Supreme Court of the United States

[Teenwolf]

geesh, the partisanship in here is amazing:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ugh-story.html

when the New York Times addressed the allegations in a story about Kavanaugh’s confirmation battle, it didn’t exactly allay those concerns with this passage:

"The New York Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the episode and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself."

..............

that's why they didn't publish anything - it's called journalism. there is no universe where a rival just surrenders because they know that they can't get to the central figure. some of the best journalism ever published would go unpublished by your mythical standard.

I'm still waiting to see how this all shakes out - but apparently that's too long a wait for many.

can anybody put the pom poms down even for a minute?
do you guys selectively edit - or do your feeds just ignore the 'wrong' stuff?

.......

updating for fairness, from NYT:

"Many cited a Times article that said The Times had conducted numerous interviews but was unable to corroborate Ms. Ramirez’s story. But The Times did not rebut her account and, unlike The New Yorker, was not able to obtain an interview with Ms. Ramirez."

still, they didn't publish because they couldn't find any corroboration (nor could the Washington Post and others).

if you are strongly behind Dr. Ford - which I can appreciate - I would be VERY leery of tying Ramirez to her like an anchor. she might take both down with the ship, unfortunately for everyone.

I would be happy to end the speculation and wait for the facts, but knowing the Republicans refuse to appoint the FBI to investigate the claims, speculation is what we're left with. It would be awful to either confirm or not confirm a lifetime appointment based on speculation, but that's what seems likely at the moment.

[Judge Jude]

if this fiasco has done nothing else, I hope the rubes who believe either of these political parties collectively have a shred of decency is exposed for the lie that it is.

I previously and do support an FBI investigation of the main accuser's claims, at least. the second one? I would need more info.

bottom line: if the Rs did the right thing and delayed this for a couple of weeks, then the Ds would smell blood near an election and turn this into a late circus x 100 to try to get it past Election Night.

and yes, Merrick Garland was a debacle perpetrated by the Rs, so I get why Ds are willing to wallow in the same mud.

apologies if I am not fitting into everyone's boxes in the 2018 political environment. I probably will be hunted down and lobotomized by the next strong wave. SenorSheep, too, among others here.

[nots]

if this fiasco has done nothing else, I hope the rubes who believe either of these political parties collectively have a shred of decency is exposed for the lie that it is.

I previously and do support an FBI investigation of the main accuser's claims, at least. the second one? I would need more info.

bottom line: if the Rs did the right thing and delayed this for a couple of weeks, then the Ds would smell blood near an election and turn this into a late circus x 100 to try to get it past Election Night.

and yes, Merrick Garland was a debacle perpetrated by the Rs, so I get why Ds are willing to wallow in the same mud.

apologies if I am not fitting into everyone's boxes in the 2018 political environment. I probably will be hunted down and lobotomized by the next strong wave. SenorSheep, too, among others here.

Great post.

[onejayhawk]

The NYT did not publish the story because Ramirez was speaking exclusively with Mayer and Farrow at the New Yorker. See the quote from Dean Baquet, editor of the New York Times here: https://twitter.com/ErikWemple/statu...53191506931713

Insufficient. There are appropriate qualifiers for an attributed story.

J

[Sour Masher]

What do the folks who think the accusations against Kavanaugh are flimsy think of this third woman coming forward to corroborate his pattern of behavior? Also, has anyone seen the speech Kavanaugh gave where he joked that "what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at Goergetown prep"? Of course, he isn't admitting to sexual assault in saying that, but it seems to imply that the image of perfect behavior he has tried to create for himself and his peers recently isn't accurate, at the very least: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ke/1355117002/

Here is his quote from the speech: "But fortunately, we had a good saying that we've held firm to, to this day, as the dean was reminding me before the talk, which is, 'What happens at Georgetown Prep, stays at Georgetown Prep,' " Kavanaugh said, drawing a few laughs. "That's been a good thing for all of us, I think."

Again, that can mean lots of things, but whatever he meant by it wasn't behavior he feels would be good to share with the world. Evoking the debauchery of Las Vegas was, in hindsight, unwise of him, and at odds with the image of virginity and complete innocence he is selling at the moment.

[Ken]

It's insane to me how dug in the Republican party is at this point. In a logical scenario we'd see 100% of those in the committee agree that Kavanaugh is not the most qualified candidate for the highest court in the land, and move on to another candidate (once nominated). Everyone is so afraid to admit that they've made a mistake that we can't ever take a step back and choose a better course of action.

[DMT]

It's insane to me how dug in the Republican party is at this point. In a logical scenario we'd see 100% of those in the committee agree that Kavanaugh is not the most qualified candidate for the highest court in the land, and move on to another candidate (once nominated). Everyone is so afraid to admit that they've made a mistake that we can't ever take a step back and choose a better course of action.

I agree that it's insane, but pretty typical behavior from the GOP at this point. How is it any saner that a man not only accused by dozens of women of harassment, but caught openly bragging about it on tape, is not only our POTUS but with overwhelming approval among the party?

[chancellor]

I agree that it's insane, but pretty typical behavior from the GOP at this point. How is it any saner that a man not only accused by dozens of women of harassment, but caught openly bragging about it on tape, is not only our POTUS but with overwhelming approval among the party?

We couldn’t have done it without y’all liberals training us when Bill Clinton was in office. Credit where it’s due, y’know.

[DMT]

We couldn’t have done it without y’all liberals training us when Bill Clinton was in office. Credit where it’s due, y’know.

Clinton wouldn't stand a chance today but nice try.

[Sour Masher]

Clinton wouldn't stand a chance today but nice try.

Yep. The country has changed a great deal in the last couple of decades. But lets keep using Bill Clinton as an excuse for giving a pass to Republicans for behavior that is no longer being ignored, denied, and swept under the rug. That helps us move forward and be better as a society.

[chancellor]

Clinton wouldn't stand a chance today but nice try.

LO-freaking-L. You’d run Bill Clinton in ‘20 in a minute if you could. Well, “you” generally as liberals. You’d have run him in ‘16 in a second, and won.

He’d win handily over the poor candidates the Dems have to trot out, and a vast percentage of Dems would march in and vote for him, even if Trump were not running.

And if you think that’s changed, it’s why we keep mentioning Keith Ellison. Dems only give a rip if it’s safe -as Franken was - or it’s a GOP target. And their press allies - from Nina Burleigh back in the day to Joy Behar today fully support that view.

Or perhaps you’ll try and tell me, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that most Democrats don’t share Behar’s view.

Like you said, nice try.

[Sour Masher]

I do believe there are people of such extraordinary talent, skills, vision etc that their contributions to their field and to the overall advancement of society can lead us to overlook, deny, ignore personal sins, personality traits, etc.

I can't think of any living politicians who should get such treatment. The idea that anyone should compromise their personal morality to support the likes of Bill Clinton or most especially Donald Trump is absurd. Bill Clinton was 100 times as capable as president as Donald Trump, yet he falls way short of mark terms of electing him despite his sins. If you have a sick child and a doctor convicted of horrible crimes is the only one with the skill to save your child, or the only one available, you allow that doctor to treat your kid. But if you are a voter with many options, many of whom are just as capable or more capable of doing the job as past or certainly our current president, why support the deeply flawed person? The only way you do so is if you buy into the tremendous con job that Clinton or Trump or whoever is uniquely qualified for the position. Anyone that holds any of our politicians in that high esteem befuddles me. Certainly there are exceptional public servants in politics, but none are so special that we must or should support them if they are as flawed as the ones we are talking about are. They are easily replaced by others of similar ideological bent, similar platforms, and similar skills to move their agenda forward (I already know Chance and 1jay disagree, and think Trump is super special and the only human capable of accomplishing the GOP agenda items he has done while in office; I maintain, he ain't that smart, he ain't that special).

That doesn't answer whether Clinton would win if he could run, but I'll say that not only shouldn't he, I am confident he would never make it through the primaries.

ETA: Not really related to this thread, but if we are talking about former presidents Dems would support and would win, I'd love to see the match up we will never get to see--Obama vs Trump. That would be worth the pay-per-view price. Obama would crush Trump IMO.

[nots]

FWIW, 5% of Democrats in Minn believe the accusations against Ellison.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-poll-keith-ellison-leads-doug-wardlow-most-not-sure-about-abuse-allegation/493500621/

[revo]

It's insane to me how dug in the Republican party is at this point. In a logical scenario we'd see 100% of those in the committee agree that Kavanaugh is not the most qualified candidate for the highest court in the land, and move on to another candidate (once nominated). Everyone is so afraid to admit that they've made a mistake that we can't ever take a step back and choose a better course of action.

Boom! 100%. A conservative will still get nominated, so I don’t see what the issue is here besides admitting defeat. The Senate is still likely theirs.

BTW, I reviewed the voting on SCOTUS noms in the past, and prior to 2005, if a nominee wasn’t sunk from the start, they normally were confirmed with a landslide vote. But since ‘05, it’s been almost purely partisan voting. I don’t recall what changed then, but you can almost pinpoint when it did.

[B-Fly]

A hearing that ends by mid-October is a good start. If the Dems would also guarantee a pre-election confirmation vote - barring disqualifying information coming to light during the hearing, of course - then I would support their call for investigations and an extended hearing.

I wish I could believe that Democrats are acting in good faith, and in the best interests of the accusers. As of now, I don't.

I agree that the Democrats should commit to an up/down vote on, say, October 17, if the GOP confirms that it will allow a hearing through October 15.