She Actually Appeared

[TLK Valentine]

And which party used the "nuclear option" concerning the confirmation of SCOTUS nominees, which now means the Republicans get to use it at the current time?

The GOP, of course... meaning the Dems will have it as soon as they take the Senate.

 

[NotreDame]

The facts that it is a responsibility of the Congress and that there is a stated and codified process for doing so confers that it is a "duty." What is dubious however is your statement "Of course, the Senate arguably gave its advice and consent, which was no nominees until after the presidential election."

.

The facts that it is a responsibility of the Congress and that there is a stated and codified process for doing so confers that it is a "duty."

A duty? No. The Constitution creates the obligations of the Senate in regards to presidential nominees. There being no Senate rule mandating any action regarding a presidential nominee, the Advice and Consent of the Constitution is controlling.

The Advice and Consent Clause does not create for the Senate a “legal obligation” or an “obligatory task.” Neither of those meanings of the word “duty” is supported by the Advice and Consent Clause of the Constitution in relation to the Senate.

Try reading the relevant constitutional provision. I’ll post the Advice and Consent Clause for you.

[The President]...shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for

Only the President has a legal obligation, an obligatory task, of nominating, but the Senate is not mandated to act upon or consider any nominee by the President.

What is dubious however is your statement "Of course, the Senate arguably gave its advice and consent, which was no nominees until after the presidential election."

Is it? Did the Senate give advice? Yes. What was the advice? No nominations will be approved until after the election.

Nice civics lesson by the way. You offered no cogent argument for your position but it was interesting to read your thoughts

I enjoy smack talk, but not when I did make a cogent argument (a point addressed in last paragraph of this post) and the facts do not support your argument. When you assert the Senate has a “duty” but the facts, such as the text of the Advice and Consent Clause, and a lack of ANY Senate rule requiring the Senate do anything in regards to presidential nominees, do not remotely support your view, you should dispense with the smack talk. It makes little sense to talk smack while making a pathetic argument of what the Senate must do when there’s nothing mandating the Senate to act.

So, your snarky, smack talk civics lesson comment is misplaced, as you’ve made no argument showing the Senate must act in relation to presidential nominees.

Or perhaps it was just a bad day for you and you missed how plausible it is for the Senate to tell the President no votes for any nominees prior to the election constitutes as advice. In other words, Mr. President it is not an appropriate time to nominate prior to the election. Yep, that sounds like advice. That’s a cogent argument.

 

[NotreDame]

Admittedly "often" is a subjective word. Perhaps I might have used "a number of?"

You and I clearly have different points of view. You deal and have dealt with young women strong enough to think relatively clearly and although frightened involve law enforcement. My experience has been mostly with young women that did not have that strength or those decision making skills. And I dare say I have probably (based upon your stated 13 years) dealt with at least as many of these victims and probably more.

Indeed "get away" but for young women who are not clear headed running to the bathroom is getting away, at least temporarily.

I'm sure this is true, considering that you qualified your statement with the word "many."

Why not? If her statement is true then she effectively separated herself from her assailant.

I've know too many young women who have done a similar thing to think it should create doubt.

Considering that the boys allegedly were in the same room as her and that they, again allegedly, were trying to keep her screams from being heard by people outside the room it is entirely possible she could hear them laughing.

Traumatized victims often forget some matters of fact. Do you claim that is not true?

I, having watched their testimonies am in the odd position that I believe that they both believe they are telling the truth. I'm not sure there is a liar here as much as there is a memory issue involved. If she is a traumatized victim memory issues are possible, the same can be said of an 18 year old who drank heavily.

You know what would be preferable? If you spared me and everyone else your guessing game, and your attempt to vouch for your point of view.

And I dare say I have probably (based upon your stated 13 years) dealt with at least as many of these victims and probably more.

Spare me the speculative nonsense. I’m not impressed with your demonstrated proficiency of making a bad argument of speculation.

I couldn’t care less about how well you can vouch for yourself. Oh, I’m so convinced you are right with your compelling, no, ineluctable argument based on speculation and self vouching. Let me roll out the red carpet of baloney for you.

Indeed "get away" but for young women who are not clear headed running to the bathroom is getting away, at least temporarily.

In isolation, this makes sense but this conduct must be analyzed in relation to the entire incident. She flees to the bathroom, to get away from her assailant. She’s there for some unknown amount of time (the amount of time is relevant, something needed to be known). While in the bathroom, seeking refuge from her attacker, she then decides at some point to exit her place of relative safety and go downstairs, into a room her assailant is located, and walk past him to exit the house. That’s odd. I’ve never had ANY victim behave remotely close to that specific act and decision by Ms. Ford.

In addition, she knows she has one other friend in the home, other people are in the house, located downstairs, so why not immediately flee downstairs to where several people are located? That’s odd.

Considering that the boys allegedly were in the same room as her and that they, again allegedly, were trying to keep her screams from being heard by people outside the room it is entirely possible she could hear them laughing.

Over music turned up loud enough to try and down out her screams or any scream by her? That’s questionable.

I, having watched their testimonies am in the odd position that I believe that they both believe they are telling the truth. I'm not sure there is a liar here

I venture no opinion as to whether there is a liar. For me there are too many unanswered questions regarding some of the details of Ms. Ford’s account, the statement by Judge he has never seen Kavanaugh behave in the manner described, Ms. Ford’s friends not recalling ever seeing Kavanaugh at a party or at a party they went to with Ms. Ford, leads me to conclude her accusation isn’t strong enough to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.

 

[NotreDame]

If I remember correctly it is on page 2 of the synopsis that reports 1900 erroneous convictions of only 3 specific crimes. Perhaps you bristle at the word "games." Fair enough, the post I was responding to was referring to skillful prosecutors and their ability to bring forth truth. I will amend my comment to include "skill" instead of "games."

Edifying. Now, tell me how those numbers reflect poorly on prosecutors?

 

[whatbogsends]

American conservatives almost universally regard Kavanaugh's animated testimony as a watershed moment. We have all seen our conservative ideas being maligned as bigotry, as racism and sexism and as evil, just like Kavanagh had been smeared from long before the sexual allegations came up. He spoke for all conservatives in his firing back with all barrels against the smears and the mindless hatred of the Democratic left. He said what we all felt.
Thoroughly decent people who have thusly been maligned by Democratic lies from the Senate, such as Mitt Romney having the snivelling Harry Reid as someone who does not pay taxes, ended up coming off as weak for bending over and taking, much like Bush took it over and over again without saying anything.

Trump does not take it like that, but people trying to leave decent, conservative lives really do not find their voice in Trump, a man who boasts of his indecency.

But Kavanaugh spoke for conservatives everywhere in his scathing review of leftist politics and the scurrilous low life who have been assassinating his character from the safety of their Senate chairs. He called them out for the slimy, immoral greaseballs that they so shamelessly show themselves to be, time and time and time again.
Win or lose, this was an historic moment for conservatives. He spoke for himself well, and in doing so, he spoke for all of us.
Of course, those on the left will disagree. But just because nobody likes to be exposed as the low life that they are, it does not make it any less true.

Jews sometimes speak of their Matza moment. In the long history of European maligning of Jewish character, it was often very easy for a Jew not of the dominant country to begin to believe the slurs being made against his kind. But when the slurs came to evolve kidnapping and bleeding out Christian children for blood to use in their matzas, it all became too preposterous.
Kavanagh being the leader of a rape gang is that kind of Matza moment.

Leftists loathe conservatives enough to say anything about us, without even caring if there is a smidgen of truth to the claim. We get that.
But the matza moment is recognizing that their hate and their spite is on their own heads, and speaks nothing of who a conservative is.

He also lied, repeatedly, under oath. I'm not talking about in relation to his memory about Dr. Ford, i'm talking about how he describes what his yearbook entries mean. Several clear lies among those answers.

 

[No Swansong]

You know what would be preferable? If you spared me and everyone else your guessing game, and your attempt to vouch for your point of view.



Spare me the speculative nonsense. I’m not impressed with your demonstrated proficiency of making a bad argument of speculation.

I couldn’t care less about how well you can vouch for yourself. Oh, I’m so convinced you are right with your compelling, no, ineluctable argument based on speculation and self vouching. Let me roll out the red carpet of baloney for you.



In isolation, this makes sense but this conduct must be analyzed in relation to the entire incident. She flees to the bathroom, to get away from her assailant. She’s there for some unknown amount of time (the amount of time is relevant, something needed to be known). While in the bathroom, seeking refuge from her attacker, she then decides at some point to exit her place of relative safety and go downstairs, into a room her assailant is located, and walk past him to exit the house. That’s odd. I’ve never had ANY victim behave remotely close to that specific act and decision by Ms. Ford.

In addition, she knows she has one other friend in the home, other people are in the house, located downstairs, so why not immediately flee downstairs to where several people are located? That’s odd.



Over music turned up loud enough to try and down out her screams or any scream by her? That’s questionable.



I venture no opinion as to whether there is a liar. For me there are too many unanswered questions regarding some of the details of Ms. Ford’s account, the statement by Judge he has never seen Kavanaugh behave in the manner described, Ms. Ford’s friends not recalling ever seeing Kavanaugh at a party or at a party they went to with Ms. Ford, leads me to conclude her accusation isn’t strong enough to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.

You know what would be preferable? If you spared me and everyone else your guessing game, and your attempt to vouch for your point of view.

There is no guess here, simply pointing out that I used a subjective word to make a point which is not an effective tool.

Spare me the speculative nonsense. I’m not impressed with your demonstrated proficiency of making a bad argument of speculation.

I couldn’t care less about how well you can vouch for yourself. Oh, I’m so convinced you are right with your compelling, no, ineluctable argument based on speculation and self vouching. Let me roll out the red carpet of baloney for you.

Ok, then instead of being kind and giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll make my point more clear and concise, considering my experience there is no question that I have far more experience dealing one on one with victims of sexual assault than you.

She flees to the bathroom, to get away from her assailant. She’s there for some unknown amount of time (the amount of time is relevant, something needed to be known).

Agreed, the amount of time there would give us a better understanding of her actual state of mind.

While in the bathroom, seeking refuge from her attacker, she then decides at some point to exit her place of relative safety and go downstairs, into a room her assailant is located, and walk past him to exit the house.

As I understand it was the only means of egress she was aware of.

That’s odd. I’ve never had ANY victim behave remotely close to that specific act and decision by Ms. Ford.

That belies your stated experience. Many of us who have worked with sexual assault victims have dealt with women who have behaved quite similarly.

Over music turned up loud enough to try and down out her screams or any scream by her? That’s questionable.

Agreed questionable, not however impossible.

For me there are too many unanswered questions regarding some of the details of Ms. Ford’s account,

Ok, your opinion is noted.

the statement by Judge he has never seen Kavanaugh behave in the manner described,

Judge was in his own words often drunk to the point of blacking out. Additionally considering his own statements I do not find him credible.

Ms. Ford’s friends not recalling ever seeing Kavanaugh at a party or at a party they went to with Ms. Ford,

2 friends did say that. These friends however are not omniscient, their memories are also 36 years removed. Is that not the point conservatives are making; that that length of time is making Ford's memories unreliable?

leads me to conclude her accusation isn’t strong enough to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.

And again your opinion is noted.


You seem to be operating under the assumption that I think she is telling the truth and is accurate in her accusations. While I do believe her to be honest, as in I believe she believes what she is reporting, I'm not convinced she is necessarily accurate in her accusations.

 

[No Swansong]

Edifying. Now, tell me how those numbers reflect poorly on prosecutors?

I wasn't attempting to smear prosecutors. I simply was pointing out that skillful prosecutors don't always bring forth the truth as the poster I was responding to implied. I believe earlier in this thread or perhaps another like it I stated that I believe most prosecutors (and judges for that matter) to be honest ethical actors in the justice system. I am clearly paraphrasing.

 

[NotreDame]

There is no guess here, simply pointing out that I used a subjective word to make a point which is not an effective tool.



Ok, then instead of being kind and giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll make my point more clear and concise, considering my experience there is no question that I have far more experience dealing one on one with victims of sexual assault than you.



Agreed, the amount of time there would give us a better understanding of her actual state of mind.



As I understand it was the only means of egress she was aware of.



That belies your stated experience. Many of us who have worked with sexual assault victims have dealt with women who have behaved quite similarly.



Agreed questionable, not however impossible.



Ok, your opinion is noted.



Judge was in his own words often drunk to the point of blacking out. Additionally considering his own statements I do not find him credible.



2 friends did say that. These friends however are not omniscient, their memories are also 36 years removed. Is that not the point conservatives are making; that that length of time is making Ford's memories unreliable?



And again your opinion is noted.


You seem to be operating under the assumption that I think she is telling the truth and is accurate in her accusations. While I do believe her to be honest, as in I believe she believes what she is reporting, I'm not convinced she is necessarily accurate in her accusations.

Ok, then instead of being kind and giving you the benefit of the doubt I'll make my point more clear and concise, considering my experience there is no question that I have far more experience dealing one on one with victims of sexual assault than you.

So you say. If only declaring it made it true, then you might have an excellent point. Your unsubstantiated, speculative, self aggrandizement comment is not substantive. Your self declaration of having more experience is certainly meritorious of a laugh, worthy of the characterization of joke and speculation, but unimpressive as anything else. Be sure to find a brass instrument the next time you want to boast about your vaunted expertise, so you can also proverbially "toot your own horn," while simultaneously typing your speculative, unknown, assertion your experience is greater than my own.

That belies your stated experience. Many of us who have worked with sexual assault victims have dealt with women who have behaved quite similarly.

Oh for the love of....borrowing your logic, your statement above "belies your stated" inexperience. See, two can play your cute, meaningless, and nonsense game.

I selectively chose my words. I said, "I’ve never had ANY victim behave remotely close to that specific act and decision by Ms. Ford." Which is to say, I have never had ANY victim, already in a place secluded and relatively secure from her assailant, subsequently exit that location and enter a room where her assailant was known or believed to be located and walk past the assailant to exit the structure.

These friends however are not omniscient, their memories are also 36 years removed. Is that not the point conservatives are making

I could not care less what point conservatives are making or seeking to make. They have their argument. I have my own.

These friends however are not omniscient, their memories are also 36 years removed.

Your same commentary is equally applicable to Ms. Ford.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that I think she is telling the truth

Not really. I am not concerned or particularly interested in knowing whether you believe Ms. Ford is or is not telling the truth, or whether you think she is or is not telling the truth. That's not information essential to my position or point of view.

I'm not convinced she is necessarily accurate in her accusations

Finally, some common ground, without any self aggrandizement by you.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I suppose it's too much to expect a man to keep his cool in front of the Senate if your career depends on it.

Yeah, if his career depended on it, you might be right. I'd say that anyone who is unjustly accused of something like that would be wont to be that heated about his reputation, especially when there's nothing left if he's not confirmed. Can't teach anymore, can't be a judge anymore, life, finished.

With a hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming, perhaps? Perhaps he's learned a few lessons from his youth.

Yeah, would be nice if there were some details. Kav kept great records of where he was and what he was doing, when and where.

 

[NotreDame]

I wasn't attempting to smear prosecutors. I simply was pointing out that skillful prosecutors don't always bring forth the truth as the poster I was responding to implied. I believe earlier in this thread or perhaps another like it I stated that I believe most prosecutors (and judges for that matter) to be honest ethical actors in the justice system. I am clearly paraphrasing.

And yet, how exactly does the article you link to demonstrate that "skillful prosecutors don't always bring forth the truth"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

In any event, we now see Kavanaugh under pressure -- a screeching, sniveling wreck.

And that was as an adult and (presumably) sober. That's as good as he gets.

I applaud him for his opening remarks. Beautifully done, perfect.

 

[Root of Jesse]

IS DR FORD DEEPLY TIED TO CIA? ⋆ The Savage Nation

 

[Root of Jesse]

In a court of law. This is a job interview. The point is to hire someone without baggage.

But at least we've seen how quickly Kavanaugh comes unglued under pressure... a pity some boys are just so emotional when things don't go their way.

To the bold, that has never, in the history of the world, happened.

 

[Root of Jesse]

They leaked it on purpose?



Of course... it's the party line.



Could they have cloned her in a lab using the DNA of Biblical Jezebel?



Not for nothing, but both those actions were done by the political party you're defending.



Except attempted rape?

No, plenty of them, including a few on the Judiciary Committee stage left, have participated in attempted rape.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Fine -- let's withdraw Kavanaugh and nominate God for SCOTUS.

God needs no nomination. He already is the Supreme Everything.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Republicans did.

The Dems used the "nuclear option" to overcome Republican obstructionism of federal judges and cabinet members, not SCOTUS. It was something the Republicans threatened back in 2003 but when they increased their numbers in 2004, they didn't do it. Reid pulled the trigger in a limited way (federal judges and cabinet members) in 2013.

It was the Republicans who extended it to SCOTUS picks once Trump was elected.

It's great how the Democrats smash the rules when they want to get something done, yet, when the same rules are applied the other way, they scream bloody murder about it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

He also lied, repeatedly, under oath. I'm not talking about in relation to his memory about Dr. Ford, i'm talking about how he describes what his yearbook entries mean. Several clear lies among those answers.

And you know this....how?

 

[whatbogsends]

And you know this....how?

It was fairly obvious, but this article breaks it down fairly well.

How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying | Current Affairs

 

[Root of Jesse]

It was fairly obvious, but this article breaks it down fairly well.

How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying | Current Affairs

Convoluted.

 

[whatbogsends]

Convoluted.

Not particularly.

His explanations about "Devil's Triangle", "Beach Week Ralph Club - Biggest Contributor", and "Renate Alumnus" were obvious lies. The Beach Week Ralph Club explanation was at least somewhat honest in that he admitted that "ralph" referred to vomiting.

He presents himself as being a normal, social drinker, but being self-described "Treasurer of the 100 Kegs or Bust" club, coupled with what many who knew him at the time have said (plenty of specific examples in the article), shows that his portrait of himself is deceptive. Again, the article gives plenty of specifics:

Examples: His answers about Devil's Triangle:

Q: Devil’s triangle?

KAVANAUGH: Drinking game.

Q: How’s it played?

KAVANAUGH: Three glasses in a triangle.

The article goes into detail as to why this is a lie. Feel free to google Devil's Triangle and arrive at your own conclusion.

or his answers about Renate Alumnus:

"Renate Dolphin was a contemporary of Kavanaugh’s when he was at Georgetown Prep and she was at school nearby, and initially signed a letter supporting him. In Kavanaugh’s yearbook, some of the football players, including Kavanaugh, used the cryptic phrase “Renate Alumni.” Two ex-Georgetown Prep classmates told the New York Times that boys were bragging (truthfully or not, probably not) about sex with Renate. Sean Hagan said that Kavanaugh and his teammates “were very disrespectful, at least verbally, with Renate. I can’t express how disgusted I am with them, then and now.” Dolphin herself didn’t know about the yearbook page when she signed the support letter, and when she discovered it was horrified:

I learned about these yearbook pages only a few days ago… I don’t know what ‘Renate Alumnus’ actually means. I can’t begin to comprehend what goes through the minds of 17-year-old boys who write such things, but the insinuation is horrible, hurtful and simply untrue. I pray their daughters are never treated this way.

But instead of admitting that they had been terrible to Renate, four of the football players said that the references to her in the yearbook “were intended to allude to innocent dates or dance partners.” Kavanaugh himself blamed the dirty-minded circus media for taking a sweet tribute and construing it as something obscene:

“That yearbook reference was clumsily intended to show affection, and that she was one of us. But in this circus, the media’s interpreted the term is related to sex. It was not related to sex.” … “She’s a good person. And to have her named dragged through this hearing is a joke. And, really, an embarrassment.”"

---

Again, let me be clear. It's not that he wrote these things in his high school yearbook that should disqualify him. They show him being immature in high school, and that shouldn't disqualify him from anything as an adult - it's that he lied about these things while under oath as part of this process that disqualify him. If he's willing to lie under oath, he shouldn't be a Supreme Court Justice.