Justice Kennedy Retiring

[wufan]

Kavanaugh was always a silly choice. He wasn't on the original list Trump put out. He has so much baggage, and McConnell knew it and specifically asked for someone else.

So why did he get nominated if he was never on the list in the first place? Two reasons: (1) he wrote a dissent last year which seems to suggest he'd overturn Roe if given the chance; and (2) he, despite playing a key role in the investigation of Clinton, now believes it might be better if presidents weren't allowed to be investigated. As for the first point, it's so strange to me that we have to dance around this issue. Do Murkowski and Collins actually gain anything because Kavanaugh said "oh, it's settled precedent." Are there people out there that support the holding in Roe, and are going to re-elect Murkowski or Collins when they act ignorant after it gets overturned? As to the second, I truly believe this is the most disgraceful thing about the whole ordeal. Trump, someone who is at least fringe connected to an ongoing federal investigation, appears to have selected a nominee that he never mentioned before. A nominee that is one of very few legal scholars who support the idea that the president should not be able to be investigated. Not to mention that the nominee was someone involved in a hugely political investigation against Clinton.

But as for the allegations - it seems like there are a couple of options: (1) The vote gets delayed for a few weeks, and republicans can act as if they've vetted the allegations enough to jam a vote through. (By the way, they had the letter saying he's a great guy signed by 65 women very fast. I'd hope there are 65 people in my life who'd vouch for me, but I definitely don't think I'd have a letter signed by 65 female high school acquaintances ready to go tomorrow morning.... and I didn't even go to an all boys school like Kavanaugh). Personally, this seems most likely to me; (2) The vote gets indefinitely delayed as it becomes more politically perilous closer to the elections. They decide they can get anything they want done after the November election; (3) Kavanaugh withdraws his name. I just don't see a scenario where he is put up for a vote and he is blocked at that point.

He wasn’t on the original list? Here’s the list from Nov, 2017. https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.c...-kennedy%3famp

Kennedy announced his retirement on June 27th.

Here’s an article from June 27 that said he would pick from that list:
https://thehill.com/regulation/admin...ustice-kennedy

Here’s an article from July 2 that said Kavanaugh was one of four justices he interviewed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/u...omination.html

What list are you referring to?

[jdshock]

The list of 21 that he released prior to the election. Kavanaugh was a late addition: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ces/875983001/

It's not a particularly important fact that he wasn't on the original list. It's just interesting that two of the key changes since his initial list was released were that Kavanaugh wrote the abortion opinion and Trump has become involved with the special prosecutor's investigation.

The rest of the post is much more important than that fact, though.

[wufan]

The rest of the post I’ve seen before. I disagree with it, but so be it. Personally, I hope RvW is overturned. I don’t think it will be in the next 20 years, but I think it should.

[ShockerPrez]

I've seen pop-warner football teams with more updated play books than the democrats.

If I had my way, Trump would withdraw kavenaugh and replace him with Barrett and the Republicans move as fast as possible to push her through before November.

I liked her better anyway.

[SHOCKvalue]

Kavanaugh does quite poorly on the big brother surveillance state versus personal privacy/liberty equation.

[Kung Wu]

Two reasons: (1) he wrote a dissent last year which seems to suggest he'd overturn Roe if given the chance; and (2) he, despite playing a key role in the investigation of Clinton, now believes it might be better if presidents weren't allowed to be investigated.

Thanks for the link. I just read his dissent and it is FAR from suggesting "he'd overturn Roe". This dissent is very specifically about whether a pregnant, minor, illegal alien has the right to demand an immediate abortion while being held by the government, instead of first being transferred over to a sponsor (usually a family member) and letting them deal with it.

Trump, someone who is at least fringe connected to an ongoing federal investigation, appears to have selected a nominee that he never mentioned before.

Kavanaugh was on the Heritage list put out in 2016, long before the dissent you posted. Kavanaugh was one of Trump's list of 25, created in November of 2017, a full 6 months before Kennedy even announced he is retiring. He was definitely on the list. Regardless, I could care less about Trump's list in this situation, so long as the final selection has been fully vetted by a highly respected conservative think tank, I'm good -- and in this case he definitely was.

[jdshock]

Re: Roe - I dunno how to convince you of it, but it's pretty clearly his love letter to anti-abortion folks. He couldn't go further than he did because of existing precedent, but he very clearly lays out a framework whereby the government could stall the process to the point that an abortion couldn't occur. But I get the feeling this is more of the same nitpicky stuff I always have to deal with on here. Like... do you honestly think Kavanaugh would uphold Roe at the supreme court level? If not, what's the point in bringing up this argument? My point is that he wrote an anti-abortion opinion which helped get him some additional name recognition that caused him to be selected.

Re: timeline - Also had no idea this would cause more discussion than any of the actual merit of the post. See above: he was not in Trump's initial list pre-election. This point really doesn't matter all that much.

[ShockingButTrue]

Is there any way to legislate Rowe vs. Wade retroactively?

[WstateU]

More diapers, STAT!

https://media.giphy.com/media/xUA7b2...E7E4/giphy.gif

[C0|dB|00ded]

The distance between the "victim" sending Ms. Frankenstein her anonymous letter and the release of her full name (including BONUS personal interviews on the liberal media circuit) was only a few million dollars out of the Democratic national party fund. Good on you Christine, you gettin' paid girl!!!!

Time to spank the hand of the whiny little liberals again. Let's can Kavanaugh and replace him with someone even more conservative - preferably a woman...

A minor setback. But make no mistake, getting this SCOTUS seat filled with a conservative is the most important task for the Republican party in about 50 years. ***** this up would make 'Bum Care No-Repeal look like a slightly bruised knee.


T


...:cool:

[Shockm]

Kavanaugh was always a silly choice. He wasn't on the original list Trump put out. He has so much baggage, and McConnell knew it and specifically asked for someone else.

So why did he get nominated if he was never on the list in the first place? Two reasons: (1) he wrote a dissent last year which seems to suggest he'd overturn Roe if given the chance; and (2) he, despite playing a key role in the investigation of Clinton, now believes it might be better if presidents weren't allowed to be investigated. As for the first point, it's so strange to me that we have to dance around this issue. Do Murkowski and Collins actually gain anything because Kavanaugh said "oh, it's settled precedent." Are there people out there that support the holding in Roe, and are going to re-elect Murkowski or Collins when they act ignorant after it gets overturned? As to the second, I truly believe this is the most disgraceful thing about the whole ordeal. Trump, someone who is at least fringe connected to an ongoing federal investigation, appears to have selected a nominee that he never mentioned before. A nominee that is one of very few legal scholars who support the idea that the president should not be able to be investigated. Not to mention that the nominee was someone involved in a hugely political investigation against Clinton.

But as for the allegations - it seems like there are a couple of options: (1) The vote gets delayed for a few weeks, and republicans can act as if they've vetted the allegations enough to jam a vote through. (By the way, they had the letter saying he's a great guy signed by 65 women very fast. I'd hope there are 65 people in my life who'd vouch for me, but I definitely don't think I'd have a letter signed by 65 female high school acquaintances ready to go tomorrow morning.... and I didn't even go to an all boys school like Kavanaugh). Personally, this seems most likely to me; (2) The vote gets indefinitely delayed as it becomes more politically perilous closer to the elections. They decide they can get anything they want done after the November election; (3) Kavanaugh withdraws his name. I just don't see a scenario where he is put up for a vote and he is blocked at that point.

Even as partisan as you are, do you really (deep down) believe in a 35 year old allegation from a person who is a partisan democrat, that is handed in to a uber-partisan democrat, during uber-partisan hearings, and kept under wraps until the 11th hour. It SMELLS so much even you can't really think there is an ounce of credibility in it, do you?

[WstateU]

Even as partisan as you are, do you really (deep down) believe in a 35 year old allegation from a person who is a partisan democrat, that is handed in to a uber-partisan democrat, during uber-partisan hearings, and kept under wraps until the 11th hour. It SMELLS so much even you can't really think there is an ounce of credibility in it, do you?

funny-dog-police-smell-underwear.jpg

[WstateU]

Even as partisan as you are, do you really (deep down) believe in a 35 year old allegation from a person who is a partisan democrat, that is handed in to a uber-partisan democrat, during uber-partisan hearings, and kept under wraps until the 11th hour. It SMELLS so much even you can't really think there is an ounce of credibility in it, do you?

Nm

[jdshock]

Even as partisan as you are, do you really (deep down) believe in a 35 year old allegation from a person who is a partisan democrat, that is handed in to a uber-partisan democrat, during uber-partisan hearings, and kept under wraps until the 11th hour. It SMELLS so much even you can't really think there is an ounce of credibility in it, do you?

Yeah, that's totally me. Someone so blind to partisan politics that something most be COMPLETELY PHONY that "even I" could tell it's wrong. Geez...

But yeah, who knows? There are apparently therapist notes from years back that corroborate the story. Not from the same time frame as the event itself, but certainly years ago to the point that it'd be strange to start laying the breadcrumbs. I definitely think the other eyewitness isn't credible at all. He wrote a memoir about how he was blackout drunk all the time. And I certainly think it's strange that they had the letter from the 65 female, high school acquaintances ready to go (again, he went to an all boys school). How did they have it ready? Did Kavanaugh warn them this could come out? Because if so, then it definitely happened. EVEN YOU must be willing to recognize that's strange, right? Even as partisan as you are, don't you (deep down) think that's at least a little strange?

I think we as a society haven't come to a "good" solution to the #metoo type allegations. I'm very sympathetic to the movement. I don't think there have been very many false accusations. In all honesty, most of the major ones have been confirmed at some point. But, we don't appear to have good solutions to a hypothetical false accusation. Maybe the solution here is "let him keep his lifetime appointment on one of the highest courts in the land, but not THE highest court?" Either way, I don't think you can say I'm persuaded by the news. I don't think he should be confirmed for a variety of other reasons. Gorsuch was 100x more compelling as a nominee.

[ShockCrazy]

I just look at it from the woman's side... She's willing to risk the hate vitriol and repercussions of standing up and saying this. And for what? To stop his nomination? Really you think this woman is willing to jeopardize her livelihood, comfort and potentially safety to stop the big bad conservative man? When you think about it, seems like a big leap. I'm not saying it's necessarily true, but it's already pretty apparent that Kavanaugh at minimum misled the Senate Judicial Committee back in 2005 at best, committed perjury at worst. I find it hard to see how people give him much credibility let alone deem him worthy of a seat on the highest court.

[ShockingButTrue]

What's the motivation? You can't be serious...

It's called #Resist dummy, in case you didn't know (yeah, right). Ubiquitous would be an understatement.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Yeah, that's totally me. Someone so blind to partisan politics that something most be COMPLETELY PHONY that "even I" could tell it's wrong. Geez...

But yeah, who knows? There are apparently therapist notes from years back that corroborate the story. Not from the same time frame as the event itself, but certainly years ago to the point that it'd be strange to start laying the breadcrumbs. I definitely think the other eyewitness isn't credible at all. He wrote a memoir about how he was blackout drunk all the time. And I certainly think it's strange that they had the letter from the 65 female, high school acquaintances ready to go (again, he went to an all boys school). How did they have it ready? Did Kavanaugh warn them this could come out? Because if so, then it definitely happened. EVEN YOU must be willing to recognize that's strange, right? Even as partisan as you are, don't you (deep down) think that's at least a little strange?

I think we as a society haven't come to a "good" solution to the #metoo type allegations. I'm very sympathetic to the movement. I don't think there have been very many false accusations. In all honesty, most of the major ones have been confirmed at some point. But, we don't appear to have good solutions to a hypothetical false accusation. Maybe the solution here is "let him keep his lifetime appointment on one of the highest courts in the land, but not THE highest court?" Either way, I don't think you can say I'm persuaded by the news. I don't think he should be confirmed for a variety of other reasons. Gorsuch was 100x more compelling as a nominee.

The likely scenario was a high school house party where everybody was smashed or getting smashed and Kavanaugh and this girl had been flirting. When Kavanaugh got physical (by physical I mean moved to kiss, hug, grope, whatever...) Christine decided she wasn't interested and resisted. Of course Kavanaugh persisted like every other high school boy will do, loaded with a hardon and a six pack - TO A POINT. Where is that point? Obviously it's well short of forced penetration. But if he pushes her against the wall, on the bed, behind a door, then starts mashing his face against hers while grabbing for something, anything soft... *earmuffs kids* well... I hate to say it but, this was kinda common when I was growing up. Either the girl would eventually relent or just say get the **** off me. If you didn't get up after that point you had likely crossed the line.

Something strange about this deal though... why on earth does she have a polygraph regarding the incident from years ago? Did she attempt some political blackmail in the past and didn't receive the kind of financial offer she sought? It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that both parties stockpile scandals for future use against potential party front-runners. This baby was far from a home run but Ms. Frankenstein and company knew they were out of time. So they dusted off the dossier and contacted the "witness" to see how much it would take for her cooperation. Ms. Ford is finally gettin' paid for her pain and suffering.


T


...:cool:

[WstateU]

Money talks and bull$hit walks!

https://media.giphy.com/media/MH9qd3zCnwIKY/giphy.gif

[wufan]

I just look at it from the woman's side... She's willing to risk the hate vitriol and repercussions of standing up and saying this. And for what? To stop his nomination? Really you think this woman is willing to jeopardize her livelihood, comfort and potentially safety to stop the big bad conservative man? When you think about it, seems like a big leap. I'm not saying it's necessarily true, but it's already pretty apparent that Kavanaugh at minimum misled the Senate Judicial Committee back in 2005 at best, committed perjury at worst. I find it hard to see how people give him much credibility let alone deem him worthy of a seat on the highest court.

Help me out...I’m not aware of the 2005 event.

Yes, someone might risk their livelihood for their political views. Happens all the time. That doesn’t mean that’s the case here, but I wouldn’t dismiss it.

[wufan]

The Colorado baker is another. Happens all the time.

[ShockCrazy]

Doubt it will convince you but here is Leahy's op ed along with supporting documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/brett-kavanaugh-misled-the-senate-under-oath-i-cannot-support-his-nomination/2018/09/13/ea75c740-b77d-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e6ea5618a841

https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/1037753403856887808

[jdshock]

I tend to think that the accuser has little to gain from coming forward, but I agree this is not one of those times. Not that I think it's false or true or whatever, but certainly there is a lot to be gained from lying here.

As for 2005, it relates to his prior confirmation hearing. He was asked about his involvement in the nomination of a controversial judge when he worked at the white house. He said he was not involved. New emails show he was absolutely involved. There's even a chain where somene said "how'd the interview with so and so go?" And he responds "call me."

I think the spying/utilizing stolen information stuff is worse. That's just a straight up lie.

[wufan]

Even as partisan as you are, do you really (deep down) believe in a 35 year old allegation from a person who is a partisan democrat, that is handed in to a uber-partisan democrat, during uber-partisan hearings, and kept under wraps until the 11th hour. It SMELLS so much even you can't really think there is an ounce of credibility in it, do you?

Its a total she said he said situation. Could be true. Could be false. The timing was the dirty political trick. If there was real concern this could have been brought up August. The release is a delay/smear tactic. The truth about what actually happened...?

[wufan]

Yeah, that's totally me. Someone so blind to partisan politics that something most be COMPLETELY PHONY that "even I" could tell it's wrong. Geez...

But yeah, who knows? There are apparently therapist notes from years back that corroborate the story. Not from the same time frame as the event itself, but certainly years ago to the point that it'd be strange to start laying the breadcrumbs. I definitely think the other eyewitness isn't credible at all. He wrote a memoir about how he was blackout drunk all the time. And I certainly think it's strange that they had the letter from the 65 female, high school acquaintances ready to go (again, he went to an all boys school). How did they have it ready? Did Kavanaugh warn them this could come out? Because if so, then it definitely happened. EVEN YOU must be willing to recognize that's strange, right? Even as partisan as you are, don't you (deep down) think that's at least a little strange?

I think we as a society haven't come to a "good" solution to the #metoo type allegations. I'm very sympathetic to the movement. I don't think there have been very many false accusations. In all honesty, most of the major ones have been confirmed at some point. But, we don't appear to have good solutions to a hypothetical false accusation. Maybe the solution here is "let him keep his lifetime appointment on one of the highest courts in the land, but not THE highest court?" Either way, I don't think you can say I'm persuaded by the news. I don't think he should be confirmed for a variety of other reasons. Gorsuch was 100x more compelling as a nominee.

The therapist notes don’t name Kavanaugh and state that it was four boys, not two. It doesn’t give a date, but says she was “late teens” (not 15). It doesn’t give an address or a city. How can someone defend themselves against that?

All that said, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. No idea.

What should we as a society do about this? Nothing. If she was harmed, she needed to bring charges 35+ years ago. You can’t go three decades back and say NOW it’s a problem.

One problem we we have with this in society is the vague description that victims give when they say they were raped. These things need to be concrete, because as Matt Damon said, there is a real and legal difference between slapping someone on the ass and forced penetration.

[ShockingButTrue]

I agree. Common sense.

[Shockm]

The other, supposed friend of Kavenaugh’s said this woman was nuts. What a partisan filled media frenzy.

[shockfan89_]

Her own students say she is nuts and not to cross her because she is crazy and vindictive. But yea this is probably true.

I was involved in a MUCH less traumatic incident when I was 15. I wasn't in immediate danger but was involved with a group that was being mischievous and at one point several of them crossed the line and I was no longer comfortable being involved. 30 years later, I remember EVERY detail. I know where we were (even though I had never been there before), I know everyone's name (even though I just met three of them that day and haven't seen them since that day), I can describe most things in vivid detail and could lead you to the scene where it occurred even though I haven't been to that town since then.

She doesn't know what year it was, where she was, who owned the house, how they got there, but supposedly escaped and walked home? I suspect something similar to what she reported happened, and she was as drunk as the boys, and at some point said no and felt it didn't stop in time, or simply regretted it after the fact, or doesn't remember what happened. Is that right, no, but probably occurs frequently when teenagers are experimenting with alcohol and becoming sexually active. I highly doubt Kavanaugh or his friend were even there in the particular story she has reported. It is vague enough that it would apply to almost every teenage boy from the 80's. Were you ever at a house party, unsupervised, with loud music, while intoxicated, with members of the other sex present? How can anyone disprove that vague accusation? In any event, nobody should be punished for something that occurred 35+ years ago when they were a minor. It's just ridiculous to even consider not moving forward with this nomination unless other evidence exists.