Supreme Court of the United States

[senorsheep]

Why did Senator Feinstein sit on this information since July other than to muck up the proceedings at the last minute in the hopes the Democrats can retake the Senate in November? Playing politics perhaps? As you said, what a joke.

With all due respect to accuser, given the context and timing of this accusation, I don't know how anyone could assign credibility to the charge at this point. Sure, new information may come to light that lends credence to one side or the other, but given what little has been brought to the table so far, I don't know how any critical thinker could not be highly suspicious of a political hit job.

[DMT]

What do you estimate to be the odds of this actually happening?

Do you really think that each and every conservative Supreme Court justice has such little regard for legal precedent that they're just looking for an opportunity to trample the law and deliver a partisan political outcome? Based on the histories of the judges, I don't see much cause for alarm.

Though, if it did happen, and it resulted in the end of the Republican Party, then it might be a worthy trade-off.

I hope you're right, and the last point was where I was going. But so many women would have to needlessly suffer in the interim.

[Bernie Brewer]

my main concern was about why anyone on Earth would accept this account, yet not Juanita Broaddrick's far more detailed saga.
and if you accept the latter, then Bill Clinton is a rapist.

some empathy for Broaddrick seems suitable.

You know the lefties hate when you do that; remind that with thier hypocrisy. Thier defense is to accuse the poster of Whataboutism

[nots]

Why would they not fight back after Garland was denied even consideration? It's hilarious how for some around here the Democrats are expected to meekly lay down as Republicans completely cheat the system.

So you’re tacitly acknowledging that it’s mostly political payback than any real concern for the victim. Good to know

[Teenwolf]

With all due respect to accuser, given the context and timing of this accusation, I don't know how anyone could assign credibility to the charge at this point. Sure, new information may come to light that lends credence to one side or the other, but given what little has been brought to the table so far, I don't know how any critical thinker could not be highly suspicious of a political hit job.

Do you not want to see her testimony first before coming to your conclusion? Seems you're giving "zero" due respect to the accuser.

[onejayhawk]

Never gonna happen.

There is not a word about privacy in the Constitution. If the new Court is going to be more textual, I can see the issue being returned to the state level.

my main concern was about why anyone on Earth would accept this account, yet not Juanita Broaddrick's far more detailed saga.
and if you accept the latter, then Bill Clinton is a rapist.

some empathy for Broaddrick seems suitable.

That double standard has been a Republican complaint since long before Clinton.

I agree. It's clear that something happened. It's clear that Kavanaugh was not an Eagle Scout in his youth. Beyond that, the evidence is inconclusive if not contradictory. It's too bad she was talked into exposing herself like this. For all the reasonable anger over her treatment, the worst are the ones behind her, pushing her forward.

J

[DMT]

From right wing friendly vox:
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/7/1782932...earing-perjury

Ringing endorsement from that article.

In sum, do I think future Justice Kavanaugh perjured himself? I don’t. Do I think he’s been less than forthcoming? Absolutely. Do I think he’s been more troublingly less than forthcoming than previous nominees? I do. Do I think we have less access to documents than we have with previous nominees? Yes. But I don’t think that he perjured himself.

.

So it's ok to lie but since it doesn't rise the high bar of actual perjury, let's confirm him for life. Is that what you're saying or am I misinterpreting?

[DMT]

You know the lefties hate when you do that; remind that with thier hypocrisy. Thier defense is to accuse the poster of Whataboutism

I don't recall anyone in here defending Clinton on his serial sexual harassment. And there's not a chance in hell that he'd stand a chance in today's world.

[Teenwolf]

There is not a word about privacy in the Constitution. If the new Court is going to be more textual, I can see the issue being returned to the state level.


That double standard has been a Republican complaint since long before Clinton.

I agree. It's clear that something happened. It's clear that Kavanaugh was not an Eagle Scout in his youth. Beyond that, the evidence is inconclusive if not contradictory. It's too bad she was talked into exposing herself like this. For all the reasonable anger over her treatment, the worst are the ones behind her, pushing her forward.

J

I cant believe I largely agree with 1J on this.

I really appreciate your unwillingness to jump at smearing the victim here.

[DMT]

So you’re tacitly acknowledging that it’s mostly political payback than any real concern for the victim. Good to know

You got me nots!

[nots]

Ringing endorsement from that article.

.

So it's ok to lie but since it doesn't rise the high bar of actual perjury, let's confirm him for life. Is that what you're saying or am I misinterpreting?

How far are you going to move those goal posts? You said he perjured himself on multiple occasions. I showed you an article from a lefty friendly site that 4 fairly accomplished lawyers disagree with that. All 4 of them. Now you want to argue something different. If you had written you thought he was less than forthcoming, I wouldn’t have responded. But you unabashedly said he perjured himself. I do not think think that is accurate.

[nots]

You got me nots!

Yep, I knew I has you right in the cross hairs.

[senorsheep]

Do you not want to see her testimony first before coming to your conclusion? Seems you're giving "zero" due respect to the accuser.

I said this earlier: "If she has something she wants to say, put her on the stand, under oath, let her say her peace, and let her answer any questions about her accusation. Then let the nominee respond. If she has no further proof or corroboration to offer beyond what she already has, be done with it and call the vote."

[DMT]

How far are you going to move those goal posts? You said he perjured himself on multiple occasions. I showed you an article from a lefty friendly site that 4 fairly accomplished lawyers disagree with that. All 4 of them. Now you want to argue something different. If you had written you thought he was less than forthcoming, I wouldn’t have responded. But you unabashedly said he perjured himself. I do not think think that is accurate.

Since I'm not a legal scholar, I didn't realize that perjury didn't mean "lying under oath". But I appreciate the clarification.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-lies-senate-testimony-supreme-court.html

If the documents that have been released in recent weeks had come to light in 2006, they could have easily torpedoed Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Even without those documents, which clearly demonstrate that Kavanaugh has misled the Senate, his appointment was incredibly controversial. The vote fell just four short of the margin needed for a filibuster, with seven senators abstaining. “Mr. Kavanaugh is a political operative,” said Kennedy at the time. “I can say with confidence that Mr. Kavanaugh would be the youngest, least experienced and most partisan appointee to the court in decades.”

[Teenwolf]

I said this earlier: "If she has something she wants to say, put her on the stand, under oath, let her say her peace, and let her answer any questions about her accusation. Then let the nominee respond. If she has no further proof or corroboration to offer beyond what she already has, be done with it and call the vote."

So you see the hearing as largely unnecessary, since we already know what both parties will say?

Do you also disagree with calling witnesses like Judge, the therapist, her husband, experts on sexual assault, etc. since we already know what they'll say as well?