

good name on the altar of partisan politics."
 
Tapate50 said:
Does the FBI report not seemingly supporting any of the Dems theories change anything for anyone?
Click to expand...

God no. They’ll say the reports are biased, incomplete, rigged from the start etc. or they’ll change thier narrative and talk about other things the judge has said or did to unqualify him
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
https://www.apnews.com/3cf10219a199...lice-dog-attack-didn't-violate-woman's-rights



Judge rules against a woman who was severly mauled by a police dog while she was 7 months pregnant. They ruled her rights were not violated because she was not the intended target.... she had to take painkillers after many surgeries and her baby was born addicted to them and had to be wheened off. Apparently theres even a law in Indiana protecting police dogs who bite the wrong people.
 
Tapate50 said:
Does the FBI report not seemingly supporting any of the Dems theories change anything for anyone?
Click to expand...

I would find their report more convincing if there was some follow-up.

For example, you might find these attestations from people with knowledge of the incident involving Kavanaugh and Ramirez to be of interest. If what they attest to is true, Kavanaugh perjured himself with his denials regarding what he did to Ramirez.

https://hutchinsonblackandcookitdepartment.sharefile.com/share/view/s38c9bc710a74fc3a
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top