Uh oh, Another allegation against Kavanaugh

Humble me Lord said:

I still don't see how this affects his ability to read and follow the US constitution and make rational decisions.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, rapists aren't very good decision makers.

jazzflower92 said:

That's really bad reasoning. Overlooking past crimes is not a good thing, especially if he wasn't punished for them.

Click to expand...

And particularly if he is found to be lying about them...

Seems like this is beginning to establish a pattern of behavior from ole Brett. But I'm sure we'll hear from the usual suspects that investigations are "unamerican" and a "waste of time".
Ringo

Humble me Lord said:

I still don't see how this affects his ability to read and follow the US constitution and make rational decisions.

Click to expand...

The point is they would prefer to have another activist filling that slot so they can ram their unpopular agenda down the citizens throats once and for all.

That's really bad reasoning. Overlooking past crimes is not a good thing, especially if he wasn't punished for them.

Click to expand...

First, you have to have crimes.

Albion said:

First, you have to have crimes.

Click to expand...

I agree. The confirmation process should be put on hold while the claims are thoroughly investigated. Good call!

Sistrin said:

And the second claim comes via twitter penned by Creepy inappropriate content Lawyer Michael Avenatti.

Click to expand...

Trump had a chance to have Kavanaugh's background checked out discreetly by the FBI. He and the Republicans didn't wanna.

You want Avenattis? That's how you get Avenattis.

Gigimo said:

The point is they would prefer to have another activist filling that slot so they can ram their unpopular agenda down the citizens throats once and for all.

Click to expand...

Ahh, like how the right is trying to do!

essentialsaltes said:

Trump had a chance to have Kavanaugh's background checked out discreetly by the FBI. He and the Republicans didn't wanna.

Click to expand...

I read your signature. I believe Lovecraft would, if his words meant anything, acknowledge Kavanaugh has had his background checked out by the FBI six times already.

From NYT

In a statement, Judge Kavanaugh denied the allegation from the woman, Deborah Ramirez, and called it “a smear, plain and simple.” The New Yorker did not confirm with other eyewitnesses that Judge Kavanaugh was at the party.

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

Sistrin said:

I read your signature. I believe Lovecraft would, if his words meant anything, acknowledge Kavanaugh has had his background checked out by the FBI six times already.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is a fact that there have been 6 background checks. This really doesn't mean anything in the face of novel information. In that case, we would not want to rest on any preconceived opinion, but rather to discover and establish the truth (as best we can).

essentialsaltes said:

Yes, it is a fact that there have been 6 background checks. This really doesn't mean anything in the face of novel information. In that case, we would not want to rest on any preconceived opinion, but rather to discover and establish the truth (as best we can).

Click to expand...

I don't feel many are after the truth today. They would rather rest in their preconceived opinion. Then of course spread that opinion around and claim it is fact. It's the vogue thing to do today.

Debating or discussing aspects/issues? To much work today. Labeling them as 'siding with evil' instead pretty shuts that down, and the preconceived opinion reigns. Sadly, then they think they won and are extremely righteous.

This attitude is very contagious, and it's going around in just about any circle.

No wonder we can't find anyone decent to govern. Who in their right mind would place themselves in this position? Rationale and reason is out today.

Humble me Lord said:

Second woman comes forward with misconduct claims

Looks like we're going to have to fire up the microwave and get a couple more cases of popcorn.

Does this make Ford's claim more credible? Is this an offense that he should be punished for?

Click to expand...

IMO, it makes the original claim less credible.

The confirmation process should go forward; if he is guilty of crimes, there is plenty of time for a proper trial, and then impeachment. Until then, he is innocent until proven guilty.

It seems Communists are resolute towards upending that maxim of law, attempting to change it to "guilty until proven innocent".

I find this circumstance a test to the #metoo movement - which is very important. Can we see our way though being fair to both parties, because if we can't? It diminish the movement and will politicize it. This is too important, but it easily can.

Not having an investigation while whining about "due process" (not you but other Kavanaugh supporters) is not "being fair to both sides". It's also really odd to whine that Kavanaugh is being treated unfairly but argue against an investigation that could clear it up pretty decisively.

Someone on one thread (maybe this one?) was talking about "preconceived notions". Their point was that those who believed Ford had already decided that Kavanaugh was guilty, but I'd humbly submit that Kavanaugh's supporters don't seem to care; they've decided that he's innocent and no amount of proof or investigation will shatter that belief.
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

Not having an investigation while whining about "due process" (not you but other Kavanaugh supporters) is not "being fair to both sides". It's also really odd to whine that Kavanaugh is being treated unfairly but argue against an investigation that could clear it up pretty decisively.

Someone on one thread (maybe this one?) was talking about "preconceived notions". Their point was that those who believed Ford had already decided that Kavanaugh was guilty, but I'd humbly submit that Kavanaugh's supporters don't seem to care; they've decided that he's innocent and no amount of proof or investigation will shatter that belief.
Ringo

Click to expand...

If there was a trespass, the proper venue and remedy for his accuser is through a suit filed in the court system - not the confirmation process. The Senate, in its sovereign jurisdiction, has no responsibility to investigate innocence or guilt (though it may do so if it wishes) during the confirmation process for a Justice; however, it must presume innocence until guilt is proven (again, through the court system).

ananda said:

If there was a trespass, the proper venue and remedy for his accuser is through a suit filed in the court system - not the confirmation process. The Senate, in its sovereign jurisdiction, has no responsibility to investigate innocence or guilt (though it may do so if it wishes) during the confirmation process for a Justice; however, it must presume innocence until guilt is proven (again, through the court system).

Click to expand...

So in other words, you want an excuse to ignore the allegations because of made-up malarkey about "sovereign jurisdiction".

Weird that many of the people who supported the whole "make America great again" and "drain the swamp" platform are the same ones who want to push through a Supreme Court nominee, with credible sexual assault allegations, without any insight or investigation.

It's almost like it's making a mockery of the advise and consent role of the Congress..
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

So in other words, you want an excuse to ignore the allegations because of made-up malarkey about "sovereign jurisdiction".

Weird that many of the people who supported the whole "make America great again" and "drain the swamp" platform are the same ones who want to push through a Supreme Court nominee, with credible sexual assault allegations, without any insight or investigation.

It's almost like it's making a mockery of the advise and consent role of the Congress..
Ringo

Click to expand...

I state "sovereign jurisdiction" merely in the sense that the Senate - not Congress - possesses the sovereign (final) authority to give Advice and Consent to the appointment of "Judges of the supreme Court" (Const II.2.ii). The Constitution does not require the Senate to judge any specific case during its Advice and Consent process.

My purpose is not to "push through this nominee," but rather to uphold the Law and the core principles of the Republic, especially innocence until guilt has been proven.

(As a matter of fact, I oppose his candidacy & nomination on other grounds.)

Ringo84 said:

...they've decided that he's innocent and no amount of proof...

Click to expand...

You don't have any proof, none what-so-ever. The allegations are baseless, both of them, and that is why his innocence is extolled.

In addition we know if the Democrats are allowed to open an investigation, even through the offices of the FBI, and it will never end. The purpose of the investigation will be to block the appointment, nothing else.

essentialsaltes said:

Yes, it is a fact that there have been 6 background checks. This really doesn't mean anything in the face of novel information.

Click to expand...

Except this "novel information" amounts to nothing more than an unfounded allegation made by a woman who can't even remember what year the alleged action was even supposed to have taken place.