Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination at the General Forum; Originally Posted by ShivaTD 1. The possible criminal charges would be for a prosecutor to consider but the claim he ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 09:42 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,724
Thanks: 10,549
Thanked 8,580 Times in 5,089 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
1. The possible criminal charges would be for a prosecutor to consider but the claim he was attempting to remove her clothing but was too drunk to accomplish it suggests attempted rape to me. But this isn't about a criminal prosecution.

2. In fact according the Mark Judge's description of the times in his book "Wasted" this isn't actually a "he-said-she-said" case. If, as Judge describes, they engaged in binge drinking so excessive that they couldn't remember where they'd been or what they'd done then we have a case of:

She said but he can't remember because he was plastered.

Her allegation includes the claim that both Kavanaugh and Judge were extremely drunk which Judge claimed was not uncommon at the time in his book.

We both agree that the case cannot be proven one way or the other so Kavanaugh would always have a cloud over his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice based upon a creditable allegation by a very creditable accuser of sexual assault in his past. We don't need that and that suspicion should not be allowed to exist for someone with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That would degrade the Supreme Court as an institution.

3. This is not a criminal prosecution. It's about the standards that should be applicable to a person receiving a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The standard being applied should also be the highest possible standard of conduct where they are beyond reproach or suspicion of any possible wrongdoing.

There are many very qualified individuals that can sit on the Supreme Court without even a hint of scandal in their history. We don't need to put someone on the Supreme Court that will always have a dark spot on their record where they could very well have sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl while being illegally intoxicated to the point of oblivion where they couldn't even remember what had happened.

Republicans don't need Brett Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other very qualified conservative (Republican) jurists that are equally qualified to be on the Supreme Court and that don't have any allegations of misconduct that will always haunt a Kavanaugh appointment.

Don't lower the standard. Find someone that exceeds the standards for being on the highest court in the land.


PS I've ignored the conspiracy theories that always seem to pop up when Republicans try to defend against the facts.
(1) Pertinent word - claim

(2) Pertinent word - If.

(B) Pertinent words - She said.

I have no doubt that Kavanaugh, Judge, and Ford at some point attended a party where was served during their high school years. All of us did. That's not the question, or the allegation.

Republicans don't need Brett Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other very qualified conservative (Republican) jurists that are equally qualified to be on the Supreme Court and that don't have any allegations of misconduct that will always haunt a Kavanaugh appointment.

Do you seriously think this is about Kavanaugh? While it's true there are dozens of qualified choices, not one would pass Democrat criteria because Democrat criteria is not about qualified. It's about stall. If some never before heard of California activist can create this story, then no candidate is safe.

Lady Di had her shot. She had that letter in her brief case during the hearings. The hearings where such allegations are discussed. She chose to sit on it. Now time's up.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:29 AM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,082
Thanks: 7,809
Thanked 7,352 Times in 4,956 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
1. The possible criminal charges would be for a prosecutor to consider but the claim he was attempting to remove her clothing but was too drunk to accomplish it suggests attempted rape to me. But this isn't about a criminal prosecution.

2. In fact according the Mark Judge's description of the times in his book "Wasted" this isn't actually a "he-said-she-said" case. If, as Judge describes, they engaged in binge drinking so excessive that they couldn't remember where they'd been or what they'd done then we have a case of:

She said but he can't remember because he was plastered.

Her allegation includes the claim that both Kavanaugh and Judge were extremely drunk which Judge claimed was not uncommon at the time in his book.

We both agree that the case cannot be proven one way or the other so Kavanaugh would always have a cloud over his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice based upon a creditable allegation by a very creditable accuser of sexual assault in his past. We don't need that and that suspicion should not be allowed to exist for someone with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That would degrade the Supreme Court as an institution.

3. This is not a criminal prosecution. It's about the standards that should be applicable to a person receiving a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The standard being applied should also be the highest possible standard of conduct where they are beyond reproach or suspicion of any possible wrongdoing.

There are many very qualified individuals that can sit on the Supreme Court without even a hint of scandal in their history. We don't need to put someone on the Supreme Court that will always have a dark spot on their record where they could very well have sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl while being illegally intoxicated to the point of oblivion where they couldn't even remember what had happened.

Republicans don't need Brett Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other very qualified conservative (Republican) jurists that are equally qualified to be on the Supreme Court and that don't have any allegations of misconduct that will always haunt a Kavanaugh appointment.

Don't lower the standard. Find someone that exceeds the standards for being on the highest court in the land.


PS I've ignored the conspiracy theories that always seem to pop up when Republicans try to defend against the facts.
Question: If 5 days before Sotomayor was confirmed, a guy said that she grabbed his junk in grade school, would you have happily disqualified her?
__________________
"The freedom of speech is, in sum, our foremost protection against tyranny. Without it, a tyrant can work his will without any fear of his opponents uttering even one cross word."
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:29 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,901
Thanks: 13,931
Thanked 4,955 Times in 3,166 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
[B]Republicans don't need Brett Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other very qualified conservative (Republican) jurists that are equally qualified to be on the Supreme Court and that don't have any allegations of misconduct that will always haunt a Kavanaugh appointment.
Oh, if someone else were appointed, the left (including almost all Democrats) would find an excuse to accuse him (or her) of something else...
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:32 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,901
Thanks: 13,931
Thanked 4,955 Times in 3,166 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
We don't need to put someone on the Supreme Court that will always have a dark spot on their record...
So, just being accused--without even a hint of proof--is tantamount to having "a dark spot" on one's record?

Just what sort of reasoning is that, anyway?
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:36 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,901
Thanks: 13,931
Thanked 4,955 Times in 3,166 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
That would degrade the Supreme Court as an institution.
Are you suggesting, then, that "the Supreme Court as an institution" has been "degrade[d]" by the 1991 confirmation of Clarence Thomas to the bench--despite the claims of Anita Hill?
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:39 AM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 13,423
Thanks: 11,741
Thanked 9,808 Times in 6,003 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
1. The possible criminal charges would be for a prosecutor to consider but the claim he was attempting to remove her clothing but was too drunk to accomplish it suggests attempted rape to me. But this isn't about a criminal prosecution.

2. In fact according the Mark Judge's description of the times in his book "Wasted" this isn't actually a "he-said-she-said" case. If, as Judge describes, they engaged in binge drinking so excessive that they couldn't remember where they'd been or what they'd done then we have a case of:

She said but he can't remember because he was plastered.

Her allegation includes the claim that both Kavanaugh and Judge were extremely drunk which Judge claimed was not uncommon at the time in his book.

We both agree that the case cannot be proven one way or the other so Kavanaugh would always have a cloud over his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice based upon a creditable allegation by a very creditable accuser of sexual assault in his past. We don't need that and that suspicion should not be allowed to exist for someone with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That would degrade the Supreme Court as an institution.

3. This is not a criminal prosecution. It's about the standards that should be applicable to a person receiving a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The standard being applied should also be the highest possible standard of conduct where they are beyond reproach or suspicion of any possible wrongdoing.

There are many very qualified individuals that can sit on the Supreme Court without even a hint of scandal in their history. We don't need to put someone on the Supreme Court that will always have a dark spot on their record where they could very well have sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl while being illegally intoxicated to the point of oblivion where they couldn't even remember what had happened.

Republicans don't need Brett Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other very qualified conservative (Republican) jurists that are equally qualified to be on the Supreme Court and that don't have any allegations of misconduct that will always haunt a Kavanaugh appointment.

Don't lower the standard. Find someone that exceeds the standards for being on the highest court in the land.


PS I've ignored the conspiracy theories that always seem to pop up when Republicans try to defend against the facts.
If one is going to apply a statement of 'they were drunk' to someone else, but cannot seem to remember anything about the event, like when, where or anyone other than the alleged sorta maybe attempted rapist, perhaps the accuser was more than a little drunk herself and actually not recalling the correct events?

To say a 'cloud' would be over Kavanaugh is EXACTLY what is being attempted here. Too bad there are others from that same time period that contradict Ford, have said that it's not in his character to do something like that.

Ford stands to profit from this in multiple ways. If it succeeds to stop the confirmation, she is vindicated and can sell a tell-all book. If it fails, she can play the victim, and still sell a tell all book.

This is not a #metoo moment. If it were true and solid, it would have been brought forward a year ago. No, it was timed, intentionally, when it would do the Democrats the most good. Political ****ery at it's finest.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:40 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 19,150
Thanks: 12,692
Thanked 13,658 Times in 7,958 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
1. The possible criminal charges would be for a prosecutor to consider but the claim he was attempting to remove her clothing but was too drunk to accomplish it suggests attempted rape to me. But this isn't about a criminal prosecution.

2. In fact according the Mark Judge's description of the times in his book "Wasted" this isn't actually a "he-said-she-said" case. If, as Judge describes, they engaged in binge drinking so excessive that they couldn't remember where they'd been or what they'd done then we have a case of:

She said but he can't remember because he was plastered.

Her allegation includes the claim that both Kavanaugh and Judge were extremely drunk which Judge claimed was not uncommon at the time in his book.

We both agree that the case cannot be proven one way or the other so Kavanaugh would always have a cloud over his tenure as a Supreme Court Justice based upon a creditable allegation by a very creditable accuser of sexual assault in his past. We don't need that and that suspicion should not be allowed to exist for someone with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. That would degrade the Supreme Court as an institution.

3. This is not a criminal prosecution. It's about the standards that should be applicable to a person receiving a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. The standard being applied should also be the highest possible standard of conduct where they are beyond reproach or suspicion of any possible wrongdoing.

There are many very qualified individuals that can sit on the Supreme Court without even a hint of scandal in their history. We don't need to put someone on the Supreme Court that will always have a dark spot on their record where they could very well have sexually assaulted a 15 year old girl while being illegally intoxicated to the point of oblivion where they couldn't even remember what had happened.

Republicans don't need Brett Kavanaugh. There are plenty of other very qualified conservative (Republican) jurists that are equally qualified to be on the Supreme Court and that don't have any allegations of misconduct that will always haunt a Kavanaugh appointment.

Don't lower the standard. Find someone that exceeds the standards for being on the highest court in the land.


PS I've ignored the conspiracy theories that always seem to pop up when Republicans try to defend against the facts.
Please explain how an accusation lacking a specific location, date or year, corroborating witness and any forensic evidence whatsoever can be considered credible? The only other person besides Kavanaugh and the accuser present at the alleged incident denies it ever happened. The women dating Kavanaugh at the time attested that such conduct was far out of character for Kavanaugh. Where is the so-called credible accusation?

The one resisting facts is you.
__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 12:48 PM
RightofCenterLeftofCrazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Idaho
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Thanks: 60
Thanked 810 Times in 450 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

If Judge Kavanaugh did this and now denies it he absolutely SHOULD not be appointed. However, if the claims are without merit mere accusations should not keep him from being nominated. If we allow that, then all anyone would have to do to keep someone they don't like from being nominated is make an accusation that is impossible to verify.

So we have to determine if the accusation has merit or not.

I'm sure I am missing some things. Any help?
Pro for her:
  1. She's come forward out of anonymity.
  2. She has therapist records from as for back as 2012 where she talks about being attacked at a party but doesn't specify a name.

Con for her:
  1. She doesn't remember how she got to the party.
  2. She doesn't remember when the party was except it was summer time.
  3. She doesn't remember the location of the party.
  4. She doesn't remember who else was at the party except that there was "4 boys there"
  5. The democrats had the information for 6 weeks but waited till the last minute to mention it. Or even reference it.
  6. She scrubbed her social media accounts of her political activism prior to identifying herself.
  7. She initially said she would testify on Monday but is now saying she won't testify unless the FBI investigate the "incident". Would they even have jurisdiction?

Pro for Kavanaugh:
  1. A person is generally supposed to be believe innocent absent proof.
  2. Women he dated during that time have indicated he was always a perfect gentleman.
  3. The person the accuser says was with him, denies it happened.

Con for Kavanaugh:
  1. Yearbook show's he was treasurer of City Keg Club which corroborates he may have drank in high school. Drinking age was 18 at the time so he wouldn't have been able to legally drink at the time of the incident but would have been able to while still in high school.
  2. Nominated by Donald Trump (Technically shouldn't be on the list as that it has nothing to do with the accusation.)

Please add to the list, especially if you have "cons" for Kavanaugh or pros for Ford.

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Zenock For This Useful Post:
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 01:27 PM
RightofCenterLeftofCrazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Idaho
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Thanks: 60
Thanked 810 Times in 450 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenock View Post
If Judge Kavanaugh did this and now denies it he absolutely SHOULD not be appointed. However, if the claims are without merit mere accusations should not keep him from being nominated. If we allow that, then all anyone would have to do to keep someone they don't like from being nominated is make an accusation that is impossible to verify.

So we have to determine if the accusation has merit or not.

I'm sure I am missing some things. Any help?
Pro for her:
  1. She's come forward out of anonymity.
  2. She has therapist records from as for back as 2012 where she talks about being attacked at a party but doesn't specify a name.

Con for her:
  1. She doesn't remember how she got to the party.
  2. She doesn't remember when the party was except it was summer time.
  3. She doesn't remember the location of the party.
  4. She doesn't remember who else was at the party except that there was "4 boys there"
  5. The democrats had the information for 6 weeks but waited till the last minute to mention it. Or even reference it.
  6. She scrubbed her social media accounts of her political activism prior to identifying herself.
  7. She initially said she would testify on Monday but is now saying she won't testify unless the FBI investigate the "incident". Would they even have jurisdiction?

Pro for Kavanaugh:
  1. A person is generally supposed to be believe innocent absent proof.
  2. Women he dated during that time have indicated he was always a perfect gentleman.
  3. The person the accuser says was with him, denies it happened.

Con for Kavanaugh:
  1. Yearbook show's he was treasurer of City Keg Club which corroborates he may have drank in high school. Drinking age was 18 at the time so he wouldn't have been able to legally drink at the time of the incident but would have been able to while still in high school.
  2. Nominated by Donald Trump (Technically shouldn't be on the list as that it has nothing to do with the accusation.)

Please add to the list, especially if you have "cons" for Kavanaugh or pros for Ford.

Thanks.

Another pro for her... She's passed a polygraph.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2018, 02:08 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 13,423
Thanks: 11,741
Thanked 9,808 Times in 6,003 Posts
Default Re: The Democrats' resistance to the Kavanaugh nomination

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenock View Post
If Judge Kavanaugh did this and now denies it he absolutely SHOULD not be appointed. However, if the claims are without merit mere accusations should not keep him from being nominated. If we allow that, then all anyone would have to do to keep someone they don't like from being nominated is make an accusation that is impossible to verify.

So we have to determine if the accusation has merit or not.

I'm sure I am missing some things. Any help?
Pro for her:
  1. She's come forward out of anonymity.
  2. She has therapist records from as for back as 2012 where she talks about being attacked at a party but doesn't specify a name.

Con for her:
  1. She doesn't remember how she got to the party.
  2. She doesn't remember when the party was except it was summer time.
  3. She doesn't remember the location of the party.
  4. She doesn't remember who else was at the party except that there was "4 boys there"
  5. The democrats had the information for 6 weeks but waited till the last minute to mention it. Or even reference it.
  6. She scrubbed her social media accounts of her political activism prior to identifying herself.
  7. She initially said she would testify on Monday but is now saying she won't testify unless the FBI investigate the "incident". Would they even have jurisdiction?

Pro for Kavanaugh:
  1. A person is generally supposed to be believe innocent absent proof.
  2. Women he dated during that time have indicated he was always a perfect gentleman.
  3. The person the accuser says was with him, denies it happened.

Con for Kavanaugh:
  1. Yearbook show's he was treasurer of City Keg Club which corroborates he may have drank in high school. Drinking age was 18 at the time so he wouldn't have been able to legally drink at the time of the incident but would have been able to while still in high school.
  2. Nominated by Donald Trump (Technically shouldn't be on the list as that it has nothing to do with the accusation.)

Please add to the list, especially if you have "cons" for Kavanaugh or pros for Ford.

Thanks.
Con for Ford - Her attorney is involved with Soros.

Con for Kavanaugh - Who keeps a list of 65 women they knew in High School ready at hand?
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
Reply

Tags
democrats, kavanaugh, nomination, resistance, the

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0