Supreme Court of the United States

[Bernie Brewer]

Baldgriff, the issue is that he's not being "hung" or even threatened with jail or impeachment from his current lifetime appointment on the federal bench. He's being vetted prior to a 'yes'/'no' vote for a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court - a position to which he has no reasonable expectation of confirmation or entitlement. If he has been damaged by malicious lies, there are remedies for that in both our civil and criminal legal systems (defamation, malicious prosecution, perjury) - those avenues will all be available to him (and/or prosecutors). He absolutely under no circumstances has a basis to demand a "presumption of innocence" or "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the mind of any Senator casting a vote on his confirmation or any member of the public weighing in on whether he should be confirmed. As a lawyer and federal judge, I sure as heck hope that Judge Kavanaugh himself recognizes that.

Do any of us know whether Kavanaugh is guilty of the attempted rape of Ford, whether he participated in deliberate intoxication or drugging of Ramirez to facilitate sexual assault, whether he participated in the kinds of chain rape activities/parties described by Swetnick? No, but we have evidence. We have testimonial evidence under oath from Ford. We have allegations from Ramirez and Swetnick. We have various former colleagues reporting his partying and drinking habits. We have involvement in a bar fight that goes to a pattern of potential loss of control/violence when drinking. The issue isn't the drinking. As you said, many of us have drunk to excess in high school, college or later. The problem is the alleged sexual assaults and the pattern established by the testimonial evidence that lends credence to the idea that this man was prone to aggressive behavior when drinking (to excess) and partying. His questionable testimony in response to questions about his drinking and his yearbook aren't damnable in a vacuum, but as evidence mounts that calls into question the honesty of his responses under oath, that hit to his credibility spreads to his denials of the truly abhorrent behavior described by his accusers. The behavior that I hope and believe is not reflective of "dumb stuff we all did in high school or college". I got drunk in college and law school, no doubt, but I never got aggressive or violent toward women or anybody else. The mounting evidence raises real questions re: Kavanaugh on that score. And while it may not be strong enough to merit a criminal conviction or impeachment from the circuit court, it certainly establishes risk and doubt and serious concerns about character and temperament that would more than warrant a Senator to vote 'no', independent of their assessment of his credentials and how he'd rule on cases before the Supreme Court.

In light of all the bars she and nonsense being skewed in this thread, you yet again present the reasonable and thoughtful response. Thank you. I don’t totally agree with you but I get what your conveying.

This isn’t about anyone other than Kavanaugh and whether he is worthy of a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. I’m now officially in the fence. But again, neither party has conducted themselves appropriately and I find that completely unacceptable. They’ve have both set precedents that will become the norm going forward. Clarence Thomas who?

[B-Fly]

All well and good, but then how can you justify voting for Menedez?

There are significant differences. First, Menendez has not been charged with any violent behavior. I view the corruption charges as largely substantiated, even though the jury hung, but I don't credit the child prostitute rumors based on the DR police reports that girls admitted they were paid to lie about having had sex with Menendez. Second, if Kavanaugh is voted down I fully expect him to be replaced by a nominee of similar judicial bent. Trump will still be making the appointment and the Democrats chances of winning the Senate or even picking up a seat are in my opinion quite slim. So voting 'no' on Kavanaugh is the equivalent of replacing Menendez with another Democratic Senator. As you know, I am deeply pissed that the state Democratic Party failed to pressure Menendez to step down and then failed to encourage/support a credible primary challenger. Still deeply pissed. Potentially pissed enough to vote third party or write in or not cast a vote for Senate in the General Election. I'm not confident where I'll land on Election Day. But outcomes matter, policies and votes matter, and opposition to Trump and the GOP matter. Kavanaugh or his replacement, no predictable difference in macro outcomes. Menendez or Hugin, significant potential difference in macro outcomes. That's why a vote for Menendez is still a possibility for me, despite my very strong misgivings.

[nots]

There are significant differences. First, Menendez has not been charged with any violent behavior. I view the corruption charges as largely substantiated, even though the jury hung, but I don't credit the child prostitute rumors based on the DR police reports that girls admitted they were paid to lie about having had sex with Menendez. Second, if Kavanaugh is voted down I fully expect him to be replaced by a nominee of similar judicial bent. Trump will still be making the appointment and the Democrats chances of winning the Senate or even picking up a seat are in my opinion quite slim. So voting 'no' on Kavanaugh is the equivalent of replacing Menendez with another Democratic Senator. As you know, I am deeply pissed that the state Democratic Party failed to pressure Menendez to step down and then failed to encourage/support a credible primary challenger. Still deeply pissed. Potentially pissed enough to vote third party or write in or not cast a vote for Senate in the General Election. I'm not confident where I'll land on Election Day. But outcomes matter, policies and votes matter, and opposition to Trump and the GOP matter. Kavanaugh or his replacement, no predictable difference in macro outcomes. Menendez or Hugin, significant potential difference in macro outcomes. That's why a vote for Menendez is still a possibility for me, despite my very strong misgivings.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/sd-me-menendez-case-20171012-story.html

The underage prostitution story has actual corroboaration beyond the girls themselves recanting.

[onejayhawk]

You're the one obsessed with the Clinton's. I've said nothing about them. In fact, the last time I mentioned a Clinton it was in reference to her campaigning for Andrew Gillum being a mistake. I think she's terrible, so let's focus on the present allegations.

You have not said anything and you should have because Bill Clinton is the appropriate context. You cannot excuse Bill Clinton and condemn Kavanaugh.

J

[Sour Masher]

You have not said anything and you should have because Bill Clinton is the appropriate context. You cannot excuse Bill Clinton and condemn Kavanaugh.

J

Is your stance that they should both be condemned, or both be excused? Why do you believe the allegations against Clinton, but not Kavanaugh? You seem to condemn Clinton, but dismiss the allegations against Kavanaugh, which would make you guilty of the hypocrisy you are accusing others of. Do you think it is okay to give a pass to a conservative, because you think liberals give a pass to their guys? How does anyone get better if both sides feel that way and continue to elect terribly flawed people? Are all we ever going to do is support our team, no matter what, and when confronted with the wrongfulness of doing so, say, well, guys on your side did the same wrong thing?

For the record, I would never support Bill Clinton being appointed to the Supreme Court, or vote for him for public office. And it is particularly perplexing to me that anyone on the right is supporting Kavanaugh for all the reasons B-Fly points out. There are basically no political ramifications to moving on from Kavanaugh to the next conservative judge in this moment. I could understand the denials and defenses of Kavanaugh more if it meant he was being replaced by a progressive. He would not be. Why continue to fight for a candidate when credible, serious allegations hang over him, and his own conduct raises serious concerns about his temperament and fitness for the high office he seeks?

[Ken]

For the record, right now, I would never support Bill Clinton being appointed to the Supreme Court, or vote for him for public office.

I'm right there with you on both Clinton and Kavanaugh.

This is just my curiosity, but why did you say "right now" above?

[Sour Masher]

I'm right there with you on both Clinton and Kavanaugh.

This is just my curiosity, but why did you say "right now" above?

I actually just edited it, because I did not vote for Bill Clinton back when we ran for president (I was old enough too for his second term, but did not vote in that election). But I wanted to be honest about the possibility that I might have voted for him, if I was more aware of politics at the time, because I would have been ignorant of or dismissive of the allegations against him at the time (if my memory serves me right, much of what we know now wasn't common knowledge then, but I may be wrong). Back then, I'd have been a new, young voter, and I think I may have believed the people telling me he didn't do the things he was accused of. Now I am older and I am able to step out of the echo chamber of "my side."

[Mithrandir]

You have not said anything and you should have because Bill Clinton is the appropriate context. You cannot excuse Bill Clinton and condemn Kavanaugh.

J

So what about people like me who condemn both Clinton and Kavanaugh? More people like me and this world would be so much better

[nots]

Is your stance that they should both be condemned, or both be excused? Why do you believe the allegations against Clinton, but not Kavanaugh? You seem to condemn Clinton, but dismiss the allegations against Kavanaugh, which would make you guilty of the hypocrisy you are accusing others of. Do you think it is okay to give a pass to a conservative, because you think liberals give a pass to their guys? How does anyone get better if both sides feel that way and continue to elect terribly flawed people? Are all we ever going to do is support our team, no matter what, and when confronted with the wrongfulness of doing so, say, well, guys on your side did the same wrong thing?

For the record, I would never support Bill Clinton being appointed to the Supreme Court, or vote for him for public office. And it is particularly perplexing to me that anyone on the right is supporting Kavanaugh for all the reasons B-Fly points out. There are basically no political ramifications to moving on from Kavanaugh to the next conservative judge in this moment. I could understand the denials and defenses of Kavanaugh more if it meant he was being replaced by a progressive. He would not be. Why continue to fight for a candidate when credible, serious allegations hang over him, and his own conduct raises serious concerns about his temperament and fitness for the high office he seeks?

I don’t agree with there not being political ramifications. If they pulled his nomination today, the Dems would immediately say there isn’t enough time before the election to do a thorough vetting of Amy Barrett (or whomever). They would hope to retake the Senate and keep the seat open until 2020. If you want to make the argument the GOP deserves that treatment because of Garland, that’s a fair argument. Saying the GOP would get a conservative approved so what’s the difference, isn’t a fair one.

[Ken]

I actually just edited it, because I did not vote for Bill Clinton back when we ran for president (I was old enough too for his second term, but did not vote in that election). But I wanted to be honest about the possibility that I might have voted for him, if I was more aware of politics at the time, because I would have been ignorant of or dismissive of the allegations against him at the time. Back then, I'd have been a new, young voter, and I think I may have believed the people telling me he didn't do the things he was accused of. Now I am older and I am able to step out of the echo chamber of "my side."

Good self analysis, I think those concepts apply to most of us at certain times, certainly me. Thanks SM.

[Gregg]

You have not said anything and you should have because Bill Clinton is the appropriate context. You cannot excuse Bill Clinton and condemn Kavanaugh.

J

Of course you can.

I do not know very much about politics. I believe it is a dirty business with the main goal of winning and then getting re-elected. Anything good that comes out of it is just frosting on the cake.

[Sour Masher]

I don’t agree with there not being political ramifications. If they pulled his nomination today, the Dems would immediately say there isn’t enough time before the election to do a thorough vetting of Amy Barrett (or whomever). They would hope to retake the Senate and keep the seat open until 2020. If you want to make the argument the GOP deserves that treatment because of Garland, that’s a fair argument. Saying the GOP would get a conservative approved so what’s the difference, isn’t a fair one.

Well, for the record, if that happens, while I will understand the politics of that, and I'd understand the arguments that the Republicans should have been more careful of their initial pick, and I'd understand the whataboutery of, you screwed us on Garland, so we will do the same, I would not support it. Even though I very much would love to see a more moderate judge appointed. I don't think fighting fire with fire is wise long term. I want decorum and I want both sides to act honorably and with integrity. There should be honor, even among thieves and politicians (maybe I'm being redundant in distinguishing between them)

[B-Fly]

I don’t agree with there not being political ramifications. If they pulled his nomination today, the Dems would immediately say there isn’t enough time before the election to do a thorough vetting of Amy Barrett (or whomever). They would hope to retake the Senate and keep the seat open until 2020. If you want to make the argument the GOP deserves that treatment because of Garland, that’s a fair argument. Saying the GOP would get a conservative approved so what’s the difference, isn’t a fair one.

No way would any more than a handful of grandstanding Democrats even remotely suggest that the seat should be kept open until after the 2020 elections. If that's your fear that's just absurd. (And that's assuming the Democrats control the Senate after the midterms, which I already view as highly unrealistic.)

[baldgriff]

I want decorum and I want both sides to act honorably and with integrity. There should be honor, even among thieves and politicians (maybe I'm being redundant in distinguishing between them)

This is something we both agree on!

[DMT]

. I want decorum and I want both sides to act honorably and with integrity. There should be honor, even among thieves and politicians (maybe I'm being redundant in distinguishing between them)

This is why Republicans are in control.