Supreme Court of the United States

[Bernie Brewer]

He's perjured himself multiple times, but you be you.

Really. He Perjured himself? When was that again? And youÂ’d have to think that that would be a real problem for him if only it were proven.

You keep being you.

[DMT]

Really. He Perjured himself? When was that again? And youÂ’d have to think that that would be a real problem for him if only it were proven.

You keep being you.

Apolgies, see my response to nots above and replace "perjury" with "lied under oath".

[nots]

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/...eme-court.html

Slate, lol

[Teenwolf]

Slate, lol

What's so funny? Using Slate as a reference?

Sorry to kill whatever joke you were trying to make. Sorry/not sorry.

[senorsheep]

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?

I think it's necessary for her and for him to take the stand, under oath, and say what happened, and answer questions openly and honestly about their testimony. Maybe the husband, to establish timelines. Maybe the blackout drunk eyewitness, for whatever his testimony is worth.

If some new evidence or information comes to light during that process, then it might be necessary to pursue that.

[Teenwolf]

I think it's necessary for her and for him to take the stand, under oath, and say what happened, and answer questions openly and honestly about their testimony. Maybe the husband, to establish timelines. Maybe the blackout drunk eyewitness, for whatever his testimony is worth.

If some new evidence or information comes to light during that process, then it might be necessary to pursue that.

Fair enough.

Should we be investigating the 6 discrediting witnesses and their allegations? Covering up for sexual assault isnt much better than attempted rape.

[onejayhawk]

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?

Don't be silly. Of course, we want a sworn statement if possible. However, a sworn statement also carries the right to cross-examine, which seems to be the sticking point. The husband and the therapist have little add. Lawyers can clarify where heresay begins, but this seems like an obvious case. The principals make their statements and answer questions.

Even if you believe every word she says, you still have to deal with the 30+ years between. Youthfull indiscretions, even serious ones, are not a bar. I have seen nothing alleged that would stop me from confirming him. 50 years ago it would have been unanimous. Then again, so would Garland.

J

[Teenwolf]

Don't be silly. Of course, we want a sworn statement if possible. However, a sworn statement also carries the right to cross-examine, which seems to be the sticking point. The husband and the therapist have little add. Lawyers can clarify where heresay begins, but this seems like an obvious case. The principals make their statements and answer questions.

Even if you believe every word she says, you still have to deal with the 30+ years between. Youthfull indiscretions, even serious ones, are not a bar. I have seen nothing alleged that would stop me from confirming him. 50 years ago it would have been unanimous. Then again, so would Garland.

J

"Youthful indiscretions"... you are f-ed up. What gross commentary.

I wish 2 men would pin you to a bed, cover your screams with their hand, and turn the volume of music up and LAUGH... since we all know it's barely noteworthy...

[senorsheep]

Fair enough.

Should we be investigating the 6 discrediting witnesses and their allegations? Covering up for sexual assault isnt much better than attempted rape.

Six Discrediting Witnesses and Their Allegations would be a terrible name for a band. Right, Steve? Steve?

Sorry, I don't know this tale, so I can't say.

[Teenwolf]

Six Discrediting Witnesses and Their Allegations would be a terrible name for a band. Right, Steve? Steve?

Sorry, I don't know this tale, so I can't say.

Cool, cool, it's been buried in the avalanche of Kavanaugh news.

[Mithrandir]

"Youthful indiscretions"... you are f-ed up. What gross commentary.

I wish 2 men would pin you to a bed, cover your screams with their hand, and turn the volume of music up and LAUGH... since we all know it's barely noteworthy...

Agreed.

[Sour Masher]

If you're actually concerned about Broaddrick, Anita Hill, etc, then you wouldn't support Kavanaughs nomination.

Do you support his nomination despite these allegations of sexual assault, both his own and the judge he covered for?

It is pretty clear to me reading the posts from JJ, Bernie 1jay, chancellor, etc that when folks here, and I assume when Republicans generally, bring up other cases where men have gotten away with abuse, they are not doing it as a rallying cry and reminder that we must now be better. It is to point out, "your guy got away with it, and your side didn't criticize him, so now our guy gets to get away with it, and anyone on your side is a hypocrite if you try to criticize him or hold him accountable."

Of course, not a single person here has actually shown that any "lefty" poster here is actually guilty of maintaining the double standard they want to decry, so they have to rely on general attacks against Dems or lefties, rather than engage individuals here as individuals, rather than representatives of a side or team. It's counter-productive, but it doesn't appear like it will change. It seems that the thinking is the sins of hypocrisy committed by others whom I am politically aligned with are my own sins. I think that is absurd. I am my own person. If you want to call me out, call me out, not "Dems" or "liberals" or whatever label you derisively want to assign to the team you are rooting against. I promise, I will do the same--I'll engage you based on your stated positions and claims, and not simply use you as a proxy for one side of the political spectrum.

With that in mind, who here is defending Bill Clinton? Who here is calling his accusers liars while at the same time calling for Kavanaugh's head? No one that I am aware of. Certainly not me. But again, rather than have a substantive discussion about the standards of proof we should use in such matters, some people here seem to prefer to reuse, again and again, the tired old tactic of whataboutery (and Bernie, that is what it is--a deflection from actually discussing the specifics of the case at hand, the one being discussed at the moment).

Such a tactic would be very compelling if you were actually using it against someone being inconsistent on such matters, but I'm not aware of anyone doing that here, so it is a deflection tactic at best. I really wish we could stay on topic with those willing to take a stand, one way or the other, about the case at hand. I appreciate those saying Kavanaugh's accuser has not presented sufficient evidence to discredit him from being appointed. I disagree with that position, but I understand and respect it, and think it can lead to meaningful dialogue that may help me see the matter differently.

[Bernie Brewer]

Dude... I told a therapist about my abuse less than 2 years ago, and she would be my witness if I was in the same scenario. 25 years past before I told my therapist. Am I not credible because I suffered silently for so many years? Please tell me! Get real specific please!

First, I am sorry to hear of your personal experience and the pain it has caused you. On occasion, while not attempting to be personal, we stumble on things that strike someone else so deeply and personally, that we can't even begin to imagine to the road down which they walk. I can assure you it was not my intent to make this personal to you. I had no idea you suffered through that experience or how painful that experience was/is for you. Unless youÂ’ve been there you canÂ’t fully understand how this impacts someone, especially someone who suffered through long term abuse. ItÂ’s never happened to me, thankfully. While I'll choose be sensitive to your situation, and not comment specifically, I do honestly wish you the absolute best in your healing process. I know it is often a lifetime struggle, depending on the depths of the abuse. I'll be more sensitive to you in the future.

With sensitivity to your unfortunate life experiences, I have a degree Psychology with an emphasis on counseling and assessment, so I am aware of the role of a therapist. A therapist can provide evidence of state of mind and even receipt, with permissions, the confidential discussions of clients/patients. But that testimony is not evidence of the crime. If she did not share this with anyone for many years and it only came up in her 2012 therapy sessions, does she really remember all the facts. She may believe she remembers them as fact, but if she suffered through an event of this type, it was over a short period of time, maybe seconds, or minutes. Even in her letter she said they pulled her into a room and she was able to get away.

Memories are funny things. Witnesses to a Bank Robbery canÂ’t remember what the robber looked like an hour after the fact.

A therapist repeating a description of those memories doesnÂ’t in itself make them fact.

[In the Corn]

It is pretty clear to me reading the posts from JJ, Bernie 1jay, chancellor, etc that when folks here, and I assume when Republicans generally, bring up other cases where men have gotten away with abuse, they are not doing it as a rallying cry and reminder that we must now be better. It is to point out, "your guy got away with it, and your side didn't criticize him, so now our guy gets to get away with it, and anyone on your side is a hypocrite if you try to criticize him or hold him accountable."

Of course, not a single person here has actually shown that any "lefty" poster here is actually guilty of maintaining the double standard they want to decry, so they have to rely on general attacks against Dems or lefties, rather than engage individuals here as individuals, rather than representatives of a side or team. It's counter-productive, but it doesn't appear like it will change. It seems that the thinking is the sins of hypocrisy committed by others whom I am politically aligned with are my own sins, when I am, and we are all, are our own people.

Who here is defending Bill Clinton? Who here is calling his accusers liars while at the same time calling for Kavanaugh's head? No one that I am aware of. Certainly not me. But again, rather than have a substantive discussion about the standards of proof we should use in such matters, some people here seem to prefer to reuse, again and again, the tired old tactic of whataboutery (and Bernie, that is what it is--a deflection from actually discussing the specifics of the case at hand, the one being discussed at the moment).

Such a tactic would be very compelling if you were actually using it against someone being inconsistent on such matters, but I'm not aware of anyone doing that here, so it is a deflection tactic at best. I really wish we could stay on topic with those willing to take a stand, one way or the other, about the case at hand. I appreciate those saying Kavanaugh's accuser has not presented sufficient evidence to discredit him from being appointed. I disagree with that position, but I understand and respect it, and think it can lead to meaningful dialogue that may help me see the matter differently.

I think the right-leaning members here are not so much pointing out the indiscretions of Clinton, Franken, etc. as a conversation point, but more of the Democratic position from the Party in the past, and their negligence in not calling it out in the past. So it's not an conversation toward, Sour Masher, B-Fly, DMT, Teenwolf, but a general historical statement that the whole lack of accountability from both parties has created this tit-for-tat.

My view on Kavanaugh, I have a tendency to believe his accuser. The details may be fuzzy, but I think there is probably enough where he would be better to withdraw. Trump will not pull the nomination, as that would be seen as defeat, and Trump doesn't believe in that. I will also say this, and this was discussed a few months ago in a different thread when the #MeToo Movement was just coming to the forefront. How many of us have something from our younger years that we aren't proud of as we look back. I don't think anyone (man or woman) doesn't look back and think I wish I could change what I did there. What is the age and what is the indiscretion that in the line in the sand? The issue is the line gets moved depending on where the other team wants it to be for the given scenario.

In this situation, there are no winners. His accuser has been outed and excoriated. Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will always have a stain, as well. Both parties look petty for either trying to ramrod a confirmation, or for 11th-houring.

It's a shit show, and the two major parties don't really give a rat's ass, as they know in the end, they are going to protect each other, so no other voices can gain traction.

[DMT]

But others are coming forward backing her story, which is why there should be an investigation and not just a "he-said-she-said" session in front of a committee comprised solely of old white men.