SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[mcsluggo]

46 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I said earlier, I dont know either of them so have no ability to pass that kind of judgement.  Others here think they can though. But only for their side.

 

One of them is lying.  Or neither of them are.  Or both of them are.  It's an allegation from 3 decades ago.  And if the part of the accusation is true, fueled by teenage alcoholic haziness.  Maybe BK really doesnt remember but he did it.  Maybe DrF really thinks it happened but it didnt.  There are multiple possibilities.

 

I expect similar things to be "remembered" for every Dem nominee in the future.  The same attention should be paid too them as well right?

 

I agree... this is a "no-win" setup, whether the accusation was <contrived>, or not. 

i don't know how "the process" possibly ignores a bombshell like this.   

and on the other hand,  i don't know how "the process" possibly comes up with a scheme to get to the bottom, and find an "answer"  

 

there is no "answer" that senate confirmation hearing can uncover.  period.    

 

absent some new bombshell... people just have to believe one side, or the other, and there is no rules-based way to sort through that, so people will just revert to "what they WANTED to do anyway"   

 

This sucks for "the process", overall.    But it actually means that if a borderline kavanaugh "supporter" is looking for an excuse not to vote for him...they might be able to jump on "the uncertainty" as cover to do what they wanted to do anyway....?

 

 

(and again... THAT sucks for "the process", moving forward)

[mcsluggo]

41 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

No, I find the evidence to be factual and provable.  That happens AFTER an accusation.   Calling an accusation credible is presenting it as if it is already factual.

 

that means that the accusations have to be investigated.   

 

and 30 years later, the chance that there will be credible evidence, one way or another, is small.

 

In which case..... we will be right back where we are.   but it will be xx months later, and there will be a burning turd smoking on the table in the confirmation-hearing room.

[Llevron]

8 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

I agree... this is a "no-win" setup, whether the accusation was <contrived>, or not. 

i don't know how "the process" possibly ignores a bombshell like this.   

and on the other hand,  i don't know how "the process" possibly comes up with a scheme to get to the bottom, and find an "answer"  

 

there is no "answer" that senate confirmation hearing can uncover.  period.    

 

absent some new bombshell... people just have to believe one side, or the other, and there is no rules-based way to sort through that, so people will just revert to "what they WANTED to do anyway"   

 

This sucks for "the process", overall.    But it actually means that if a borderline kavanaugh "supporter" is looking for an excuse not to vote for him...they might be able to jump on "the uncertainty" as cover to do what they wanted to do anyway....?

 

 

(and again... THAT sucks for "the process", moving forward)

 

I bet this is why Dems waited until now to do this. They basically didnt want to **** up the process unless they absolutely had to. Not sure it will ultimately be worth it but who knows now. 

[mcsluggo]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I bet this is why Dems waited until now to do this. They basically didnt want to **** up the process unless they absolutely had to. Not sure it will ultimately be worth it but who knows now. 

 

i haven't been following this closely.... did the dems hav this information sitting on their desk for a while before it was released?

[Cooked Crack]

1 minute ago, mcsluggo said:

 

i haven't been following this closely.... did the dems hav this information sitting on their desk for a while before it was released?

DiFi had it since July. Ford didn't want it public so she sat on it.

[The Evil Genius]

GOP had the info for a while too. The magical 65 people list from hs saying he's a swell guy didn't magically get signed overnight. Especially since a good portion of them would taken time to track down.. especially if they had changed their names (due to marriages, divorces, etc).

Edited September 17, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[DogofWar1]

Something I will point out.

 

The timing of this accusation is only as dire as it is because the timetable on Brett is as crunched as it is, and that is due to Republican scheduling and desire to seat Brett as quickly as possible.

 

Not that timing matters as much as credibility of the accuser, but I know timing is an issue some have discussed.

 

If the GOP was going to wait until archives finished bringing out his documents, a vote on Brett wouldn't be happening until November, giving these allegations much more time to be processed.

[Llevron]

If they both knew thats extra terrible. Literally just political football with rape accusations. 

[Hersh]

Since some don't understand why the Dems are saying "credible" accusation: Cause the GOP and a person or two on here immediately dismiss it as "Dems playing politics." It's to push back against narratives the accuser must be lying. 

 

Also the product of having a POTUS that attacks the credibility of all things that bring him bad news coverage.

 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Hersh

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

If they both knew thats extra terrible. Literally just political football with rape accusations. 

 

Thats what it is. And it happened when he was in high school. Talk about desperation...

[mcsluggo]

Just now, Hersh said:

Since some don't understand why the Dems are saying "credible" accusation: Cause the GOP and a person or two on here immediately dismiss it as "Dems playing politics." It's to push back against narratives the accuser must be lying. 

 

 

 

that is the problem.... its not a narrative of "the accuser must be lying".  its a narrative of "what do you do when you don;t have enough evidence to support either claim"?

 

 

 

(because the alternative to your statement is a regimen where the basic assumption that the "the accused must be lying") 

[DogofWar1]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

If they both knew thats extra terrible. Literally just political football with rape accusations. 

I mean, I get why DiFi did what she did.

 

I mean, look at what Ford has had to go through just in the past 24 hours.  She was doxxed, and undoubtedly will face threats and attacks on herself.

 

DiFi knows this, so she held onto it as long as she could, until she could no longer hold onto it and keep it under wraps.

[mcsluggo]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Thats what it is. And it happened when he was in high school. Talk about desperation...

 

that isn't at ALL what ANYBODY else in this thread was saying.   

 

not

at 

all.

 

[The Evil Genius]

7 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Thats what it is. And it happened when he was in high school. Talk about desperation...

 

Are you implying that because it occurred in HS it's not valid or relevant? 

 

I'd disagree..but please elaborate.

 

 

6 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

that is the problem.... its not a narrative of "the accuser must be lying".  its a narrative of "what do you do when you don;t have enough evidence to support either claim"?

 

(because the alternative to your statement is a regimen where the basic assumption that the "the accused must be lying") 

 

Well they could always give it a proper investigation. But that won't happen since the GOP is in a rush to get him seated before the elections (and really before Oct 1).

Edited September 17, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Llevron]

Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Thats what it is. And it happened when he was in high school. Talk about desperation...

 

I think you are pretty off base with this one ma'am. 

11 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

I mean, I get why DiFi did what she did.

 

I mean, look at what Ford has had to go through just in the past 24 hours.  She was doxxed, and undoubtedly will face threats and attacks on herself.

 

DiFi knows this, so she held onto it as long as she could, until she could no longer hold onto it and keep it under wraps.

 

Yea thats a fair point. Still not sure I like it but I see what you are saying. 

[The Evil Genius]

Btw the Year of the Woman (1992) was a direct result of how the GOP (and complicit Dems, Joe Biden being one of them at the time) treated Anita Hill the year before.

 

7 weeks out from elections that are already signalling a blue wave, I'd be very surprised if the GOP teats her as a little but slutty and nutty like they labeled Hill.

Edited September 17, 2018 by The Evil Genius

[Jumbo]

5 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Here’s a fun whatif

 

Kavanaugh steps away.  Dems cheer.  Beto beats Cruz in TX and Trump nominates Cruz to the SCOTUS before the end of the year.  

 

It was an early thought of mine, too, that maybe trumpco would retaliate by nominating a different goper-approved candidate who not only wants to push back LGBTQ rights/reproductive rights back but wants to return slavery to a state by state choice.   

 

But if they throw up a more extreme nominee, they're not only back to worrying about basic passage that was already squeaky enough with cavvy, even if fairly assured, and they would be putting murkowski/collins/others in even harder positions including the added negative atmosphere of what would be a badly flubbed nomination, so such a second choice might be invite a second disaster.

 

Were it to come to that, i wouldn't be surprised if smarter goper heads prevailed and they actually sent a more moderate judge than cavvy up...nah  . 

 

(this is just possible political figuring going on, aside from whatever the veracity of the claim may be)

 

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

But but but but the Federalist Society chose him.. he's just a boring white guy....

 

for awhile now several major sources have reported he wasn't on the original list---that he was added by trump and co., and that his rise for consideration took a big jump after some turn in the mueller invest that they saw coming (whether major reach, totally made up, or for real)...some dems have been claiming that as a big reason for him being added cuz he'd specifically provide cover for don re: mueller "going by his positions on pres authority"

'

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Every Dem nominee from now on will face allegations.  I can almost guarantee it.

 

And in this situation, without knowing it's a scam, what can ya do once the info did become fully public? What are the alternatives?

 

If it turns out to seem a fraud, yes, payback, while a sad and dysfunctional response, would be typical of how partisan hacks do things.

 

If it's a case of he vs she and they come off as roughly equally believable/defendable to the public audience, and it comes down just how the politics play out in the vote, then will this still be a new premeditated strategy to use routinely? Probably. Dysfunctional.

 

If it were somehow possible that testimony occurs and via some dynamic, it actually is convincing to a majority of people, then maybe not---but now that the idea is out there, I'd trust my cynical take and think we actually should have been figuring for some time that such accusations are more frequent , given much more weight and exposure, and are thus becoming more likely to be-----to use the term of the year---weaponized.

 

What will wonderfully complicate things is we live in a culture where such events have been going on forever and reporting of it---if done at all---was routinely  repressed/dismissed or met with other often dire consequences for the assaulted, until more recent times. So a ton of this kind of activity is out there and prominent people all over the land in all kinds of important positions are eligible for the club.

 

 

other related notes (not per your post, kilmer, just for the topic):

 

clinically speaking, it really stands out to me that ford puts mark judge in the room/story. it would be very unusual in such assaults for the claimant to invent the presence of an extra person---and several reasons should be obvious, even if deception were in play, or particularly if deception were in play, really.

 

It unnecessarily adds one more variable human you can't control and who can (and be expected to) contradict your testimony. The thinking is you'd only mention an actual real widely-known second person if they were actually there at whatever happened and you really believed what you're saying. The thinking is, if it's a scam and you were after cavvy, you'd very much want to keep it down to he v. she, 1 to 1 and not choose a scenario where you automatically have the counter witness.

 

And speaking of cabby's wingman mark---he has a lot of writing and posting about all the partying and the drunk culture of his group back then and other times...doesn't help, doesn't condemn, but it can't be ignored now so it's fodder....also legal people make note of mark's use of " i don't recall...." as a base for his denial, unlike the much more fulsome rejection of cavvy, who did it exactly right, in that it's how a lawyer would tell his client to respond.

 

Finally, remember, the evidence/testimonies in the roy moore matter were more comprehensive than what we have here so far by a longshot, but he still got the large majority of gopers to vote for him and barely lost that race and he was an idiot pig bigot like potus on top of it.

 

 

So this is quite the show.

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

5 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Here’s a fun whatif

 

Kavanaugh steps away.  Dems cheer.  Beto beats Cruz in TX and Trump nominates Cruz to the SCOTUS before the end of the year. 

 

Considering he's hated by his fellow GOP senators almost as much..could we see a 100-0 vote against him? ?

 

Plus would his past (about him being the zodiac killer) hurt or help him with the MAGAts?

[Hersh]

30 minutes ago, mcsluggo said:

 

 

that is the problem.... its not a narrative of "the accuser must be lying".  its a narrative of "what do you do when you don;t have enough evidence to support either claim"?

 

 

 

(because the alternative to your statement is a regimen where the basic assumption that the "the accused must be lying") 

 

I don’t think the term credible accusation stats that the accuser is automatically telling the truth and that the accused is therefore lying. At least I don’t take it like that. 

 

[twa]

2 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

What if he passes?

 

We waterboard them both till everyone gets the answers they want 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

48 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Are you implying that because it occurred in HS it's not valid or relevant? 

 

I'd disagree..but please elaborate.

 

 

 

I dont think it is relevant. What are they trying to show about him? That he made a mistake once in highschool?

 

 

 

[DogofWar1]

2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I dont think it is relevant. What are they trying to show about him? That he made a mistake once in highschool?

 

 

 

Should Brock Turner sit on SCOTUS?

[LadySkinsFan]

2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Kilmer, do you believe this woman? It does not seem like you do. (or maybe don't care)

 

 

 

Also, taking a step back. Why the fudge is The Federalist Society being relied upon for judicial nominations?

and those justices will vote to take away the right for abortions.

 

Its insane.

 

It's not just abortion, it's bodily autonomy. Kavanaugh is against birth control too.

 

Think about the implications for women, forced pregnancy, interference with healthcare, families forced into poverty by huge families and women forced to choose between working with huge childcare bills or staying at home. And with Republicans set on reducing the security net, more children raised in poverty will result. 

 

The implications through the decades will be tremendous.

[twa]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

GOP had the info for a while too. The magical 65 people list from hs saying he's a swell guy didn't magically get signed overnight. Especially since a good portion of them would taken time to track down.. especially if they had changed their names (due to marriages, divorces, etc).

 

So you are calling the woman that organized that a liar?

 

between school reunion lists and social media it is a easy feat.

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

It's not just abortion, it's bodily autonomy. Kavanaugh is against birth control too.

 

Think about the implications for women, forced pregnancy, interference with healthcare, families forced into poverty by huge families and women forced to choose between working with huge childcare bills or staying at home. And with Republicans set on reducing the security net, more children raised in poverty will result. 

 

The implications through the decades will be tremendous.

These arguments against Kavanaugh are political.  Just like they were for every other GOP nominated Judge when the left claimed women would go back to having back alley abortions.  

 

Roe is settled law.  Just like Citizens United.  Hes a conservative Judge.  That's what will be nominated when a Republican is doing the nominating.