2018 American Political Scene

[DOR]

The GOPer-run Senate refused in 2016 to do its constitutional duty and 'advise and consent' to the appointment of Merrick Garland by President Barack Obama. There was no justification for this in the constitution. Some thin excuses related to what a former, Democratic chairman of the Senate Judicial Committee were trotted out as if they were Thomas Jefferson's words from the grave, but only the most partisan could possibly see any logic in that argument.

It didn't hold any water in 1895 (Cleveland's nomination of Peckham), 1988 (Reagan's nomination of Kennedy) or George the Sane's nomination of Souter in 1991 or Thomas shortly thereafter. Pure hogwash.

So, after the Russian candidate took over and nominated Neil Gorsuch and the GOPer-run Senate handed him Garland's seat.

As for Brett Kavanaugh, his highly partisan career should have disqualified him from consideration. He worked for Ken Starr on the Bill Clinton stitch-up (along side DOJ deputy Rod Rosenstein, now the only man who can fire Bob Mueller), particularly the conspiracy theorists' favorite case, the death of Vincent Foster. Kavanaugh wrote the pornographic Starr Report, and was singled out for wasting federal funds on that particular venture into la-la land. He later asked the Supreme Court to disregard attorney-client privilege in relation to the Foster case and was told (6-3) to go peddle his crap elsewhere.

He represented relatives of Elian Gonzalez, a six-year-old Cuban child refugee taken from his family by US immigration officers. Kavanaugh argued that Elian should not be returned to the care of his father (his mother died on the trip from Cuba to Florida), merely because Daddy lived in Cuba. Kavanaugh also worked to stop the ballot recount in Florida in 2000, which was in a very large part responsible for the rise of ISIS and the slaughter of millions.

His 2003 nomination to the DC appellate court was delayed by Democrats on the grounds that he was far too partisan (really?), and he was accused in 2007 of lying to the Judiciary Committee on issues related to detention, interrogation and torture.

In 2006 the American Bar Association downgraded his rating from “well qualified” (top) to “qualified.” Very unusual for such a high-profile jurist. In 2008 he ruled against Sarbanes-Oxley, in 2014 against greenhouse gas controls, and in 2015 against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Each was overturned. In 2017, his own circuit overturned his ruling that a an alien minor in custody could not travel to receive an abortion.

In his own words,

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades.

–Brett Kavanaugh

The consequences of his nomination will be with us for decades, too.

[snapper]

Also, blacking out while drunk is not something all people experience.

I do not recall myself (or my friends who I occasionally had to help home) ever "blacking out", nor do I think we were "alcoholics" (and I do not have a problem not drinking when pregnant). It was more a case of not recalling how you got home. And sure at times we "inhaled" too: When I was a child I did as a child - we all do in some degree but this guy is lying about it.

Kavanaugh also worked to stop the ballot recount in Florida in 2000, which was in a very large part responsible for the rise of ISIS and the slaughter of millions.

What does Daesh have to do an election in Florida? I am clearly missing something.

[TopHatter]

What does Daesh have to do an election in Florida? I am clearly missing something.

He's referring to the election of George W Bush (made possible by the State of Florida)

[tbm3fan]

It was an interesting week. Ford was very believable not to mention who in their right mind would subject themselves and their family to all that she knew would happen.

Kavanaugh seems to be hiding something based on how he denies everything. Similar to Clinton when during his denial on TV I said to those around he is lying based on his words and demeanor. He used deflection when asked questions which is something you do when you don't want to answer. I was very troubled when he yelled this was a Dem and left-wing conspiracy to get back at him because of Clinton and warned there could be issues. So much for a neutral and open mind.

As far as his high school life I do happen to have some familiarity with. He went to an all boy Catholic Prep school and so did I. Sounds like his was more privileged than mine based on the money aspect which does lead to the sense of entitlement. When I saw his yearbook picture and description my first thought he is one of those A-holes like in my school. In fact, several classmates names went through my head who had similar biographies, who partied a lot every weekend senior year and chased girls like it was going out of style.

Frankly I never liked him from the get go. He has too much political baggage having been a political lawyer for Republican administrations. I don't like that in anyone. I would much rather see our Justices come from backgrounds like Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Ginsberg who never served on any politicians staff. He comes across too corporate which doesn't bode well for individual rights of a ordinary citizen.

[snapper]

I so remember those private school boys - "hooray Henries" we called them in English schools. Bully Bully Bully... Oi oi oi etc the Bullingdon Club etc... overgrown and over privileged children like Trumpkin and all his ilk.

[snapper]

He's referring to the election of George W Bush (made possible by the State of Florida)

So he is saying the controversial (as I have read) vote count in Florida that made Bush #2 President lead directly to ISIS? Not sure I follow that myself.

[Mihais]

The Kav issue has become particularly contentious here. I know everything in the Trump administration is an outrage, but this is a pretty big dust-up, even within context of the Trump administration.

The reason the GOP doesn't want to wait for elections is because they want their 5-4 majority as soon as possible, and they don't want to wait until the Dems possibly retake the Senate (somewhere between a 30 and 50% chance). It's just politics, same as refusing a vote on Garland. From a "norm" perspective, the Scalia vacancy was the result of a death, and maybe you can argue the GOP can stall to allow the American people to vote before a shift in court alignment. This vacancy is NOT from a death, it's from Justice Kennedy retiring, which was a conscious choice apparently done in discussion with the Trump administration. Two different kind of vacancies.


Both sides are pissed for their own reasons. For Dems, this is coming up in the midst of a major movement to hold men accountable for sexual harassment and rape against women. It's already forced Bill Cosby into prison and Al Franken to resign. Since Ford comes across as credible and there is a strong desire to believe women, confirming Kav comes across as putting a rapist on the Supreme Court. That's obviously a really bad thing, and rape in the American mindset is basically second only to murder. Sexual assault in general is heavily frowned upon: if you're a sitting Senator, you could probably defraud people for tens of millions and have more popularity than drunkenly groping a woman's ass, even if it happened 10, 20, or 30 years ago.


Also, Kav has probably lied under oath multiple times about other things.

For the GOP, there is no evidence of this accusation besides the accusation itself, and it popped up at the end of the hearing, even though Feinstein had the letter back in July. Also, there were two additional accusations that came up afterwards, and actually a fourth I believe, none of which were particularly credible. It comes across as smearing a candidate and GOPers really do not want to incentivize this kind of thing in the future. Especially since there's a Dem presidential hopeful who is spearheading the third accusation, which is particularly ridiculous: a woman at the time in college going to high school parties where female students were regularly raped as part of a rapist conspiracy ring led by drunken men who were intoxicated enough to rape women but not so intoxicated that they couldn't patiently wait in line for their turn to rape high school girls, which is a very specific kind of intoxicated.


I didn't watch much of the testimony so I can't say how it came off. The media says Kav came off as angry and unhinged, but I don't really trust a damn thing they or Twitter or my liberal friends on FB say.

Also, blacking out while drunk is not something all people experience.
Here's a study:
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicati...-2/186-196.htm
If only two-thirds of hospitalized alcoholics have experienced blackouts, that means you have AT LEAST tens of millions of Americans who have never experienced an alcoholic blackout, and probably way more. You're quite possibly in the minority if you've had a blackout. I know I personally have never had a blackout, and I've been intoxicated enough to vomit multiple times on the way to the bathroom, vomited again in the bathroom, and then passed out.

Hold on a bit.So you say you believe an allegation 30 years after the fact,without any evidence whatsoever.

Pardon me,but as I recall,it is innocent until proven guilty.Proven being the key word.Otherwise,sorry,but it is just a story.

Your nation goes that way,you'll find rapists every week,with everyone.Nothing will work.
Next level is probably ''hate crime''.X said nasty words 30 years ago.

Insanity does not even start to describe this thing with a ''rape'' from 30+ years ago.Geez,that is older than me.

[astralis]

Hold on a bit.So you say you believe an allegation 30 years after the fact,without any evidence whatsoever.

Pardon me,but as I recall,it is innocent until proven guilty.Proven being the key word.Otherwise,sorry,but it is just a story.

a story that has held up to a polygraph, intense scrutiny, and generally more accurately depicts Kavanaugh's high-school activities of heavy drinking than Kavanaugh did himself. plus the accuser openly welcomes a FBI investigation, which usually false claimants aren't eager to request for.

i agree that there's not enough evidence currently in Blasey-Ford's testimony that would result in a court of law convicting Kavanaugh of sexual assault (and the statute of limitations has long passed, anyway)-- but that's not what we're dealing with here; it's merely whether or not Kavanaugh has the character and appropriate background to be a Supreme Court justice.

if you went to a job interview and there was a credible but unproven allegation of sexual assault and heavy drinking on your record...odds are, you are not going to get the job.

[GVChamp]

Hold on a bit.So you say you believe an allegation 30 years after the fact,without any evidence whatsoever.

Pardon me,but as I recall,it is innocent until proven guilty.Proven being the key word.Otherwise,sorry,but it is just a story.

Your nation goes that way,you'll find rapists every week,with everyone.Nothing will work.
Next level is probably ''hate crime''.X said nasty words 30 years ago.

Insanity does not even start to describe this thing with a ''rape'' from 30+ years ago.Geez,that is older than me.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard for courts of law. Typically these are decided by a lesser "preponderance of the evidence" standard in civil cases, so a college might "convict" you of sexual assault if they have a 51% probability you did it (as opposed to a court of law which would require you to have no reasonable doubt).

Plus, she seems to believe he did it, so between the option of her staying silent and her coming forward, I'd prefer her to come forward and just have the Senate make up their own minds. That's what they are elected to do after all.

I do agree that there are extremely worrying ways American culture is evolving WRT to this, but I'm in the extreme end of this issue since I'm coming at this from a libertarian angle. For example, I'm not a particularly big fan of Olivia Munn at the moment, and she is getting praise for getting a convicted sex offender kicked out of a movie.

[Albany Rifles]

I've posted this elsewhere and I'll chime in here.

I went to a brother high school of Georgetown Prep where Kav went to. I went to ST John's College High School in NW DC, Class of 76. At the time there were 13 single sex Catholic High Schools in Metro DC, 7 boys and 6 girls. The student bodies all intermingled socially. When you finished Catholic grade school your friends were shotgunned to these various high schools. The most affluent went Georgetwon Prep or DeMatha. Second tier went to my school, Good Counsel, John Carroll, Gonzaga and Bishop Ireton. Same with the girls schools.

Prep had the rep as the biggest of the jock bro academies. Those parties were legendary. When I was in school drinking age was 18 so it was easy to get beer. And the events described by DR Ford happened regularly. We knew of it and when we could we usually stepped in. As I got older I stopped going to those parties and started hanging out with a less wild crowd. I got more involved in theater & chorus (cause we worked with a lot of girls schools!) and hung out more with that crowd and less of the jocks. A prime reason was I was trying to get into West Point and I didn't want to get into trouble. But also because I didn't like what I was seeing. It's also why when I went to college I was not interested in the fraternity scene. I had friends who were in frats but I hung out with the ROTC folks. We drank and had girl friends....but most of us the married those girl friends.

So what I am saying is I totally stand with DR Ford and believe her.

And Asty I don't think Maryland has a statute of limitations for sexual assault.

[astralis]

AR,

And Asty I don't think Maryland has a statute of limitations for sexual assault.

yeah it seems to be a right thorny legal mess per usual.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...114_story.html

And even if an accuser went to the local department, the statute of limitations appears to have long since passed for pursuing the allegations described in Thursday’s dramatic Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The most serious allegation that authorities could pursue, given the sworn testimony provided by Ford, would be attempted rape. But that was considered a misdemeanor in Maryland in 1982, and that would be the relevant legal standard.


As a misdemeanor, the offense carried a one-year statute of limitations, meaning charges would have had to be filed within a year of an incident, according to John McCarthy, Montgomery County’s longtime chief prosecutor. Lisae C. Jordan, the executive director and counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, and other longtime Maryland lawyers interviewed in recent days concurred.

The Maryland legislature changed the law in 1996, making attempted rape a felony and removing the statute of limitations, according to McCarthy and Jordan.

“But we’d have to apply the law as it existed at the time of the allegations,” McCarthy said....

Pursuing a criminal case in the matter would present challenges beyond the issue of whether the time frame in which to pursue a case has passed.

Among the other challenges: Kavanaugh’s age at the time. Any investigation and prosecution might have to be done under the rules of juvenile proceedings.

[Mihais]

a story that has held up to a polygraph, intense scrutiny, and generally more accurately depicts Kavanaugh's high-school activities of heavy drinking than Kavanaugh did himself. plus the accuser openly welcomes a FBI investigation, which usually false claimants aren't eager to request for.

if you went to a job interview and there was a credible but unproven allegation of sexual assault and heavy drinking on your record...odds are, you are not going to get the job.

It ceased being a job interview when the man was accused of being a serial rapist.As for the FBI,meh,whatever.The goal seems to be delay and obfuscation.

''credible but unproven allegation of sexual assault and heavy drinking on your record'' ...yeah,right.I declare you guilty without ever bothering to check anything.I declare everyone guilty of that.Show me one who hasn't touched a woman's breasts and butt in high school.Even while dancing at a party.As for drinking at that age,everyone does it.It's a rite of passage.Men generally chill out after 21.

And Asty I don't think Maryland has a statute of limitations for sexual assault.

So,she could have filed charges,but went into politics.Mhh,nice.I suppose it is illegal to make false/unprovable accusations.

[Albany Rifles]

So,she could have filed charges,but went into politics.Mhh,nice.I suppose it is illegal to make false/unprovable accusations.

And the attacks on her are some of the very reason she never came forward before.

Much like we have seen with the Catholic Church scandals. may people who were sexually assaulted to not come forward for decades.


And no she became a psychologist, not a politician.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Blasey_Ford

[tbm3fan]

Also, blacking out while drunk is not something all people experience.
Here's a study:
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicati...-2/186-196.htm
If only two-thirds of hospitalized alcoholics have experienced blackouts, that means you have AT LEAST tens of millions of Americans who have never experienced an alcoholic blackout, and probably way more. You're quite possibly in the minority if you've had a blackout. I know I personally have never had a blackout, and I've been intoxicated enough to vomit multiple times on the way to the bathroom, vomited again in the bathroom, and then passed out.

I was thinking about this bit late last night. In my opinion this is looking at it incorrectly. Blacking out is not the issue. The issue is alcohol and it's effects on the human brain. The first effect of alcohol is to lower a person's inhibitions. This can result in a Jekyll and Hyde effect in some people and not in others.

I am generally an introvert except in my office or around people I know well. However, when I get really drunk which has been three times in my life, I become an extrovert. The first time in college my dorm room mate said I was so funny last night which of course I didn't recall as much as waking up in the bathroom stall. The third time, last New Year's after shots of Jameson's, I actually sang karaoke with my wife and I hate karaoke. I remember everything that night.

On the other hand there are those who become belligerent and aggressive after some drinks. I knew one who was a friend in high school. During my third year in college I had a party in my condo where most got drunk enough to fall off retaining walls and roll down the hill. My friend was very drunk and when I had to break up my brother and his brother for getting into something he followed me into my bedroom. When I turned around he shoved me down and right then I knew something was going to happen from his manner. The only problem was I wasn't drunk and when I rose up I hit him square in the nose and blood splattered everything. He stumbled out, went down the stairs to the entry way, smashed his head twice into the drywall, and headed to the front door. I leapt from the top floor down to the entry way and landed on his back and smashed his face into a solid wood door. Two offensive lineman pried me off. I hear he needed 43 stitches as I never saw him again.

He was drunk and belligerent. I wasn't drunk and acted in self defense. It has been mentioned that Kavanaugh was also belligerent and aggressive when drunk. Maybe so. He was very well controlled through his time in front of the Senate panel. However, he came out extremely aggressive after Ford as though he had lost some of his control, ergo inhibitions that constrain our behavior. His friend Judge saying it never happened yet having written a book on going through high school in a drunken haze isn't the best reference for either of them on that point.

[GVChamp]

It ceased being a job interview when the man was accused of being a serial rapist.As for the FBI,meh,whatever.The goal seems to be delay and obfuscation.

''credible but unproven allegation of sexual assault and heavy drinking on your record'' ...yeah,right.I declare you guilty without ever bothering to check anything.I declare everyone guilty of that.Show me one who hasn't touched a woman's breasts and butt in high school.Even while dancing at a party.As for drinking at that age,everyone does it.It's a rite of passage.Men generally chill out after 21.



So,she could have filed charges,but went into politics.Mhh,nice.I suppose it is illegal to make false/unprovable accusations.

Well, I haven't, but in the culture of "schrodinger's rapist," "believe women," and "why would anyone lie about this," these accussations are unfalsifiable. An FBI "investigation" into a high school party from 3 decades ago will yield almost nothing, particularly since it's not a real investigation and they don't have subponea power, IIRC. Only the Senate could issue a subponea.

I'd like to say it's all political theater, but it isn't: at the very least, Ford believes she was the victim of an attempted rape, regardless of anything the Democrats say/do. Ramirez probably does as well, even if she was possibly coached into "remembering" something that may not have actually happened. That said, I don't think the FBI is going to do a lick of good, so the Senate just has to make its own judgment call on the information it has already heard.