Supreme Court of the United States

[Sour Masher]

Second, the myth of "sociopath". Dr. Ford, depsite my disagreement with her, isn't nor needs to be a sociopath to engage in this. I could point to multiple cases where defendants were falsely accused, and the accuser was certainly no sociopath. In fact, I'll choose the most extreme and well-known recent case; the UVA/Rolling Stone false accusations. That poor young woman may well be mentally ill, but to conflate mental illness with being a sociopath is an extreme, and for the vast number of cases, reckless statement. Now, to be very clear, I'm not saying Dr. Ford is mentally ill - but in the most extreme, well-proven case of a false rape accusation, the individual making the accusation is not a sociopath.

You are right, I should not have so narrowly defined what Ford would have to be to turn her and Kavanaugh's life upside down by making a false accusation against him. I guess you and I just see different things when we see her talk about this. Maybe I am naive and unable to wrap my head around this, but even with everything you spell out, I cannot wrap my head around why someone who is not a. a socipath, b. mentally unstable c. cooerced via threat, or d. a vindictive spiteful, horrible person would ever do what Ford is doing right now unless what she says happened did happen, or something close enough that she perceives it to be what happened.

I admit that maybe I'm blinded by how I perceive people in general, and my read on Ford, which may be wrong. But I really think those on the right who seem so certain is lying that they are willing to give Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment on the court, despite her claims, are being blinded by their extreme disdain/disgust with the left. Since those on the right believe the left is capable of fabricating this story, they, by extension, assume Ford is capable of being part of that lie. She just doesn't seem like she is that person to me. Anyone who would do what she is doing while knowing the person being accused is innocent is a vile person, or a mentally imbalanced person who believes that things happened that did not happen in her life--things that have stuck with her and haunted her for decades. That is what the right must believe of Ford, and I don't believe that of her based on her circumstances, the specifics of her case, and her testimony. You don't want to use the term sociopath or mentally ill for her, but what do you believe about her to make you believe her story is not true? You say that Graham saw what was really going on. What is that exactly in terms of Ford? What is she? I liar? Mentally imbalanced? What other options are there given the specifics of this case and the 100% certainty she has expressed that Kavanaugh tried to rape her? She isn't dumb. She isn't some confused, naive, unintelligent dupe that can be manipulated by the Dems into believing and saying things that are not true. Either she is lying about these things or she is not. Or she believes them, but she is crazy and they didn't happen. Has to be one of those two, right?

[DMT]

Oh come on SM, most on the right believe she suffered from trauma, just not from Kavanaugh. Because they're too cowardly to attack her. At least chance has the balls to admit he thinks she's lying. He's also admitted that he really only cares about winning, just like most Republicans. Party before country. And of course, to hold up Lindsay Graham as a beacon of moderation is laughable. His faux outrage was totally strategic after Durbin had Kavanaugh on the ropes. Graham has turned into a Trump stooge once he realized Trump had taken over the party.

There's absolutely no sensible reason not to pause and let the FBI investigate. Why wouldn't an innocent man want his name cleared by a full investigation? What is he afraid of them discovering? Why is Mark Judge hiding out in Delaware? Why did Kavanaugh lie through his teeth about the meaning of his yearbook entry and his drinking behaviors? Anyone who partied a lot knows he's totally full of shit claiming he's never had memory lapses. If any of us acted the way he did yesterday, our potential employer would have thrown us out of the interview. The Republicans simply don't care because they can win this incredibly important battle.

[frae]

"Had I any remaining doubts, they'd have been entirely vanquished by Lindsay Graham calling out this crapfest for what it was. This wasn't Ted Cruz, or some other hard right, burn 'em down Senator, this was a Senator renowned for his cross-aisle work, part of the gang of eight on immigration reform, and a GOP Senator that voted for Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. He watched every bit of this, and recognized - at last, to some of us - what precisely was going on."'

Graham only went nuts when Durbin scored points on the FBI line of questioning. He realized that letting the Prosecutor have more time to just walk Kavanaugh through his calendar and other points wasn't going to do them any good. He went nuts to change the tone of the proceeding. It then became 5 minutes of the Democrats trying to ask questions and Kavanaugh hitting talking points (did you know he worked hard at athletics? or that he studied a lot?) and then the Republicans giving 5 minute speeches about how the Judge was a good guy who shouldn't have been put through this.

The rich prep school kid was being told he might not get something and he sure as hell acted like someone who had never heard that before. The facial reactions, asking Senators back the questions they asked him, refusing to give straight answers, replying with what aboutisms, and so on. You could have nominated any number of people I would not have liked but like Neil I would have said this is what my party gets for losing. Instead you nominated a policital operative, did you listen to his opening remarks they could have been part of a stump speech for a Republican (imagine if they had actually turned over 100% of his Bush admin records) and in the end what turns out to be a pretty bad guy.

He shouldnt get a seat on the court but as it stands right now he only needs one of Manchin, Murkowski, or Collins. He will probably get there and it will be a sad day.

[nots]

I was surprised Ford was not asked about when and who scrubbed her social media footprint.

[Sour Masher]

Oh come on SM, most on the right believe she suffered from trauma, just not from Kavanaugh. Because they're too cowardly to attack her. At least chance has the balls to admit he thinks she's lying. He's also admitted that he really only cares about winning, just like most Republicans. Party before country. And of course, to hold up Lindsay Graham as a beacon of moderation is laughable. His faux outrage was totally strategic after Durbin had Kavanaugh on the ropes. Graham has turned into a Trump stooge once he realized Trump had taken over the party.

There's absolutely no sensible reason not to pause and let the FBI investigate. Why wouldn't an innocent man want his name cleared by a full investigation? What is he afraid of them discovering? Why is Mark Judge hiding out in Delaware? Why did Kavanaugh lie through his teeth about the meaning of his yearbook entry and his drinking behaviors? Anyone who partied a lot knows he's totally full of shit claiming he's never had memory lapses. If any of us acted the way he did yesterday, our potential employer would have thrown us out of the interview. The Republicans simply don't care because they can win this incredibly important battle.

You are probably right about all of this. I don't want to believe all of this, because it would make me want to jump on board with B-Fly's two country solution. I cannot fathom how anyone would be so eager to "win" that they'd put up a man with Kavanaugh's crimes hanging over his head, without further investigation. I don't want to believe that millions in this country don't actually care if he did this or not.

That doesn't even get into the fact that he comported himself in a way that should disqualify him on its own. He dropped all pretense that he would be a fair and balanced servant of the law. He also revealed himself to be childish and surly, but that is no longer a strike against public servants these days, as is clear by the man who is in the WH.

[nots]

That doesn't even get into the fact that he comported himself in a way that should disqualify him on its own. He dropped all pretense that he would be a fair and balanced servant of the law. He also revealed himself to be childish and surly, but that is no longer a strike against public servants these days, as is clear by the man who is in the WH.

I am real close to agreeing with the first part of this ( not the childish and surly part.). It would be hard for me to accept he can be unbiased based on some of what he said in his opening statement.
As I said yesterday, I think this was handled poorly by both parties. Senators deal with confidentiality issues all the time—Sen Feinstein should have alerted Grassley ( or a non-senile Republican on the committee) when she first received the letter and the issue could have been investigated. She could have shown the letter (with names redacted) to Kavanaugh in her private meeting with him and watched his reaction. Lot of different ways she could have played this to protect bother process and the victim. Instead, she advised her to hire a partisan lawyer (pro-bono) and sat on things until the last minute. Shameful. I will now add her to Menedez and Cruz as Senators I hope lose next month. Side note to California: smarten up out there, she’s running against a Democrat. She’s borderline senile. I know nothing about who she’s running against, but I’m guessing he/she is progressive. Do the right thing and vote her out. She made this way more political than it needed to be. You will still have a reliable Democratic vote even without her.
The GOP should subpoena Mark Judge. I understand his problems with alcohol and he doesn’t want to be involved but he is a key witness. Not calling him gives the illusion (whether real or not) of playing politics and will forever put a stain on Judge Kavanaugh. I understand not calling the other two accuser’s because their stories have way too many holes (Avientti’s is laugh out loud funny with all its nonsense). To counter your (just) claim that the Dems are playing politics, you play.....politics.

[cardboardbox]

man I'm glad I'm not following politics much anymore. This would have made me really angry.

[Sour Masher]

I am real close to agreeing with the first part of this ( not the childish and surly part.). It would be hard for me to accept he can be unbiased based on some of what he said in his opening statement.
As I said yesterday, I think this was handled poorly by both parties. Senators deal with confidentiality issues all the time—Sen Feinstein should have alerted Grassley ( or a non-senile Republican on the committee) when she first received the letter and the issue could have been investigated. She could have shown the letter (with names redacted) to Kavanaugh in her private meeting with him and watched his reaction. Lot of different ways she could have played this to protect bother process and the victim. Instead, she advised her to hire a partisan lawyer (pro-bono) and sat on things until the last minute. Shameful. I will now add her to Menedez and Cruz as Senators I hope lose next month. Side note to California: smarten up out there, she’s running against a Democrat. She’s borderline senile. I know nothing about who she’s running against, but I’m guessing he/she is progressive. Do the right thing and vote her out. She made this way more political than it needed to be. You will still have a reliable Democratic vote even without her.
The GOP should subpoena Mark Judge. I understand his problems with alcohol and he doesn’t want to be involved but he is a key witness. Not calling him gives the illusion (whether real or not) of playing politics and will forever put a stain on Judge Kavanaugh. I understand not calling the other two accuser’s because their stories have way too many holes (Avientti’s is laugh out loud funny with all its nonsense). To counter your (just) claim that the Dems are playing politics, you play.....politics.

Yeah, I will reiterate that, personally, I can't/won't defend Feinstein or other Democrats on how this was handled. And I agree that Avientti is an unneeded distraction in this. I just wish that how the politics of this has been played by both sides didn't make it so that citizens no longer care about what actually happened, and would rather hate the other side and see their side win. As I keep repeating--one of these people is lying, and if it is Kavanaugh, he has no business being on the SC. It boggles my mind that Republicans are rushing a vote on this rather than investigating further. The only retort I hear is, "if Dems wanted that, she should have this." But this is something everyone should want. We can castigate the Dems for playing politics, but that should not stop us from wanting to know the truth here.

[Judge Jude]

I am real close to agreeing with the first part of this ( not the childish and surly part.). It would be hard for me to accept he can be unbiased based on some of what he said in his opening statement.
As I said yesterday, I think this was handled poorly by both parties. Senators deal with confidentiality issues all the time—Sen Feinstein should have alerted Grassley ( or a non-senile Republican on the committee) when she first received the letter and the issue could have been investigated. She could have shown the letter (with names redacted) to Kavanaugh in her private meeting with him and watched his reaction. Lot of different ways she could have played this to protect bother process and the victim. Instead, she advised her to hire a partisan lawyer (pro-bono) and sat on things until the last minute. Shameful. I will now add her to Menedez and Cruz as Senators I hope lose next month. Side note to California: smarten up out there, she’s running against a Democrat. She’s borderline senile. I know nothing about who she’s running against, but I’m guessing he/she is progressive. Do the right thing and vote her out. She made this way more political than it needed to be. You will still have a reliable Democratic vote even without her.
The GOP should subpoena Mark Judge. I understand his problems with alcohol and he doesn’t want to be involved but he is a key witness. Not calling him gives the illusion (whether real or not) of playing politics and will forever put a stain on Judge Kavanaugh. I understand not calling the other two accuser’s because their stories have way too many holes (Avientti’s is laugh out loud funny with all its nonsense). To counter your (just) claim that the Dems are playing politics, you play.....politics.

this is a head start on the problem.

anyone who does not feel disgust at both parties in this disaster - and no, it doesn't have to be equal - is, well, part of the problem. it's blatantly obvious that is is outrageous for any SCOTUS nominee to go thru the entire Senate hearing process and THEN be faced with unprovable challenges to his candidacy, when the ranking minority member knows about it two months in advance.

AND it is outrageous for there not to be a FBI investigation once the first accuser passes some sort of credibility challenge (the other two, not so much). that is true today, and it will be true if Ds control all in 2021 and put up a nominee. I stipulate that right now. much like I objected then and now to the lack of a vote for Merrick Garland. I would do the same in the opposite circumstances, because values are more important than what laundry the candidate is wearing.

you guys will make lots of headway if you can agree on a simple basic set of fundamentals.

once you do that, feel free to return to yesterday's circus and offer your conclusions.

[DMT]

Why is ABA calling for an investigation? Are they a part of the vast left-wing conspiracy as well?

[DMT]

this is a head start on the problem.

anyone who does not feel disgust at both parties in this disaster - and no, it doesn't have to be equal - is, well, part of the problem. it's blatantly obvious that is is outrageous for any SCOTUS nominee to go thru the entire Senate hearing process and THEN be faced with unprovable challenges to his candidacy, when the ranking minority member knows about it two months in advance. AND it is outrageous for there not to be a FBI investigation once the first accuser passes some sort of credibility challenge (the other two, not so much).

you guys will make lots of headway if you can agree on a simple basic set of fundamentals.

once you do that, feel free to return to yesterday's circus and offer your conclusions.

Has anyone defended Feinstein?

[nots]

Wow, great move by Flake. Credit to the GOP on this

[frae]

Wow, great move by Flake. Credit to the GOP on this

It is, but the question is since it is totally not binding to McConnell does he have the votes without Flake? And if he does does the negative PR bother him. He still only needs 2 of Manchin, Murkowski, Collins, Heitkamp, and Flake to pass it. I don't know that Flake would stand up on the Senate floor and vote No if McConnell put it to a vote without an investigation.

[DMT]

Wtf did I just watch???

[baldgriff]

missed it.... what did Flake do?