Supreme Court of the United States

[B-Fly]

Wow, what a mess this is. If the allegation of attempted sexual assault is true, it is violent and criminal and inexcusable - I don't care how old he was or how long ago it way. If the allegation is false, that's also outrageous and inexcusable. Ultimately, I think given that the accuser is no longer anonymous, has taken a polygraph test, and is willing to testify under oath before the Judiciary Committee, I think they can't reasonably (shouldn't) just push a vote.

I don't think the Democrats will win the Senate and suspect that if Kavanaugh has to be withdrawn Trump will probably nominate someone even worse, but I don't think we can or should be working backward from our preferred judicial or political outcome on something like this.

[heyelander]

I don't think the Democrats will win the Senate and suspect that if Kavanaugh has to be withdrawn Trump will probably nominate someone even worse, but I don't think we can or should be working backward from our preferred judicial or political outcome on something like this.

Worse than a violent criminal?

[B-Fly]

Worse than a violent criminal?

Sorry, I should have clarified. I think he will nominate someone even worse from the perspective of judicial ideology/likely votes on the Supreme Court.

[Judge Jude]

Anyone who believes in the validity of a polygraph test - regardless of who takes one - is expelled from the "party of science."

[heyelander]

Sorry, I should have clarified. I think he will nominate someone even worse from the perspective of judicial ideology/likely votes on the Supreme Court.

I could have easily inferred (and did) but I chose not to. The thinking of "Hey, I know he's a violent criminal, but the next guy might be less politically appealing..." was too depressing... that was pretty much your point, but the fact that you needed to point it out is terrible.

[Sour Masher]

Anyone who believes in the validity of a polygraph test - regardless of who takes one - is expelled from the "party of science."

I was telling my wife this yesterday. Whether a person passed or failed the polygraph means little to me, but the fact that she was willing to subject herself to it does say a lot to me. Personally, I'd never volunteer to take a polygraph, because of how unreliable they can be, and how much art reading and interpreting them are vs science. However, it shows extreme confidence and conviction to submit oneself to them when one has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Based on that, and other circumstantial evidence as i understand it, I have no doubt something went down, and if her description of it is even 75% right, as B-Fly says, it was violent and wrong at a level where age and time passed shouldn't matter (turning up music and trying to cover her mouth so people couldn't hear her screams, only getting away with a knee to the groin--all of this is crossing the line from a young man's eager attempt at coercion to attempted rape).

I also concede that memory is unreliable, as all of us who are aging have experienced. Sometimes things get twisted or exaggerated in our heads, especially as decades pass. But in this case, the fact that this was a physical struggle and a trauma that she has long sought therapy for indicates the incident probably made deep grooves in her memory that are less likely to be distorted. These these accusations came out long before he was being put up as a SC nom (in therapy in 2012), so despite what one might think of the politicians involved in calling attention to this now vs weeks ago, it is hard to assign her motives as being political. It seems she was trying to deal with a personal trauma that she would have preferred to keep personal, but has been made public by his nomination to the SC.

[Sour Masher]

BTW, lifetime appointments for the SC is super dumb. Aren't we the only country that does that?

[Judge Jude]

BTW, lifetime appointments for the SC is super dumb. Aren't we the only country that does that?

definitely worth talking about, anyway.

meanwhile, I had to turn off MSNBC and its bloodthirsty crowd. Kavanaugh's gotta go, get accused like this - and it's over for you.

pro tip: If you believe this woman based on this scant amount of evidence, then surely you believe Juanita Broaddrick, who:
- alleged actual rape, not attempted assault;
- was seen by a friend very shortly after the alleged incident in a state of shock, with a fat lip and torn pantyhose in the crotch area;
- came forward to authorities sooner (21 years vs 36);
- had far more detail at that time - exact location, and the correct season;
- records showed that she and the accused both were in Little Rock on the day in question;
- had corroboration at the time of the alleged incident - she spoke of this to at least 4 people, who recall that;
- alleged that a month later, the accused's spouse spoke to her in a tone that rattled Broaddrick.
- in 1997, an attorney for Jones secretly taped a conversation in which Broaddrick said she would deny everything if necessary because the accused is "too vicious" to challenge. so she denied it all under oath. once she got immunity from the Starr investigation, she recanted that testimony.

and if believe HER story, then you may be a proud member of a party that gave a prime speaking part to rapist Bill Clinton at the Democratic Convention only TWO years ago. and if you also believe Anita Jones, Kathleen Willey, and others as well, then you voted in 2016 for the spouse of this person who stuck with this monster for decades.

sorry, but anyone who at this point is all-in on the accuser here - and also is quite comfortable with the Clintons - is a hypocrite of the worst order.

and no, I'm not a Republican and I'm not a Kavanaugh backer.

[Sour Masher]

If you are directing that at me, JJ, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton (was too young his first term), and I've long felt it would be best for the Democratic party if the Clinton family would bow out of public life, for a variety of reasons. Knowing what I know now about Bill Clinton, I'd never vote for him for public office.

Now, on the issue of Hillary, I do find it interesting how so many folks bring up her husband's sins and equate her husbands crimes and/or alleged crimes with her, as if she did them. As if the person who commits a bad act and a person who stands by that person are guilty of the same sin, or even close to the same level of sin. I don't think they are, especially if the supporter seems to sincerely believe the person he or she is standing by. Sometimes it is hard for people to be objective about people they are close to. If, down the road, one of my sons was accused of something and he vehemently denied the act to me, I'd probably believe him, unless there was overwhelming evidence against him. I admit my bar for evidence would likely be higher when dealing with someone that close to me.

Now that said, I don't think she handled the accusations well at all, especially in light of our current awakening on victims rights. And she was clearly a hypocrite in saying all victims should be heard, when she seemed to shut her ears to the accusers of her husband. She was as poorly positioned as anyone could have been to attack Trump on his allegations of philandering and assault that had not committed such crimes herself, because of her support for her husband. All of that is bad, and reflects poorly on her character (unless you give a pass to a spouse, because you like the idea of a "ride or die" woman who would stand by you no matter what you did). But her actions are not on par with what both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have been accused of.

[Judge Jude]

"If you are directing that at me, JJ,"

not directed at anyone in particular.

as for Hillary, I think the knee jerk "hey, that's not her" is misplaced in this case.

first, you can't pick your parents, and your kid is your kid. A spouse is more of a choice.

second, it would be kind of weird to believe that Bill raped a woman who then lied about feeling threatened in person by Hillary a month later.

third, aside from the years-long affair with Gennifer Flowers (which Bill also lied about), the women I mentioned, and the many other bits of evidence that face a scary and lengthy patter, Bill also wagged his finger on national television while lying through his teeth, and he later was disbarred for lying under oath.

we all make mistakes - but at some point, a person sticking with their spouse "no matter what" suggests a lack of sane judgment. that might be worth factoring into a vote.

[Hornsby]

BTW, lifetime appointments for the SC is super dumb. Aren't we the only country that does that?

[Sour Masher]

You didn't really refute my central claim, JJ. And I respectfully contest your assessment that me saying standing by a criminal is not the same as being the criminal. That isn't a knee jerk reaction on my part. It is what I believe to be a clear and obvious fact. I have no issue with criticizing Clinton for how she handled accusations against her husband. That is fair to do and worthy of debate. But you don't refute my claim that her defense of her husband does not make her guilty of the same crimes he was accused of, and it did not make her guilty of the same crimes Trump has been accused of.

What was the lesser of evils in that specific comparison, HRC who stood by her husband despite many allegations of heinous acts, or Trump, the man who was running against her that was actually accused of such acts? Which was worse in your mind, the fact Clinton went all Lance Armstrong on women who accused her husband, or the fact that dozens of women accused Trump of various levels of sexual assault and harassment? Btw, for ease of reference, here is a link to a list of 17 Trump accusers as of 2016, prior to his election: https://www.vox.com/2016/10/13/13269...lt-allegations

I'd be interested in a clear stance on whether you think her sins of siding with her husband against his many accusers was equal to or greater than the sins even more women have accused Trump of? Which is worse, someone who supports an abuser, or an actual abuser? Or are both of a level that neither should have been their party's nominee?

[Judge Jude]

straw man alert:

"But you don't refute my claim that her defense of her husband does not make her guilty of the same crimes he was accused of, and it did not make her guilty of the same crimes Trump has been accused of."

wow, that would be a pretty tough claim to refute, lol.

"are both of a level that neither should have been their party's nominee?"

you tell me. I'm looking at two political parties who nominated Trump and Hillary in 2016. for anyone who cares at all about women - especially those who have been physically assaulted - getting a fair shake, I'm amazed that more of them didn't pick Door No. 3.

[Sour Masher]

Ha, and here I thought you were setting up a straw man by suggesting I was trying to excuse HRC of wrong doing by differentiating her actions fro her husband's, when it was clear I was not. You also seem to suggest that anyone who cares about women should not have voted for HRC, despite who she was running against. That is why I'd like a explicit judgment on whether you really think she was on par with Trump on the matter of women's rights and treatment. i guess we are all prone to see straw in the eyes of others.

I will agree with you that it was amazing to me too that those two candidates ended up being our country's only viable choices in a system where we know one of the major party nominees was going to win. I still maintain, on this specific issues, and nearly all others, that despite her flaws, HRC was clearly the better choice for president of the two for so many reasons that were obvious then and should be more obvious now.

In short, I don't think I am being a hypocrite for having voted for her and now being critical of Kavanough, as you suggest I am, and more broadly any HRC voter is.

[Judge Jude]

fair enough.

for me, if ending the enabling of men in power for decades of physical assaults on women is important - and it is - I'm not comfortable with someone saying, "Well, Hillary's no saint, but....." Teenwolf is among many who have suggested that real change is not going to come by accepting the lesser of two evils.

can you imagine President Hillary in a spot where one of HER SCOTUS choices faced such allegations? (and let's face it, they're going to come regardless in the future. the line has been drawn).